Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda 05-24-22
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 TIME: 6:30 PM PLACE: City Hall Commission Chambers, 100 E. Ocean Avenue 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Minutes 4.A. Approve board minutes from the April 26, 2022, Planning & Deveopment Board meeting. 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff 6. Old Business 7. New Business 8. Other 8.A. Presentation by staff on the City's requirements for preservation of natural areas. 8.B. Presentation by staff on the City's requirements for sustainability. 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 fifteen 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 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 1 of 47 4.4.A. Approval of Minutes 5/24/2022 _ CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 5/24/2022 REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Approve board minutes from the April 26, 2022, Planning & Deveopment Board meeting. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: STRATEGIC PLAN: STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION: CLIMATE ACTION APPLICATION: Is this a grant? Grant Amount: ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Minutes 04-26-22 Minutes Page 2 of 47 MINUTES � a PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 100 E. OCEAN AVENUE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022, 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: STAFF: Trevor Rosecrans, Chair Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Administrator Butch Buoni, Vice Chair Luis Bencosme, Planner Chris Simon Amanda Radigan, Planner II Tim Litsch Shana Bridgeman, City Attorney Courtland McQuire Jennifer Oh, Recording Secretary, Prototype-Inc. Jay Sobel ABSENT: Kevin Fischer Darren Allen Lyman Phillips, Alternate GUEST: Jamie Crowley Jason Bamberger, Publix Josh Lockard, Senior Facilities Engineer Chris Lall, Bohler Engineering Chris Hagan, Traffic Engineer with Kimley Horn & Associates The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call Roll was called and it was determined a quorum was present. 3. Agenda Approval Motion duly made and seconded,to approve the agenda. In a voice vote,the motion passed unanimously. (6-0) 4. Approval of Minutes 4.A. Approve board minutes from 03/22/22 Planning & Development Board meeting. Mr. Litsch advised that Susan Weir should read as, "Susan Oyer". Page 3 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 2 April 26, 2022 Motion duly made and seconded, to approve the March 22, 2022 meeting minutes as amended. In a voice vote,the minutes were unanimously approved as amended. (6-0). 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Mike Rumpf, Planning &Zoning Administrator, advised the Shalimar Master Plan and Site Plan item has been tabled at the request of the applicant, so they can continue working on some of the questions, comments, and issues. 6. Old Business -None. 7. New Business 7A. Approve request for Major Site Plan Modification (MSPM 22-003) to the Publix Distribution Center to allow for the construction of a +-571,558-square-foot warehouse building expansion and associated site improvements on a 63.79-acre site, located at 5500 Park Ridge Boulevard, in the PID (Planned Industrial Development) zoning district. Applicant: Randolph Barer, Publix Super Markets, Inc. Jamie Crowley, with Gunster Law Firm, Jason Bamberger with Publix Supermarkets, Josh Lockard, Senior Facilities Engineer for Publix Supermarkets, Max Badstibner with KDB Group, and Chris Lall, with Bohler Engineering, were present. Mr. Crowley explained they are requesting to expand an existing facility constructed in 1989. Publix is one of the original purchasers from the original developer of the DRI;they have owned this property since it was originally purchased in the 1980's. The Land Use is Development of Regional Impact. The property was approved with approval of the DRI Development Order for Quantum Park in 1984. At that time, 540 acres were rezoned from Residential to Planned Industrial Development. The overall development intensity and traffic within the DRI was reviewed and approved by various reviewing agencies. They have provided a Traffic Statement from their Traffic Engineer, which demonstrates the thresholds for trips generated by the project fall within the original DRI approvals. What they are proposing is consistent with the DRI Development Orders, the Master Plan, Zoning, and the Future Land Use. There was one amendment to the DRI Development Order in 1986, which specifically mentioned this property and use. The Order was amended to provide that Warehousing and Distribution would be a permitted use within the DRI. They have been meeting with staff and working hard without requesting any deviations or waivers from the Code. They have worked hard to take a nonconforming site and improve it aesthetically and functionally. Pedestrian amenities and other amenities for employees are being provided; this is a secure facility with trucks coming in and out, it is not a typical Non-Residential Commercial Center where people are coming in and out all the time, it is a manned security Distribution Center. They worked with staff and went through the process to meet the intent of the Code in terms of the design and layout for employees. Jason Bamberger, with Publix Supermarkets, provided a brief history of Publix stores and Distribution Centers. Their goal is to provide premier customer service to each customer and the communities. This Page 4 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 3 April 26, 2022 expansion will allow them to service South Florida communities with necessities during national disasters; it is an avenue to have inventory locally to be able to distribute. Currently, items are housed or transported from Lakeland, Florida. After the Boynton store orders the products, it takes 12 hours for the order to process in the warehouse, then it is loaded, shipped, and relayed to Boynton Beach. The entire process is about three days. This project would allow a turnaround time of one day from the time the product was out of stock to the time it was back on the shelf. They are asking for an expansion of 571,000 square feet, which will give them more of an ability to effectively serve stores in the South Florida market and room to grow. They do not build warehouses for five years; they build them for 30+ years. This will bring 300 positions and jobs to this community. This will project will allow them to strengthen their supply chains as mentioned, but with reduced transportation from Lakeland, Florida to Boynton Beach, which is less fuel consumption, reduced traffic, creating jobs, and a quicker turnaround for customers. Josh Lockard, Senior Facilities Engineer for Publix Supermarkets, showed an aerial with their open field to the east of the warehouse. Employees park to the south, and there is trailer staging on the west side. Another aerial showed excerpts from the Site Plan, showing the orientation of the new warehouse where docks will be lined up, their new entrance off High Ridge Road where there will be manned security for entry. They are going to reorient some of the trailer staging on the west side for more efficient flow and employee parking will be expanded to the east with about 100 parking spaces, which is currently an open field. The landscaping plan shows the proposed plantings. Open space is provided on the west side; there is stormwater, foundation, landscaping, significant tree plantings for a staggered type buffering effect coming off both roads. The plan also illustrates their buffer on the north side with heavier plantings in that area. The berm on the southeast side of the property, existing plantings. and the elevation of the berm from the road were shown. The north side of the existing warehouse facing east shows the current buffer area to the north, which has dense, mature vegetation. Partial elevations were depicted to highlight more detailed spaces of the building. The receiving area is on the north side, the shipping area is on the south side, and the Return Center expansion is on the west side. Elevations show a lot of design elements. Mr. Crowley thanked staff for giving them a favorable recommendation. They agree with all conditions but wanted to clarify the condition on traffic. They are exempt from submitting a Traffic Study to Palm Beach County because of the DRI approvals, so they requested that condition be modified to submit their Traffic Statement from their Traffic Engineer demonstrating they are vested pursuant to the DRI. Chair Rosencrans indicated no one from the public had any questions or statements. Mr. Sobel complimented the applicant because they provided a tour of the entire site prior to the meeting. He saw the existing warehouse and questioned the height of the new warehouse compared to the existing one. Mr. Crowley stated the proposed height meets the Code. He did not know the difference in height between the two buildings. Mr. Sobel questioned if the new warehouse is going to be higher and if so, if there will be a greater visual impact on the neighborhood than the with the existing warehouse. Page 5 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 4 April 26, 2022 Mr. Crowley indicated the new warehouse will not be much higher; the height is limited by Code to 45 feet. There is a buffer and there is not any residential around them, they are far from the right-of-way. Max Badstibner with KDB Group, designer for the project, advised the new building is approximately eight feet higher and it is less than 45 feet from the lowest point on the site. There is increased screening and landscaping berms. They have done a study to make sure nothing can be seen on the roof. Mr. Simon mentioned they are significantly increasing the square footage of reflective heat with paved areas and the roof. He thinks they are going to be following all the sustainability, such as a white roof, etc., which are positives. He questioned the required landscape open space under the proposed plan and the minimum requirements. The landscape list seems all right; a lot of invasive trees are being removed, and those are large trees that provide a lot of buffer, which is currently adequate. New trees will go in and there will be different shapes, so screening will change. He mentioned the north buffer where there is a single row of trees along the top and questioned how it relates to the fence in the photo in the exhibit showing fencing and the large area or mass buffer and asked if the fence was along the property line. Mr. Badstibner stated there is a fence and a berm; new landscaping will be on the partially existing and new berm. Mr. Simon referenced the fence on the property line and all the vegetation outside of that and questioned if the top portion on the right of the photo is on their land. Mr. Badstibner said the pond can be seen. They have been working with staff on an easement for the pond, so that landscaping can stay. Mr. Simon asked if the easement is currently owned, or if it is owned by land to the north. Amanda Radigan, Planner II, advised the property to the north is City property; it is a drainage carryout. They are working with the applicant to agree on a landscape easement carryout that will always be landscaping or easement. This will retain landscaping outside of the property line. The time limit runs with the property. Mr. Simon questioned what happens if the property sells. Ms. Radigan stated it will go with the property. Mr. Simon mentioned if that comes down the single row of trees might not be sufficient based on some of the comments. Mr. Crowley indicated one of the conditions is that if the easement goes away, they have to install a wall with landscaping on the other side for that portion of the property, which they are doing further along to the east. Page 6 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 5 April 26, 2022 Ms. Radigan commented either they provide the full buffer requirement, which is a wall and landscaping on both sides, or the easement agreement. If the easement does not happen, they will have to install the full buffer. Mr. Simon questioned the functionality on the north side and how it affects what is currently there if they have to install a wall and two layers of buffer planting. Ms. Radigan does not see that happening. It would be solely under their property if the easement goes away. Mr. Crowley stated the Fire Department wants to keep the roadway for access all the way around the building site, which was a discussion between Planning and Fire. The solution was the easy concept;they can keep the road wide enough for the trucks and keep the planting materials as much as possible. Mr. Simon mentioned supply chain issues and asked if the current state of supply was considered with the amount of square footage proposed for the development. Mr. Crowley indicated the height needed is specific for the racking; they had to make the height and total area work for their need. Mr. Badstibner explained when they design their buildings, they go back to what the norm was prior to COVID. In the past two years,the supply chain impact negatively impacted a lot of people, and the supply chain has been drastically reduced;that is building back up and is what is driving this expansion. This has been needed for years,but they held off. With the sudden increase in people buying more groceries versus going out to eat, that is driving more people to the stores. The building is being built with the expectation of what is needed based on current volumes and this is what the expected volume growth will be forecast over the years. This is studied regularly and with this circumstance, this is more of a hybrid warehouse in which certain products are full case items that will be stored in the facility. The other warehouse in Lakeland, Florida, has 16,000 different SKU codes and this warehouse will have about 8,000 SKU codes. They will have the flexibility of adding more items to the warehouse or sending items back to the other warehouse, depending on how it works out. Mr. Simon mentioned facilities in Deerfield, Boca, and Lakeland. The one in Deerfield is in a developed area and he asked how the others compare and if they are in rural areas. Mr. Badstibner stated it depends on what location they are referring to; they have both. Some are in industrial complexes in rural areas and others are in very populated areas. Mr. Simon assumed this is something that would be compared to an Amazon Distribution Facility or a Walmart Distribution Facility, which are typically situated next to highways and not in developed areas. Even though 300 jobs are being created for the community, he cautioned them to remember not all those workers live in the community, so there is a potential for many more vehicles commuting. Page 7 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 6 April 26, 2022 Ms. Radigan commented on open space and stated that Quantum is governed by an Overall Master Plan and open space requirements are set for the Master Plan. She referenced Page 29 in the packet, and one was shown to the north. Next to the drainage area, there is a large Preserve, Lot 71, which satisfies requirements for this area. Also, to the north, there is an Eco Park and another Preserve, which counts as open space for the Quantum Park Master Plan. Mr. Simon questioned if bodies of water count within that open space. Ms. Radigan indicated for this Master Plan it is not counted towards open space because of the Preserve area. Mr. McGuire mentioned sustainability and noted there is a 25-point system the City sets up. Mr. Badstibner stated they met the prerequisites. There is a white roof, white colored paving, energy efficient cooling and water heaters, shading screening, landscaping which is well above the Code requirements, and lighting that meets Code requirements of the minimum foot candles. An impressive recycling operation was put in the Return Center. Mr. Bamberger explained all recycling materials from their stores will be returned to the facility in which that facility will compress, compact, bale, and resell to various sustainability programs. Some of the recycled trash is recycled and turned into fire logs. Their pallet program is a recyclable program. Anything coming from the stores that is classified as a recyclable item is returned to their Return Center and is shipped to different recycling plants. Mr. McGuire asked if there was any prior discussion about energy efficiencies of the equipment. Mr. Badstibner replied yes, all new equipment will have an energy rating noted in the Code; it is mostly warehouse with some office space. The equipment was minimized and is energy rated. Regarding sustainability, 12 electric charging spaces were added,which meet the requirement for sustainability. Bike racks and benches have been added and they are with landscaping. Their latest iterations were 28 or 29 points on sustainability. Mr. Litsch commented they exempted for the Traffic Study since it was done for the original DRI and questioned if that Traffic Study considered the change in usage, as there will be 18-wheelers on the road throughout the day, which will be a huge difference. While it does not affect the number of trips to the property, it impacts the neighborhood. Mr. Crowley stated they are exempt from doing the Traffic Standards of Palm Beach County. All traffic should be put into the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted pursuant to the DRI Development Order, so as they are reviewed by the County, the total number of trips are being looked at that are invested in the DRI. Each new project coming in is being viewed as if this project were already constructed, so all those trips are factored into the roadway as part of the review process. Page 8 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 7 April 26, 2022 Ms. Radigan added that the Master Plan, when Publix was originally approved, showed the future expansion. Mr. Crowley advised there are three expansion areas in the field to the east. Mr. Litsch noted that does not show the ingress and egress off High Ridge Road. Mr. Crowley referred to the previously mentioned 1986 Resolution and stated there was a specific study of High Ridge Road that contemplated all future development, which was already factored in at the time the City approved the Development Order for the DRI. Vice Chair Buoni asked if someone could review the traffic flow of the new and old road. He questioned if trucks will only be coming in from High Ridge and if cars would be separate. Mr. Bamberger mentioned High Ridge entrance and noted that road would be for the inbound product of the new expansion area. After a truck is unloaded, it will proceed to the west. Vice Chair Buoni commented on inbound traffic and asked if they allowed for stacking of the trucks. If so, he questioned if stacking would only be for trucks or if there will be any small vehicles. Mr. Bamberger stated from an operational standpoint, that was one of his first questions. He indicated from the High Ridge side, there will only be semi-trucks. All POV's will go through the south entrance. Vice Chair Buoni questioned if there is security on both sides and if they will be logged in on the truck side and on the car side. Mr. Bamberger advised there is a scan badge access for all POV's. Chair Rosencrans mentioned the stormwater system and asked if the old and new ones operate independently or if they are tied together. He noticed two retention ponds on the east side. Chris Lall, with Bohler Engineering, indicated they are connected. Both the existing and the proposed is one stormwater system. The water sheet flows into swales and areas against the parking and that water is conveyed into the larger pond, which is treated to meet water quality and drainage. After water is treated with the onsite system, it is transferred and tied into the existing control structures on the north side of the existing building and into the existing system after that. Chair Rosencrans asked if the water needs to reach a certain elevation before going over the control structure and entering the old system. He questioned if those are wet or dry retentions. Mr. Lall stated elevations are controlled with the control structure. He noted the retentions are dry. dry. Page 9 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 8 April 26, 2022 Mr. Simon commented when it was said the plans were meeting or developed to code, there are several Planning and Zoning comments that indicate to revise the landscape plan. He asked if changes have been made since the staff report when saying they meet all requirements. Mr. Crowley replied that report came out of their dark meeting and was the last interaction they had with staff when new comments were issued. After that,they said they accepted all comments. Chair Rosencrans stated there was a request for a condition. Ms. Radigan stated the amendment is Planning and Zoning comment 415, to add a statement relating to existing conditions or a Traffic Statement complying with the DRI vested traffic. Motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Litsch, to approve the request for Major Site Plan Modification, with the condition for the Traffic Statement included. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (6-0) 7B. Approve amendments to the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 3, Article III. Zoning Districts and Overlay Zones; Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 5. Nonconforming Uses; and Chapter 4, Article IX, Section 6. Historic Preservation Requirements to promote, incentivize and facilitate the preservation of historically designated properties in the City. Mike Rumpf,Planning&Zoning Administrator,reported he has been helping the Board set up a Strategic Work Plan and the focus is getting back on the basics of the program in terms of public education promotion. Unfortunately, at the same time they are developing a Strategic Work Program,they have been contacted by a few people who own homes or are looking at purchasing property. Motivating some of the work is many demolitions that have occurred in these properties over the past several years in combination with some inquiries from people who have purchased the properties,would like to improve the properties, or use them in an adaptive or traditional way. He provided a brief overview of the Land Development Regulations and highlighted the following: • They are the second National Registered property, which is the Boynton School now known as the Children's Schoolhouse Museum. • In 1986, he prepared a grant for a Historic Site Survey for the City. That was the first major step the City took to begin establishing a formal Historic Preservation Program. It not only documented the history of the City, but inventoried all structures 50 years old or older, made recommendations on a program or components on a program, made recommendations on what properties are eligible for local and natural designation. • Program Overview. • Designation of Historic Properties. • Program Benefits. • Latest Accomplishment by the Board. • Proposed Amendments. Page 10 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 9 April 26, 2022 • Accepted Exceptions for Nonconforming Uses. • Demolition Reviews. • Maximum Lot Coverage. • Adjust Conflict of Redevelopment Standard. • Exempting Properties from Nonconformance Use Rules. • Draft Strategic Work Plan • Allows for Review. • Exemption Criteria. Vice Chair Buoni questioned the boundaries and asked if they could be extended to the road. He asked who the approving authority is and where the boundaries are with these proposed exemptions and reductions. Mr. Rumpf advised the lot coverage increases by 10%. Vice Chair Buoni commented they are not affecting the lot; if the one-story building is 20.4'x 20.3' and they want to make it 25 feet, which is acceptable according to the criteria. He asked if staff would have the final decision. Mr. Rumpf stated that is correct if reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He noted that staff would have the final decision. Mr. Simon mentioned they would be held to current setbacks, so they could not build closer to the property line, it would have to go inbound. Mr. Rumpf indicated it exempts them. The difference is between taking away all setbacks and exempting them after nonconforming setbacks. If there is a 20-foot rear setback and there is 15 feet,they can maintain the 15 feet, but they are not going to 13 or 14 feet. Chair Rosecrans questioned if this could be accomplished by requesting a variance. Mr. Rumpf stated a variance could be requested and noted a hardship is not based on economics. Property is valued more for the rental market if kitchens and living areas are expanded. Chair Rosecrans asked who approves the variance. Mr. Rumpf indicated it would go to this Board and then to the City Commission. Mr. Sobel questioned how many properties in Boynton Beach fall under the Historic Preservation umbrella. Mr. Rumpf stated there are three homes on the Local Registry List and there are over 120 to 130 in the 1996 survey that are eligible for review for designation. Page 11 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 10 April 26, 2022 Vice Chair Buoni commented that something could expand every year because it is over 50 years old. Mr. Rumpf advised they have spent time looking at the 1996 survey, which provides the historic background. There are three different criteria used to determine if something is eligible for a designation, whether it be Local or National. It has to do with the structure itself being aged and architectural character. The City's Plan lists those recognizable architectural styles in the City they look at for eligibility. It does not include the ranch houses or milder styles. To do it the right way, staff would probably update the description and make those other styles eligible for review. The other two criteria have to do with people; the property might have been occupied by a known historic figure in the City or used as some type of event or activity. Mr. McGuire questioned if this is something they currently have and if it is reviewed by staff and the Board. Mr. Rumpf stated historic designation first goes to staff, currently they are using an outside Consultant to help with the reviews. A report would be sent to the Historic Resources Preservation Board and then to the City Commission for final approval. This Board would not be involved in the designation process. Mr. McGuire asked if there was a Historic Preservation staff member on payroll in the past and if it is a good idea to have that position filled. Mr. Rumpf indicated the position was proposed at the initial stage of their budget preparation process. There was one or four positions proposed in the Development Department for the Development Director to consider, but knowing they would not get every position requested, that position was cut. Mr. Sobel questioned how many neighboring Cities have that position filled. Mr. Rumpf stated West Palm Beach has had a Historic Preservation Planner for many years as well as Lake Worth, Delray, and Boca. Some Cities might have Planners for a trade or experience, but most probably have Historic Preservation Planners. There is a Planner trained to fill his position when he departs, who has an architectural design background. Mr. Simon mentioned homes are being shut down and there are non-residential, public use, and commercial properties that are already designated. He questioned how that applies to the list with 96 properties and if any of those properties were downtown on Ocean Avenue between the FEC tracks and Federal Highway. Some of those buildings were easily removed and there are current historic buildings under a developer's ownership that are potentially going to be removed. In his opinion, there is a limited downtown with character that is going to be completely erased and new structures will change the face of that area when there is an opportunity to convert it into something like a historic downtown Melbourne, where there is pedestrian access where people can park and walk. He noticed there is encouragement to redevelop the properties, which he is in favor of. He thinks Cities should give grants and encourage redevelopment of strip malls before a vacant piece of land gets developed. He asked how properties previously removed and what is about to be removed came into play. Page 12 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 11 April 26, 2022 Mr. Rumpf said unless a property goes to the demolition process and it is not on the Historic Registry List, it goes through little review. Mr. Simon commented that buildings were demolished, and demolition receipts were given to the property owner, and the City did not want to preserve any of the wood for historic purposes, which he thinks were grave oversites on the City's part. Mr. Rumpf indicated it is unfortunate the money was not put into the properties to fix the conditions. He stated if the Board established a top priority list of undesignated properties and ineligible properties,when those came to the attention in such a circumstance for redevelopment,they would go through a process of halting the demolition for a certain amount of time, while trying to restore the property and draw attention to it. There are State grants eligible for individual home preservation. Mr. Litsch commented that Lake Worth and Lantana are to the north, and they are very different communities. He questioned if Boynton Beach has a clearly defined vision of what they want to be in 10 to 30 years and asked if they want to be a Boca/Delray or a Lantana/Lake Worth. Mr. Simon stated it is in the zoning and in the density downtown; downtown is the vision. Mr. Litsch asked what staff sees as a community and which direction the City is trying to take them. Mr. Rumpf indicated the best way to answer is that it would be what the City's Redevelopment Plan describes; the Districts, inner activity, pedestrians, and plan to connect people, density, intensity, and locations. He cannot say if they want to go more like Boca or Delray or like Lantana and Lake Worth. Mr. Litsch commented that he wants to understand what the vision is and where they are taking the community. Mr. Rumpf reported there are things in the works.Not only is there a Redevelopment Plan,there are newly elected officials and staff is already hearing concerns and interests of theirs to ask some of the same questions and look at some of the regulations that might shape this vision and future horizon. Currently, there is a Complete Street Study to guide them, possibly a new Traffic Impact Fee System to replace the County's system, and a Redevelopment Plan, which lays out different Districts, heights, densities, intensities, pedestrian routes and design, and design styles. It still allows the most intense core District of 150 feet, which is very concentrated, but in the future vision there is a passenger rail service returning downtown. They are trying to set up intensity and density characteristics,people, employment, and things that support a station downtown, which results in a different traffic environment. He suggested going online and looking at the City's Redevelopment Plan, which has a lot of graphics and illustrations; it was completed in-house by their Principal Planner, Amanda Radigan. Chair Rosencrans stated they could discuss that during another meeting. Mr. Rumpf provided a scenario and stated they have the latest FDOT impact on the roadway that connects with the Interchange expansion. He showed an image of the subject property and records show the Page 13 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 12 April 26, 2022 property owner has things dating back to the 1920's. The Board has directed staff to initiate a designation review process on this property. He mentioned other properties and noted what is most significant is the pedestrian way and how the project interfaces with the streets. They wanted to make an exception to encourage redevelopment and not discourage preservation of the property. Mr. Simon asked if the developer would be able to take the lot in this scenario of if they would take the lot and try to demolish it. Mr. Rumpf stated under current regulations a developer could be prevented from getting approval because of the interruption block. This makes an exception to that rule so it can be developed around it. There is language that talks about how the design is continuous and the public space is improved. He mentioned the current table where the standard is written. He referenced Page 5 and read the modification. Mr. Litsch asked if all the amendments go through, if it would make it easier or harder for a developer to look at a house and be able to demolish it and build on the entire land or if there is something that will preserve the house with an L-shaped development around it, which is probably worse. He questioned the effect of the amendments. This causes him some concern; either way he is afraid the City is going to lose. Mr. Rumpf thought the answer has to do with how bad the eighth of an acre site is to that development. He did not think the small infill would be a deal breaker to the property given the magnitude of acres and property around what is assembled to date. Ms. Radigan advised the way the Code is written; it inhibits any Redevelopment to any properties around it since a continuous frontage is needed. A property owner could choose to sell to the developer and have a continuous frontage, or they could choose not to. This is meant to give options in the Redevelopment of this area. If the property owner wants to remain, the goal is to not stop Redevelopment around it and preserve it. There are a lot of sensitive topics in that transition and the buffer area around it and staff has tried to write the Code in a way that allows some design power in trying to work with the developers in the design of that transition. It does not remove the option of this homeowner working with a developer in some way; it is meant to provide more than one option. Vice Chair Buoni stated there will not be consistency unless there is consistent leadership and leadership does not come from the Board. There are leaders who turn the job over to those who provide direction and control, and the Board will never have control when there are new members every two years. Mr. Sobel asked if Item 7B will be broken down or if it will pass as one motion. Ms. Radigan stated it is one motion; however, the Board can make recommendations for changes. Mr. Sobel commented in the past, it appeared the City Commissioners and Mayor did not care to preserve. He asked if influence can be put on the politicians in the City who can push these through or if they are going straight through staff, the Historic Preservation Board, and this Board. Page 14 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 13 April 26, 2022 Mr. Rumpf advised he put extra effort into this presentation because he is giving it a chance to go before the City Commission; this needs a strong Administration for support. There is currently a property in the City that is under an adaptive reuse consideration involving the CRA; it is one of the older homes, but there is not an instinct to save the property. That will go through a request to remove the designation. Mr. Litsch stated the Planning and Development Board is an Advisory Board, and they are going to make a suggestion to the Commission. He asked, as a group, if they support the Statement;Historic Preservation requirement to promote, incentivize, and facilitate the preservation of historic properties within the City. He asked if that is the message staff wants to deliver to the Commission and if that is what staff wants the Board to vote on. Ms. Radigan clarified that variances are approved by the City Commission, so this is taking those powers, putting them into the Code, and allowing staff to review them without the process. This becomes part of the Land Development Regulations, so there are no public comments associated. Vice Chair Buoni questioned if they should break up the motion or keep it as one is because he wanted to make sure the first two sentences agreed with the last sentence. Motion made by Mr. Litsch, and seconded by Mr. Sobel, to adopt Item 7B as stated in the document. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (6-0) 8. Other 8A. Presentation on the review of development applications for compliance with Palm Beach County's traffic review requirements and standards. Chris Hagan, Senior Traffic Engineer with Kimley Horn & Associates, provided a brief Power Point presentation on the Traffic Study Review process as follows: • A Traffic Study is usually referred to as a TIA, a Traffic Impact Analysis. Usually when this is done in the City of Boynton Beach there are two audiences. A City Review takes place, which looks at elements that do not get covered in the County review. The procedure for a Traffic Impact Study in the County is in Article 12 of the County's Land Development Code, and it is very prescriptive; probably about 60 pages, and it goes through various procedures and exceptions. It is almost like a flow chart,which makes it predictable and consistent, but the bad part is every site is unique, and there are site specific things that must be considered. • Many times, City staff will look at things that would normally fall through the cracks in the County review and look at more localized impacts with things that might be unique to the property itself. The City review will often look at minor intersections, which usually is not evaluated as part of the County process. Also, when driveways are on City streets, it is up to the purview for the City to look at. The County takes a much more macro look because they publish a map,the Palm Beach County Thoroughfare Map, which show the major roadways, some of which are under the jurisdiction of FDOT, the County, or the City. This is what the County process is meant to look at to see if there is going to be enough capacity on these roads and if they can handle it; if not, what Page 15 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 14 April 26, 2022 needs to be done. At the City level, there are important roads on a local level, which are not included on the County's Thoroughfare Map. • An excerpt was shown of the map depicting the Boynton Beach area. Some of the roads are under the jurisdiction of FDOT, and Boynton Beach Boulevard and Federal Highway are FDOT jurisdiction roads,but those roads are evaluated when they go through the Traffic Impact Analysis process at County level. There are also County facilities such as Military Trail, Congress Avenue, etc., and then some of the City roadways such as Seacrest,which appear on the map, so the County will look at the level of service on that road. • As they go through the process, it goes through steps they are required to look at when conducting a Traffic Impact Analysis. • There are always lots of questions about how they determine how many cars are going in and out every day. National Standards are published and are based on actual counts to be conducted. They rely on the Institute of Transportation Engineers; they compile data taken from an apartment complex that has been built and set up machines that will count cars going in and out over the course of the day and over the course of morning and evening peak hours. From that, several of those studies are conducted and will compile data. They usually look at peak hours because that is what the roads are designed for. The daily number does not matter as much as the peak and capacity of the road and how it can handle traffic. They take the data, predict how many trips are going in and out, and assign it. • High Ridge Apartments has multiple driveways; there is a driveway on Miner Road that is shared with a school to the north and a driveway on High Ridge Road. Computer models can be used and sometimes just a visual analysis. Sometimes there might be a road that is already at capacity or over-capacity, and there could be a situation when Redevelopment would not be allowed. From a policy standpoint, it was decided they do not want to close the door because properties can go into decline and decay and people need the ability to redevelop and reinvest, so they could possibly generate a little more traffic. The County's rule is if the amount of traffic generated by the project is less or equal to I% of the capacity of the road,they do not significantly impact that road and no analysis is needed. If it is above 1%, they must analyze the road to see if there is capacity and if something needs to be done. The County says depending on how many trips are generated dictates how far out the study has to be conducted. If a project is going to generate between 50 and 100 trips in the peak hour, they must look at the major thoroughfare roads within one mile of the site. If any of them is less than 1%, they do not look at those roads. For roads they do have to look at, they look at the existing traffic volume and how much traffic is being added by other projects that have been approved in the area, which is added, then they add a factor to account for general growth in traffic, because there might be projects five miles away that can add a few trips to those roads,and then traffic specifically for this project is added,which gives a total future traffic volume on the road that they are able to compare to the capacity of the road. If it is over capacity, there is a process to determine what can be done to fix the problem. • About ten years ago, the State of Florida changed State Statutes to say if a road was going to be over capacity, the developer did not have to pay for the full cost in constructing, for example, four lanes to six lanes. The developer had to pay their proportionate share of the cost of making the improvement, so it went from a situation where projects would get stuck with the full cost and could not move forward that could now move forward because they are required to pay 5% of the Page 16 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 15 April 26, 2022 cost. That was codified in State Statues, then the County changed their requirements to match the State requirements. Chair Rosencrans commented if they have to pay in that does not guarantee the road will get extended to six lanes and questioned if that goes into a pot for the State or County to improve roadways. Mr. Hagan advised that was the County's objection, the County did not go along with State Statutes for that reason because it is possible if the County collects 5% of the costs of the road,they still need 95% of the money to be able to construct the rest. Over time,they will theoretically be collecting other percentages from other developers that come through. There can also be a condition where it shows all six roads are under capacity and no improvements are needed; however, the developer is still required to pay Impact Fees to the County. Vice Chair Buoni asked if that is expense money or if it goes into the General Fund. Mr. Hagan stated the County has a statutory requirement that Impact Fee money is spent on their Road Improvement Program, but not only that, they divide the County into Road Impact Fee zones, so money collected in Boynton Beach cannot be used to widen a road in Jupiter. The measure they use to see if a road is over capacity is a scale referred to as Level of Service, A—F. Mr. Litsch asked at what point would a developer have to start paying. Mr. Hagan indicated the adopted standard is Level of Service D, which is almost capacity; that is what is adopted Countywide and locally. The City's Comprehensive Plan is Level of Service D. The outcome is both the City and County will review the Traffic Study as it goes through the process. Many times, it will go through a couple rounds of review where there are comments and questions; sometimes additional information is requested. Once all comments have been addressed the process of determining what improvements are needed and required by the developer are included. Sometimes this Board and the City Commission will see an ordinance that has conditions of approval attached and it will cover a variety of things such as fence materials and screening, but often there is a section referring to traffic conditions that directly came out of the Traffic Study process. Even if there were no conditions of approval related to traffic, which is rare, the project still has to go through the County because there is a fee schedule for Impact Fees. The City of Palm Beach Gardens adopted a Mobility Fee and gave notice to the County that they were opting out of the County's Road Impact Fee process and the County objected, but the City moved forward and approved it. There were also some State Statute regulations that allowed Cities to do that, which is currently in Court. The City of Palm Beach Gardens stopped collecting impact fees for the County and implemented a Mobility Fee and a Citywide Mobility Plan,which was for road improvements and sections on sidewalk and bike lane improvements, and dealt with all modes of transportation, so the money they have been collecting is to fund those things. Mr. Litsch stated it was previously mentioned that Boynton Beach Boulevard is an FDOT Road, and he asked what Congress Avenue is. Page 17 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 16 April 26, 2022 Mr. Hagan stated a portion of Congress Avenue is under FDOT, but he believes most or all of it in the City of Boynton Beach might be County. Mr. Litsche questioned if Boynton Beach has any impact on this or if it is outside their domain if this is an FDOT road. He asked if it comes to this Board for review of it must go to FDOT. Mr. Hagan advised the County acts as a clearing house, so all roads on the Thoroughfare Map reviews the capacity on those roads whether they are under the jurisdiction of FDOT, County, or City. FDOT relies on the County to monitor whether the roads are over capacity and if so, if something needs to be done. If an improvement is needed, it has to be permitted through FDOT for construction. He noted once improvements are determined, the project would move forward to Public Hearings, meaning it comes to this Board and then to City Commission. There is usually an Ordinance or Resolution and then conditions of approval are attached. Mr. Simon mentioned a previous project the Board heard and there was a question about when the study was done and what the numbers were based on. Mr. Hagan indicated the standard adopted within the County is that traffic volumes are supposed to be analyzed during peak season. They should be collected between January 1st and March 31" of any given year, so they capture the year of the application. There are two requirements; one is shipping collected between January and March and it should be no more than 12 months old. There are two complicating factors; one is if a project is starting in April, it is difficult to say everything will be on hold for eight months while waiting for the next season. FDOT has some locations throughout the State of Florida and in each County where continuous counts are being conducted, they publish a table of peak season factors so a count can be taken a certain week in July and then they multiply any count done that week by 1.12, adding another 12%, and that takes you to peak season conditions, so there are adjustment factors. The other complicating factor within the last couple years was the pandemic. During 2020, traffic volume counts could not be collected because people were working remotely, schools were closed, etc., so the requirement was that data collected in the last 12 months was relaxed; it was also relaxed throughout 2021 as well because of the ongoing pandemic. Only recently have they gone back to saying data needs to be collected within the last 12 months and ideally in 2022. Mr. Simon commented they refer to County data and the trip counter is not required for projects going through preparation for submissions; they refer to; they do not go through that; they just refer to data on file. Mr. Hagan stated Palm Beach County is unique because the County has a Countywide Traffic Counting Program and process, so every year they put down the counters on most of the thoroughfare roads. The County prefers that data be used because it gives everyone a consistent baseline and they trust it the most because they collected it. There are situations where there might be another important City street or neighborhood worrying about cut-thru traffic and because it is a minor road, the County does not count there. Sometimes supplemental data will have to be collected and that is when a firm who specializes in that will be hired, and they put counters across the road and count the cars. Page 18 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 17 April 26, 2022 Mr. Simon asked Mr. Hagan to touch on residential conceptions. Mr. Hagan referred to the County's Unified Land Development Code, Article 12, which is where they have procedures for conducting Traffic Impact Studies. There are a lot of competing factors and when it was first adopted it tended to incur in sprawl because the roads with the most capacity were out west. In the 1980's, a lot of new residential was built and there was little investment in residential in the east,which was mostly offices and jobs, so the sprawl continued moving further west toward the Turnpike and north towards Wellington, so people were traveling further to work adding congestion to the roads. A policy decision was made to incentivize residential development east of I-95. One of the big sections added to the Unified Land Development Code in the early 1990's was any residential east of I-95 was not exempt from the County Traffic Performance Standards. He thinks it did a good job removing a barrier, but no investment was incurring in residential development. Nationwide there has been much more interest in living in an urban environment; he has never heard any discussion about taking that off the books. Residential development east of I-95 basically does a Traffic Statement that says pursuant to County Standards and that is a Countywide policy that was adopted. Mr. Sobel asked how the City accounts for that with infrastructure and traffic. Mr. Rumpf stated unfortunately, their City Engineer was unable to attend tonight. He will try to arrange a time when he can address questions on the local type of reviews. Standards have been adopted in the Comprehensive Plan for roadways. Most development principally impacted higher road classifications, but most of the local streets are occupied by single-family neighborhoods. When Traffic Engineers are distributing traffic on the roadway network, it typically has quick access to higher classifications of roads. Traditionally, there has not been the same level of traffic capacity reviews on local streets. Chair Rosencrans assumed downtown is Level Service E or worse. Mr. Hagan indicated it varies from road to road and intersection to intersection. He thinks there are probably a couple of roads that are Level Service E. Vice Chair Buoni mentioned there are bridges going north to get to the barrier islands and width and lanes are being added, but down in their end is still two lanes. Mr. Hagan indicated there is a push and pull because in many cases there is no right-of-way available to expand; lanes are built to maximum capacity. A lot of Cities have tried to prioritize investments into bicycle, infrastructure, sidewalks, and other things. The idea is to maximize in focusing on moving more people rather than moving cars. The most efficient way to move higher volume in people is to try to get them out of the car and sometimes the only way that happens is if more is invested in everything else besides the roads. Mr. Simon stated that is a European concept or non-American concept. Americans want to drive around and not use a carpool or train. They are taking public transportation to Publix because it is too far away, and they cannot walk. When proposing developments in the downtown district with the highest densities, developers are not requested to put in a grocery store, so the distance of the trips is reduced. No one is Page 19 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 18 April 26, 2022 going to buy a condominium at 500 Ocean Boulevard and walk or ride a bike to Publix and back, they are going to drive. People are providing data and the CRA and Planning and Zoning are districting the zones and development of the densities in the zones creating and adding to the traffic congestion. If Federal Highway is already at capacity, the State or County will disregard some verbiage to encourage development because they need it. It does not mean the City must abide by that, allow that development to happen, or encourage density on an already congested road. It is a lot of the City and data and less of the Traffic Engineer Studies and Reports. It is up to Planning and Development to determine there are already issues on the roads and question why they want to put 80 people to an acre or whatever units to an acre. An incident on I-95 was mentioned and the road was shut down from Lake Worth to Riviera Beach and every person was stuck on the road for two to three hours to go ten blocks. Clearly, there are too many people on the road; if there is a hurricane there is no way out. Mr. Litsch commented until the City Commission or County Commission decides, they are not going to incentivize anything. When a developer comes along and wants to build an oceanfront high-rise condominium, there are economic incentives, and nothing said or done is going to impact that. Ms. Radigan indicated appropriate forums have these discussions and they appreciate the feedback. A lot of the revisioning can happen. She mentioned previous comments about Delray versus Boca versus Boynton and noted Boynton is a series of smaller districts. She thinks a lot of people concentrate on the most intense areas. Their highest densities are in about a four or five block area. She was thinking about doing more of a visioning side for the Board; vision has changed over the last several years. She thinks there are only one or two projects built in the concentrated area where there are 80 units an acre. Staff just went through a Mobility Plan, and she thinks the route the City has taken is to allow development in certain areas with ultimate transportation. Conceptually, an overview of the Mobility Plan is a twist on Impact Fees. Traffic Studies happen during the review process and Impact Fees are paid for the maintenance overall. Over the past 20 years, the County has collected $23 million in Road Impact Fees from developments within the City and they have spent an estimated $500,000. She thinks that is where a lot of disparities are being shown. The idea behind a Mobility Fee is that those fees are collected by the City and not the County and the City's Mobility Plan outlines areas for mobility options in areas where road capacity projects are needed. Chair Rosencrans would be interested to hear about the Mobility Plan. A lot of the Board's concern is what this City will look like when it is built out; it is already in a position where they are at Level of Service E and probably Level of Service F in certain instances during peak hours, and they want to continue to add more density. Mr. Simon asked if that is different than what happened in Palm Beach Gardens where it was said they are being sued by the County. Ms. Radigan stated it is not different. Palm Beach Gardens started collecting this fee a couple years ago and paused;they stopped paying County fees all together and that is when litigation started. Staff has met with the County, and they know they are doing this. Staff has paused to start this education process with the new Commission before moving into political and legal territory. The documents needed to move forward have been prepared and the next steps are ordinances and implementing programs. Page 20 of 47 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 19 April 26, 2022 Mr. Sobel commented that Mobility fees cannot be on top of Impact fees, so they could still donate to the County. Ms. Radigan indicated that is what the County wants. During past conversations, it is a hinderance on developments because they would be paying more to develop here than anywhere else, but maybe if there is a shared cost there might be other options. Another reason the City has paused is to watch litigation in Palm Beach Gardens to see how things go. Mr. Litsch asked if the Commission is on the same page as the Board or if they want to develop Boynton Beach, so it looks more like Delray and Boca. Mr. Rumpf stated they have been contacted by one or two Commissioners who have voice interest in some of the development standards. Ms. Radigan indicated a couple months ago she would have said the City Commission was supportive because they are the ones who approved the Redevelopment Plan and have been implementing densities and streetscapes throughout the last six years. Currently, there is a largely new City Commission, so they will see if they agree with the revisioning. She noted there is a public request from Commissioner Turkin to look at height options, not necessarily density. 8B. Presentation by staff on the City's requirements for preservation and natural areas. Motion by Mr. Sobel, seconded by Vice Chair Buoni,to table Item B.B. In a voice vote,the motion passed unanimously. (6-0) 9. Comments by Members Mr. Simon requested a sustainability discussion for new members be placed on next month's agenda, so it goes with natural areas. Ms. Radigan stated perhaps they could talk about doing a CRA Development Plan. Courtland McGuire, new member, introduced himself and stated he is a former candidate for District 3. He owns an advertising agency based out of Boynton and recently opened another office in Orlando. He also owns a nightclub on Brickell Avenue, which he built. 10. Adjournment Upon Motion duly made and seconded, the meeting at was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. [Minutes prepared by C. Guifarro,Prototype,Inc.] Page 21 of 47 8.8.A. Other 5/24/2022 _ CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 5/24/2022 REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Presentation by staff on the City's requirements for preservation of natural areas. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: Per the request from the Planning & Development Board, staff is presenting the requirements for conservation/preservation of natural lands as adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A STRATEGIC PLAN: STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION: N/A CLIMATE ACTION APPLICATION: N/A Is this a grant? Grant Amount: ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Attachment Conservation Page 22 of 47 C� G 0i 0 ,Jim (� 0 m N CN N m � N a C � G 06 4- 0 c O N cn Q 0 E (� 0 C: cn Q ONEW � N '(n o 0C)� 0 OEM '� O O Aw N cn cn `~ O O O O N > O O Q N N E E cn }, Qct 0- 0 O N O •� N cn > +� > •— UN 70 c U 0 � '+� 70 Q C U) J N J ON c Clio .O -1--+ U O 0.SEEM O N (n (6 070 .� j N W U) 0 LO N N 0 co d 0 OEM 1�a,�1;A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�14k�A�1421`�;�� J N � c .O a) E vi c E N W ®MI=n\ O 0 E c6 � o a) C > L. cn C0 w U �� sE rti s s,1�i ss 1 ' 4 U Q) oll (2), N n�n1�� co SEEN= CZ W d Lij Fz C) (730 CZ O 07 �4ft-ft 0 _Q) � . . 0 Ooh _Q) C) O � � :5; U) O 4 � � � p . 000 LL �� "ut.4�'�t?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1Zu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?Ill;tt?1tu2/dt?III;'tsdllo k m _ z m n a. v, tt O yy E It i I b r s s .J 137 � s 0� N N Q) N L U Q V Ln c Q Q)u LU C6 r'I C 'IT Q m m Zo U m H M 717 a > ENE= f r V }irl t ii t ,f tff �r 1I� g}ff� rifw =sil� 1i�� }t��ISSSs �I'att'41 ��1 � ���� t r} sfs s11yf f }s}iis ��lk ''� � . ...... ff 11 is t tt�s V s��llll �� _ .. - a �I�l��i�}F 1f�}} t •z 'retZ,l; tCj CL Q n'+ - Ii tI 1I}sslllt- lug, EZ �d E k � � � x N LO p Lij N : 4ft-ft LO Q) p mum U p LM a (3) a--+ a-J B 0 0 _0 _0v v a) Q) t �4, 'E Z) 0 rr^ N co O O O 00 0 Ln Ln Ln N N N UJ Fill ® Q) O �O (To iLLJ m v O 0 UJ cr cn 0) cn -0 :3 04-0 cn C: LE -1--& C)01 0 c CY) cn w C: 0 U) U) C/) > 0 0 -0 E a) cn o :3= 0 0-M 4-1 LO m C: 0.-0 C: cr m 0 a) :3 C) C: 04- > m -0(D 0 m 0 -0 C: Co 0CL >.,Cu cn a) Q)-O 0 C: 0 0 U) L- -6--1 U) OU) CLO (1) -,.--,-, (D 0 E C: cn 0 C: 0 m a) 0 C%4 LM :3 E a 0 oN m 0 = 4-0 E > > (D C: W E (OU O C� Emi EMI, Emi Emi EMI, Emi �mi EMT,, Emi EMI, Emi ' II LM J( r +_4!{ rs4i44iSJ�!{r}) {4i! �r t` �I'` 4st�)4r� � � -Tall, o LMr Ji 4t it 4II 41SS44 iS y�y}��J�� n M L �n kr)44\.44I}ii4h , Sti�Jr si 7rS4 kt ) s4 4S 4 ` (0 NO riEj7�N�4) t i 414 t(( l4r�ir\Sh44 S 4 777 (Ta if 11111 11IRT ql LM m on= 7-7717 uiit ,4 4� r 4 I'l4�)4 1p NMI= Now, co A F y i 4 • f O Al LM O L o 1--� N M co r0 cn O � � Q cn Q TU .> C: O C: m O m C Q � U � E E ® Lu (7) Q .C: J m I- 0 M M N 0) co d EMME V! 0 CD CD �1 O W rn 5W �./! G 8.8.B. Other 5/24/2022 _ CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 5/24/2022 REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Presentation by staff on the City's requirements for sustainability. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: Per the request from the Planning & Development Board, staff is presenting the requirements for sustainability as adopted in the City's Land Development Regulations. HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A STRATEGIC PLAN: STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION: N/A CLIMATE ACTION APPLICATION: N/A Is this a grant? Grant Amount: ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Other Sustainable Development Standards-updated Page 34 of 47 C� G 0 BEIM= 0 0 m 0 N LO N "' (D O N Of N CO a) G cn 06 n Su i� 1 y c Cl)_ V/ + -:2 t. •0 E1=50 o O cn O NCD co NO � a +� O NCL_O N > O "MEMO 0 0 -T E > � OUB •� 00 '� � � N `1 E r. O L- }' N � � — CLco 0 UO (" Q N ��,^ O -(,) 0 LqUiLM � > a� 0N < 0 .Va � E .4? � N � p0 �O O i x i � f L = f r } � t k j } � L £ r. =Y4. tA 0 0 OEMAMA co C L =3 a) o M L O +r 1 0) fn a••j O L 0 co d 0 O � � a--� i C O) i i co 0 0 C) to C: O O O � L6 70 _ >I to 0 -0 c E - L Co C: a) cn 70 � O uj U _ C: m c � CUCo p _0 0- 0) c O C: p = •C: C: U) 08 a••� C O) 0O = •?� (6 =3O •X +� ) UO O .00� •=Co C: � 2 0 0 •� Q (_o Q•� 0 � 'CoFL 2 O �,}' SEEM 00 o � � v, a) L co zcn �' � SU � � m �n N 0 O E _O SEEMN � N co O N co © C:i : N4-0 (6 O E (6 '=n3 E _N fU Z O Cn =3 CLi U Co (n O U aN C: (6 C: O Q � Co C6 � C: I� OO CL SEEM ^ ? t0 RIP11,11�,s fig "V, //(��� i co QL _ FC CL VC/� .4 J C i tt SEEM tt-- f (6 � M C: (6 \ U ` LO f J Q LM N U ,4. co N �s O ,,Cl) , �,� cn .E 57 57 o'^ 70 o C UJ M N cn d }' N A 70 _0 70 7C3 70 CN N C'7 R3 (6 fU N fU � 70 -0 VI /\ 'v cn � _0 _0 _0ry (6 R TA Elm — — CU N a) C: c . .E Z) D Z) . }, X � Z> 2 2 Z Z N NN N N N r N r N N 0 0 OEM ' N CL 0 C O V m O � 2 010 �Q C L ; L L G� a .O '++ O +�+ LU .O t Q 'C O O L N 4 , � l 75 E SEEM SEEM ® ® 4A 4w, avi w r I , 0 { i s� Y 1; A d ,4 aW , s O z � OEM CL co i'aEdY�oa.H N N r � } 'fi 4tr }S + kt} l � i V i N i 0 SEEM SEEM c M o £ .L a C6 c V7 n y� u t} 1 ! ! i +� } N - z 0 OEM CL CL 0 SEEM d' M 00 �4 N 06 � N O v ® OE Ln ca SEEM ca i Ln O N N m (n, N 0 Ln a--+ N N _N +O-+ -0 c +-' -0N N f6 ate-+ C6 CC3 (n (6 + N r 4 CV 0 0 OEM CL 0 � o N � N � (D c •co 0 O CLCo0i OU (� Q SEEM >+ � 2 o- 0 Wa. E ,. U E m (D N � N' E — co •— U (D Z' U SEEM ® ® L 0 OEM cr Fra � ti Eir a' 0 OEM CL t F 4 � 13; i R3 Q 0 ' co CLa 0 SEEM U L 0 ' N 0 ' O i C6 4-, c_ C6 a--+ � � { SEEM 0i - so= co 0 bD � ® w U— 1 i f � 7 ? n t ' r , t v 0 OEM CL O 4-jLO', k.0 ' N o E 1 01 0 L— SEEM >: Q) 4-J O (3) Ln 4-1 O r C 4- N > � cn 'O O c -0 ca0 v .� O SEEM _ — V 4-1 +-+ ate--+ C 0 Elm CL ® ® Ln O ca ca -0 ° O c� -� aJ O CLv aA S3 Ln ca l Alt(t }iiir{ r 0 ® s Q Q O r N N • � cc � � r i N L. NNa o i 0 Ids a LL r.+ CL CL ° rr Q. o co E 0 � .x AM 4 C— Q Q M U) t N N 0 SEEM Q y OL A 0Wacc- � 's a rt LL cc Y }' ami ami jll(Uu °4 r i L �7 N O '� . 0 W a x LM N N 04 04 CL 10 O -> a o y o w a` a I- 0 a� co d Boom 0 ME CD 0 NNW V J O O � � O � U m