Loading...
Minutes 12-10-74MINUTES OF THE REGULAR .ME~ETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, T~SDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1974 AT 7:30 P. M. PRESENT Joseph T. Kelly, Vice Chairman Mrs. Marilyn Huckle Oris Walker John Rogers ABSENT Jack Barrett, Building Official Warren Bushnell, Deputy Bldg. Official Mrs. Suzanne Kruse, Recording Secretary Fred J. Kostner, Chairman (Excused) Walter M. Trauger (Excused) Chairman Kelly'called the first regular meeting in the month of December of the Planning & Zoning Board to order at 7:40 P.M. He introduced the members of the Board; Mr. Barrett, Acting City Planner and Building Official; Mr. Bushnell, Deputy Building Official and Mrs. Kruse, Recording Secretary. He announced that Chairman Kostner is excused as he is on a cruise with his wife and Col. Trauger is exc~sed as he is attending a board meeting at the college. MINUTES The Minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meetings held on November 26, t974, were read. Mrs. Huckle moved that the minutes for the regular meeting and the workshop meeting of November 26 both be approved as submitted. Mr. Walker seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Barrett suggested discussing the site plans first and he had some things in reference to zoning that could be discussed later. ~W BUSI/~SS Agri-Chemical~...U. S~._..Stee! Wa~..9.house Addition Mr. Barrett showed and explained the plan and stated an addi- tion was being planned. Mr. Rogers clarified the location. ~r. Barrett added that it would be used just for storage of fertiliZer, seed, grain, etc. Mr. Rogers made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of the site plan as submitted by Agri-Chemical. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. MI~CJTF. S PLA~CNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THO DECEMBER 10, 1974 ~oning Change of Leisureville, Section 10 Mr. Barrett informed the members that they wanted to change the zoning from R-3 to R-lA and he gave the members a map showing this section. He explained that this parcel is around the lake and was originally zoned R-3 and they mow feel there should be some single family homes located here. There are 11½ acres here which would have contained approxi- mately 170 to 180 units on multiple family and now they want to replat to 58 single family units. He stated he would like the Board's permission to change this from R-3 to R-lA, which he feels is very good. Chairman Kelly questioned if there was enough land to meet the R-lA requirements and Mr. Barrett replied.: yes, with 11½ acres. Mr. Walker stated he believed the agreement they had was to reduce the density whenever possible with expanded recreation and he questioned if this had been changed. Mr. Barrett replied that the recreation had not been changed. Mrs. Huckle asked why they decided to do this and Mr. Barrett informed her that they feel single family homes womld be more desirable on the lake front. Mr. Walker moved to recommend approval of the change of zoning for Section 10 of Leisureville, seconded by Mr. Rogers. Motion carried 4-0. ZoninE Discussion of C-1 Property on 01d Boynton Road Mr. Barrett then ascertained that the members each had a copy of this plat. He explained that it is currently zomed C-1 and is proposed C-1 on the new map. He then referred to a portion in yellow which was changed from 6-3 to R-tA. There is no access to this property except through the front of the property which is zoned C-1. He feels C-1 zoning is desirable for this front portion. He stated he had talked to Mrs. Dox~ta~d~,f~. the owner of this property, and advised her to ask for a zoning on it now, not knowing what it is to be sold for. He then referred to the sha~e and size of the lots on N. W. 7th Court, stating the same thing could happen here. If they sell it for a convalescent home, they could~ come before the Board for a change. Chairman Kelly questioned if he was merely just explaining the background and Mr. Barrett replied: yes, he didn't be- lieve a change was necessary at this time. Mr. Barrett con- tinued that the owner Believes the laud is desirable for a convalescent homg, hut he feels it should~'~e applied for single family until a ~se is found for it. ~Mrs. Huekle questioned if there was anything east to the yellow portion MINUTES PLANNING & ZON_.NG BOARD PAGE THREE DECEMBER 10, 1974 and Mr. Barrett informed her that there were homes. He added he thought this was cut up originally and the Street put in. The members checked the size of the lots. Mr. Barrett continued that he believed origimally there were almost 3 acres in this piece, During the years, this piece was taken off amd the other lots cut down. He st he it has a good commercial useS but suggested finding the use first. A nursing home is usually a longer building and could be accommodated on this piece. Discussion of Size Requirements and Setbacks for Commercial Zones Mr. Barrett referred to C-3 zoning which requires a 30 ft. front setback, 50 ft. rear setback and ~0,000 sq. ft. mini- mum. He thought possibly they may be a little stringent in this. He does not know how they arrived at a 50 ft. rear setback and feels it could be reduced. Perhaps $.0,000 sq. ft. minimum is a little too much too. Chairman Kelly verified that these were the C-3 zonimg re- quirements. Mr. Barrett stated he felt a 20 ft. rear sea- back should be the necessary requirement in a commercial zoning. Mr. Rogers referred to this zoning abutting resi- dential areas. Mr. Barrett stated he felt 20 ft. in the rear and 30 ft. on the sides would be adequate when abutting resi- demtial areas. Mr. Rogers disagreed stating he felt at least 30 ft. was necessary in the rear. It was agreed to state 30 ft. front, 20 ft. each side and res~ with an asterisk for requirements when abutting residential districts. Mr. Barrett referred to the C-2 zoning where it required a 50 ft. front, stating they might have the same problem here. Possibly they should consider the 30 ft. frontage here also. Mrs. Huckle stated she thought the 50 ft. frontage was re- quired for parking and Mr. Barrett replied that they have a maximum coverage which allows plenty of room for parking. We don't care if they park in the front or rear. Chairman Kelly questioned wha~ ~. Barrett recommended and ~r. Barrett stated he recommended the 30 ft. front in ~-2, the same as in C-3. The sides and rear will be the same. This would also make it more uniform. The depth of 120 ft. could be left. The 12,000 sq. ft. is also a fair figure. Mr. Barrett then referred to the 40,000 sq. ft. minimum for C-3 and stated if they averaged 200 x 150 ft., he felt 30,000 sq. ft. could be required. Mr. Rogers questioned this apply- ing to service stations and ~. Barrett informed him that another ordinance covered this. Mrs. Huckle questioned if MiNUTES PLA~NING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOUR DECE~ER 10, 1974 this minimum lot area of 40,000 sq. ft. could be for one item and Mr. Barrett replied that it could be, but most of the time it would be a group of stores and we would want the minimum met. Normally these uses are based together as a grouping of stores. He stated he still felt they were being a little bit more restrictive than they should be. Chairman KellY questioned if he recommended 30,000 sq. ft~ and Mr. Barrett replied that he wanted the Board to consider it. ~. Rogers suggested that possibly the Board of Adjustment could grant variances if required. Mr. Barrett referred to these neighborhood stores being required to create green belt areas too. Mr. Rogers questioned ~hat they would gain by reducing it to 30,~00 and Mr. Barrett replied he thought they would have a greater use for the properties. Mr. Rogers pointed out that there was a lot of property in the City zoned C-3. He felt they should leave it like it is. Chairman Kelly agreed and added they could go before the Board of Adjust- merit if it created a hardship. leave it as is. Mrs. ft. was and Mr. Barrett stated she didn't think stated that in polling the it alone at 40,000 sq. ft. N~. Walker also agreed to how large 40,000 sq. her it was 200 x 200. She too big. Chairma~ Kelly , they felt they should leave Paper Recycling - ~ New I~dustr~ Mr. Barrett advised that this was called off, as he found he could go ahead on this under the new zoning. It is a~ occu- pancy and not a new zoning. Chairman Kelly requested the members to delete this from the agenda. ~0mmercial Zoning (Continued) Mrs. Huckle referred back to the C-3 zoning and questioned if 30 ft. was adequate when a community shopping center abutted a residential area? Mr. Barrett replied that he thought it was with the green belt buffers required. Mrs. Huckle ques- tioned the possibility of noise and Mr. Barrett stated that R-3 zoning has greater setbacks and there would be a 50 to 70 ft. separation. Chairman Kelly stated that he receives a copy of the C.A.B. minutes and advised that they were planning to require 10 ft. high trees and that should help with the sound problem. Mr. Barrett also pointed out that shopping centers do not ~sually exceed two stories. OTHER M~. Barrett reminded the members they ha~a meeting on Monday, December 16. This is a public hearing, but should be a short meeting. Possibly the replat of Leis~reville may come up at this meeting, if it is possible to get the advertising in. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FIVE DECEMBER 1 O, 1 974 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Walker made a motion to adjourn, seconded by ~. Rogers. Motion carried 4-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 8:25 P. M.