Loading...
Minutes 06-09-66~INUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ~.EETING, HELD IN CITY HALL, BOYNTON B~ACH, FL0tllDA, JUNE 9, 1966 at 7:30 PRESENT: Stanley Weaver Robert Olds Herb Keat%s Eugene Cooper Harold Blanchette, Bldg, Insp. ABSENT: ~il!iam %~Johl leb Julian Pa%rick Chairman Wohlleb was out of town and Vice Chairman Wertz was unable to attend. Mr. ~eaver handled the meeting. ~r. Olds made a motion to waive the reading of the minutes of the last t~vo meetings. ~r. Keatts seconded and it was unanimously camried. Rezoning o~ the following described pmoperty: Lots 7 thmu 10, Block 3, Lake Boynton Estates Subdivision as ~ecorded in Plat Book 13, Page 32, Palm Beach County records Request: C-1 to C-2 Address: 730 N.~V. 2nd Ave. Owner: '~%allace L. Fleck No one in the audience spoke in opposition to this request. ~r. Fleck, the owne~, came forward and stated he is putting in for C-2 zoning so that he can do repair ~ork. ~r. Weaver noted that this type of business tends to create the gathering of wrecked and immobile autos and trucks. ~x. Fleck stated that he does not have anything immobile there no~. ~r. Fleck stated that he plans to put up a garage to do the ma3or overhaul woxk in. ~r. l~eaver stated %hat this a case of spot zoning. There are four lots zoned differently than all the property around it. There is no C-2 zoning in the area at all. ~r. Weaver suggested that ~r. Fleck be given conditional use of %his p~oper%y unde~ the present zoning, based on the fact that he does plan to erect a building -1- ~tNUT£S PLANNING & ZONING BOARD ~155IING JUN5 9, 1966 there. In this way it v~ould give the city more control of v4hat goes there add ~. Fleck %~ould still be able to accom- plish what he ~vants to do. ~lr. 01ds moved that the Board recommend the granting of this use as a conditional use under Article 31, page ll, of C-1 zoning and %.hat it still remain C~-i zoning insomuch as the Board is opposed to soot zoning. ~. Keatts seconded and it was unanimously carried. Lots 16 & 17, Block 7. Bowers Pa~k Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 11, Page ~7, Palm Beach County records ~equest: ~-2 to Address: 225 S.£. 0th Ave. Owners: Advance Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. ~ir. Jerry Staley, the proprietor, came forward and stated that this property was at one time C-2, back in 1958, then the city rezoned it and he stated that he v~,ould like to get it zoned back to C-2 so that he can expand his business. No one in the audience spoke in opposition. ~%~. Weaver noted that since there is ~-1 zoning a half block away and it is on the railroad that C-2 zoning would act as a buffer in this case. N%r. Keatts moved that this request be granted. seconded and it v~as unanimously carried. Olds To consider abandonment of 20' alley lying west of Lot 22 and east of Lots 23, 2~ & 25, Blk. 2, Boynton Place as recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 40, Palm Beach County records Requested by: Jean C. Cottrilt Address: 612 N.H. 7th Avenue ~rs. Cottzill came forward and stated that they nme request- ing that the city abandon this dead-end alley which is next to hem property, She stated that the council had given them permission to put in a hedge on this easement and they do maintain the hedge. ~r. Kain stated that theme are private utilities in that easement. -2- ~INUT£S PLANNING & ZONING BOARD ~V~ETING JUNE 9, 1986 ~rs. Cottmill stated that council had stipulated if they would wait ~n%il the sewers were put in that they would consider abandonment of the alley. Hro Weaver noted that the problem is the utility installation and the possibility of a reverter clause in the original dedication. ~r. 01ds stated that he felt since there are easements there, the city is not in a position to cancel their righ%s.o ~r. Weaver stated that each case has %o stand on its own merit, and that there have been requests on this particula~ alley in the past fuxther north. He felt it would be up ~o the city engineer and city attorney and persons involved with the technical aspects of the situation as %o whether or not this can be abandoned. Mr. 01ds moved that this request be granted pending the legal aspects that will have to be taken care of by the city attor- ney. Hr. Keatts seconded and it was unanimously carried. It was noted that no one was given a chance to speak in opposition to this request. ~r. Olds then withdrew his motion. ~r. Henry Hansen, a representative of Southern Bell Telephone Co., came forward and stated that there is a telephone cable in there and they are concerned about what happens to their property. He stated that they have to maintain the cable if it causes t~ouble and it could present a problem if it yetis to private property, ~r. Kain stated that the procedure for abandonment called for in the code is that it has to go befome the Planning and Zoning Board and if they make a favorable recommendation then the city will take the responsibility of ~hat utilities are there and other phases of planning. Mr. Woolbright, 802 No. Federal, came forward and stated he was concerned about what would happen if %his alley is aban- doned since this cable serves many people in that area. There ~as a discussion that followed and the engineer from the Telephone Company explained why the cable was put there and what it involves to maintain it. He stated they are following a plan ~hich was made several years ago. ~r. Keat%s made a motion that the request be denied. ~r. 01ds seconded and it was unanimously cam~ied. -3- MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD ;~£ETING JUNE 9, 1966 N I10' of S~ of SW~ of SW~ lying east of U.S. Hwy, ~1 and ?Jest of Intracoastal Water- way, Sec. 27, To%-,,nship 4~5S., Range 435 Request: R-1AA to Address: 140~ South PedeEal High~ay ~ner: 5Ewin J. %~estphal & Lydia Westphal dba 5rvlyd Realty ~mpany S 208.~' of N 318' of S~ of S~ of S~ lying east of U.S. ~1, and ~est of Intracoastal Waterway, Sec. ~7-4~-43 ~eque st: R-1AA to Address: 1402 South Federal Highway Owner: H~win J. %~estphal & Lydia Westphal dba 5~vlyd Realty Company S~ of S%~ of SW~ less N 318.5' lying east of U.S. Highway $1 and West of Intracoastal WateE~ay, Sec. 27-45-43 Request: ~-1~ to Address: 1~18 South Federal High%~aY ~ne~: Joseph C. Lotto and Philomena Lotto ~r. Te~gesen, of Atlantic Realty Corporation, came and p~esented plans of a shopping cente~ for the a~ea and stated he felt it ~as the best use of the pEoperty. He stated that a buffer area of 110' is being ~equested as a planting buffer. This was being created as a buffer to the only property ~hich would object, Lee ~anoz Isles. ~r. Tergesen stated that the %,¢hole area is co~e~cial and f~om the city's point of view, this would be the best use for the a~ea. ~%~. Westphal. the-owner, came forward and stated that he had bought this property about eight yeaEs ago. He stated that at that time the property ~as not zoned, it %~as mostly muck land and Lee ~'~anor had just been developed. ~. Westphal said he filled his pEope~ty hoping to develop it like Lee ~iano~ but duEing that period of time things changed and no homes were being bought in Lee ~ano= Isles. He stated he t~ied to come up with something that %~ould be ~easonable. The a~ea f~om U.S. 1 is already zoned C-1 and the a~ea that will be changed is the p~opeEty ad3oining Lee ~%anox Isles. He stated that his plan would p~otect the people o~ this a~ea and %~ould benefit the City of Boynton Beach. -4- ~v%INUTE$ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD ~IEETING JUNE 9., 1966 ~r. James Nemec, at'torney, came forward and spoke in opposi- tion. ~r, Nemec submitted to the Board a petition with 13 names objecting to the rezon~ng~ ?~hich represents more than 20% of the property o~4ners adjoining the property to the north. ~,;~. Nemec stated that the notice sent out concerned only t~o pieces of property not three and that there are t~o various o,~vners, He stated that this looked like a specula- tive offer and promotion, ~lr. Nemec noted that under FSA 176o05 a 15 day notice is required, but this notice only allowed a 7 day notice. ~,i~. Nemec stated that this is strictly spot zoning and that the court's frown on spot zoning, He stated that owners of property in that area have invested some $40,000 and $50,000 in their homes and that it is in an area that has the highest and best zoning in Boynton Beach. ~lr. Nemec stated he did not think the city could support anothe~ business area in that vicinity. This is waterfront property and the best the city has for fine-type homes, He ~ta{ed that there would be no access from the buffe~ zone and asked who ~.~ould maintain this zone, ~,r. Nemec requested that this request be denied, ~r. Antony Lite, 641 Rivera Drive, Lee ~%anor Isles, came forward and spoke in opposition stating that he bought his property in 19~6 and at that time this property v.~as zoned residential. He stated he could have bought property at one- fourth the price paid and paid one-half the amount of money fox his home. He has found this an excellent piece of property and expected to live in a neighborhoOd which he would like. He felt the zoning should remaiS the same be- cause of the location of the property: and if changed they would not continue to have a ~esidential section that they could enjoy. Emile Freund, 635 Rive~a Drive, came for~ard and spoke in opposition stating that this is a beautiful section and he did not see '~hy it is necessary to speculate on an area that has a future. He stated there zsa .possibility of having a lot moxe ~aterfront lots in Boynton ~n this area, AVer. Geoxge Becket, Lee 5,Ianor Isles, said he wanted to enter his protest on this request and agreed with what had been said. )i~. Paul Harrington came forward and made a protest on behalf of one of his friends, ~%r. Caste~, in the Lee ~'lanor area, -5- ~%INUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD ~EETING JUNE 9, 1966 ~r. Weaver stated that the Board does not want to be hasty in making a decision that might be in error, He said it is part of their duty to find the highest and best use for property in the city, He stated that the people of the city have to look forwaEd to the development of the city and that there is lot of property lying idle producing a minimum amount of money for the city. He felt that the people who asked for the xequest might be willing to enter into a discussion ~ith the people in objection, ~r. Weaver asked if Mr. Nemec and ~r. Westphal could get together and work out something ~ith these people- Mr. Nemec stated that the people objected to it and the fact that this will be a thoroughfare on I~th Avenue a~d one of Boynton's main roads does not alter any- thing. '~hat makes a town is not the co~nercial features but the people, He stated that to spot zone and take a~ay the better part of the waterfront and it is not inducing to new ~esidents. ~. Tergesen that since ~x. Nemec says he cannot discuss it, that he felt the pe- tition has to be granted or denied. ~E. Westphal stated that if he should subdivide that there will be additional property lying idle fo~ a long period again. He felt the ll0' would protect these people. He stated he planned to build a motel along the Intracoastal and thought it would be an improvement to the area and some- thing that would make the property useful. ~r. Cooper suggested that this matter be tabled until the master planner could study this area. It is recognized that 15th Ave. will definitely be put through to A1A and one of two links to I-9~ and possibly west to ~ilita~¥ T~ail. Some- time or other it will be a highly traveled street. ~r. WeaveE stated that the Board had requested the city some months ago to engage ~r. Simon to help with mastex planning. Whethez he could be engaged to review just one area ~as not known · ~r. Olds asked Mr. Kain if he thought ~r, Simon could be en- gaged to review this one particular area, ~r, Kain stated that it is possible, but he would be reluctant to recommend %hat he be ~etained for such. He stated this relates to other matters in the city that ~ill come before the Board in the future. Mr. Weaver stated that there nee numerous problems with the ~aster Plan and that the $oard has ~equested that ~r. Simon revie~ the plan and certain parts of the oEdinances. -6- NtlNUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD ~IEETING JUNE 9, 1966 Mr. Olds moved that this request be tabled for one month to see if the Council intends to reviev~ this entire plan or not, then the Board will act on it in 30 days. ~r, Cooper seconded and it was unanimously carried. ~r. Weaver noted that notices will be sent out again to people on the petition and other property owners involved ~ithin the area required. ~. Nemec asked that he be notified of the meeting. OLd_ BUSINESS ar. Kain came forward %o give the Board some information on the Open Space Program, He ~ead a letter from ~r. E. Bruce Wedge, Regional Director of H.U.D. dated April ~, 1966, a copy of which is attached. ~r. Kain explained that the City Council adopted a Resolution urging the County Commission to proceed with an area planning board. They have actually gotten plans underway for such a program. ~r. Kain stated that he felt it would be to the financial and planning ad- vantage of the city to coordinate efforts of planning with the county when they get underway. ~r. Kain asked the Board to consider acreage in the extent of 150 acres prefe~a.bly in one parcel o~ contiguous parcels fo~ a recreational park. ~. Kain explained that he would like to have the ground ~o~k done on all three parcels and have it ready to go into. the application when the county plans are underway. ~r. Kain stated that the three eligible parcels should be in such shape that it would be reasonably useable. He suggested that for all practical purposes that the parcels be within the limits of Boynton. ~r. Boos came fo~ard and stated some reasons why he felt it was wrong to rezone some residential property to commercial from 22nd Ave. North to 15th Avenue South. The Board had made the recommendation that this area be rezoned. His ~easons are as follows: "1. Our city is basically a residential community and the commercial should approximate not more than 4,~ of the total land. There is three times that much commercial land and most is vacant.. 2. Zoning changes should never break on the street, it should be on an easement to the rear, an alley, natural barrier, railroad or such. The recommendation to rezone 4th Street would automatically devaluate all land on the other side. -7- ~INUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD ~EETING JUNE 9, 1966 3. Unless the general nature is changed, the zoning should not he changed. There is no change in the land useage of this area since 5%r. Simon zoned i% this %ray, To do so would put commercial across streets from homes. 4. To zone this you automatically place much property in non-conforming use. ~r. Boos stated that every time a city increases commercial property ~ithout increasing the number of people, this de- valuates adjacent property. ~r. Boos also stated that if the Board felt they needed advice of a person like i~%r. Simon that he %~ould operate on a per diem basis and possibly Council would allocate monies for thi s. ~lr. %'~eaver stated that the Board feels that monies should be allocated over a t~o year period fox Nlr. Simon; that they need expert advice on many matters that have arisen since the Diaster Plan ~,~as revie%~ed some five years ago. N1eeting adjourned at 10:30 P.~'f~. -8- DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PEACHTREE-~EYENTR BUILDING. ATLANTA. GEORGIA Urban Renewal Divis ion Room 645 April 5, 1966 REGION 11! Mr. F. T. Rain City M~nager City of Boynton Beach 12(f N. E. 2nd Avenue Boynton B~ach, Florida Dear Mr. Rain: 33435 Subject: Open-Space Land Program Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida Thank you for your letter of March 22, 1966, in which you request advice and assistance from this office in connection wit~ the preparation of an Open-Space Land .application. As you may not be aware, Congress by specific and individual acts has placed an _u?ban. a~r~e~a, c?mprehensive ~ .r.equirement on three separate Federal-aid programs; these are the 0pen-Spa_ce~nd, the Urban Mass Transportation., and the ~B~.~s_i.9~.~,Water and Sewer Facilities .Proerams. Certain enclosures with this letter relate specifically to this fact; they are: W/a. Programs of the Department o__f Housing and Urban Development, November 1965, pages 2, 4, and 5 marked; /b. Open-Space Land Program Letter No, 0S-5, September 1965. Note on pages 3-4 the matter on ~'Definition of Urban Area" and on pages 4-7 the matter on "Planning Require- ment s ~'; Urban Mass Transportation Prograph! - Planning Requirements Guid~, January 1965; ~/d. ater and Sewer Facilities/Pro-~ra~,~ ~' P!az~ning Requirements ~, ~anuary 3~, 1966; ~e. ~ate~ and S~e~ Facilities Gr.an.t prp~ra~m, HUD Program Guide 66-1, page 2 marked, We reconmnend a careful reading of these items in specific, reference~ comprehensive planning for the urban area. The terms "comprehensive planning" and "urban area" are defined in items b, c, and d. The, 2 latter, in your case, is all of Palm~~ounty, incorporated and unincorporated areas; that being t~SI~A_~ i hat back,round, we are unable to make a finding t~at_the~e is Wzth t .. ~ ~ ~ ~A~nin~ for Palm Be~-~h Count~-th~ an organization being the case, there is no program of a~ea-w--~zec~P~Ianning' no accomplishments relating to o~ganization, staff, professional services, etc. We readily recognime the county planning department with %ts concern for the unincorporated area and one or more municipal planning ~ bodies with similarly limited concerns. We recognize also the agreements made by various parties in reference to the urban area transportation study. These individual achievements, good in themselves, do not either i~div~ua%ly or cumulat~e up to comprehensive planni~r .......... - --, ~ su est formal submittal of the ~e ~rban are~. Henc~.ou~...inability to .... ~ ..... ~--~ - ~_Land application. 'P~im. ....Beach~S ....... =n°t meet. a basic .eligibility factor - area-wide comprehensive planning. Please note that there is no reference in the foregoing to the need or ~ to the desirability or even to the eligibility of the land propoaed for acquisition. Please note also that if the city were a prospective applicant under the 'Basic Water and Sewer Facilities Program or under the Urban Mass ~ Transportation Program our response would be the same; Pa~lm_Beach Countx does not meet the urban area ~e solution to the problem lies in the several local governments (county and municipal) taking action to establish a body for comprehensive planning for the entirety of Palm Beach County, appointing the membership  ..~ .to that body, arranging for staff~ office space, equipment, and financing, ~ ' ' The planning body and its staff would establish a long-range program of comprehensive planning and would then make progress in the accomplishment of that program. ~f.desired, this Department could assist financially_. under the Urban Plannin~ Assistance Program; the Federal grant could not exceed two-thi~9jec~t ¢~ts. Under Florida statutes, the local governments could proceed immediately through the establishment of a "Palm Beach County Regional Planning Council"; an .enclosure is a copy of Chapter No. 160, Florida statutes, on "Regional Planning Councils." As an example of this device, we recommend to you the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council with offices in Titusville. lir. Robert E. Doyle, Executive Director, I am sure, would be pleased to confer with you and others on the possibility of establishing a similar body for your county area. 3 Palm Beach County may already have special planning enabling legislation that might serve in a related way; we are not informed on this possibility. Still another possibility is available to the local governments in the provisions of Section 701(g), Housing 'Act of 1954 as amended; a copy of that law and of Planning Agency Letter No. 50, which explains it, are other enclosures. ~hatever action the county and municipal §overnments take should be the subject of very careful consideration by all concerned. We will be pleased, ~'~on request or invitation, to share our working experience in eight states with you. Still another enclosure is a copy of the October 18, 1965, address by Secretary Weaver to the American Institute of Planners; please note (pages 5-8) his references to present and to prospective planning requirements. W'nereas comprehensive planning for entire urban areas is now a requirement by law for the three Federal-aid programs already cited, is not the trend of Congress clearly in the direction of placing the requirement on ~ore and more Federal-aid pro§rams? If an urban area meets the planning requirement for one Federal-aid pro§ram; e.g., Open-Space Land~ would it not also meet the same requirement for the Basic Water and Sewer Facilities Pro§ram, the Urban Mass Transportation Pro§ram, and any others on which Cor~ress places the same requirement? If we'may be of further assistance, may we have your request. Sincerely yours, ~al Director ~, Enclosures