Loading...
Agenda 05-25-21C I TY O F B O Y N TO N B E A C H P L AN N I N G AN D D E VE L OP ME N T B OARD ME E T I N G AG E N D A D AT E: Tuesday, M ay 25, 2021 T I M E : 6:30 P M P L AC E :City Hall Commission Chambers, 100 E . Ocean Avenue 1.Pledge of Allegiance 2.Roll Call 3.Agenda Approval 4.Approval of Minutes 4.A.Approve board minutes from 2/23/21, Planning & Development Board meeting. 5.Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff 6.Old Business 6.A.Approve selection of Board Chair and Vice Chairpersons for City Commission ratification. 7.New Business 7.A.LA ND S C A P E D E B RI S STOC K P I L I NG (C D RV 21-002) - Amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 3, Article I V, Zoning, Section 3.D. Table 3-28, Footnote #103 regarding Landscape Debris Stockpiling use, to include a tailored revoc ation review period, and add a minimum distance separation standard, and modify certain existing operational requirements and standards to avoid hazards, nuisances, and other impacts on residential land uses. City initiated. 8.Other 9.Comments by members 10.Adjournment T he Board may only conduct public business after a quorum has been established. If no quorum is established within twenty minutes of the noticed start time of the meeting, the City Clerk or her designee will so note the failure to establish a quorum and the meeting shall be concluded. B oard members may not participate further even when purportedly acting in an informal capacity. Notice Any pe rson who de cides to appeal any decision of the planning and de v e lopme nt board with respect to any matter conside re d at this me eting will ne ed a re cord of the procee dings and for such purpose may ne e d to ensure that a v erbatim re cord of the procee ding is made, which record includes the testimony, and ev idence upon which the appe al is to be base d. (f. S. 286.0105) The city shall furnish appropriate aux iliary aids and se rv ice s where nece ssary to afford an indiv idual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a se rv ice , program, or activ ity conducted by the city. Ple ase contact the City Page 1 of 24 Clerk's office, (561) 742-6060, at le ast forty -eight (48) hours prior to the program or activity in order for the city to re asonably accommodate y our re quest. Page 2 of 24 4.4.A. Approval of Minutes 5/25/2021 CIT Y OF BOY NTON BEACH AG ENDA I TEM REQUEST F ORM P LAN N IN G AN D D E V E L O P ME N T ME E TIN G D AT E: 5/25/2021 R E Q U E S TE D AC T IO N B Y P L AN N IN G AN D D E V E LO P ME N T B O AR D: Approve board minutes from 2/23/21, Planning & Development Board meeting. E X P LAN ATIO N O F R E Q U E S T: H O W W IL L T H IS AFF E C T C IT Y P R O G R AMS O R S E RV IC E S? FIS C AL IMPAC T: ALT E R N ATIV E S: S TR ATE G IC P LAN: S TR ATE G IC P LAN AP P LIC AT IO N: C L IMAT E AC T IO N AP P LIC AT IO N: Is this a grant? Grant Amount: AT TAC H ME N TS: Type Description Minutes 02/23/21 Minutes Page 3 of 24 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZOOM ONLINE MEETING 100 E. OCEAN AVENUE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2021, 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: STAFF: Trevor Rosecrans, Vice Chair Ed Breese, Planning & Zoning Administrator Tim Litsch Mike Rumpf, Director of Development Susan Oyer James Cherof, City Attorney Thomas Ramiccio Amanda Radigan, Planner II Chris Simon Kathryn Matos, Assistant City Manager Jay Sobel, Alternate Adam Temple, Community Standards Director Lyman Phillips, Alternate Crysta Parkinson, Prototype, Inc. ABSENT: Darren Allen Butch Buoni The meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. Amanda Radigan gave the opening statements regarding online Zoom meetings. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call Roll was called and it was determined a quorum was present. 3. Agenda Approval Motion made by Ms. Oyer, seconded by Mr. Litsch, to approve the agenda. In a voice vote, the agenda was unanimously approved (7-0). 4. Approval of Minutes – October 27, 2020 Motion made by Mr. Litsch, seconded by Mr. Sobel, to approve the October 27, 2020, minutes. In a voice vote, the minutes were unanimously approved (7-0). 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Mr. Breese stated the City Commission did approve the applications for Wells Landing North and South; the Abandonment of a Portion of SW 6th Street and the Density Provisions in the Transit Oriented Development District were both approved. Page 4 of 24 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 2 February 23, 2021 Mr. Simon clarified that the density for Workforce Housing that the Advisory Board voted against was what the City Commission approved. Mr. Simon noted what appears to be a trend since he has been a Board Member that this Advisory Board goes through the motions when often its votes are seldom considered in the Commission’s decisions. A discussion followed with some Board Members of long standing (Mr. Rosecrans and Ms. Oyer) giving their experiences that align with this observation, both as Board Members and private citizens attending Commission meetings. In seven years of attending Commission meetings, Ms. Oyer claimed to have only once heard the Commission ask for the opinions of advisory boards; this frustration may be what drives so many Board members to quit their advisory boards. Best way to cope with it is to attend the Commission meetings and let the public know you sit on an Advisory Board and what has been recommended. Of note, when attending a Commission meeting, one must go as a private citizen, commenting only that they sit on this or that board, but not speaking for said board. Mr. Cherof confirmed that representatives of the board are not allowed to speak, the action of the board is reflected in the minutes and the outcome of votes. The Commission does receive the minutes of this Board, the audio, and appearances as a private citizen. This is not an advocacy group, but an advisory body. 6. Old Business – None 7. New Business Vice Chair Rosecrans read the following into the record: 7.A. REQUEST: Approve Ocean Palm Plaza (aka Yachtman’s Plaza) Future Land Use Map Amendment from Special High Density Residential (SHDR) to Local Retail Commercial (LRC). City-Initiated. REQUEST: Approval Ocean Palm Plaza (aka Yachtman’s Plaza) Rezoning from IPUD, Infill Planned Unit Development to C-3, Community Commercial. City- Initiated. Mr. Breese gave the PowerPoint presentation (see attached) and stated the City is initiating a land use amendment for the property formerly known as Yachtman’s Plaza. The site location map was shown and the surrounding property explained. Highlights included: • Proposed classification reverts the properties to their 2006 commercial future land use category to address the nonconforming status of the existing uses. • In 2006, the Land Use and Rezoning approved a 61 townhome development for the properties, but the housing market collapsed shortly thereafter and the project was never constructed. • The proposed rezoning reverts the properties to their prior to 2006 zoning, IPUD back to C-3. Staff is recommending approval of the reversion of the Future Land Use and Zoning back to pre- 2006 designations of Local Retail Commercial and C-3 Community Commercial zoning, since the Page 5 of 24 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 3 February 23, 2021 townhouse plan approval is long expired and to, once again, make the shopping center property conforming for the uses currently there. City Attorney, James Cherof, swore in all consultants and those wishing to speak in this quasi- judicial proceeding. They will be sworn in by trust and, when speaking, are to identify themselves as having taken the oath. Any who have special qualifications to testify should make note when identifying themselves to speak and a reminder was given to attorneys regarding giving evidence. Vice Chair Rosecrans opened the floor to public comment. • Jason Evans, Attorney representing Yachtman’s Plaza, had several questions: o Was the existing site plan set to expire or is this something the Board wants to remove even though it could still be an option for the owners to develop. Mr. Breese said the site plan for the 61 townhomes expired a number of years ago; Staff was doing some housekeeping measures to clean up a few of these zoning matters before the Board tonight. o Why is it done in this manner instead of such items being administratively dissolved. Mr. Breese said such provisions to automatically do that are not currently part of the Code, but the City is looking to such provisions. o Is space designated on the Future Land Use map as MU-1 correct? Mr. Breese said this area is currently Special High Density Residential, not MU- 1. The CRA plan envisions that property to be as Mr. Evans stated, but it is not currently. o As property exists, does the Board have enough information to know if it is compliant with the conforming use? Mr. Breese said the shopping center is an allowable use in C-3 zoning and would therefore be conforming. As to certain uses within the center meeting current C-3 zoning, for the most part they do (unsure without looking at each one). o Voiced concerns on behalf of client of property suddenly being out of compliance with no warning and possible material consequences. Mr. Breese said going from one zoning district to another has no bearing on the conformity of any of these issues (landscape, potholes) and is not relevant to this discussion. It is a matter of a shopping center being allowed in that zoning district, and yes, it is. If the property is in violation of some things in one zoning classification, it would equally be out of compliance in the other. o Further questions as to future compliance prompted a request of tabling/ continuance to the next hearing. Mr. Cherof stated, first of all, this Board does not have authority to table this matter. Applicant has authority to submit requests directly to the City, as the Commission has power to table matters when under consideration. Second, the kind of information requested can be had with a dialogue with City Development Staff. Mr. Cherof requested due diligence post meeting, gather information from City, and prepare to address the City Commission; which, if not satisfactory, a request to table can be made. Page 6 of 24 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 4 February 23, 2021 • Harry Woodward, 684 NE 15th Place, Director of Inca in Yachtman’s Cove, stated the plaza has been a major problem for all of the communities over there for 30 years. When it was C-3 and all the clubs came in, police folders were piled up “an inch of police reports every 90 days.” Housing projects came and went and the new plaza has come in. Going back to C-3, will the same problems as before come back with all the nightclubs and loitering. Is there anything that can be done to move the area in the right direction? Can the City do something “out of the box” and make it a better asset for the communities? • Mark Meyer, 633 Ocean Inlet, cited the City’s Comprehensive Plan and asked how this issue meets Goal 1 of the Future Land Use Element, specifically Policy 1.3.2 for compatibility of adjacent land uses and buffering and screening of land uses. Also shared are the concerns of Mr. Woodward, that certain uses are incompatible and too intense for that plaza (various uses were given) with low- density residential adjacent to the property. Is C-2 a possibility for conformity and less intensive use? o Mr. Breese replied by noting that once the site plan expires, it automatically reverts. The shopping center has been legal non-conforming use and continues today as same uses as C-3. A bar would require the approval of the Commission for conditional use; adult entertainment could not locate in that shopping center. The matter today is merely to revert to what it was previously, not looking to move the future land use in any directions that would be incompatible. A shooting range would be allowed, but it has to meet all the codes for a shooting range (citing a range that was across from City Hall that was rather innocuous). While not advocating any such uses, these uses are allowed in C-3, which is a zoning district intended for community commercial, not neighborhood commercial, designed for major thoroughfares like Federal Highway. Nothing happening here today is any different from the legally non-conforming shopping center that currently exists. Mr. Meyer closed stating he did not believe that is consistent with some of the language of the Land Development Regulations. • Jonathan Keith, 641 Shore Drive, Coquina Cove, which directly abuts the shopping center, had concerns that the shopping center continues to operate in the true intent of either IPUD or C-3 zoning requirements. It is in very poor condition, permits are issued for tenant buildouts where air conditioners are being added to the roofs, utilities are hung on walls that face adjoining neighborhoods, and it does not appear that the Building Department or Zoning or Planning is requiring the owner of this plaza to screen equipment to make it more pleasing to the neighbors. A new laundrymat being built on the corner has more air conditioning being added without screening the roofs, all equipment is exposed to every surrounding neighborhood. Further concerns are code enforcement, old grandfather codes from 1984, eye pollution worsening, and diminishing values of surrounding neighborhoods. o Mr. Breese appreciated these comments. The Development Director and head of Community Standards has had several meetings on this property and continue to provide direction to both staffs to make sure such things are Page 7 of 24 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 5 February 23, 2021 considered when new permits come in and violations are noted on the property so they may be addressed to the best of the City’s ability. Vice Chair Rosecrans closed the floor to public comment. Board Comments: Mr. Sobel ascertained that the shopping center in question was built in the late ‘70s or early ‘80s. Mr. Sobel empathizes with the homeowners as this shopping center is not attractive. It does not enhance the image Boynton Beach would like to convey. He objects for the simple reason that if it reverts to C-3, then it’s done forever. The initial plan in 2006 to put something nice there is not something to walk away from so easily. Mr. Breese agrees that this will not be a shopping center forever. A lot of commercial along Federal Highway has been redeveloped as mixed use or strictly residential developments. Low tenant numbers at some point in time are no longer economically viable and some developer or the existing property owners will be take the advantage of mixed- use to develop either a stand-alone residential development or mixed-use with shops and townhomes. (Examples were given.) This action does not preclude any of this from happening; changing the land use and zoning would be the same process as tonight and is not overly complex or time consuming. Some discussion continued on the best use, and ultimately Mr. Sobel stood by his opposition. Ms. Oyer made several comments in her opposition: • Agreed with Mr. Sobel, on the face this looks great but remembers the strip clubs over many years growing up in Boynton Beach. • The surrounding homes are high-value properties and the tax dollars pay the bills. • The garbage at the shopping center is not picked up on a timely basis, it does look kind of dumpy, and the plaza owner should be taking better care of the stack of complaints. A police substation has been moved into the plaza to handle all the calls. • Homeowners are frustrated. Beautiful homes next to this plaza. • Why are we going through this exercise to change this when hopefully some developer will come in, mixed-use or housing. • Concerns over shooting ranges, strip clubs, bars, so near to neighborhoods with children. Maybe the Code should be changed to not allow such businesses. • Has concerns over the CRA vision and the majority of the City Commission turning over next year; what is wanted now may not be wanted a year from now. Mr. Litsch took a different view, first ascertaining that the acreage of Site 1 and Site 2 together is roughly three acres and at Single High Density, that is 20 units to the acre. There could be 60 townhomes. Mr. Breese confirmed that the expired approved plan proposed 61 three-story townhomes. If a shopping center looks bad, what will 60 townhomes on those two corners look like? If it is changed to Low Retail Commercial, it then becomes a conforming use, instead of the current non-conforming use. Conforming use gives the Building Department more control and that is the way this should go. Zoning changes go back and forth almost every meeting. If we Page 8 of 24 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 6 February 23, 2021 change the designation, the possibility of 60 townhomes with pools and parking on that small corner is eliminated. Vice Chair Rosecrans noted some late public comments coming in; public comments have closed, but Ms. Radigan could read them into the record. Mr. Cherof noted this is unusual but gave approval as a possible rule change going forward; side chats are usually not to be made part of the record. Ms. Radigan read Travis Goodson’s comment: While this request is for a “reversion” to a prior land use and district, it is evident that there are numerous ongoing and outstanding issues being raised that deserve proper attention by the appropriate City departments. Meetings and words are great starters and we are led to believe that they are actively occurring, but they are not actions. Thank you. Ms. Radigan read an additional comment from Mark Meyer: The maximum height of structures in C-3 is 45 feet tall. Ms. Radigan read an additional comment from Jonathan Keith: The three-story townhouse community was supported by the neighbors in 2006. Mr. Ramiccio tends to support Staff’s recommendations unless there are compelling reasons. Community Standards and Code issues are not what is being addressed, but it makes sense they need to be addressed at some time. Going back to C-3 zoning at this time gives a blank canvas to whoever may come in. The market is changing very rapidly as post-Covid people are going to shop differently; everyone is rethinking design (examples given). Mr. Simon also leaning towards Mr. Litsch and Mr. Ramiccio’s positions; any time there is an existing non-conforming condition, the position of people that own those non-conforming conditions is that if we don’t touch it, we’re not forced to correct the situation (examples given). Other items being discussed should be addressed by departments within the City and/or the Commission, not this Board. References were made to the previously approved project at this site; did the existing roadways remain where they are? It doesn’t matter how the property is reclassified/rezoned now, if a developer wants to do a certain project, they will (examples given). Mr. Simon agrees with the 60+ units bringing a lot of noise, garbage, and traffic; may be best to reduce the level of density that could ultimately be allowed on those sites. Mr. Phillips had no questions not already answered. Mr. Sobel continued on the points raised on C-3, that uses would be allowed by right rather than non-conforming, and would add some restrictions. Mr. Sobel feels a sense of responsibility to the homeowners and to hear what they say, and continue to vote no. Vice Chair Rosecrans asked about the ability for the City to police the area, if it is reduced in its current condition or would it be improved. Mr. Breese’s opinion is that would not matter one way or the other. Community Standards is gong to look at the property no matter what the zoning is Page 9 of 24 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 7 February 23, 2021 and try to bring it to the best standards the property can be. There are obvious limitations, the wall height, for example. What would make a difference, no matter what the zoning was, is a major site plan modification to do something to that center; at that point in time, a lot of these non- conforming items would need to be addressed. Vice Chair Rosecrans then asked how the request by Staff furthers the CRA plan? Mr. Breese clarified that it does not truly further the CRA plan, which is a guidance for the Staff when looking at land use options. In this particular case, we can not zone it to Mixed-Use Low 1, which does absolutely nothing for the owner, the neighbors, the City. Reverting it back to C-3 puts it in a conforming status. When a developer is ready to develop the property from a commercial strip center that it is, they will be utilizing the Mixed-Use Low zoning as noted in the CRA plan to develop that site. Vice Chair Rosecrans called for a motion (Mr. Cherof stated there really is no need to re-read the language into the motion). Vice Chair stated this is a vote of an advisory board, the matter still has to go before the City Commission. Motion made by Mr. Ramiccio, seconded by Ms. Oyer, to accept Staff recommendations. In a roll call vote, the motion passed (6-1) with Mr. Sobel dissenting. Vice Chair Rosecrans read the following into the record: 7.B. REQUEST: Approve Lawrence Road Future Land Use Map Amendment from Medium Density Residential (MEDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR). City- Initiated. REQUEST: Approve Lawrence Road Rezoning from PUD, Planned Unit Development to R-1A, Single-Family Residential. City-Initiated. Mr. Breese spoke on the aerial site location map, explaining neighboring properties, and noting this is another housekeeping measure. Highlights included: • In 2006, these properties were annexed into the City and approved with land use and zoning change, along with site plan approval for 90 townhomes. • Housing market collapsed shortly after approval; project was never constructed. • Staff is looking to revert land use and zoning back, consistent with Jonathan’s Grove development immediately to the south. • This would put it in the most compatible district with the surrounding properties. • When it was in the County, it had AR Agricultural Residential zoning which allowed up to five dwelling units per acre. • The new zoning category with the City would allow up to six dwelling units per acre. Staff recommends approval of the Land Use Amendment and Rezoning to R1-A, Single-Family Residential, consistent with the other development in the vicinity and to address concerns raised by property owners on 71st Avenue South and also potential purchasers of individual parcels that Page 10 of 24 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 8 February 23, 2021 any improvements or potential sales are being complicated by the unifying PUD zoning of all these parcels. Mr. Breese explained that it is very difficult for somebody who wants to do something more with their property, put on an addition, maybe subdivide their very large parcels (two parcels with two single-family homes). Some sales have been compromised by the current zoning. In this case, zoning would not be reverted as to do so would be back to a County zoning district; rather putting it to the most comparable zoning with the neighborhood. Vice Chair Rosecrans opened the floor to public comment; there being none, comments from the Board Members followed: Ms. Oyer is all for this item. Mr. Litsch agreed this is a good idea, conforming to use to the south. One question, are the dwelling units on the east end grandfathered in as far as the zoning goes? Mr. Breese said these properties were annexed in as they are today, there have not be any changes or new units building. However, what is there is definitely grandfathered. There were no comments from any other Board Members. Vice Chair Rosecrans called for a motion, treating both requests as one vote. Motion made by Ms. Oyer, seconded by Mr. Ramiccio, to approve all of 7.B. from the Agenda. In a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (7-0). Vice Chair Rosecrans read the following into the record: 7.C. REQUEST: Approve Knuth Road Future Land Use Map Amendment from Local Retail Commercial (LRC) to Mixed Use Low (MXL). City- Initiated. REQUEST: Approve Knuth Road Rezoning from PCD, Planned Commercial Development to SMU, Suburban Mixed Use. City-Initiated. Mr. Breese spoke on the Site Location Map (see attached), that the City is initiating land use and rezoning to help facilitate the ultimate development of the 12.5-acre parcel. Highlights include: • The aerial depicts the site at West Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road. • Gas station and convenience store on the corner. • Retail and office to the north and northeast. • Single-family development known as Stone Haven to the southwest. • Quail Ridge Country Club is to the west and south. • In 1990 this property was annexed into the City and approved with a Land Use and zoning change along with a master plan for a 120,000 square feet commercial shopping center. Page 11 of 24 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 9 February 23, 2021 • In 1996 the plan was modified to replace a proposed restaurant on the corner with the current gas station and convenience store. • Except for the construction on the corner, this property has sat idle. The site speaks for itself. Staff recommends approval of the Land Use Amendment Rezoning to Suburban Mixed-Use to help facilitate the development of the property. It is unlikely to be developed as a 120,000 square foot retail strip center in the current as well as future economic environment. Based upon the number of inquiries on the property, all parties are looking for residential development of the site. Some have indicated some minor amount of commercial. Staff is looking for the SMU to provide for a nominal amount of commercial facing Boynton Beach Boulevard corridor; probably nothing more than 8,000 square feet. Staff sees the wave of the future of PCD parcels moving to Suburban Mixed-Use zoning. Staff is currently underway with a Congress Avenue Corridor study, which is looking at Suburban Mixed- Use zoning at several location. Site will ultimately become Mixed-Use with residential pervasive throughout the site. Vice Chair Rosecrans opened the floor to public comment. • Joy Anderson, representing her parents Bill and Elsie Winchester who own the property, stated concern that a lot of time, energy, and money getting the zoning for that property. Would the things proposed or put in place for the 120,000 square feet shopping center be considered if a different type of development came in? Also, Ms. Anderson has spoken with Hanna Matras who informed her that even if somebody came in and wanted a 120,000 square foot shopping center, this zoning would allow for that. Is that accurate? Mr. Breese affirmed it is accurate, provided parking and drainage regulations can be met. Ms. Anderson wondered how the gas station affects the zoning if it changes. Mr. Breese said the reason the City has undertaken this request rather than making a private request is because a master plan would not be required at the time of approval of this Land-Use and Rezoning and would not have to deal with the gas station; future developer would also not have to deal with it once their own master plan is made. One item to any development on this site is the cross-access between two properties which would eliminate driving out onto public roads to get gas. Ms. Anderson says her family is in favor of the change. Vice Chair Rosecrans closed the floor to public comment. Board comments: Ms. Oyer is all for this item. Bigger question is if single family homes are being considered, she is especially in favor, as well as office spaces which would be a great benefit to the City. On a personal note, Ms. Oyer would miss the cows, but this is great way to move forward as well as increase the tax base. Page 12 of 24 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 10 February 23, 2021 Mr. Phillips had no questions. Mr. Simon agreed with Ms. Oyer about the last cows in Boynton Beach. Asked for clarification on both a shopping center and residential on the same site under SMU. Mr. Breese said the original approval was for the L-shaped shopping center, but not both a shopping center and residential; however there is an opportunity to do a mix of commercial and residential. Developers showing interest see it as residential but with some ancillary commercial or office space in the development. Mr. Simon expressed some interest in having parks rather than just greenspace in a residential development. Mr. Breese said he envisioned a recreation fee to pay and either provide money or some sort of park on the property. Any development, even outside Parks & Recreation fee is going to require green space; a site this size would be looking for something more than small strips of green. Perhaps a lake feature may be used as drainage on the site and have a pathway around it (examples given). Mr. Ramiccio is in favor of the item, but will also miss the cows. Mr. Litsch wondered what the height restriction is on SMU. Mr. Breese said it is a maximum of 55 feet at the perimeters of the project and through conditional use could be up to 75 feet central in the project (but not at exterior). These numbers could be lowered for compatibility with surrounding residential properties (which are single-family and a golf course). Mr. Litsch thinks this is a good idea. Mr. Sobel had no questions. Vice Chair Rosecrans asked if there is a minimum green space requirement by the City. Mr. Breese said the SMU does have minimum requirements and residential also has some minimum widths, unlike a lot of infill projects in town. SMU has more stringent requirements. Not so much the cows, but Mr. Rosecrans is also sad to see the green space go. Vice Chair Rosecrans called for a motion, treating both requests as one vote. Motion made by Ms. Oyer, seconded by Mr. Sobel, to approve 7.C. Knuth Road. In a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (7-0). Vice Chair Rosecrans read the following into the record: 7.D. Approve revisions to the Workforce Housing Program (CDRV 21-001) – Amending the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapter 1. General Administration, Article II. Definitions, and Article V. House Initiatives, Section 2. Workforce Housing Program. Applicant: City-Initiated. Ms. Radigan gave the PowerPoint presentation (see attached). Highlights are as follows: • First revision proposed is renaming to Attainable Housing Program. o Typically refers to any person’s affordable/allotted money for housing. Page 13 of 24 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 11 February 23, 2021 o Standard is 30% and is not attached to how much is earned or specific income. • Second change is from Palm Beach County AMI to the Boynton Beach Median Household income. o Median household income for Palm Beach County is $79,000. o Median household income for Boynton Beach is $53,000. o Previous programs were using higher income and calling them affordable or Workforce within the City. • Median Household Incomes (very low, low, moderate, middle) were discussed. • Within Boynton Beach, 30% of household incomes fall within very low and low. • New Pay-in-Lieu Proposal explained. • Construction and Management program, or Building Program, explained. Vice Chair Rosecrans opened the floor to public comment; there being none, comments from the Board Members followed: Ms. Oyer had many issues in going over the presentation “with a comb” (highlights only): • 15-30-year covenants, society is going to change quickly, such restrictions inappropriate. • Doesn’t like switching to Boynton Beach median income, thinks it downgrades the City; “We’re fast turning into the armpit of the county.” • Adding more affordable and workforce will continue to downgrade the City, keep luxury from coming in, and people with money are not going to move to Boynton if it’s all affordable and workforce housing around them. • Page 7 of presentation: noted several typos. • Where is the money coming from for Community Improvement Division? • A massive economic crisis is coming and instead of contracting government, City is expanding government to oversee all this. • “City has right of first refusal for any of the properties that go to sale.” That’s going to make the City an even bigger landowner, and that’s not the job of the City. • Maximum 10% down payment, shouldn’t people be encouraged to make larger down payments in order to have lower monthly payments. • Affordable housing all over east side of City, plenty are already there and there are empty apartments. • Upper middle class should be moving into the City. • Informational quotes given from Bureau of Labor statistics on several items on “welfare” demographics. Mr. Sobel asked how many units of affordable/workforce housing are there in Boynton Beach. Ms. Radigan had the answer and thought that the data being given is being misconstrued. The need for affordable or attainable housing comes from the gap between what people who live here are making and what they are spending on housing. Workforce housing has never once been used and built through this program. The CRA has put forward some federal and state program projects, but not through the City’s programs. Page 14 of 24 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 12 February 23, 2021 Ms. Radigan gave further information from a presentation given to the Commission in recent months (see attached) which talks about Sale Prices and Rentals vs. Income in Boynton Beach in 2020. Also cited was information available that proves a mix of incomes is what is best for businesses, which is the whole Live/Work/Play in a City theme that all cities are trying to aspire to. Affordable housing is how that live, play, work idea will be attained. In response to Mr. Sobel’s question if neighboring communities such as Boca Raton and Delray Beach have been examined on this topic, Ms. Radigan said this topic is talked about at every level right now and a comprehensive review has been done of neighbors’ programs, including County’s mandatory affordable housing program. Some things are standard, such as restrictive covenants on property; there is almost no such thing as affordable/workforce housing without those restrictive covenants. There is a wide array of things happening; the City was not the innovator of the half- unit density provisions of a few months ago. But Staff does spend time reviewing all of our neighbors for best practices. A discussion followed on where the people who provide services in upscale neighborhoods and cities are supposed to live. Mr. Ramiccio stated that some good points have been made about low to moderate income households and that there has to be a balance. Giving his background as a Chamber of Commerce executive, a study of skilled workforce problems in Palm Beach County was being able to attract a skilled workforce. Sixty percent of said workforce was traveling from Port St. Lucie to Palm Beach County to work on major construction. This also applies to firefighters, police. These programs are not for low income, but is better described as “attainable” as affordability is different for everybody. This doesn’t need to be in every single project, but there has to be balance. Many things are going to change with demographics, minimum wage and changes in marketplace, but these are not what attainable housing is geared toward. Several examples were given. Mr. Litsch noted that a year or two ago there was something similar where a change was suggested in the level of income in the County because no one was using workforce moneys. Ms. Radigan said she did not remember changing anything, that since the beginning of this program Staff had been using the Palm Beach County statistics, as Federal and State programs use those numbers. However, over the years the City and County have become farther apart. The language of the Ordinance was further explained. In an aside to Mr. Ramiccio, Ms. Radigan noted that this program remains voluntary, and in no way is mandatory. Mr. Litsch closed with comments on what attainability has come to mean in recent years, where our kids cannot attain what was possible even ten years ago. Attainability is a nebulous concept. Mr. Phillips had no comments. Mr. Simon referred to the previous item on the agenda for Knuth Road, would that be a property that would have an opportunity to provide workforce or affordable housing? Ms. Radigan said that since it is a voluntary program, yes; the developer could choose to go through the workforce housing program. The program is city-wide, changes that were done in the last revision. The bonus density does go for the whole City, but the height bonus is specific to only Mixed-Use Medium and Mixed-Use High. Mr. Simon had some scenarios for the new proposals such as the Pay-in-Lieu-Of program which Ms. Radigan explained various programs already within the Page 15 of 24 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 13 February 23, 2021 Community Improvement Division. Mr. Simon noted that he has been and still is strongly against such a Pay-in-Lieu-Of program. He is also in agreement with Ms. Oyer that we want to upgrade the City and the appearances and not having anything that undermines the ultimate goal. Ms. Radigan noted discomfort over the Pay-in-Lieu -Of program, stating the thought behind that is not that the developer pays a little bit of money and gets more density, the reasoning is that workforce/affordable housing has actual management in those units that many developers are not prepared to do (income certification, restrictive covenants, etc.). This is why there are either workforce or market rate developers. This is one way to incentivize market rate developers to help the City provide what is missing within that market gap. Vice Chair Rosecrans called for a motion: Motion made by Mr. Litsch, seconded by Mr. Sobel, to approve Wells Landing South (NWSP 20- 005) New Site Plan for a multi-family residential development consisting of two (2), four-story buildings with a total of 100 affordable housing dwelling units, associated parking and related site improvements on a 2.69-acre site, subject to the scrivener errors noted by Ms. Oyer. In a roll call vote, the motion failed (2-5). 7.E. Recommend selection of Board Chair and Vice Chair to City Commission in compliance with Code of Ordinances, Part II, Section 27-2(b) Board or committee member selection. Mr. Breese stated that the Commission adopted a new ordinance last year where they actually do the appointing of the Chair and Vice Chair, but they look to the Board or Committee to make a recommendation. What is needed is a recommendation on who to appoint for chair and vice chair. Once that is complete, Mr. Breese would talk about the four people who are up for reappointment in March. Mr. Rosecrans stated he is comfortable as Vice Chair and will be on the Board for another year, realizing this is sometimes a “steppingstone” to the Commission and does not want to get in anybody’s way. Ms. Oyer stated this is a great over-reach by the Commission, other commissions have never done this, other cities do not do this. She thinks this is wrong, putting all boards in this position. Ms. Oyer will not be renewing, taking a break, but will return to PND. Mr. Cherof noted the Code was amended to provide the following language: “The Chair and Vice Chair would be selected by the City Commission.” There are no nominations, only recommendations that will be relayed to the Commission. Open discussion ensued with various offers of service and/or recommendations, along with experience on the Board, coming from all members. Several motions were put forth and dropped after discussion. Ms. Oyer learned she was not off the Board until 2022. Mr. Simon was urged to submit the application to the Commission for reappointment to the Board. Ultimately, the motion came as follows: Page 16 of 24 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 14 February 23, 2021 Motion made by Mr. Sobel, seconded by Mr. Simon, to recommend the Commission appoint Trevor Rosecrans as Chair and Susan Oyer as Vice Chair. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously (7-0). 8. Other – None 9. Comments by Members Mr. Litsch asked that Mr. Breese forward to the Board Members the table with their dates of service. Ms. Oyer reminded everyone to not forget the Kinetic Arts the first weekend of March. 10. Adjournment Motion to adjourn was duly made and seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Attachments: PowerPoint Presentation for Ocean Palm Plaza (aka Yachtman’s Plaza) Site Location Map Lawrence Road Rezoning Site Location Map Knuth Road Rezoning PowerPoint Presentation on Workforce Housing Revisions Slides on Boynton Beach Housing Statistics [Minutes prepared by M. Moore, Prototype, Inc.] Page 17 of 24 6.6.A. Old Business 5/25/2021 CIT Y OF BOY NTON BEACH AG ENDA I TEM REQUEST F ORM P LAN N IN G AN D D E V E L O P ME N T ME E TIN G D AT E: 5/25/2021 R E Q U E S TE D AC T IO N B Y P L AN N IN G AN D D E V E LO P ME N T B O AR D: Approve selection of Board Chair and Vice Chairpersons for City Commission ratification. E X P LAN ATIO N O F R E Q U E S T: At the February 22, 2021 Planning & Development Board meeting, the Board selected Trevor Rosecrans as Chair and Susan Oyer as Vice Chair for City Commission consideration. Since that time, Ms. Oyer has resigned from the Board. At this point, the Board needs to select a Board member to replace Ms. Oyer as Vice Chairperson. Once Board action is taken, the Chair and Vice Chair selections will be forwarded to the City Commission. H O W W IL L T H IS AFF E C T C IT Y P R O G R AMS O R S E RV IC E S? N/A FIS C AL IMPAC T: N/A ALT E R N ATIV E S: None recommended S TR ATE G IC P LAN: S TR ATE G IC P LAN AP P LIC AT IO N: N/A C L IMAT E AC T IO N AP P LIC AT IO N: N/A Is this a grant? Grant Amount: Page 18 of 24 7.7.A. New Business 5/25/2021 CIT Y OF BOY NTON BEACH AG ENDA I TEM REQUEST F ORM P LAN N IN G AN D D E V E L O P ME N T ME E TIN G D AT E: 5/25/2021 R E Q U E S TE D AC T IO N B Y P L AN N IN G AN D D E V E LO P ME N T B O AR D: L A ND S C A P E D E B RI S S TOC K P I LI NG (C D RV 21-002) - Amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 3, Article I V, Zoning, Section 3.D. Table 3-28, Footnote #103 regarding Landscape Debris Stockpiling use, to include a tailored revocation review period, and add a minimum distance separation standard, and modify certain existing operational requirements and standards to avoid hazards, nuisances, and other impacts on residential land uses. City initiated. E X P LAN ATIO N O F R E Q U E S T: The City’s Zoning Regulations were amended in August of 2015 to incorporate a new use at that time along with corresponding provisions and operational standards. The subject amendment was justified by environmental benefits including the energy-conserving reuse of landscaping debris and reduction in material potentially destined for a landfill. The subject use was approved under an 18-month pilot program to allow staff to evaluate impacts and land use compatibility. The pilot program was then extended to August 22, 2018, and before the program “sunsetted”, on August 7th, 2018, the Zoning Regulations were amended removing the temporary pilot provisions for the use. The use was approved as a conditional use, and the amendment included corresponding requirements and operational standards that related to property size, perimeter access, setbacks, pile height, screening requirements, hours of operation, and dust control and fire prevention. Complaints from adjoining neighbors, and repeat violations have warranted a review of the original standards and consideration of options to address the issues associated with this type of business. Complaints and violations have primarily pertained to pile height, access path clearance, odor, and rodents/pests. Since January 1st, one to three different code violations have been documented each month. Staff considered recommending the removal of the use from the Zoning Regulations; however, in continued acknowledgement of the environmental benefits to promote vegetation recycling, staff alternatively recommends amendments to the minimum standards. The purpose of the amendments is to prevent impacts on residential environment and other abutting properties through a tailored and stringent revocation process, increased minimum debris pile setbacks, and by allowing additional buffer enhancements to be determined at time of conditional use review. H O W W IL L T H IS AFF E C T C IT Y P R O G R AMS O R S E RV IC E S? N/A FIS C AL IMPAC T: N/A ALT E R N ATIV E S: None recommended. S TR ATE G IC P LAN: Page 19 of 24 S TR ATE G IC P LAN AP P LIC AT IO N: N/A C L IMAT E AC T IO N AP P LIC AT IO N: The subject use within the Zoning Regulations facilitates energy conserving methods of handling/disposing of landscape debris within the City. Is this a grant? Grant Amount: AT TAC H ME N TS: Type Description Staff Report Attachment A - Staff Report Exhibit Exhibit B - Proposed Amendments Page 20 of 24 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Development Administration Memorandum PZ 21-005 _____________________________________________________________________________ TO: Chair and Members Planning & Development Board FROM: Michael Rumpf Deputy Director of Development Services DATE: May 20, 2021 SUBJECT: Landscape Debris Stockpiling (CDRV 21-002) Amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 3, Article IV, Zoning, Section 3.D. Table 3-28, Foot note #103 regarding Landscape Debris Stockpiling use, to add a minimum distance separation standard and amend certain existing operational requirements and standards to avoid hazards, nuisances, and other impacts on residential land uses. City initiated. _____________________________________________________________________________ The City’s Zoning Regulations were amended in August of 2015 to incorporate a new use at that time along with corresponding provisions and operational standards. The consideration for this amendment was prompted by a local landscape contractor and justified by environmental benefits including, in part, the energy-conserving reuse of landscaping debris and reduction in material potentially destined for a landfill. The below excerpt from the 2015 staff report provides the background information considered at that time: “The City Commission has directed staff to prepare amendments to the Land Development Regulations intended to establish a new use within the City's Zoning Regulations titled Landscaping Debris Stockpiling, with corresponding procedures and regulations that allow for the stockpiling of vegetative matter collected by commercial businesses. The Land Development Regulations currently do not allow for the stockpiling (e.g. temporary storage) of such waste and the City Commission has embraced the pre-existing activity of a local and established landscape business as a sustainable and environmentally-wise practice. The City has learned that this business has been using its vegetative waste collected as part of its landscape services to contribute to a cooperative engaged in processing Biomass and Biochar which is used, in part, as a natural soil enhancer. Currently the City has no provisions for the storage of any waste matter within the City, and instead, all waste collected is typically delivered to a transfer station outside the City and operated by the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority. The subject regulations would allow the temporary storage of vegetative matter as a conditional use within the City's M-1 Zoning District, conditioned upon meeting specified site and operational requirements. Sources of the proposed standards include, in part, the County or State Health Unit, example regulations from another jurisdiction, and the City's Fire Marshall.” Most uses, and particularly industrial and heavy commercial businesses, are required by Zoning Regulations to be conducted within an enclosed building to minimize impacts on surrounding properties. Given that the subject use would be conducted outdoors, and in close proximity to residential land uses, the use was introduced under an 18-month pilot program to allow staff to evaluate impacts and land use compatibility. The pilot program was then extended to August 22, 2018, and before the program “sunsetted”, on August 7th, 2018, the Zoning Regulations were amended removing the temporary pilot provisions for the use. Page 21 of 24 The use was approved as a conditional use, along with corresponding operational standards that included various requirements related to property size, perimeter access, setbacks, pile height, screening requirements, hours of operation, and dust control and fire prevention. Complaints from adjoining neighbors, and repeat violations have warranted a review of the original standards and consideration of options to address the issues associated with this type of business. Complaints and violations have primarily pertained to pile height, access path clearance, odor, and rodents/pests. Since January 1st, one to three different code violations have been documented each month. Staff considered recommending the removal of the use from the Zoning Regulations; however, in continued acknowledgement of the environmental benefits to promote vegetation recycling, staff alternatively recommends amendments to the minimum standards. The intent of the amendments is to prevent impacts on residential environments, establish a tailored and stringent revocation process, increase minimum debris pile setbacks, and allow additional buffer enhancements to be determined at time of conditional use review. The proposed amendments would not apply to the single, pre-existing business. However, City staff will continue to monitor the use, and enforce the city’s standards to ensure the safe and sanitary operation of the business, through processes of the City’s Community Standards Division. The proposed amendments are further described in the attachment, in underlined and crossed-out text. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\SPECPROJ\CODE REVIEW\Landscape debris stockpiling\2021 - amendment Page 22 of 24 EXHIBIT A: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Land Development Regulations Ch. 3, Art. IV, Sect 3.D Table 3-28/Footnote #103 103. Landscape Debris Stockpiling. The commercial stockpiling of landscaping debris is allowed as a conditional use in the M-1 zoning district on properties that are located a minimum of 200 feet from a Residential or Mixed Use Zoning District as defined within Chapter 1, Article II of the Land Development Regulations, and subject to the following additional requirements: a. Prior to commencing the operation of a landscaping debris storage site, a property owner must first obtain a Business Tax Receipt and Certificate of Use from the city. b. A site plan notated to show operational components of the storage facility (i.e. access, storage area, setback, etc) and represent compliance with the requirements herein, shall be submitted as part of the conditional use review. c. No stockpiling of landscaping debris shall be permitted on properties of less than 0.5 acres. d. Provide a minimum 25-foot wide stabilized all weather access road around the perimeter of the stockpile. e. All stored landscaping debris shall be setback at least 25 feet from all property lines, or a greater distance as determined necessary during the review for conditional use approval. f. Any related site preparation or actual storage of debris shall not cause an increase in off-site storm water drainage as confirmed by the City Engineer or his or her designees during the review for conditional use approval, or as necessary from time-to-time following commencement of the storage activity. g. No chipping of stockpiled debris is perm itted on the site. h. The perimeter of a storage site shall be screened with a wall or fence that obstructs the view of the storage area from adjacent properties. The amount of landscaping required in combination with the wall or fence shall be determined during the review for conditional use approval. The screening material used shall be constructed and/or maintained at a minimum of 6 feet. i. The hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and Saturday, from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., or as established during the conditional use approval process. j. Access to operations shall be only from a public right-of-way. In no case, shall a delivery or removal of the stored landscaping debris utilize a private road or alley serving residential uses for access. k. The delivery, removal and storage shall utilize dust control measures. l. Debris piles shall not be placed on surfaces intended or designed for open space, or for parking or vehicle circulation. m. Because of the possible attraction of vermin to stored and decomposing material, operator shall have an extermination plan overseen by a commercial exterminator. Measures used to prevent such presence of vermin shall be documented and such documentation shall be made available to city staff upon request. n Storage areas shall include fire protection monitoring, alert and suppression systems as approved by the City Fire Marshal. The following are minimum requirements thatmust be demonstrated to obtain Fire Marshal approval: 1) No pile shall be higher than 10 feet, with height being determined/maintained with the placement of four (4), 10 foot tall, 4 x 4 posts evenly spaced around the pile for use as reference points. During any declared drought the height shall be limited to six feet. Page 23 of 24 2) All piles shall be covered with a “breathable blanket” or site provided with a sprinkler system approved by the City Fire Marshal. 3) All piles shall be secured behind a fence or other approved barrier that will be locked at all times when not in use. 4 4) A working garden hose shall be at the ready at all times to put out small spot fires. 5) Each pile shall be turned/churned on a daily basis, a minimum of once per day. A log shall be maintained and made available to the Fire Marshall or his/her designee upon request that records dates and frequency of pile maintenance actions required by this standard. o. . Review for revocation of Business Tax Certificate. Repeat violations in accordance with this section shall result in a review by the City Commission for revocation of business approval. If 3 or more violations of any of the requirements of this footnote occur during 2 consecutive months, staff shall notify the business operator and property owner that a 30-day probationary period has commenced, including an explanation of the probationary period. If any violations of these requirements occur during the probationary period, then staff will forward a report to the City Commission summarizing the violations. The City Commission shall have the options of ending the probationary time-period, extending the 30-day probationary period, or directing staff to revoke the business approval simultaneously establishing the time allowed for the operator to decease business operations on the subject property. If the probationary period is ended, then staff will continue monitoring and reporting repeat violations to the Commission in accordance with this section. If the Probationary period is extended, staff will monitor the operation for continued violations during the extended period and report the violations to the City Commission at the next available Commission meeting. The property owner shall be directly notified each time that staff forwards the item to the Commission. Page 24 of 24