Loading...
Minutes 06-29-74MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL~ MEET~?G OF THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNT©N BEACH, FLORIDA, SATURDA~v, JL~ 29, 1974 AT 1:30 P. M. PRESENT Joseoh Kelly, Vice Chairman Mrs. Marilyn Huckle Oris Walker Walter M. Trauger ABSENT Fred J. Kostner, Chairman L. R. Blacketer (Excused) ~s. Emily Jack, son Jack Barrett, Bldg. Official (Excused) (Excused) Vice Chairman Kelly ca_lea the meeting to order at 1:35 P.M. and announced it was a special meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board for the purpose of making what they hoped a final revision of the P.U.D. Ordinance for the City of Boyn- ton Beach. Various changes have been m~e by the Building Department since our meeting of Tuesday night. It is our hooe to make a reco~mendation ~o_ the ado~'c_on of this for the City CoLuucii meeting. Vice Chairman Kelly suggested reading and discussing the re- write, which they hope is a final action on the ordinance, so they may wind up with a recommendation. The members then read the proposed ordinance. Mr. Barrett _eferredw to Pages 1, 1~ and 12 s_ud stated they were changed by the attorney because of the legal wording and were just given to him late Friday. He stated he would supply copies of these three incomp!eted pages to the members on Monday. There is no change in the body of the ordinance whatsoever. ~y~. Kelly stated he had only ~ pages and ques- tioned the reference to Page 12. Mr. Barrett clarified that one page had to be added. M~. Kelly read his Page ~ contain- ing the preamble under the ordinance and Articles 1 thru ~5, Page il containing Article ~3 and Page 12 as being not sub- mitted. }-~. Barrett stated Article 10 on Page ~0 was carried to Page ~ and the only changes on Page ~2 is the validity and effective date. The only changes were in the preamble and conclusion. Mr. Kelly remarked it was proper for the attorney to make whatever lega! changes were necessary. ~s. Huckle referred to Pages 3 and 4 and questioned if there was any particular reason for the L.U.i. table coming in the middle of an outline? It seems to be a very bad spot for a table to interrupt that section. !~. Barrett stated that when it was retyped, it would be put directly under the A. He did see what she was referring to. The members gave sug- gestions of where to put this table. It was then ~reed to MI['~UTE£ .~AINA~!NG & ZOi~ING BOARD PAGE ~0 JUNE 29, t974 out this table under Article 4. Mr. Barrett clarified that everything down to B should be moved under Section 4. Huckie agreed that it should be a lot easier to read without getting all involved with the table mn the middle. Vice Chairman Kelly suggested that the members thoroughly check Article 7, as they had made several changes in this section. The members discussed the wording under Prohibi- tive Use. Mm. Barrett suggested putting '~and" in front of limited to 4 stories. Col. Trauger suggested instead of saying any structures, just state: ~structures more than 45 feet in height and more than 4 stories~'. Knock out the word "any~ and start with structures. Vice Chairman Kelly c!s~i- fled that it now reads under K. Prohibitive Use: ~Structures more than 45 feet in height and more than 4 stories". Col. Trauger then referred to Page 6~ ~tic!e 9 in reference to offstreet parking ~ud offstreet loading requirements. Mr. Barrett stated they clarified this by ~ocking out the off- street loading. ~s. Huckle added that loading does not have anything to do with the specific number of spaces. Vice Chairman Kelly referred to Page 7 and pointed out that Col. Trauger's recommended insert in reference to underground installation had been put into the proper place. Mrs. Huc~mle pointed out that some underlining was still in- cluded. P~. Barrett stated he thought this was a fault of the typewriter. Col. Trauger stated that the ~ader!ining was in the old copy i~ the same place. ~. Barrett reolied that evidently it wasn't a typographical error then and he would take it out. Col. Trauger referred to Page 8 under H where required by t'.eh Area Pl~nning~. Board and questioned if it shouldn't be Planning and Zoning Board? i~. Bsmrett reo!ied: no. ~,.~s. Huc~e referred to Page 8 in No. 2 and pointed out a word was mmssmno~ as it should be ?ianning & Zoning ~Board~. Vice Chairman Kelly annomnced the p-~pose of the meeting this afternoon was apparently for them to ~' ~ ' ~ xmn~sn tn_s review and it is the understanding of each member here to come to the conclusion and make a recommendation for the adoption of this ordinance. ~. Bsm~rett agreed. Mrs. Huckie questioned if the annexation and P.U.D. for the Meadows would be the same? M~. Barrett stated even though they presented a plan to us and we basically recommended to Co~mnci! to accept this, we m~f want to change some of it according to the P.U.D. ordinance. This P.U.D. ordinance MINUTES PLANNING & Z~I~I~G BOARD ~ THR~ JUNE 29, 1974 governs. We can make a recommendation based on certain stipulations. This is the way ~e have worked on ~uy area coming into the City. We still have to negotiate with the developer. We possibly may wsmt to ask them to provide ground for scheo! requirements, etc. ~ hrs. Huc~mie asked if there was no change in the zoning, why should it go be- fore public hearing? Mr. Barrett replied that there was no zoning as ~ ~ar as the City was concerned. It will be zoned accorm~ng to the P.U.~ zoning we apply. In order to allow them to annex under a P.U.D., we must have an ordinance in effect. ~'~s. Huckte asked i~ they have another public hee~- lng after the P.U.D. zoning is given? ~. Barrett replied that he could not answer this, as he would have to do some ~esea~ch We are only concerned with the actual ordinance now. If we decide on changes before the first and second readings, we can do so. ~s. Huckle stated she just wanted to know when this public hearing must be done. ~. Barrett replied the Council will just state they are being annexed and will be granting a P.U.D. classification. We still must work on the Meadows submitted plan. ~e recommend zoning based on the ?.U.D. ordinance, which grants the density. Vice Chairman Kelly pointed out that it does state there has to be two hearings. If v__e Council adopts the ordinance, we will have to hold a public hearing for a P.U.D. and if changes ~ have to sit down or objections are made from peopie~ we ~z_ with the develooer and m_scuss them. Mrs. Huckle oointed out that it stated after the oublic hearing, the Planning & Zon- ing Board may recommend to the Council the granting of the P.U.D., etc. and she read the article in reference to this. M~~. Barrett stated they recommended the procedure before this and he referred to the second paragraph about prehesm- ing conferences. The applicant should state in writing his agreement to such recommendations and if there is disagree- ment, it must be stated in writing to be included in the re- cord. A public hearing will follow the ~ehear~ng confer- ences. Our recommendations will come from these ~rehearlng conferences and when we recommend to Council, it is a puol_c heisting. . Huck~e then when a as~em oublic hearing would be held for the Meadows and ~. Barrett ~eplied after the prehearing conferences. ~s. Huck2e again questioned if the Meadows came stating they wmnted to be included under the P.U.D. ordinance, this would come after annexation? Mr. Barrett stated after they were annexed and we have prehear- ing conferences, the public hearing is held. ~MS.m Huckle stated the wording in the ordinance didn,t seem clear to her. She thought they were going to give them the P.U.D. zoning with the annexation. Mr. Barrett pointed out that it stated ~ublic notice shs!l be given of hearings before the Planning & Zoning Board. Mrs. Huckle replied that she knew what was written, but didn't think it was going to MINUTES ~'~,~ & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOUR JUNE 29, 1974 happen v:.~at way. She didn't think they would bother to go through all this. ~, Bs~rett stated ' ~ vh~ this would be up to Council.~w~oo. Huckle remarked that it sounded good~ but she didn't think they would go through all this. Vice Chairman Kelly referred to Page 9 and pointed out that the underlines had been taken out. Col. Trauger referred to the third paragraph on Page 9 and pointed out it was all corrected like they had requested. Vice Chairman Kelly referred to Article 13 where ~U~v ~ had deleted everything after the words ~zoning regulations~ and clarified they had ~mockem out ~ z~ve sentences. Vice Chairm~a Kelly referred to where Coconut Creek had been taken out and Boynton Beach inserted~ the dates changed and provision made for the five signatures of the five Council members. ~A~. Barrett then referred back to ~&rs. Huckle's questions and stated it may be in a question of annexation and zoning be- cause we ~e not rezoning the land and not granting a P.U.D. to land already in the City. He stated he would talk to the attorney and was giving it a lot of thought. He stated if they gs3;e him a chance to clarify this with the attorney~ he was sure they could work it out. He thought the wordage is necessary for land that'is already in the City where actually we are changing a designation. As long as we assign the L.U.i. and density before annexing, it m~y be the answer. It depends whether it is land in the City or land outside. Col. Trauger made a motion to reco~end the adoption of the proposed P.U.D. ordinance for the City Council. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mr. Walker questioned whether they should review it again. M~. Barrett replied: no, that he would make the necessary changes and corrections they had discussed today. The Council members have a copy of this and he added he would give them a new copy when it was changed. Motion carried 4-0. M~. Barrett informed the members that on the agenda for the next Council meeting Was the ordinance for making a change in theM-1 zoning classifications they recommended to Coun- cil. He showed the members a copy. He pointed out that it read exactly the same as they had worded it. ~s. Huckle questioned if they had made any further progress on the proposed zoning code and I~. Barrett reolied that some had been made. Vice Chairman Kelly advised that he had re- ceived a phone call concerning this asking if a date had been MI~JTES ~LANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE Fi~'E JUNE 29, 1974 set and he advised that no co~itment or final decision had been made. ~h~. Barrett stated that when he lost his deputy, the Planning & Zoning Board was hung out to dry. Vice Chairman Kelly ascertained that there was no further business. Col. Trauger moved to adjourn the special meeting, seconded by ~. Walker. Motion carried 4-0 and the meeting was pro- perly adjourned at 2;30 P.M.