The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 08-25-20 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: Tuesday,August 25, 2020 TIME: 6:30 PM PLACE: Zoom online meeting IMPORTANT NOTICE: This public hearing will be conducted using means of communication media technology. If you wish to join the meeting using a computer or smart phone you only need to register prior to noon on August 25th. Register by sending an e-mail to pzmailbo bbfl.us, indicating whether you desire to speak on an item (indicate which item(s)), or if you only plan to listen to and/or view the meeting provide your name and phone number so you may be contacted if needed. The agenda, electronic link for the meeting and access instructions will be available at the City's web site within two days of the meeting. If you cannot join the meeting, written comments can be e-mailed to the above e-mail address which will be read into the record by City staff. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Minutes 4.A. Approve board minutes from the 05/26/2020 Planning & Development Board meeting 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff 6. Old Business 7. New Business 7.A. Approval of the Conditional Use application (COUS 20-002) for Exotic Mortorworks, to allow an automobile diagnostics facility exclusively for luxury and/or high-performance vehicles at 816 SE 1 st Street. 7.B. REQUEST: Approve Catanzaro Residential Future Land Use Map Amendment from Local Retail Commercial (LRC) to Medium Density Residential (MEDR). REQUEST: Approve Catanzaro Residential Rezoning from C-2 Neighborhood Commercial to R-3 Multi-Family Residential. 8. Other 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 or 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 Page 1 of 42 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 forty-eight (48) hours prior to the program or activity in order for the city to reasonably accommodate your request. Page 2 of 42 4.4.A. Approval of Minutes 8/25/2020 _ CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 8/25/2020 REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Approve board minutes from the 05/26/2020 Planning & Development Board meeting EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: 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 05-26-20 Minutes Page 3of42 Minutes of the Planning and Development Board Meeting Held on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, at 6:30 P.M. Via Zoom Online Meeting in Boynton Beach, Florida PRESENT: James DeVoursney, Chair Mike Rumpf, Development Director Trevor Rosecrans, Vice Chair Ed Breese, Planning and Zoning Administrator Tim Litsch Amanda Bassiely, Principal Planner Susan Oyer Hanna Matras, Senior Planner Chris Simon James Cherof, Board Counsel Darren Allen Lyman Phillips, Alt (voting) Jay Sobel, Alt ABSENT: Butch Buoni At 6:30 p.m. Colin Groff, Assistant City Manager, explained the meeting procedures and how to participate. James DeVoursney, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. The meeting was held online via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 1. Pledge of Allegiance Ms. Oyer led the members in the Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call Roll was taken. A quorum was present. Chair DeVoursney recognized Board Alternate Lyman Phillips to vote during the meeting as a regular member was absent. 3. Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Litsch moved to approve the agenda. Ms. Oyer seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. Page 4of42 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 4. Approval of Minutes 4.A. Approve board minutes from the April 28, 2020, Planning and Development Board meeting. Motion Ms. Oyer moved to approve the amended minutes. Mr. Simon seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Ed Breese, Planning and Zoning Administrator, announced the City Commission approved, at the last meeting, the 7-Eleven Land Use and Rezoning and Master Site Plan Modification on second reading, and the Land Use and Rezoning for Miraflor and Madison on the Avenue on First Reading. A question was asked if the applications were approved as presented. Mr. Breese explained there were slight modifications e and three conditions of approval added. The pumps remained where they were, but the vents would be moved further east on the site. 6. Old Business None. 7. New Business 7.A. REQUEST: Approve amendments to the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (CDRV 20-002), revising Chapter 3. Zoning: (1) Article III. Zoning Districts and Overlays, Section 1.13. and Sections 2.0 and 2.E., to set maximum building height consistent with Single-Family regulations and to modify development standards for selected non-conforming lots; and (2) Article IV. Use Regulations, Section 3.D. Use Matrix, to revise the locational criteria and regulations for Automobile Rental and to allow Professional & Technical Schools in Industrial (1) pods within Quantum Park, and to allow Self-Service Storage in the C-4 zoning district; and (3) Article V. Supplemental Regulations, Section 3.D. Swimming Pools and Spas, amending locational criteria, and to add Section 3.AA, In-ground Storm Shelters. Chair DeVoursney presented the item. Motion 2 Page 5of42 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 Ms. Oyer moved to have a separate vote on each amendment. Mr. Simon seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. Amanda Bassiely, Principal Planner, reviewed the proposed revisions as follows: • Expanded locations for selected uses, including automobile rental in SMU and MU-4 Districts, selected self-service storage in the C-4 District, and adding PID to Industrial lots for professional and technical schools. These amendments were to accommodate increased demand and add flexibility in the Code. • Maximum Building Height in R-2 Zoning District, which proposed to increase building heights from 25 to 30 feet for single-family and two-family residences. Single family districts have a height maximum of 30 feet and the R-2 District, which allows height for duplexes and single-family homes, has height capped at 25 feet. This amendment made it consistent with lower intense uses. • Construction of pools for homes on corner lots. This amendment would allow individuals with homeowners on corner lots to construct pools in the front or corner side yards and added setback and screening requirements. The current Code mandates pools could only be constructed in the rear or interior side yards. The revision allows individuals with homes on corner lots to have greater flexibility. • Allow for in-ground storm shelters. Presently, there are no provisions in the Code for the structures. This would allow them as permitted for any type of in-ground storm shelter. • Non-conforming lot standards. This specifically pertained to the Heart of Boynton (HOB) area due to several lots lacking buildable square footage or lot frontage due to lots being non-conforming, irregularly platted or subdivided. Staff modified the building and setback requirements to allow single-family homes to be constructed on most of the lots. Chair DeVoursney reviewed the change in maximum building height. Mr. Simon inquired if the setbacks would be adjusted with the height increase and learned the setbacks would remain the same. There were no other comments received. Chair DeVoursney reviewed the construction of pools on corner lots. Ms. Oyer had concerns about safety as youth could climb over the fences and drown. She supported six-foot fences instead of the four-foot fence and did not understand why screened enclosures were prohibited on those lots. Mr. Breese explained the Building Code only requires four-foot fences, and this amendment would be consistent with the Code. Additionally, since pools will be allowed in front and side corner yards, six-feet fences are prohibited. Mr. Simon suggested when a pool is to be approved in the front or side 3 Page 6of42 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 corner, the four-foot fence be solid, and not chain-link or rail, so passersby cannot see through them and they are difficult to climb. He was unsure having only shrubbery or vegetation as a screen would be adequate. Ms. Oyer agreed and thought landscaping should also be required. Chair DeVoursney noted the backup information specifies the pool would need to be screened with an opaque fence a minimum of four-feet tall, a wall and landscape buffer was required. Ms. Oyer thought the working should say "must." It was noted the allowance was for inground pools and not above ground pools. Mr. Phillips asked if the four-foot fence was from the ground up or the total length of the fence and learned it should be as measured from an adjacent grade. Mr. Allen agreed with Ms. Oyer's concerns. He noted there are pools in backyards that abut city streets and asked if there any provisions to require four-foot fencing for them. Mr. Breese explained the four-foot fence is regardless of where the pool is on the property, or if it abuts a street or other property. Chair DeVoursney reviewed automobile rental locations. This amendment adds the use to additional commercial zoning districts, such as the C-3 District, which usually have large shopping plazas and power centers that could accommodate parking for the rental fleet. Criteria will include the requirement that the use be located on properties at major intersections and that any on-site, outdoor vehicle storage will require Conditional Use approval. Mr. Simon inquired if Enterprise or Hertz could have an office and vehicles on site. Ms. Bassiely explained the approval is for the office to be located there, but if they want to store vehicles outdoors, they would need to receive conditional approval from the City. He asked if a major intersection was the only location where an auto rental office could be located. Ms. Bassiely responded it was, as long as the intersection was within the zoning districts staff was expanding them into. It was not an across the Board criteria for every zoning district and she noted other districts permit the use. The locational criteria was only specific to the SMU Districts, which are mixed-use districts. Ms. Bassiely elaborated there is an SMU District on Congress Avenue. The mall is being rezoned to SMU. The east side of Congress is SMU, as was Boynton Beach Boulevard and Federal Highway. The MU-4 District is an urban mixed-use district and mixed-use zonings are planned developments. She noted staff is rezoning other properties to those districts. If 500 Ocean wanted to allow one of their bays to be used as an office for Enterprise, because they are an urban mixed-use district, and their residents do not have cars, but need to rent cars, the use would be permitted. Staff would not be able to rezone a property to SMU in order to grant an automobile rental office on a corner somewhere. The use has to be integrated into a larger mixed-use development. Mr. Litsch noted the amendment allows a maximum of 20 vehicles to be parked in marked stalls in the parking lot of the shopping center where the office would be located. He further noted the rental office was allowed to store another 20 vehicles if 4 Page 7 of 42 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 they receive conditional use approval from the City and the landlord. Mr. Breese clarified the first 20 vehicles must be in marked parking spaces and must be excess parking spaces. The office would be allowed up to another 20 vehicles, but they must be parked in service areas, such as behind the building, or in areas that do not affect business, EMS access or general traffic circulation. Mr. Litsch inquired if vehicles would be towed if someone parked in the rental parking lot. Mr. Breese responded it was up to the rental agency and the center owner to decide if they would use tow warning signs, but it was possible the vehicles could be towed. Mr. Breese pointed out the spaces would not be near the stores, but they will be marked for rental agency only. Mr. Litsch was concerned, they would be closest to the car rental office and would not want car rentals to be visible from his office. He queried how many handicapped spaces would be eliminated. Mr. Breese responded no handicapped spots would be eliminated. Mr. Litsch commented there is a Hertz office in Delray on Federal Highway that is overflowing with rental cars because no one is renting them, and they are spilling out onto the street. He did not know if 20 or an additional 20 spaces would be adequate if the office is responsible for 100 vehicles. Mr. Breese explained they are not trying to be a car rental hub, just a local pick-up/drop-off location and keep it at a minimum so it does not impact the property, of become a Code nightmare. Ms. Oyer asked about exact locations that would be able to have a rental office in the MU-4 District. Ms. Bassiely explained she provided locations based on what the redevelopment plan calls for when rezoning property in the area. Woolbright Road and Federal Highway could accommodate the use and there was a smaller node at Gateway Boulevard and Federal Highway. She pointed out it is what can be redeveloped under the CRA Redevelopment plan, but not necessarily by right at this time. Chair DeVoursney reviewed staff proposed in-ground storm shelter regulations for residents who, rather than fortify the exterior of their residence or construct safe rooms within the home, prefer to utilize an in-ground storm shelter as their means of protection. With South Florida being prone to hurricane strikes, and the tornadoes spawned by them, this type of shelter can provide another form of protection. Staff decided to draft this code amendment following several inquiries by a property owner who is very interested in adding a shelter to his back yard. Currently, the LDRs are void of such regulations. Mr. Simon inquired about setbacks and learned they could be as close as three feet from the side property line. Mr. Breese explained a portion of the shelter could be above ground for the entrance, and some people like storm-rated windows up to four or five feet in height for natural light. He further noted that the structure could be no closer than five feet from the rear property line. The shelter can be as tall as the principal structure, however, in area between 15 feet and five feet from the rear property line, the structure can be no taller than five feet. Mr. Simon was concerned that three feet from a 5 Page 8of42 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 property line would compromise the integrity of walls or pools, but it was pointed out construction details will be provided how to shore up the soil and how installation of the improvements would be made. As to a generator, gas or electric provided to the site, the regulations would remain and not be altered for these structures. There is a specific building code for storm shelters and they would need to meet all of its requirements. Vice Chair Rosecrans asked about setbacks away from existing utilities and how flood zones will impact the shelters. Mr. Breese explained the structures are not allowed to exceed the maximum impervious area of the sites, which is usually 40% to 50% of building coverage on the site. An above ground shelter would have to meet the same criteria as a home would. Vice Chair Rosecrans asked about buoyancy. Mr. Breese explained that would be addressed in the engineering plans. Mr. Simon asked what elevations the shelter is built at to ensure the structure would not be underwater as the finished floor elevation is underground. Ms. Bassiely explained those regulations are handled in the building and engineering codes. Mr. Breese had spoken with the Chief Building Official. If the structure cannot not meet the Code, it can not be built, but shelters have successfully been constructed and this provision will incorporate them into the Code. Mr. Sobel asked what the maximum depth a structure could be. Ms. Bassiely explained there was no maximum depth in the Code. Mr. Groff explained this shelter is considered living space and living space cannot be below a flood plain, zone or line and must be one foot above. If someone is five feet above sea level and the finished floor is eight foot. They could not build a shelter, and generally, the only location to build these shelters is along the ridge. Only the above ground portion of the shelter is calculated into the maximum lot coverage. Anytime over 800 square feet is built on a property, an engineer would have to show how the water percolates and is being maintained on site. Chair DeVoursney read the staff report which proposed to expand the permitted locations for Self-Service Storage businesses by adding this use to C-4 General Commercial zoning district, except on locations that front an arterial road. Currently, the use is permitted within the Industrial zoning district (M-1) and conditionally permitted within four (4) other zoning districts. Ms. Bassiely explained the City does not have many C-4 properties. They are usually lining industrial properties, there are some on the west side of the railroad tracks. Ms. Oyer asked if there was C-4 by Bowers Park. There was some north along Boynton Beach Boulevard along the tracks and along Federal Highway, but this use would not be permitted on Federal Highway. There are a few other locations around town, but the largest concentration is on Boynton Beach Boulevard and near the tracks. Ms. Oyer inquired if there was a company that was interested. Mr. Breese explained there are companies looking for additional self- storage in town. The C-4 District is a cross between high intensity commercial and low intensity Industrial. Staff viewed this as areas where additional area self-storage could be located in addition to the other areas listed. Ms. Oyer did not think the City needed any more self-storage facilities and thought they were unsightly. She favored better tax producing businesses in these locations. 6 Page 9of42 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 Mr. Simon asked if requiring onsite storage could be incorporated in upcoming projects, such as mixed use or multi-family housing. Ms. Bassiely responded they have seen self-storage integrated into mixed-use projects, but the City has not required them. They are already allowed in the SMU District. Staff is reviewing the use matrix and it is a good topic to discuss, as they may be integrated into urban districts as well. She commented the feedback from the businesses about this is not well received. Mr. Breese explained Renaissance Commons has storage in the complex and it is well disguised. 500 Ocean does have small storage spaces within their building. The Riverwalk Project was also doing the same thing. Chair DeVoursney presented the Professional & Technical Schools Locations within Quantum Park. Ms. Oyer was concerned about the Bald Eagles nesting on the south portion of Quantum Park. Mr. Breese responded there are only two parcels on the south side that are undeveloped. He did anticipate anyone having a school on an undeveloped lot, rather they would locate in an existing building. Ms. Oyer commented the City has discussed having technical training for city residents so they could obtain construction jobs and asked if this item was related to it. Mr. Breese explained it was for any technical or professional school, and they would see them as a user of one or two spaces within an existing building. Mr. Sobel asked if it could be structured that they have to use an existing building in order to protect the eagles. If there is a restriction added, they could only occupy an existing building, which would restrict further development. Ms. Bassiely explained the eagles are protected regardless of what type of business it is. Chair DeVoursney read the staff report regarding non-conforming housing as staffs Housing Work Group continues to evaluate the City's regulations and processes for opportunities to eliminate barriers to construction of affordable and workforce housing, and now forwards for consideration this code change that targets a group of non- conforming lots within some of the older neighborhoods in the City. Left as either remnants from prior lot splits, or were vacated after regulations increased leaving them currently unbuildable due to current deficient lot size or frontage requirements. In order to allow single-family residences to be built on these lots, staff proposes modified development standards including revisions to lot area, lot frontage, setbacks, as well minimum livable area. Not only would the amendments create buildable lots, but they would allow for the construction of small, and even more affordable houses. This amendment furthers the City's goal of increasing the inventory of attainable housing. Ms. Oyer questioned whether the amendment would be City-wide or just in the Heart of Boynton and learned the revisions specified they pertained to the HOB. The lots could accommodate a 750 square-foot home, at a minimum. The non-conforming lots vary in size and a larger home could be built as long as they meet the standards. The amendment would prohibit tiny homes. Ms. Oyer asked if there would be room for landscaping and learned there was. The required setbacks could accommodate trees. 7 Page 10 of 42 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 Mr. Simon asked if the amendment contemplated the same setbacks. Ms. Bassiely explained the goal is to make the lots buildable. Any properties that were originally platted or were non-conforming as of today would use the regulations. Vice Chair Rosecrans inquired about utility connections and learned those regulations and easements would still apply. Mr. Sobel asked if the setbacks would impact neighbors who have greater setbacks or if they are isolated lots. Ms. Bassiely explained the lots are sprinkled throughout the HOB, but there are some clusters on 11th and on both sides of Seacrest. Mr. Sobel noted a home with 15-feet of frontage would impact a neighboring property with a 25-foot setback and learned they would be allowed under these regulations. Mr. Breese explained under the current rules, an administrative adjustment can be requested by the property owner to within 20 feet of the front setback. Additionally, a few years ago, the City adopted regulations that allow front porches to within fifteen feet of the property line so it would be consistent with what other property owners could do. Mr. Sobel thought if it was not consistent on the street, it would impact the neighbors. Mr. Breese noted historically, older homes have a variety of setbacks depending on how old the house was. The HOB is an older district. Some new communities have very strict front setback, but these homes were not Row Houses. Chair DeVoursney supported the idea and thought it was a smart move by the CRA. Chair DeVoursney opened public comment. No one came forward. Motion Ms. Oyer moved to approve amendments to the Land Development Regulations (CDRV 20-002), revising Chapter 3. Zoning: (1) Article III. Zoning Districts and Overlays, Section 1.13. and Sections 2.0 and 2.E., to set maximum building height consistent with Single-Family regulations. Vice Chair Rosecrans seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion Ms. Oyer moved to approve Swimming Pools Located Within Front and Corner Side Yard Setbacks. Mr. Litsch seconded the motion. Ms. Oyer wanted to add conditions to the motion. Attorney Cherof explained a motion to amend the motion was needed and then voted on. If passed, it will be part of the main motion, which would also be voted on. Motion Ms. Oyer moved to amend the motion to ensure the wording includes four-foot solid or opaque fencing and landscaping to have a dual barrier. Vice Chair Rosecrans seconded the motion. 8 Page 11 of 42 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 Vote There was a vote on the amendment. The motion passed 6-1 (Mr. Allen dissenting.) Vote There was a vote on the main motion. The motion unanimously passed. Motion Mr. Simon moved to approve the Automobile Rental Locations. Vice Chair Rosecrans seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-5 (Messrs. Litsch, Simon, and Phillips, Vice Chair Rosecrans and Ms. Oyer dissenting.) Motion Vice Chair Rosecrans moved to approve the in-ground storm shelters. Mr. Simon seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion Mr. Simon moved to approve the self-service storage locations. Vice Chair Rosecrans seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-3 (Messrs. Litsch and Allen and Ms. Oyer dissenting.) Motion Ms. Oyer moved to approve Professional & Technical Schools Locations. Vice Chair Rosecrans seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion Ms. Oyer moved to approve Nonconforming Lots Standards in the HOB. Mr. Litsch seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1 (Mr. Simon dissenting.) 8. Other 9. Comments Ms. Oyer referenced item 3, the auto rental location, and asked if they could review it a second time and adjust it to only the SMU and not the MU-4 District, which was why she opposed the item. She did not want to see them on the nodes on Federal Highway Chair DeVoursney noted they were pretty reassuring it would only be on the west side of the track. He thought the parcels did not have much value. Mr. Breese explained in the mixed-use districts, that type of use has to be within a parking structure, it cannot be within an open parking lot of a shopping center and it was not was something one would 9 Page 12 of 42 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 see at major intersections. Ms. Oyer noted they were already short parking on Federal Highway at each node and could not justify taking 100 spaces for Hertz in a downtown location. She thought there was more than enough room to accommodate the request at the mall or on Congress Avenue. Mr. Breese emphasized in MU-4, it has to be in an enclosed parking structure and use excess parking and all of the regulations are still in place. Attorney Cherof explained the item was disposed of by motion and vote. To revisit it, a motion to reconsider the item needs to be made and seconded and then it could be revisited. Without it, the item was disposed of. Vice Chair Rosecrans asked about the 7-Eleven gas pumps noting the Code says gas stations shall not be within 200 feet of a residential structure. He asked how the item could be approved, if a variance was given or if it was discussed on the City Commission level. Mr. Breese explained if they are greater than 200 feet away from a residential district, they are allowed by right. If within 200 feet, it requires a conditional use approval, which was the process the applicant went through. 10. Adjournment Motion There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Oyer moved to adjourn. Vice Chair Rosecrans seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Catherine Cherry Minutes Specialist 10 Page 13 of 42 7.7.A. New Business 8/25/2020 _ CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 8/25/2020 REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Approval of the Conditional Use application (COUS 20-002) for Exotic Mortorworks, to allow an automobile diagnostics facility exclusively for luxury and/or high-performance vehicles at 816 SE 1st Street. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: The 0.27-acre subject property consists of a parcel currently developed with a single-story warehouse building composed of 7 units. The building is presently occupied by 2 businesses: Art & Technology Dental Lab and Cold Formers USA LLC. The applicant proposes to occupy unit#4 as indicated on the site plan. The proposed automobile use would be categorized as Automobile, Minor Repair, per the City's Use Matrix This use is typically permitted by right in properties zoned Industrial (M-1) if located further than 100 linear feet from any residential or mixed-use zoning district. Otherwise, the use would be subject to Conditional Use approval. The applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval as the subject industrial property, zoned M-1, is located at a distance of less than 100 linear feet from the neighboring single-family properties, zoned R1A, to the west. The request is solely for Conditional Use approval with no exterior modifications to the existing building or site as the building was constructed for industrial related businesses. The building unit will be utilized for business administration purposes and to store valuable and expensive business related equipment, as well as to diagnose one (1) vehicle at a time on an appointment basis. According to the applicant, the facility will not perform any type of tests that would emit loud noises (i.e. dyno tests). HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A ALTERNATIVES: None recommended. STRATEGIC PLAN: STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION: N/A CLIMATE ACTION: CLIMATE ACTION DISCUSSION: N/A Is this a grant? Page 14 of 42 Grant Amount: ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Staff Report StaffReport Exotic Motorworks D Location I\Aap ExIiibit A- Location I\Aap D Drawings ExIiibit B - Site Plan D Conditions of Approval ExIiibit C - Conditions of Approval D Attachment ExIiibit D - Conditional Use Criteria D Letter ExIiibit E - Project Narrative D Development Order ExIiibit IF - Development Order Page 15 of 42 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 20-014 STAFF REPORT TO: Chair and Members Planning and Development Board THRU: Ed Breese Planning and Zoning Administrator FROM: Luis Bencosme Planner II DATE: August 4, 2020 PROJECT NAME: Exotic Motoworks COOS 20-002 REQUEST: Approve Conditional Use (COOS 20-002) request for Exotic Motoworks, to allow an automobile diagnostics facility exclusively for luxury and/ or high-performance exotic automobiles at 816 SE 1St Street, in the M-1 (Industrial) zoning district. Applicant: Joel Lopez: Exotic Mortoworks PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant: Joel Lopez, Exotic Motorworks Property Owner: JM Solutions Group LLC Location: 816 SE 1St Street Existing Land Use/Zoning: Industrial (1)/ Industrial (M-1 ) Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No Change Proposed Uses: Automobile, Minor Repair Acreage: 0.27 Acres Page 16 of 42 Exotic Mortorworks COUS 20-002 Page 2 Adjacent Uses: North: Developed industrial property classified as Industrial (M1); South: Right-of-way of SE 8th Avenue; farther south developed industrial property classified as Industrial (M1); East: Developed industrial property classified as Industrial (M1); West: Right-of-way of SE 1 st Street; farther west, developed single-family properties zoned Single-Family (R1A); PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION Owners of properties within 400 feet of the subject project were mailed a notice of this request and its respective hearing dates. The applicant has certified that signage is posted and notices mailed in accordance with Ordinance No. 04-007. BACKGROUND/ PROPOSAL The 0.27-acre subject property consists of a parcel currently developed with a single-story warehouse building composed of 7 units. The building is presently occupied by 2 businesses: Art & Technology Dental Lab and Cold Formers USA LLC. The applicant proposes to occupy unit #4 as indicated on the site plan. The proposed automobile use would be categorized as Automobile, Minor Repair, per the City's Use Matrix. This use is typically permitted by right in properties zoned Industrial (M-1) if located further than 100 linear feet from any residential or mixed-use zoning district. Otherwise, the use would be subject to Conditional Use approval. The applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval as the subject industrial property, zoned M-1, is located at a distance of less than 100 linear feet from the neighboring single-family properties, zoned R1A, to the west. The request is solely for Conditional Use approval with no exterior modifications to the existing building or site as the building was constructed for industrial related businesses. The building unit will be utilized for business administration purposes and to store valuable and expensive business related equipment, as well as to diagnose one (1) vehicle at a time on an appointment basis. According to the applicant, the facility will not perform any type of tests that would emit loud noises (i.e. dyno tests). STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING CONDITIONAL USES AND ANALYSIS Section 11.2.D of the Land Development Regulations contains the following standards to which conditional uses are required to conform to. Following each of these standards is the Planning and Zoning Division's evaluation of the application as it pertains to each of the standards. In addition, the applicant has submitted a separate detailed justification statement that addresses each of these standards (see Exhibit "D" —Justification Statement). Page 17 of 42 Exotic Mortorworks COUS 20-002 Page 3 The Planning & Development Board and City Commission shall consider only such conditional uses that are authorized under the terms of these zoning regulations and, in connection therewith, may grant conditional uses absolutely or conditioned upon adherence to conditions of approval including, but not limited to, the dedication of property for streets, alleys, recreation space and sidewalks, as shall be determined necessary for the protection of the surrounding area and the citizens' general welfare, or deny conditional uses when not in harmony with the intent and purpose of this section. In evaluating an application for conditional use approval, the Board and Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed use on the general health, safety and welfare of the community and make written findings certifying that satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following standards, where applicable: 1. Ingress and egress to the subject property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automobile and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. The subject property currently has one (1) primary point of ingress/egress; a driveway on the south side of the property that leads to the rear of the property and building. The applicant would have the use of two (2) off-street parallel parking spaces (see Exhibit "B"). The applicant is simply a tenant and is not proposing any type of modifications to the site as a whole, or that would change the existing vehicular and pedestrian circulation. However, staff will include a Condition of Approval on the Development Order to ensure the parking lot is improved with appropriate markings, as the parking stall stripes have faded. The required improvements should be sufficient to enhance the existing automobile and pedestrian traffic circulation and control as vehicles enter and exit the site. 2. Off-street parking and loading areas where required, with particular attention to the items in standard#1 above, and the economic, glare, noise, and odor effects the conditional use will have on adjacent and nearby properties, and the city as a whole. The subject property was originally designed and constructed with 12 off-street, backup parking spaces located on the west side of the building. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the existing parking lot layout as the property currently has sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the existing and proposed businesses. However, the landlord has agreed to assign one (1) backup parking space located on the west side of the building and two (2) parallel parking spaces located on the east side of the site to the applicant. Also, the unit's interior space is large enough to store one (1) vehicle. The applicant intents to use the unit as an office space; to store expensive business-related equipment; and to occasionally work on one (1) vehicle on an appointment basis. The applicant also provides his diagnostic services off-site at dealerships and other repair facilities. 3. Refuse and service areas, with particular reference to the items in standards 1 and 2 above. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the existing garbage disposable system. Currently, roll out garbage cans are provided to each business, which are stored inside the units. 4. Utilities, with reference to locations, availability, and compatibility. The City of Boynton Beach Utility Department currently serves the site, and utilities would continue to be available and provided, consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and City regulations. No additional impacts are anticipated with this application. Page 18 of 42 Exotic Mortorworks COUS 20-002 Page 4 5. Screening, buffering and landscaping with reference to type, dimensions, and character. This application is solely for Conditional Use approval with no exterior modifications to building and site, other than the above mentioned parking lot improvements required by staff as a Condition of Approval. The building has no overhead bay doors facing west, toward the residential prorperty, therefore there will be no views of the buisness operations or sound impacts. 6. Signs, and proposed exterior lighting, with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effect, and compatibility and harmony with adjacent and nearby properties. Additionally, business operations will mainly occur elsewhere or inside the unit. The City's Land Development Regulations restricts internally illuminated signs when visible from adjacent residential properties. The existing building was designed with the sign band area located above the front entrance of each unit, which may be visible from the adjacent single-family residential properties to the west. The applicant has agreed to install an aesthetically pleasing and non-illuminated wall sign to ensure the adjacent residential properties are not adversely impacted in any way. 7. Required setbacks and other open spaces. This application is solely for conditional use approval with no exterior modifications to the existing building or site. Therefore, this Conditional Use criterium is not applicable. 8. General compatibility with adjacent properties, and other property in the zoning district. Business operations will not be visible from outside the property as it will mainly occur elsewhere or inside the unit on an appointment basis. Also, the applicant has agreed to refrain from any type of business-related functions that would produce loud noise such as dyno testing. 9. Height of building and structures, with reference to compatibility and harmony with adjacent and nearby properties, and the city as a whole. The applicant is not proposing any exterior modifications that would change the existing height of the single-story warehouse building. 10. Economic effects on adjacent and nearby properties, and the city as a whole. The proposed use will have minimal economic impact on adjacent properties and the City as a whole. The City would benefit financially from applicable certificate of use fees. 11. Where applicable, the proposed use furthers the purpose and intent of a corresponding mixed-use zoning district or redevelopment plan; This standard is not applicable to this project, as the property is zoned Industrial. 12. Compliance with, and abatement of nuisances and hazards in accordance with, the performance standards of Chapter 2, Section 4.N. of the City's Land Development Regulations and conformance to the City of Boynton Beach Noise Control Ordinance. Page 19 of 42 Exotic Mortorworks COUS 20-002 Page 5 According to the applicant, any hazardous fluids, if any, will be placed in approved containers and disposed correctly in compliance with City and State regulations. The applicant indicates his use will not generate harmful smoke, odors, fumes, or toxic matter that would negatively impact the health and safety of neighboring properties. Additionally, the business will not perform any type of testing (i.e. dyno test) that would create loud noise. As noted previously, there is no overhead bay door facing west toward the residential property, so any sound should be minimized. 13. Required sound study and analysis. All conditional use applications for bars, nightclubs and similar establishments shall include the following analysis performed by a certified acoustic engineer: a. Data on the sound emitting devices/equipment and the methods and materials to be used to assure that the acoustic level of the City Code will be met; b. The analysis shall specify the authority and/or basis for determination of the acoustic level of the sound emitting devices/equipment; c. The analysis of any sound retention, reduction or reflection shall include information such as the nature, types and coefficients of sound absorbent and sound-reflecting materials to be used, coatings of the surfaces of ceilings, walls, windows, and floors and insulation to be used; and/or d. It shall also verify that sound standards shall be met during the normal opening of doors for people entering and exiting the establishment. This standard is inapplicable to this project. RECOMMENDATION Based on the information contained herein, compliance with development regulations and conditional use standards, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request for conditional use, subject to satisfying all conditions of approval recommended by staff as contained in Exhibit "D" — Conditions of Approval. Any additional conditions of approval recommended by the Board and required by the City Commission will be placed in Exhibit "D" accordingly. Furthermore, pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2.0 Conditional Uses, a time limit is to be set within which the proposed project is to be developed. Staff recommends that a period of 18 months be allowed to receive the necessary permits and licenses. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Exotic Mctorworks\StaffReport Exotic Motorworks.doc Page 20 of 42 EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP �il�rlst}t '14N 7 - � t - rnr - 4 - tt,„. A - t'f — t T t; - �rl£a - `� - � 8TH, V, - i��- , t s t 7 'tN• �` k SSS�t��)(�t1��+ 7{t}r -. r t �tt ' t i yy , �t Legend N � E CITY BOUNDARY SUBJECT PROPERTY 00.0025005 0.01 0.015 0.02 Page 21 of 42 "I Ili I)IMF I 120'y Pf,A I �2. QLSUR VF n L L o U �!�7 1 105,o 2 0' S T OR Y BUIL DING On C)Q 0 Cps �n 300, 2,0, 4; i K7 comc,/,,,�,,TE 12 0.0 suR w, 120'i P�A, Qj, S'OR) Hbl/bDl/vc 66 WII 1 EXHIBIT C Conditions of Approval Project Name: Exotic Motorworks File number: COOS 20-002 Reference: 211 review documents identified as Conditional Use Application with a July 10, 2020 Planning and Zoning Department date stamp marking. DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ENGINEERING / PUBLIC WORKS/ FORESTRY/ UTILITIES Comments: Not applicable. FIRE Comments: Not applicable. POLICE Comments: Not applicable. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: Not applicable. PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: Not applicable. PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. The applicant shall secure proper permits to improve the existing parking lot with appropriate markings prior to Certificate of Use approval. X COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Comments: Not applicable. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Page 23 of 42 Exotic Motorworks (COOS 20-002) Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 2 Comments: To be determined. CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS/ COMMITMENTS The applicant or applicant's representatives made the following representations and commitments during the quasi-judicial and/or public hearings that now constitute binding obligations of the applicant. The obligations have the same weight as other conditions of approval. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Exotic Motorworks\COUS 20-002 COA.docx Page 24 of 42 EXHIBIT D Conditional Use Review Criteria 1. Ingress and egress to the subject property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automobile and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. Existing ingress and egress for property on se 811 Ave. No modifications needed. There is access in case of fire. 2. Off-street parking and loading areas where required,with particular attention to the items in subsection C.1. above, and the economic, glare, noise, and odor effects the conditional use will have on adjacent and nearby properties, and the city as a whole. Parking from front to back of building will not interfere with traffic or adjacent and nearby properties. 3. Refuse and service areas, with particular reference to the items in subsection C.1. and C.2. above. Existing roll out cans for all tenants. 4. Utilities,with reference to locations, availability, and compatibility. Existing site with existing utilities no modifications needed. 5. Screening, buffering and landscaping with reference to type, dimensions, and character. Existing older building with no space for landscaping. 6. Signs, and proposed exterior lighting, with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effect, and compatibility and harmony with adjacent and nearby properties. Sign will be on top of bay door, not illuminated no proposed exterior lighting. 7. Required setbacks and other open spaces. Existing site no changes made. 8. General compatibility with adjacent properties, and other property in the zoning district. No overhead doors facing residential area. No external impact. 9. Height of buildings and structures, with reference to compatibility and harmony to adjacent and nearby properties, and the city as a whole. One story building compatible with nearby properties. No modifications are made. 10. Economic effects on adjacent and nearby properties, and the city as a whole. No negative impact to city. Will be paying taxes, and can bring new cliental to the new down town. 11.Where applicable, the proposed use furthers the purpose and intent of a corresponding mixed-use zoning district or redevelopment plan. Not Applicable. Page 25 of 42 12. Compliance with and abatement of nuisances and hazards in accordance with the operational performance standards as indicated in Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 1 and the Noise Control Ordinance, and City Code of Ordinances Part II, Chapter 15, Section 15-8. If any hazard fluids will be contained in proper waste drums and disposed by waste company as Florida department of agriculture regulations. No performance dyno will be on premises and no work will be performed outside. 13.A sound impact analysis shall be required for new or expanding bar, nightclub or similar uses when involving property within 300 feet of a residential district. The analysis shall include mitigating solutions that would reduce or eliminate any potential for off-site nuisance conditions. Depending on the size of the proposed use, the distances to and level of compatibility with adjacent land uses, the sound analysis may be required to include information, diagrams and sketches indicating the types and locations of proposed sound emitting equipment, speaker orientations, maximum output, building or site design intended to mitigate sound impacts, and any operational standards including an affidavit documenting maximum sound limits to be maintained based on the findings of the analysis. Not Applicable as no car dyno testing will be on premises or outside work will be done. Page 26 of 42 JM SOLUTION GROUP, LLC July 01, 2020 To whom it may concern, I am Anny Lopez, owner and property manager of 816 SE 1 51 Street, Boynton Beach, FL33435. I am renting a space to Joel Lopez (my son) at this location. The services he will offer include diagnosing cars for dealerships and repair shops. He currently goes to different facilities and diagnoses their cars. He also offers electrical module programming for the dealers and shops after they have performed other services on the cars. He will use the space to work on the electronic diagnosing of these high-end luxury cars. In order to diagnose these cars, he needs special equipment and computers. The special equipment and computers used are very expensive and need to be kept in a locked and secured space. He works alone and works on an appointment-only basis. With this in mind, the parking at 816 SE 151 street will not be a problem for him. He recently purchased a home down the street from 816 SE 1 st street making this location perfect for him. Thank you for your time, Sincerely Anny Lopez Property Man er 816 SE 151 Street Boynton Beach,FL 33435 Phone 561.228.1284 Fax 561.370.6380 816property@gmail.com Page 27 of 42 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Exotic Motorworks (COUS 20-002) APPLICANT: Joel Lopez, Exotic Motorworks APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 816 SE 1St Street, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: September 15, 2020 APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of Conditional Use to allow an automobile diagnostics facility exclusively for luxury and/or high-performance exotic automobiles. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 816 SE 1St Street 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 X 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 X 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\Exotic Motorworks\COUS 20-002 DO.doc Page 28 of 42 7.7.B. New Business 8/25/2020 _ CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 8/25/2020 REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: REQUEST: Approve Catanzaro Residential Future Land Use Map Amendment from Local Retail Commercial (LRC) to Medium Density Residential (MEDR). REQUEST: Approve Catanzaro Residential Rezoning from C-2 Neighborhood Commercial to R-3 Multi-Family Residential. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: The subject parcel, currently vacant, was reclassified from the Medium Density Residential (MEDR) to Local Retail Commercial (LRC) future land use and concurrently approved for a professional medical office in 2017. The office project was never built; the property has been on the market but buyers' interests remain focused on its potential for residential, rather than commercial development. In response to the clear market preferences—and consistent with the residential character of the surrounding area—the property owner is requesting this future land use (FLU) amendment and rezoning that would allow for the site to be developed for residential use. The property would be brought back to its previous MEDR future land use category and rezoned to R-3. Note that the CRA Plan (the Plan) future land use recommendation for the subject parcel, the adjacent parcel to the south, as well as for the areas to the north and west that are currently classified MEDR, is HDR, High Density Residential (see Exhibit B). However, given the small size of the subject parcel, the proposed reversal of the FLU to the property's previous Medium Density Residential is arguably a small departure from the Plan's recommendation. Ideally, the subject property would be assembled with abutting parcels in future, resulting in a larger and more intensive development supported by HDR future land use. HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? No significant impact on either programs or services. FISCAL IMPACT: Eventual development of the property would represent a small increase in the City's tax base. ALTERNATIVES: None recommended STRATEGIC PLAN: STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION: N/A CLIMATE ACTION: CLIMATE ACTION DISCUSSION: N/A Page 29 of 42 Is this a grant? Grant Amount: ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Staff Report Staff Report D Location Map Location Map D Exhibit CRA Plan recommendation D Location Map Current FLU Classification D Location Map Proposed FLU Classification D Location Map Current zoning D Location Map Proposed Zoning Page 30 of 42 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 20-015 STAFF REPORT TO: Chair and Members Planning and Development Board THRU: Ed Breese Planning and Zoning Administrator FROM: Hanna Matras, Senior Planner DATE: August 12, 2020 PROJECT: Catanzaro Residential LUAR 20-003 REQUEST: Approve Catanzaro Residential Future Land Use Map amendment from Local Retail Commercial (LRC) to Medium Density Residential (MEDR) and rezoning from C-2 Neighborhood Commercial to R-3 Multi-Family Residential. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner/Applicant: Bruce Catanzaro, CM&J Boynton Properties, LLC Agent: Christi Tuttle/ Urban Design Studio Location: East side of SE 3rd Street, approximately 85 feet north from the intersection of SE 3rd Street and SE 23rd Avenue (Exhibit "Al) Existing Land Use/Zoning: Local Retail Commercial (LRC) / C-2 Neighborhood Commercial District Proposed Land Use/Zoning: Medium Density Residential (MEDR)/ R-3 Multi-Family Residential Proposed Use: No site plan proposed at this time Acreage: 0.25 acres Page 31 of 42 Page 2 Catanzaro Residential LUAR 20-003 Adjacent Uses: North: Duplex, classified Medium Density Residential (MDR) and zoned R-3, Multifamily; South: Multifamily rental property, classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and zoned C-2, Neighborhood Commercial; East: Multifamily rental property, classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and zoned C-2, Neighborhood Commercial; West: The right of way of SE 3rd Street; further west multifamily rental property classified Medium Density Residential (MDR) and zoned R-3, Multifamily. BACKGROUND The subject parcel, currently vacant, was reclassified from the Medium Density Residential (MEDR) to the Local Retail Commercial (LRC) future land use and concurrently approved for a professional medical office in 2017. The property's original MEDR future land use was inconsistent with its commercial C-2 zoning and reclassification to LRC eliminated the discrepancy. However, the office project was never built; the property has been on the market but buyers' interests remain focused on its potential for residential, rather than commercial development. In response to the clear market preferences—and in consistency with the residential character of the surrounding area—the property owner is requesting future land use (FLU) amendment and rezoning that would allow for the site to be developed for residential use. The property would be brought back to its previous MEDR future land use category and rezoned to R-3. Note that the CRA Plan (the Plan) future land use recommendation for the subject parcel, the adjacent parcel to the south as well as for the areas to the north and west currently classified MEDR is HDR, High Density Residential (see Exhibit B). The only zoning district corresponding to HDR is Infill Planned Development District (IPUD), with no minimal acreage requirement. However, given the small size of the subject parcel, the proposed reversal of the FLU to the property's previous Medium Density Residential is arguably a small departure from the Plan's recommendation. In the future, a land assembly can result in a larger and more intensive development supported by HDR future land use. No site plan application will be required, as the site constraints will only permit a single- or two-family residential structure, which are exempt from site plan review processes. REVIEW BASED ON CRITERIA The criteria used to review Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings are listed in 2 Page 32 of 42 Page 3 Catanzaro Residential LUAR 20-003 the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Article 11, Section 2.B and Section 2.D.3. These criteria are required to be part of a staff analysis when the proposed change includes an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) or a rezoning. 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. As explained in the Background section of this report, the property has been on the market for the considerable amount of time, with no takers interested in commercial uses. On the other hand, there has been a significant interest from buyers' in the site's potential for residential development. While the long term impact of COVID19 pandemic on the commercial real estate remains unclear, the significant decline of demand across offices and retail space may persist in many locations, therefore strengthening the justification of the applicant's request. 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. In recent years, the City added several policies to its Comprehensive Plan aimed at protecting lands with industrial and commercial designations. For example, Policy 1.17.6 of the Future Land Use Element states that "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."However, the subject FLU amendment, if approved, would simply reverse the 2017 reclassiffication, giving the property back its previous MEDR residential classification. Moreover, as already discussed, the market has not supported commercial use on the site. The CRA Plan future land use recommendation for the subject parcel, the adjacent parcel to the south as well as for the areas to the north and west currently classified MEDR is the High Density Residential (HDR). As argued in the Background section of this report, the proposed reversal of the FLU to the site's previous Medium Density Residential is not a significant departure from the Plan's recommendation, especially given the property's small size. In the future, a land assembly can result in a larger and more intensive development supported by HDR future land use. 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 3 Page 33 of 42 Page 4 Catanzaro Residential LUAR 20-003 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. Proposed FLUM amendment would be consistent with the established land use pattern. It would not create an isolated zoning district/land use classification, as it would revert the site to its previous residential FLU classification, matching those of areas north and west of the property. 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) ses,2) access to alternative modes of transportation, and 3) interconnectivity within the project and between adjacent properties. The proposed FLUM amendment and rezoning in itself does not carry any sustainability attributes. There is no concurrent site plan application. 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. With the maximum of two units ( a duplex) permitted on the subject parcel under the requested zoning, this amendment would have a negligible impact on the capacity of public services/infrastructure. f. Compatibility. The application shall consider the following factors to determine compatibility.- (1) ompatibility.(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. The proposed FLUM amendment and rezoning would be compatible with the current use of adjacent and nearby properties and will not affect local property values. Any potential changes to the area's land use in the future will be guided by the recommendations of the CRA Plan. As already noted, the requested reclassification/rezoning to residential use constitute a reversal of reclassification approved in 2017 for a small, 0.25-acre property. Their impact on the needs of the neighborhood (let alone on the City as a whole) would 4 Page 34 of 42 Page 5 Catanzaro Residential LUAR 20-003 therefore be negligible. g. Direct Economic Development Benefits. For rezoning/ Future Land Use map amendments involving rezoning to a planned zoning district. N/A h. Economic Development Impact Determination for Conventional Zoning Districts. For rezoning/FLUM amendments involving rezoning to a conventional zoning district, the review shall consider whether the proposal would further the City's Economic Development Program, but also determine whether the proposal would.- (1) ould.(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. Since the requested reclassification reverts the property to a residential use, the main economic development benefit of this action would be the project's contribution to the City's tax base. See also response to criterion "a": the property has been on the market for the considerable amount of time, with no takers interested in commercial uses. On the other hand, there has been a significant interest from buyers' in the site's potential for residential development. L 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) onditions.(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. See responses to criteria "a" and "h". The proposed FLU amendment/rezoning would reduce the amount of land available for commercial development. However: (1) the property is very small, so the reduction would be insignificant; and (2) the property has been on the market for the considerable amount of time, with no takers interested in commercial uses. On the other hand, there has been a significant interest from buyers' in 5 Page 35 of 42 Page 6 Catanzaro Residential LUAR 20-003 the site's potential for residential development. j. Alternative Sites. Whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the City for the proposed use in zoning districts where such use is already allowed. The criterion does not apply to the subject case, as it is not a project looking for suitable site. The owner failed to find a buyer willing to develop the property with a commercial use. k. 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. No application for a site plan was submitted. RECOMMENDATION The proposed amendment would reverse the property to its previous residential FLU classification and conforming zoning designation after it failed to attract buyers for commercial development under the current zoning. Staff recommends approval of the subject request. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Catanzaro Reside ntial\Catanzaro Residential LUAR 20-005 Staff Report.dou 6 Page 36 of 42 Exhibit A CATANZARO RESIDENTIAL LOCATION MAP t _ f "A s s1fi c �r , 7 z s�5�,4 t�� ( Ste^ atV!F{i �-, - ��;••{�5�� - - ,.. .1� fit: (��r�, i�{ �1y.� �� )�t(Y1�. �, l'• — n s � , t 0 15 30 60 90 Feet Page 37 of 42 Exhibit B CRA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FLU RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CATANZARO SITE AND ADJACENT AREAS ____ tV+{`itt�tjjr)� 't�t� S;tt�\tib{�sttt�l�r iY` rpt \}tt}Fi it\�t f. t>}}+`}314t1t}�stZt;i\taj +�lE114�t�}�� y }tt\�trrs�r f\;z}`1,ai)yt t`\i1�a yr its'SSrt}1St�tt��'u„�vt4� }�ht ,rR��}lstt�\t t��yv��{�lt�ill+2� r 2�t) 1�s, i lt�t�rt to t tvA nl N �j`is'}{t�l?ytalS tV\V�\IIIYa t{tE}\ttc}ly}1{t;ytrih�;}t��}11}S�t�t��s)l��i Ytli 31"��?Sty}`�S�\}a tr`� i 11+1 {rp)4as`t)l)S}t{�s1f E>S!}ti - �" W �siV�}`\V iti ytiat\}�t�1r��ti tls t}�VI}i�ty�\t}i�}i}1\l�A�)+iJ{�ttsiS4,S�'tl� 7\irt err s + } z}}\iy�t l,ftt +t\Jttis l}a�{Vt!Sy a�lr yf 3yStS�t is i }S' t ;'\;t1 �+Oistt�i (+,c{tSllt}1i7iFa tS\1}sf)})s;{lea tSt,)tt4`'Jtt+st Ct�`j�A�syklj ti�}tit{ t\YjiZr441�iES�� 41�il�lyttt�{�tV�1A�\�{\st(`�+�1�\}�itsys,y�l�s)�a}7tr�)?}��\�{t }S}tlr�,�j1Ad}A)�tt�ittlitr;�t�h�}��l s�tti f{�tlt)h�f l)�t}�i�f�SttJvi+itt��li}t{{}tta sfi } S tt�Si��\ij}�i rt S�lrr ly»�F��til�tl}1ts�S��4iS�}it ti hsa NyIS + s)1\ }tfR 4��111}»}y\��}1�;Iii(y}}r4aJ�t�\i?isAA�k\�I3i�7;itV+StS{1� 1�t�ttvt��)1tt37y#'r)'t�yyrli i t� },}t „y�s ffI 44,r�.•, Vt�t„�{, C, � 1�A tt�l �:)A�VA tSr,f.,a. ,{1 � \t ) .} t({s f;(s,.{I:� 3 tt,t+,:i-.,:,y,tt ��1 sV�}� ,s��1� r v1� ,{2r V�lii i�Sh(,S tvAlp.tt-l; vl t�}st+,i ,�t) .it,,v\11 , ,.r,ittt„�}VarikrY,vSri,i�t t),�rl,A\„,�!}S\v �{�1,,1vs,t, }vv� t)tirlils 1C},( lyt} t\�svA1}fi 41�t l 11 \sSau�i it��lssisil vA�i\\ is�.��1 � 3 17Jr�A rt t�vt..i) �vv r ?1�?��1! �}t\�\�a�71i\�4`�;';..;1}v�assiv ?;•s�.}StS�\,iy l�iU�S�\��1Siti �i�}„{(Ss'\+\1�i,��i�li#S}�, `fly $��Swlt+t}s� ,{,)�h\ yv��itivi�,l:�v >tt{ss+S tt,,1 ��t+1+,\t)\ 1st( V{\}}�s ------------ SE 23rd Ave _... s)\tt>5111{,�{Siyyslt9,sl Si}ff'l.,i,,sjs.:.�t 4,11$sa,,{ti c s4t'j �\(rti3r�i tyt! (t to}}aty?l}11+.S{\\,t;t�}airrt } it i full ai z\ht�li syp}r i` tit t4{, 2}�ti is ip, tt 1'iy�i IiS}4rtt {{ttsr\ fi ititl{Y\ri lifti ��\itr,2"t,}f ht s\ i`fy$ Legend Proposed Future Land Use Categories High Density Residential (HDR) Max. 15 D.0/Acre F-77' "',,'11 Mixed Use Low Max. 20 D.U./Acre Page 38 of 42 Exhibit C CATANZARO RESIDENTIAL - CURRENT FLU MEDR N s 7 W W N 9 W MEDR N � SITE m I I'' 15 pec SE 23rd Ave - - Legend MEDIUM ESIDENTIAL �rC Acre a�SPECIpL HIGH A[ra�co nrn[Ac nSITY sopu* w�iRsrHor+)uioou . 19P..e ,oLSRkt Exhibit D CATANZARO RESIDENTIAL - PROPOSED FLU MEDR 17 W Ui MEDR SITE MEDR 4� SE 23rd Ave —offfls, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Legend MEDIUM nrn[Ac DRUASIDENIAL (SHDR) 20D.U./CALRETAILCOAL (LRC) �rC EA Boundary 0 25 500 An Rkt Exhibit E CATANZARO RESIDENTIAL CURRENT ZONING y � SITE ........................................................................................--------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ e 7T7T a. Legend CC R3 Multi Family, 11 du/ac ' C2 Neighborhood Commercial �° IPUD Infill Planned Unit Development TCEA Boundary 0 1530 60 90 Feet Page 41 of 42 Exhibit F CATANZARO RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED ZONING y � nA e T a. Legend R3 Multi Family, 11 du/acTIN V' C2 Neighborhood Commercial ''T � IPUD Infill Planned Unit Development TCEA Boundary 0 1530 60 90 Feet Page 42 of 42