Loading...
Minutes 04-12-75MINUTES OF THE .WOrkSHOP ~ETING OF THE PLA~NING & ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, SATURDAY, APRIL 12, 1975 AT 9:00 A. M. PRESENT Joseph T. Kelly, Chairman Walter M. Trauger, Vice Chman M~s. Marily~ Huckle John i. Rogers Enrico Rossi ABSENT Mrs. Vicki Castello (Excused) Oris Walker (Excused) Jack Barrett, Building Official Warren Bushnell, Deputy Bldg. Official Mrs° Suzanne Kruse, Recording Secretary Chairman Kelly called the meeting to order at 9:28 A. M. He introduced the members of the Board, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Bushnell. Mr. Bar-rett stated there was one more correction to be con- sidered for the map a~d referred to the parcel of land owned ~y Boca Raton Federal Bank and the east end aBmtting the intercoastal waterway proposed for R-1AA zoning. Mr. Barrett read a letter from the b~referring to the proposed zoning splittimg their parcel of land and requesting the extension of the proposed C-1 line. The members discussed the land owned ~y the bank and checked the location on the map. After discus~ion, it was agreed to move the line approximately 50 feet to the east as requested. The consensus was 4-0, with Mrs. Huckle abstaining since she is a resident of thi~ area. This completed discmssion of the proposed zoning map and the members proceeded with discussion of the proposed regulations. Page I Mrs. Huckle pointed out that the date of the General Develop- ment Plan is 1972 in place of 1975. Mr. Rossi referred to the last sentence of the last second paragraph and stated it should be ~the" City of Boynton Beach, instead of "this" City of Boynton Beach. Chairman Kelly referred to the definition of efficiency apartments and they discussed the difference Between effi- ciency apartments, sleeping rooms and one bedroom apartments. It was agreed to insert the word '~and" before providing. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD RAGE ~¥O APRIL 12, 1975 Page L3 Mr. Rogers referred to buil~ng area and stated he thought the word "yards" in the first sentence should be ~'setbacks". The members discussed the difference and then agreed to change this to setbacks. Mr. Rossi referred to service stations and the parking of vehicles. He stated he thought they should use the word "stored~ and not parked. After discussion, the members agreed to state: "stored nor~,. Mr. Barrett informed them that the illegible printing would be corrected when printed and no other corrections were noted. Mr. Barrett referred to drive-in restaurants and stated it should be "a restaurant designed" instsmd of "laid out" and the members agreed. MK. Rossi suggested omitting "civil" under engineering and the members agreed that the fields were taken care of by being stated as registered e~gineers in the beginning. Chairman Kelly referred to the illegible printing in r~r- ence to. the General.Development Plan and that it should state: to present and future land use decisions. Mr. Barrett in- formed him that the original sheets would be corrected to take care of anything illegible. Mr. Rogers referred to the third item and stated a comma should be inserted betweenlot and corner. Mr Barrett referred to ~ - ~3, a tract of land located within a single block, etc., and questioned stating the use of single ownership. After discussion, it was agreed to state: "under one ownership- and this would also apply to #2. Mrs. Hmck~e questioned why two contiguo~ lots were required for a tract? After discussion, Mr3 Rogers suggest~~ strik- ing out the n~mber two and the members agreed. Mr. Rossi pointed out that the word "contiguous,, might be wrong. He gave an example and the members discussed it. The members then agreed to take out ~'contiguous~, and insert "ab~tting". MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THREE APRIL 12, 1975 Mrs. Euckle questioned the single block theory and pointed out that a tract could be larger than a single block. After discussion, it was agreed to strike out: "located within a single bloc~'. Mr. Rogers referred to lot frontage. It was agreed that the front line of a lot must be defined more clearly and the mem- bers discussed how this was the width or length of the proper- ty line adjacent to the street. Mr.. Barrett pointed out that they also must consider corner lots and explained. Mr. Barrett informed the Board that this was designated by platting. Mr. Rogers stated they must also consider where fromtage is stated in building and site regulations. Mr. Barrett added that they must also co~sider cul-de-sac lots. Mr. Rossi also questioned how to apply it to odd-shaped lots. Chairman Kelly declared a recess at 10~5 A. M. He called the meeting back to order at 10:57 A. M. Chairman Kelly informed the Board that during the recess, he and ~. Rossi obtained a land development manual from the County. Mr. Rossi added that they were hopeful this would be useful in reference to definitions. In reference to the front lot line, it states the shortest property line adjacent to a public street is also the front property line. Mr. Barrett pointed out that they were taking the shortest dis- tance whether there was a curve or it was on a cul-de-sac. He added that this was Being detrimental to the land owner. Mr. Rogers disagreed that this was detrimental and Barrett explained. Mr. Barrett suggested changing width to frontage all through the regulations and the members dis- cussed this. Mr. Rossi stated they might get in trouble with pie-shaped lots and Mr. Elam suggested stating the lot frontage is the property width or building line adjacent to a public street, which would take care of pie-shapgd lots. Mr. Rogers referred to Page 14, Item 8, referring to irregu- lar shaped lots. After discussion, it was agreed to add: "lot frontage in the applicable zoning district~ Lot frontage was f~rther discussed and whether to use a cord line or exactly how it was developed. Mr. Barrett added that the building line also be considered. The dif- ference between front fo~ and width was further dis- cussed. How this applied to irregular shaped lots, regu- lar shap~e~d lots and cul-de-Sac was further discussed. After a lengthy discussion, it was agree~ to make the follow- ing changes: Strike out irregular lots on Page 14. Change all regulation wording to read: "lot frontage instead of width'. Eliminate "dead ~nd'~ under cul-de-sac defini- tion. MINUTES PLA~ING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOUR APRIL 12, 1 975 P~t a note in after front property line to refer to Section 4-G. Under lot interior, insert "that is" between lot and neither. Chairman Kelly adjourned the meeting at 11:58 A. M. for l~nc~. Chairman Kelly called the meeting back to order at 1:32 P. M. Mr. Bmshnell pointed out that a definition for marina was not included. Mr. Rossi read the definition for marine faci- lities as stated in the County Land Development Manual. Mr. Barrett referred to Page 54 of the Supplemental Regulations regarding marinas. After discussion, it was decided to in- clude the following definition for a marina following major thoroughfares; Marina - A facility designed to provide a variety of accommodations for local a~d transit boaters such as fueling, dockage, wet or dry storage, making mi~or repairs or alterations, the latter while i~wet or dry storage. Where possible, repaLrs, especially major repairs, will be accom- plished in a~ enclosed or 3/4 enclosed building. Col. Trauger referred to the nursery school definition and Mr. Rogers informed him that this could be taken care of later in the regulations. Mr. Rogers referred to #9 and stated he questioned the use of unoccupied space~a~d how something could be stored i~ an ~- occupied space. After discussion, it was agreed not to make a~y change with it probably being right as written. Mr. Rogers questioned the word '~land" in the second paragraph and ~. Barrett informed him that it should be "lane". The members then discussed lots required for a subdivision. Chairman Kelly referred to the thoroughfare plan amd Mr. Barrett explained ~J~ere was an existing one, but not a pro- posed omo. ~. Rogers referred to principal use and ~uestioned if amy words s~ould be added. ~M~$~rrett informed him 'that what- ever the occupation, it~~the use of the land. The members agreed it was clear. MtNU,TES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FIVE APRIL 12, 1975 Page 10 Mr. Barrett referred to a set of fees mentioned for the Planning & Zoning Board and Board of Adjustment and~.stated~ he thought they should discuss the fees further~ The mem- bers discussed this and Mr. Barrett advised them that he had been advised legally that it was not wise to incorporate a set of fees in the regulations, but they should be governed by a~ ordinance separately° After discussion, the members agreed with. Mr. Barrett. Mr. Rogers questioned whether they should have the regula- tions define the powers and duties of the Planning & Zoning Board and Board of Adjustment. ~. Barrett informed him that it was included in supplemental regulations and Chair- man Kelly added that it was on Page 39. ~. Rossi referred to penalties and how they were imposed. ~. Barrett explained this to the members. ~age 11 Mr. ~.B~shnell referred to adoption and stated "majoru should Mr. Barrett noted that they should ask the City Attorney whether Ch~p.176 of the Florida State Statu~swas still in effect a~d Mr. Bushmell stated if it no longer applied, they would note the proper one here. Page 12 Chairman Kelly referred to E and stated he believed there had bee~ some misunderstanding on the part of some people i~ re- ference to annexation. Mr. Barrett gave examples and Chair- man Kelly replied that it was very clear now. ~. Barrett referred to Section G and questioned whether it was quite clear. He gave an example of a parcel of land under the same ownership with different zoning and the members dis- cussed this. ~. Rogers referred to approval being required by the Planning & Zoning Board and City Council and this gives them control. ~. Barrett remarked that he was trying to avoid rezoning. The members agreed it was stated clearly and was quite ~understandable without Mr. Barrett's explana- tion. Ool. Trauger questioned B and M_r. Barrett informed him that these regulations apply only-to this particular City. MINUTES P~ANN~G & ZONING BOARD PAGE $ iX APRIL 12, 1975 ~. Rogers referred to General Provisions (B) and stated he didn't follow this. Mr. Barrett explained that they have 10 and 12 ft. easements in the City and they are referring to something like a utility room. It must be maintained 25 ft. from the rear lot line and 12 ft. from the house and it looks like as ore thumb in the middle of the yard. This now states it can go 6 ft. to the rear lot line and thei.land will be mainitained on the easementand the utility shedwon't sit in the middle of the yard. Mr. Rogers referred to Pages 14 and 15 where it referred te things that are permitted in the front, rear andside s~Backs and utility buildings are not permitted in the easement. Mr.. Barret~: that this was not in ict. The members had a regard- ing how allowed utility buildings to placed close to- homse on the side, created eyesores in the middle~ of yard as bu. tion~to and Acces at ma re~ line, side"). now, the difference between utility setbacks to Be maintained, applica- .rcial areas, location on corner tc. It state: shall be located building in: the rear yard and at le 6 ft. from the where are dictated. Mr. Rogers referre pal building' agreed. mud s~gested stating "every princi- out reSidentis~" and the members Page 14 Mr. Bushnell referred to heights, limits, exceptions and at the end of the sentence should Be: "after recommendation by the .Planning & Zoning Board and approval by the City Council. Mr. Barrett referred to chimneys, etc. and stated "smoke ~tacks, should be crossed out. This paragraph was discussed further and it was decided to move chimneys and state towers in a group as: water, fire, radio, cooling and television towers. Mr. Barrett referred to public buildings and stated it should start with "all" with the beginning of the sentence eliminated. Pag? 15 Mr. Rogers referred to the entire paragraph pertaining to setbacks and easements. He stated that house eaves, rock gardens, lily ponds, pump~ and such things can create pro- blems on aa easement. Fences are not much of a problem. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE SEVF~N APRIL 12, 1 975 He is concerned with th~se structures being permitted i~ the front, rear and side setbacks. ~. Barrett stated they could be in the setbacks withomt being in the easement, After dis- cussion, Mr. Rogers suggested adding "except where noted taking into consideration the existing easemen~~ and the members agreed. ~. Rogers referred to E which states required square footage and he stated minimum floor area was defined on Page 5 .and this was the same thing repeated. ¥~, Barrett clarified that it was a definition for one a~d a regulation for the other. Mr. Rogers referred to uses permitted and questioned why they excluded carports. Mr. Barrett informed him they were ex- cluded in R-IAAA zoning. Mr. Barrett stated the wording should be changed to ~'minimum lot frontage". Mr. Rogers referred to B and stated a comma should be inserted after corner lots. He questioned if they should use setback when referr~ to side setback and front setback and the mem- bers agreed they should. Pa~e 17 Mr. Rogers noted that frontage should be stated instead of width an~ the same corrections should be made in B as before. Nro Rogers again questioned the exclusion of carports in R-1AAA and if it was assamed that carports were also not allowed in the other zones? Mr. Barrett agreed that it must be clarified. ~e members discussed j~st how this should be stated and agreed to add a separate sentence at the end stat- ing: ~'Carports are not allowed." M~. Rogers questioned excluding outside or exposed storage of boats and trailers and Mr. Barrett informed him that this was covered by ordinance now and he was working with the Chief now for a new ordinance for this. Chairmaa Kell~ announced they would continue at the next workshop meeting scheduled on April 19 at 9:00 A. M. and adjourned the meeting at 4:08 P, M.