Loading...
MInutes 05-14-74ML%~JTES OF THE WORKSHOP ~ET!NG OF THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, TUESDAY, ~&~Y 14, ! 974 PPd~SENT Fred J. Kostner, Chairman Joseph Kelly, Vice Chairman L. R. Blacketer .Mrs. Marilyn Huckle Oris Walker Walter M. Trauger ABSENT Emily Jackson, excused Jack Barrett, Building Official Chairman Kostner called the Wor~hop Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board to order at 8:20 P. M. He took roll call and an- nounced that Mrs. Jackson had written a letter stating she was unable to attend and therefore, she would be excused. Mr. Trauger has requested to be excused at 8:30. Before Mr. Trauger left, Mr. Barrett asked to bring him up-to- date. He informed he had desperately been trying to get the formula for the P.U.D. together. He gave him several examples of assigning a L.U.I. rating for density. Several things are required to work it out. Mr. Trauger then had to leave at 8:30. Chairman Kostner read a letter from Mrs. Jackson dated ~y 14. She stated they had just received word that it was necessary for them to go North on very important business. As she did not _know how long this business would take, she hoped this letter would suffice for any meetings she was unable to at- tend. As this business was of an unexpected nature, she did not know how long they would be gone. She requested that the Minutes be mailed to her at P. O. Box 191, Boynton Beach, as her mail would be forwarded to her. Chairman Kostner then read suggestions attached to the letter in reference to P.U.D. She referred to Page 9, Article 10 (B-3), last paragraph, Section H, questioning if the P.U.D. has not been commenced-within 18 months, wouldn't it be better to have the land revert back to the original zoning? Chair- man Kostner stated he would take note of this suggestion and would take this matter up in order of the business as they went on with this project. He stated he thought they should stsmt at the beginning and discuss this at the proper time. Mr. Barrett stated that actually from a standpoint of these L.U.I. ratings, that he had gone through the rest of it and 'there are very little changes to be made. He suggested they table this P.U.D. until they received the L.U.I. ratings. MINUTES ~Ah~!NG & ZONING BOARD PAGE ~0 ~Yf ~ 4, t 974 Mr. Barrett continued that the formula for working it out is very complicated. There are some specifications from H.U.D., plus the presentation, fee, formula for L.U.i. ratings, etc. These deal largely on an area covered by square footage of buildings. It leaves the control of density strictly with the Planning & Zoning Board. The L.U.I. ratings are recom-. mended by H.U.D. to determine density. He gave examples of applying the L.U.I. ratings. There is a variant that leaves you in full control. The L.U.I. rating can be changed to suit you. It works itself out to a straight formula when done. It is comolicated. He stated he had talked to several~.~ ~~.~ttor~a~ trying-to get this together. He added that he ~ ~/~ thought it wasnecessary to have this in order to gauge what ~ ~ we are doing in the balance of this and it is necessary to have these L.U.I. ratings. ~. Blacketer agreed with ~M. Barrett. Mr. Kelly stated that before going any f~mrther, he thought they should have a clear understanding of this too. Mr. Walker stated he also agreed and felt it should be tabled. F~s. Huckle stated that she agreed. Chairman Kostner announced that this matter would then be tabled until the next workshop meeting. N~, Barrett stated that as soon as he received this information, he would notify the Chairman to call a workshop meeting, so they could work with it in its entirety, fully discuss it, etc. He continued that it was recommended by many planners in the country. Some are sl0w to notice the value of this formula, because of its complication. Mr. Blacketer questioned if there would be a workshop meeting tomorrow afternoon. ~. Barrett informed him there would not be, as he was still working on the overlay, etc. Chairman Kostner clarified that F~. Barrett would notify him in refer- ence to a future date for a workshop meeting. Mr. Barrett then showed the Members a copy of the size of the City map if it was printed on a one page ad. He stated this would be hard to understand~ therefore, he had recommended to the City Manager that they go to two pages, a centerfold, so they have a full map. There will be four pages, showing the present and proposed. He added there were minor corrections to be done on the overlay. Mrs. Huckle questioned if the newspaper ad would be almost twice the size of the sample and Mr. Barrett replied yes, which he thought would be a very readable copy. Chairman Kostner questioned what paper it would appear in and Mr. Barrett informed him it. would be in the local paper, the Boynton Beach Journal. N~. Walker referred to the presentation to the City Council and asked if it would be possible to use an opaque projec- tion. ~. Barrett replied that he thought the Fire Department MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE ~qREE ~Y 14, 1 974 had such a projector. He added though that with the way the room was set up, either the City CounCil or the audience would not be able to view it. Mr. Kelly questioned whether Mr. Barrett was talking about the size of the page or the imprint. Mr. Barrett clarified he was talking about the size ef the page. Mr. Kelly stated he thought he had showed them a centerfold showing the old map and proposed map of Pompano and questioned whether the cost of such would be prohibitive. Mr. Barrett informed him that the map of Boynton Beach is larger and has to go on a double page. Chairman Kostner asked ~. Barrett's feeling with reference to advertising it on two dates. ~. Barrett stated that with this particular case, they could advertise for one hearing. The same advertising would hold true for both the Planning & Zoning Board Hearing and the City Council Hearing. It would cost roughly $800 for advertising. The whole City would be advertised in one publication. Chairman Kostner stated he thought they would need two meetings to cover the sections of the City. Mrs. Huckle questioned what would be done if some pretty valid changes had to be made before going to City Council? Mr. Kelly suggested if this happened at the public hearing, they could use a color crayon to outline the changes, then meet with the City Council at a workshop meeting to discuss them and if they agree, possibly make the changes before their public he~ Kostner added that they would have everything said at the meeting and could discuss it thoroughly and note it before the City Council meeting. M~. Barrett stated that he did not have a date on the plan. Mr. Kelly remarked that the City Council did not necessarily have to meet two weeks after the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. Barrett pointed out that the dates could be published in the s~me notice. M~s. Huckle questioned the possiblity of getting stalled with valid changes ~_ud if so, would they have to decide at the public meeting? ~. Barrett replied no, the changes could be made at a workshop meeting and then call a special meeting to present the recommendations to the City Council. ~s. Huck~e questioned if the public would be advised if they made the changes and M~. Bs~rett informed her they would find out at the City Council meeting. He pointed out that they were only a recommending board and recommended to City Council. Mrs. Huckle stated she just questioned if they would have to go back to public hearing after making the changes and ~. Barrett replied no. MINUTES ~ANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FO~ MAY 14, 1974 Mr. Blacketer stated he thought there was one change they were going to have to make and that was in reference to the annexation of all the land to the west and that they must include agricultural zoning. He then referred to the Meadows annexation, including the Knollwood Groves property. Mr. Barrett stated that this property would come in as a P.U.D. The areas are outlined when presented. They just asked for this property to have th~ same density as the County had allowed. ~Ms. Huckle questioned if they were planning to develop this area right now and Mx. Barrett clarified that they were planning to present it. He asked them to bear in ;mind one thing, that this is property coming into the City. Before it is legally annexed, the zoning is applied to the annexation, so we are not rezoning. If it was in the City, we would have to apply rezoning. Chairman Kostner clarified that there is no zoning as far as the City is concerned on that property at the present time. ~. Barrett stated they would apply a new zoning to a new piece of property, which has never been in the City. Mr. Blacketer remarked they had stated they would apply the same county zoning to any proper- ty annexed into the City. Mr. Barrett suggested discussing this when they reviewed the book again to see if it needed clarification. He pointed out that the County has a R2C zoning, which the City does not even have a zoning classifi- cation for. It the County allows a Ge.~ ns!ty' of ten, we would apply our comparable zoning. It is the intent to accept the density, not the County zoning. ~..Blacketer stated they knew the City was going ahead with this ~unexation thing. He stated again that they were going to have to allow some agricultural zoning. M~. Kelly referred to a change made recently dropping the frontage on C-3 from 300 to 250. He questioned if a change was made in the square footage of the area. ~. Barrett re- plied no, that was as far as they had gone. ~. Kelly ques- tioned if it would proportionately drop down. He stated that 300 feet meant it would require roughly 133 depth to get 40,000 square feet. M~. Barrett stated he thought the 40,000 square feet could remain. Mr. Blacketer stated he thought they agreed to knock out the 40,000 feet and would use 4~ maxin~umo M~. Kelly clarified that this was referred to in Section 14 Continued, second page, under C-3. ~. Barrett stated they should still require the 40,000 square feet. Mms. Huckle clarified to change 300 to 250, but leave it at 40,000. ~. Kelly remarked that it would require a 1~0 feet depth then. Mr. Barrett stated they should discuss screen enclosures when they go through the book. He stated he didn't think they had included it anywhere. He didn't think~they set'a setback for fully screened-in enclosures, those that enclose a pool and MINUTES ~LA~E,~ING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FiI~E ~Y 14, 1974 those that are part of a structure. ~. Kelly stated they had discussed it, but did not put it in. ~. Barrett con- tinued that he didn't see the difference between a screen enclosure, whether it enclosed a pool or not. He didn't agree with the way the present code reads. If a pool area can be enclosed back further, why not just enclose your back yar~ with a screen enclosure? He stated he wanted the Board to think about this. A back yard can be just as much a recrea- tion area as a pool. Mrs. Huckle remarked that enclosing pools was a Safety factor. What if it is a roofed-over screen enclosure? Mr. Barrett replied that they would have to stay 25 feet back. Mrs. Huckle questioned the difference between roofed-over or screened-over. ~. Barrett stated that he could not see the difference. Mr. Blacketer agreed he was sure they did not mention screen enclosures. He questioned if there was something in the Southern Building Code to go by. ~. Barrett stated no, that the Southern Standard does not deal with setbacks, only the construction. Mro Blacketer asked if it was in the old code and Mr. Barrett stated that it was. He suggested that they m~J~e a little study between now and their next meeting. It was included in the old code under Special Conditions or Swimming Pools. Mr. Blacketer referred to the Meadows property and asked if the utlities were going to be underground. Mx. Barrett stated that it did not say. He believed Florida Power & Light would govern this. Sometimes they can't go under- ground. He thought they preferred to go underground, but could not always do this. However, if you take an already developed area and change it to underground, there is a lot more expense. Mrs. Huc~kle remarked that she could not find anything in the old code in reference to s~reen enclosures. M~o Barrett sug- gested looking under Section 12 and that it was in the zoning code. Mr. Blacketer made a motion to adjourn, seconded by ~. Kelly. Motion carried 5-0, with the meeting being properly adjourned at 9:15