Loading...
Minutes 03-28-23 ii MINUTES " PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 100 E. OCEAN AVENUE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2023, 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: STAFF: Trevor Rosecrans, Chair Amanda Radigan, Planner and Zoning Butch Buoni, Vice Chair Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner Chris Simon Sean Swartz, Assistant City Attorney William Harper Kathryn Matos, Assistant City Manager Courtlandt McQuire Carla Blair, Prototype, Inc. Thomas Ramiccio, Alternate William Cwyner, Alternate ABSENT: Tim Litsch Jay Sobel GUESTS: Christina Belinky, with Denning and Backman Adam Kerr, with Kimley-Horn Josh Horning, with Kimley-Horn Harry Woodworth, resident Yvonne Skovron, resident Barbara Hamilton, resident Barbara Ready, resident Geert Blevacq, owner The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call Roll was called and it was determined a quorum was present. 3. Agenda Approval Motion made by Mr. Harper, and seconded by Mr. Simon, to approve the agenda. In a voice vote, the agenda was unanimously approved (7-0). 4. Approval of Minutes 4.A. Board minutes from the 02/28/2023 Planning & Development Board meeting Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 2 March 28, 2023 Minutes were tabled. 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Amanda Radigan, Planning and Zoning, reported at the last meeting in February, the Board heard an item titled Miraflor Apartments for their new Site Plan and Master Plan. The project was heard and approved by the City Commission. Assistant City Attorney Sean Swartz swore in everyone intending to speak. 5.A. Discuss process for providing an annual report to Commission. Kathryn Matos, Assistant City Manager, provided the following updates: • The City Commission requested an annual report from each Board, and they are doing one Board a month during the Commission meetings. The Board liaison will coordinate the date, and the report is to look back on what happened the previous year and anything they are looking to do in the coming years. This Board's report will probably be straightforward as they review development items, but members can bring anything to the Commission. There is no set format or template. The only requirement is that the report receives consensus from all the Board members before it is brought to the Commission. • They are going to be opening a Visitor Center in the lobby of City Hall and are looking for volunteers. She is going to pass a sign-in sheet around if anyone is interested. Vice Chair Buoni questioned the timeframe on manning the Visitor Center. Assistant City Manager Matos replied the schedule for the Visitor Center will be Monday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and they are looking at two four-hour shifts a day, one from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and the other from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Simon mentioned the annual report and asked if those are items to be added other than projects that are approved or not approved, and if it is managed via email correspondence. Assistant City Manager Matos stated the Board liaison can facilitate that. Anything members would like to add to the report could be emailed to the liaison and it will be brought back to the Board for a consensus. Mr. Simon asked if there is a date. Assistant City Manager Matos stated the month is up to the Board. She will send a list of available dates. Vice Chair Buoni asked if the report has to be done individually or if they can do a working group and put something together. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 3 March 28, 2023 Ms. Radigan advised this is new and the direction they have been told is that this is a product from the Board,which she can help facilitate. She highly suggested there is a frontrunner from the Board who takes lead on this, and the end product would be approved overall by the Board, as a consensus must be shown before presenting it to the Commission. Chair Rosecrans questioned who attends the meeting. Ms. Radigan stated it would be a about a five-minute presentation to the City Commission, so they want something written to put in the backup. Mr. Simon asked if this is something they need to discuss at a follow-up meeting in the next month or two. Ms. Radigan indicated they could have a discussion. Chair Rosecrans asked who is going before the City Commission first. Ms. Radigan could not recall the schedule, but stated the Art Board is in April. She noted they need to select one person to present from the Board. 6. Old Business: None. 7. New Business: NOTE: Items 7A and 7B were heard in tandem and voted on separately. 7A. Approve request for two (2) Community Design Appeal requests (CDPA 22-005 & 23- 009) of Part III, Section 6.F.2.d., which requires habitable floor area to wrap all upper- levels of the parking structure where the structure has frontage along a public right-of-way, to allow for alternative design solutions for the facades of parking garage as proposed and of four (4) Community Design Appeal requests (CDPA 23-001, 23-002, 23-003, & 23- 004) for Part III, Chapter 3, Article III, Section 5.C.1, Table 3-22, Footnote 7, which requires that buildings be placed at a distance from the property line no greater than to accommodate for the pedestrian zone,to allow for a step-back provided at the ground floor. Applicant: Brian Bartcazk, BB Development LLC. 7.13. Approve request for Major Master Plan Modification(MPMD 23-002)and Major Site Plan Modification (MSPM 23-003) to the Ocean One project to allow the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of an eight (8)-story building with 371 dwelling units, 25,588 square feet of commercial space, associated recreational amenities, and parking on a 3.71-acre site, located east of North Federal Highway between East Boynton Beach Boulevard and East Ocean Avenue, in the MU-C (Mixed-Use Core) zoning district. Applicant: Brian Bartczak, BB Development LLC. Christina Belinky, with Denning and Backman, stated that she is covering for her colleague and does not have all the history, but will do her best. Their consultant team is present as well to answer any questions. She provided a brief Power Presentation as follows: Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 4 March 28, 2023 • The property is located on the north side of Ocean Avenue, south of Boynton Beach Boulevard, east of Federal Highway, and west of NE 6t' Court. The property is about 3.71 acres and is zoned Mixed-Use Core. It is the highest density and intensity within the Downtown. This property is allowed a density up to 100 dwelling units per acre and a maximum height up to 150 feet. • This property came before the Board for a proposed development plan, which was approved in 2017, for 358 units, about 12,000 square feet of commercial space, 120 hotel rooms, and it was an eight-story product that was to be developed in two phases. Alongside that, there was Site Plan approval for the northern half, with about 251 units and structured parking. With that approval, there were community design appeals for the garage that is required to be wrapped in habitable space and for the build to lines. Approved elevations include the east and north elevations along Boynton Beach Boulevard, and the west and south elevations. • They are seeking a Major Master Plan Modification and a Major Site Plan Modification. They are proposing a Mixed-Use development that consists of an eight-story product, with 371 dwelling units, and 2,588 square feet of commercial space with associated recreational amenities and parking. • Some of the major differences between what was previously approved versus what they are proposing include reconfigured building areas, open spaces, a parking structure, and a location of the Art to provide focus on open space and public plazas, mainly along Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway, which are the main thoroughfares. They are increasing the unit count from 358 to 371 with a change in unit mix, but the hotel use is no longer being proposed. The approved Master Plan contemplated 120 hotel rooms. They are proposing to increase the commercial component from just over 12,000 square feet to 2,500 +/- with more active uses along the pedestrian and primary streets. The old plan had a lot of pedestrian uses, which were not true commercial uses. They had an amenity/gym area on the first floor, which the developer agreed to open to the public to create more of an active use, whereas this contemplates a true Mixed-Use product with real commercial use retail use incorporated into the project. They are also expanding the useable open space by 36.75%, from 2.5% on the old Site Plan, and it should be to 39.25%. It is a significant increase in open space. They are also reconfiguring the Site Plan to eliminate surface parking, insulate the parking garage, and add more lush plantings. • The proposed Master Plan and Site Plan have been combined, since it is being developed as a single phase. Ocean Avenue will have the main commercial uses and in the center, there is a significant pedestrian plaza that will not only break up the frontage in terms of the building mask, but create a true amenity for the commercial areas and for residents within the Downtown area. They want to activate the pedestrian areas and commercial uses and provide an attraction for people to congregate and for residents to meet with friends and have coffee. Along Ocean Avenue there is a significant public plaza and also along the Federal Highway frontage they have a pedestrian area as well that is centered between the two commercial spaces. There is main access off Federal Highway and there is a circular drive with a covered drop-off area for residents or guests and it also provides access to the garage. • There is a private amenity space located at the northeast corner along Boynton Beach Boulevard and NE 6t' Court at the intersection and that is for enjoyment by the residents. A pickleball court is being proposed as well as a pool and amenity deck. • A rendered ground level plan was shown along with the typical floor plan and proposed elevations. • The proposed applications include the Ocean Avenue frontage, the North Federal Highway Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 5 March 28, 2023 frontage, and then the Boynton Beach frontage and NE 6t' Court frontage. There is a green wall where the parking garage is located and there are going to be vines that climb and provide a nice screen. • They are requesting some Community Design Appeals. They are requesting two related to habitable space that is required to wrap the garage, which is along the Boynton Beach Boulevard and NE 6t'Court frontages. The Code also requires the buildings to be pushed up against the street, so there is a build-to-line requirement. They are proposing to step-back the building in those key locations to provide for the pedestrian zones. • This property is a little unique because they have street frontages on all four sides, so it makes it a little more difficult to locate the garage. They want to make sure there is movement and pedestrian plazas along the primary street frontages. The garage was pushed towards NE 6t' Court and enhanced by providing architectural elements along the NE 6t' Court frontage and the green wall along East Boynton Beach Boulevard. • Related to the build-to-line, this area is the North Federal Highway frontage. They are set back around 99 feet from the property line and that is to allow for the drop-off area and pedestrian area between the two commercial spaces. A rendering of the proposed frontage was shown, so the main area heading towards the center is the drop-off area with a canopy that leads into the garage and there is a public realm which will help provide shade for pedestrians,residents, and guests to enjoy the open space. • Ocean Avenue frontage is set back about 115 feet to provide for the pedestrian realm. • There are nice steps that provide an entrance into the pedestrian realm, which is attractive and provides a nice focal point and then there is an area for seating. The build-to-line appeals for both Boynton Beach Boulevard and NE 6t' Court, and that is related to the private pedestrian areas. They focused on providing substantial landscaping along the area to enhance the pedestrian realm. • In terms of building massing, she thinks their Design Team has done a good job of proposing a building that breaks up the facade; she thinks the maximum building height is about 95 feet and it is eight stories. It is fairly in line with the development around it and within the area. Staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions, and they are going to continue working with staff to make sure they address those conditions of approval. Assistant City Manager Matos advised the City has a short presentation. Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner, provided a brief Power Point presentation for Ocean One as follows: • The applicant is requesting a Major Master Plan Modification and Major Site Plan Modification as well as six associated Community Design Appeals; two for the habitable floor area wrapping the upper levels of the parking garage and four for relief from the build-to-line requirements. • In 2013, there was an existing bank building located at this site that was demolished, but the parking was left intact, which still remains today. In 2017, the site was rezoned from Central Business District to Mixed-Use Core and a Master Plan was approved for an eight-story Mixed- Use building with 350 dwelling units, 120-room hotel, and 12,075 square feet of commercial space. The site remains vacant, and the Master Plan approved in 2017 is still in effect. The zoning of Mixed-Use Core remains as is and no application for rezoning is required. • The project site is located on the eastern end of the area of recently approved Mixed-Use projects Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 6 March 28, 2023 within the City. The Site Plan proposed is 371 dwelling units with 25,588 square feet of commercial, which also includes amenity areas and an integrated parking garage. • The Plan proposes street trees in all rights-of-way and provides additional landscaping within the plaza areas carved out of the building. • Proposed elevations for the east and west sides of the building were shown as well as the north and south elevations. • The applicant is requesting a total of six Community Design Appeals. Two of the Appeals are relief from the Code requirement that all upper levels of the parking structure be wrapped with habitable area where the structure has frontage along public rights-of-way. • Along Boynton Beach Boulevard the applicant is proposing a vine system to cover the garage to the side. The request has been conditioned to provide a more detailed plan for the vines and that it be designed to match the architecture of the rest of the building. Staff is looking for more design on the facade to meet the intent of the Community Design. • Along NE 6th Court the applicant is proposing a design that consists of stucco perforated metal panels and an architectural framework design feature. The request has been conditioned to provide a facade along NE 6th Court,which further incorporate design features to better conceal the garages facade including options such as a vine similar to the one proposed on Boynton Beach Boulevard with all the other conditions for the other facade as well, or providing additional architectural features such as windows or balconies to create the appearance of habitable space. • The remaining four Community Design Appeals are relief of the Code requirement that the building facade be placed on the build-to-line, which is a function of the pedestrian zone. These buildings would be located further from the build-to-line, so further into the property. The building design includes public plazas on North Federal Highway and East Ocean Avenue, which includes features such as landscaping, awnings, canopies, and water features. In addition, they have two proposals of frame for the wood the architectural feature to create a building base. They also have proposed landscaping between the sidewalk area and the active area within the pedestrian zone. The project has also been conditioned to create additional architectural features and an additional building base along the remainder of the rights-of-way, so they have provided that feature along Federal Highway, but staff is also looking for that treatment along East Boynton Beach Boulevard and East Ocean Avenue. The project is also conditioned to include additional architectural embellishments such as windows and balconies along the faces of the building to avoid a blank wall appearance, and to provide increased landscaping along the rights-of-way. • Staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval of the Major Master Plan Modification and Major Site Plan Modification as well as the six Community Design Appeals, subject to approval of the incumbent conditions, applications, and satisfying those conditions indicated in Exhibit C. • Should the Board or Commission recommend additional conditions, they will be documented accordingly in Exhibit C. Chair Rosecrans opened discussion to the public. Phil Myer, resident, 633 Ocean Drive, was present on behalf of 400 homes in Boynton Beach on the east side of Federal Highway. Generally, they are opposed to the project, but if the Board approves it, they would like to see some changes. He questioned the square footage of the smallest unit in the building. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 7 March 28, 2023 Mr. Ramiccio replied it is in the mid 500s. Mr. Myer stated one of their requests for conditions would be to have a unit size of 750 or 800 square feet. He noted the penthouses would be looking down, which would be devalued because they are looking at air conditioning units. Perhaps they could do some type of rooftop amenity or gardening on top. He mentioned storm water and stated there are a lot of flooding problems in the area, so another condition could be for 100% storm water retention on the site. Chair Rosecrans believed they are already required to maintain 25 years. There is a requirement for retention on storm water. Mr. Myers asked if it could take on any capacity for others in the area. Chair Rosecrans did not want to speak to the Engineering plans. He stated they typically try to maintain everything up to a certain storm event; it is on site storage. He indicated they would find out. Mr. Simon commented that the requirements are the same that every other house and project have to meet. Mr. Myers reiterated that they are generally opposed to the project and think there needs to be protection because it is fronting on four sides of the building. Harry Woodworth,resident, 685 NE 15th Place,Boynton, mentioned a traffic concern. He likes the setback idea about making things more attractive, and the math with the parking was very entertaining. He commented that this project screams of TOD and transit;the transit there is a couple of bus stops,they do not have a train station and never will. It does not come close to meeting any of the requirements of the TOD train station and there is no space, money, or population for a train station. He requested that they stop the insanity. Yvonne Skovron, 350 North Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Casa Costa, mentioned the diagrams and stated she did not see the air conditioning units and asked if they are going to go on the rooftops. If so, she asked if there is a way of designing it so people on the south side of Casa Costa do not look directly at 371 air conditioning units. She commented on the parking garage, which is a piece of concrete, and noted that it is going to be at least 85 feet. She stated that vines will take years to grow. She questioned how many parking spaces are designated for commercial and how many parking spaces are designated for the current commercial because the City has taken away 150 parking spaces on the west side of Federal Highway. She asked where people are going to park if there is all this commercial space. She mentioned traffic and stated the parking exit is on Federal Highway with a right turn to head north. She asked what happens if someone wants to head south and if they will be able to do U-turns at the traffic lights. If so, that will hold up traffic even more. Barbara Hamilton, resident, 625 Casaloma Boulevard, expressed concern regarding parking. If there is no additional parking,there is going to be a crisis. They have about 100 public spots and are already in crisis. There are always traffic jams, accidents,hits and runs, angry people who want to park and go to the Marina or restaurants, and there is no parking. Additional properties and traffic will create more of a crisis. She questioned if any of the parking spaces in the development are allocated for public parking. She urged the Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 8 March 28, 2023 Board to sit 15 minutes in the morning and afternoon to observe the situation. There is a single lane on Ocean Avenue and a single lane going out on Ocean Avenue, and then there is a turnaround. Boynton Beach Boulevard has a single lane in and out and then there are the units from Casa Costa using that to access parking. Barbara Ready, resident, questioned where the 120 hotel rooms went. This was probably the most likely spot to put a hotel facility close to the Marina and close to the ocean, and now they are going to have 25,000 square feet more commercial space. She questioned if a survey has been taken to see how much empty commercial space there is and if 25,000 square feet of additional space is needed, or a hotel, or an office building, which is what they were promised in the first place for this location. She chaired the Arts Commission and was in charge when the PNC Bank came forward and they wanted a green wall. It sounded good, but currently it is more like a weed wall. She urged the Board to recommend to the City Commission and the CRA Board that they update their Master Plans, LDR's and all their other things to stop with the Transit Oriented District nonsense. They are never going to have the rooftops, not even for the tiniest train stop they could ever imagine. No one is going to stop in Boynton Beach to see all the empty commercial space. She thinks a serious recommendation from this Board to the City leaders is called for because those things need to be updated and they need to acknowledge they are never going to have a train depot. Hearing no further comments, Chair Rosecrans closed the public discussion. Chair Rosecrans indicated they have seen the traffic and congestion Downtown. He noted whether this Board votes yes or no, this will still go to the Commission, and that is where they need to voice their grievances and concerns. He asked if the applicant wanted to respond to any of the comments. Ms. Belinky knows everyone is invested in their community and they want to see the best project move forward. In terms of many of the architectural questions on the green wall, to staff's point there are numerous conditions of approval that do address those same concerns. Their team has gone back to the drawing board and are not representing any updated elevations because they have not vetted them with staff yet, but they are hoping to do so in the near future to make sure what they are proposing is what they are visioning as well. They have to continue to work through the conditions of approval with staff. With regard to square footage of the units, the smallest unit is 551 square feet; it is a studio, but they do range up to 1,209 square feet. As far as air conditioning units, the City Code requires them to be screened and they will be screened with architectural elements that go with the rest of the building as a whole. In terms of the hotel, the previous developer vetted that thoroughly and could not make that proposal come to fruition.Ultimately,that project was not able to move forward,which is why they are back. Some residents might like other uses, but this developer is coming forward with a plan they think will work and meet the commercial uses successfully with the incorporation of the additional residential units and the public open spaces that will support them. Adam Kerr, with Kimley-Horn & Associates, addressed traffic and parking questions. As far as traffic, they received approval from Palm Beach County, but they also did a detailed analysis at the request of City staff to look at specifically the major intersections near Boynton Beach Boulevard, Federal Highway, Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 9 March 28, 2023 and Ocean Avenue. Those were addressed in the traffic study and shown to meet the level of service and turn lights would be appropriate with this additional dump. Chair Rosecrans questioned the current level of service at the intersection. Mr. Kerr replied the current level of service at Boynton Beach Boulevard and Federal Highway is "D" and in the future it will also be "D". As far as parking, the parking garage is divided into a gated area for residents and the area is open to the public for retail use. The number of spaces available for public use is 171 spaces,which exceeds the retail parking requirement,which is 128 spaces; it is in excess of 43 spaces. Chair Rosecrans asked if Mr. Kerr knew anything about drainage, onsite storage, and retention. Josh Horning, with Kimley-Horn& Associates, advised the developer is required by South Florida Water Management to meet the pre versus post discharge analysis. They not only analyzed the existing condition, but compared it to a post condition to make sure they are not discharging and there is runoff from the parking lot. They are building significant storage to mitigate for the building. They likely will not need to provide underground storage at this point. Chair Rosecrans questioned the storm frequency they are required to have. Mr. Horning stated it is 25 years. There is some existing runoff and they are mitigating with the exfiltration trench. They are discharging runoff to the City's Downtown Master System, which is on NE 6t'Court. To address some of the flooding concerns, they are also improving NE 6t' Court with additional mitigation. Chair Rosecrans asked if this is connected to the City's drainage system. Mr. Horning stated it is likely at the low end where it starts to come up towards the bridge and there is probably some flooding due to King tides. Chair Rosecrans asked if any rain in October or November might get complicated. Mr. Horning replied it would. Ms. Radigan commented that there are some specific conditions of approval and two that came up were the air conditioning and vines. Chair Rosecrans commented that green walls can be a challenge to maintain. Mr. McQuire thanked staff and the applicant for the presentation. He liked the use of commercial space and believed that the actual number was somewhere in the 23,000 to 25,000 range. Ms. Binkley clarified commercial is 25,500 square feet. Mr. McQuire stated that exceeds the Town Center parcel of over 900 units commercial spaces. For that, he thinks it is good for the community. He was happy to see parking and thinks the community wants something to do Downtown. He liked how they handled parking on NE 6t' Court and where it came off some of the main arteries. As far as breakouts between studios, one bedrooms, and two bedrooms, he would like to know what that really is. He imagined the cost per square foot comes down significantly for Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 10 March 28, 2023 younger Workforce people. He is not against smaller residences; it may be a reality of cost. He was not sure of the wall, but he has seen fake balconies and windows in West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale and he would like them to deliver that to the Arts Board. He thinks there is a possibility for a mural or some kind of artwork that could captivate the community and add to a Downtown experience. He liked the green wall, but they are hard to maintain. He also liked the setbacks off the main arteries where they are not building out to visible space. Overall, it is better than the first few proposals. Mr. Simon mentioned parking is far from the commercial areas. The plan is nice other than the distance to and from the parking garage. Mr. Ramiccio asked if Mr. Camalier is still the property owner or if the property has changed hands since the last time the Plan was approved. Ms. Radigan understood that the current people they are working with are contract purchasers. Mr. Ramiccio mentioned that in October and November 2022, this Board had a lot of debate and conversation about TOD and they talked about the densities and thresholds that the City would have to have in order to compete for a station. He noted a staff report was written to the Commission after the Board's conversation and then they saw some recommendations to the effect that they neglect to see the City Commission along with this Board a transition from TOD to a traditional Downtown District. He commented at the next meeting that Ms. Radigan had listened to the Board and their concerns since from a practical standpoint, they are not going to have a train station. Steven Abrahams is the Regional Transportation Authority Ms., the County has the old MPO, which is now the TPO, and he asked how the information being given to Ms. Radigan that a TOD is even being considered because once Brightline was approved on FEC tracks, the TOD conversation in 2014, went away for Boynton Beach. Ms. Radigan suggested this be a separate discussion item among the Board, as it is irrelevant to this application, this application is not suggesting any type of rezoning, they already having their zoning and are only doing a Master Plan and Site Plan. Currently, the zoning the property has is the Mixed-Use Core with the Mixed-Use High. The conversation Mr. Ramiccio referenced about the TOD transitioning into a Downtown was the establishment of a new zoning district that has not yet been put on the ground. Anything that has current zoning is vested with their rights and this is one of the properties that did have their zoning in place. Mr. Ramiccio asked if there is any correction to his factual information about a TOD not even in the twenty-year or five-year plan for the County or any Planning Agency. Ms. Radigan stated they need to talk about the facts around that. Mr. Ramiccio mentioned the reason it is important is because traffic concurrency, traffic circulation, and parking are all reduced and adjusted based on the TOD. Ms. Radigan stated that they are not. Their TOD is generally an overlay and the only real bonuses within the TOD have to do with either density and FAR and now some of those are tied to Workforce Housing. She believes the traffic concurrency references to the traffic concurrency redemption area,which is within the County's Comp Plan and the City's Comp Plan; it is not a factor in the TOD. It does an overlay in the Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 11 March 28, 2023 TOD, but does extends past the TOD boundaries and was in place way before a TOD was an acronym. This happened several years ago, and it was a response to anti-sprawl. They were pushing at that time, development on the east side versus the west side. Again, these boundaries are still in place and she thinks they are diverting far from this specific application. If the Board wishes, they can add an item to further this discussion. Mr. Ramiccio commented that he brought it up because it was mentioned that it is a long-term vision of the City, and he thought they were going away from that. Ms. Radigan stated they can, but they must be sensitive to the rights and this is the situation in the application in front of the Board. Mr. Ramiccio mentioned the configuration of the project and stated they were looking for more engagement. He asked if there is commercial on Ocean Avenue at each end of the public plaza and if they are engaged on Ocean Avenue as well as on Federal Highway or just on the Ocean Avenue side. Geert Blervacq, architect, stated it is correct that commercial uses belong to Ocean Avenue,North Federal Highway, and on the corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard. Mr. Ramiccio asked if he was missing commercial on the frontages of the buildings. To him, they look residential. Mr. Blervacq stated the rendering is completely commercial. Mr. Ramiccio questioned if they are using any on-street parking as part of the calculation for this project. Mr. Blervacq stated they used the on-street parking that they are creating off Federal Highway and NE 6t' Court. Mr. Ramiccio mentioned the green wall treatment and asked if he was okay with doing windows instead of the green wall and other architectural treatments. He thinks most of the Board have seen treatments with a green wall and although they like the concept and it looks good in practicality for an eight-story building, he thinks it is not practical. They are looking for it not to look like a blank wall. Ms. Belinky stated they initially had a treatment similar to what is on NE 6t' Court and staff was looking for them to elevate that a little, which is why they came back with the green wall. They understand that staff has a condition of approval to look at enhancing that. They can continue those discussions as they finalize that design element with City staff. Mr. Simon commented that he appreciated the movement of the building, it is much more appropriate and a better use of space, and it can prove to other developers that something can be designed to allow for the density desired without having to push 80-foot or taller walls to the sidewalk and to adjacent properties. It reduces the sense of large City feel. He is in favor of allowing for the building not to be built up to the building. They have allowed for large public open spaces that can be used by commercial sites. Hopefully there is open wi-fi on the property. The presentation indicates they have allowed for a public Art location at the northeast corner of the intersection. He questioned if that is the appropriate location for this Art Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 12 March 28, 2023 piece and if it is at risk of being hit by an accident in the intersection. Hopefully it is required by the City to be kept out of the safety side triangles. Another potential use would be a mural, or something considered art on the wall alongside the parking garage. The report indicates that the public Art fee is going to cost $1 million and the budget set for the component is $700,000. He questioned what will happen to the other $300,000. Ms. Radigan advised the way the Public Art Program works; it is based on 1% of the construction costs of valuation. Of that 100% total, 30% is a fee that the City collects to run the program and the other remaining 70% is for the budget for the actual art. Mr. Simon indicated he is not a huge fan of the number of units on the Site Plan and the layout. He mentioned the first floor of the Site Plan and noted it seemed like there was a pretty good movement in flow from the west to the east sides of the property, and when they got to the second floor Plan, everything was covered. It seems that there is some property open from the east to west along that traffic route and egress to the east and west, but it is just a tunnel. The sense of passing through a tunnel changes the flow and feel of the property and he did not know if there was a way around that. He recommended, if approved, applying a condition that parking spaces along Federal Highway be eliminated as it is completely unsafe; they would have to be included in the parking garage somehow. The parking garage is quite a hike to commercial properties on the west side on the northern portion of the site and the only route is around the block from the sidewalk. He noted they cannot go through private residences, so it is either walking along the Federal Highway side or the east side and around the property. If there is a way to provide shifts in parking on the west side into some spaces on the north side potentially into the property itself, maybe that would help provide ease of access to those commercial spaces. He mentioned decking on the pool deck and thought they might have to change some of that to non-skid surfaces within four to five feet of the pool and commercial spaces. The pool location is tricky and there may be some people who want to congregate at the pool, which is difficult in a high rise. He questioned if there are pockets along the wall and noted it would take at least a decade to fill the wall with vegetation. Maintenance crew practices want to get in and out, they do not want to maintain plants and do not know how to maintain and treat it. He asked if there is access to a high lift to drive on the Pickleball court. He does not think it will be successful unless they use low light plants on a green wall system with integrated irrigation that is properly maintained. He did not see any requests for Workforce or Affordable housing units. He mentioned public comments about the equipment on the rooftop and noted it will get screened. He commented on the discussion on the hotel and thinks this originally came to the Board. He asked if this was a recommendation by the City or a suggestion by a developer. Ms. Radigan advised although there was a hotel called out, it is important to remember that it was part of the Master Plan and not the approved Site Plan. In the first proposal, the group currently engaged was developing on half of the lot and was going to add a hotel at a later time. It did not come as a recommendation of staff, but at some point, it was heard that it is not currently feasible in that location. While this project is proposing more density, they are using the whole site and providing open space versus the other site was maximizing by moving all the density to one half and allowing space for a hotel in the second half. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 13 March 28, 2023 Mr. Simon questioned what makes the hotel not feasible on the site. Ms. Radigan commented that they heard from the applicant that it is infeasible to do that. She indicated that the current property has been trying for some time to secure a hotel on the site and they reached out to multiple different franchisees and there is very little interest. She did not know the specifics as to why they are not interested. Mr. Simon did not know if he agreed with that and would see that a hotel might not be an attraction to the Downtown partially because there is not a sense of a Downtown in this area. Mr. McQuire mentioned the Town Square project and stated they did a lot swap with the City, which was on the northwest facing parcel originally designated for the hotel. The new developer from New York made the swap and pushed it basically where the parking lot is. Ms. Radigan stated that the way the current Master Plan is, it has a 140-unit hotel for use of equivalent density. There could be a hotel, but the City is not interested in pursuing that, but it does have enough flexibility if there is an interest in doing something of similar density. Mr. McQuire commented that he has heard from the community that parking was the problem with the hotel. He heard that some developers were asked to spend a lot of money and the parking garage did not make it equitable. The ideal scenario is not for a train station, but maybe there is a deal that the City can provide a parking garage or something. Perhaps the CRA could purchase some land to develop a parking garage for Downtown. Mr. Simon mentioned comments about traffic flow and addressing all the projects coming in that provide a lot of rental units. These are items that they bring up as a Board and the only way to get movement is to look at all the projects as a whole and what the entire plan is for this street, and they need to contact their Commissioners, speak up at Commission meetings, and request that they reduce the density and reconsider zoning and that they revisit the vision of the Downtown area. Mr. Harper stated that traffic was the first thing that came to his mind, currently, Ocean Avenue is one way in and one way out. He mentioned Downtown and the question is how much is too much and too fast. He shared concerns regarding mechanical elements on the roof and the green wall. He agreed and does not feel it is feasible to maintain an 8,000-square-foot or more wall. He did not have a problem with studio units and thinks single people need places to live. He agreed that Federal Highway on-street parking is a death wish. He liked walkability and the setbacks on the parcel, it is not like a large box like others adjacent to the site, and it helps with some of the design features as well. He mentioned the TOD and thinks they are anti-train stations and TOD; it is not feasible in South Florida. Vice Chair Buoni appreciates the work that has been done and the way they reduced the height and setback. He totally agreed that it would be absurd to have parking on Federal Highway, especially coming off Boynton Beach Boulevard or Ocean Drive. He cannot imagine an 8 to 10-foot-high green wall and thinks that is unworkable. He appreciates the commercial space and the 550-square-foot studios do not bother him. The one thing that bothers him is that he keeps hearing they want Boynton Beach to be a destination and he asked how they can be a destination if there is no place to stay for people coming through and he Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 14 March 28, 2023 thinks that very strongly needs to be considered. He mentioned the distance between commercial and parking and some places have little cut-throughs in the building themselves for commercial and residential and there is an ability to get through there, which also needs to be considered. Chair Rosecrans questioned who maintains the green wall and if it is the responsibility of the management company. Ms. Radigan advised it would be the responsibility of the operator, if it is an apartment, it would be the management company. Ms. Belinky stated when thinking of a green wall, it is much more than what is being proposed. They are proposing vines growing on a concrete slab,which is not a green wall. As per feedback, some of the things they have suggested in the Condition of Approval, they can refine this based on the Board's recommendation is to add architectural elements in combination with the vine treatment. She noted that River Walk was approved with planters on each floor to build vertical landscape. Chair Rosecrans asked how they access the planters. Ms. Radigan replied from the inside of the garage, and they were all irrigated. They had to put a net behind the plants, so it is another option not as cumbersome as an active live green wall. Vice Chair Buoni commented that they have yet to see how that works out. Mr. Simon stated all options that function are very expensive. If it is these pockets at each floor, that is a lot of cost. They could be adding anywhere between $25,000,000 to $1,500,000 to the landscape budget. Ms. Radigan suggested they continue working with staff to figure out a feasible option. Mr. McQuire advised he is for the green wall. If some landscape genius has a way to make it work, he would support it. Chair Rosecrans thinks everyone would support it,but it is the maintenance, getting it to grow, and to stay green. Ms. Radigan indicated that other items discussed were preserved plants. Chair Rosecrans commented that when they get a windstorm the plants are gone. Mr. Simon stated typically the landscape projects have to be maintained for a period of three years. He questioned the timeline. Ms. Radigan replied they have to meet the landscape Code and they can cite against their approved plants at any time. Mr. Simon stated they can easily say no. He questioned the City's position. Ms. Radigan believed the City could say no against the approved plant and they would have to go through the citation process and if not corrected,they would go into liens and the whole process. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 15 March 28, 2023 Chair Rosecrans indicated that the renderings are beautiful, they are top notch. Traffic is miserable. He questioned if traffic ever got denied. Ms. Radigan stated within the exemption area residential traffic is exempt; however, within the TCEA they do an annual report to the County that accounts for trips and there is a threshold, they are not at that threshold yet. Chair Rosecrans asked how far away they are from the threshold. Ms. Radigan replied far away. Every year they do a report on what is approved, and she would be happy to share that addendum in tandem with the TOD discussion. Chair Rosecrans believed they are due for something like that. Ms. Radigan stated there are many trips invested within this area and this area is much bigger than just the four blocks where density is located. Mr. Ramiccio commented that if the wall is not completed if they would get a CO if it was left blank. Ms. Radigan stated that is correct, they could not finish the project with the wall. If they refused to build the wall they would have to come up with some type of modification. Chair Rosecrans mentioned the build-to-line and stated that he did not understand why they went for that. This opens everything up and makes it so much more appealing. He noted that there is on-street parking on Federal Highway, but it is not near the Ocean Avenue and Boynton Beach Boulevard thoroughfare. Ms. Radigan advised there is on-street parking on Federal Highway. On-street parking is required, and they would eliminate it once it goes into design with FDOT if it becomes unsafe, then it will be removed, and if it is required, it will be able to be placed on site. Chair Rosecrans stated because there is pipeline, they probably will say it is not unsafe. Ms. Radigan indicated that would be up to the Traffic Engineers at FDOT. She mentioned unit sizes and stated the Code does not regulate them. This is market driven. There are a couple units that are 550 square feet and out of 371 units, they are talking about only 14 units. Those units go from 550 square feet up to about 650 square feet, but most of the units are between the one bedroom and two bedrooms and those are averaging about 800 square feet. Motion by Vice Chair Buoni, seconded by Mr. Simon, to approve 7A. In a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. (7-0) Mr. Simon commented that if they sought approval, they would apply a condition that on-street parking on Federal Highway be eliminated and incorporated into the site. He questioned if the City is requiring on-street parking on Federal Highway. Ms. Radigan replied they were, on-street parking is required on roadways. They are approved in the Site Plan, but once they go into design with the County and State, they may be eliminated, but they need to hear from those engineers in order to remove that requirement. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 16 March 28, 2023 Mr. Ramiccio asked if they could recommend it to the City. Ms. Radigan stated that unfortunately, if it is going against Code, she did not believe so. They can ask the City Attorney. Mr. Ramiccio commented that they know parking is not feasible. Chair Rosecrans asked how many spots there are on Federal Highway. Ms. Radigan replied 14 spaces, so they could probably eliminate the parking and make changes to their garage. Chair Rosecrans questioned if they have wiggle room in the parking garage. Ms. Radigan replied they do. Assistant City Attorney Swartz advised they would have to come back. Ms. Radigan stated if it is truly unsafe, the Engineers will let them know and they will not be constructed. Mr. Simon questioned why the City Code requires a condition that is unsafe. Ms. Radigan stated they want on-street parking on rights-of-way especially in the Downtown area because there are fewer parking spaces and commercial spaces are largely unviable without immediate parking. If it is unsafe, they will not construct it,the idea is to never create unsafe conditions. Mr. Simon mentioned Dixie Highway and on-street parking, but not adjacent to an intersection. Ms. Radigan indicated Engineering does have setbacks from the intersections and she believed it was 50 to 75 feet. Mr. Ramiccio questioned if they could recommend the setback issue. Ms. Radigan advised they have a build-to-line as a blanket requirement, but the Code is designed for flexibility and that is why they have these community design appeals. The idea is if they are not doing that, they want to make sure they are providing something unique, special, and different, and they feel it is up to the Commission to make some of those determinations. Chair Rosecrans questioned what would happen if they did not have a developer who has the diligence to break this up. Ms. Radigan stated staff will recommend those types of design appeals. Mr. Ramiccio asked if there is way when recommending to the City Commission what the Board has done. Chair Rosecrans suggested saving that for other comments. Motion by Mr. McQuire, seconded by Mr. Simon, to approve Item 7B as written. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with Vice Chair Buoni in opposition. (6-1) Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 17 March 28, 2023 7.C. Approve modifications to existing uses (CDRV 23-004) amending the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapter 1, Article II, Definitions, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.D. Use Matrix and Notes, and Chapter 4, Article V. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements to modify definitions, use regulations, and parking requirements for car wash uses and to establish indoor athletic instruction/training uses as an accessory use within the REC zoning district. Motion by Vice Chair Buoni, to approve Item 7C. This motion was withdrawn. Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner, presented Code Amendments for the car wash and the indoor athletic instruction/training facilities uses. The Code Amendment includes changes to car wash uses including modifications to definitions, use standards, and parking requirements for detail areas. It also includes the expansion of indoor athletic instruction/training facilities to the RAC zoning district as an accessory use. Uses were clarified to reduce ambiguous language to auto/car wash, waxing, detailing, and the other car wash self-serve bay. The auto car wash was updated to include use of types of including full service. This was done to reflect changes in terms of the car wash industry and to help clarify the unclear language clearly present in the Code, which distinguishes the two subtypes. • Use standards for polishing, waxing, and detailing and self-serve bay car washes were updated to require all business activities to occur under a full or semi-enclosed building or underneath an insulated roof structure. • Space for a customer to polish or vacuum their own vehicle for the full-service subtype of car wash will not be required to be under a roof. • Currently existing use standards were clarified to make less ambiguous. The City experienced a lot of confusion from the public regarding these use standards. • The number of required parking spaces for washing and waxing areas was reduced from one space per 75 square feet of detailing area to one space per 200 square feet of detailing area, which would require about six additional parking spaces for the five detailing areas. This roughly translates to about 1.2 employees per detailing space. • As part of the Code Amendment, the car wash uses are not being expanded to any new zoning districts nor are they being removed from any existing zoning districts where they are currently allowed. • All car wash uses will remain as conditional uses and continue to be subject to the conditional use process, which requires Hearings at Planning Development and City Commission. • The other half of this Amendment is the indoor athletic instruction/training facilities. This is being added as an accessory use to the recreation zoning district. The use will be subject to Footnote 21, which only allows this use to be established on City owned and operated park facilities. Properties that are zoned REC that are not City owned and operated park facilities will not be eligible to establish this use. Mr. Ramiccio mentioned restrictions on private use or part of the City and asked what the thinking was on that and why they would not allow the private sector to create an indoor training facility within the proper zoning district with the proper amendments. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 18 March 28, 2023 Ms. Radigan advised that the expansion in this case is specific to recreational property, which is City owned property. The idea is that if they are opening private businesses, it needs to be in conjunction with the City. The City can do a lien or have a private operator at the function, but it is expanding the use into City owned properties. Mr. Ramiccio questioned if there is a proposal from a private entity that wants to operate on City property. Ms. Radigan replied there is. Chair Rosecrans asked about Little League and if they are going to build an indoor practice facility on the vacant land, because they get rained out a lot. Ms. Radigan stated this is groundwork for public private partnerships. Chair Rosecrans thinks it is a good thing. It will bring a little more private investment into Parks and Recreation. He noted all the parents volunteer to cut the grass and run the concession. Mr. Ramiccio expressed concern about the Little League and the use of the fields and how they operate. The Little League must have multiple fields that work as part of the programming in order to operate. Assistant City Attorney Swartz stated they are working with the Little League, so it does not hamper any of the existing use. Mr. Ramiccio indicated he has spoken with the Little League organizers, and they do not feel like they have been part of that process. They are concerned and reached out and expressed their concern to him. Before his vote to allow a private entity to come into a very limited space they have for Little League, he wants to hear from them that they are happy with it. Ms. Radigan clarified this is not about the Little League Park, this is a Land Use Amendment allowing this use. It is not specific to this Little League. She noted this is not the item in front of them today, the item is the LDR Amendment allowing this use on this zoning district, it is not specifically about Little League. Chair Rosecrans stated they can talk about the slippery slopes and where this might lead. It is a public park allowing private commercial. Mr. Simon stated they have City land that they are allowing private developers to use. He asked if Ms. Radigan could provide some other examples of parks within the City with situations of a private entity and what facilities they are trying to bring. Ms. Radigan advised she would not compare uses because this is not about a lease agreement,this is about the use being allowed in Recreational areas and the types of uses they would allow. They allow things like concession and outdoor training. Mr. Simon questioned other situations other than the Little League. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 19 March 28, 2023 Ms. Radigan indicated that any indoor training facility would have to enter into some agreement with the City. Mr. Simon clarified that he was talking about if they are changing the verbiage of the Code to allow for a certain type of entity. Ms. Radigan pulled up Mixed-Use definitions and this use is already existing in the Code. She read the definition of the use and stated it is any athletic training facility. Any of those training facilities can be an accessory to a recreational zoned property, which means it would have to be a principal use. Mr. Simon stated that this is indoor and questioned whether that means that the other entity is constructing anything in the park. Ms. Radigan replied yes. The assumption is they could have a facility, or this would allow them to construct an indoor structure to house this use. Mr. Simon questioned why this is coming about and if there is a large interest from public businesses. Ms. Radigan believes the Parks and Recreation Department is being propositioned for some of these types of uses and Little League was a good example. Parks and Recreation decided it would be a benefit to the park and would help program the park and that this is a use, if controlled by the City on City property, and an accessory to the park. This is not a principal use; it would be an enhancement to the Recreation provided. Mr. Ramiccio asked if it would be allowed by right or by special Land Use. Ms. Radigan advised it would be by accessory and because there is a requirement for it to be on City property, it would need to go through City approval for some sort of Land Use. Chair Rosecrans questioned who is driving the lease agreement. Ms. Radigan indicated they would go to the Commission or to the Parks and Recreation Department. In terms of Little League specifically, she believed the lease was already approved. What has not been approved are the Site Plans approving the lease. Chair Rosecrans asked if it would come before this Board or before Parks and Recreation. He asked what if this is done and they cut out the Little League and it is only there for private training. Ms. Radigan stated it depends on what they are going in for square footage. Mr. Ramiccio stated that is happening now. From what he is hearing is that kids who are there doing pick up ball and wanting to practice and they are told they cannot be there. Chair Rosecrans commented they might have to get permission from the City to play. Ms. Radigan suggested they contact Kacy Young, of the Parks and Recreation. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 20 March 28, 2023 Assistant City Attorney Swartz advised it is his understanding with Kacy Young, that the Little Leagues have been contacted and they put the specific language they wanted in the agreements. Chair Rosecrans thought the Little League reached out to them. Mr. McQuire thinks there could be more to this. It sounds good, but he asked about the terms of the lease and if they are holding the hostage for times and hours. He would recommend they have someone from Parks and Recreation discuss this with the Board before making a motion. Ms. Radigan advised that the lease agreements do not come in front of this Board, and it is not part of this item and it is completely divorced from the Land Development Regulations. Mr. McQuire stated his point is that the public is soliciting the Parks and Recreation Department and asked if this is oriented around a couple of entities. Mr. Ramicco stated this was done holistically as part of an accessory use to their recreation,then he thinks it is a good conversation to have. This is constructive like every other item that comes for a recommendation that is being proposed to the City. Chair Rosecrans opened the discussion for Public Comments. Barbara Ready,resident, stated she is a lifetime member at the Little League field, and she is familiar with the proposed Site Plan that changed the Little League field, and it is severe. They currently have four fields, but their plan is to destroy one of the fields and create two smaller ones, which is not adequate. She asked why the Board would consider these two completely different things, maybe this should be considered separately. Ms. Radigan commented that she would like clarification on the two things. Ms. Ready believes there should be further discussion on what is going to be done and what this property is going to be used for. Ms. Radigan clarified that the Site Plan is not approved, and the Site Plan will still need to be approved through the normal process including the Parks and Recreation Board, depending on how much they are building the size, which could trigger a major development review, which means it would come before this Board. There is still a process for that approval to happen. As far as she knows, what has been approved is a lease agreement and a further amendment to the lease agreement, a Site Plan has not been approved with any amendment to the park. Mr. Simon mentioned the verbiage in the Code and asked if this lease agreement can happen. Ms. Radigan replied possibly, she would have to look into it. She was not present for the conversation, but the City, as a whole, has a lot of exemptions in the Code. It was brought to them by the Parks and Recreation Department, and this is a viable plan for them to expand recreational uses. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 21 March 28, 2023 Mr. Simon stated if the City said they were trying to come up with some different types of programs to activate the parks and then they said lets change the verbiage that says they can do this and they already have people in place to see relationships with some of the businesses or have a list together of what types of businesses they want to include and they are going to seek that. Ms. Radigan indicated she is not the author of the lease agreement. Mr. Simon stated it is status quo for every application that comes before the Board, but if they have to change this and that, it would be nice to have the Codes in place and have the developer follow the Code. Ms. Radigan advised the City does not allow lease variances, but she wanted to get back to the actual Amendment. Some of the things that are already allowed in REC as an accessory are things like artist studios, indoor entertainment, outdoor entertainment, etc. Ms. Ready asked if the car wash amendment applies to the current car wash on Boynton Beach Boulevard. Mr. Simon stated staff said it does not affect anything already existing. Ms. Ready commented that there is a lot to be discussed as far as the Little League Park. The gentleman came forward with a proposal for 7,500 square feet and suddenly it is 28,000 square feet. Chair Rosecrans thinks that is going to be for the Parks and Recreation Board and not for this Board. If the Site Plan comes to this Board, they will have a say. Mr. McQuire questioned what car washes they are talking about. Ms. Radigan stated they have had lots of inquiries regarding car washes and the Code currently does not give clear direction because it is outdated. It was written where there were self-service stations and full- service stations, and not this new quasi they are seeing now that has the tunnel; the Code does not accommodate that, so this allows for that to be accommodated and not penalized through parking. Mr. McQuire suggested that they vote on two separate things. Mr. Simon asked if the City has a maximum allowed size for car washes. Ms. Radigan advised there are not any maximum size requirements. Mr. Simon mentioned a facility under construction in Clewiston and the car wash itself is potentially six acres on Southern Boulevard. Ms. Radigan commented that one difference is that their car wash use excludes commercial vehicles. She stated they have never had a size maximum, and this does not change that. Motion by Mr. McQuire, to separate Item 7C, with the car wash changes to be separate from the Land Use Regulations. There was no second to the motion. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 22 March 28, 2023 Chair Rosecrans asked Assistant City Attorney Swartz if a vote was necessary to separate them. Assistant City Attorney Swartz replied yes. Ms. Radigan commented that there are some clean ups and if they would not mind having the car wash tied with the clean ups they could separate the indoor athletic instruction. Motion by Mr. McQuire, seconded by Mr. Ramicco, to separate Item 7C to car wash clean ups as one separate Amendment and the indoor athletic instruction as the second Amendment. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (7-0) Motion by Mr. McQuire, seconded by Mr. Simon, to vote for the car wash use with the clean-up. In a voice vote, the motion passed with Mr. Simon in opposition. (6-1) Motion by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. McQuire, to approve Item 7C with the athletic instruction uses as an accessory use within the REC zoning district. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (7- 0) Mr. McQuire stated that within the City he has seen public private partnerships fail. If what he is hearing from members of the community that Little Leagues are going to have a restrained restricted usage to public baseball diamonds, that is concerning. He agrees that is a concern, but his initial instinct is that he would like to hear from Parks and Recreation as to why this should be done, so he would vote no. Chair Rosecrans thinks this purview is way up high and he shared concerns because he does not want kids to get pushed out for the sake of making money. Mr. Simon commented that maybe it is the way it is worded or presented. He believes it makes a lot of sense in a lot of situations where there are to be other uses. He would vote yes to allow those types of things, but he would not want to vote yes to have something that is already in motion that may or may not have a negative impact. Chair Rosecrans mentioned there is some hesitation because they do not entirely have the background. Vice Chair Buoni asked if he understands if they say yes to this, that it puts the ball in staff's court and they are the ones who are going to oversee this. Ms. Radigan indicated that what would happen in practice to narrow the scope of what is being requested is the expansion of this use to be permitted on recreational as accessory as other uses are. That is the total scope of what is in front of the Board. Scopes that have to do on the implementation of this will take a variety of different routes, so if it happens to be a lease agreement, it would have to be approved through the Parks and Recreation Department, the City Attorney's office, and the City Manager's Office, and through the public. The City cannot enter into a lease agreement without that process being publicly done as the first step. If this opens, it will give the ability for Parks and Recreation to solicit these types of accessories they would like to see on these lots and work through some of the deals through some process. This is leasing since it is on City property, and it will be an accessory to City uses. The other portion is Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 23 March 28, 2023 the building,the building and development of these Site Plans would still maintain currently in Code going through what they would be required to do. It could be administratively approved if it is under a certain square footage, and it could be a major approval coming through this Board and the City Commission. None of those rules are being recommended to change currently and there is no impact as to how Site Plans are processed, which is the other piece that this Board has purview over. Mr. Simon questioned if there have been any instances where a private venture has been brought in front of the public that the public did not want and the City moved forward anyway. Ms. Radigan replied that she did not know the answer to that question. Mr. Simon mentioned kayak use and if they wanted to get a little space because sometimes it rains and he wants to use some of the facilities inside, the way the Code is written, he cannot do that. Ms. Radigan replied that she did not think that would qualify as indoor training. They could probably add an accessory to a gazebo or some sort of space for cover, but this use is geared toward indoor training. Mr. McQuire thought it would have been useful this this was allocated for the baseball diamonds, then it would be clear in everyone's mind and easier. His hesitation is the building, he would be comfortable if this was specifically earmarked for what is there. Chair Rosecrans indicated the Board is here to open the door, they are not there to negotiate any of that. Ms. Radigan stated the batting cages are classified as indoor training facility. Mr. Ramiccio mentioned they would not allow a private entity to access indoor training facility, it would only be specifically for City-owned recreational facilities. Ms. Radigan stated that indoor training is not permitted in recreational zones, which is what this would correct. It is only envisioned as commercial use,not as part of the recreational uses that they already allow as accessory to recreation. Mr. Ramiccio commented that recreation is changing. The City Commission already approved the lease, and they are so far down the road and now it is coming before the Board. Mr. Harper thinks the basis of this Board is to question and see where things are going. He feels it is probably in the City's best interest that when changes of any nature are done in accordance with another department, that those people are here to answer questions. Ms. Radigan agreed. She stated that this is her purview, and the Code changes is what is in front of them. Mr. Harper stated his point was that their basis is to question why these things are being changed. Chair Rosecrans advised they like to make informed decisions. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 24 March 28, 2023 Mr. Harper commented that he is all for public private partnerships, but the Board needs information and it is difficult to make sound decisions without that information. Ms. Radigan questioned what kind of information is needed, so she can bring those to Parks and Recreation, or so she can get the answers. Mr. Ramiccio thinks there are issues between the two uses, but the Little League is his concern regarding how the operation will go forward. Ms. Radigan reiterated that is not relevant to this podium. She needs to know, based on the Code Amendment in front of them,what information is needed from the Parks and Recreation that has not been provided. Chair Rosecrans questioned if the facility will be open to the public or if it is something that is going to be commercial that everyone has to pay to be a part of. Ms. Radigan replied that would be under lease terms, not under Land Use. The Land Use would allow it to happen on City-owned property. Chair Rosecrans commented that they are destroying a field to create their own private entity or their own private commercial business. Ms. Radigan indicated it is not to be in conjunction with a public partnership. The City does not lose anything through this Amendment, it gains the ability to make partnerships. The City always has the first set of rights since it is their property. They are not given anything to anyone through this action alone, they are just allowing this conversation to happen and then negotiations happen outside of the Land Use. Mr. Simon mentioned private contracts and agreements the City has entered into that have not been successful and caused years of expense to the City. The City is not always operating in the best interest in the City. Ms. Radigan stated that she wants to stay focused on this material and that does not happen in the Land Use Code. Private deals that happen on the City side are not something they can regulate within the LDR. Mr. Simon commented that the Code does not allow for an indoor training facility. Ms. Radigan replied it allows for comparable uses to happen on City-owned property, which is a standard comment in the zoning Code currently attached to List of Uses. Chair Rosecrans thought they were taking the worst-case scenario and stated maybe it will turn out that this is something good for the kids. They have to open the door and then it is up to the City. Mr. McQuire reiterated that this should have been earmarked. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 25 March 28, 2023 Chair Rosecrans commented that it is not like the project is not being vetted, they are going to be vetted by Parks and Recreation. Mr. Cwyner asked if this portion be tabled and if they can request Kacy Young, Director of Parks and Recreation to attend the next meeting as well as the lessor. Assistant City Attorney Swartz advised for this type of Amendment they could not have the lessor. If a Site Plan came at a later date,then the lessor could attend. Ms. Radigan stated if there is information required from Parks and Recreation, she needs to what know what it is. The Board is fully within their rights to approve, deny, or table this item. Mr. Simon questioned if this item is tabled if the City Commission will vote on it at the next meeting. Ms. Radigan replied that she would have to go back to check the Code. Assistant City Attorney Swartz advised after a certain amount of time, the item would go, they cannot keep tabling the item. Vice Chair Buoni stated there is a motion on the floor and a second, and now a second motion is required to table and then they have to vote on that first. Mr. McQuire made an amendment to the motion to table this with the request that they would like Parks and Recreation present to answer questions. Mr. Ramicco commented that they are muddying the waters and thinks it has to be cleaned up. When a motion is tabled, usually a motion has to be removed to bring an item up again. A proper motion for something to come back to the next meeting will be a motion to postpone for more information to come back to them. Then it would allow flexibility for the Commission to move forward. Mr. Simon, as the motion maker, asked if he can amend the motion to require that it be tabled to the April meeting. Mr. Ramiccio stated Mr. Simon could withdraw the motion. Mr. Simon requested the motion be withdrawn. Mr. McQuire thought if they postponed it would give them better authority to have someone else speak on this matter and educate the Board. He believed they should table this item to the next meeting. Ms. Radigan stated that could be done. Motion by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. McQuire, to table Item C until the next meeting. In a roll call vote,the motion Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 26 March 28, 2023 8. Other Vice Chair Buoni is not sure whether the entire Board is aware of the Affordable Housing Package that is going before the Florida House, which preempts local government rules on zoning, density, and building heights in certain circumstances. He is sure this has been discussed by staff. He does not see this coming before the Board as any action item that they have anything to do with. If he has a question from his Vice Chair seat or any of the Board members wants to question a member of staff, relative to Sunshine rules, that they can do so. Assistant City Attorney Swartz stated that is correct. Ms. Radigan indicated this is on her desk for more thorough review. They have been monitoring this. Vice Chair Buoni is correct, if they are preempted and this is signed, it will not come before the Board and it will be State Statute and it will be law. There are certain areas and there are some preemptions already built into State law that they have not had presented to them. Currently, this is a further preemption on Affordable Housing that would remove a lot of the zoning limitations on uses that are specific to Affordable Housing. Mr. Ramiccio commented that this is a clear violation of Home Rule, and he asked if they have their lobbyist working on their behalf. He noted they also want to make local elections partisan. Vice Chair Buoni mentioned that they are trying to get ahead of things and if this passes, they are behind. It is a matter of participating in State politics, which would be the only way to message. Mr. Simon questioned if this passes, if the States determines where projects occur or is this something the developer does. He asked if that applies in a situation where the State can say they want certain locations to be an Affordable Housing project. Ms. Radigan replied she did not believe that is what it does. She thinks the way it is drafted is if this does pass, they can submit a memo to the Board as a brief and they would ask their City Attorney's office to prepare memos on new legislations, and they can provide that to the Board. Her understanding of the way this is currently drafted is that it would allow commercial and residential Land Uses to have Affordable Housing built on it at the will of any developer or owner of property and not be held to the density restrictions and height restrictions within the Land Development Regulations. This essentially creates an exemption for this use to all City regulations. Mr. Ramiccio commented that many other entities are challenging this, it violates 67 counties. Mr. Simon mentioned that this touches on discussion about why all these projects coming before the Board are apartments. It is creating a transient community. The thought would be that the City would try to encourage "For sale units" rather than rental units. He asked if the City can implement an incentive that would outweigh the incentive to build apartments and build "For sale units"within the zoning district. Ms. Radigan did not have a straightforward answer. She stated that condo or apartments is a financial and ownership structure. Land Development Regulations do not regulate ownership or financial construction. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 27 March 28, 2023 Mr. Simon stated it is a State program that will centralize developing apartments. Ms. Radigan indicated they cannot regulate, meaning they cannot say they can or cannot do certain things. They can incentivize certain types of uses in general and they can do ownership versus rental; however, there are lots of market trends and financial thinking trends and she is not sure they will be able to come up with incentives that outweigh those financial structures, and she thinks the biggest incentive in this case they are discussing is monetary. It would have to be something the City would be able to fund as an incentive. The only other thing she could think of would be density because that translates to dollars for a developer. There may be something in there, but they do not regulate the difference between "For sale units" and apartment units. Mr. Simon commented that something the City can do is an incentive to developers that does not cost any money would be to waive some of the building requirements. Ms. Radigan indicated Land Development Regulations do not differentiate between these types of events, they are all the same. Planning is a difficult place to have this conversation. She thinks an easier place to have this conversation is through Economic Development or the CRA. From a planning standpoint, there is no use difference between the two, a dwelling unit is a dwelling unit as defined in the Code. Vice Chair Buoni requested Ms. Radigan keep the Board informed. Ms. Radigan stated there are three bills they are watching, Affordable Housing is one,Mobility and Impact Fees is another, and then the third is the Comp Plan. Once they get memos from the Attorney's Office, she will distribute them. Mr. McQuire mentioned TOD and asked if they could have a Joint Workshop with the Commission. They have to get on the same page, and he was hoping to push the redoing of the CRA Plan to reduce some of the density bonuses. Ms. Radigan advised they would have to be directed to do a Workshop with the Commission, and they have to give them direction to do so. She is hearing a lot of passion around different subjects and stated this is great conversation for the annual report. Mr. Ramiccio asked if Ms. Radigan knows of a station that is going to be built. Ms. Radigan stated there was a plan. She would rather do this in a more organized fashion. There could be a presentation at some point with the Board as a whole. Mr. Ramiccio asked if anyone was interested in hearing about TOD and how the station is coming and when. Chair Rosecrans stated it depends on the agenda. Ms. Radigan stated it definitely will be for the next meeting. In her opinion,they are getting some direction from the Commission, and she feels something should be done in a Joint Venture,. She said that she thinks Mr. Ramiccio is right and it is a discussion they have to have between the Board and the Commission on Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 28 March 28, 2023 how to move the visions. The CRA Board is already starting the process of revamping their CRA Plan, so these conversations are happening at multiple levels. Mr. Ramiccio mentioned when the Board votes to make a recommendation to the Commission as an Advisory Board, why he does not see any of the backup material about the vote and the discussion the Board has so the Commission can get a synopsis of what the Board has been dealing with to make a good decision for the City. Ms. Radigan stated a synopsis is in every cover page that goes to the City Commission, and it says what action was taken. If the City Commission chooses for more information, they are happy to provide that. Chair Rosecrans commented he has been on this Board for eight years and they put in hours and vote no and the City Commission gets two minutes of discussion and they vote yes. 9. Comments by Members Mr. McQuire mentioned the Town Center project, which consisted of 900+ units, very close to the buildable area,with no easements or setbacks. After their meeting where the project was voted down,they attended the City Commission meeting and spoke at great length about this project. They added commercial space, and the square footage went from 14,000 to 23,000 and no one spoke on this Board's behalf as to what was done previously. He was frustrated and called staff and they were informative and helped him set up a meeting with the developer and other members of the community, but there was a relatively small turn out. Then there was another Commission meeting where it was First Reading where they reiterated that they added additional square feet and 930 units or so, which exceeded their initial commercial package delivery. During the Second Reading,hundreds of people were there to see the pocket park the City owns. He thinks a lot more work could have been done on what that building could have delivered to the community. He did not call the Commissioners on this issue, he spoke with them independently and some expressed moderate concern, but when it came to the vote, it was in favor unanimously. He just wanted an outline of a chain of events. The City is now in the business of parking garages, and he saw the developer smile when the City was in agreement to manage and fund a portion of the large parking garage. He saw a lot of interesting add-ons during that meeting. He thinks they should contact the Commissioners after their meetings. Chair Rosecrans felt like they should follow up on the Commission meetings as a team. Mr. McQuire commented that before City Commission meetings they are voting on things when they do not know what was said. He thinks they should request a synopsis of the meetings. Vice Chair Buoni questioned if the City Commission could have the minutes the Board has prior to the meeting, so they can read through them. Ms. Radigan advised that as a resident, everyone is always welcome to attend the City Commission meetings to follow up on these items. Mr. Simon stated the only option is a Public Comment as a Board. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 29 March 28, 2023 Chair Rosecrans mentioned the times he attended Commission meetings and told them about the vote the Board made and got zero responses. Mr. Simon commented that he was at a Commission meeting when a Commissioner was being directly spoken to and ignored the public, walked out of Chambers, and came back looking at his phone. Mr. McQuire suggested Workshops or a Round Robin and after the meeting one of them would call every member of the Commission and if they do not answer, leave a voice mail. Chair Rosecrans stated that perhaps the public could pressure them. Mr. McQuire mentioned there is a Mixed-Use parcel that has not been announced somewhere around South Florida and the Planning and Development meeting for that City changed from cement to glass,the color from gray to blue, and it was a huge improvement, and it did not go before the Commission, it was delayed and by time it got to the Commission there were significant aesthetic changes that were of value to the community. 10. Adjournment Upon Motion duly made and seconded, the meeting at was adjourned at 9:44 p.m. [Minutes prepared by C. Guifarro,Prototype,Inc.]