Loading...
Minutes 02-06-23 MINUTES � a PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 100 E. OCEAN AVENUE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2023, 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: STAFF: Butch Buoni, Vice Chair Amanda Radigan, Planning and Zoning Director William Harper Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner Chris Simon (Left at 8:59 p.m.) Luis Bencosme, Senior Planner Courtlandt McQuire Jae Eun Kim, Principal Planner Thomas Ramiccio, Alternate Sean Swartz, City Attorney Leslie Harmon, Prototype, Inc. ABSENT: Tim Litsch Trevor Rosecrans, Chair Jay Sobel GUESTS: Bradley Miller, Urban Design Studio, and Land Planner Rob Singer, Time Equities Kemissa Colin, Vice President of Development for Affiliated Development Elliott Young, Senior Vice President with RINCA, Architect Jeffrey Burns, CEO of Affiliated Development Nick Rowe, President of Affiliated Development The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call Roll was called and it was determined a quorum was present. 3. Agenda Approval Mr. Simon requested hearing Item 7D first and pushing staff items to the end. Amanda Radigan, Planning and Zoning Director, explained that those items are part of the Master Plan Amendment,which is why they are presented first.Modifications must be heard in order to hear the Master Plan. At final approval, they can take it out of order if the Board chooses, but there will be more information in those amendments that are pertinent to the Town Square. Mr. Simon stated he is only available until 8:45 p.m. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 2 February 6, 2023 Motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Ramiccio, to approve the agenda as amended. In a voice vote, the agenda was unanimously approved (5-0). 4. Approval of Minutes 4.A. Approve board minutes from the 11/29/2022 Planning & Development Board meeting. Motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Harper, to approve the November 29, 2022, meeting minutes. In a voice vote, the minutes were unanimously approved. (5-0). 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Ms. Radigan welcomed everyone to their first 2023 meeting. She made two announcements as follows: • Lyman Phillips has resigned from the Board, so there is a vacancy for an Alternate position. • An update was provided on a variance for the Pierce project at the November 29, 2022, meeting. The item was heard by the City Commission; however, it was tabled. The item will be moving forward with the rest of the applications for that project, and it will be heard in February and again in March. Mr. McQuire clarified that it was an eight-foot variance abutting another property and it will be heard again for a Second Reading. Ms. Radigan stated the Planning and Development Board approved the project, and it was moved to the City Commission meeting and tabled to carry concurrently with the other applications. Today, the Board will hear everything from that project, except for the variance, since they already acted on it, and the variance will move forward to two City Commission meetings, which will be February 21, 2023, and in March. 6. Old Business -None. 7. New Business 7A. Approve modifications (CDRV 23-003) amending the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapter 2. Land Development Process, Article II, Planning and Zoning Division Services, Section 2. Standard Applications, to establish a process for proposed Development Agreements. Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner, provided a presentation regarding the Development Agreement Process Amendment as follows: • Development Agreements allow the City to set terms and conditions of developments, which are typically used in large projects and/or in private public partnerships; otherwise, known as P3's. Per State Statutes, Development Agreements can have terms of up to 30 years and freeze Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 3 February 6, 2023 the City's development standards currently in effect for the length of the contract. The City does not currently have a process for Development Agreements, so any Agreements fall upon the minimum requirements set by Chapter 163 in the Florida Statutes. • This proposed Amendment basically sets the Development Agreement Process within City Code and allows the City to set additional standards above State Statutes. It includes three notable changes. First, to qualify, the project must be at least 15 gross acres to be eligible to enter into Development Agreements with the City; these are typically very large projects like Town Square and the Mall site. Second, it establishes submittal requirements of the State Statute including requiring a Master Plan or Conceptual Site Plan to be approved at the same time as the Agreement. Finally, it allows for flexibility within current standards to provide for alternative standards if approved by the City Commission. • Alternative standards include establishing a public art fee within the Agreement, the ability to reserve utility capacity for water and waste water service for up to six years from the date of the Agreement at no developer cost, Master Plans or Modifications approved with the Development Agreement shall remain valid up to 24 months, and developers will have up to 72 months after a Site Plan approval as part of a Development Agreement to secure building permits. • It is important to note that the City Commission chooses which, if any, alternative standards are made available in a Development Agreement. None of these options are going to be given by right. Mr. Ramiccio mentioned 44, the 72-month timeline, and questioned if that is standard. He thought that it seemed a little long after Agreements and Site Plans have been approved. Mr. Meyer indicated that these are going to be typically larger projects that have longer timeframes, hence the 72 months to capture that. Ms. Radigan advised there are a couple reasons why they landed on 72 months. First, Development Agreements are not necessarily per Site Plan, and there may be multiple Site Plans within one Development Agreement. For example, a Master Plan consisting of four different Site Plans, with part of that being flexibility for phasing of the Master Plan that is going to be sequential and not cause delays in the approval process. They are trying to front end it and allow them to have availability by right for a longer period of time. It is also important to note that since Development Agreements can have a life up to 30 years per State Statute, they are trying to maximize their development into elements as much as feasible for now. They want to make sure they are minimizing risk on both sides, so the City and developer know what they are contractually obligated to do. Mr. Simon questioned the time of completion for the project and asked if what is currently in the Code was changing. Ms. Radigan stated that there is no flexibility. Once a Site Plan is vested, they must adhere to building permit timelines and meet certain inspections every six months to keep the project alive. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 4 February 6, 2023 Mr. Simon mentioned phasing for the Site Plan approvals and asked if Phase 1 is approved, if it has six years to go in for a permit, and that is when the City seeks fines or delays in the project. Ms. Radigan replied yes. It depends on the language of the Development Agreement; otherwise, it would rely on the Code. The Code would say that once the common order has expired, which is 18 months in normal cases, and in this case, it could be up to 72 months, time extensions are available and they would have to come to the City Commission and request those time extensions. Mr. Simon stated if Phase 1 is approved,they go for building permits and then other Phases could take up to the 72-month period. He asked if they could come in for Phase II eight years later, since they have approval for Phase 1. Mr. Radigan advised every Development Order would have 72 months attached to it. Mr. Simon asked if this is strictly for projects that are joint ventures with the City. Ms. Radigan clarified that this is strictly for projects going into Development Agreements, and it is still within the negotiation of the City Commission; it is not by right. Attorney Schwartz swore in all individuals who wished to speak on any items. Vice Chair Buoni opened discussion to the public. Hearing none, the public discussion was closed. Motion was made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Ramiccio, to approve Item 7A. In a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. (5-0) 7B. Approve modifications (CDRV 23-002) amending the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapter 3. Zoning, to modify requires for commercial frontage within the Boynton Beach Boulevard Overlay. Mr. Meyer mentioned that the Board reviewed and recommended approval for a Commercial Frontage Amendment to the Code in 2022 establishing requirements, and this is an Amendment to that. He said that this is very limited in scope and is only along Boynton Beach Boulevard between Seacrest Boulevard and Federal Highway. Any of the other corridors identified in the previous Code Amendment are not affected, so this is specific to that section. These are adjustment terms unique to the Boynton Beach Boulevard overlay. • The historical development pattern east of Seacrest Boulevard to Federal Highway is shifted towards Ocean Avenue and Downtown to focus those commercial uses and activity to that area. Boynton Beach Boulevard is more designed to move traffic between Federal Highway and Seacrest Boulevard and also points west. Heavy traffic along Boynton Beach Boulevard should stay there and not be routed through Ocean Avenue, because they want to focus commercial and pedestrian-friendly activities, etc. along Ocean Avenue. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 5 February 6, 2023 • Previously approved projects along Boynton Beach Boulevard are already oriented towards Ocean Avenue and they orient more garage access and things of that nature along Boynton Beach Boulevard, so it requires an amount of frontage that might not create an acceptable cohesion along that corridor. • The idea is to reduce the amount of frontage east of Seacrest Boulevard and west of Federal Highway,but not to completely eliminate it. It is currently set at 70%and the Amendment reduces commercial frontage from 70% to 40% only along that corridor. The 70% commercial frontage requirement will remain along the remainder of the corridor from Seacrest to I-95. • There is also an Amendment to eliminate the commercial frontage requirement along Seacrest Boulevard, which is a residential street, so requiring commercial explicitly in that overlay, which is about 300 feet north and south of Boynton Beach Boulevard, is not very conducive, but it will not prohibit commercial units from establishing within that area if a development comes in and chooses to do so. • There is clarification on what is meant by minimum commercial space height. Previously, the Code was vague and said ceiling height of 13 feet. Precisely, it is the vertical distance between the top of the first floor slab and the bottom of the second floor slab. The idea is that there is enough clearance to create quality commercial spaces. Ceiling is kind of ambiguous and can be measured either to the slab or to the finished ceiling, so they are clarifying that, so it is clear for developers. Mr. McQuire asked if the ceiling height is currently 13 feet and if it is increasing or is the same. Mr. Meyer stated the current Code says 13 feet and they are just clarifying the beginning and ending of that measurement. Mr. Simon commented that does not seem that high and noted a lot of retail and commercial spaces occupy 14 or 15 feet. Mr. Meyer stated that this is the minimum requirement; they want to provide a little flexibility because if it is set too high it might limit commercial in a way that might not be feasible. Mr. Ramiccio mentioned the commercial traffic entering and exiting onto Boynton Beach Boulevard and the short distance between the building setback and the edge of road and asked how the City will enforce traffic safety and if there is enough distance. He questioned if this would trigger the building setback further off Boynton Beach Boulevard. Mr. Meyer advised that this is not a change to the setbacks, this is only to the commercial frontage requirement so he cannot say whether their site visibility is adequate, but these requirements do not relieve a developer from meeting site visibility requirements and that is reviewed by the Engineering Department. Mr. Ramiccio said that they should go hand in hand because if they wanted a heavy commercial presence on Boynton Beach Boulevard, they have active space, sidewalks, passive areas, and then the buildings Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 6 February 6, 2023 and different configurations. If they are eliminating that as part of the frontage on Boynton Beach Boulevard, then they should go hand in hand. Ms. Radigan indicated that the active barrier requirement and the pedestrian requirements are being proposed to stay the same and those requirements can be satisfied in different ways depending on what is being constructed. There is an active area that would be required if commercial is proposed and the requirements in this Amendment are not going away, the frontage is being reduced from 70% to 40%. She said that it would be important to maintain an active area to use in conjunction with commercial spaces, but in the area where they are not abutting a commercial use, that space can be satisfied with enhanced landscaping with extended pedestrian ways. There are different mechanisms to use that space, depending on what they are abutting, but the space does not necessarily need to change. Mr. Simon mentioned the ingress and egress for vehicular traffic coming from Boynton Beach Boulevard and asked if there would be a minimum distance requirement between the two components if there is a potential of a restaurant with outdoor seating. If landscaping is being increased in those areas, it reduces visibility. Ms. Radigan advised the Code says explicitly if there is a side street, they shall not enter from Boynton Beach Boulevard. She thinks every project they have been approving on Boynton Beach Boulevard has access to the garages first, which is a block behind it, not from Boynton Beach Boulevard, to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. The Engineering Department has a full set of engineering standards that talk about site visibility requirements and different scenarios. Through the Site Plan process, they would decide where it is safe for the spaces to be. The Code does not say where the space needs to be, it just needs to front the road and it is a certain percent. It has flexibility built in and all of that is reviewed on a site-by-site basis, but there is no verbiage regarding a set or minimum distance within the Land Development Regulations; those are housed within the Engineering handbook in the Engineering Division. Mr. Simon agreed with the ceiling heights and thinks that could be considered. There are a lot of commercial spaces that are sometimes two stories or single floors with higher ceiling heights. Most developers will build with the minimum, so he thinks an increase would benefit the City in the long run. Mr. Ramiccio recalled Ms. Radigan's presentation increasing the commercial engagement of those, especially on the main corridors. He asked why they are keeping it at 70% west of Seacrest Boulevard and why there is a reduction east. He asked if this is something specific to accommodate the Time Equities hotel fronting Boynton Beach Boulevard. He also questioned the change of philosophy of what they want as a community from having more engagement regarding commercial. He noted that the Board recently changed the Code to accommodate staff's recommendation and now they are slipping back. Mr. Ramiccio noted tht Ms. Radigan stated that she did not think commercial should be on Seacrest Boulevard, but if commercial were to go on Seacrest Boulevard, he questioned if they would have to comply with the FAR and square footage engagement for commercial. He asked what happens if Time Equities does not go through and if staff will come back to the Board because a new project came in and Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 7 February 6, 2023 they want to go back to the larger square footage. He asked if this is spot zoning and if they are doing this specifically for this project. Ms. Radigan replied that when the original amendment was made, it was done through a series of overlays, which are locationally driven. While staff stands behind those recommendations, she thinks their hindsight is 20/20 and a lot of projects within the Downtown area stretch from Boynton Beach Boulevard to Ocean Avenue. When projects do that, they are under two different overlays; the Boynton Beach Boulevard overlay and the Ocean Avenue overlay. They were having that requirement in multiple locations, which could cause some infeasibility within those areas. Historically, she would say that the City, for as far back as she can remember, had the goal of creating Ocean Avenue as their pedestrian commercial roadway. As much as they would like Boynton Beach Boulevard to be vibrant and pedestrian-friendly, it has some attributes that make it difficult; its width, scale, speed, and the number of vehicles make it less conducive for commercial frontage. Ocean Avenue has a much more pedestrian- friendly scale where people can dine outdoors, shop, and walk along the street without having vehicles speeding by them. She does not think it was a change in philosophy, she thinks they are being true to what the overall goal is for Ocean Avenue and the constraints of Boynton Beach Boulevard. She thinks this is a refinement of the initial amendment. Regarding spot zoning, since this is done through overlays it affects multiple properties. Several parcels in this area have been approved and if revised, they would need to meet current standards and a new development would also need to meet the new standards. Vice Chair Buoni opened discussion to the public. Attorney Schwartz swore in all individuals who wished to testify. Mark Meyer, 633 Ocean Inlet Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida, was present as the INCA President; INCA is a non-profit. They have been in review of the Text Amendments and the proposed language and believe the percentages need to go in the opposite direction. They think it needs to go to 100%, and feel it is inconsistent with the existing Land Use; it is also inconsistent with what the public wants. The public did a survey six months ago with the CRA and the results were that people want retail restaurants, so a reduction is inappropriate. If speed is a concern on Boynton Beach Boulevard, which has a speed limit of 35 miles per hour, he recommended more speeding tickets be issued. He noted that traffic calming devices could also be used. He thinks this item should go back to the drawing board because it is not consistent. Everything to the west of Seacrest Boulevard is residential between I-95 and Seacrest Boulevard. People are going to walk to the main corridor, which is Ocean Avenue and the streets around it. He thinks 100% frontage would be appropriate with an option to relocate that to another area in the corridor or perhaps 50% frontage if they have two stories. He noted he is a Land Use Planner by trade and has a background in finance and construction, and mentioned the 13-foot height is minimal; after three feet of mechanical, plumbing, etc., they end up with a nine or ten-foot ceiling, which is not great. Boynton Beach Vice Mayor Angela Cruz, suggested the Board look at the history and facts, and the fact that the Commission unanimously approved the 70%requirement all through Boynton Beach Boulevard on October 18, 2022, and again on November 14, 2022; it was a 5-0 vote. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 8 February 6, 2023 Chuck Bagley, 210 SE 2nd Avenue, mentioned egress onto Boynton Beach Boulevard and questioned where traffic is going to go from 1st Street. He thinks commercial on Boynton Beach Boulevard makes much more sense. Vice Chair Buoni closed public comments. Motion was made by Mr. Simon, to approve Item 7B. Motion failed as there was no second. Attorney Schwartz recommended the Board make a motion to approve or deny since this is an Advisory Board. Motion was made by Vice Chair Buoni, to approve Item 7B. Motion failed as there was no second. Motion was made by Vice Chair Buoni, and duly seconded,to deny Item 7B. In a voice vote,the motion passed unanimously. (5-0). 7C. Approve modifications to modify the existing methodology for the Payment in Lieu of Workforce Housing Units program; to include an FAR bonus; and to clarify the receiving areas for height, FAR, and density bonuses (CDRV 23-001) by amending LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapter 1, Art 11. Sec. 2. C.II. In-Lieu and Off-Site Options (related to the Workforce Housing Program). Luis Bencosme, Senior Planner, described the proposal for Workforce Housing Payment in Lieu Amendment. Staff is proposing minor changes to the existing Workforce Housing Program, which are intended to make existing Payment in Lieu a more attractive and a feasible option for developers. They want to do whatever possible to make this a more popular option. He provided a brief overview of the existing program as follows: • The program is completely voluntary and is intended to encourage the construction and availability of much needed Workforce Housing for low to moderate income people by helping to offset the rising costs of land and construction with a provision of a density and/or height bonus. • As an alternative to building Workforce Housing units, the program allows developers to make a monetary contribution to be used as a Housing Trust Fund with a Pay in Lieu option, which is based off a percentage of the total number of units proposed. • The program has not been as successful as intended; it is largely underutilized and staff believes that is because of the existing payment methodology that requires developers to pay for more units than what will be provided through the program. Proposed Amendments: • Applicant is proposing to change how the Pay in Lieu fees are calculated. Instead of basing fees on a percentage of the total number of dwelling units constructed, developers will be responsible for paying applicable Pay in Lieu fees based on the number of bonus dwelling requested. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 9 February 6, 2023 • The way fees are currently designed, depending on the project type and location,there is a certain percentage that ranges from 15%,20%,or 25%of the total number of dwelling units the developer will have to pay for. The fee is based on whether the unit is for sale, which is about $82,000, or for rent, which is about $36,000. • In a vision, staff is including a one-half floor area ratio (FAR) bonus to ensure that the units can actually be built. Staff has added a provision to prevent the combination of the Pay in Lieu option with other provisions to increase density. • The proposed amendment further clarifies the receiving locations where height,FAR, and density bonuses can be requested. Mr. McQuire commented that this is a proposal to allow developers to increase density, and therefore, they can pay to circumvent the Workforce Housing portion of the City's or County's recommendations. Mr. Bencosme stated it is based on the income cap. Ms. Radigan clarified the current Workforce Housing Program has two options; there is a Build Program and a Pay in Lieu Program, and both would be considered participation in the program. One gets to build units and the other gives a fee, which is put into the City's Housing Trust Fund, which the City uses to fund Workforce Housing. Mr. Ramiccio commented that they do not have unlimited land supply in Boynton Beach. It is almost promoting for developers to do this and historically, with the County, developers pay a fee. He thinks this is very developer-friendly and he does not like the project. Ms. Radigan stated that the program is voluntary, both the Payment or the Build Program, unlike the County, which has a mandatory vision and zoning ordinance. Her understanding of the County program is that Workforce Housing must be produced. It does not necessarily need to be on sites, they have displacement programs where they have to provide Workforce Housing if it is not within the project and is in another site within the County. Mr. Ramiccio reiterated that he does not like this project, it is counter-productive to what Boynton Beach is trying to do. They want to create something special and in looking what they really need, they need Class A office space, but they are trying to jam all the Workforce and Affordable components to Downtown, which is not necessary. If they open their minds about the future of how they want the City to evolve, he does not see this in the picture. When talking about the County's program, if Affordable Housing needs to be built in Boynton Beach,they could take the portability and build those in Belle Glade or Riviera Beach, There is no trigger or mechanism for Boynton Beach to get Affordable Housing with a Payment in Lieu of. As Mr. McQuire mentioned, most of the developers are going to pay into the In Lieu of fee. He asked if there is a substantial amount of money in the Housing Trust Fund. Ms. Radigan replied no and explained that part of the reasoning is that this program as a whole, the Workforce Housing Program, both Build and the Pay in Lieu Program, have been largely unsuccessful due to the methodology to pay for the units. There are circumstances where they would be paying per unit at a higher rate than they would be given density for with the current program. This modification adjusts Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 10 February 6, 2023 that. This amendment does two things to get this portion of the program running;the first is to adjust how they count the fee, and the second is the addition of an FAR bonus of.5%. As said previously, staff and the Commission recognize a larger overhaul of this ordinance is required and is a much larger undertaking than what is happening. This is trying to pump some life into the program they have had a lot of interest in, but so far it has been infeasible for developers to participate in. Mr. Ramiccio said that he is hearing from the Board, as well as the Commission, that they do not want to see an increase in density and offer as an incentive more height and density for affordability. He heard if a hotel or something spectacular would come Downtown that they would be flexible. He thinks this is tied to this upcoming project because the other projects already have vested rights. Ms. Radigan indicated this would apply to any project that is going to be submitted under the current regulations. Other projects might be under the previous version. Mr. Ramiccio stated they are talking about going forward with new projects and he asked if Time Equities would be one of the projects that needs to conform to this. He questioned if this is being adjusted for the Time Equities project. Ms. Radigan advised that the calculation of how they calculate Workforce Housing is Citywide, not just locational. Mr. Ramiccio questioned why they would not make it a requirement or mandate that units are built as part of the project instead of the Payment in Lieu of. They have to look at the affordability of Boynton in general. When looking east of I-95, there is a lot of affordability and there is not in the west; there has to be a balance. He does not like the Payment in Lieu of, the calculation, or incentives for density and height when it is not necessary. This Board and the Commission have already lowered the height from 150 feet to 85 feet in the MU district. All the projects are going to have an affordability component to get the 25% density and height bonus. He asked if there will be people who live Downtown that can afford to shop Downtown. He likes market rate apartments and he is not speaking to projects already approved, he is referring to new projects going forward. He thinks this Commission and future Commissions want to see something exciting, a boutique hotel, shops, restaurants, active green space, great street trees, street lighting, etc., and they want it to be a special place. He thinks that can be created,but if they fall into these traps, they will be asking why they do not have the tax base ten years from now. They have huge developments that have a lot of apartments, but they are not paying a lot of ad valorum taxes, and a lot of that has to do with what is being built. Ms. Radigan clarified that if developers are participating in the Pay in Lieu program,they are not building Workforce Housing. Those two things would not happen in the same building. If the Build program is being done, points and concerns would be valid. For the Pay in Lieu program, there is no Workforce Housing being built, they are getting a market rate product and the City is getting the benefit of the dollars for those bonuses for the City to do with as they please and where they please. Mr. Ramiccio said he thinks both of his points are valid,but feels that the latter point is the most important, and that is the fact that they are not building Affordable Housing in the Payment in Lieu of. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 11 February 6, 2023 Ms. Radigan stated that there are some exciting options when they do a more cohesive overhaul of this program to allow for bonuses or intensities. She thinks certain things the City is looking for, such as a hotel or vibrant places, can be worked into an ordinance. Mr. Simon mentioned the Pay in Lieu and questioned what dollar amount this fund collects the City can do something with to provide Workforce Housing. Ms. Radigan advised that 100% of that fee must be used towards Workforce Housing. The fund can be used for projects, grant funding, rehab projects; it is not just building projects and any other program the City, as a whole, wants to use those funds for. Mr. Simon questioned how much money the City would make on a project such as the Pierce project with a Pay in Lieu. Ms. Radigan stated if they are doing for rent, it would be approximately $36,000 per unit above their base density. Mr. Simon commented if there were ten extra units the City would get $360,000. Ms. Radigan confirmed that amount. She noted that the City would get $84,000 for every "For sale"unit. Mr. Simon questioned how many projects the Pay in Lieu would have to be used for in order to fund something significant. Ms. Radigan indicated this is a piece of a much larger overhaul. That number is currently about 15 years old. The Impact Fee by State Statute has to be based on a rational nexus, it is not something the City can just come up with and it is typically done on a GAP analysis. That number should represent the difference between an Affordable Housing rate and a market rate and those are the numbers used to create a Pay in Lieu program. As part of their overhaul for this program, they will have to go out and conduct a rational Nexus study to update those numbers since they are so old. Mr. Simon questioned why come with an Amendment instead of focusing on the complete overhaul. Ms. Radigan stated this is a complex problem and is something they are not trying to solve; the County, State, and country are, and there are a lot of options and it takes a lot of time to get through those; it takes a lot of political influence and is something they need to talk to each of their Elected Officials about regarding the types of tools they want to see move forward. Vice Chair Buoni commented that, overall, no matter whether this passes or fails, they still need to overhaul the system. Ms. Radigan replied yes. The idea is that some of these Amendments would carry forward. They are looking to do a complete overhaul and it will be up to the City Commission to see what tools they see as necessary going forward. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 12 February 6, 2023 Mr. Simon commented that this should go back to the drawing board and staff come back with a complete overhaul rather than filling in some pieces. He said that there is a great possibility that this might be something the State or County has voted for. He noted that Developers not having to build Workforce Housing within the project is a misstep. Regarding the $36,000 and $84,000, he commented that developers will say they are all apartments, so they do not have to pay into the fund. He is trying to understand the ratio if an acre is permitted 80 dwellings and it is being reduced so they will only have to pay for ten instead of 20. Ms. Radigan explained that if they are allowed to build 80 units an acre, the bonus would be 25%, which would allow them up to 20 units more,but they are only paying for what they are using,which is ten units. She acknowledged that this is a band-aid to a much larger problem and thinks this is an effort to collect what they can while the program is not working. This is an effort to fix little things to make it feasible, so it used while staff is working on an overhaul of the ordinance. Mr. Ramiccio asked if this pertains to current projects. Ms. Radigan replied there would be projects going under this ordinance and noted that any amendments to projects would be under this as well as any new projects moving forward. Mr. Simon questioned if they could sunset this all together and not have this component as part of the development. He expressed concern about what is currently existing. Ms. Radigan advised the City Commission would have to ask for those changes; to sunset an existing program or create an additional ordinance to replace this program. Mr. Simon thinks that might be something the Board might consider and take a leading position within the County. Vice Chair Buoni opened discussion to the public. Mark Meyer, 533 Ocean Inlet Drive, agreed this should go back to the drawing board and try to lead the County. Vice Chair Buoni closed the public discussion. Motion was made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. McQuire,to approve Item 7C. In a roll call vote, the motion failed unanimously. (0-5) 7D. Approve request for Major Master Plan Modification (MPMD 23-004) of the Boynton Beach Town Square development to amend the number of buildable dwelling units,revise project phasing, reduce the commercial use areas, and decrease the number of hotel rooms. The subject properties are bounded by Seacrest Boulevard on the west, NE/SE I" Street on the east, E. Boynton Beach Boulevard on the north, and SE 2nd Avenue on the south, and are currently zoned MU-3 (Mixed Use 3). Applicant: Robert Singer, Time Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 13 February 6, 2023 Equities, Inc. Bradley Miller, with Urban Design Studio, and Land Planner for Boynton Beach, was present on behalf of the applicant, Time Equities. He provided a brief presentation as follows: • This was a public private partnership that happened in 2017/2018. As time went on, the private partner, JKM, did not come through with building commercial parcels and garages that were part of this project. • Time Equities has entered into a contract and this has been going on for eight or nine months. • This has been within the litigation process for several years and they are happy to say just recently the City Commission agreed to a Settlement Agreement with JKM, which was the first step in a sequence of steps for this project. • The Settlement Agreement is approved, which allows the lawyers to finalize that and let them move forward into actual entitlement for a new project and leave the old one behind. • There are captions they want to get rid of and move forward. • Time Equities currently has projects in eight to ten different countries. • Casa Mara in West Palm had a similar situation. Time Equities came in and it took three years to get through the entitlement process working with neighbors and they now have a successful project. • Casa Mara is full residentially and commercially. • Photographs were shown of Casa Mara. The top is a rendering used as they went through the process and it turned into the actual development. It is a similar type of project, Residential Mixed-Use, with ground level commercial space. Mr. Miller requested the Board look at this as moving forward with a much better project for Town Square for all of Boynton Beach. • A slide shows the Master Plan approved and it is currently on record today. • Phase 1 includes the governmental part,the Civic part,the amphitheater,the Cultural Center,the Children's Museum, the parks, City Hall, and the library. • Phase II is the south parcel, which is south of the amphitheater running between SE 1st Avenue and South Ocean Avenue for the whole block between Seacrest Boulevard and SE 1st Street. The City had control of the parcel, which is slated on the current plan as a hotel site. The proposal they came in with is to move it to Ocean Avenue, which is the area where they can have hotel and restaurant space. The CRA recommendation plan from 2017, was hugely focused on getting the pedestrian corridor and the place where shops and restaurants are along Ocean Avenue. They feel it is a much better location and it creates a similar block on the north side of the project for the residential development. • The proposed plan has color, as requested by staff. • The government component of Phase 1 is created, then they add residential and commercial in the south component and the north parcel. The hotel and commercial, which they are starting to refer to as the City parcel, would be exchanged, it would be a land swap between moving the parcel from the corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Seacrest Boulevard to Ocean Avenue. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 14 February 6, 2023 One question staff received was what the difference in acreage is. Both parcels are platted at 1.1 acre, so it is an even acreage swap. When they are done, a thin strip will be added to the parcel, so the City would end up with a little more property in the long run. • They are proposing a total between the north and south parcels,which is a total of 933 units. They get that by the density of 62 units per acre, which is allowed by Code, and by participation in the Workforce Housing program. He pointed out that currently in the Code,they are allowed to build higher with the bonus, but the .5% of FAR that goes with it keeps them from doing it, so they get the incentive to go higher and do Workforce Housing, but they do not have the other component of having the FAR,which equates to the square footage of the project. Staff was trying to balance the provision in the Code that is allowed in one place, but they cannot get there to use it, so it defeats the purpose. • With the 933 units, they have close to 2,300 parking spaces between the two garages and on- street parking. This is now for the overall Master Plan. There is going to be about 500+ spaces, they are still refining garages, etc., but there is a little over 500 spaces for government and civic uses, and available for the City and public. • Throughout the project there is about 15,000 square feet of commercial space. Some of that gets reallocated back to the new hotel site, which is something where commercial space could be recovered as part of the project. • To address the commercial space, there is about 11,000 square feet in the two projects. There are a couple components with the commercial space on Boynton Beach Boulevard that is problematic for those to be successful; one is the speed of traffic, and the other is parking related to that space. They are still providing the neighborhood space, the little shop, ice cream place, the hair salon, and that type of community space that would be tied with that and there is a connection in the northern parcel. There is an open plaza area that would be available for some kind of joint use and sharing space; however, it is planned by tenants. • Commercial space on the southern parcel is about 5,700 square feet. There is one space at the corner of Seacrest Boulevard and SE 1st Avenue, which is space he would see many employees being able to take advantage of. The gray space is the parking garage and on the other side of the garage is another commercial space, which was a suggestion by staff, so it has immediate access from the amphitheater across the street. • Gray blocks are parking garages. He mentioned access from Boynton Beach Boulevard and noted that the prior plan had that access, which they felt was not the right thing to do, so they turned it around and access to the garage for the north parcel is coming off NE 1st Avenue on the back side of the Cultural Center. • Regarding the south parcel, traffic has been focused away from residents to the south and they come out onto SE 1st Avenue. Circulation has been considered and there will be some controls relative to the intersection at Seacrest Boulevard and NE 1st Avenue to limit some of the turning movements. • There are two different active community park settings in each building. Larger rectangles show the pool, grills, seating areas, firepits. Smaller rectangles on the west side of the garage are for a quieter, passive Zen Garden type of concept. MASTER PLAN VS SITE PLAN: Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 15 February 6, 2023 • They have to get through the Master Plan step to get into the Site Plan, which will be detailed architecture, layouts, and parking. • Step 2 is the first of the Settlement Agreement. • The Master Plan is shown as a whole. The Plan of Recognition gives the recognition of the plan that is part of the record. • A couple renderings were shown and will be much more detailed as part of the Site Plan process. • The road that leads to the left is Boynton Beach Boulevard and the road that leads to the right is Seacrest Boulevard. • Commercial is eight stories of height. • The south building and the street leading to the left is SE 2nd Avenue and the street leading to the right is SE 1st Street. • Architectural features of the south building were shown. • A photo superimposed into an arial shows City Hall when looking southeast. Mr. Miller indicated that staff is recommending approval. They are saying that the project complies with Code and they are moving forward. Their Civil Engineer and Traffic Engineer are present and available for questions. He requested reserving time if he wants to respond to public comments. Ms. Radigan announced the City Engineer and Deputy Utilities Director are present. Vice Chair Buoni opened discussion to the public. Paul VanStellant, 217 SE 3rd Street, questioned where they stand with the Bond issue and financials. He mentioned that houses on SE 2nd Avenue are not going to see the sun for most of the day. Vice Chair Buoni stated they do not have any input regarding the Bond issue and financials. Vice Chair Buoni closed the public discussion. Mr. Harper mentioned the compatibility issue between an eight-story building on the south parcel,which looks like it is 30 to 40 feet and a single-family home. He questioned if there are any step-downs and what staff is recommending as far as compatibility. Ms. Radigan advised that this is something staff and the applicant have worked around. They understand there is a big difference in intensity to the neighborhood to the south. She elaborated that SE 2nd Street represents the end of the Downtown area and it is a very defined land line on the Zoning Map and that there is a distinct difference in the zoning district and intensities. At staff's request,the applicant provided larger setbacks and steps to allow for a smaller scale at the ground floor, and architectural components that related in scale more to the single-family homes than the eight-story building. The facade facing SE 2nd Street was showed parking was an added setback, there were front lawns and stoops, and they tried to create varying lower rooflines that were a little more in scale to the single-family buildings. Mr. Harper asked if people living in those homes were sent a Public Notice about this meeting. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 16 February 6, 2023 Ms. Radigan responded that they were and for the City Commission meeting. In addition, the applicant also held a voluntary neighborhood meeting last week and two people showed up. Mr. Harper commented that relocating a hotel directly adjacent to a children's area causes concern. He recommended focusing on some type of a buffer between a hotel and an open children's play area. He noted there is a huge residential building abutting a City children's area, which is heavily utilized by children and families in the area. He did not see any renderings of the proposed hotel, but sees it is Phase IV. He asked the height of the hotel. Ms. Radigan clarified that the Master Plan takes into account all four phases; however, the applicant is only responsible for the development of Phase II and Phase III. It leaves the hotel within the City's ownership, so the City can then go out to RFP in order to place the correct hotel or venue within that location. Mr. Harper mentioned the proposed rooms. Ms. Radigan stated that this plan is a carryover from the original, but the final product will have up to 144 rooms and the plan currently shows 100. They are going back to the 144 rooms to maintain flexibility of the City land. It is also going up with the commercial uses. They are currently proposing 15,000 square feet within the whole and the proposal shows 4,000 square feet within the site. They are going back to the original requirement of 15,000 square feet and that will change before it goes to City Commission final adoption. Mr. Harper questioned how high the hotel must be to fit 144 rooms. Ms. Radigan stated that the height of the hotel would be maxed to whatever is in the zoning district, which is 75 feet. The other buildings are currently recommended at 85 to 86 feet, so this would be slightly lower. She would say that the relocation of the hotel from Boynton Beach Boulevard to Ocean Avenue changes the scale of the hotel a little, she thinks they are talking about a boutique size hotel versus something seen on a much larger scale. She thinks the scale may change, but to maintain flexibility, they are maxing out the Master Plan and it can always be brought down within the Site Plan. Mr. McQuire said that he likes how this will eventually create a Boynton Beach corridor that has a new, fresh look and that, overall, in looking at the proposal, it is maximum. He thinks that there are some things they can work with and some things that need improvements. He commented that a lot of retail needs to be in the hotel. He noted that 15,000 square feet is the bare minimum and the community has spoken clearly that restaurants and things to do, and almost 1,000 units and 15,000 square feet of retail. He would like to see that number significantly increased. Ms. Radigan clarified that the 15,000 square feet would be located on the hotel parcel on top of the applicant's 11,000 square feet. They are looking closer to 25,000 square feet throughout the whole Master Plan. The hotel site will house 15,000 square feet of commercial space, which would be in control of the City,plus the applicant is proposing 11,000 square feet within the private portions of this. Those changes will be clarified before going to the City Commission. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 17 February 6, 2023 Mr. McQuire commented that putting that in perspective of how many square feet of development is miniscule and he still thinks it is not enough; he thinks that is something they need to push for. There is very little access for pedestrians to occupy green or public spaces and he believes some cutouts or public spaces would complement the streetscape and break up and improve the architecture. Mr. Ramiccio stated that this is a huge improvement over the previous experience with JKM. He asked if Time Equities has control of the property or if it is still in settlement. Mr. Miller replied they have not closed on the property yet,there are other sequences in the process they have to get to. Contractually, they have full control. Mr. Ramiccio indicated that he has a different opinion than his fellow board member on the location of the hotel. They have a Master Plan, a CRA Plan, and Master Plan for the City, and it has been their focus and desire to see, as people enter the Downtown, a boutique hotel on the corner. It will look a little different and he wants to explore options of having the hotel on the corner versus having a residential component at that location. He asked if they have any wiggle room with regard to the hotel and the land swap. He does not see the hotel on Ocean Avenue. Mr. Miller stated he has talked to a lot of people about this, and Mr. Ramiccio is the first person to say that. They felt that it makes more sense because of the focus to Ocean Avenue and it is a half block closer to the marina and other restaurants. From their plan standpoint, not making the swap would be dumb. Ms. Radigan advised the City Commission has taken its first action towards this land swap and it is currently in the due diligence phase. Mr. Ramiccio asked what is being done on the site next to the children's museum and he noted there is also the Historic Magnuson House. He questioned what will happen to the Historic Magnuson House and if it will have to be relocated or demolished. Mr. Miller stated this Master Plan does not include the Magnuson House. He prefers to refer to it as a City site because it is up to the City as to what it is going to be. There is currently a parking lot there,just east of the children's museum. Mr. Ramiccio questioned the engagement of more commercial because as mentioned, they want to see a lot of shops, restaurants, and walkability on Ocean Avenue. He asked if they would be open to doing more unique establishments that will create the pedestrian flow they are looking for in the Downtown. Mr. Miller said he thinks they are hearing the comments. He advised that Time Equities is not going to be in control of the north parcel and develop the north and south parcel, so they do not have any access to direct frontage on Ocean Avenue. As they created the plans, there was the Code and staff initiative of having commercial space at Boynton Beach Boulevard and Seacrest Boulevard to give an active look at ground level and they feel they are doing that with the commercial space proposed. He mentioned commercial space at Seacrest Boulevard and the south parcel and thinks both have the function of the Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 18 February 6, 2023 neighborhood type of community where residents who live in the building or around the building could use it. Their intent was to provide some of the neighborhood space on the frontage of Boynton Beach Boulevard. Regarding parking, they are trying to get some on-street parking spaces, but Boynton Beach Boulevard is going through a design process to construct that road, so there are some issues, and they are working with FDOT. They have provided commercial space in the garage and with wayfinding signage to get to that space from the garage space. Rob Singer, with Time Equities, mentioned retail and stated that they do not want retail that does not succeed because of parking. In his professional opinion, based on parking available and the way traffic and all is situated, the project is positioned for success. He referenced Casa Mara and noted there are eight stores, and they are perfectly curated. He advised that having active street frontages are better than having two-story commercial spaces that no one can pay the rent and will not stay. This design has apartments on the ground floor with stoops and people walk right out, there is a main entry, amenity spaces, and shops. It is all the way around the building except for the garages and there is no mechanical or dead space. It is a highly activated ground floor on both sides. There are ten-foot side walls with landscape with buffers and on-street parking. This was done at Casa Mara, and it is highly successful. They care a lot about their projects, and they have spent an enormous amount of time and money working with the existing land seller, with the City, with the Code, working with the best professionals, with no budget to try to get to something that all parties can win here. They are a win-win developer, they do not flip their properties. He wants people to understand that they build $500 million projects, and they have the best architects and planning; they take their time and deliver. Mr. McQuire mentioned that he thought the landscape of Boynton was not carefully curated; it is a very broad demographic with lots of different interests and these two parcels will control what the community has access to with a large respect. He said he felt the density was over 900 and asked if that includes the 100-unit boutique hotel. Mr. Singer replied it did not. Mr. McQuire disagreed that they do not want to create a retail space that fails with over 900 residential units and a lot of parking. He feels some of this density could feed more retail. Mr. Singer stated they are happy to look at that. Mr. McQuire thinks they should be open to that idea because a few things mentioned were if the land swap deal does not happen, they are out. The land swap deal might not happen, the Board has some control over that; they have influence and can speak to the Commissioners and the CRA and give them their opinion. He is familiar with their work and this looks like a first-class project; there are a lot of things he likes. He questioned the breakouts of ones, twos, threes, and studios under 900+. Mr. Miller stated there are probably roughly 5% to 7% studios, ones, and threes, and then 45% are basically ones and twos. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 19 February 6, 2023 Mr. McQuire saw ample parking, which told him there are a lot of studios and ones. That is 2,000+units of which the City will get 500+. Mr. Singer indicated the City is getting its Code parking, which they bargained for however long ago, what it needs for Code in an elegant way, and that is what they are delivering. Mr. McQuire questioned if all the retail is on the first level. Mr. Singer stated the 25,000 square feet is all on the first floor. Mr. Simon mentioned the purview and asked if it is strictly for the increase in residential units and the decrease in commercial and hotel, rather than the approval of the Master Plan. If that is only what is under the purview, those conversations may not be valid or useable within the vote in the Master Plan. If the Board is able to go into some of these items under the purview of the request, then he thinks they should be discussed. Mr. McQuire questioned if this is all rental. Mr. Simon replied yes. Mr. McQuire stated that they need condo, and half would be an ideal benchmark. The City is starved for homeownership in this area and that is another transient sort of mecca that will be created and they do want some permanent residents. Mr. Ramiccio mentioned that City employees need parking. He asked if that is being covered in the garage to the south and how they are coming and going from the property. Ms. Radigan indicated that this Master Plan covers the required parking for the entire Master Plan,which includes parking for City Hall, the amphitheater, and an additional 100 spaces for public parking. The details on how parking will be situated will be done through a Parking Lease Agreement between the City and developer, which will run concurrently with the Development Agreement. Currently, within the two garages, the City will be getting approximately 470 parking spaces and about 110 surface spaces, which is all the on-street spaces. In total, the City is looking at about 580 parking spaces that they will have rights to, and she believes the Parking Agreement delineates it for about 100 years. Mr. Simon commented that they should verify that the Board is not overstepping their purview. Attorney Schwartz clarified they are looking at revisions in this case; this is for the Master Plan Modification. The request is the phasing of the Master Plan, not the configuration of the Master Plan or any comments related to the renderings that were seen. Ms. Radigan advised that the Master Plan approves the overall densities, intensities,heights, and building locations, as well as general access and pedestrian and vehicular flow. The phase relates to Site Plans, and since this is a four-phase Master Plan, there will be four corresponding Site Plans. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 20 February 6, 2023 Mr. Simon said that there is way too much density for the area and the request for an increased number of apartment units is a non-starter. He stated that there are a lot of negative components with the fact that they are apartments and he does not agree that they should be apartments. If it were something where there is a percentage of condos and apartments, potentially, owners in the building might be more vocal about their neighbors as far as trash, litter, and changing oil in the parking garage; it might be a step in the right direction. Mr. Simon noted that there are height differences regarding the Casa Mara project in West Palm, which he reviewed. He opined that it is a more successful approach and it also allows for the potential of commercial spaces being stepped down next to residential areas on neighboring streets. Staff has come before the Board with different scenarios and means to mitigate the differences between the compatibility of new projects and existing homes. If a project is a certain height requiring a stepdown approach in all the illustrations, demonstrations, and discussions, it is not that they are going to apply a gable roof over ten feet of the initial building and then go 80 feet from that, it has always been a building depth within all the illustrations reviewed and approved with the City staff. He does not think that is something the City was diligent about when they were reviewing and working with the developer on the means for compatibility. Mr. Simon pointed out that it was mentioned the developer knows how to park the commercial, but contended that if they do not have the parking, they do not succeed. He mentioned the amount of commercial space provided in Phases II and III, but pointed out, on the proposed modification, they are demonstrating there is 15,000 square feet and the majority of the square footage is within the hotel. It was acknowledged that the hotel will fall under the directive of the City and they are going to work with the hotels and come up with something they like. He advised that within the application, they are requesting to reduce the amount of commercial retail space and putting the onus of that commercial space on the City,which he thinks is bold and not something a successful developer should be doing. He stated that they are not here to maximize and minimize, but that is what the request is. They are requesting to maximize and increase the number of units and reduce the commercial and hotel units within the project. He agreed that this is a very large project and the Code allows something of this size to be built, but he has never been a fan of the scale that this calls for. Mr. Simon shared that he lives nearby and enjoys watching the moon over the tree line and he will never be able to do that again with anything like this. He hopes they consider his comments. He is not against the project, but he thinks there are a lot of avenues they could review and pursue that might make it a great and unique project. Mr. Harper mentioned a news article and noted that the thing that caught his attention for the project in West Palm was that it said"Dine, wine, design". He does not see how the commercial layout here allows for that. He thinks SE I" Avenue is more for City employees to utilize, which, in his opinion, calls for Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., grab and go lunch spots. Mr. Singer stated that the headline was a little dramatic. He noted that there are eight small 1,000 square foot shops filled with people who could succeed with a parking arrangement in a zoning context of that property, which is completely different than the zoning context of this property. The reason they bring it Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 21 February 6, 2023 up is because it shows execution down the street. They delivered something within the context of that situation next to factories, on the train tracks, etc.,that worked for the community. Within the context of this zoning, and they would be happy to add commercial, but it comes back to if it can be successful, it is not just about jamming as much as they can. They have created on-street parking on Boynton Beach Boulevard and have tried to match up the amount of commercial they have on Boynton Beach Boulevard with the spaces they are trying to provide. There is a balance of who can park there, the stores that can succeed, and the customers. Over time,people could learn to come around the back and enter the parking garage and cut through, but they can look to increase it to some extent, but they do not believe it is going to be feasible for enormous amounts of retail. It is not about passing the buck; it is about where bigger restaurants and retail would be more successful and more pedestrian oriented and they feel like that is Ocean Avenue. Mr. Simon commented when they force retail that is potentially on the ground floor of a boutique hotel, it displaces potential room space, making the building taller. He thought that something like a Fresh Market or grocery store would be a great success and service the tenants in the buildings. He advised that they already have different types of retail two blocks to the east and they do not think they need to repeat those types of businesses because there are other types of businesses that may be more beneficial Mr. Singer stated that they are balancing a lot of things and they would be happy to look at increasing the amount of retail on the project, but he is not hopeful that it is going to turn into grocery stores. Mr. Simon stated it is not the amount of commercial, it is the location. There are two small areas to the south and two to the north. Mr. Singer responded that they are working on this with staff. The idea was that Boynton Beach Boulevard and Seacrest Boulevard had to be something special and the architecture shows a beautiful and active corner. He explained that the design direction they were hearing was more focused on making sure the entire perimeter was active, so they could put people on the street with stoops and make it feel safe and active. Space is needed on the ground floor for lobbies and packages, etc. and the building has to be active on the ground floor to function. He stated that they are happy to look at making it bigger, but he did not believe it was appropriate to have a grocery store. He stated that they are trying to fit in and create an economic viable project that functions and is scaled appropriately and they are doing what they think is financeable and correct for the community. Vice Chair Buoni thanked Mr. Miller and Mr. Singer and stated that whatever decision made tonight is the first decision. Staff has taken all the comments and the City Commission will make the final decision. Motion was made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. McQuire, to approve Item 7D. In a roll call vote, the motion failed, with Mr. Harper in favor. (1-4) 7E. Approval of the Pierce Rezoning (REZN 22-001) from Central Business District (CBD) to Mixed-Use Core (MU-C)with a Master Plan for 300 multi-family residential units and 17,015 square feet of commercial square footage. Applicant: Jeffery Burns, Affiliated Development. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 22 February 6, 2023 Kemissa Colin, Vice President of Development for Affiliated Development,was present on behalf of the applicant. She explained that the site is currently underutilized and she reviewed the location of the multi- family, mixed-use development, that will also be mixed-income and have 50% of the units dedicated to Workforce Housing. She elaborated that they will have 300 units connected to a parking garage, in which a portion of the parking garage will be accessible to the public. They project will have 17,000 square feet of retail. Ms. Colin stated that the project creates a more diverse urban environment for the City. It brings an increased tax base, more walkable community, and more individuals to visit the restaurants and businesses along the corridor as well. An image of the proposed project was viewed. Ms. Radigan indicated Ms. Colin will be presenting Items 7E, 7F, 7G, 7H, and 7I together. Attorney Swartz stated that was fine as long as each item is voted on separately. Jeffrey Burns, CEO of Affiliated Development, continued the presentation. He detailed that the trash and loading will be off the street and next to the garage, so it will not be visible to the public and that they redesigned the project and connected the main residential building to the garage to be more interconnected,which they thought was much more favorable as it creates a sense of arrival when coming off Federal Highway. He advised that to avoid big block structures, the edges of each major building with height will touch the main streets and the goal was to bring the public in. He commented that when they first approached Hurricane Alley,they wanted to ensure their long-term success and the owner, Kim Kelly, was open to helping them anchor the project on the Boynton Beach Boulevard site. He noted that the parcel they have access to is not very large, so Ms. Kelly volunteered anchoring the commercial component, which gives the entire side a lot of balance. Hurricane Alley will also have a game lawn in the back area which Mr. Burns thought was really needed. Mr. Burns also stated that Ocean Avenue is the primary commercial corridor. He said that they will have three different commercial spaces, one being a two-story restaurant with a rooftop deck, commercial space that borders Dewey Park on Ocean Avenue, which is envisioned to be more of a cafe, daytime active space, with hopefully a breakfast use, and they purchased the Ocean Food Mart on the corner of Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway, which is the main corner where they will display their public art. Ms. Colin stated that the landscape buffer variance was approved by this Board in November 2022. She detailed that they have submitted a Rezoning from Central Business District to Mixed Use Core, they have a new Master Plan, a new Major Site Plan, and an abandonment of three alleyways, four community design appeals for the garage, and a height exception for the parking garage as they meet the criteria to d so. She elaborated that the abandonments they requested are for an alleyway between Ocean Avenue and the south portion of the parking lot, the other is a portion of NE 1st Avenue, and the last is the alley south of Boynton Beach Boulevard. The reason for the abandonment is to provide enhanced connectivity throughout the property and the development. Elliott Young, Senior Vice President with RINCA, Architect for the project, was present. and continued with the project description and the four appeals. He commented that the four community design appeals stem from the parking garage component that is connected, but by the City Code definition of fully integrated. He mentioned that they think the proposed design and configuration meets the design intent of the Code and also architecturally and landscape wise, enhances the design to feel integrated with the Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 23 February 6, 2023 development while meeting those criteria for approval. He explained that they tried to integrate the north garage elevation facing the future Hurricane Alley on Boynton Beach Boulevard and the other elevations with the multi-family buildings, so there are staggered openings to fully conceal the parking garage ramping. Window openings have framing that is reminiscent with the framing of the window systems on the multi-family building, with some intermediate precast panels that have a pattern, and different color tones that are reminiscent of the multi-family building as well. The right side of the elevation is a proposed projection screen where movie nights or a Sunday football game could be projected on the garage allowing activation for that outdoor space adjacent to Hurricane Alley. He advised that there will be lush landscaping, and a green wall in certain areas to ground the structure Mr. Young explained that both elevations are facing the multi-family building. One of the garage entrances on the right side would be directly off the porte-cochere drop-off area. The architectural treatment can be seen, as could the signature mural elements painted on the garage that has the building logo and identifies it as a public parking structure. The left side of the south elevation, faces the loading dock area in the back of house area, which is completely behind a secured screen and there is an access gate for deliveries or move-ins,but similar architectural treatment. He pointed out that they are proposing a perforated metal screen element that has a postcard type of treatment, It wraps around to the west elevation and faces 4 1 Street. This will be something that is seen from the train while passing through and is something that tells that they are in Boynton Beach. It would be part of the Arts in Public Places component, so here would be an RFP for an artist to create that image. Their component would be designed by a professional artist and printed on the material. Mr. Young elaborated that they are proposing a public bike share station, and a second parking entrance and exit is on 4h Street. He said that the east garage elevation is part of the landscape variance proposed with a lot more landscaping beyond what is required by Code, but they are introducing some planter boxes on the first few levels that add some color and various types of tree species spaced at almost double what the Code requires. This facade would also have a similar architectural treatment. It must be a solid facade because of fire separation reasons, but they are going to apply a metal trim that looks like the window systems on the rest of the project to make it look like punched opening very much integrated with the multi-family building. Left of the elevation identifies an entrance mural that says "Public Parking"with the development name integrated onto that corner. Mr. Young announced he four community appeals they provided with their Land Use Attorney was justification that it meets all the criteria, that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and it will not detract from the visibility or appearance with the City. The height exception for the parking structure comes down to one egress stair that needs a tall enough increase above the 75-foot max, which is about 2'11"to allow for a doorway to egress off the top level of the parking structure. It is just one stair element and the stair is completely concealed from view, integrated into the rest of the design. Mr. Ramiccio asked if that is in the center of the building. Mr. Young indicated that the multi-family building is on the right side, which is taller with height restrictions, so there is a stair within the multi-family building. The other stair they needed to add is what would be on the left side of the garage closest to Hurricane Ally. That stair technically goes above the Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 24 February 6, 2023 75-foot requirement for the garage height since it is more a part of the garage. Mr. Burns reviewed the Arts in Public Places component and wanted something that could be interactive and educational and specific to the ocean. Their idea was to have a boat and underneath, have a coral reef sculpture with information about different marine species, which is just up the street. There will be a lot of visitors in this area, and it is nice to have something to keep children busy and interactive while waiting at restaurants. Mr. Burns pointed out they want a building that is also beautiful at night and there is a light feature that runs on the top side of the key components of the buildings being on the major thoroughfares, which gives the building a sense of presence that people will feel comfortable and safe in walking around at night. He also explained the penthouse unit is an amenity and that a lot of their buildings have an outdoor rooftop amenity observation deck. To create a sense of arrival, they integrated the residential building with the parking structure. They created a circular area to keep cars moving as well as a pull off area. Dewey Park was something they wanted to integrate in the overall development. Mr. Burns stated that if someone takes the elevator down in the parking garage and wants to go to Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway for food,they would walk past retail on 4h Street,through Dewey Park, through the next retail space abutting Dewey Park, and then down Ocean Avenue. He also mentioned that by bringing retail space to the street front, they hid all the back of house things mentioned earlier such as trash pick-up, FP&L things, etc. He detailed the outdoor space between the parking garage and Hurricane Alley will be two floors with seating upstairs with a bar, and a bar and kitchen downstairs, with outdoor seating in the back and a rooftop observation deck with a bar, lockers for people who want to keep beverages of their choice, a separate room people can reserve for dinner parties. It will be an interactive space, with shuffle boards and hammocks which they call "Hammock Park." Mr. Burns advised that they are offering Workforce Housing, which generally means people who are making a good income, but right now cannot afford a $3,500 a month apartment. He explained the key is to give people a luxury experience at a fair price. He stated that all of their communities have more amenities than are seen in most hotels and they are free of charge. Mr. Burns stated that they agreed to exceed their requirement from a cost standpoint, and they understand that is an important element. He pointed out that this is over two years of meeting with residents,business owners, and stakeholders, and getting positive feedback. This process is here for a reason and they have worked hard to be sure they have met as much of the goals possible. Mr. McQuire requested to review the five things the applicant is looking for. Ms. Radigan advised that staff is recommending denial of those items since staff could not recommend approval of the variance. The way the recommendations are outlined, they are recommending denial of the application. Should the City Commission approve the variance, then staff is recommending approval of the applications. Each application is written that way. Vice Chair Buoni asked if they need to say "Subject to Commission approval of the variance" when Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 25 February 6, 2023 making the motions. Attorney Swartz replied that they did. Mr. McQuire mentioned the Rezoning for the Central Business District and asked if the height would be grandfathered in. Ms. Radigan replied that it would. Mr. McQuire questioned if there are current plans for the parking structure to have the ability to go higher or would that be considered in their plans and if so, why. Ms. Radigan indicated that this is a private application, so the applicant is requesting this. She noted that the CRA Plan recommends Mixed Use Core for this item and that is the way it was structured into the RFP. Mr. McQuire asked, if this is approved, if the developer has plans to redevelop a portion of the site in the future or if that would be something that might be sold 10 years from now as the new Master Plan is part of that and abandonments are the streets they want to build over that are currently alleyways. He stated that those are big requests, which he dd not necessarily favor. He requested clarification on the four community design appeals for the parking garage. x Ms. Radigan clarified that there is essentially one for each face of the garage. She explained that garages within this zoning district are required to be integrated, which means wrapped with habitable space and they are not proposing that in this Site Plan and an appeal is required. There are four appeals, one for each side of the garage to vary from the Code requirement. Mr. McQuire commented that the large seven-story mural they have shown only covers a portion of that and that is why they are looking for that. Ms. Radigan stated the mural or screen is part of their justification for one of the elevations. That screen is on the facade facing the rail tracks. Mr. McQuire mentioned the height exception for the parking lot and noted that is the stair. He applauded the applicant for sticking to the Workforce Housing, which is a great thing for the community and it is something they would like to see more of. He questioned if they sell the parcel if the Workforce Housing will carry. Mr. Burns replied that it would as the requirement runs with the land via a Restrictive Covenant. Ms. Radigan stated the 50% requirement of Workforce Housing was part of the RFP from the CRA. It will start out at 50% and at different increments of time, the requirement is lessened. She believes at the end of 15 years, 5% of the units remain Workforce Housing in perpetuity. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 26 February 6, 2023 Mr. McQuire questioned the actual Workforce Housing discount as per market rate. Mr. Burns stated there are a certain number of units set aside at different income levels, the first being 80% of AMI. Nick Rowe,President of Affiliated Development, advised there are different levels of affordability in the building. and he reviewed the prices based on AMI. He explained that those numbers are set by HUD every year. Mr. Ramiccio commented that he likes the changes; the porte-cochere, the drop-off area, the abandonment of the alleyway, and condensing the garage. He is okay with some of the changes because the height is minimal for the height of the building and the increase is two feet is for the stairwell. He understands the design changes because if it was a freestanding garage, it would have to be wrapped all the way around with residential. He feels much more comfortable with the way it is designed now and with the appeal, eliminating residential on the ground floor. He likes the way they are handling all the back of the house things off 4h Street behind the gate and the artwork and thinks this is the type of project he can support. Mr. Harper concurred with his colleagues. Vice Chair Buoni mentioned the screen and is glad they covered the maintenance. He reminded the applicant that they are the gateway to the Gulfstream, so that is nice thing to put on the screen. Vice Chair Buoni opened discussion to the public. Paul VanStellant, 217 SE 3rd Street, stated that they "nailed" it. Valerie Pleasanton, 235 SW 13d' Avenue, or Boynton ACE Hardware, 510 East Boynton Beach Boulevard, was present. She is not opposed to this design other than the fact that the abandonment of the north alleyway impacts her business as well as the gas station directly east of her. She requested they not abandon the alleyway directly behind her business or the gas station. She thinks they can do the project without that small piece, and it will still allow them to have trucks come in for deliveries. She asked that they consider not abandoning that small portion, so they can continue to use it. Mr. Simon requested Ms. Pleasanton show the exact location of her business. Vice Chair Buoni asked if Ms. Pleasanton was consulted or if she received a postcard or anything prior to this meeting. Ms. Pleasanton replied she did not. Mr. Burns stated that although they are asking for an abandonment of the full right-of-way, they are not building on Ms. Pleasanton's portion. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 27 February 6, 2023 Ms. Radigan pointed out that when rights-of-ways are abandoned, half of the land goes to each side of the road and they are proposing within their portion of the road to landscape those areas leaving access. Vice Chair Buoni asked if there would be enough of the alleyway to get a tractor trailer through. Mr. Burns stated that when they were looking at that they felt they could easily get a tractor trailer through and there are two points of ingress and egress throughout. When looking for an abandonment, Ms. Pleasanton will pick up half as her property. Ms. Pleasanton thinks they are talking about five feet. Mr. Burns stated that there is enough to accommodate a truck. Vice Chair Buoni suggested they work with the landscaping and scale it back, so there is enough room for a truck because it could be a box truck or a tractor trailer. Ms. Pleasanton stated her other concern is that their power poles are on the south side of the alleyway, and it is not clear what would happen with the power poles. Ms. Radigan advised that the existing power lines will be undergrounded or relocated. Ms. Pleasanton mentioned the sewer lines that come from her building and go underneath the alleyway to wherever they go. Mr. Burns stated they will not be impacting the utility service. Ms. Radigan clarified if utilities are remaining in alleyways, there will be easements held over the alleyway to maintain the utilities and access to them. Ms. Pleasanton indicated that she would appreciate it if they would do something so they could keep that space to drive through. Mike Meyer, 633 Ocean Inlet Drive, current resident of INCA, expressed similar concerns. He referenced Exhibit Dl, which is the Justification Statement or the Abandonment for the north alley, and noted that it does not contain or support sanitary, sewer, cable, or telephone. It seems to be an error in the Justification Statement because there are underground clay pipes coming out of the businesses and overhead power lines. He mentioned another concern regarding the abandonment of NE 1st Street. He thinks it will create a safety issue because they are cutting off for loading and people will be backing out onto 4th Street. He mentioned a couple of clean up items and concerns related to pedestrian access. Originally, when this came through the RFP process it looked like there was a substantial amount of public space. He is going to meet with the group this Wednesday and hopefully clarify some of those things, but it looks like there was a reduction in public amenity space from the original RFP. Mr. Harper asked Mr. Meyer to explain what INCA is. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 28 February 6, 2023 Mr. Meyer indicated that INCA is a non-profit. It started in the mid-1990's and represents a lot of the non-HOA communities in District 11 on the east side of Federal Highway. Thomas Turkin, Commissioner, stated that this is coming back to the Commission on February 21, 2023. He encouraged Affiliated to meet with the ACE Hardware owner and asked Ms. Radigan to come up with some type of win-win resolution. He thanked the Board for staying late. Mr. McQuire questioned density. Ms. Radigan stated the zoning district is much more than just the allowable height. This is taking advantage of the density within Mixed Use Core that is currently allowed, as they were submitted before the latest amendment to the zoning district. Motion was made by Mr. Ramiccio, seconded by Mr. Harper, to approve Item 7E including staff recommendations. In a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. (4-0) 7F. Approval of three (3) applications for abandonments to vacate a portion of an alleyway located within the northern section of the proposed The Pierce Development AKA North Alley (ABAN 22-001), a portion of NE I" Avenue (ABAN 22-002), and the full length of an alleyway located within the southern section of the proposed The Pierce Development AKA South Alley (ABAN 22-003). Applicant: Jeffery Burns, Affiliated Development. Vice Chair Buoni opened discussion to the public. Hearing none, public comments were closed. Motion was made by Mr. Ramiccio, seconded by Mr. McQuire, to approve Item 7F with the recommendation to the Commission that they try to work with the abutting property owner of ACE Hardware to see if a resolution or a win-win could be worked out, and including staff recommendations. In a roll call vote,the motion passed unanimously. (4-0) 7G. Approval of four (4) Community Design Appeal requests (CDPA 22-002, 23-006, 23- 007, & 23-008) for Chapter 4, Article III, Section 5.F.2.c, Freestanding Parking Garages, prohibiting freestanding parking garages from having frontage on any arterial or collector roadway, to allow for alternative design solutions for the freestanding parking garage as proposed. Application/Agent: Jeffrey Burns, Affiliated Development. Vice Chair Buoni opened discussion to the public. Hearing none, public comments were closed. Mr. McQuire commented that they need to focus on moving forward on a Downtown. He thinks their design and colors were non-traditional and he mentioned the vision. It will not be a perfect package, but it is a pretty package. Motion was made by Mr. McQuire, seconded by Mr. Ramiccio, to approve Item 7G including staff recommendations. In a voice vote,the motion passed unanimously. (4-0) Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 29 February 6, 2023 7H. Approval of Height Exception (HTEX 23-001) for Chapter 4, Article III, Section 6.F.2.c. to exceed the maximum height of 75 feet for a freestanding parking garage to allow for a height of 77 feet 11 inches for the egress staircase. Applicant/Agent: Jeffrey Burns, Affiliated Development. Vice Chair Buoni opened discussion to the public. Hearing none, public comments were closed. Motion was made by Mr. McQuire, seconded by Mr. Harper, to approve Item 7H including staff recommendations. In a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. (4-0) 7I. Approval of a New Master Plan (MPMD 22-005) and New Major Site Plan Modification (NWSP 22-004) application for a mixed-use development consisting of an eight(8)-story building with 300 dwelling units, 17,089 square feet of commercial space, associated recreational amenities, and parking on a 3.04-acre site. Applicant: Jeffrey Burns, Affiliated Development. Vice Chair Buoni opened discussion to the public. Hearing none, public comments were closed. Motion was made by Mr. Ramiccio, seconded by Mr. Harper, to approve Item 7I including staff recommendations. In a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. (4-0) 8. Other—None. 9. Comments by Members —None. 10. Adjournment Upon Motion duly made and seconded, the meeting at was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. [Minutes prepared by C. Guifarro,Prototype,Inc.]