Loading...
Minutes 02-28-23 MINUTES � a PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 100 E. OCEAN AVENUE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2023, 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: STAFF: Trevor Rosecrans, Chair Amanda Radigan, Planner and Zoning Director Butch Buoni, Vice Chair Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner Chris Simon Sean Schwartz, City Attorney William Harper Carla Blair, Prototype, Inc. Jay Sobel ABSENT: Tim Litsch Courtlandt McQuire GUESTS: Javier Cappelieti, Owner, Miraflor Palm Beach, LLC. Bradley Miller, Urban Design Studio Lauren Burney, Urban Design Studio 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 Motion made by Mr. Sobel, and seconded by Vice Chair Buoni, to approve the agenda. In a voice vote, the agenda was unanimously approved (5-0). 4. Approval of Minutes 4.A. Board minutes from the 02/06/2023 Planning & Development Board meeting are not yet available. Approval of these minutes will be during a future meeting. 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Amanda Radigan, Planning and Zoning Director, reported on several items that were heard before this Board as follows: 0 The series of the LDR Regulation Amendments. The first was to establish the immediate Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 2 February 28, 2023 Development Agreement process that was adopted and approved by the City Commission. The second was regarding the modification to the commercial frontage. This Board recommended denial and it was also denied by the City Commission, so the Amendment did not move forward. The third modification was to the payment in lieu of Work Force Housing Ordinance, which was approved by the City Commission. • The series of items tied to the Town Square Project was the Master Plan and this Board recommended denial. It was approved by the City Commission on February 21, 2023. There was also a series of other items related to the Master Plan, which were approved concurrently. • The next series of applications were related to the Pierce Project; the rezoning, abandonment, variance, community design, height exception, New Master Plan, and New Site Plan. It has had one of the two required meetings and they have been recommended for approval. They will all be heard again at the next meeting on March 9, 2023, for final approval. 6. Old Business: None. 7. New Business: 7A. Approve New Site Plan and New Master Plan for Miraflor Apartments to allow for the construction of a multi-family residential development consisting of 58 rental apartments within five(5),two/three-story structures with associated residential improvements on 3.87 acres, located on the west side of North Seacrest Boulevard across from Mentone Road in the IPUD zoning district. Applicant: Javier Cappelieti, Miraflor Palm Beach, LLC. Sean Schwartz, City Attorney, swore in the public. Bradley Miller, with Urban Design Studio, was present on behalf of the applicant, along with Lauren Burney, from his office. He thinks this is the third time he has represented this property; the last time was in 2020. Since then, the Site Plan expired. They took the old set of plans that were approved in 2020 and resubmitted them; the project is identical. Lauren Burney, with Urban Design Studio, provided a brief presentation of the project as follows: • The request for the New Site Plan and New Master Plan. She emphasized this is the reapproval of the same Site Plan. • The site is located just south of Hypoluxo Boulevard. • Current zoning is an Infill Plan Unit Development, PND. • The Future Land Use is High Density Residential. • Entitlement History: In 2007, this site was annexed into the City of Boynton Beach from Unincorporated Palm Beach County. That Site Plan included 40 townhomes,which were proposed as non-fee simple at the time and it was not determined if they were to be for sale units. The annexation also had a Rezoning Future Land Use request, which was rezoned to Medium Density Residential Type. That Site Plan expired, and nothing happened on the site until June 2020, when Mr. Miller came in front of the City with a New Site Plan Rezoning and Future Land Use Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 3 February 28, 2023 Amendment. This Rezoning was from an R-3, which is Medium Density Residential Type to the IPUD in effect today. There is also a Future Land Use Amendment from Medium Land Use Density Residential to High Density Residential. The Site Plan before the Board is identical to the one approved in June 2020, with 58 apartment units spread across five buildings on the same site configuration. The Site Plan expired in December 2021, and they are requesting approval of that Site and Master Plan. • They are proposing 58 units, with a mixture of two-bedroom, two-bathroom units, and three- bedroom, two-bathroom units. The minimum size of the units is 1,000 square feet up to about 1,100 square feet. • When coming into the right, there is a community office and dry retention. There are two green boxes in the middle of the site, which are the recreation and open space areas. There is also continuous sidewalks and pedestrian amenities throughout the site and benches. They are providing eight electrical vehicle charging stations for the 58 units proposed. There is a landscape buffer around the entire site, they are providing ten feet along the southern portion, ample along I- 95, and the required on the northern portion of the property. • They are providing more than ample required canopy trees and they are exceeding sustainability requirements. • The southern portion of the property is adjacent to the Pine Point Condominiums. There is an existing FP&L power pole along the property line on the southern portion and an existing six-foot high hedge along that portion of the property. Then there is the property line and six-foot high fence, and there will be various trees, shrubs, and grass along the property line. • A Site Plan aerial was shown. • The architecture has remained unchanged from the prior approval, nothing has been modified. There is some new color on the boards. There are two different building types and three different colors. All the buildings are a maximum height of 40 feet and the mean height is 35 feet, which is consistent with code. No waivers are being requested for height. • Smaller and larger buildings were shown. • A front aerial view was shown facing west towards I-95, which shows access onto Seacrest Boulevard. • A view showing the southeast corner facing northwest. • A view from Seacrest Boulevard was shown. • A view was shown when driving down Seacrest Boulevard. Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan and Master Plan. The only difference is that they met the sole conditions of approval that were previously required. The client agrees all of the current conditions of approval; most are in permitting. Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner, stated he did not have anything to add. Chair Rosecrans opened discussion to the public. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 4 February 28, 2023 Doug Bond, Pine Point Condominiums, was present. He stated that his biggest concern is noise, traffic, and how it will devaluate their property. Chair Rosecrans questioned if there are peak hour counts. Ms. Burney indicated that a Traffic Study was completed and a TPS letter is forthcoming, as part of the condition of approval. They are accommodating 425 daily trips, and this is well under what is allowed in this area. Palm Beach County has agreed with their Traffic Study. Chair Rosecrans mentioned noise, the buffer, and landscaping. Mr. Simon stated there is a chain link fence on the southern buffer. One of his comments was if there is any potential for substituting with a six-foot wall to help mitigate with noise and litter. Ms. Burney advised they have already moved the buildings inward closer to the northern portion of the site and what they are providing is required, and there is a six-foot high hedge on the Pine Point Condominium community, so that hedge in addition to the fence, tree planting, hedge planting, and the grass, they feel will provide more than enough buffer. Mr. Simon mentioned open areas on the south side of the property where there are active spaces and asked if there will be birthday parties and speakers with music. Mr. Sobel commented on the drawing and asked if that is an elevator. Ms. Burney replied it is a staircase. Chair Rosecrans closed public discussion since there were no more comments. Mr. Sobel asked if there are elevators in the three-story building. Ms. Burney stated that three-story buildings are not required to have elevators. Mr. Sobel expressed concern with cars driving in at night on the southern entry, which is where parking is, and questioned if there is any buffer for the lights. He wants to make sure residents to the south will not be disturbed by the lights. Ms. Burney understood. She advised that cars coming in by the six-foot hedge protects any light from coming in, along with the hedges and shrubs. Vice Chair Buoni mentioned the single point entry and exit and questioned what alternative emergency vehicles and residents have if there is an emergency or accident. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 5 February 28, 2023 Ms. Burney indicated they coordinated with the Fire Department. Due to the configuration, there is not another option for entry and exit to the site. They can meet with the property owner to come up with a security plan if needed. Vice Chair Buoni suggested they coordinate with owners to the north. His second concern is if there is any way to put butterfly bushes in. Ms. Burney stated they have a 5% requirement, and she is sure a little more was provided. Mr. Simon commented on the southern access point next to the sidewalk and asked if there are enough spaces in the trees for fire trucks to get through. Ms. Burney stated they can work through that with permitting. Mr. Simon mentioned that it seems kind of odd that there is a requirement for handicap parking spaces, but not elevators. He asked if handicap apartments are on the first floor. Ms. Radigan advised that elevators are regulated within the Building Department. She believes elevators are required above 45 feet, but for three stories and up to four or five stories, they are allowed to be walk ups. Handicap parking is required for all commercial and multi-family, so because this is commercial, they have handicap parking required. She believes minimum Housing would require that handicap accessible units are on the first floor. Mr. Simon thinks they have potential for a little more landscape infill on the northern side because there is an unsightly circumstance to the northwestern portion of the project. If there is a little more material they can infill with,whether it is trees or shrubs,because what is seen on the landscape plan are individual trees across the north side of the buildings, and it looked a little misleading. Mr. Miller stated the north property line is tricky to deal with. Some of the concerns about plant material on the north side are in relation to the roots. Mr. Simon noted that a root barrier system could be installed. Mr. Miller thinks with the canopy trees,they will probably have to do that. Mr. Sobel stated this is a commercial venture and they want to sell the units, but to make them sellable, they have to do something. He thinks they can trust in the commercial interest of the property owner that they want to make this a success and he is going to provide whatever is necessary. Mr. Miller agreed with Mr. Sobel. Pine Point Condominium residents to the north are very quiet. He clarified these are intended to be rental apartments, but Mr. Sobel's point is taken for the success of the project. Mr. Simon mentioned the cemetery to the north and asked if there are gates that lock at a certain time. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 6 February 28, 2023 Mr. Miller believes they have a gate or a bar, so from a vehicular standpoint, there is an attempt to keep people out. He noted there is no fencing to screen along Seacrest Boulevard, but there is a fence on the north side. Chair Rosecrans commented on Code Section C on the Civil Plan and stated there is a 4:1 slope that looks like it comes up and starts a foot away from the building. He questioned if there is anymore storage space inside the dry retention area that might be stretched a couple feet, so it is not step out the back door and tumble down the grassy slope. Mr. Miller stated that is a good point and he could not answer. That is something they will have to have Civil look at. Chair Rosecrans suggested having Civil Engineers look at it because if there is enough storage, they can afford to stretch it out a little. Mr. Miller commented that drainage is tight. Motion made by Mr. Sobel, seconded by Mr. Harper, to accept Item 7A as stipulated in the documents. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (5-0) 8. Other—None. 9. Comments by Members —None. 10. Adjournment Upon Motion duly made and seconded, the meeting at was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. [Minutes prepared by C. Guifarro,Prototype,Inc.]