Loading...
Agenda 10-24-17 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 TIME: 6:30 PM PLACE: City Hall Chambers 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Minutes from Planning and Development Board Meeting meeting 4.A. Approval of August 22, 2017 minutes. 4.13. Approval of the September 26, 2017 minutes. 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff 6. Old Business 7. New Business 7.A. Approve Exeter / Sterling Records Phase III Major Site Plan Modification (MSPM 17-008) to construct a one-story, 56,160 square foot warehouse building and related site improvements, located at 1210 SW 35th Avenue in the M-1 (Industrial) zoning district. Applicant: Allan Hendricks, Caulfield &W heeler, Inc. 7.B. Approve Aldi Grocery Land Use and Rezoning (LUAR 17-006) to support the intended 17,880 square foot grocery store building and related site improvements at 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard. Applicant Bonnie Miskel, Dunay, Miskel & Backman, LLP. 1. Future Land Use Map Amendment from Office Commercial (OC) to Local Retail Commercial (LRC). 2. Rezone from C-1 (Office and Professional) to C-3 (Community Commercial). 7.C. Approve Aldi Grocery Variance (ZNCV 17-001) for the relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 3, Article III, Section 3.C.3., Community Commercial (C-3) Building/Site Regulations, requiring a minimum rear setback of 20 feet, to allow a rear setback of 14 feet, a variance of 6 feet, for a proposed Aldi Grocery Store within the C-3 Community Commercial zoning district. Applicant: Bonnie Miskel, Duany, Miskel & Backman, LLP. 7.D. Approve Aldi Grocery Community Design Appeals (CDPA 17-006) from 1) Chapter 4, Article 111, Section 3.G., "Overhead doors facing rights-of-way"; 2) Chapter 4, Article 111, Section 7.D.2., "Parapet roof return requirements"; 3) Chapter 4, Article 111, Section 7.G.2. "Covered walks along building facades"; and 4) Chapter 4, Article 111, Section 7.J.1. "Off-street parking locational criteria". Applicant: Bonnie Miskel, Dunay, Miskel & Backman, LLP. 7.E. Approve Aldi Grocery Major Site Plan Modification request (MSPM 17-005) to construct a one- story, 17,880 square foot grocery store building and related site improvements at 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard. Applicant: Bonnie Miskel, Dunay, Miskel & Backman, LLP. 8. Other Page 1 of 132 9. Comments by members 10. Adjournment The Board may only conduct public business after a quorum has been established. If no quorum is established within twenty minutes of the noticed start time of the meeting the City Clerk of her designee will so note the failure to establish a quorum and the meeting shall be concluded. Board members may not participate further even when purportedly acting in an informal capacity. NOTICE ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. (F. S. 286.0105) THE CITY SHALL FURNISH APPROPRIATE AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES WHERE NECESSARY TO AFFORD AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN AND ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF A SERVICE, PROGRAM, OR ACTIVITY CONDUCTED BY THE CITY. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, (561) 742-6060 AT LEAST TWENTY (24) HOURS PRIOR TO THE PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE YOUR REQUEST. Page 2 of 132 4.A. Approval of Minutes 10/24/2017 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 10/24/2017 REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Approval of August 22, 2017 minutes. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: Approval of August 22, 2017 minutes. HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: STRATEGIC PLAN: STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION: CLIMATE ACTION: CLIMATE ACTION DISCUSSION: Is this a grant? Grant Amount: ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Minutes August 22, 2017 Minutes Page 3 of 132 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2017, AT 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: STAFF: David Katz, Chair Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Kevin Fischer, Vice Chair Ed Breese, Principal Planner Susan Oyer James Cherof, City Attorney David Sholl, Alternate (arr. 6:45) Amanda Bassiely, Senior Planner Ryan Wheeler Shayne KittendorF, Building Official Floyd Zonenstein Lisa Edmondson, Prototype, Recorder ABSENT: Stephen Palermo Trevor Rosecrans Nicholas Skarecki, Alternate Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance The members recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Roll Call Roll was called and it was determined a quorum was present. 3. Agenda Approval Motion made by Ms. Oyer, seconded by Mr. Zonenstein, to approve the Agenda. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously (5-0). 4. Approval of Minutes from June 27, 2017, meeting Motion made by Mr. Fischer, seconded by Mr. Zonenstein, to approve the July 25, 2017, minutes. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously (5-0). 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Mr. Rumpf reported on the items that went before the City Commission on August 15tH Future Land Use Map Amendment and Rezoning of the Town Square property was approved on first reading. The Land Use Amendment now moves on to the State for formal review before coming back for final adoption. Also, the overlay items previously Page 4 of 132 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 22, 2017 reviewed have both been withdrawn from the Commission's Agenda, in order to delay consideration of any necessary amendments after the Town Square Project/Masterplan takes greater shape. Other items of business: • Those who have not already completed the ethics training requirements, or have a certificate printed and handed in, please do so. • Announced the newest Board member alternate, David Sholl. Chair Katz asked for the status of the Stor-All project; Mr. Rumpf understands that it continues to move forward, permits have been submitted and are under review. 6. Old Business — None 7. New Business Mr. Rumpf swore in those wishing to testify on the following items. 7.A. Approve Flood Prevention Requirements (CDRV 17-005) - Amending the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapter 1, Article II, Definitions and Article VIII Section 1.D, Appeals, Chapter 2, Article IV, Sections 2 and 4, and Chapter 4, Article X, to update definitions, Building Division Processes, Standards, and adopt Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Insurance Study in accordance with the NFIP requirements. City initiated. Mr. Kittendorf explained NFIP is the National Flood Insurance Program, and gave a synopsis of the requirements for the changes and amendments for the new flood maps that are coming into the City. There are three components: ➢ Objectives o Flood maps to determine flood insurance building requirements o Flood maps updated to determine the latest and most accurate information o Federal law requires any property in a flood area that is federally insured with a mortgage is required to have flood insurance ➢ Timetables o 1982 —first flood insurance rate maps came into play o August 18, 2014 — re-evaluation went through flood hazard areas ■ Multiple workshops to ascertain objections and concerns ■ Notice published in newspapers and Federal Register ® 90-day appeal period ended, none were received o October 5, 2017 —firm maps and FIS will become effective o Long transition with a lot of challenges outside Boynton Beach o Boynton Beach was one of the only communities that a substantial number of homes taken out of the floodplain area 2 Page 5 of 132 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 22, 2017 ➢ Key Changes o Reorganization and update of flood definitions and requirements for compliance with NFIP o Striking of redundant provisions in Florida Building Code ■ Changes in ordinances ■ Reduced redundant provisions in Commercial and Florida Building Code Residential sections o Added requirements for flood variances according to NFIP o Clarification of designated floodplain administrative duties o Listing of specific Federal and State permits and exemptions o Maps of 1982 and 2017 Leisureville were compared to demonstrate changes. In summary, the amendments will satisfy the mandatory requirements of NFIP, enhance public safety and protect the environment, reduce damages to property and public infrastructure, avoid economic disruption and losses, and reduce human suffering. Mr. Wheeler wondered about the City requirement for additional freeboard, which is one foot above base flood elevation. in a non-flood area, requirements are based off the crown of the road. Chair Katz cited a flood several years ago, and wondered why his property was not then in the flood zone. Mr. Kittendorf explained that outside of flood hazard areas in any given year there could be rainfall inundation that far exceeds the minimum 1% of the 100-year storm rate. Readable maps will be provided upon request and can easily be found online. Mr. Wheeler had questions about building permits, being proactive with designers, etc. City permits issued prior to October 5th are with an understanding that these areas are changing, with assistance available to ascertain risk according to the changes to be in effect. Mr. Cherof instructed that following items to be addressed can be consolidated for ease of presentation with consent of the applicant, but each has to be voted upon separately. Chair Katz asked if the applicant wished to consolidate the items, and the Board agreed to more quickly move ahead. Motion made by Mr. Wheeler, seconded by Ms. Oyer, to approve Item 7.A. Flood Prevention Requirements (CDRV 17-005). In a roll call vote, the motion passed (5-0). Chair Katz stated that these items were supposed to be on last month's agenda, and disclosed that prior to that time he had met with the applicant and Bradley Miller in his office about this item. Ms. Oyer stated that on July 14th she had met with them as well, and disclosed that her family holds the mortgage on the north parcels. Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Fischer also met with the applicant and Mr. Miller, 3 Page 6 of 132 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 22, 2017 [David Sholl, new Alternate Board Member, arrived 6:45 p.m.] 7.13. Approve LDR Amendments Group 3/CRA Plan Implementation (CDRV 17-007) —Amending the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapters 1 , 3, and 4 to continue implementing Community Redevelopment Plan recommendations with changes in the future land use classification scheme, and establishment of the new R-4, Multi-family Residential Zoning District including amendments and additions to definitions, and use and lot standards. City initiated. Mr. Rumpf clarified that Item B is positioned where it is because it is directly/indirectly related to the other items, but is City initiated and separate, and the following items rely upon it. A PowerPoint presentation followed. Some of the highlights were: ➢ Excerpts from newly adopted CRA plan, including proposed changes to the future land use scheme, changing groups, titles, and some changes in density. ➢ More comprehensive amendment and LDR Audit will be forthcoming in six months or so. ➢ Tables with origins of recommendations ➢ Summary of proposed amendments ➢ Elimination of MoDR (moderate density residential) future land use category ➢ Corresponding zoning structure changes ➢ Density caps stay the same grouped under other land use classifications ➢ R-4 corresponds with the new and improved high density ➢ New land use designation is created to fill gap, with 11-20 units per acre, "new and improved HDR" slogan ➢ New R-4 zoning at 15 dwelling units per acre ➢ Renaming: Suburban category to MXL, mixed use to MXM, and mixed use core to MXH, easy to confuse land use titles and zoning titles ➢ Cleaned up some references to workforce housing (program back in effect) ➢ Updating LDR with references to new CRA Plan ➢ Basic edits with respect to clarity and eliminating redundancy in descriptions Chair Katz opened the floor for public comments: • Mike Fitzpatrick had several comments: o Page 52 of backup, MODR to LDR, is it correct there is no more low density residential? Mr. Rumpf said no, it does exist, and noted the density thresholds remain for the individual zoning districts, and went on to explain. It eliminates a step in the development in case of change of zoning district, the new system allows rezoning without land use plan amendment, and includes same due process. o Any other cities that define low density residential as 7.5 units per acre? Mr. Rumpf did not know, conceded that Boynton Beach is establishing new parameters on its own. o Recommended Board rejection. 4 Page 7 of 132 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 22, 2017 Discussion followed on R1AA and R1AAA, including hypotheticals that might cause rezoning. Minimum lot size and characteristics for zoning do not change just because land use changes. • Edward Tedtmann wondered if: o R4 would be limited to CBD. Mr. Rumpf said that was not the intent. o R1 maximum height is 55 feet. Mr. Rumpf explained that these are telecommunication tower regulations and how that figures into the classification. o R4 designation is going to allow developers to dictate rezoning. While conceivable, nothing changes in terms of due process, which is lengthy and unlikely where such changes would not be fitting in most zones. o Discussion followed regarding possibilities of future land use and rezoning changes, and laxity in favor of developers. Mr. Redman wanted to see more restrictions; apartment dwellers are not stakeholders, but just residents. Chair Katz wondered if it was possible to buy up an entire block in a single-family zone and put up multi-unit housing. Mr. Rumpf explained that there is a review process by staff for compatibility, theories in zoning review regarding spot zoning, and it is unlikely as there is a compatibility issue between R4 and single-family zoning districts even with changes in definitions of low density. This language comes directly out of CRA recommendations, as identified, e.g., in the Heart of Boynton as a corresponding zoning district. Ms. Bassiely explained that these hypotheticals have been considered, and why R4 has been put in place, to prevent higher density zoning, which current zoning does not allow. Staff is aware and sensitive to such catalysts and snowballs, what commercial conversion of a single-family parcel would mean to the next one, and the next one, etc. • Barbara Ready wondered: o What "pending decisions coming down the pike" are. Mr. Rumpf said they are applications either anticipated or currently under review in the zoning districts or land use classifications being petitioned for, and consistent with the CRA plans and recommendations. o What other projects are on Ocean Avenue that pertain to the R4 district. When told there are none, the next question was how come this was not spot zoning, to which Mr. Rumpf said again, this is going by CRA plan recommendations and a redevelopment scheme is a different theory to apply, including comprehensive analysis on a given area which supports having a zoning district in place. o About planning for a possible train station, maybe still 25 years away. Mr. Rumpf explained how the CRA plan functions and has to support increased density and intensity to support a downtown core, commercial activity, and activity centers. Mr. Rumpf continued to clarify and stated there would be more information in the items coming up and input was welcomed. 5 Page 8 of 132 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 22, 2017 Chair Katz closed the floor to public comments, and asked for Board input. Ms. Oyer asked legal counsel about conflicts of interest on this particular issue due to owning property on Ocean Avenue, holding the mortgage on Village's property, and property on Seacrest. Mr. Cherof said the determination of conflict is up to the Board member if the approval or disapproval would result in a personal (or that of a family members) monetary benefit; but when in doubt, it is best to step down. As Ms. Oyer's presence is not necessary to constitute a quorum at the moment, she may stand down, and a conflict of interest form needs to be filed with City Clerk, and she may speak from the floor on these items. [Ms. Oyer recused herself due to possible conflict of interest, and stepped down from the dais for the remainder of the evening.] Chair Katz asked about tightening up the R4 language as regards single-family home areas as in hypotheticals brought up in earlier discussion. Mr. Rumpf said Ms. Bassiely offers committing to a more detailed review of R4 during the audit itself; most of the amendments at the moment are superficial amendments, changing titles, establishing the R4, and so on. Placing this next to a single-family zoning district or low-density area would be a proper transition, is not how it is envisioned, and would not fit those circumstances. Rezoning requires certain land are to provide for proper buffering and setbacks, and more safeguards can be provided during the audit. Chair Katz reopened floor to public comments: • Susan Oyer [as a member of the public] commented that this has benefits, but the potential for abuse or misuse down the line should be given thought, while commending Staff for the work done thus far. Chair Katz closed the floor to public comments, and asked for Board input. Mr. Fischer commented on Table 328 on Page 77, Use Matrix, definitions for R3 and R4; Mr. Rumpf said the language was intentional, there is some reconsideration of some of the markings for R3, and there are some overlay districts where, and during the audit may go back and clean up both R4 and R3. Based on the adoption of the workforce housing ordinance at the last City Commission meeting, Mr. Fischer wondered what effect the elimination of the 25% density bonus would have on developments currently in process. Mr. Rumpf clarified that the second reading is on September 19th, and has not been adopted yet and clarified the procedures for submittal. Motion made by Mr. Wheeler, seconded by Mr. Fischer, to approve Item 7.B. LDR Amendments Group 3/CRA Plan Implementation (CDRV 17-007) —Amending the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapters 1, 3, and 4 to continue implementing Community Redevelopment Plan recommendations with changes in the future land use classification scheme, and establishment of the new R-4, Multi-family Residential Zoning 6 Page 9 of 132 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 22, 2017 District including amendments and additions to definitions, and use and lot standards. In a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 7.C. (1) Approve The Villages at East Ocean Avenue - North Future Land Use Map Amendment (LUAR 17-002) from Local Retail Commercial (LRC) to Mixed Use High (MXH). Applicant: Arthur B. D'Almeida (2) Approve The Villages at East Ocean Avenue - North Rezoning (LUAR 17-002) from C-2 Neighborhood Commercial and C-3 Community Commercial to MU-C, Mixed Use Core District with a proposed site plan for 336 multi-family units and 12,257 square feet of commercial space. Applicant: Arthur B. D'Almeida 7.D. Approve request for abandonment of a portion of rights-of-way (ABAN 17-002 through ABAN 17-006) consisting mostly of unimproved streets and alleys between NE/SE 3rd Street and the FEC Railroad, from Boynton Beach Boulevard south to SE 1 st Avenue, in conjunction with request for major site plan modification approval of the Villages at East Ocean mixed use project. Applicant: Arthur B. D'Almeida. 7.E. Approve The Villages at East Ocean Avenue - North Major Site Plan Modification (MSPM 17-003) request for a mixed-use development consisting of an eight (8)-story building with 336 dwelling units, commercial space, and associated recreational amenities and parking on a 3.379 acre site. Applicant: Arthur D'Almeida 7.F. (1) Approve The Villages at East Ocean - South Future Land Use Map Amendment (LUAR 17-003) from Local Retail Commercial (LRC) to Mixed Use Medium (MXM). Applicant: Arthur B. D'Almeida (2) Approve The Villages at East Ocean - South Rezoning (LUAR 17-003) from C-2 Neighborhood Commercial to MU-2, Mixed Use 2 District with a proposed site plan for 35 multifamily units and 3,500 square feet of commercial space. Applicant: Arthur B. D'Almeida 7.G. Approve The Village at East Ocean Avenue - South Major Site Plan Modification (MSPM 17-004) for a mixed-use development consisting of 35 dwelling units, commercial space, and associated recreational amenities and parking on a 1.764 acre site. Applicant: Arthur D'Almeida Bradley Miller, Miller Land Planning, represented Arthur and Frances D'Almeida, who have assembled the property under consideration of the last fifteen years. The reason for the various items are to continue with the CRA Redevelopment Plan as described by Mr. Rumpf. The two categories of land use and zoning were explained during the presentation for the north and south parcels, which are split by Ocean Avenue. On Items 7C-E: 7 Page 10 of 132 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 22, 2017 • The northern parcel is designated mixed use high with density up to 100 units per acre and building heights of a maximum of 150 feet. o 3.3 acres o 336 residential units o 12,257 square feet of commercial space o 644 parking spaces o Peak of building height is 95 feet o Height is 35 feet along Ocean Avenue, following CRA guidelines o Mix of residential units: studios, lofts, one, two and three bedrooms o Vehicle access, pedestrian activity, pedestrian zones o Landscape and shade trees, hardscape o Greenway, pathway, fenced off from railway right of way o Plaza areas o Resident pool/deck area and amenity package for clubhouse activities o Commercial space split up, 4,000 square feet on Boynton Beach Blvd. and 8,000+ square feet around Ocean Avenue o Seven floor parking garage, first two floors for commercial/public parking o Ocean Avenue will be constructed curbless • The southern parcel density zone is 62.5 units per acre with maximum height of 75 feet. o 1.34 acres o 35 residential units o 3,500 square feet of commercial space o 85 parking spaces, 69 spaces are surface, 13 handicap spaces o Two locations for driveways o Building height 35 feet o Mix of residential studios to townhomes o Street access and surface parking, pedestrian connections and zones, continuation of the north parcel o Landscape and hardscape with plaza area, 74% of required trees are shade trees, pocket park for residents o Ground floor commercial uses along Ocean Avenue frontage o Live/work units where ground level is commercial, and tenant residents in unit space above o Some apartments have direct access to street o Five three-story townhomes, transitioning to residential area to the south and west of the project o Historic Andrews House has been incorporated into the plan as a residential component Elevations and perspective views were given for both parcels. The project is in agreement with all conditions for the site plans as submitted. Chair Katz reopened floor to public comments: 8 Page 11 of 132 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 22, 2017 • Susan Oyer commended Mr. Miller's team's work, and wondered if: o There was a way to make the project more of a coastal style/contemporary Mediterranean as the people at Town Square meetings have said is preferred. o Are 13 handicap spaces sufficient for possible prospective residents. o There are no electric charger stations. o Dark rooftops could possibly use new reflective paints and color options. o Public is adamant about blue/green pastels, ocean-themed. • Kimberly Longacre, lives in another historic home across from the Andrews House, hopes for a more coastal view that fits with the single-family residential area, and no commercial use at south end of the parcel due to traffic on SE 3rd Street. Also curious about property taxes when large developments go into a neighborhood. • Bob Vansteelandt had several questions (with Mr. Miller answering): o Is the Andrews House staying in place? (It is staying exactly where it is.) a Will dozens of existing businesses get first crack at commercial space? (Client would like to incorporate businesses into the project, negotiations will be necessary.) o What about quieting the noise at the railroad crossings? (No information on the zones, but hopes the horn will go away.) o Traffic issues, speed bumps, stop light? (No plan for speed bumps; the five townhomes and Andrews House are the only things south of First Avenue that should increase the traffic very much. There is no requirement for a signal so close to railroad tracks.) o What is the current commercial occupancy in that general area? (Chair Katz suggested contact with the CRA office.) • Mike Fitzpatrick wondered if: o There was anyone on City Staff that was the designated transportation- oriented design expert, how the one-half mile radius was established. Mr. Rumpf said the TOD regulations follow a model set by the State, and has to do with walking distances. Discussion followed, referencing a previous workshop about the tri-rail station and current connectivity issues and possibilities. Should be concessions from developer toward creating a quality train station. o Will there be solar panels on flat roofs, such as parking garages? o If D'Almeida has two of the units in the old condo on site, is there any chance of a pocket park/greenspace someday? • Barbara Ready was concerned about the bottleneck out of the parking lot on the north parcel. Also wondered about possibly hooking into the planned cooling station, and supports the ocean colors with the coastal look. As Chairman of the 9 Page 12 of 132 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 22, 2017 City's Historic Resources Preservation Board, Ms. Ready thanked the developers for saving the Andrews House, the oldest house in Boynton Beach. Finally, thinks that the live/work units are a good idea. Mr. Miller responded to the comments in reverse order: o Access point for 3rd Street, emphasis on pedestrian activity, especially on Ocean Blvd. Further explained how the plan was developed, describing traffic patterns with information available, while looking forward to futuristic uses of the garage in connection to the train station. o Would be willing to have discussions with the cooling station. o Regarding TOD, did discuss with Kim Delaney while going through the project and she praised it. The connectivity discussions encourage people to be on the street to engage with commercial activities along the roadways rather than a direct connection that bypasses the stores and artwork. o The idea about the use of the old condo building footprint is a good one. o There are three handicap spaces on the south parcel, one is a parallel space, and both the north and south parcels comply with ADA requirements. o Charging stations will be considered as the energy efficiency of the project is further designed. Juan Caycedo, architect, briefly addressed the colors of the project. The concept of the architecture is to break the architectural language between the south and north to start getting a village quality rather than a monolith. The aluminum roof was discussed, reflects a lot of the heat. The flat roofs are a single ply white roof, highly reflective. To provide a village-like quality for the project, does not repeat the same building on the south as the north, but provides another interpretation of the coastal style. The architecture further south grabs the architecture of the historic nature of the Andrews House, with the lattice work reminiscent of Key West architecture. Chair Katz closed floor to public comments and asked for comments from the Board. Mr. Sholl asked about the live/work units, what types of businesses are anticipated. There are no specific users lined up, but Ms. Ready's suggestion of an artist downstairs while living upstairs, jewelers, sole practitioner architect, young entrepreneurs, diverse opportunities. Restaurant space would be in the commercial spaces fronting on Ocean. Mr. Wheeler appreciated the good job done on the plans thus far, and asked if bollards will be put to protect the storefronts where the curbless areas are on Ocean Avenue. Mr. Miller said there definitely will be. Also wondering how the parking will work for the live/work units, and was told there are some dedicated residential spaces on the south lot, not necessarily for the commercial space, so the live/work tenant would have that opportunity. Chair Katz asked about the locations of the handicap spaces. There are three parallel spaces on the north side, fronting Boynton Beach Blvd., that could be designated. There 10 Page 13 of 132 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 22, 2017 are ten parallel spaces of on-street parking moving south from Boynton Beach Blvd. along NE 3rd, two of them are handicapped. Chair Katz would like to make it a condition of approval that at least one more be included on the north side. Chair Katz wondered if there could be an option to turn some of the commercial space on the south parcel that is on Boynton Beach Blvd. into live/work space. Mr. Miller said the original design had live/work units there, but felt that retail space would be better on Boynton Beach Blvd., could be considered, but will be market driven. Ms. Bassiely stated that within the Redevelopment Plan active retail uses were limited to such streets as Ocean and Boynton Beach, and thought the live/work idea was more of a transition to residential on the north/south streets that they abut. Some discussion followed on some flexibility on this issue, if possible. Ms. Bassiely added that sustainability guidelines are being considered, and the City has just recently hired a sustainable manager who will take the lead on such things as flat roofs for solar panels, etc., in future projects. Mr. Miller, in his closing statements, said that the condition of approval for the additional handicap parking space on Boynton Beach Blvd. would have to be subject to DOT approval. Regarding the energy components, while there is a new building code coming out in July 2018, the current code is already implementing so many green methods of construction, and will be included in construction of this project. Motion made by Mr. Wheeler, seconded by Mr. Zonenstein, to approve Item 7.C.(1) The Villages at East Ocean Avenue - North Future Land Use Map Amendment (LUAR 17- 002) from Local Retail Commercial (LRC) to Mixed Use High (MXH), subject to all conditions of approval to see about an additional handicap parking on north side along with recommendation to consider additional live/work space options. In a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Motion made by Mr. Wheeler, seconded by Mr. Fischer, to approve Item 7.C.(2) The Villages at East Ocean Avenue - North Rezoning (LUAR 17-002)from C-2 Neighborhood Commercial and C-3 Community Commercial to MU-C, Mixed Use Core District with a proposed site plan for 336 multi-family units and 12,257 square feet of commercial space, subject to all conditions of approval to see about an additional handicap parking on north side along with recommendation to consider additional live/work space options. In a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Motion made by Mr. Fischer, seconded by Mr. Zonenstein, to approve Item 7.D. request for abandonment of a portion of rights-of-way (ABAN 17-002 through ABAN 17-006) consisting mostly of unimproved streets and alleys between NE/SE 3rd Street and the FEC Railroad, from Boynton Beach Boulevard south to SE 1st Avenue, in conjunction with request for major site plan modification approval of the Villages at East Ocean mixed use project. In a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 11 Page 14 of 132 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 22, 2017 Motion made by Mr. Wheeler, seconded by Mr. Zonenstein, to approve Item 7.E. The Villages at East Ocean Avenue - North Major Site Plan Modification (MSPM 17-003) request for a mixed-use development consisting of an eight (8)-story building with 336 dwelling units, commercial space, and associated recreational amenities and parking on a 3.379 acre site, subject to all conditions of approval and the ability of applicant to discuss with staff the live/work space option in lieu of commercial use. In a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Motion made by Mr. Fischer, seconded by Mr. Wheeler, to approve Item 7.F.(1) The Villages at East Ocean - South Future Land Use Map Amendment (LUAR 17-003) from Local Retail Commercial (LRC)to Mixed Use Medium (MXM). In a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Motion made by Mr. Wheeler, seconded by Mr. Fischer, to approve Item 7.F(2) The Villages at East Ocean - South Rezoning (LUAR 17-003) from C-2 Neighborhood Commercial to MU-2, Mixed Use 2 District with a proposed site plan for 35 multifamily units and 3,500 square feet of commercial space. In a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Motion made by Mr. Fischer, seconded by Mr. Zonenstein, to approve Item 7.G. The Villages at East Ocean Avenue - South Major Site Plan Modification (MSPM 17-004) for a mixed-use development consisting of 35 dwelling units, commercial space, and associated recreational amenities and parking on a 1.764 acre site. In a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 8. Other— None 9. Comments by Members — None 10. Adjournment Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. [Minutes prepared by M. Moore, Prototype, Inc.] 12 Page 15 of 132 4.B. Approval of Minutes 10/24/2017 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 10/24/2017 REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Approval of the September 26, 2017 minutes. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: Approval of the September 26, 2017 minutes. HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: STRATEGIC PLAN: STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION: CLIMATE ACTION: CLIMATE ACTION DISCUSSION: Is this a grant? Grant Amount: ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Minutes September Minutes Page 16 of 132 t; MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017, 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: STAFF: David Katz, Chair Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Kevin Fischer, Vice Chair Ed Breese, Principal Planner Trevor Rosecrans James Cherof, City Attorney Floyd Zonenstein Thuy Shutt, CRA, Asst. Director Ryan Wheeler Theresa Utterback, CRA Susan Oyer Lisa Edmondson, Prototype, Inc. ABSENT: Stephen Palermo Nicholas Skarecki, Alternate David Sholl, Alternate Chair Katz called the meeting 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 Ms. Oyer, seconded by Mr. Zonenstein, to approve the agenda. Chair Katz requested that item 7.13. be moved up on the agenda to accommodate City staff. With that change, the motion was approved unanimously. 4. Approval of Minutes from Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes Motion made by Ms. Oyer, seconded by Mr. Zonenstein, to approve the minutes of the August 22, 2017 meeting. One correction was noted: to change Mr. Rumpf to Mr. Cherof as having sworn in the witnesses. With that change, the motion was approved unanimously. 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Mr. Rumpf reported on the following items brought before the City Commission on September 19, 2017: Page 17 of 132 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board September 26, 2017 Page 2 • LDR Amendments Group 3/CRA Implementation Step - approved • Numerous items under the title of the Villages of East Ocean Avenue including two major site plan modifications, abandonments, rezonings and Land Use Plan Amendments - approved • Commercial uses on Boynton Beach Boulevard and enlargement of plaza space on Ocean Avenue -the City Commission added conditions allowing for flexibility of the commercial uses to allow live/work along Boynton Beach Boulevard and also recommended that the plaza along Ocean Avenue be enlarged • Flood prevention LDR Amendments - approved • Workforce housing - approved 6. Old Business - none. 7. New Business i Mr. Cherof swore in those persons wishing to testify on the following items. Item 7.B. was moved>>p on the agenda at the request of Chair Katz. 7.B. Approve 711 North Federal Highway Abandonment(ABAN 17-007) allowing the abandonment of a portion of the alley immediately west of 711 North Federal Highway, and immediately north of NE 6th Avenue. Applicant: Michael Simon, Executive Director of the Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), Ms. Thuy Shutt advised this application is for an abandonment to allow the sale of property to Florida Master Craft. This matter will be heard by the CRA at their next meeting for discussion and ratification of a purchase and development agreement. The proposed site plan application will be made to the Board in detail after finalization of the purchase and sale agreement. Chair Katz then opened and closed public hearing as there was no one wishing to speak on this item. There was then brief discussion regarding the adjacent property owner, with Chair Katz inquiring regarding the size of the lots, the price the property is to be sold for, and whether there are incentive dollars or grants involved. In response, Ms. Theresa Utterback stated the proposed purchaser may be receiving grants along with $100,000. Chair Katz then expressed concern asking why the City was "giving away the farm" with another piece of land. Ms. Shutt responded that there will be some requirements, i.e., creation of jobs, and there will be further negotiations. The monies would not be a straight grant, but will have job creation components. Motion made by Vice Chair Fischer, seconded by Mr. Wheeler, to approve Item 7.13. In a voice vote, the motion passed 6-0. Page 18 of 132 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board September 26, 2017 Page 3 7.A. Approve Courtyard Gardens Major Site Plan Modification (MSPM 17-007) for a one-story, 51,258 square foot inpatient medical facility with memory care and related site improvements at 3005 S. Congress Avenue, in the C-3 (Community Commercial) zoning district. Applicant: Joni Brinkman, Urban Design Kilday Associates. Mr. Wheeler advised he would be stepping down and abstaining due to conflict. Ms. Joni Brinkman appeared on behalf of the applicant stating that this application is for major site plan modification to construct a facility for persons with memory care issues, further explaining the purpose of facility, showing an aerial location map indicating adjacent properties and location, providing a brief history of the property, showing drawings of the proposed site plan, advising of setbacks and the wall previously built along the property line, generator location, elevations, and addressing security measures. She indicated the applicant is in agreement with all staff conditions required for approval. Chair Katz then opened the hearing for public comment. Ms. Judy Lyman spoke in favor of the project stating it is exactly what the neighborhood needs. With no other persons wishing to speak, Chair Katz closed public comment. Ms. Oyer inquired regarding roof structure as well as tree removal, relocation, and species. There was then brief discussion regarding car charger spaces, LED lights, art projects to include a healing garden, parking spaces, the generator, and solar panels. Chair Katz stressed the importance of City staff considering renewable energy for projects. Motion made by Vice Chair Fischer, seconded by Mr. Rosecrans to approve Item 7.A. In a voice vote, with Mr. Wheeler abstaining, the motion passed 5-0. 7.C. Approve amendments to the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapter 1, Article II, Definitions and Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.1), Table 3-28, Use Matrix and Footnote 457 to add definitions, use provisions, and standards that regulate the medical marijuana dispensary industry. Mr. Rumpf reported this is a final step in implementing an Amendment to the Code to include standards to accommodate medical marijuana and would be consistent with how pharmacies are regulated within the City with exception of the provision regarding distance separation from schools. Chair Katz then opened and closed public hearing as there was no one wishing to speak on this item. Brief discussion continued regarding other controlled substances in the Code with 500 foot requirement from schools, multiple grower locations, and operational limitations. Ms. Oyer express concerns with stealing, access to children, and security. Page 19 of 132 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board September 26,2017 Page 4 Motion made by Mr. Wheeler, seconded by Mr. Zonenstein,to approve Item 7.C. In a voice vote, the motion passed 6-0. 8. Other-none. 9. Comments by members Vice Chair Fischer acknowledged the newspaper article reporting on the 119th anniversary of the City of Boynton Beach. 10. Adjournment With no further business to discuss,the meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. [Minutes transcribed by L. Edmondson,Prototype, Inc.] Page 20 of 132 7.A. New Business 10/24/2017 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 10/24/2017 REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Approve Exeter/ Sterling Records Phase I I I Major Site Plan Modification (MSPM 17-008) to construct a one-story, 56,160 square foot warehouse building and related site improvements, located at 1210 SW 35th Avenue in the M-1 (Industrial) zoning district. Applicant: Allan Hendricks, Caulfield &Wheeler, Inc. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: The subject site is a vacant parcel located approximately 650 feet east of Congress Avenue, and north of Phases I & I I of the Sterling Records complex on SW 35th Avenue. The property is owned by the same company (Exeter) that owns Phases I & I I of the warehouse complex directly south of the parcel, and access has been provided to Phase I I I through a recorded ingress/egress easement from SW 35th Avenue. The parcel was formerly a portion of the Yellow Freight site to the north, and through a lot split and sale, was purchased by Exeter Property Group to add another warehouse building to their complex. This request is to add a third warehouse building, a one-story, 56,160 square foot structure designed for two large tenants. Staff has reviewed this request for major site plan modification approval and recommends approval contingent upon satisfying all comments indicated in Exhibit"C" —Conditions of Approval. HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Collection of fees associated with building permits, business tax, and property tax ALTERNATIVES: None recommended. STRATEGIC PLAN: STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION: N/A CLIMATE ACTION: No CLIMATE ACTION DISCUSSION: N/A Is this a grant? Grant Amount: Page 21 of 132 ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Staff Report Staff Report D Location Map Location Map D Drawings Plans D Conditions of Approval Conditions of Approval D Development Order Development Order Page 22 of 132 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 17-057 STAFF REPORT TO: Chair and Members Planning and Development Board and City Commission THRU: Michael Rumpf Planning and Zoning Director FROM: Ed Breese Principal Planner DATE: October 13, 2017 PROJECT NAME/NO: Exeter/ Sterling Records Phase III (MSPM 17-008) REQUEST: Major Site Plan Modification PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: Exeter Property Group Applicant: Allan Hendricks, Caulfield & Wheeler, Inc. Location: 1210 SW 35th Avenue (see Exhibit "A"— Location Map) Existing Land Use: Industrial (1) Existing Zoning: Industrial (M1) Proposed Land Use: No change proposed Proposed Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Use: Request major site plan modification approval to construct a one-story, 56,160 square foot warehouse building and related site improvements. Acreage: 4.07-acre (177,609 square feet) Adjacent Uses: North: Developed industrial property(Yellow Freight),with an Industrial (1)future land use classification, and zoned Industrial (M-1); South: Developed industrial property(Phases I & 11 of Sterling Records),with an Industrial (1) future land use classification, and zoned Light Industrial (M1); East: Developed property consisting of South Tech School and Palm Beach County School District Bus Transportation Facility, with a Public& Private Governmental/ Institutional (PPGI) future land use classification, and zoned Public Usage (PU); Page 23 of 132 Staff Report—Exeter/Sterling Records Phase III (MSPM 17-008) Memorandum No PZ 17-057 Page 2 and West: Developed industrial property (warehouses), with an Industrial (1) future land use classification, and zoned Industrial (M-1). Site Details: The subject site is a vacant parcel located approximately 650 feet east of Congress Avenue, and north of Phases I & 11 of the Sterling Records complex on SW 351h Avenue. The property is owned by the same company(Exeter)that owns Phases I & 11 of the warehouse complex directly south of the parcel, and access has been provided to Phase III through a recorded ingress/egress easement from SW 351h Avenue. The parcel was formerly a portion of the Yellow Freight site to the north, and through a lot split and sale, was purchased by Exeter Property Group to add another warehouse building to their complex. BACKGROUND Proposal: Allan Hendricks of Caulfield Wheeler, Inc., representing property owner Exeter Property Group, is requesting approval to construct a one-story, 56,160 square foot warehouse building and related site improvements. ANALYSIS Concurrency: Traffic: A traffic statement for the proposed project was sent to the Palm Beach County Traffic Division for concurrency review in order to ensure an adequate level of service. A traffic concurrency approval letter was received from Palm Beach County indicating that 15 AM peak hour trips and 16 PM peak hour trips would be generated as a result of this project and that no permits are to be issued after the build-out date of 2019. School: School concurrency is not required for this type of project. Utilities: The City's water capacity, as increased through the purchase of up to 5 million gallons of potable water per day from Palm Beach County Utilities,would meet the projected potable water for this project. Sufficient sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment capacity is also currently available to serve the project, subject to the applicant making a firm reservation of capacity, following site plan approval. Police / Fire: Staff reviewed the site plan and determined that current staffing levels would be sufficient to meet the expected demand for services. Drainage: Conceptual drainage information was provided for the City's review. The Engineering Division has found the conceptual information to be adequate and is recommending that the review of specific drainage solutions be deferred until time of permit review. Approval of the separation of the parcel from the Yellow Freight site was conditioned upon a combined drainage design and improvement for the two (2) properties, which is reflected on the attached site and civil drawings. Vehicular Access: The site plan (Sheet SP-1) shows that one (1) point of ingress/egress is proposed Page 24 of 132 Staff Report—Exeter/Sterling Records Phase III (MSPM 17-008) Memorandum No PZ 17-057 Page 3 for the new warehouse building, via the ingress/egress easement extending from SW 351h Avenue, northerly between the Phase I and Phase II buildings,to the south end of the subject parcel. There are three (3) driveways along the south property line to enhance traffic flow around the site, including the central driveway aligned with the ingress/egress easement at SW 35th Avenue, and one (1) at each corner of the site, associated with parking and drive aisles. The requirement for dumpster locations and turning radii forwaste removal vehicles and fire apparatus has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and Fire Department through the submittal of truck turning radius diagrams. There are conditions of approval for the site design to accommodate the required 60 foot vehicle backing clearance immediately in front of the dumpster enclosures and ensure that the fire turning radii are met with no encroachments into parking spaces (see Exhibit "C" — Conditions of Approval). Circulation: Vehicular circulation from each driveway would include two-way circulation that continues throughout the parking lot. A stabilized grass fire lane is being provided on the north side of the warehouse to provide 360-degree access to the Fire Department in case of an emergency. Covered bike racks are proposed on the south side of the building, at each of the tenant building entrances. Parking: The site plan (Sheet SP-1) proposes a 56,160 square foot warehouse building for warehouse and/or distribution tenant occupancy only, which would require 71 parking spaces, based upon the standard of one (1) parking space per 800 square feet of building. The site plan depicts 71 parking spaces, including four (4) designated for handicap use. Notes have been placed upon the drawings indicating the building is to be utilized for warehousing and distribution only, noting that manufacturing or industrial service tenants, which require one parking space per 500 square feet, are prohibited. All proposed parking stalls, including the size and location of the handicap space, were reviewed and approved by both the Engineering Division and Building Division, and conform to the approved dimensions of the previous two (2) phases of the project. In addition, all necessary traffic control signage and pavement markings would be provided to clearly delineate areas on site and direction of circulation. Landscaping: The landscape plan (Sheet LP-1) indicates compliance with the required minimum buffers around the perimeter of the industrial site. A (5)-foot wide buffer is proposed around the site, and includes Live Oak, Mahogany, Gumbo Limbo, Yellow Elder canopy trees and Royal and Sabal Palm trees. Typical shrubs would include Red Tip Cocoplum, Viburnum, Thryallis, Wax Jasmine, and Firebush. A condition of approval has been added to stagger the planting of trees along the slope of the detention areas and add Cypress trees at the lower level of basin. The pervious area would total 35% of the entire site and consist of landscaped and open space/detention areas. The landscape code requires that 50%or more of the plant material be native species or low to medium water demand varieties. The plant list(Sheet LP-1) indicates that 100% of the trees and shrubs would be either native species or categorized as very to moderate drought tolerant, according to the South Florida Water Management District Xeriscape Plant Guide. The code also limits the use of sod to larger open spaces for passive or active recreation purposes, as well as swales, water detention and retention areas, in an effort to reduce water consumption.The applicant has reduced the amount of sodded areas from the original submittal, limiting placement within the drainage detention area. Page 25 of 132 Staff Report—Exeter/Sterling Records Phase III (MSPM 17-008) Memorandum No PZ 17-057 Page 4 The Landscape Architect notes that the majority of the plant material proposed to be removed from the site is non-native and invasive, with several native species either dead or in poor condition.According to the Landscape Architect, "the area of the "Oak Scrub" has no usable trees in this location. In short, the trees have been misshapen and their growth stunted over the years of being in such close proximity to each other. I observed trees with large diameter trunks that were only 7' tall. Others have grown one sided and are not reasonably reuseable". Building and Site: The proposed building is designed as a one (1)-story structure, whose placement complies with the minimum setbacks of the M-1 zoning district, which are 15 feet for the front and sides and 20 feet for the rear yard. The proposed building would be setback 59 feet from the north property line, 105 feet from the east, 83 feet from the west, and 86 feet from the south property line. The site plan indicates the proposed building is designed to be utilized by one (1) or two (2) tenants, with loading bays along the front truck courtyard and office spaces in the front corners of the building. Building Height: The building elevations (Sheet A3.00) indicate the highest point of the structure would be the entry features at 40 feet in height, with the typical parapet wall at 38 feet, and the roof deck at a height of 30 feet, well below the maximum building height of 45 feet allowed in the M-1 zoning district. Design: The proposed building utilizes the same design features and colors as Phase I & II of the warehouse complex. According to the"Materials Schedule"shown on Sheet A3.00, the building would be constructed of tilt wall panels,with the body paint color alight beige "Wool Skein"—SW 6148 and alight tan trim color"Analytical Gray"— SW 7051. The accent color would be a white "Lilac Essence"—SW 1960, and the entry features would be painted a yellow cream "Torchlight"—SW 6374. The metal canopies would be a natural aluminum color. Public Art: The applicant has indicated they have chosen to pay the art in public places fee in lieu of placing artwork on the site. The estimated art fee is $30,500. Site Lighting: The photometric plan (Sheet E-1.2) proposes a total of four(4) freestanding lights in the parking lot. The freestanding lights would be mounted on concrete poles at 25 feet in height, with LED light fixtures. Additional exterior lighting would be building mounted with downcast fixtures that match the style of the pole mounted light fixtures. Signage: No wall signage is proposed at this time. Any signage would need to conform to other signage within the warehouse complex. RECOMMENDATION The Development Application Review Team (DART) has reviewed this request for major site plan modification approval and recommends approval contingent upon satisfying all comments indicated in Exhibit "C" — Conditions of Approval. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Exeter-Sterling Records Phase III\MSPM 17-008\Staff Report.doc Page 26 of 132 EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION MAP ts9 4mt SW r ' :��l ,t1i�,t � r,t W t • • r �t, r.tIVm% � t rNVI SW am Pi h t i e ft a71" 2 Si t- ,.- x, s a ] S October 13,2017 1:4,514 0 0.0375 0.075 0.15 mi 1 , • 1 Page 271 of 132 ----------------- an=rusems c4Zt AB 31V0 S '3 S �3tl�N'1F13i5 S ti1ASNo^n�3n--_i 0 634vHd sa d-31 3r, 1N),OG a -11�x� N0 a p �i nvJ NV ld 3115 _ o w xx� m¢o 30� �o� Z �= o Z Q a r b U � cod 0 W F z tt) v~ w w c T T m W 04 W W N Z4 •� -rr(.)_OON a O ( = U (1 rcln�F�Uggw ry ✓ F o Z C7 z (0 Lo U g Z Z¢ M 0.. W W Z W Z U d I� rr U Z' ~ a F �'i Z U` w z aw EE �d�p�U wwgUa ~W¢dw0 Lijx ^ ~ O oz)Lij FZWWOMWM lit W CVi - U(n �F�Ux0_ m. i i L � L U W O co 2 o d 3 9,E F C� G(n w m E E U _ ow o" a > Q'Iv vooR,u)- Ularo`o�uNo .0 wtN o' U.C�LLP�W Z N?d'LLr�N dLLM1I(J I•. 0 �aW cQ o 6"6 NCNB' N R''7NGNoM 0N UL'�fn CNif Oi_ 7 2inosov�' U'�.�..� m`.' ,- W''�'�m mfr;3 W W-�@c�cno , Z E�w I ai s_ �:2:2. 'Uw��� Z_'S a�C)tLm�, S¢oW�omr-of W Wmfr^='cow ZZ�fim�o v`n'no �m�oc�°i�'no UC}ctn c�irr.-ci xo o o� J6U�m o.:5 m W U°r.'m a. m ¢cr gym-moInInuoi�i Ca U w.-cnUg m ',.... _._ - Ft f S4CSn3E S -�C� LV JONVa EL 6 '9b dIHSNM01 `S NOIlOIS ds DNI a i-Ai�-n J0 NOL10J � -� - FF- ------------- ,,1 9. 5K 2 L j li ON -� 4 d O N b N, �� n_ € _ W, k S p S o ¢ t= « h o —n ®iI 8 m o:z G C7 � i a s X50 ��g gi N j ,b£'8Q9 3„St,Sb.6S 8� ,99'Lbi' 3«SISt'0$ &lV. Ld Q 30vid v� a d O HL£I MS �' g `� _ ------------ � ss4 iK 1 •� tM \ CL VA t Sul s\ jrc i �-- i pZ'lSf M,64,ttr.00N � Z c A v z i op of ._._ :. tw) 3nN3AV SS3a9NO3 C—Hd Sat30>3tl�NI'IN3tS �nw.a 3r)N3�i¢'H1SC MS OtZL ""- ti NOINA09 13913X3 U,. 3 JJIti 11� ' SNI ' a dAHx�s a�ai€�ne� MV-ld 3115 U, M € Am � HO 2 s 54 € p 6 mn p1. - M O E a £ 41 � Y ES M 3, ts 3€ € €€o S F ass aga y G Is Ld a�G alm F Q � ^l07 111 OaO�-SO'J C G-9b-£'b-80 ' .l1Nf'0 HOd3C �, A IVd 30 021VC8 OONCS :2F-NM0 % � z w _ a �Tll :� � w r w I zzc� — rr IF wz ITUp � La 6a ' o�z i IT N w I � L � a1 � i -1_E-LlI-4 LL I L27 LEE- r vnN WCCINOC 33NM0 3 tlN01S hr � , L-6V UINQIIti07 08C0-`lG 8 -50 94 O4-tiC V 1_ X71 1Sf;iNl of Oldti,l C l S1N3N1s3AN NVQ 2] VS :NCNMO .1 1 vo sraisw�� -.aa tiou�w c ne ai " >a cs sa s<w tr^sd BnNany Ny9E MS O A Z 4 NO.I.NA08 8313X3 n _FHM a oiaiA�nd� NV `1c]3cJVOS4NV 1 j ACL & C I g S 6 z p w W s s o REail .§MM9ItCmg Ya > Allgot Q 16 1 m � m6 ,K U Q z z� w z o il a, I� r a d I $ H as w r L.............. w n ( a L— W N � aiTl3 Z s 6 ;,o 3nN3AV HJ.9e MS o L Z G "•'a YOtN;.� - - w NOJ_N1i0923313X3 r � nNi 'a Hm g a iii ndn Nt/7,:[NOLLVR213S32Jd 33 3[ _ RR 5 g k mum$ i� ! €� Wil RI ¢ �oa� � P �9y $ 9 .fi �� � �as<�<.��w���� <<, a<ed s�q« �. t <IhI<S< tics ��<v rt. i i ( 6.0 �€ �js €O € oa aiMMaasa s ! iY a� cif s !a q mda""� 8£E €'e£€4 0031 € Rffi R g _ aS.. 2 ij I) ( I sixsa€azxsx a aa ; s am IUD pig IN z 333 as gas s s a€ aaa aaa � €ga f €t€q a , 3y€ °ffi$ a4 .z€ 000ai�� I Yr� aza5: i € ,Baa£ akraa N � I w , ......... ___...._ Iw F'l MIT .QS z oa U o a �o N \Z m zon rFri _ f N as zco 00 O � r Cf) z € n p e=a F J iR zJMy W Q M •,_..� ... W J LLQ J Q V Q d Q O W f7 J n Q O d d W m Li 1 of j t�4 I e arao .._ srvcrsUaa >> d a s 3nNanV H196 MS 0 4 e G � � E g3snHa soaoo3a©u Baas �� pr � Nig ro NOINAOH 21313X3 --- �a�aaHra a o-al��nv7 NV-ld NOI VSPJ 161 s 3= � i gl g gays w s =sg .�000.� s I x-> t, rm u, ry / gg ypy" IF O OD �, r Y.i i =z ro II L ZI) �_ a m014 " � x aia i S � fvr_ IN 5 Y y ! t o i o an i a r O(DOOOJu' /q c a 0 noo 1peu ? / T4 ZOz Oo 0 22 w P sti�Sa q� _� sni-III-Oes)xv�r iaei-zec{ies)3rvoud v(lldoVGI—A NO—V300 'Id mvRq mojlm IOH d0 AID - °3a�°°H° 3d bs Ne, I��HS 2IHA0D >o aN -�N�a33N�3 - =c> �N�Ni vA iAAHn\a Cj i�Ai�indT RLHON NOI,NAOS O � 96 O .0 a Vw UaUE� Q o � DUUU U Wo W o � 0 ost(9,)xvH r c0es)iaerea —Ha �pi1o�� 4�°a9 uOlu°8 ee atva be sNo�smaa sn ncn vaiao�a NO r o0 ooi a os-avoa saava o ec NV'ld NO,LNIAHNd KOLLO'10d w��m DNI NNa'���NiaiN9N3N air nv NOINAOg2I9mq o _ U 96—I - ms ER E. 92H N=NWo _W� - _ a 1 6 02 to �c+rn ro n,.. P� n� em -nEm uox_ rE_ nxa e��3¢. nm erca. r�3rn maErc ✓� -_LLrcam / Z m }6 r� w i C4` t�p� c�4s 3f' SlY�' l N r � � mt o P j{ S t iTtls ! z o � r r r tlr tk' o r z os«�ss)xra r�66�-zboss)3Noaa ee aiva be sNo�smza sn ncn �raiao�a rvoir roe 3nan San_H_ d NeNr, W-ld IIA13 NNa'���NiaiN9N3N air nv NOINAOg2I9mq 96 - - o aj REM 2 o- v + ) 3) 4t w z w!s ,r i� tni3 i +S �� ! _ � � ,ts�,�,2 ,ai'pn}SSS`��,� •,�' ) � Yy y x t t .. (tis tiYY3r � ft i+ . + LM 3� o ) a � kc w ^ ~ Go 2p9mp A2����1 IN INI AAORmlax! z. �z.1 � © _ \ % ` \ \ 2 \ \ \ \ \} \ 0 ) ' ( y / K1,11- '12 \ � } \) . z °` z. 0 0� \ � \ dnoao uaadodd da'j 9Z4EE VC3IFJO-1=1'HOV39 Nolmo9 m 4 �s WIINHAV H,LSE ISa&HIflOS OIZI _ A02IdI4II J KVNML/2[SfIOHHV,&I'IHHS o C; OIa 'IVILi,LSfl(INI ILIS aO'I'IHX cn6 03 �o aap Q 28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o— 2 H1 F— I mg o— W -- ---- O -- �� W a W p6 Z Ld �1 Z �o �e w — o e> e> d� O H H � JLLJ W l l l J LLJ W J W V„ Mr C14 ,no,,o 1-,83wotJd H313X3 961,EE VO1801=1'HOV�3B NO1NA08 a WINHAV HIS£ISHAAHIWS OIZi 'AOHdWI INVNIHI/HSIIOHUViA I IHHS O 'IVI-'dLS[1QNII HIIS jAO'I'IHX (L0s ' U J16 E I_] HL�JJ JH I` J LI= LI] I, i j j c g C', �o o o I i i lJ I 0 - � L J bl a I Z Z Z O Z O HF O Q W W W J W J J W J W W o =o W =o Q W Z (n& d 8 M 8 N g g rinodo uaa.ioaa HaOXD 9Zb66 IiO�d'HOV3 VOI3 NOlNkO3 N TMAV HiM:,LSa&HlflOS OIZI r AOIIdlkIINVMaL/dSIIOHIIV,&TIMS #e 10ia u = a 'NIuZSIIQIII 21JUS A0,111AX �w LL 63 EMU a m N��arya� a A :AA AA A :A .� _ � A AAAAAAAAA :e A : .. .. AA :: A 1� 5 �� A :AA :AA :: AAAAA 000 � �� A AAvtiaA _— � Q E LL, � U Ld s� H =w 65 iivw wa zn eieuozicua'eMver3 99ou�Cn>3asv.H.M„aHs,viaisr,aNi ails Mo„�-99ou�ioz:Uafo+a>3,u�z EXHIBIT "C Conditions of Approval Project Name: Exeter/ Sterling Records Phase 3 File number: MSPM 17-008 Reference: 2nd review plans identified as a Maior Site Plan Modification with a September 26, 2017 Planning and Zoning Department date stamp marking. DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE REJECT ENGINEERING / PUBLIC WORKS / FORESTRY/ UTILITIES Comments: 1. Please revise the side by side dumpster enclosure to allow the minimum backing clearance of 60 ft. for solid waste trucks for each location, measured from the front edge of the dumpster pad, per Chapter 4, Article VI, Section 3.E. 2. Dumpster enclosure must meet the Chapter 4, Article VI, Section 3.E. & Section 4.C. and Engineering Division Standard Drawing G-4. Also, please ensure the gates are designed to screen the contents. 3. Please revise the Landscape Plan to depict perimeter trees along the detention area at various distances from the top of the slope. Consider adding Cypress trees scattered in the low-lying areas of the detention area. 4. Please ensure the Senna Surattensis is located a minimum of 10 feet away from the dumpster to ensure no conflicts with waste removal operations. 5. Please ensure there are no line-of-sight conflicts at all entrance/exits. FIRE Comments: 6. Please revise the turning radius of 21 feet inside and 35 feet to the centerline around the site and proposed building, to ensure there are no encroachments into parking spaces. 7. Please show a 200 feet radius around all the fire hydrants to indicate that the entire building will be within 200 feet from a fire hydrant. POLICE Comments: Page 41 of 132 Exeter/Sterling Records Phase 3 (MSPM 17-008) Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 8. None, all previous comments addressed at DART meeting. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: 9. None, all previous comments addressed at DART meeting. PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 10. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the application requests are publicly advertised in accordance with Ordinance 04- 007 and Ordinance 05-004 and an affidavit provided to the City Clerk. 11. Applicants who wish to utilize City electronic media equipment for recommended PowerPoint presentations at the public hearings must notify the project manager in Planning and Zoning and submit a CD of the presentation at least one week prior to the scheduled meeting. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Comments: N/A PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Exeter-Sterling Records Phase 3\MSPM 17-008\COA.doc Page 42 of 132 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Exeter/Sterling Records Phase III (MSPM 17-008) APPLICANT: Allan Hendricks, Caulfield &Wheeler, Inc. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 7900 Glades Road, Suite 100, Boca Raton, FL 33434 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: November 21, 2017 APPROVAL SOUGHT: Major Site Plan Modification approval to construct a one-story, 56,160 square foot warehouse building and related site improvements, located at 1210 SW 35th Avenue, and zoned M1 (Light Industrial). LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 1210 SW 35th Avenue DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER was presented to the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the approval sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the approval sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant _ HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the approval requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included." 4. The Applicant's request is hereby _ GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 above. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other: DATED: City Clerk S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Exeter-Sterling Records Phase III\MSPM 17-008\DO.doc Page 43 of 132 7.B. New Business 10/24/2017 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 10/24/2017 REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Approve Aldi Grocery Land Use and Rezoning (LUAR 17-006) to support the intended 17,880 square foot grocery store building and related site improvements at 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard. Applicant Bonnie Miskel, Dunay, Miskel & Backman, LLP. 1. Future Land Use Map Amendment from Office Commercial (OC) to Local Retail Commercial (LRC). 2. Rezone from C-1 (Office and Professional) to C-3 (Community Commercial). EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: The 2.04-acre parcel is currently developed with a one-story, 30-year old rundown office building. The applicant, representing a global discount supermarket chain Aldi, Inc., proposes to redevelop the property with a 18,848 square foot store. In addition to the FLUM amendment and rezoning, the requests under concurrent consideration include site plan approval and a variance for the rear setback. The approval of the subject requests would bring the first Aldi store to the city. I n recent years, the company opened stores in Delray Beach, Boca Raton and West Palm Beach. The proposed FLUM amendment and rezoning would not support uses contrary to the development patterns in adjacent and nearby areas, which already incorporate retail establishments of various scales from small to major—including the 100,000 square foot BJs Shopping Center—as well as other commercial uses and single-family homes. The proposed FLU category and zoning district are more consistent with the land use and zoning patterns than the existing ones: except the subject property and one directly south of it, all commercially developed parcels in the area along W. Boynton Boulevard carry the Local Retail Commercial category.Also, except for three PCDs (Planned Commercial Developments), the C-3 zoning district prevails. Note that the development intensity of LRC future land use and C-3 zoning aligns with the high traffic volumes carried by urban principal arterials such as Boynton Beach Boulevard. HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? The requests, if approved, would not require capacity adjustment to the City services. FISCAL IMPACT: The requests, if approved, would allow for a sizable retail use and therefore an increase in the City's tax base in addition to building permit and related revenues. Page 44 of 132 ALTERNATIVES: Staff does not recommend any alternatives. STRATEGIC PLAN: STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION: N/A CLIMATE ACTION: No CLIMATE ACTION DISCUSSION: N/A Is this a grant? Grant Amount: ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Staff Report Staff Report D Location Map EXH I B ITA. Location Map® aerial D Exhibit Exhibit B. ALDI proposed FLU D Exhibit Exhibit C. ALD I proposed Zoning Page 45 of 132 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 17-050 STAFF REPORT TO: Chair and Members Planning and Development Board THRU: Michael Rumpf Planning and Zoning Director FROM: Hanna Matras, Senior Planner DATE: September 5, 2017 PROJECT: ALDI Grocery Store LUAR 17-006 REQUEST: Approve the ALDI grocery store Future Land Use Map Amendment from Office Commercial (OC) to Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and rezoning from C-1 Office Professional to C-3, Community Commercial. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant/Property Owner: Jordan Ford of ALDI Inc./ MG3 3452 West Boynton LLC Agent: Bonnie Miscal, Esq./Dunay, Miskel and Backman, LLP Location: 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard (Exhibit "A") Existing Land Use/ Zoning: Office Commercial (OC)/ C-1 Office Professional Proposed Land Use/ Zoning: Local Retail Commercial (LRC)/ C-3 Community Commercial Acreage: 2.04 acres Page 46 of 132 Page 2 ALDI Grocery Store LUAR 17-006 Adjacent Uses: North: Right-of-way for W. Boynton Beach Boulevard, and farther north developed commercial properties, classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC) future land use and zoned C-3 Community Commercial; South: Developed two-story office building, classified Office Commercial (OC) and zoned C-1, Office Professional; East: Developed single-family community (Stonehaven), classified Low Density Residential and zoned PUD; and West: Right-of-way for Knuth Road; farther west, developed commercial property (service station); to the southwest, vacant parcel; both properties classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and zoned PCD, Planned Commercial Development. BACKGROUND The 2.04-acre parcel is currently developed with a one-story, 30-year old rundown office building. The applicant, representing a global discount supermarket chain Aldi, Inc., proposes to redevelop the property with a 18,848 square foot store. In addition to the FLUM amendment and rezoning, the requests under concurrent consideration include site plan approval and a variance for the rear setback. The approval of the subject requests would bring the first Aldi store to the city. In recent years, the company opened stores in Delray, Boca Raton and West Palm Beach. Aldi operates approximately 10,000 stores wordwide; it has been present in the U.S. since 1976 where it also owns Trader Joe's. REVIEW BASED ON CRITERIA The following criteria used to review Comprehensive Plan Map amendments and rezonings are listed in the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2.13 and Section 2.D.3: a. Demonstration of Need. A demonstration of need may be based upon changing conditions that represent a demand for the proposed land use classification and zoning district. Appropriate data and analysis that adequately substantiates the need for the proposed land use amendment and rezoning must be provided within the application. The subject request will allow to expand the use options for the site and support redevelopment more in line with the character and intensity of the existing commercial uses in the area. Such uses serve the continuously expanding population in the residential communities along the Congress Avenue corridor, incuding the incoming 2 Page 47 of 132 Page 3 ALDI Grocery Store LUAR 17-006 Cortina development which may bring over 1,500 new residents within a mile of the project. The proposed use, ALDI supermarket, will join the nearby Walmart and BJ's Wholesale Club in offering grocery items at discounted or very low prices. The subject FLU amendment and rezoning is also supported by market trends, which demonstrate more support for retail than for office development in the City. Boynton Beach does not have class "A" office, and the vacancy rates for classes "B" and "C" have been high in recent years. According to the the Cushman and Fields' 1St quarter 2017 report, the overall office vacancy rate in the Boynton market was 23.4%, the highest among the Palm Beach county municipalities (it was 13.8% countywide). On the other hand, Collier Intenational's review of the same period states: "Investors are attracted to the Palm Beach County retail market. Trading activity recorded $236 million in the first quarter of 2017 which amounts to almost triple the trading activity one year ago. Retail is trading at a premium when close to densifying urban neighborhoods." b. Consistency. Whether the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment (FLUM) and rezoning would be consistent with the purpose and intent of, and promote, the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, Redevelopment Plans, and Land Development Regulations. There is not as yet a plan for the Congress Avenue corridor to guide redevelopment, but the proposed future land use amendment and rezoning are consistent with the general intent of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Element, which recognize and support commercial uses as goods/services providers and job generators, including, for example: Policy 1.17.1 The City shall continue to review the Land Development Regulations to improve approval processes and to remove unnecessary hurdles hindering industrial and commercial uses that create jobs, contribute to the tax base, and accommodate market trends.; and Policy 1.17.6 The City shall continue to apply Economic Development Benefits review criteria to all rezoning and Future Land Use Map amendment requests to limit the conversion of industrial and commercial land to other uses. In addition, the proposed future land use amendment and rezoning supports "Strong Local Economy," one of the 9 objectives of the City's Strategic Plan. Consistency with Land Development Regulations (LDR) The application for the Master/Site Plan complies with the development regulations of the C-3 Community Commercial zoning district, other than the rear setback at the south side of the property. The applicant has submitted concurrent variance application and 3 Page 48 of 132 Page 4 ALDI Grocery Store LUAR 17-006 justification in an effort to deviate from those design regulations. c. Land Use Pattern. Whether the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment (FLUM) and rezoning would be contrary to the established land use pattern, or would create an isolated zoning district or an isolated land use classification unrelated to adjacent and nearby classifications, or would constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with the protection of the public welfare. This factor is not intended to exclude FLUM reclassifications and rezonings that would result in more desirable and sustainable growth for the community. The land use pattern in adjacent and nearby areas is eclectic. it incorporates commercial uses of office and retail as well as single-family residential uses. The proposed FLU category and zoning district are more consistent with the land use and zoning patterns than the existing ones: except the subject property and one directly south of it, all commerciallly developed parcels in the area along the W. Boynton Boulevard carry the Local Retail Commercial category. Also, except for three PCDs (Planned Commercial Developments), the C-3 zoning prevails. Note that the development intensity of LRC future land use and C-3 zoning aligns with the high traffic volumes carried by urban principal arterials such as Boynton Beach Boulevard. d. Sustainability. Whether the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment (FLUM) and rezoning would support the integration of a mix of land uses consistent with the Smart Growth or sustainability initiatives, with an emphasis on 1) complementary land uses; 2) access to alternative modes of transportation, and 3) interconnectivity within the project and between adjacent properties. The proposed amendment/rezoning supports the integration of the land uses consistent with the smart growth and sustainability initiatives since it provides uses complementary to the existing ones. Further, the commercial zoning, and planned grocery store would provide the neighborhoods along Knuth road with walkable option for convenience and other grocery items, or at least a driving option which avoids the greater roadway network e. Availability of Public Services / Infrastructure. All requests for Future Land Use Map amendments shall be reviewed for long-term capacity availability at the maximum intensity permitted under the requested land use classification. Water and Sewer. Long-term capacity availability for potable water and sewer for the subject request has been confirmed by the Utilities Department. So/id Waste. The Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority determined that sufficient disposal capacity will be available at the existing landfill through approximately the year 2046. 4 Page 49 of 132 Page 5 ALDI Grocery Store LUAR 17-006 Drainage. Drainage will be reviewed in detail as part of the site plan, land development, and building permit review processes. Trak. Traffic impact will be reviewed as part of the site plan. f. Compatibility. The application shall consider the following factors to determine compatibility. (1) Whether the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment (FLUM) and rezoning would be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties, or would negatively affect the property values of adjacent and nearby properties, and (2) Whether the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment (FLUM) and rezoning is of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the City as a whole. See responses to critera "a" and "c." The proposed FLUM category and zoning district would be more compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties than the subject property's current designations. The amendments are likely to positively affect property values in the surrounding area. As previously noted, the land use pattern in adjacent and nearby areas is eclectic. it incorporates commercial uses of office, retail uses of various scales from small to major—including the 100,000 square foot BJs Shopping Center—as well as single- family residential uses. Except for one single family home near the northeast corner of the project, the abutting single family neighborhood to the east is separated from the subject property by a private road, and the same neighborhood directly abuts Boynton Beach Boulevard—an intense arterial roadway—to the north, and the BJs to the east. The subject rezoning would create an additional but certainly lesser impact on this neighborhood than these two uses but, at the same time, it would add another option of attractively priced staple goods in a walking distance grocery store. Hence, the amendments and the proposed use they support are "reasonably related" to the needs of the neighborhood and the City as a whole. Local residents can benefit, as well as others, budget-conscious and/or seeking alternatives to what is available elsewhere. ALDI sells store-specific brands, can provide significant savings on national brands, and partners—whenever possible—with local farmers. g. Economic Development Impact Determination for Conventional Zonin_g Districts. For rezoning/FLUM amendments involving rezoning to a conventional zoning district, the review shall consider whether the proposal would further Economic Development Program, but also determine whether the proposal would- 5 Page 50 of 132 Page 6 ALDI Grocery Store LUAR 17-006 (1) Represent a potential decrease in the possible intensity of development, given the uses permitted in the proposed land use category and/or zoning district, and (2) Represent a potential decrease in the number of uses with high probable economic development benefits. The answer to both questions is "no." The proposed amendment would represent the increase in both possible intensity of development and in number and type of commercial uses with "high probable economic development benefits." h. Commercial and Industrial Land Supply,The review shall consider whether the proposed rezoning/FLUM amendment would reduce the amount of land available for commercial/industrial development. If such determination is made, the approval can be recommended under the following conditions: (1) The size, shape, and/or location of the property makes it unsuitable for commercial/industrial development, or (2) The proposed rezoning/FLUM amendment provides substantiated evidence of satisfying at least four of the Direct Economic Development Benefits listed in subparagraph "g"above, and (3) The proposed rezoning/FLUM amendment would result in comparable or higher employment numbers, building size and valuation than the potential of existing land use designation and/or rezoning. The proposed rezoning does not reduce the amount of land available for commercial/industrial development. It keeps and further intensifies the potential commercial redevelopment of the site. L Alternative Sites. Whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the City for the proposed use in zoning districts where such use is already allowed. Note that the subject parcel is not vacant. There are 3 (three) vacant parcels within the city carrying the C-3 zoning AND close in size to the property under consideration. These may not be currently on the market and/or their location may not be suitable for a grocery store. As discussed previously in this report, the proposed amendment/rezoning will make the property more consistent with the area land use patterns. j. Master Plan and Site Plan Compliance with Land Development Regulations. When master plan and site plan review are required pursuant to Section 2.D.1.e above, both shall comply with the requirements of the respective zoning district regulations of Chapter 3, Article 111 and the site development standards of Chapter 4. For the master plan/site plan review, see the corresponding staff report. As already 6 Page 51 of 132 Page 7 ALDI Grocery Store LUAR 17-006 mentioned, the application for the Master/Site Plan complies with the development regulations of the C-3 Community Commercial zoning district, other than the rear setback at the south side of the property. The agent has submitted concurrent variance application and justification in an effort to deviate from those design regulations. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION As indicated herein, staff has reviewed the proposed FLU amendment and rezoning and determined that it meets the review criteria for the subject applications. Therefore, staff recommends approvals of the subject requests. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTSWIdi Grocery\ALDI LUAR 17-006\LUAR 17-006 Aldi Store Staff Report.doc 7 Page 52 of 132 EXHIBIT A SITE LOCATION MAP f, tt i r g i 1l� k; 5 Fr R WBoynton Beach vd r r , n e r r 13t F i r 0 3060 120 180 240 Feet Page 53 of 132 EXHIBIT B ALDI: PROPOSED FLU (LUAR 17-006) r� r - s - EXHIBITC ALDI: PROPOSED ZONING (LUAR 17-006) , k k E �,y f ��fs f � t t 4 ,r t ff i f t r t j ` s t '77,77, S c • f k � r , k, , ' S � .? t { r ri t t f .. if I Legend: ZONING DISTRICTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) C-3 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL C-1 OFFICE PROFESSIONAL PLANNED CIMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (PCD) mil"milm"m CITY BOUNDARY Page 55 of 132 7.C. New Business 10/24/2017 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 10/24/2017 REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Approve Aldi Grocery Variance (ZNCV 17-001) for the relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 111, Section 3.C.3., Community Commercial (C-3) Building/Site Regulations, requiring a minimum rear setback of 20 feet, to allow a rear setback of 14 feet, a variance of 6 feet, for a proposed Aldi Grocery Store within the C-3 Community Commercial zoning district. Applicant: Bonnie Miskel, Duany, Miskel & Backman, LLP. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: Bonnie Miskel of Dunay, Miskel & Backman LLP, representing property owner MG3 3452 West Boynton LLC and applicant/contract purchaser Aldi, Inc., is requesting concurrent Land Use & Rezoning, Major Site Plan Modification, Community Design Appeals and Zoning Code Variance approval to construct a 17,880 square foot grocery store and related site improvements at the SE corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road. On November 15, 2016, the City Commission approved a request for Conditional Use/ Major Site Plan Modification to convert the vacant 13,640 square foot office building to a day care operation for up to 200 children. This new plan for a grocery store has been designed depicting a 30 foot wide segment of the building with a 14 foot rear (south) setback, with the remainder of the rear of the building (approximately 90 feet) at a 31 foot setback, 11 feet further from the rear property line than required by code. As a result, the applicant is requesting a variance for a reduction in the minimum required rear building setback of 20 feet to 14 feet resulting in a variance of 6 feet. This reduction equals a variance of 6 feet for approximately one-quarter of the width of the proposed building. Based on staff's analysis, it would appear as though the variance request does not satisfy all of the above criteria; however, there are strong arguments for approval of the variance, based upon: 1. the uniqueness of this C-3 site, being smaller than other surrounding C-3 sites with the same locational criteria and which currently accommodate big box users; 2. the setback reduction request is for only a small portion of the building which abuts a parking lot for an office building to the south, thereby creating no external impact; 3. the portion of the building creating the need for a variance actually acts as a solid buffer of the loading operations from the residential development to the east; 4. the request is the minimum variance necessary to make site operations functional; and 5. the request provides adequate separation between properties, while providing for proper site and emergency circulation, screening of back of house operations, and adequate air circulation and natural light to adjacent properties. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to reduce the rear (south) setback for a small segment of the building. This request will not be injurious or detrimental to the area in general or any property owner in particular. Page 56 of 132 HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Collection of fees associated with building permits, business tax and property tax ALTERNATIVES: None recommended. STRATEGIC PLAN: STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION: N/A CLIMATE ACTION: No CLIMATE ACTION DISCUSSION: N/A Is this a grant? Grant Amount: ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Staff Report Staff Report D Location Map Location Map D Drawings Site Plan D Letter Applicant's Justification D Conditions of Approval Conditions of Approval D Development Order Development Order Page 57 of 132 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 17-039 STAFF REPORT TO: Chair and Members Planning & Development Board and City Commission THRU: Michael W. Rumpf Planning and Zoning Director FROM: Ed Breese Principal Planner DATE: October 9, 2017 PROJECT NAME/NO: Aldi Grocery Variance /ZNCV 17-001 REQUEST: Request relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 3, Article III. Section 3.C.3., Community Commercial (C-3) Building/Site Regulations, requiring a minimum rear setback of 20 feet, to allow a rear setback of 14 feet, a variance of 6 feet, for a proposed Aldi Grocery Store within the C-3 Community Commercial zoning district. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owners: MG3 3452 West Boynton LLC Applicant/Agent: Bonnie Miskel, Dunay, Miskel & Backman LLP Location: 3452 W. Boynton Beach Blvd. (see Exhibit "A"— Location Map) Acreage: 2.04 acres (88,759 square feet) Proposed Use: Grocery Store (see MSPM 17-005) Existing Zoning: C-1 (Office Professional) Proposed Zoning: C-3 (Community Commercial) Adjacent Uses: North: Right-of-way for Boynton Beach Boulevard and farther north developed commercial properties zoned C-3 (Community Commercial); Page 58 of 132 Staff Report ZNCV 17-001 Aldi Grocery Memorandum No. PZ 17-039 Page 2 South: Office building zoned C-1 (Office Professional); East: Stonehaven residential development zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development); and West: Right-of-way for Knuth Road, and farther west BP Gas Station and undeveloped land zoned PCD (Planned Commercial Development). BACKGROUND The subject property is currently zoned C-1 (Office Professional) and this variance request for a reduction in rear setback is accompanied by applications for Land Use amendment&Rezoning and Major Site Plan Modification. The site is located at the southeast corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road (see Exhibit "A" — Location Map). On November 15, 2016 the City Commission approved a request for Conditional Use / Major Site Plan Modification to convert the vacant 13,640 square foot office building to a day care operation for up to 200 children.The property owner was approached shortly after the day care approval by Aldi representatives interested in purchasing the property to locate one of their stores. As a result, these new applications for a grocery store were filed with the City. The building has been vacant for approximately three(3)years and the site and access points have been fenced off in order to prevent any property damage and unlawful behavior. PROPOSAL Bonnie Miskel of Dunay, Miskel & Backman LLP, representing property owner MG3 3452 West Boynton LLC and applicant/contract purchaser Aldi, Inc., is requesting concurrent Land Use & Rezoning (LUAR 17-006)and Major Site Plan Modification (MSPM 17-005) approval to construct a 17,880 square foot grocery store and related site improvements (see Exhibit "B"— Site Plan). After working through site design issues for an Aldi grocery prototype building, the applicant determined a variance would be needed for the rear(south) building setback abutting an existing office building. The current standard rear setback for the C-3 zoning district is a minimum of 20 feet. The site plan has been designed depicting a 30 foot wide segment of the building with a 14 foot rear (south) setback, with the remainder of the rear of the building (approximately 90 feet) at a 31 foot setback, 11 feet further from the rear property line than required by code. As a result, the applicant is requesting a variance for a reduction in the minimum required rear building setback of 20 feet to 14 feet resulting in a variance of 6 feet. This reduction equals a variance of 6 feet for approximately one-quarter of the width of the proposed building. ANALYSIS Staff reviewed the requested variance focusing on the applicant's response to criteria a.—f. below (see Exhibit"C"-Justification). The code states that the zoning code variance cannot be approved unless the board finds the following: a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiarto the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. Page 59 of 132 Staff Report ZNCV 17-001 Aldi Grocery Memorandum No. PZ 17-039 Page 3 The subject property abuts developed commercial property to the south, unlike most commercial parcels lining arterial and collector roadways, which back up directly to residential properties. As the code requires back of house operations, such as loading docks, to be screened from view from rights-of-way and buffered from residential development, the applicant has designed the loading area so that it abuts the commercial development to the south and created a bump out in the footprint to completely buffer the loading operations from the residential development to the east with the wall of the building itself. The approval of the 6 foot variance for approximately one-quarter of the width of the building appears minimal when addressing code requirements for screening the loading area and buffering the operations from the residential development to the east. The applicant notes that the majority of the rear of the building exceeds the minimum rear setback by more than 11 feet, thereby reducing the the visual impact of a rear setback encroachment. b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Although the applicant is utilizing one of their corporate prototype designs, the applicant indicates that the shape of the property and City regulations associated with parking, circulation, and foundation landscaping have dictated the placement of the building on the parcel. Conversely, the applicant could modify the prototype building footprint in an effort to meet the required rear setback. However, an argument could be made that there are special circumstances that the property is indeed unique since it meets the locational criteria and minimum lot standards of the C-3 zoning district, which is intended to accommodate large intensive retail commercial uses and projects, but is smaller than the typical C-3 zoned property. The applicant indicates that the special conditions and circumstance do not result from the applicant, but existing conditions associated with the site and its shape, as well as the City's land development regulations relative to parking and landscaping. c. That granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. As previously noted, unlike most commercial parcels lining arterial and collector roadways, which back up directly to residential properties, this particular parcel abuts another developed commercial property. Practically all zoning codes are designed to maximize setbacks and buffers between commercial and residentially zoned property, in order to provide the separation necessary to ensure the quiet enjoyment by owners of residentially zoned lands. The fact that the variance request is for a setback between abutting commercial properties, staff believes no special privilege will be provided that would not be provided in similar circumstances. The applicant states that the granting of a variance would not confer any special privilege on the applicant, as other property owners would be entitled to request the same variance if special conditions exist on their property. d. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this chapter[ordinance]and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. The literal interpretation of the code requirements may make the project a little less feasible on the part of the applicant. Major corporate entities tend to want to work within the pre- Page 60 of 132 Staff Report ZNCV 17-001 Aldi Grocery Memorandum No. PZ 17-039 Page 4 established design of the company's prototype buildings, both for ease of construction and pre-designed drawings which do not need to be modified, as well as the impacts associated with shelving and product layout changes necessitated with a building redesign. The applicant indicates that the site currently houses a rundown and vacant office structure and that the applicant proposes to bring an international grocery store to the City, and that the literal interpretation of the rear setback for a small portion of the building would deprive the immediate community and City of a greater benefit. e. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. By allowing a reduction in the rear setback, the applicant can provide the necessary screening and buffering of the back of house operations associated with the business, the required parking, safe vehicular circulation, appropriate perimeter and foundation landscaping, and increased pedestrian amenities. The requested variance from a 20 foot to a 14 foot rear setback is the minimum variance necessary to appropriately fit the building prototype and amenities on the parcel. As the proposed building design and placement meets the minimum side setback standard and do not require the need for a setback reduction from the abutting residential land use, the impacts associated with the minimal reduction request for a small portion of the building are negligable. As noted above, the redesign of the building prototype would be the only way to fit the building on site without benefit of the minimal variance requested. The applicant believes the request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property and that the overall benefit of screening the residential development to the east, as well as accommodating other site requirements through the proposed building placement, such as parking, circulation, landscaping and buffering outweigh the slight encroachment. f. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter[ordinance]and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Staff believes that granting this variance will have virtually no impacts upon surrounding properties considering the minimal intrusion into the setback abutting another commercially- zoned property. The purpose of property development regulations in the Zoning Code, specifically setback requirements, is to ensure compatibilty and a sense of privacy between properties through the provision of adequate separation of structures. The variance would allow the development to appropriately locate the back-of-house operations, including loading/unloading,while providing required screening and buffering of these operations from rights-of-way and the residential development to the east. The applicant believes the granting of the requested variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter of the code, noting that the impact of the variance requested is negligible as compared to the benefits of the subject site as a whole and surrounding properties. The applicant goes on to state, "Furthermore, the requested variance is aligned with the City's Comprehensive Plan policies", including Policy 1.17.3, which states that the City shall improve approval processes and remove unnecessary hurdles hindering industrial and commercial uses that create jobs, contribute to the tax base, and accommodate market trends.Further, the applicant states,"Granting the requested variance is consistent with this policy because granting a minor setback variance will allow the project to create jobs and contribute to the City's tax base while providing a specialty product and service that is Page 61 of 132 Staff Report ZNCV 17-001 Aldi Grocery Memorandum No. PZ 17-039 Page 5 currently a popular market trend." RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis contained herein, it would appear as though the variance request does not satisfy all of the above criteria, however there are strong arguments for approval of the variance, based upon: 1) the uniqueness of this C-3 site, being smaller than other surrounding C-3 sites with the same locational criteria and which currently accommodate big box users; 2) the setback reduction request is for only a small portion of the building which abuts a parking lot for an office building to the south, thereby creating no external impact; 3) the portion of the building creating the need for a variance actually acts as a solid buffer of the loading operations from the residential development to the east; 4) the request is the minimum variance necessary to make site operations functional; and 5) the request provides adequate separation between properties,while providing for proper site and emergency circulation, screening of back of house operations, and adequate air circulation and natural light to adjacent properties. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to reduce the rear (south) setback for a small segment of the building. This request will not be injurious or detrimental to the area in general or any property owner in particular. No conditions of approval are recommended for the variance request other than the request being subject to the approval of the Land Use amendment and Rezoning, Major Site Plan Modification, and Community Design Appeal applications. However, any conditions of approval added by the Planning & Development Board or the City Commission will be placed in Exhibit "D" — Conditions of Approval. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTSWIdi Grocery\ZNCV 17-001\Staff Report.doc Page 62 of 132 EXHIBIT A SITE LOCATION MAP f, tt i r g i 1l� k; 5 Fr R WBoynton Beach vd r r , n e r r 13t F i r 0 3060 120 180 240 Feet Page 63 of 132 A— A < -Lj `V H Cl o-Ed o o o o - o ........... LD IE 0 LL O s 1r U)LL 5 Ji 0 . ......... avo I/------------ ------------- DU NAY MIGary Ounay SKEL Hope Calhoun Christina ffilenk� Bonnie Mishe! Dwayne Dickerson Heather Jo Mten BACKMANLLP Scott Backman Ele Zachariades Andrea Keiser Aldi 3452 VV. Boynton Beach Boulevard Southeast Corner of W. Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road Aldi, Inc. ("Petitioner") is the contract purchaser of the +/- 2.04 acre parcel, whose Parcel Control Number is 08-43-45-30-01-008-0031 and generally located on the southeast corner of West Boynton each Boulevard and Knuth Road ("Property") within the City of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County,Florida ("City"). The Property is designated as Office Commercial ("OC") on the City's Future Land Use Map and is zoned Office Professional ("C-1"). Currently,the Property is developed with a rundown,one-story office building over thirty(30)years old and is in need of redevelopment. The Petitioner proposes to redevelop the Property with a +/- 18,848 square foot ALDI specialty grocery store ("Project"). In order to develop the Project, Petitioner is requesting a future land use map ("FLUM")amendment,rezoning,site plan approval,and a variance for the rear(south)setback. Variance Justification ALDI, one of America's favorite grocers, ;AS an International brand that first opened in 1961 Germany. It operates more than 1,600 stores in thirty-five (35) states and desires to bring a +/- 18,848 square foot specialty grocery store to the City. They take a simple, cost-effective approach to grocery shopping that saves shoppers on their grocery bills. In fact, smart shoppers have found that switching from national brands to ALDI exclusive brands can save the up to fifty percent (50%). According to Market Force Information,ALDI is a value leader among grocery stores in the United States for the sixth year in a row.' Over ninety percent (90%1 of retail products sold are ALDI specific brands and are sold only as weekly must-haves. ' In 2014,JALDI was recognized as Retailer of the Year for their private brand development by Store Brands Magazine2. Monthly,more than forty (40) million customers benefit from their streamlined approach to bring shoppers the highest quality products at the lowest possible prices because ALDI products are specially crated by ALDI. ALDI partners with local farmers when possible and is gluten and organic conscious. In 2012,ALDI was recognized in Supermarket News for its efforts in promoting healthy diet.3 Inorder to bring City residents specialty products with savings, Petitioner respectfully requests a variance for the rear (south) setback, which is a deviation from a quantifiable standard or measure as is applicable to variances according to the City's Land Development Regulations ("LDR") Chapter 2, Article 11, Section 4.D.1.b. Currently, LDR Chapter 3, Article 111, Section 3.C.3 requires a rear yard setback to be a minimum of twenty (20) feet. Petitioner is proposing a 31.65 foot rear (south) setback on approximately seventy percent (70%) of the building and a 14.81 foot rear (south) I htL"sc r orate.a]dLLi,-JenjiiewsraamIaLAard,,i/i-ni t--forceJ 2 hLtps:J&Qrp_Qmae aldi,us / rkt_ _ awartis storo�-br _�_a_ndo_ xzLytt— 01! iLailerL)f-the ,ar 3 :�y� '14 S,E 4th Street,Suite 36,Boca Raton, Gln 3;3432 Tel.fF76'0405-3300 Fax:(561)409-2341 www,dmbb1aw,corn Page 65 of 132 setback on approximately thirty percent(30%) of the building. As such,the scope of this requested variance is limited to the 14.81 foot rear (south) setback on approximately thirty percent (30%) of the southeast corner of the building. LDR Chapter 2, Article 11, Section 4.1) provides the review criteria used for evaluating variance requests. Petitioner will demonstrate below that the requested variance is consistent with the following review criteria as follows: a. That special conditions and circumstances exist is arepeculiar to the land,structure or building involved,and which are not applicable to other lands,structures or buildings in the same zoning district, There are special conditions and circumstances peculiar to the land,which are not applicable to other lands. The Property's existing shape is long and narrow. The length of the Property at 380.80 feet is for percent (40%) larger than its width at 234.92 feet. Moreover, the Property is a located at the corner of a major intersection, and thus, visible from two right- of-ways (W. Boynton each Boulevard and Knuth Road). In order to meet the parking, circulation, landscaping and buffer requirements of the City's LDR, a proposed building is predominantly setback to the maximum extent practicable at 31.65 feet on the southeastern portion of the Property. In consideration of the residential community adjacent to the east of the Property, the Applicant added a small appendage for loading ("Loading Dock") to the southeastern portion of the building in order to screen loading trucks from any views by impacted residents. Additionally,the grade of the loading zone is slightly lower to screen the loading truck from the property to the south. With a majority of the building set back at 31.65 feet and only thirty (30) feet of building set back at 14.81 feet,the Applicant is able to provide the required five (5)feet of foundation planting around the building and visible from both right-of-ways; the required twenty-five (25) foot drive aisles for proper circulation; the required ten (10) foot buffers on the north and west side of the Property and the required thirty(3 0) foot buffer on the east side of the Property, and the minimum number of parking spaces required for the Project. This proposed layout is most reasonable and practical considering the special conditions and circumstances discussed above. b. That special conditions and circumstances do notresultfrom the actions ofthe applicant for the variance, The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the Applicant. They result from the natural and existing conditions of the Property. The shape of the Property and the existence of the adjacent eastern residential community does not result from the actions of the Applicant. Moreover, the City's LDR requirements necessitate the proposed layout. 2 Page 66 of 132 c. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this section to other lands,structures or buildings in the same zoning district; Granting the variance requested will not confer on the Applicant any special privilege that is denied by this section to other lands, structure or buildings in the same zoning district. Any other property is entitled to request the same variance if special conditions and circumstances exist on their property. d That literal interpretations of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant; A literal interpretation of the provisions of LDR Chapter 3, Article 111, Section 3.C.3 would deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would inflict unnecessary and undue hardship on the Applicant. Currently, the Property is developed with a rundown, one-story office building over thirty (30) years old and is greatly in need of redevelopment. The Applicant desires to bring an international and award winning specialty grocery store to serve the diverse residents of the surrounding communities and the City. The proposed use is more consistent with the land use and zoning patterns in this area. A literal interpretation of LDR Chapter 3,Article 111, Section 3.C.3 for a mere thirty(30) feet of the requested variance would deprive the community and the City of a greater benefit,deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties who are also entitled to request similar variances from the City, and inflict unnecessary and undue hardship on the viability and potential of Applicant's Property. e. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the land,structure or building, and The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to make possible reasonable use of the land, structure or building. The proposed rear (south) setback is approximately seventy percent (70%) compliant with requirements of LDR Chapter 3, Article 111, Section 3.C.3. Applicant is requesting a minimum variance of only thirty (30) feet for the benefit of screening the adjacent, eastern residential community and for the benefit of bringing the Project into compliance with all other provisions required under the City's LDR, such as landscaping, buffering, circulation,and parking. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or be otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Granting the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. The purpose and intent of LDR Chapter 2,Article 11, Section 4 is to provide an efficient relief process to allow for reductions in the minimum yard setbacks that would have negligible impacts upon the subject site and surrounding properties and represent compliance with 3 Page 67 of 132 the general intent of the City's zoning regulations. The requested variance meets the general intent of LDR Chapter 3,Article 111, Section 3.C.3 by complying with almost seventy percent (70%) of the minimum rear setback requirement. The requested variance fora mere thirty (30) feet is negligible as compared to the benefits of the subject site as a whole and surrounding properties. Furthermore, the requested variance is aligned with the City's Comprehensive Plan policies. Policy 1.17.3 states that the City shall improve approval processes and remove unnecessary hurdles hindering industrial and commercial uses that create jobs, contribute to the tax base, and accommodate market trends. Granting the requested variance is consistent with this policy because granting a for setback variance will allow the Project to create jobs and contribute to the City's tax base while providing a specialty product and service that is currently a popular market trend. Moreover, the requested variance will not be injurious to the area involved or be otherwise detrimental to the public welfare,but benefits the area and public welfare. The requested variance provides better screening for the adjacent eastern residential community and the public welfare enjoys a specialty product and service. 4 Page 68 of 132 EXHIBIT "D" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Project Name: Aldi Grocery File number: ZNCV 17-001 Reference: 4th review plans identified as a New Site Plan with a October 10, 2017 Planning and Zoning Department date stamp marking. DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ENGINEERING / PUBLIC WORKS/ FORESTRY/ UTILITIES Comments: None. FIRE Comments: None. POLICE Comments: None. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None. PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None. PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. Approval is subject to approval of the concurrent applications for Land Use& Rezoning, Major Site Plan Modification and Community Design Appeals. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Comments: N/A. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. Page 69 of 132 Aldi Grocery (ZNCV 17-001) Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Aldi Grocery\ZNCV 17-001\COA.doc Page 70 of 132 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Aldi Grocery (ZNCV 17-001) APPLICANT: Bonnie Miskel, Esq. of Dunay, Miskel & Backman, LLP APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 14 SE 4th Street, Suite 36, Boca Raton, FL 33432 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: December 5, 2017 APPROVAL SOUGHT: Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 3, Article III. Section 3.C.3., Community Commercial (C-3) Building/Site Regulations, requiring a minimum rear setback of 20 feet, to allow a rear setback of 14 feet, a variance of 6 feet. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER was presented to the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the approval sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the approval sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant _ HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the approval requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included." 4. The Applicant's request is hereby _ GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 above. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other: DATED: City Clerk S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Aldi Grocery\ZNCV 17-001\DO.doc Page 71 of 132 7.D. New Business 10/24/2017 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 10/24/2017 REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Approve Aldi Grocery Community Design Appeals (CDPA 17-006) from 1) Chapter 4, Article 111, Section 3.G., "Overhead doors facing rights-of-way"; 2) Chapter 4, Article 111, Section 7.D.2., "Parapet roof return requirements"; 3) Chapter 4, Article 111, Section 7.G.2. "Covered walks along building facades"; and 4) Chapter 4, Article 111, Section 7.J.1. "Off-street parking locational criteria". Applicant: Bonnie Miskel, Dunay, Miskel & Backman, LLP. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: Bonnie Miskel of Dunay, Miskel & Backman LLP, representing property owner MG3 3452 West Boynton LLC and applicant/contract purchaser Aldi, Inc., is requesting concurrent Land Use & Rezoning, Major Site Plan Modification, Community Design Appeals and Zoning Code Variance approval to construct a 17,880 square foot grocery store and related site improvements at the SE corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road. On November 15, 2016, the City Commission approved a request for Conditional Use/ Major Site Plan Modification to convert the vacant 13,640 square foot office building to a day care operation for up to 200 children. After review of the requests, applicant justifications, proposed mitigation measures, and ultimate building and site design, staff has determined that the project meets the intent of the review criteria for Community Design Appeals in relation to 1) the remote location and screening of the overhead bay door; 2) appropriate building scale, mass and finishes providing a complete 360 degree design; 3) provision of alternative covered pedestrian amenities servicing a greater portion of the parking lot and allowing for larger landscape areas; and 4) added parking lot improvements to decrease the appearance of a large asphalt parking field. In addition, the proposed design of the project is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, will not significantly detract from the livability within or appearance of the City, will provide a well-located business with enhanced site amenities at a key intersection of the City, and finally, the project should not have any adverse impact on property values of abutting or adjacent land. HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Collection of fees associated with building permits, business tax, and property tax ALTERNATIVES: None recommended. STRATEGIC PLAN: STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION: CLIMATE ACTION: CLIMATE ACTION DISCUSSION: Page 72 of 132 Is this a grant? Grant Amount: ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Staff Report Staff Report D Location Map Location Map D Drawings Site Plan D Exhibit CD PA 17-006 Justifications D Exhibit CD PA 17-007 Justifications D Exhibit CD PA 17-008 Justifications D Exhibit CD PA 17-009 Justifications D Conditions of Approval Conditions of Approval D Development Order Development Order Page 73 of 132 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 17-053 STAFF REPORT TO: Chair and Members Planning and Development Board and City Commission THRU: Michael W. Rumpf, Director of Planning & Zoning FROM: Ed Breese, Principal Planner DATE: October 11, 2017 PROJECT NAME/NO: Aldi Grocery/ CDPA 17-006 through 17-009 REQUEST: Approve requests for Community Design Appeal of 1) Chapter 4, Article III, Section 3.G., "Overhead doors facing rights-of-way"; 2) Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.D.2., "Parapet roof return requirements"; 3)Chapter4, Article III, Section 7.G.2. "Covered walks along building facades"; and 4) Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.J.1. "Off-street parking locational criteria". Applicant: Bonnie Miskel, Dunay, Miskel & Backman, LLP. Property Owner: MG3 3452 West Boynton LLC Agent: Bonnie Miskel, Dunay, Miskel & Backman, LLP Location: 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard (see Exhibit "A" - Site Location Map) Site Details: The applicant has submitted development applications for Land Use & Rezoning, Major Site Plan Modification, Rear Setback Variance, and Community Design Appeals, for the construction of a one-story, 17,880 square foot grocery store building and related site improvements, on 2.04-acres. The subject site is located at the southeast corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road (see Exhibit "A" — Location Map), and is currently occupied by a vacant 13,640 square foot office building, which would be demolished as part of the requested development plan. NATURE OF REQUEST As noted above, Bonnie Miskel, agent for MG3 3452 West Boynton LLC and Aldi, Inc., is requesting approval of four(4) Community Design Plan Appeals. The first appeal request is of Chapter 4, Article III, Section 3.G., "Overhead doors facing rights-of-way", which is relative to the location of the overhead bay door for the loading dock. The community design standards prohibit overhead bay doors on facades facing selected highly visible roadways. Knuth Road is one of those select roadways and the door is on the facade facing Knuth Road. The second is of Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.D.2., "Parapet roof return requirements", which requires parapet returns be equal to the height of raised building facade elements above the typical parapet height, in an effort to provide more dimension to the facade, not simply straight walls. The applicant is proposing parapet returns of slightly more than half the required. The third request is of Chapter 4, Article III, Page 74 of 132 Staff Report—Aldi Grocery (CDPA 17-006 through 17-009) Memorandum No PZ 17-053 Page 2 Section 7.G.2., "Covered walks along building facades", which requires covered walkways be located along 70% of the front facade and 30% along the side corner facade,with seven (7)foot clear pedestrian passage. The applicant is proposing a covered walk within the parking area, as opposed to against the building facade. The last request is of Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.J.1. "Off-street parking locational criteria" which restricts the percentage of parking spaces that may be located between the building facade and a public street to a maximum of 60%. Due to the rectangular nature of the site and building placement limitations, the applicant proposes site improvements/amenities that reduce the visual impact associated with the size of the parking field. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The applicant has submitted a Justification Statement (Exhibit"C") date-stamped September 25, 2017 addressing each of the following review criteria for such applications: • a) Whether the proposed request will demonstrate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; • b) Whether the proposed request will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the city and will be consistent with the established or desired character of the area, or with the redevelopment plan, where applicable; • c) On balance, whether the proposed request will be consistent with the purpose of the standard for which a deviation is requested. Granting the request will equally or better meet the purpose of the standard to be appealed; • d) Whether the proposed request is intended to save or preserve existing trees or desired flora; • e) Whether the proposed request will have adverse environmental impacts that cannot be prevented by the imposition of conditions; • f) Whether the proposed request will have an adverse impact on property values of abutting or adjacent land; • g) Whether the proposed request will seriously reduce the quality or quantity of light and air available to adjacent properties; • h) Whether the proposed request is necessary to further the objectives of the City to assist with economic development and business promotion;and • i) Whether the proposed request meets the purpose and intent of these regulations but conflicts with another site development standard or requirement, including sustainable development and green initiatives. The first application submitted for Community Design Plan Appeal involves Land Development Regulations (LDR) Chapter 4, Article III, Section 3.G., "Overhead doors facing rights-of-way".The community design standards prohibit overhead bay doors on facades facing selected highly visible roadways. Knuth Road is one of those select roadways and the overhead bay door for the loading dock is on the facade facing Knuth Road. The applicant notes that the site size and configuration limits the possible location of the loading area, as other code regulations limit these types of operations to the back of the building. The applicant has provided additional mitigation as part of their justification, including recessing the loading Page 75 of 132 Staff Report—Aldi Grocery (CDPA 17-006 through 17-009) Memorandum No PZ 17-053 Page 3 dock from the westernmost building facade by nearly 90 feet, placing it approximately 175 feet from Knuth Road, painting the door to match the building to help it blend in with the balance of the building wall, and enhancing the landscaping to better screen the loading dock area. Staff believes that the mitigation measures warrant approval of the appeal. The second application submitted for Community Design Plan Appeal involves Land Development Regulations (LDR) Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.D.2., "Parapet roof return requirements",which requires parapet returns be equal in size to the height of raised building facade elements above the typical parapet roof height, in an effort to provide more dimension to the facade, not simply straight walls. The applicant has provided a parapet return of approximately one-half of that required, and justifies the deviation through 1) the use of parapets at varying heights; 2) the articulation occurring at the corners, which already provide greater dimension in two different planes; and 3) by providing a three-dimensional cornice at the top of the parapets on any side visible from off site. Staff believes that the raised architectural elements being located at the building corners combined with the three-dimensional cornice application on all locations visible from off-site essentially achieve the desired appearance contemplated in the design guidelines, and warrant approval of the appeal. The third application submitted for Community Design Plan Appeal involves Land Development Regulations (LDR) Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.G.2., "Covered walks along building facades",which requires covered walkways be located along 70% of the front facade and along 30% the side corner facade, with seven (7)foot clear pedestrian passage. The applicant indicates that the Aldi standard store site design places the shopping cart corrals immediately on either side of the front entry, and is alternatively providing seven (7) foot clear pedestrian passage along the front of the building; however, the walk would not be covered. As part of the justification, the projection would need to extend off the building more than 14 feet to accommodate both pedestrians and cart storage. The applicant proposes mitigation through 1) the provision of the required seven (7) foot wide pedestrian pathway (uncovered); 2) the addition of the segmented covered trellis walkway from the Boynton Beach Boulevard sidewalk (which they indicate will serve a greater portion of the parking lot, rather than those customers parked against the building; and 3)the placement of more aesthetically pleasing planting areas at the front of the building that can now be accommodated. While staff would typically prefer the covered walks along the building facade, the provision of a segmented covered walk from Boynton Beach Boulevard to the front entry is a viable alternative, serving to meet other community design criteria, such as breaking up large expanses of asphalt, and therefore warrants approval of the appeal. The fourth application submitted for Community Design Plan Appeal involves Land Development Regulations (LDR) Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.J.1. "Off-street parking locational criteria" which restricts the percentage of parking spaces that may be located between the building facade and a public street to a maximum of 60%. Due to the rectangular nature of the site and building placement limitations, the applicant proposes site improvements/amenities that reduce the visual impact associated with the size of the parking field. These enhancements include the provision of a segmented covered trellis walkway from Boynton Beach Boulevard, additional parking lot landscape islands, large landscape planter areas near the Page 76 of 132 Staff Report—Aldi Grocery (CDPA 17-006 through 17-009) Memorandum No PZ 17-053 Page 4 building entry, and use of stamped concrete walkways to break up the asphalt parking lot. Based upon site limitations, dictating potential parking lot design, combined with the parking lot amenities proposed by the applicant, staff believes the appeal is warranted. In conclusion, staff has determined that the project meets the intent of the review criteria for Community Design Appeals in relation to 1) the remote location and screening of the overhead bay door; 2) appropriate building scale, mass and finishes providing a complete 360 degree design; 3) provision of alternative covered pedestrian amenities servicing a greater portion of the parking lot and allowing for larger landscape areas; and 4) added parking lot improvements to decrease the appearance of a large asphalt parking field. In addition,the proposed design of the project is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the City, will provide a well- positioned and amenitized business at a key intersection of the City, and finally,the project should not have any adverse impact on property values of abutting or adjacent land. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed these requests for Community Design Appeal approval. Based on the analysis contained herein, staff recommends approval of each contingent upon City Commission approval of the concurrent requests for Land Use& Rezoning, Major Site Plan Modification, and Rear Setback Variance, and satisfying all comments indicated in Exhibit"D" —Conditions of Approval. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Aldi Grocery\CDPA 17-006 through 17-009\CDPA Staff Report.doc Page 77 of 132 EXHIBIT A SITE LOCATION MAP f, tt i r g i 1l� k; 5 Fr R WBoynton Beach vd r r , n e r r 13t F i r 0 3060 120 180 240 Feet Page 78 of 132 A— A < -Lj `V H Cl o-Ed o o o o - o ........... LD IE 0 LL O s 1r U)LL 5 Ji 0 . ......... avo I/------------ ------------- MISKEL Gary Dungy Hope Calhoun Christina BiLenki Beanie Miskat Dwayne Dickerson Heather Jas rattan BACKMANt t P Scott Backman Ete Zachariades Andrea Keiser Ii 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard Southeast Corner of W. Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road Aldi, Inc. ("Petitioner") is the contract purchaser of the +/- 2.04 acre parcel, whose Parcel Control Number is 08-43-45-30-01-008-0031 and generally located on the southeast corner of West Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road ("Property") within the City of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida ("City"). The Property is designated as Office Commercial ("OC") on the City's Future Land Use Map and is zoned Office Professional ("C-1"). Currently,the Property is developed with a rundown,one-story office building over thirty(30)years old and is in need of redevelopment. The Petitioner proposes to redevelop the Property with a +/- 18,848 square foot ALDI specialty grocery store ("Project"). In order to develop the Project, Petitioner requested a future land use map ("FLUM") amendment,rezoning,site plan approval,and a variance for the rear(south) setback. Here, Petitioner also respectfully requests Community Design Appeals for the following (each will be addressed in separate justification narratives): No. Code Section &h ect 1 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 3.G Overhead Bay Doors 2 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 7.D.2 Parapet Return 3 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 7.G.2 Covered Walkways 4 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 7.J.1 Off-Street Parkin CDA Justification for Relief from Chapter 4, Article III, Section 3. (Overhead a oor) In order to bring City residents Aldi's specialty products with savings afforded to communities all over the world, Petitioner respectfully requests a Community Design Appeal ("CDA"). The purpose of a CDA is to provide a relief process that allows for deviations from any community design standard of Chapter 4 of the City's Land Development Regulations ("LDR"). Pursuant to LDR Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 3.G, overhead bay doors shall not be located on building facades visible from Knuth Road. Petitioner is proposing an overhead bay door in the southeastern corner of the Property. See illustration below. The overhead bay door is oriented toward Knuth Road, but it's visibility has been significantly reduced. Thus, a CDA is required. 14 S.C.4th Street,Suite 36, Boca Raton, FL 33432 Tat: (5611405-3300 Fax: (561)409-2341 www.dmbblaw.com Page 80 of 132 k"' k 1 1 i 11 or b 4 4 ' t 4 Way ey � 4 Is E 9 LDg I 4 z T SII 18,848 SF TOTAL � I (17,880 SF INTERIOR) ti a � r 4. 4 54 FFE 15.90 NA,VD I I I I l & I ADA W TECT WAM TMINAfTER 4 , o I I I I I ffie mwd zt srnp Pursuant to LDR Part III, Chapter 2,Article II, Section 4.B.3, the Petitioner will demonstrate that the requested CDA meets the intent of the affected standard, does not diminish its practical application, and that an acceptable development product and/or design is achieved. First, the overhead bay door is located within a recessed portion of the building with a downward slope of up to four and a quarter (4.25) feet. The recessed portion of the building and downward slope inherently reduces visibility from Knuth Road while the west facade of the building shields most of its visibility. Second, the overhead bay door is camouflaged by painting it the same color as the building to blend in with the west facade. Third,the curb cut on the south side of the drive aisle and Knuth Road has been slightly adjusted from approximately fourteen feet (14') to seventeen feet (17') to further reduce visibility from Knuth Road. Fourth, a denser landscape buffer, consisting of groupings of Sabal Palms and Green Buttonwoods plus a forty-eight inch (48") hedge height, even further reduces the overall visibility of the loading area and overhead bay door. Considering the foregoing, the Petitioner has significantly reduced the visibility of the overhead bay door in order to meet the intent of the LDR without diminishing its practical application. Furthermore, the location of the loading area and overhead bay door on the southeastern portion of the Property achieves the best design for this site. The northern portion of the Property contains most of the pedestrian activity, visibility and vehicular access for patrons from a major public right-of-way,Boynton Beach Boulevard. By locating the loading area and overhead bay doors 2 Page 81 of 132 furthest from the pedestrian activity ensures the safety of Aldi's patrons. The eastern portion of the Property is adjacent to a residential neighborhood and locating the loading area closest to residential homes would be undesirable. The proposed location uses the building itself and a thirty- foot (30') setback to screen and to protect the residential community from any impacts of the commercial activity. The western portion of the Property also contains pedestrian activity and has visibility from another public right-of-way, Knuth Road. The loading area is located on the southern portion of the property and is adequately screened by denser landscaping, a forty-eight (48) inch hedge, and a downward slope of up to four and a quarter (4.25) feet. The overhead bay doors are oriented toward the Knuth Road so loading trucks can access the downward sloped, loading area from the southwest corner of the site, which has the least amount of impact to any pedestrians on site. The overhead bay doors are located furthest from Knuth Road in the recessed portion of the building and its visibility is further reduced by the west facade, the adjusted curb cut, and the additional landscaping. As such,the proposed location of the loading area and overhead bay doors achieves the best development product and design for this site while significantly reducing its visibility from Knuth Road in order to meet the intent of LDR Part III, Chapter 4, Article III, Section 3.G. Below, the Petitioner will also justify that the requested CDA sufficiently addresses the required review criteria in accordance with LDR Part III, Chapter 2,Article II, Section 4.B: a. Whether the proposed request will demonstrate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; Granting the requested CDA is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan ("Plan"). As discussed above, the proposed location of the overhead bay doors achieves the best design for this site,significantly reduces its visibility, ensures the safety of pedestrians,and protects the adjacent residential community. Moreover, granting the requested CDAs allows the Petitioner to propose a Project for a Property greatly in need of redevelopment. As such,the CDA is consistent with the goals,policies and objectives outlined in the City's Plan as follows: Policy 1.3.1.b - By granting the CDA, the Petitioner can most effectively provide commercial retail services which support the resident and visitor populations as well as creating employment opportunities for the adjacent residential communities. Policy 1.4.1 - The City shall encourage a mixture of quality light industrial, commercial and office uses within commercial and industrial districts where such projects would not create significant land use conflicts and adequate public facilities are available to serve such uses. The Project proposes a commercial use that is more consistent with the future land use designations and zoning districts of neighboring communities and adequate public facilities are available for the proposed use. Thus, the Project minimizes land use conflicts and maintain the character of the community (Goal 1). Policy 1.4.2 - The City shall continue to modify land development regulations as needed to make them more effective or less burdensome in achieving goals and objectives of this Plan, and to seek innovative regulatory solutions to promote economic development and sustainability initiatives. The purpose of the CDA is to provide a relief process that allows 3 Page 82 of 132 for deviations from any community design standard of LDR Chapter 4. This process stimulates economic development by providing relief from site design layouts that meet the general intent of the LDRs, but not the literal application of the LDRs which can be more burdensome in achieving the goals and objectives of this Plan. Here, the requested CDA for the overhead bay doors meets the general intent of the Code without diminishing the practical application of the design standard and results in the most favorable development design. Policy 1.7.3 - The City shall require that designs for redevelopment and infill projects encourage the use of public transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel as alternatives to the car and shall maximize personal safety. The Petitioner is proposing a Project on a Property greatly in need of redevelopment. The site plan encourages the use of public transit by coordinating a bus shelter with Palm Tran on the Property. It also encourages bicycle travel by providing bicycle racks and other pedestrian amenities such as seating and covered trellises. The requested CDA maximizes the safety of pedestrians by locating the loading area and overhead bay doors the furthest away from pedestrian activity. Policy 1.7.4 - The City is required to evaluate the continuing need for redevelopment plans in specific areas of the City that are not within the City's designated Community Redevelopment Area ("CRA"). This Property has been developed with the same, rundown office building over thirty(30) years and is greatly in need of redevelopment. Thus,the CDA facilitates the much needed redevelopment of the Property, which is not located within a CRA. Policy 1.17.3 - By the end of 2014, the City shall review the Land Development Regulations to improve approval processes and to remove unnecessary hurdles hindering industrial and commercial uses that create jobs, contribute to the tax base, and accommodate market trends. As noted above, the requested CDA removes an unnecessary hurdle hindering redevelopment of this site with a commercial use thatwill create jobs,contribute to the City's tax base, and provide an internationally recognized brand name. b. Whether the proposed request will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the city and will be consistent with the established or desired character of the area, or with the redevelopment plan, where applicable; The requested CDA will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the City and will be consistent with the established or desired character of the area. Proposing the loading area and overhead bay doors on the most southeastern corner of the Property and in a recessed portion of the building with a downward slope achieves the best site design with the most reduced visibility of the overhead bay doors. The denser landscaping enhances the livability and appearance of the City,and the camouflaging of the overhead bay door blends in with the facade of the building, which is consistent with the character of the area. 4 Page 83 of 132 c. On balance, whether the proposed request will be consistent with the purpose of the standard for which a deviation is requested. Granting the request will equally or better meet the purpose of the standard to be appealed; The requested CDA is consistent with the purpose of the standard for which a deviation is requested. As discussed above, the requested CDA still meets the general intent of the standard,which is to reduce the visibility of the overhead bay doors. Furthermore, granting the requested CDA will better meet the purpose of the standard being appealed. The proposed location of the loading area and overhead bay doors creates a safer environment for pedestrians and protects the adjacent residential community while still reducing the overall visibility. d. Whether the proposed request is intended to save or preserve existing trees or desired flora. (1)Whether the applicant is unable to design or locate proposed buildings, structures, or improvements and preserve the tree(s) and comply with all provisions of these community design standards without causing the applicant undue hardship; (2)Whether it is not feasible to transplant the trees to another location on the subject site considering the following: 1) shape and dimensions of the real property; 2) location of existing structures and infrastructure improvements; and 3)size, age, health, and species of trees sought to be protected; The criteria in d(1) and d(2) is inapplicable to this CDA. The overhead bay doors do not impact existing trees or flora. In fact, additional landscaping has been provided to meet the general intent of the LDR. e. Whether the proposed request will have adverse environmental impacts that cannot be prevented by the imposition of conditions; This criterion is inapplicable to this CDA. The visibility of the overhead bay doors does not have any environmental impacts. f. Whether the proposed request will have an adverse impact on property values of abutting or adjacent land; The requested CDA will not have an adverse impact on property values of abutting or adjacent land. In fact, the proposed location of the loading area and overhead bay doors within the recessed portion of the building protects the property values of the adjacent residential community. 5 Page 84 of 132 g. Whether the proposed request will seriously reduce the quality or quantity of light and air available to adjacent properties; This criterion is inapplicable to this CDA. The visibility of the overhead bay doors does not have any impacts on the quality and quantity of light and air available to adjacent properties. There will be no operations on site that will emit smoke or odors and the proposed building height(25'4") is far less than the maximum requirement(45'). h. Whether the proposed request is necessary to further the objectives of the city to assist with economic development and business promotion;and The requested CDA is necessary to further the objectives of the City to assist with economic development and business promotion. Policy 1.17.3 requires the City to improve approval processes and to remove unnecessary hurdles hindering industrial and commercial uses that create jobs, contribute to the tax base, and accommodate market trends. As already mentioned, the requested CDA achieves the best site design while still meeting the general intent of the LDR and removes an unnecessary hurdle hindering a much needed redevelopment of Property with a commercial use that will create jobs, contribute to the City's tax base, and provide an internationally recognized brand name. L Whether the proposed request meets the purpose and intent of these regulations but conflicts with anothersite development standard or requirement, including sustainable development and green initiatives. The Petitioner has demonstrated throughout this justification that the requested CDA meets the relief criteria. The requested CDA does not conflict with another site development standard or requirement. 6 Page 85 of 132 MISKEL Gary Dungy Hope Calhoun Christina BiLenki Beanie Miskat Dwayne Dickerson Heather Jas rattan BACKMANt t P Scott Backman Ete Zachariades Andrea Keiser Ii 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard Southeast Corner of W. Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road Aldi, Inc. ("Petitioner") is the contract purchaser of the +/- 2.04 acre parcel, whose Parcel Control Number is 08-43-45-30-01-008-0031 and generally located on the southeast corner of West Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road ("Property") within the City of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida ("City"). The Property is designated as Office Commercial ("OC") on the City's Future Land Use Map and is zoned Office Professional ("C-1"). Currently,the Property is developed with a rundown,one-story office building over thirty(30)years old and is in need of redevelopment. The Petitioner proposes to redevelop the Property with a +/- 18,848 square foot ALDI specialty grocery store ("Project"). In order to develop the Project, Petitioner requested a future land use map ("FLUM") amendment,rezoning,site plan approval,and a variance for the rear(south) setback. Here, Petitioner also respectfully requests Community Design Appeals for the following (each will be addressed in separate justification narratives): No. Code Section Sub'ect 1 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 3.G Overhead Bay Doors 2 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III,Section 7.D.2 Parapet Return 3 Part III,Chapter 4,Article III,Section 7.G.2 Covered Walkways 4 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 7.J.1 Off-Street Parkin CDA Justification for Relief from Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.D.2 (Parapet Return) In order to bring City residents Aldi's specialty products with savings afforded to communities all over the world, Petitioner respectfully requests a Community Design Appeal ("CDA"). The purpose of a CDA is to provide a relief process that allows for deviations from any community design standard of Chapter 4 of the City's Land Development Regulations ("LDR"). LDR Part III,Chapter 4,Article III,Section 7.D.2 is a big box design standard and requires a parapet return with a length equal to or exceeding the parapet articulation. Petitioner is proposing the following and requires a CDA: Tower Parapet Articulation Parapet Return Main Tower 4 feet 2 feet Secondary Tower 4 feet 8 inches 2 feet 14 S.C.4th Street,Suite 36, Boca Raton, FL 33432 Tat: (5611405-3300 Fax: (561)409-2341 www.dmbblaw.com Page 86 of 132 Pursuant to LDR Part III, Chapter 2,Article II, Section 4.13.3, the Petitioner will demonstrate that the requested CDA meets the intent of the affected standard, does not diminish its practical application, and that an acceptable development product and/or design is achieved. The intent of big box design standards is to eliminate adverse aesthetic impacts of large square or rectangular- shaped buildings with limited architectural enhancements. The minimum required parapet return is an architectural enhancement intended to minimize those impacts. Here, Petitioner's building proposes a plethora of architectural enhancements that result in a building design far more aesthetically pleasing than your typical big box building. The two most visible elevations are the front elevation (north) and the right elevation (west). 8 �� r � � . }7 y u. 3r u Ndet tdTS 59aae S��t 1. , .. ,.: r..r r=Y: ,i ➢'r5ir t, tr. ..;:- ', v,a t.,. Nv h ,.. _ _ ;rX�"... lk ■,� Y 1' R"M I x � �) is zx� S}�� 4 „E,gd4c+`sTvsst i s,_ , i r},->IA 1ic E{ f 1GH ELEVATION CUM) � Both elevations are visible from public rights-of-way, Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road. Both elevations provide the main tower elementwith the illuminated Aldi sign and secondary tower elements. This creates movement along the roof line as opposed to flat roofs typically seen on big box buildings. The facades offer a variety of colors and materials with different tones and consistency to create a visually aesthetic blend of architectural enhancements. They include vintage wood cedar, a brick like split-face CMU in Aldi Autumn, a prairie clay stucco, and aluminum composite panels in slate gray, bright silver, and gravel stop firestone white. Cornice treatments are provided on all four elevations to create a finished look. The varying tower and parapet heights create architectural enhancements that better meet the intent of the LDR than simply extending the parapet return. In fact,increasing the width of the parapet return for this particular building design would not be visible, and thus, have no additional impact on the architectural enhancements given the size of the building and existing tower elements. Therefore, the Petitioner has adequately addressed the intent of the LDR by providing architectural enhancements to the roof line that far exceed the minimum parapet return requirement. Below, the Petitioner will also justify that the requested CDA sufficiently addresses the required review criteria in accordance with LDR Part III, Chapter 2,Article II, Section 4.13: 2 Page 87 of 132 a. Whether the proposed request will demonstrate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; Granting the requested CDA is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan ("Plan"). As discussed above, the Petitioner's proposed building design does not qualify as a big box building and provides architectural enhancements that far exceed a minimum required parapet return. Moreover, granting the requested CDAs allows the Petitioner to propose a Project for a Property greatly in need of redevelopment. As such,the CDA is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives outlined in the City's Plan as follows: Policy 1.3.1.b - By granting the CDA, the Petitioner can most effectively provide commercial retail services which support the resident and visitor populations as well as creating employment opportunities for the adjacent residential communities. Policy 1.4.1 - The City shall encourage a mixture of quality light industrial, commercial and office uses within commercial and industrial districts where such projects would not create significant land use conflicts and adequate public facilities are available to serve such uses. The Project proposes a commercial use that is more consistent with the future land use designations and zoning districts of neighboring communities and adequate public facilities are available for the proposed use. Thus, the Project minimizes land use conflicts and maintain the character of the community (Goal 1). Policy 1.4.2 - The City shall continue to modify land development regulations as needed to make them more effective or less burdensome in achieving goals and objectives of this Plan, and to seek innovative regulatory solutions to promote economic development and sustainability initiatives. The purpose of the CDA is to provide a relief process that allows for deviations from any community design standard of LDR Chapter 4. This process stimulates economic development by providing relief from site design layouts that meet the general intent of the LDRs, but not the literal application of the LDRs which can be more burdensome in achieving the goals and objectives of this Plan. Here, granting the requested CDA provides relief from a design standard that is over burdensome because its application has little to no impact on the aesthetics of the building if the parapet return is not visible. Policy 1.7.3 - The City shall require that designs for redevelopment and infill projects encourage the use of public transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel as alternatives to the car and shall maximize personal safety. The Petitioner is proposing a Project on a Property greatly in need of redevelopment. The site plan encourages the use of public transit by coordinating a bus shelter with Palm Tran on the Property. It also encourages bicycle travel by providing bicycle racks and other pedestrian amenities such as seating and covered trellises. The requested CDA maximizes the safety of pedestrians by locating the loading area and overhead bay doors the furthest away from pedestrian activity. Policy 1.7.4 - The City is required to evaluate the continuing need for redevelopment plans in specific areas of the City that are not within the City's designated Community 3 Page 88 of 132 Redevelopment Area ("CRA"). This Property has been developed with the same, rundown office building over thirty(30) years and is greatly in need of redevelopment. Thus,the CDA facilitates the much needed redevelopment of the Property, which is not located within a CRA. Policy 1.17.3 - By the end of 2014, the City shall review the Land Development Regulations to improve approval processes and to remove unnecessary hurdles hindering industrial and commercial uses that create jobs, contribute to the tax base, and accommodate market trends. As noted above, the requested CDA removes an unnecessary hurdle hindering redevelopment of this site with a commercial use thatwill create jobs,contribute to the City's tax base, and provide an internationally recognized brand name. b. Whether the proposed request will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the city and will be consistent with the established or desired character of the area, or with the redevelopment plan, where applicable; The requested CDA will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the City and will be consistent with the established or desired character of the area. As discussed above, the Petitioner has proposed a building design that is not the typical big box building and has many architectural enhancements that create a positive aesthetic impact in the community. c. On balance, whether the proposed request will be consistent with the purpose of the standard for which a deviation is requested. Granting the request will equally or better meet the purpose of the standard to be appealed; The requested CDA is consistent with the purpose of the standard for which a deviation is requested. As discussed above, the requested CDA still meets the general intent of the standard,which is to reduce the visibility of the overhead bay doors. Furthermore, granting the requested CDA will better meet the purpose of the standard being appealed. The Petitioner has provided better and more architectural enhancements than the minimum required parapet return. d. Whether the proposed request is intended to save or preserve existing trees or desired flora. (1)Whether the applicant is unable to design or locate proposed buildings, structures, or improvements and preserve the tree(s) and comply with all provisions of these community design standards without causing the applicant undue hardship; (2)Whether it is not feasible to transplant the trees to another location on the subject site considering the following: 1) shape and dimensions of the real 4 Page 89 of 132 property; 2) location of existing structures and infrastructure improvements; and 3)size, age, health, and species of trees sought to be protected; The criteria in d(1) and d(2) is inapplicable to this CDA. The parapets do not impact existing trees or flora e. Whether the proposed request will have adverse environmental impacts that cannot be prevented by the imposition of conditions; This criterion is inapplicable to this CDA. The parapets do not have any environmental impacts. f. Whether the proposed request will have an adverse impact on property values of abutting or adjacent land; The requested CDA will not have an adverse impact on property values of abutting or adjacent land. In fact, a more aesthetically pleasing building design protects the property values of the adjacent residential community. g. Whether the proposed request will seriously reduce the quality or quantity of light and air available to adjacent properties; This criterion is inapplicable to this CDA. There will be no operations on site that will emit smoke or odors and the proposed building height(25'4"),including parapets, is far less than the maximum requirement(45'). h. Whether the proposed request is necessary to further the objectives of the city to assist with economic development and business promotion;and The requested CDA is necessary to further the objectives of the City to assist with economic development and business promotion. Policy 1.17.3 requires the City to improve approval processes and to remove unnecessary hurdles hindering industrial and commercial uses that create jobs, contribute to the tax base, and accommodate market trends. As already mentioned, the requested CDA provides a better building design while still meeting the general intent of the LDR and removes an unnecessary hurdle hindering a much needed redevelopment of Property with a commercial use that will create jobs, contribute to the City's tax base, and provide an internationally recognized brand name. 5 Page 90 of 132 L Whether the proposed request meets the purpose and intent of these regulations but conflicts with anothersite development standard or requirement, including sustainable development and green initiatives. The Petitioner has demonstrated throughout this justification that the requested CDA meets the relief criteria. The requested CDA does not conflict with another site development standard or requirement. 6 Page 91 of 132 MISKEL Gary Dungy Hope Calhoun Christina BiLenki Beanie Miskat Dwayne Dickerson Heather Jas rattan BACKMANt t P Scott Backman Ete Zachariades Andrea Keiser Ii 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard Southeast Corner of W. Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road Aldi, Inc. ("Petitioner") is the contract purchaser of the +/- 2.04 acre parcel, whose Parcel Control Number is 08-43-45-30-01-008-0031 and generally located on the southeast corner of West Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road ("Property") within the City of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida ("City"). The Property is designated as Office Commercial ("OC") on the City's Future Land Use Map and is zoned Office Professional ("C-1"). Currently,the Property is developed with a rundown,one-story office building over thirty(30)years old and is in need of redevelopment. The Petitioner proposes to redevelop the Property with a +/- 18,848 square foot ALDI specialty grocery store ("Project"). In order to develop the Project, Petitioner requested a future land use map ("FLUM") amendment,rezoning,site plan approval,and a variance for the rear(south) setback. Here, Petitioner also respectfully requests Community Design Appeals for the following (each will be addressed in separate justification narratives): No. Code Section Sub'ect 1 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 3.G Overhead Bay Doors 2 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 7.D.2 Parapet Return 3 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 7.G.2 Covered Walkways 4 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 7. .1 Off-Street Parkin CDA Justification for Relief from Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7. . (Covered Walkways) In order to bring City residents Aldi's specialty products with savings afforded to communities all over the world, Petitioner respectfully requests a Community Design Appeal ("CDA"). The purpose of a CDA is to provide a relief process that allows for deviations from any community design standard of Chapter 4 of the City's Land Development Regulations ("LDR"). Pursuant to LDR Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 7.G.2, covered walkways are required along building facades that contain public entrances or along facades that are oriented towards public or private streets. Public entrances on one (1) facade require covered walkways along 70% of the front facade and 30% of the side corner facade. Covered walkways shall have a minimum external dimension of ten feet (10') in width. The minimum internal dimension shall be seven feet (7') in width, absent any obstruction by columns, furniture, and/or other appurtenances. Petitioner is proposing the following to meet the general intent of this LDR,but will require a CDA: • Two (2) seven foot (7') walkways, absent any obstructions, on portions of the north facade and the west facade, both of which are oriented toward public streets (see illustration below and area highlighted in yellow); 14 S.C.4th Street,Suite 36, Boca Raton, FL 33432 Tat: (5611405-3300 Fax: (561)409-2341 www.dmbblaw.com Page 92 of 132 • Adjacent to the walkways, three (3) curbed landscaped areas with access from the north parking lot and the west parking lot (see illustration below and area boxed in green); and • Hard roof trellises for three (3) areas in between the stamped concrete crosswalk (see illustration below and area circled in orange). W ...__ I e _e _. _ AVE 7 a i . ,s I I I � ( ¢� I s ' r `I rvsaxrru ry If mzun.� : AwA ALD I 9 I z j I -4000 PPOTO TO 18,8448 S F TOTAL (17,880 SF INTERIOR) �g FFE 15.90 NACU W Wpm { i M 2 Page 93 of 132 Pursuant to LDR Part III, Chapter 2,Article II, Section 4.B.3, the Petitioner will demonstrate that the requested CDA meets the intent of the affected standard, does not diminish its practical application, and that an acceptable development product and/or design is achieved. The intent of requiring covered walkways along building facades is to provide pedestrians weather related relief, an aesthetically pleasing building amenity, and an efficient use of the building facade. Here, Petitioner's proposed alternatives better meet the intent of the LDR. First, covered walkways along the building facade provide immediate relief only to patrons exiting the store and whose coverage is limited to the building facade. No relief is provided to patrons attempting to enter the store from the parking lot under the current LDR. The three (3) proposed covered trellises provide weather related relief to patrons entering and exiting the store and relief is provided throughout the parking lot. Second, the trellises and the landscaped curbed areas adjacent to the seven (7) foot walkways create more aesthetically pleasing site amenities throughout the site. Third, the proposed use creates a special and unique circumstance that utilizes the building facade more efficiently. As a specialty grocery store, the Petitioner must offer shopping carts to its patrons. The Petitioner locates its shopping carts along the building facades and behind a wall. They also utilize a quarter system, whereby shopping carts are interlocked and cannot be acquired unless a quarter is inserted to release itself from the locking system. The location of the shopping carts coupled with the quarter system has been successful in keeping shopping carts out of vehicular use areas, which is a priority safety concern. To require covered walkways along the building facades for this particular user encourages pedestrians to crowd,block access to the shopping carts, block access to the entrance, which ultimately results in an inefficient site design. Therefore, the Petitioner better meets the intent of the LDR while achieving the most efficient and safe site design. Below, the Petitioner will also justify that the requested CDA sufficiently addresses the required review criteria in accordance with LDR Part III, Chapter 2,Article II, Section 4.B: a. Whether the proposed request will demonstrate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; Granting the requested CDA is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan ("Plan"). As discussed above,the requested CDA gives the Petitioner the flexibility to achieve an efficient and safe site design suitable for the proposed use while still meeting the general intent of the LDR. Moreover, granting the requested CDAs allows the Petitioner to propose a Project for a Property greatly in need of redevelopment. As such, the CDA is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives outlined in the City's Plan as follows: Policy 1.3.1.b - By granting the CDA, the Petitioner can most effectively provide commercial retail services which support the resident and visitor populations as well as creating employment opportunities for the adjacent residential communities. Policy 1.4.1 - The City shall encourage a mixture of quality light industrial, commercial and office uses within commercial and industrial districts where such projects would not create significant land use conflicts and adequate public facilities are available to serve such uses. The Project proposes a commercial use that is more consistent with the future land use designations and zoning districts of neighboring communities and adequate public facilities 3 Page 94 of 132 are available for the proposed use. Thus, the Project minimizes land use conflicts and maintain the character of the community (Goal 1). Policy 1.4.2 - The City shall continue to modify land development regulations as needed to make them more effective or less burdensome in achieving goals and objectives of this Plan, and to seek innovative regulatory solutions to promote economic development and sustainability initiatives. The purpose of the CDA is to provide a relief process that allows for deviations from any community design standard of LDR Chapter 4. This process stimulates economic development by providing relief from site design layouts that meet the general intent of the LDRs, but not the literal application of the LDRs which can be more burdensome in achieving the goals and objectives of this Plan. Here, the requested CDA for the hard roof trellises in lieu of covered walkways along the building facades meets the general intent of the Code without diminishing the practical application of the design standard and results in the most favorable development design. Policy 1.7.3 - The City shall require that designs for redevelopment and infill projects encourage the use of public transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel as alternatives to the car and shall maximize personal safety. The Petitioner is proposing a Project on a Property greatly in need of redevelopment. The site plan encourages the use of public transit by coordinating a bus shelter with Palm Tran on the Property. It also encourages bicycle travel by providing bicycle racks and other pedestrian amenities such as seating and covered trellises. The requested CDA maximizes the safety of pedestrians by using a cart management system that reduces the impact of shopping carts in vehicular areas and provides pedestrians weather related relief to and from the parking lot. Policy 1.7.4 - The City is required to evaluate the continuing need for redevelopment plans in specific areas of the City that are not within the City's designated Community Redevelopment Area ("CRA"). This Property has been developed with the same, rundown office building over thirty(30) years and is greatly in need of redevelopment. Thus,the CDA facilitates the much needed redevelopment of the Property, which is not located within a CRA. Policy 1.17.3 - By the end of 2014, the City shall review the Land Development Regulations to improve approval processes and to remove unnecessary hurdles hindering industrial and commercial uses that create jobs, contribute to the tax base, and accommodate market trends. As noted above, the requested CDA removes an unnecessary hurdle hindering redevelopment of this site with a commercial use thatwill create jobs,contribute to the City's tax base, and provide an internationally recognized brand name. b. Whether the proposed request will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the city and will be consistent with the established or desired character of the area, or with the redevelopment plan, where applicable; 4 Page 95 of 132 The requested CDA will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the City and will be consistent with the established or desired character of the area. The pedestrian pathways and bike racks throughout the site enhance the livability of the City and encourage alternative modes of transportation. The hard roof trellises provide a practical site amenity that creates a nice visual appearance. Additionally,the curbed landscaped areas around the north and west building facade create an aesthetically pleasing green area. c. On balance, whether the proposed request will be consistent with the purpose of the standard for which a deviation is requested. Granting the request will equally or better meet the purpose of the standard to be appealed; The requested CDA is consistent with the purpose of the standard for which a deviation is requested. As discussed above, the requested CDA still meets the general intent of the standard, which is to provide weather related relief for patrons. Furthermore, granting the requested CDA will better meet the purpose of the standard being appealed. Covered walkways along the building facade only provide relief to patrons exiting the store. However, hard roof trellises throughout the northern parking lot provides weather related relief to patrons entering or exiting the store. d. Whether the proposed request is intended to save or preserve existing trees or desired flora. (1)Whether the applicant is unable to design or locate proposed buildings, structures, or improvements and preserve the tree(s) and comply with all provisions of these community design standards without causing the applicant undue hardship; (2)Whether it is not feasible to transplant the trees to another location on the subject site considering the following: 1) shape and dimensions of the real property; 2) location of existing structures and infrastructure improvements; and 3)size, age, health, and species of trees sought to be protected; The criteria in d(1) and d(2) is inapplicable to this CDA. The covered walkways along the building facade do not impact any trees or flora. In fact, additional curbed landscaped areas have been provided to meet the general intent of the LDR. e. Whether the proposed request will have adverse environmental impacts that cannot be prevented by the imposition of conditions; This criterion is inapplicable to this CDA. Hard roof trellises in lieu of covered walkways along the building facade do not have any environmental impacts. 5 Page 96 of 132 f. Whether the proposed request will have an adverse impact on property values of abutting or adjacent land; The requested CDA will not have an adverse impact on property values of abutting or adjacent land. In fact, the brand name, product offerings, aesthetic enhancements of the trellises, landscaped areas, and pedestrian friendly amenities increase property values. g. Whether the proposed request will seriously reduce the quality or quantity of light and air available to adjacent properties; This criterion is inapplicable to this CDA. Hard roof trellises in lieu of covered walkways along the building facade do not have any impacts on the quality and quantity of light and air available to adjacent properties. There will be no operations on site that will emit smoke or odors and the proposed building height (25'4") is far less than the maximum requirement (45'). h. Whether the proposed request is necessary to further the objectives of the city to assist with economic development and business promotion;and The requested CDA is necessary to further the objectives of the City to assist with economic development and business promotion. Policy 1.17.3 requires the City to improve approval processes and to remove unnecessary hurdles hindering industrial and commercial uses that create jobs, contribute to the tax base, and accommodate market trends. As already mentioned, the requested CDA achieves the better and safer site design while still meeting the general intent of the LDR and removes an unnecessary hurdle hindering a much needed redevelopment of Property with a commercial use that will create jobs, contribute to the City's tax base, and provide an internationally recognized brand name. L Whether the proposed request meets the purpose and intent of these regulations but conflicts with anothersite development standard or requirement, including sustainable development and green initiatives. The Petitioner has demonstrated throughout this justification that the requested CDA meets the relief criteria. The requested CDA does not conflict with another site development standard or requirement. 6 Page 97 of 132 MISKEL Gary Dungy Hope Calhoun Christina BiLenki Beanie Miskat Dwayne Dickerson Heather Jas rattan BACKMANt t P Scott Backman Ete Zachariades Andrea Keiser Ii 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard Southeast Corner of W. Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road Aldi, Inc. ("Petitioner") is the contract purchaser of the +/- 2.04 acre parcel, whose Parcel Control Number is 08-43-45-30-01-008-0031 and generally located on the southeast corner of West Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road ("Property") within the City of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida ("City"). The Property is designated as Office Commercial ("OC") on the City's Future Land Use Map and is zoned Office Professional ("C-1"). Currently,the Property is developed with a rundown,one-story office building over thirty(30)years old and is in need of redevelopment. The Petitioner proposes to redevelop the Property with a +/- 18,848 square foot ALDI specialty grocery store ("Project"). In order to develop the Project, Petitioner requested a future land use map ("FLUM") amendment,rezoning,site plan approval,and a variance for the rear(south) setback. Here, Petitioner also respectfully requests Community Design Appeals for the following (each will be addressed in separate justification narratives): No. Code Section Sub'ect 1 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 3.G Overhead Bay Doors 2 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 7.D.2 Parapet Return 3 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 7.G.2 Covered Walkways 4 Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 7. .1 Off-Street Parkin CDA Justification for Relief from Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.J. (Off-Street Parking) In order to bring City residents Aldi's specialty products with savings afforded to communities all over the world, Petitioner respectfully requests a Community Design Appeal ("CDA"). The purpose of a CDA is to provide a relief process that allows for deviations from any community design standard of Chapter 4 of the City's Land Development Regulations ("LDR"). Pursuantto LDR Part III, Chapter 4,Article III, Section 7.J.1,no more than sixty percent(60%) of the off-street parking may be located between the building facade and a public street. Petitioner is proposing the following to meet the general intent of this LDR, but will require a CDA in order to achieve the most efficient and safe site design: • A designated, stamped concrete pedestrian crosswalk that bisects the parking lot; • Hard roof trellises for three (3) areas in between the stamped concrete crosswalk that bisects the parking lot(see illustration below and area circled in orange); and • Curbed landscaped areas throughout the site (see illustration below and area boxed in green). 14 S.C.4th Street,Suite 36, Boca Raton, FL 33432 Tat: (5611405-3300 Fax: (561)409-2341 www.dmbblaw.com Page 98 of 132 :. -@ _.. ....._ _ N BEACH E-VAR 13 P (STA E AZO AD S-804) . AWE , a 9 I s I y I � I u.. V I f 'Pl T rT*M �I {'I,t, a •, LL 6 w sm WI Is I _ I I ALD aPROTO 7.0 Ijl I (17,880 SF I ' OR) i E FF 15.90 NAVD I I I � I j j l s II P 91 4 i P 'Aye' F �. Pursuant to LDR Part III, Chapter 2,Article II, Section 4.B.3, the Petitioner will demonstrate that the requested CDA meets the intent of the affected standard, does not diminish its practical 2 Page 99 of 132 application, and that an acceptable development product and/or design is achieved. The intent of this percentage limitation for off-street parking is to reduce the appearance of a large parking field in front of the building. However, in order to achieve the most efficient and safe site design, the Petitioner must provide a site layout that is compatible with the existing dimensions for this Property, that does not compromise the natural surveillance of patrons in the parking lot, that provides for efficient traffic flow, and that protects the adjacent residential community to the east. The Property is uniquely long and narrow. It is approximately 235 feet wide and 375 feet long. Its length is a third greater than its width. As a result,the proposed building location achieves the best site design because it provides the most efficient traffic flow,best screens the loading area,provides the least amount of impact to the adjacent residential community to the east, and allows for the natural surveillance of the parking lot from the public rights-of-way. To meet the intent of the LDR for this necessary site design, the Petitioner has provided site amenities to reduce the overall area of the paved surface in between the building facade and the public right-of-way. Petitioner proposes a seven (7) foot, stamped concrete pedestrian crosswalk that bisects the parking lot. In between the crosswalk, hard covered trellises provide an aesthetically pleasing site amenity as well as weather related relief to patrons entering and exiting the store. Furthermore, curbed landscaped areas throughout the site create aesthetically pleasing green areas that visually reduce the overall area of the paved surface. In totality,the Petitioner's proposed site layout with site amenities meets the intent of the LDR without diminishing its practical application by reducing the appearance of a large parking field while still achieving the best and safest site design. Below, the Petitioner will also justify that the requested CDA sufficiently addresses the required review criteria in accordance with LDR Part III, Chapter 2,Article II, Section 4.13: a. Whether the proposed request will demonstrate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; Granting the requested CDA is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan ("Plan"). As discussed above,the requested CDA gives the Petitioner the flexibility to achieve an efficient and safe site design suitable for the proposed use while still meeting the general intent of the LDR. Moreover, granting the requested CDAs allows the Petitioner to propose a Project for a Property greatly in need of redevelopment. As such, the CDA is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives outlined in the City's Plan as follows: Policy 1.3.1.b - By granting the CDA, the Petitioner can most effectively provide commercial retail services which support the resident and visitor populations as well as creating employment opportunities for the adjacent residential communities. Policy 1.4.1 - The City shall encourage a mixture of quality light industrial, commercial and office uses within commercial and industrial districts where such projects would not create significant land use conflicts and adequate public facilities are available to serve such uses. The Project proposes a commercial use that is more consistent with the future land use designations and zoning districts of neighboring communities and adequate public facilities are available for the proposed use. Thus, the Project minimizes land use conflicts and maintain the character of the community (Goal 1). 3 Page 100 of 132 Policy 1.4.2 - The City shall continue to modify land development regulations as needed to make them more effective or less burdensome in achieving goals and objectives of this Plan, and to seek innovative regulatory solutions to promote economic development and sustainability initiatives. The purpose of the CDA is to provide a relief process that allows for deviations from any community design standard of LDR Chapter 4. This process stimulates economic development by providing relief from site design layouts that meet the general intent of the LDRs, but not the literal application of the LDRs which can be more burdensome in achieving the goals and objectives of this Plan. Here, the requested CDA for the reducing the overall paved surface with site amenities meets the general intent of the Code without diminishing the practical application of the design standard and results in the most efficient and safe site design. Policy 1.7.3 - The City shall require that designs for redevelopment and infill projects encourage the use of public transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel as alternatives to the car and shall maximize personal safety. The Petitioner is proposing a Project on a Property greatly in need of redevelopment. The site plan encourages the use of public transit by coordinating a bus shelter with Palm Tran on the Property. It also encourages bicycle travel by providing bicycle racks and other pedestrian amenities such as seating and covered trellises. The requested CDA maximizes the safety of pedestrians maximizing the natural surveillance of the parking lots from the public right-of-way. Policy 1.7.4 - The City is required to evaluate the continuing need for redevelopment plans in specific areas of the City that are not within the City's designated Community Redevelopment Area ("CRA"). This Property has been developed with the same, rundown office building over thirty(30) years and is greatly in need of redevelopment. Thus,the CDA facilitates the much needed redevelopment of the Property, which is not located within a CRA. Policy 1.17.3 - By the end of 2014, the City shall review the Land Development Regulations to improve approval processes and to remove unnecessary hurdles hindering industrial and commercial uses that create jobs, contribute to the tax base, and accommodate market trends. As noted above, the requested CDA removes an unnecessary hurdle hindering redevelopment of this site with a commercial use thatwill create jobs,contribute to the City's tax base, and provide an internationally recognized brand name. b. Whether the proposed request will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the city and will be consistent with the established or desired character of the area, or with the redevelopment plan, where applicable; The requested CDA will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the City and will be consistent with the established or desired character of the area. The pedestrian crosswalk and hard roof trellises provide a practical site amenity that visually reduces the overall paved area. Additionally, the curbed landscaped areas around the north and west building facade create an aesthetically pleasing green area. 4 Page 101 of 132 c. On balance, whether the proposed request will be consistent with the purpose of the standard for which a deviation is requested. Granting the request will equally or better meet the purpose of the standard to be appealed; The requested CDA is consistent with the purpose of the standard for which a deviation is requested. As discussed above, the requested CDA still meets the general intent of the standard, which is to reduce the appearance of a large parking field in front of the building. Granting the requested CDA will better meet the purpose of the standard being appealed because an efficient and safe site design layout is achieved while still reducing the overall appearance of the paved surface. d. Whether the proposed request is intended to save or preserve existing trees or desired flora. (1)Whether the applicant is unable to design or locate proposed buildings, structures, or improvements and preserve the tree(s) and comply with all provisions of these community design standards without causing the applicant undue hardship; (2)Whether it is not feasible to transplant the trees to another location on the subject site considering the following: 1) shape and dimensions of the real property; 2) location of existing structures and infrastructure improvements; and 3)size, age, health, and species of trees sought to be protected; The criteria in d(1) and d(2) is inapplicable to this CDA. The parking area is not intended to save or preserve trees or flora. e. Whether the proposed request will have adverse environmental impacts that cannot be prevented by the imposition of conditions; The requested CDA will not create any additional adverse environmental impacts. Regardless of the location of the parking,the required number of parking spaces remain the same for this use and any conditions imposed to minimum environmental impacts will remain the same. f. Whether the proposed request will have an adverse impact on property values of abutting or adjacent land; 5 Page 102 of 132 The requested CDA will not have an adverse impact on property values of abutting or adjacent land. The site design achieves the most efficient layout. Moreover,the brand name, product offerings, aesthetic enhancements of the trellises, landscaped areas, and pedestrian friendly amenities increase property values. g. Whether the proposed request will seriously reduce the quality or quantity of light and air available to adjacent properties; This criterion is inapplicable to this CDA. The location of parking does not have any impacts on the quality and quantity of light and air available to adjacent properties. There will be no operations on site that will emit smoke or odors and the proposed building height(25'4") is far less than the maximum requirement(45'). h. Whether the proposed request is necessary to further the objectives of the city to assist with economic development and business promotion;and The requested CDA is necessary to further the objectives of the City to assist with economic development and business promotion. Policy 1.17.3 requires the City to improve approval processes and to remove unnecessary hurdles hindering industrial and commercial uses that create jobs, contribute to the tax base, and accommodate market trends. As already mentioned, the requested CDA achieves the better and safer site design while still meeting the general intent of the LDR and removes an unnecessary hurdle hindering a much needed redevelopment of Property with a commercial use that will create jobs, contribute to the City's tax base, and provide an internationally recognized brand name. L Whether the proposed request meets the purpose and intent of these regulations but conflicts with anothersite development standard or requirement, including sustainable development and green initiatives. The Petitioner has demonstrated throughout this justification that the requested CDA meets the relief criteria. The requested CDA does not conflict with another site development standard or requirement. 6 Page 103 of 132 EXHIBIT "D" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Project Name: Aldi Grocery File number: CDPA 17-006 through CDPA 17-009 Reference: 4th review plans identified as a New Site Plan with a October 10, 2017 Planning and Zoning Department date stamp marking. DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ENGINEERING / PUBLIC WORKS/ FORESTRY/ UTILITIES Comments: None. FIRE Comments: None. POLICE Comments: None. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None. PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None. PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. Approval is subject to approval of the concurrent applications for Land Use & Rezoning, Major Site Plan Modification and Variance. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Comments: N/A. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. Page 104 of 132 Aldi Grocery (CDPA 17-006 through CDPA 17-009) Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Aldi Grocery\CDPA 17-006 through CDPA 17-009\COA.doc Page 105 of 132 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Aldi Grocery (CDPA 17-006 through 17-009) APPLICANT: Bonnie Miskel, Esq. of Dunay, Miskel & Backman, LLP APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 14 SE 4th Street, Suite 36, Boca Raton, FL 33432 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: December 5, 2017 APPROVAL SOUGHT: Requests for Community Design Appeal of 1) Chapter 4, Article III, Section 3.G., "Overhead doors facing rights-of-way"; 2) Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.D.2., "Parapet roof return requirements"; 3) Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.G.2. "Covered walks along building facades"; and 4) Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.J.1. "Off-street parking locational criteria". LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER was presented to the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the approval sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the approval sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant _ HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the approval requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included." 4. The Applicant's request is hereby _ GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 above. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other: DATED: City Clerk S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Aldi Grocery\CDPA 17-006 through 17-009\DO.doc Page 106 of 132 7.E. New Business 10/24/2017 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 10/24/2017 REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Approve Aldi Grocery Major Site Plan Modification request(MSPM 17-005) to construct a one-story, 17,880 square foot grocery store building and related site improvements at 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard. Applicant: Bonnie Miskel, Dunay, Miskel & Backman, LLP. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: Bonnie Miskel of Dunay, Miskel & Backman LLP, representing property owner MG3 3452 West Boynton LLC and applicant/contract purchaser Aldi, Inc., is requesting concurrent Land Use & Rezoning, Major Site Plan Modification, Community Design Appeals and Zoning Code Variance approval to construct a 17,880 square foot grocery store and related site improvements at the SE corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road. Previously, on November 15, 2016, the City Commission approved a request for Conditional Use/ Major Site Plan Modification to convert the vacant 13,640 square foot office building to a day care operation for up to 200 children. As part of the Major Site Plan Modification review process, the one story building is being processed under the City's Big Box regulations, for commercial buildings in excess of 15,000 square feet. The building is designed with varying parapet heights, with the tallest at 26 feet, and provides the requisite two (2) site amenities. The applicant has chosen a covered trellis amenity and a backlit tower feature at the building entry. The applicant has also provided the required 12 foot landscape buffer with wall abutting the residential community to the east. A new driveway is proposed to be located on Boynton Beach boulevard, with a second driveway along Knuth Road. Staff has reviewed this request for major site plan modification approval and recommends approval contingent upon approval of the companion land use and rezoning, variance, and community design appeal applications, and upon satisfying all comments indicated in Exhibit"C" —Conditions of Approval. HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Collection of fees associated with building permits, business tax, and property tax ALTERNATIVES: None recommended. STRATEGIC PLAN: STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION: CLIMATE ACTION: Page 107 of 132 CLIMATE ACTION DISCUSSION: Is this a grant? Grant Amount: ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Staff Report Staff Report D Location Map Location Map D Drawings Site Plan D Drawings Site Details D Drawings Sur y D Drawings Demolition Plan D Drawings Floor Plans D Drawings Elevations D Drawings Color Elevations D Drawings PGD Plans D Drawings Utility Plans D Drawings Tree Disposition Plans D Drawings Landscape Plans D Drawings Sign Plan D Drawings Photometric Plan D Conditions of Approval Conditions of Approval D Development Order Development Order Page 108 of 132 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 17-051 STAFF REPORT TO: Chair and Members Planning and Development Board and City Commission THRU: Michael Rumpf Planning and Zoning Director FROM: Ed Breese Principal Planner DATE: October 3, 2017 PROJECT NAME/NO: Aldi Grocery/ MSPM 17-005 REQUEST: Major Site Plan Modification PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: MG3 3452 West Boynton LLC Agent: Bonnie Miskel, Esq. of Dunay, Miskel & Backman, LLP Location: 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard (see Exhibit "A") Existing Land Use: OC (Office Commercial) Existing Zoning: C-1 (Office Professional) Proposed Land Use: LRC (Local Retail Commercial) Proposed Zoning: C-3 (Community Commercial) Proposed Use: Request major site plan modification approval to construct a one-story, 17,880 square foot grocery store building and related site improvements. Acreage: 2.04-acres/ 88,724 square feet Adjacent Uses: North: Right-of-way for Boynton Beach Boulevard and farther north developed commercial properties zoned C-3 (Community Commercial); South: Office building zoned C-1 (Office Professional); East: Stonehaven residential development zoned PUD(Planned Unit Development); and West: Right-of-way for Knuth Road, and farther west BP Gas Station and undeveloped land zoned PCD (Planned Commercial Development). Page 109 of 132 Staff Report—Aldi Grocery (MSPM 17-005) Memorandum No PZ 17-051 Page 2 Site Details: The subject site is located at the southeast corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road (see Exhibit"A"—Location Map). On November 15,2016,the City Commission approved a request for Conditional Use/Major Site Plan Modification to convert the vacant 13,640 square foot office building to a day care operation for up to 200 children. The property owner was approached shortly after the day care approval by Aldi representatives interested in the property to locate one of their stores. As a result, new applications for Land Use Amendment& Rezoning, Major Site Plan Modification, Rear Setback Variance and Community Design Appeals for a grocery store were filed with the City. The building has been vacant for approximately three (3)years and the site and access points have been fenced off in order to prevent any property damage and unlawful behavior. BACKGROUND Proposal: Bonnie Miskel of Dunay, Miskel&Backman LLP, representing property owner MG3 3452 West Boynton LLC and applicant/contract purchaser Aldi, Inc., is requesting approval to construct a 17,880 square foot grocery store and related site improvements (see Exhibit "B"— Site Plan). ANALYSIS Concurrency: Traffic: A traffic study for the proposed project was sent to the Palm Beach County Traffic Division for concurrency review in order to ensure an adequate level of service. The study anticipates an additional 41 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 115 additional PM peak hour trips. A traffic concurrency approval letter has not been received as of the preparation of this report. No building permits will be issued until such time as the concurrency approval letter is received (see Exhibit "C" — Conditions of Approval). School: School concurrency is not required for this type of project. Utilities: The City's water capacity, as increased through the purchase of up to 5 million gallons of potable water per day from Palm Beach County Utilities,would meet the projected potable water for this project. Sufficient sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment capacity is also currently available to serve the project, subject to the applicant making a firm reservation of capacity, following site plan approval. Police / Fire: Staff reviewed the site plan and determined that current staffing levels would be sufficient to meet the expected demand for services. Drainage: Conceptual drainage information was provided for the City's review. The Engineering Division has found the conceptual information to be adequate and is recommending that the review of specific drainage solutions be deferred until time of permit review. Vehicular Access: The site plan (Sheet C-05) shows that two (2) primary points of ingress/egress are proposed for the new building. The first, a right-in/right-out driveway opening from Page 110 of 132 Staff Report—Aldi Grocery (MSPM 17-005) Memorandum No PZ 17-051 Page 3 Boynton Beach Boulevard, would occur near the northeast corner of the parcel. A second point of ingress/egress would be a full driveway opening along Knuth Road, near the southwest corner of the site. The requirements for a dumpster and truck loading zone have been reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division with the submittal of truck turning radius diagrams by the applicant. These components have been located at or near the rear of the building, screened from the residential property to the east and remote from the store entry. Circulation: Vehicular circulation from each driveway would include two-way circulation that continues throughout the parking lot. Pedestrian connectivity would be provided on site via a stamped concrete walkway, leading from the sidewalk along Congress Avenue to the store entry. This walkway will be covered along the way, except where the walk crosses drive aisles. There is also a proposed stamped concrete walkway leading from Knuth Road to the building entry. A new eight (8) foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along the west side of the project in the Knuth Road right-of-way for the full length of the property. Parking: The site plan (Sheet C-05) proposes a 17,880 square foot enclosed grocery store building (18,848 total square feet), which would require 90 parking spaces, based upon the standard of one (1) parking space per 200 square feet of building. The site plan depicts the provision of 93 parking spaces, including four(4) designated for handicap use. All proposed parking stalls, including the size and location of the handicap space,were reviewed and approved by both the Engineering Division and Building Division. In addition, all necessary traffic control signage and pavement markings will be provided to clearly delineate areas on site and direction of circulation. The 17,880 square foot building is reviewed under the Big Box regulations, which were designed to guide the development of new commercial buildings in excess of 15,000 square feet. One of those design regulations involves off-street parking design (Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.J.1), which restricts the percentage of parking spaces that may be located between the building facade and a public street. The parking lot design exceeds the 60% limitation and the applicant has applied for a Community Design Appeal,with appropriate justifications and site enhancements designed to reduce the appearance of a large parking field. These enhancements include the provision of a covered walkway from Boynton Beach Boulevard, parking lot landscape islands, large landscape planter areas near the building entry, and use of stamped concrete to break up the asphalt parking lot. Approval of the Major Site Plan Modification is contingent upon approval of this and the other Community Design Appeals (see Exhibit "C" — Conditions of Approval). Landscaping: The landscape plan (Sheet L-2) indicates compliance with the required minimum buffers around the perimeter of the site. Perimeter landscape buffers are proposed as follows: a ten (10)-foot wide buffer adjacent to Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road, a twelve (12)-foot wide buffer along the east property line, and a five (5)-foot wide buffer against the existing office building to the south. Along the east property line, adjacent to the Stonehaven residential development, the landscape plan indicates a 12-foot wide buffer that includes a six (6)-foot high decorative buffer wall. The wall will be planted on both sides with cocoplum shrubs, and the landscape buffer would consist of existing Live Oak trees and relocated Live Oak trees, new Orange Geiger, Wild Tamarind, Dahoon Holly, Green Buttonwood and Sabal palm trees. The 12-foot wide buffer would expand to 30-feet for the south half of the site. The overall landscape scheme will consist of Live Oak, Green and Page 111 of 132 Staff Report—Aldi Grocery (MSPM 17-005) Memorandum No PZ 17-051 Page 4 Silver Buttonwood, Orange Geiger trees, and Royal and Sabal palm trees. Typical shrubs would include Cocoplum, Small-leaf Clusia, Wax Myrtle, Yaupon Holly, Silver Buttonwood and Spanish Stopper. Additionally, the applicant will retain the existing Live Oak trees in the Boynton Beach Boulevard right-of-way, other than the removal of one (1)for the installation of a new entrance/exit drive, and will properly prune the trees to eliminate their current wild/overgrown appearance. With the mitigation/relocation of trees on site, there will be a total of 113 canopy trees and 53 palm trees,with the Sabal palms placed predominantly in landscape islands and buffers too narrow for canopy trees, in large buffer areas between canopy trees, or against the building where canopy trees cannot be placed. Nearly all plant material is native, with the exception of two (2) Veitchia palms and 103 dwarf pink Ixora shrubs. The pervious area would total 24.2% of the entire site and consists of landscaped islands, foundation plantings and buffer areas. Building and Site: The proposed building is designed as a one (1)-story structure with parapet walls at three (3)varying heights to provide architectural character. The proposed building would be setback approximately 183 feet from the north property line and 30 feet along the east side (abutting Stonehaven PUD), in compliance with code requirements. The setback from the west property line abutting Knuth Road is approximately 77 feet, and between approximately 14 and 31 feet from the south property line, abutting the parking lot of the office building at 200 Knuth Road. The code requires buildings within the C-3 (Community Commercial) zoning district to be set back a minimum of 20 feet. Accordingly, the applicant has submitted a zoning variance request and justifications to reduce the required setback by six(6)- feet for approximately 25% of the rear of the building, in order to accommodate the loading dock operation. Approval of the Major Site Plan Modification is contingent upon approval of this variance request(see Exhibit"C"—Conditions of Approval). Building Height: The building elevations (Sheet A-201 and Color Elevation) indicate the highest point of the structure would be the top parapet of the tower element at the building entrance, with a height of approximately 26 feet. The next tallest parapet height would be at approximately 22 feet, with the typical parapet wall height at approximately 17 feet,well below the maximum of 45 feet allowed in the C-3 zoning district. Design: The proposed building utilizes many similar design features as other retail buildings, including earthtone colors. According to the "Exterior Finish Schedule" shown on Sheet A-201, the main body paint color of the building would be a medium khaki tan "Prairie Clay". The base and columns consist of split-face block material, with a muted brick red color "Aldi Autumn", and the accent color of the cornice and trim would be white"China White".The architect also proposes the use of horizontal cedar wood planks on the upper portion of the wall immediately on either side of the entry tower feature. The building elevations depict gray aluminum canopies along the entire north facade and over the windows along the west facade. The elevations show that the parapet roof would vary in height, intended to give architectural character to the building. The building entry tower would be backlit storefront glass and contain the building signage. As noted previously, the building is being reviewed under the Big Box regulations, and as part of those regulations the site development plan shall include a minimum of two (2) site amenities. The applicant has chosen to provide the lighted tower feature and the covered trellis walkway within the parking lot discussed earlier to fulfill this Page 112 of 132 Staff Report—Aldi Grocery (MSPM 17-005) Memorandum No PZ 17-051 Page 5 requirement. The applicant has filed three (3)additional Community Design Plan Appeals to the Community Design Standards and Big Box regulations (see corresponding report and analyses for CDPA 17-006 through 17-008). The first is relative to the location of the overhead bay door for the loading dock. The community design standards prohibit overhead bay doors on facades facing selected highly visible roadways. Knuth Road is one of those select roadways and the door is on the facade facing Knuth Road. The applicant notes that the site size and configuration limits the possible location of the loading area, as other code regulations limit these types of operations to the back of the building. The applicant has provided additional mitigation as part of their justification, including the fact that the loading dock is recessed from the westernmost building facade by nearly 90 feet, placing it approximately 175 feet from Knuth Road, the door is painted to match the building and that enhanced landscaping is being provided to better screen the loading dock area. The second appeal is relative to the requirement that parapet returns be equal to the height of raised building facade elements above the typical parapet height, in an effort to provide more dimension to the facade, not simply straight walls. The applicant has provided a parapet return of approximately one-half of that required, and justifies the deviation through 1) the use of parapets at varying heights; 2) the articulation occurring at the corners, which already provide greater dimension in two different planes; and 3) by providing a three (3) dimensional cornice at the top of the parapets on any side visible from off site. Lastly, an appeal was submitted to the requirement for covered walkways along 70% of the front facade and 30% along the side corner facade,with seven (7)foot clear pedestrian passage. The applicant indicates that the shopping cart corrals are located immediately on either side of the front entry, and that the seven (7) foot clear pedestrian passage is being provided, it just will not be covered, as the projection would need to extend off the building more than 14 feet because of the cart storage. They propose mitigation through 1)the provision of the required seven (7) foot wide pedestrian pathway (uncovered); 2) the addition of the covered trellis walkway from the Boynton Beach Boulevard sidewalk (which they indicate will serve a greater portion of the parking lot, rather than simply those parked against the building; and 3)the placement of more aesthetically pleasing planting areas at the front of the building as opposed to an awning. Greater detail of each of the Community Design Appeals can be viewed as part of the Community Design Appeals staff report. Approval of the Major Site Plan Modification is contingent upon approval of the Community Design Appeals (see Exhibit"C"—Conditions of Approval). Public Art: The applicant has indicated they intend to pay the fee associated with Art in Public Places in lieu of providing the art element on site. The estimated value of the art payment is anticipated to be $22,000. Site Lighting: The photometric plan (Sheet C-12) proposes 17 freestanding lights in the parking lot. The freestanding lights would be placed on top of a 12 foot tall silver metal pole, mounted atop a 3 foot high concrete base, for a total height of 15 feet. The LED light fixtures would also be silver in color,with a flat lens and cut-off feature to inhibit any light spillage/trespass. Additional exterior lighting would be provided through the installation of building mounted and under canopy fixtures, placed at a height of approximately 7 feet. The Photometric Plan is in compliance with the Page 113 of 132 Staff Report—Aldi Grocery (MSPM 17-005) Memorandum No PZ 17-051 Page 6 City's lighting ordinance, and designed to prevent glare or spillage onto abutting properties. Signage: The applicant is proposing two (2)wall signs, one (1) on the north side and one (1) on the west side of the backlit entry tower feature. Each cabinet sign is approximately 48 square feet in size and follows the design of their corporate branding, with a large letter"A"with the word "ALDI" below it. The applicant is also proposing an 8 foot by 5 foot monument sign (with 30 square foot of copy area) at the northwest corner of the site,with material and colors matching the design of the building and wall signage. RECOMMENDATION The Development Application Review Team (DART) has reviewed this request for major site plan modification approval and recommends approval contingent upon approval of the companion land use and rezoning, variance, and community design appeal applications, and upon satisfying all comments indicated in Exhibit"C"—Conditions of Approval. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or approved by the City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTSWIdi Grocery\MSPM 17-005\Staff Report.doc Page 114 of 132 EXHIBIT A SITE LOCATION MAP f, tt i r g i 1l� k; 5 Fr R WBoynton Beach vd r r , n e r r 13t F i r 0 3060 120 180 240 Feet Page 115 of 132 A— A < -Lj "V H Cl o-Ed o o o o - o ........... LD IE 0 LL O s 1r U)LL 5 0 . ......... avo ----------- - ------------- < Lj ll9o,,Q?11 A— A „j i IRS 4N n 41 pq -F4-- eN —Ti NO Rig, W� a e —1141, I'll M.v.e.a 112 0— .... .... . .... llo Yl— —,�—w —WEST-BOYNTON-MCH-ENLEMD (STATE ROAD 5-804) $01D WHTE 02 Ld > LL- cl 7E 5m n tinw LLJ LT— \e' C10s� oma 1� PIL If 5 spaces 51 U sw La L) y) 15 U) <1 2, ad w > U) L/) Z O L) Pq 40 0 _0 w 5 _105 is nuo as h d' H" A 1 I IMI H HIM WD u ME 10, 1 - HM 1 H 11HI it Man HH jq oil Uear HI q 'M 9 me a , Un M 0" ,UTSH P's H Hype .- 1 HIM "m'M 1-1 hit e '. A rr 1 RUN R CN 29WO P L if r W�.A dr! its i� i1 1F Ila, K W H lu 2-A -------------11 ---------- ----------- ---------------- ---------- non, oFs III 10.'_.O� j 71,71, c m m 76 C W, .u 4, W, -i--------i--------i----- r- ------- -------- ----- ------- N z 157 -F--- 21 P1 LF�0 011-1 L I no Z 03 p M� CN 04 pe a9ae y boa a Y 2 Mme cu a m ana$_ "an c �a a QNm� o a T � N o RE CO m [tot o11,00 _ sy"saw £ i o o f �o ui ai o a �amuowHU -£§`'- �tl9 Qm m m ° w w5 0° o (D TRT7 471 i a3 lu z ¢ P a a £ I d e ° 3 u „o u w p o Nao Nis 2 „g - I - - - 16 2 I I' i i i a 4"1 a I - tz ° O ; O C O I >LU I > O LU O LZ3L } c O iO 1 - a o- 1 h - 2 1 _ _ I I I I I d _ - I I fH\ o u V a o g� Ro €o O O_ b U1. o C ° OM'l - \�O O o 000< O = p 00000� - 9 x®00� 3 0=0o'$ OOJA '. wv�ca 1�mzio vo 1:muoie Sa za g ]] iv 14 1 z� 8w Rn §' 3 I PR a H SIX �S f� �k". �( a _� � •i. O an - L —j- r t u t i 1 V i 7 � U I c 1 r g m R �� �� m LLI uj t !: Ill J LLI J a Lij LU LU tk w 3 T4 LL � v N t � II Pon oi 1,,�I d fMol,i l I R 7 -LLLL 1 -HHw A 'M an 1 H Now ' Ono ! Hn HUI H, �MW Hu a H otl I p CD pq zAlsoz — 179 El xms:��, C�l Q iii All ('IVOH LflM31 IIIA - --------- A- A .................... R1 g ---- ---------- . -- ------------- �i LD "n > 0 LU < PA 0 U) 0 a-co cq ag i�m P4 -.1 P sm — ------------ ----- - -------- Cfvou I itAl z A,=A z 29 Z z z C Z..k$V 00' H 01 M 0 MUM 2saa1' 2 SM 1�113 J,E:l 1 E IM iM OHM ............... .......... a l xr' g �x d E f O0 mom ------ I o . ..... t co w w LL I liN I W. -1-010 W< sxs Iso HN� K�NWM. Hl Im cr CE ME a. O lqji U)LL nj qH9 4� U) I ;i14 NO Igo 2L -J L------ -------------- ode A7�EZ Fl -a— VOURLAMT — -- ————————— —— 0 O10 ars Q —2. dO�wo (D< .,EEw 0 ow o o o Ho 's OE>w.6,ow.w- w QEF y2pa ¢p .<o >w N, M WOFWKFKFmpFUFmKOFUm Z2~zFFOa�pz¢¢fyp_mmn pZZ¢�FZUp FW�w wpOZ��mKam 2fOn/J WWwO>7c 0 �4 1 1 <w 0 .F z -,W-E�,6 0 FSF�zn -< O ¢~ <Z 0 '0 Po 0 0. <w 4J m2¢0 0 >0 0 < I~ZZ F0 0 G <<1 0- 0 0 m 0< > 0 -j 7c>w U5< E �w 0 (D -H<6 o N 0, - w E w .Oo (ID.. 0F-< > 0 M. 0 0 0 w ow— cc. . . w < < A,=A < z z ea+ Cz z k'V If, H Hh- ............................... ss W ......... .. ... .. ............ .......... .. ... ui -------- d-H-W-W d- w 2' P I < V > --------- ------ - < Lu z 0 LU 0'- E o 8 O 0 < 0 0 0� Z �J �JJ �J '161oloill-I'l Mom. z o U 0. who ow �o ..0 0 p m Iz LU ZZ.- < 00 < L 1.0 z I ff 0 coUaFom - 0 00 U) 5 1,off oq 2 > <1 1.0. 21 Z.I. 01 UI o 2 11 Pz� ,Off, QWogz-Z <<, SKU mH~Z0� 10 1 —Z. 1. 1 > z < 0 1,ff<< < pmUh Off L=,Z< <10 ory i2 a < IZ E < . . 'o Z > I z -0 n z i z 01. A, . z , -'.M,�� Z< < 'o I XOZ < 0 Z. z. < z < 0, ,,,I E t,;E E 0 zo 0 02 z 'z 1. 203;2s-< < z-><,. z<5, po-<�--.< -2 z 00 mu<<-0 w z 'D�-0,L]Z< Z 0 -.<ZO 10 10 o z > 0 <- OE 8,§'. Z,< P=-P�� 1.1, 'z<. E-0,ZZZ252L 2 1.Iz I OS, 2 2' z -<..p6<-22f 0 6�z z o z Z--Z-zo-og�E , 6 Z.P z Pp Z'01�105 -.-zo 0 P: <. z P= o>F. zo- Z,< >0 PZ.1 < I z.1 < -0- �2 m Z 0 --- z <.. -zo -;E<. < x x < 2 1>E 1 10��- 0 zo < z 0 0 Zoz 0 Z< Z 0 < z 1. 1 0 z 1 '.0 f,-2.f.>2- '�O--.OI� �<., < < 'ONO,10 < < z < ...<,- 'o o 0 1 <' z. z 0 <z < 0. < < z ,< 12 0 < z. I ..z z <0 0 1 z 6.nt�-z<,oz 0 E 0 NHOHOIM-wm It Z"Z< 0. 0 < <6-� - .. . 0.. Z 26 g6 EERO,-.E Z Z < 0 H.z 1.1 Z<< WOz> o I z 0 0 zs �5 ;O= 0 <2 0 > OH I < E-z Z.< I < z 110 2 0 <2 n t sz. = , < z E z 65. --- . z "0 O.Z., —zo. <z8><8 0 <N o I I zoo 0. Z2 .2- - Z < 0� n 0 z< < Z '08Z <a 2- . I < < —11. <,.Z<.,.. ... ...> X, <,0 —Z.Z o I< .0. .00 0 < < N�°� � n R N s s 0 9 C z z w w w Rz w t s m m Ell Elt HI - � z o y M e VA\ _ ...........x ratlLL A— A < Lj 02 C kV0' H e I Ul W. Is W. LU 'y a �` @r'R � � s 9 ,F� . 0 u; p 0 LLI i < << -Al — -- --------- < P 7 CO u U� 0 LL < 0 .0 U) cq 200 07",r "T --------------- --- -- -------------- --- ----- -- ----- --------------- EXHIBIT "C" Conditions of Approval Project Name: Aldi Grocery File number: MSPM 17-005 Reference: 411 review plans identified as a Maior Site Plan Modification with an October 10, 2017 Planning and Zoning Department date stamp marking. DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ENGINEERING / PUBLIC WORKS / FORESTRY/ UTILITIES Comments: 1. Please provide a copy of the notice of concurrency to the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. (NOTE: If notice of concurrency is a condition of DART approval applicant will be required to comply with any recommendations outlined in concurrency approval deemed necessary by the City and will be at the City's sole discretion). 2. Please work with PalmTran on the location of an upgraded bus shelter on property, in the vicinity of the existing bus stop location on Boynton Beach Boulevard. Bus shelter shall be designed to match the architectural style, materials and color of the proposed building. 3. At time of permit submittal, cross sections will be required along each property line so that the applicant can clearly show how the proposed development will tie into existing features. The applicant will need 50-75 feet of additional topographic information collected around the perimeter of the property to properly depict the required cross sections. 4. At time of permit, submittal please show the open cuts on Knuth Road and Banyan Creek Circle N. to allow for the installation of the utilities. 5. The soils report calls for various asphalt pavement sections. At time of permit submittal, please provide the heavy-duty detail and note which section covers which area. 6. At time of permit submittal, please depict a drain within the dumpster enclosure. FIRE Comments: None, all previous comments addressed at DART meeting. POLICE Page 129 of 132 Aldi Grocery (MSPM 17-005) Conditions of Approval Page 2of3 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT Comments: None, all previous comments addressed at DART meeting. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None, all previous comments addressed at DART meeting. PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 7. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the application requests are publicly advertised in accordance with Ordinance 04- 007 and Ordinance 05-004 and an affidavit provided to the City Clerk. 8. Please place the electric drop adjacent to the existing monument sign underground. 9. Per Chapter 4, Article III, Section 3.G., overhead bay doors shall not be located on building facades visible from public r-o-w such as Knuth Road. A Community Design Appeal is required since the overhead door faces Knuth Road. Approval of the Major Site Plan Modification is subject to approval of the Community Design Appeal. 10. Per Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.D.2., a parapet return is required with a length equal to or exceeding the parapet articulation. A Community Design Appeal is required if parapet return is not increased in width. Approval of the Major Site Plan Modification is subject to approval of the Community Design Appeal. 11. Per Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.G.2., covered walkways along the face of the building, shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width with an unobstructed 7 feet of clear path, and are required along 70% of the front facade and 30% of the side corner facade. A Community Design Appeal is required if the 10 foot width of the covered walk and length along each facade is not met. Approval of the Major Site Plan Modification is subject to approval of the Community Design Appeal. Page 130 of 132 Aldi Grocery (MSPM 17-005) Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 3 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 12. Per Chapter 4, Article III, Section 7.J.1., no more than 60% of the off- street parking may be located between the building facade and a public street. Approval of the Major Site Plan Modification is subject to approval of the Community Design Appeal. 13. Approval of the Major Site Plan Modification is subject to approval of the Rear Setback Variance. 14. Please provide architectural details of the covered trellis and decorative bus shelter. If not received prior to Board hearing, the review and approval will be staff's determination. 15. At time of permitting, please provide a sample of the proposed spandrel glass for staff review and determination that the glass closely resembles the vision glass. 16. Staff recommends the applicant work with the abutting HOA to discuss the possibility of the removal and replacement of their wooden fence with your required buffer wall and landscaping, rather than placing them back-to-back. 17. Applicants who wish to utilize City electronic media equipment for recommended PowerPoint presentations at the public hearings must notify the project manager in Planning and Zoning and submit a CD of the presentation at least one week prior to the scheduled meeting. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Comments: N/A PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTSWIdi Grocery\MSPM 17-005\COA.doc Page 131 of 132 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Aldi Grocery (MSPM 17-005) APPLICANT: Bonnie Miskel, Esq. of Dunay, Miskel & Backman, LLP APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 14 SE 4th Street, Suite 36, Boca Raton, FL 33432 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: December 5, 2017 APPROVAL SOUGHT: Major Site Plan Modification approval to construct a 17,880 square foot grocery store and related site improvements, located at 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER was presented to the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the approval sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the approval sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant _ HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the approval requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included." 4. The Applicant's request is hereby _ GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 above. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other: DATED: City Clerk S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Aldi Grocery\MSPM 17-005\DO.doc Page 132 of 132