Loading...
Minutes 01-22-19 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL INTRACOASTAL PARK CLUBHOUSE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2019, 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: STAFF: David Katz, Chair Ed Breese, Principal & Zoning Administrator Trevor Rosecrans, Vice Chair James Cherof, Esq., City Attorney Malcolm Gropper Amanda Bassiely, Principal Planner Will Hatcher Lisa Tayar, Prototype, Inc. Chris Simon Floyd Zonenstein Golene Gordon, Alternate Lucas Vogel, Alternate ABSENT: Butch Buoni 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 Upon motion duly made and seconded, the agenda was approved, with the addition of item 8.A. Appointment of Vice Chair. 4. Approval of Minutes Mr. Gropper had a correction on page 2, Mr. Gropper did not speak to Bradley Miller. Motion made by Mr. Gropper, seconded by Mr. Rosecrans, to approve the December 17, 2018, minutes as corrected. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously (7-0). 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff rd Ms. Bassiely stated the 403 NE 3 Street warehouse was approved by City Commission. The Parking/Shed Amendments were approved on first reading, second reading to come. County Trail PUD items were tabled by request of the applicant. The Boynton Beach Mall comp plan text amendment and land use amendment were tabled by Staff. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 2 January 22, 2019 6. Old Business – None 7. New Business 7.A. Participate in development review process workshop. Principal Planner Amanda Bassiely introduced the Planning & Development Board Workshop, Development 101, and, along with City Attorney James Cherof, gave a Power Point presentation. (Print-out is attached for reference, along with support documents: List of Acronyms; smaller versions of Land Use and Zoning Maps; CRA Recommendations). The four sections are:  Fundamentals of Planning & Development  Development Approval Process  Planning & Development Board  Community Redevelopment Agency Upon completion the Board Members had questions and comments.  Mr. Rosecrans asked about traffic reviews. Ms. Bassiely said Staff almost always requires a traffic study be submitted. At a bare minimum the numbers are done by traffic specialists, traffic and traffic counts should be at the beginning of each Staff Report. If there is any part of the Code that is not met or Staff has no information on, this will became a condition of approval. Mr. Rosecrans also questioned sustainable development activities and would like a definition of “sustainable.” Ms. Bassiely noted the definition is broad and some things are happening while others are already in place. The Climate Action Plan currently is under revision; one product of the revision is for Staff to start creating sustainable development guidelines. Being considered is a type of point system which currently in use in certification programs and by local jurisdictions. The goal is to not over-regulate as each site has different needs, but the goal is to create a proactive conversation. Mr. Breese noted there is a rough draft and the group is meeting the end of the month and once again, then the Sustainability Coordinator will take it to that group for feedback. In two-three months these changes will be forwarded to PDB for comments before adoption.  Mr. Gropper had several questions answered by Ms. Bassiely and Mr. Breese: o Are Environmental Impact Statement, Fiscal Impact, and Traffic Impact required? It depends on the project. These reports are done by the County and the State, not the City, depending on the scale of the project. All the projects (not conditional use or variances) that will come before PDB do require either a traffic study or statement to be provided to the City and County. o Does the EIS weigh into the City’s deliberations? It may be submitted with the Site Plan Review, but it is typically submitted with the Permit Review. The EIS is typically reviewed by utilities, engineering, public works, and all affected parties during the Permit Review when greater detail of the plans are provided. o As to fiscal impact, there is an economic planner on staff who is also an economist who looks at the plans to determine economic appropriateness (but not Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 3 January 22, 2019 a full-blown economic analysis). If there is a negative impact, the project should not even come before the PDB; the benefits should far outweigh the detriments. Some discussion as to scenarios of economic impact vs. conflicts followed and how these issues are addressed in the initial Comprehensive Planning. o When conflict between LDR and Future Land Use arises, it is handled through a private developer coming before PDB presenting a project and/or Staff being proactive in making some changes. o Mr. Gropper clarified that if a property under the old zoning should be destroyed by fire or natural disaster and is rebuilt, it would come in under the new zoning. o Concurrency weighs into Development approvals, and is paid to the City, not the CRA (to Mr. Breese’s understanding). Once a development is approved, the developer may have other approvals to go through the County, including Lake Worth Drainage District, South Florida Water Management, etc. Ms. Bassiely commented that PDB only sees the designs at 30%, all of the details are done afterwards; after the rights for development are secured, the developers put money into full-blown designs to be passed through permitting. Mr. Breese explained the steps through DART review. o As to the vision and goals of the CRA, if is it oriented more towards gentrification or affordable Housing, it is definitely geared towards affordable housing; there are gentrification protection regulations in place to prevent some of this happening in specific areas.  Mr. Simon asked about future land use and planning district re-zonings, seeking examples of other plans like the Town Square project, and if a master plan is not required if supported by redevelopment plans, economic, or strategic plans. Ms. Bassiely clarified to say that “no master plan” is somewhat misleading; it is being redefined for the larger developments as they happen in phases. Town Square was not a typical master plan, but more of a site plan setting all the caps and minimums for buildings, square footage, green spaces, etc. (citing Town Square, Ocean One (Phase 2), and The Mall redevelopment). While it is vague, this is only done with City-initiated projects, and sometimes CRA and MLK projects. The key is to take away some of the risk from applicants when on a tight timeline (i.e., low-income housing requirements). This fixes glitches with City or CRA- participant projects (e.g., Heart of Boynton). Mr. Simon wondered about the difference between residential and commercial projects, if more steps are required. Ms. Bassiely said it becomes a more involved site plan and explained the typical process. Finally, regarding State-level issues, the PDB can make recommendations on every aspect from site plan to annexation, but the recommendations have less weight going up that chain. Annexation, for instance, is a pure Legislative determination by the Commission. Mr. Breese confirmed that PDB’s input is important on all aspects of the processes on the chart.  Chair Katz sought clarification on several points: o How long should the public comments be, three minutes or five minutes, or unlimited under certain circumstances. Mr. Cherof said it does not have to be unlimited, the Chair is responsible for controlling the meeting so the business of the Board gets completed in a reasonable time. The Chair can limit to three or five minutes at the beginning with some discretion given to the nature/complexity Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 4 January 22, 2019 of the item and the amount of information the speaker is bringing to that issue for the Board. Even with a quasi-judicial item, the Chair has the discretion to limit the time. o An explanation on property rights was requested and what defines a “taking” (for the benefit of new members). Mr. Cherof defined a taking as a governmental action for what is purported to be a public purpose, to use property that is owned by a private individual, company, or group of individuals. There is a price to be paid for such action: the City would have established the public purpose for the use of the property; that public purpose cannot be offset by other uses (e.g., building a parking area adjacent to a building when other properties are available in a reasonable distance). Chair Katz clarified he meant denying a site plan that comes under the Code of Ordinances and what the rights of the property owner and developers are. Mr. Cherof said there are significant property rights in the State of Florida protected by statute, interference with those development rights by expectations of the right to develop property usually do result in a lawsuit if they are blocked. Local government usually loses in such cases. Mr. Cherof gave examples of legal precedent regarding rights of the property owner. o Request for a summary of the purview of the Board and questions and requirements that may be asked. Mr. Cherof recommend the Board Members gear their questions to what exists in the Code and LDR and not go beyond that. This requires that the Members have some understanding of the City’s LDRs; luckily, Staff usually addresses all of the LDR issues that could come up in their reports, which sometimes can come under the category of Conditions of Approval. o Do other local municipalities have the 7.5 units per acre in the lowest density allowed? Ms. Bassiely did not know, but said that is a land use classification and there still are zoning districts that are capped at 5.0 units per acre, explaining how zoning districts were grouped under low density. The 5.0 districts (R1AA, R1AAB, etc., defined by lightest yellow shading on the maps) are unchanged. o What substantial changes by the developer could bring The Estates of Silver Lake back to the Board? Mr. Breese referred to a previous conversation in which the hypothetical question of the developer choosing to reduce the number of units, would it need to come back before the Board. Typically, things that lessen the impact are not required to come back to the Board; those that go beyond what was initially heard should come back before this Board. Ms. Bassiely gave directions for how Board Members can acquire the Power Point for this presentation, along with maps, etc., online. Chair Katz thanked Staff for their work on this workshop. 8. Other – none. 9. Comments by Members – none. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 5 January 22, 2019 10. Adjournment Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Attachments: Planning & Development Board Workshop, Development 101 Appendix Items: List of Acronyms Smaller versions of Land Use and Zoning Maps CRA Recommendations \[Minutes prepared by M. Moore, Prototype, Inc.\] ` Planning & Development Board Workshop Common Planning Acronyms FLU: Future Land Use FLUE: Future Land Use Element FLUM: Future Land Use Map LDR: Land Development Regulations EAR: Evaluation and Appraisal Report TOD- Transit Oriented Development DUs: Dwelling Units FAR: Floor Area Ratio DART: Development Application Review Team DCA: Department of Community Affairs LGCPA: Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act DEO: Department of Economic Opportunity SFR: Single Family Residence MU: Mixed Use DO: Development Order "C": Conditional "P": Permitted BTR: Business Tax receipt MP: Master Plan SP: Site Plan CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH OFFICIAL 2026 FUTURE LAND USE MAP 7 V v a o C T a entone Rd 4ti t� vl I d -m 4y 0th G a . k Ridge 81 ! r 13= VI ('itY S_ V c Legend LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(LDR),7.5 D.U./Acre MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(MEDR),11 D.U./Acre � nt i HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(HDR),15 D.U./Acre ,i SPECIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(SHDR),20 D.U./Acre - -' OFFICE COMMERCIAL(OC) LOCAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL(LRC) D GENERAL COMMERCIAL(GC) INDUSTRIAL(1) 0 RECREATIONAL(R) !L n r ao aa, , PUBLIC&PRIVATE GOVERNMENTAL/INSTITUTIONAL(PPGI) H MIXED USE LOW(MXL),20 D.U./Acre o ss MIXED USE MEDIUM(MXM),50 D.U./Acre MIXED USE HIGH(MXH),80 D.U./Acre > DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT(DRI) = n rLs CONSERVATION(CON) CONSERVATION OVERLAY(C/O 2 CRA Boundary � W R TCEA Boundary s 0 Downtown TOD District Boundary �o G� a Last amended July 17, 2018 p ®� Ch rt 3 e m 0 0.150.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH OFFICIAL ZONING MAP t Legend R1AAA Single Family,3.5 du/ac R1AAB Single Family,5 du/ac 0 R1AA Single Family,5.5 du/ac R1A Single Family,6 du/ac o � s 0 R1 Single Family,7.5 du/ac , 0 R2 Duplex, 10 du/ac R3 Multi Family, 11 du/ac ri IFF R4 Multi Family, 15 du/ac t, 0 PUD Planned Unit Development © IPUD Infill Planned Unit Development 17 0 C1 Office Professional '70 '1111 0 C2 Neighborhood Commercial C3 Community Commercial ,, C4 General Commercial Ulm CBD Central Business District PCDPlanned Commercial DevelopmentM1 Light Industrial M , PID Planned Industrial Development u SMU Suburban Mixed Use,20 du/acs_ 0 MU-1 Mixed Use 1,20 du/ac MU-2 Mixed Use 2,40 du/ac ' MU-3 Mixed Use 3,50 du/acBB MU-4 Mixed Use 4,60 du/ac = MU-C Mixed Use Core,80 du/ac EMREC Recreation " { PU Public Usaget v� QCRA Boundary TCEA Boundary Downtown TOD District Boundary S t t t t # 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Miles Last amended: July 17,2018 Source: Development Department, Planning and Zoning Copyright Palm Beach County,Florida, 2017 All Rights Reserved-Subject to a License Agreement