Loading...
Minutes 01-25-22 ii MINUTES " PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 100 E. OCEAN AVENUE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022, 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: STAFF: Trevor Rosecrans, Chair Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Administrator Butch Buoni, Vice Chair Amanda Radigan, Principal Planner Tim Litsch Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner Darren Allen City Attorney James Cherof Thomas Ramiccio Leslie Harmon, Prototype-Inc. Jay Sobel, Alternate Chris Simon (arrived at 6:38 p.m.) ABSENT: Kevin Fischer GUEST—None. The meeting was called to order at 6:31 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 Vice Chair Buoni, seconded by Mr. Litsch, to move Item 7C before Item 7A. In a voice vote,the agenda was unanimously approved (7-0). 4. Approval of Minutes 4.A. Approve board minutes from the 11/23/2021 Planning & Development Board meeting. Motion made by Mr. Allen, seconded by Vice Chair Buoni, to approve the November 23, 2021 meeting minutes. In a voice vote, the minutes were unanimously approved. (7-0). 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Mr. Rumpf, Planning and Development Administrator advised that he heard from Mr. Fischer via telephone, who stated he would be absent. He reported two previous items were passed by the Commission: Development of Land and the Ruskin Avenue Annexation. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 2 January 25, 2022 6. Old Business -None. 7. New Business Note: Items 7A and 7B were combined and heard after Item 7C. Item 7B was discussed first. 7A. Approve request for 1320 S. Federal Highway Height Exception (HTEX 22-001) to allow tower elements and architectural features to be constructed at 54'-10"in height,9'-10"above the maximum allowable height of 45 feet in the MU-1 (Mixed Use-1) Zoning District. Applicant: TY Eriks MJ Jackson Holdings, LLC. Bradley Miller, with Urban Design Studio, was present on behalf of the applicant. He requested support for the elevator shaft and stairwell to access the rooftop. Motion was made by Mr. Sobel, and seconded by Mr. Litsch, to approve Item 7A, request for a height extension. In a roll call vote,the motion failed. (2-5) Ayes: Litsch, Allen Nays: Buoni, Simon, Ramiccio, Sobel, Rosecrans 7B. Approve request for New Major Site Plan (NWSP 22-002) and Master Plan Modification (MPMD 22-004) for 1320 S. Federal Highway to allow the construction of a 10,898-square- foot structure and associated site improvements, on a 0.51-acre parcel, located at the southeast corner of S. Federal Highway and Riviera Drive, in the MU-1 (Mixed Use-1) Zoning District. Applicant: Ty Eriks, MJ Jackson Holdings, LLC. Bradley Miller, with Urban Design Studio, was present on behalf of the applicant. He provided a brief history of the site and noted that the previous owner of the property did not renew the Site Plan. The new owner purchased the property in February unknowing that the Site Plan had expired. They are requesting Site Plan approval for the approval granted in 2018 for the same 10,898-square-foot,three-story building, and the height exception. In December, they submitted the same application package that was done in 2018 for approval, then staff reviewed it for Codes that might have changed since that time and might alter the plan. There are 32 parking spaces on the site and 13 parallel spaces, which were approved along Riviera Drive. The applicant is a dentist and who is taking the third floor and maybe some of the second floor, depending on how his growth plan goes, but he can lease out the second floor and ground floor. In reviewing the plan, the building needed to be shifted to the east by 2.5 feet due to a Code change. In doing that, they had to shift some parking, so one Handicap parking space was moved to the south side. It was noted the prior plan had some compact spaces and a motorcycle space, which are standard spaces, plus two Handicap spaces. In doing the shift, one parking space was lost,but they are still one space over the required 43;they have a total of 44 parking spaces. They also needed to enlarge some of the landscape islands;the ones in the middle of the parking lot were eight feet and now they are ten feet, so that played into the configuration as well. A four-foot sidewalk was approved, which would be constructed along Riviera Drive and staff requested it be changed to five feet. Those changes were made and that is the Site Plan before the Board. Additional updates were described, and a brief overview of the Site Plan was Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 3 January 25, 2022 given. There was a meeting with neighbors and another meeting will be arranged with residents along Riviera Drive and Snug Harbor. He highlighted key points from the meeting as follows: • Location of the driveway. • Requirement to put a sidewalk on both sides of Riviera Drive. The pavement is offset, and South Harbor residents are concerned the sidewalk may come close to the entry wall or hedge. This will be done through review by staff, but it is not something they are opposed to. • Parking along Riviera Drive and on-street parking. There is a list of criteria that must be met for on-street parking, one of which is design approval by the City Engineer. • On-street parking is often used as a traffic calming factor. • A use list was submitted prior to the packets going out, and uses they felt were not suitable were removed. They will continue working with neighbors before going to the Commission. The applicant is requesting the Board re-support approval of the major Site Plan for the 10,878-square- foot, three-story building, uses that are not part of the Site Plan application, but are on the plan, and the height exception to allow the elevator shaft and stairwells to allow roof access. Chair Rosecrans opened discussion to the public. Susan Hoyer, 140 SW 27th Way, is in favor of the plan; however, she had an issue with the height exception. She mentioned environmental concerns, as well as landscape, electric car chargers,not enough canopy trees, and the pavement. She requested the Board vote yes on Item B and no on Item A. Harriet Snyder, 630 Riviera Drive, indicated that residents are concerned about the proposed ingress/egress from Riviera Drive since it is primarily a residential street; they would like other options to be considered. There is already a problem with the volume of traffic and speeding. She expressed concern regarding parallel parking spaces, especially on the southbound side, traffic stacking on Riviera Drive, the length of the turn lane on Federal Highway, and the amount of traffic once the condominium is built. There are also concerns about the liquor store potential, the restaurant with evening hours, and a drug and alcohol treatment counseling facility. They would like to see daytime hours only as well as "No Parking" signage so there is no overnight parking. In addition to lights and cameras on the building, they need to be in the parking lot. She mentioned potential flooding issues, transient people, trash, and construction concerns regarding trucks, debris, hours, and where parking will be during that time. She submitted a list to be incorporated into the public record,which was provided to the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Linda Warton, lives on Riviera Drive, and is the President of Colonial Center Condominium Association. She spoke on behalf of the Condominium residents and noted there is a concern the new building will block their sign on the street. They need assistance moving the sign or making it visible. They are also concerned about overflow parking, the roof deck, parties and noise, the use of retail space, if there will be a bus station, and encouraged outdoor activities. Kathleen Henderson, 654 Riviera Drive, expressed concern regarding traffic obstruction and bike riding. She does not think there is a need for street parking. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 4 January 25, 2022 Tom Ward, 650 Riviera Drive, asked City Attorney Cherof if this item could be postponed until they can secure legal counsel and expert testimony to review the plans in more detail. He noticed a few things that do not look to scale and expressed concern regarding traffic. He understands this is a residential roadway and asked how to find the difference between a residential roadway and a local roadway. City Attorney Cherof stated that he will provide an answer at the appropriate time, if the Board wants to take up that kind of issue. Mr. Simon acknowledged what happens at this meeting does not dictate what happens with the Commission. Chair Rosecrans advised this Board is advisory and members are volunteers with different levels of expertise. Whether they vote yes or no,the journey of this agenda item continues. Mr. Ward questioned if any of the Board members would be available to tour the site and several Board members replied they are familiar with the area. Candy Killian, 642 Riviera Drive, thanked the Board members for their service. She stated the objection with this project is three-fold; there will be parallel parking on Riviera Drive, access to the project will add a fourth point of ingress and egress to Riviera Drive, the access point is too close to the part of Riviera Drive that goes to the single-family homes; Riviera Drive is a dead-end street that services three communities, which is approximately 500 residents, and vehicles are already using Riviera Drive to get to their homes or offices. They request parallel parking be eliminated from Riviera Drive,reduce the size of the building by the square footage necessary to eliminate the 13 parallel parking spaces, and that the site be self-contained with access to the commercial building be off Federal Highway and not a residential street. She provided a picture of a building located at 709 South Federal Highway that has an entrance through the building with parking in the back; that site would be a compromise that might work. Bill Fritts, 652 Castillo Lane, seconded everything that has been said. This is a residential neighborhood, and he is not trying to stand in the way of progress, but there are considerations. They are not opposed to Commercial, they need it and like it, but it needs to be consistent with the preponderance of the community, which is residential. Jason Lazelle, 647 Riviera Drive, mentioned the fourth floor and noted that people will be looking down and watching people in their pools. He thinks the height ratio needs to be lowered without adding an upstairs area. If the elevator is an issue, maybe the stairs could be used. Captain Jeffrey Hofberger, 643 Riviera Drive, commented that the roundabout, drainage, and speeding need to be fixed and there needs to be an additional speed bump. He is not in favor of the height variance. Keith Thompson, 644 Riviera Drive, agreed with everything said. He expressed concern regarding traffic, street parking, ingress and egress, and height. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 5 January 25, 2022 Ted Koson, 624 Snug Harbor Drive, agreed with everyone. He noted people are using Snug Harbor parking and he believes a four-story building will be an eyesore. Ernest Mignoli, 710 NE 7t' Street, commented that every time these developments are constructed it destroys the neighborhoods east of Federal Highway. Mr. Miller addressed parking concerns and stated this is not a residential road designation. The rooftop bar is not part of the proposal; access to the roof was at most offered to employees. There was a suggestion to eliminate elevator use and encourage use of the stairwell;the height exception is necessary for both, and the access location is appropriate. They are working on a Conditional Use of businesses. They will look at the residential community, but the community is behind a Commercial Zoning area, and the Mixed-Use is following the CRA Code. Harriet Snyder, resident, urged the Planning and Development Board postpone this decision so staff can work to address the issues brought forth and incorporate resolution of the issues into a revised Site Plan with a smaller building and parking spaces staying within their site. Mr. Miller indicated one of the common discussion points was about parallel parking. The application process is to comply with the Code, which staff has reviewed, and they consider the plan to be in compliance. This is not a Conditional Use situation; parallel parking spaces are allowed and count towards parking for a development. Regarding residential roads, he did not know if there is a residential road classification; he used local road in the letter provided because it matches with the diagram in the City's Code to match the cross section for the roadway and it complies. The rooftop bar is not part of the proposal, access is to get to the rooftop, and originally the application was considering yoga classes. At the most, employees would be allowed to go on the rooftop during restricted hours. There is a comment about eliminating the elevator and using the stairwell; however, a height exception is needed for either one. The stacking and access location is the same location as it was from IHOP and it is there for a reason. From a Planning standpoint, it is a practice to try to separate the driveway from the main intersection; it is a traffic and Planning design they look at when planning. There were a few things about the use of a liquor store, restaurant, and counseling, but as mentioned, a list was provided and they have not had an opportunity to get with them. They would be happy to work on that list and come up with a condition that is agreeable to both sides. Regarding blocking the Colonial Center sign, they will look at that and if something needs to be done, they will work with them. There is a residential community behind the Commercial properties on Federal Highway. It had C-3 Zoning before, which allowed the not wanted uses, and Mixed-Use is following the Code as to what the CRA Redevelopment Plan proposed in 2017, which the Commission has followed. They believed everything submitted is a good plan, it meets the Code, and complies with all the rules and regulations of the Code. City Attorney Cherof asked if the Board wants his opinion regarding the authority to table. The Board does not have the authority to table and the Code is clear that only the City Commission can table a proposed Development Order. The process described that this Board is advisory and reports to the Commission, which would be another Quasi-Judicial Hearing, where they have the opportunity to table at that point. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 6 January 25, 2022 Mr. Ramiccio mentioned parking and questioned if it is customary for the City to allow the calculation for parking on on-street parking. He asked if staff would encourage on-street parking. Mr. Rumpf indicated it is a new section of Code to promote use of on-street parking. He noted there is on-street parking where preexisting parking exists up against a new development. He would encourage on-street parking; it is a local street. This project is planned for this type of use, and this is not the only location on Federal Highway where there is a Commercial Use in between the highway and a single- family neighborhood. The height is respectful of that, and they are sensitive to setbacks and separations. Mr. Ramiccio asked if it is possible to remove the parapet wall to make it come into compliance with the height restriction; he wants the City to comply with height and parking. He realized they were looking at the CRA Plan from 2017, but it might be time to revisit that Plan. Mr. Rumpf stated they might be able to get a cross section of the elevation. Mr. Miller advised it is both the elevator shaft and the stairwell. The roof deck is below 45 feet, which is how the height is measured. It is a flat roof except for the elevator shaft and stairwells. The portions they are asking for a height exception are for the elevator shaft to be able to go up there and have access as well as the stairwells. Chair Rosecrans questioned the purpose of the stairwell going to the roof and if a roof hatch would suffice. Mr. Miller stated the elevator going to the roof is for access and he thought some was for the architectural feature and symmetry. Mr. Sobel questioned if they considered not having an elevator to the fourth floor and if the elevator was needed if the roof was not being used for any type of interaction. He asked if the elevator and doors would be ADA compliant and if this plan or a different plan with changes would be presented. He also questioned the impact and what would happen to the project if parking could not be counted. Mr. Miller stated they have not gotten to that level of design on the doors. They might revisit elevator access to the fourth floor if it is not approved; there are options for continuation and access. Regarding the elevator, the shaft needs to go a little above to be able to get to the third level stop, so the shaft is designed to be able to provide roof access. The architect would have to develop a design for the elevator and shaft to keep it from going to the fourth floor and they would have to look at how access to the fourth floor would be achieved. He did not have an answer as to which plan would be developed. As far as parking, square footage would be reduced to 2,600 square feet. He spoke to the applicant to see if they would be aggregable to a condition to restrict hours to employees. Mr. Sobel questioned if this plan would be presented to the City Commission or if they would also provide a long list. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 7 January 25, 2022 Mr. Miller stated they have not talked about that. This plan is part of the application so it will move forward. He did not know if they had an alternative plan for the height exception component. Mr. Litsch questioned if there would be electric charging stations and if they could be charged simultaneously or if it would be sequential. He noted there is an abandoned FP&L utility and asked what that was earmarked for and if it is being allocated. Mr. Miller advised both spaces are charged, and they are anticipating doing two more in addition to the two on the plan. The FP&L utility is an above-ground powerline, which basically goes nowhere. Mr. Simon discussed the City Code regarding on-street parking, height restriction, parapet, architectural features, and rooftop equipment. This project can be great without the fourth floor. He thinks the configuration of the building can be redesigned; it can be a staggered building offset. He is against the position of the building. The building is blocking signage to the neighbor on the north and he does not think it is fair. He noted that traffic calming causes more damage to vehicles. He asked about landscape open space requirements and mentioned rental space under an overhang. He requested the applicant reconsider the design. Amanda Radigan, Principal Planner, advised this is where there is existing Zoning on the ground as well as a Redevelopment Plan that is shifting the design. It still requires the site to be re-approved in a new location, but they are putting some flexibility into the Codes recognizing there will be some shifting as this area is implemented. Mr. Simon questioned if they would have to apply for a new sign since the situation is blocking an existing sign, which adds unforeseen costs to the property owner. He mentioned FDOT will not allow the curb cut on the west side based on the proximity to Riviera Drive itself. He questioned the distance and asked if they can push that towards the north end of the property and if it would give enough distance. Ms. Radigan acknowledged shifting as the CRA Plan is implemented. The existing building would need to apply for a new sign location. Brian Kelly, Traffic Engineer for Simmons & White, explained the FDOT requirement is 245 feet. By spacing 245 feet from Riviera Drive, he thinks the whole frontage is 100 feet maximum. Mr. Simon questioned if setting the curb cut at the southwest portion of the property line is an option. Mr. Kelly stated it would be a poor engineering and planning practice,typically driveways are as far away from major arterial roadways as possible. The location shown to the far east is the best design,particularly for any kind of stacking and maneuverability; from a design and safety perspective, this is the best approach. In his experience, speed bumps cause damage to the vehicles that use it the most; roundabouts might be a better traffic calming solution because it is flush. He mentioned the length of the required landscape open space percentage on the site, and noted it is not shown on the plan. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 8 January 25, 2022 Ms. Radigan commented that the City Engineering Department has similar regulations as FDOT as to how close the driveway could be. The Landscape Architect did not have the exact calculations; his recollection was that there was no minimum pervious and impervious; it comes down to a design standpoint. Mr. Rumpf stated it is a factor of drainage requirements. The islands and green space are a factor of numbered spaces and sizes of the trees required. The City has some green standards, but the Code only requires landscape islands, buffers, and tree count based on the number of spaces. Ms. Radigan indicated only the District requires small buffers and there is not an across-the-board standard for all Districts. Mr. Sobel stated for the record that he would vote against the height variance. He hopes when this is presented to the City Commission that they at least consider an option without the fourth-floor elevator and stairwell. Vice Chair Buoni commended residents for their input and asked them to raise their hand if they attended the 2018 Board meeting. He noted that the Board does listen to what is said. Chair Rosecrans mentioned the Art Museum and thought as part of past approval, art is going to be provided by the owner. He questioned if there is currently a source for the art. Mr. Miller stated he has a several colored Site Plans. He did not think the applicant has an art collection, but it is something they will work on to find a connection. Chair Rosecrans commented that the stairwell and elevator seem to be the need. If they got rid of the stairwell and put in a roof hatch, the parapet would be within Code and the equipment for the elevator could be reduced. Mr. Miller indicated the height exception would be a consistent line across the top parapet line without the components going above it. He noted that 45 feet goes to the roof deck and then there is an extra five feet for the parapet. Chair Rosecrans mentioned the need for the stairwell and the elevator maintenance room and asked if they would stop the height exception and move forward with the Site Plan. He asked if improvements were done to Riviera Drive in the previous Site Plan and if there were any conditions. Mr. Miller stated the section that runs along the frontage of the property would be modified to help with drainage; it is exfiltration, and it all falls to the catch basis on Riviera Drive. The drainage issue is going to the right place; there is currently no system on the property, so everything runs to that spot. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 9 January 25, 2022 Motion was made by Mr. Sobel, and seconded by Mr. Litsch, to approve Item 713, the Site Plan for construction at 1320 South Federal Highway. In a roll call vote,the motion passed with Mr. Simon, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Ramiccio in opposition. (4-3). Ayes: Rosecrans, Buoni, Litsch, Sobel Nays: Simon, Allen, Ramiccio Chair Rosecrans asked that the Board entertain a condition of approval that the stairwell and elevator equipment be removed, and the height be reduced. City Attorney Cherof indicated a condition of approval was not necessary. Note: There was a recess between Items 7A and 7B at 8:46 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:53 p.m. Note: Item 7C was heard prior to Items 7A and 7B. 7C. Approve WXEL request for Future Land Use Map Amendment (LUAR-22-001) from Recreation (R) to Office Commercial (OC), and Rezoning from Recreation (REC) to Office Professional (C-1), property located at 3401 South Congress Avenue. Applicant: Gene H. Talley, South Florida PBS, Inc. Bradley Miller, with Urban Design Studio, representing WXEL, spoke on behalf of the applicant. The current Land Use and Zoning is Recreation instead of the Office Building and the application is to change the Land Use and Zoning to an Office designation. At some part of this application,the proposed Site Plan Amendment is staff approval, but they need the Land Use and Zoning change to clean up the Land Use Map and Zoning Map to reflect the current present uses; the Map currently shows Recreational. The change to the Land Use will be from Recreational to Office Commercial, which would bring the use that has been there for 30 years to be consistent with the Land Use as mentioned. The same follows with the Zoning Map, which they are requesting be changed from Recreation to Office Professional for the same reason. He cannot show a Site Plan because they still have to go through that process, but they are adding about a 7,000-square-foot addition to the front of the building, which will add additional space that could be used by the community for different events. A 3-1) dome is shown, which they are putting inside to be used for school field trips. Chair Rosecrans opened the item for public comments. Mr. Sobel mentioned the property currently has a restriction on the deed, which says it is used to be used for Recreation and TV stations. He questioned if the future issue of the Cultural Arts Center is consistent with the restriction on the deed. Mr. Rumpf stated it is all still part of the bypassing station. Mr. Sobel commented that while on the Zoning Board up north,they avoided spot zoning;they would not spot zone a particular site to make it different than the north, south, or west side. The north is a recreational Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 10 January 25, 2022 area, the south is a plain unit community, and the west is a plain unit community. He stated if the Zoning is changed, the future property own.er would be allowed to build a Commercial four-story building imposing on a plain community of one-story homes. He objects and does not understand why staff is supporting this. If they grant the variance to build what they want,nothing will restrict them from anything they want to do in compliance with the deed restriction, but they will never have to see a three-story building. He asked the Board to vote no based on a variety of reasons; he thinks this would be a bad move on the future of that area and there is nothing to gain by the residents or the current property owner. Chair Rosecrans asked for a staff response. Mr. Rumpf indicated the variance process in their regulations does not apply to uses, so someone cannot get a variance to deviate from Zoning Districts. Under the current Zoning Use, even if there is an underlying deed restriction, a clean switch will allow the expansion. The maximum height in C-I is 30 feet. Regarding spot zoning, in his professional opinion, it is a different Zoning District to those around it and he referenced Case Law. Mr. Sobel stated he drove around the property and noted there is a building in the back that looks to be a few stories, which he assumed was 20 feet with no windows overlooking the residential homes. He did not see the gain to the community and thinks neighboring sites would be offended by someone building a 30-foot building with windows overlooking their backyards, as their right to privacy is violated. He suggested staff consider giving the TV Station what they want, let them build the Center as a valuable addition,without exposing the community and residents to a possible undesirable scenario. He questioned if the TV Station wants the change and if they requested the change. Mr. Miller advised that the TV Station wants to follow the City's regulations, Land Use Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning Code. The variance is not the appropriate procedure according to City regulations. To change the use would require another Public Hearing with a proposed plan and an opportunity for the public to speak. This request is to take what is currently there and bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Plan. Mr. Sobel reiterated he does not find anything about this applicable and he will vote no on this. He does not think it is asking too much of the City to have them come back and let the public speak. Residents in Plantation Isles are in favor of the building, but their biggest concern is what the future has in store for them, which is unknown. By adopting the measure tonight, they are exposing the public to the vague reason of the future. He does not think it is necessary and he believes they can accomplish everything they want by giving them the variance and letting them do whatever they want with the building, and then there will be no objection. Mr. Miller asked City Attorney Cherof if there is a way to condition the Zoning. He also asked if a variance application is a way to resolve nonconforming. City Attorney Cherof advised that is not the issue before the Board, they have a specific agenda item in front of them that does not contain that component. In his opinion, this is not the way to resolve nonconforming. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 11 January 25, 2022 Chair Rosecrans questioned how this affects the Deed restriction. City Attorney Cherof replied it does not. Chair Rosecrans mentioned they would still be restricted to non-profit. City Attorney Cherof stated that is correct, the Deed restriction is only affected by the Board or Commission's action on this agenda item. Mr. Simon asked Mr. Miller if he was saying they could not change their desire by requesting a variance to build a one-story building. City Attorney Cherof replied he was not saying that at all; he said the item before the Board is appropriate to dispose. Mr. Simon questioned if they still had an option to come back or if their option was cut off from coming back to request a variance to build a one-story building or a Cultural Center in the future. City Attorney Cherof indicated in his opinion a variance would not be a suitable matter to become before the Board for what they want to accomplish. Mr. Simon commented that they do not know what the future Site Plan is, and he wanted to be clear that they are not able to make any changes without changing Zoning. Based on current Zoning, they cannot make changes without Site Plan approval. He questioned what the requirements would be for the Site Plan to provide for safety and noise. Mr. Miller advised they are not expanding parking anywhere to the north, parking is on the west side closer to the lake immediately to the west. The addition is proposed on the front side of the building on the east side, so there is no significant change to the northern side. Mr. Litsch mentioned that the property was transferred by the City of Boynton Beach to South Florida Public Television and the Deed Restriction was put in the Deed as a perpetual restriction that would go to all subsequent Deeds. Even if the property were sold to someone who would not observe the Deed Restriction, he asked if the City would have recourse against that party. He questioned why it has taken from 1986 to 2019 to catch this. Mr. Rumpf indicated staff can only put so much effort into cleaning up certain things. He noted there was action on development in 2019. Chair Rosecrans opened discussion to the public. Ernest Mignoli, 710 NE 7t' Street, Boynton Beach, also known as Harbor Hall, commented that most of what happens in Boynton Beach directly or indirectly affects where he lives. His experience is even if this Board votes no, it goes back to the Mayor,the Commission, and the City Attorney, and they approve it anyway. Motion was made by Mr. Litsch, and seconded by Mr. Ramiccio, to approve Item 7C. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with Mr. Sobel in opposition. (6-1) Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 12 January 25, 2022 Ayes: Rosecrans, Buoni, Simon, Litsch, Allen, Ramiccio Nays: Sobel 7D. Approve modifications to Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2, Standard Applications to revise review criteria for future Land Use Map and Zoning Amendments (CDRV 22-003). Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner,presented the Future Land Use Map and Re-zoning Amendment Review Criteria, which is an amendment to the Code to clean up Code language. • Combining the existing Future Land Use Map Amendments and Rezoning Criteria into one set of criteria as these applications are generally processed concurrently. • Clarifying the review criteria sections to be more relevant in the assessment of the applications and are requiring documents for Master Plan applications. • Updating the threshold for Future Land Use Amendments, so the Code is in line with Florida Statutes. There are multiple review criteria to reflect City Codes regarding Economic Development and Mobility, consideration of trends, access to mobility options, and the CRA Plan. • Working on updating criteria titles to better reflect intent and introduce location, efficiency, and heavy commercial. Chair Rosecrans opened discussion to the public: Ernest Mignoli, 710 NE 7t' Street, commented that the City Commission does not listen to this Board, and this Board has no impact. The Board deceived the public with a bait and switch on Item 7B. Chair Rosecrans reminded Mr. Mignoli to stay on topic and not obstruct the Board. Mr. Litsch questioned if the proposed Amendments would affect the WXEL issue by combining Rezoning and the Land Use Maps into one item. Mr. Meyer replied no,the combination of review criteria would still have had the same level of intensity as it would today. There would not be any impact on the review or determination of the previous item had this implemented before. Mr. Simon asked if there would be an increase in the documentation and if it provides more detailed information on things that were not necessarily part of an application, but they are now. Mr. Meyer stated the additional documentation for Master Planning applications refers to the request of a bubble diagram. Often, Master Planning applications do not have a bubble diagram, they just have a Site Plan. This document is clarifying when a bubble diagram would be needed versus a Site Plan. Motion was made by Mr. Sobel, and seconded by Mr. Simon, to approve Item 7D. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (7-0) 7E. Approve amendments to Chapter 1, Article II, Use Definitions, Chapter 3 Zoning, and Chapter 4, Article V. Minimum off-street parking requirements addressing Medical Care or Testing (In-patient), Beverage Manufacturing, Micro-Brewery, Brew Pub, Tap Room Brewery, and Take Out Restaurant Uses (CDRV 22-002). Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 13 January 25, 2022 Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner, presented a brief overview of the Amendments to Chapter 1, Article II, Use Definitions, Chapter 3 Zoning, and Chapter 4, Article V, which includes several subjects. • Medical Care or Testing (In-patient) • Micro-Brewery, Brew Pub, and Tap Room Brewery • Take-out restaurants Currently, Medical Offices are permitted in the C-1 Office Professional Zoning District, which is compatible with Residential daytime operations. Other uses provide 24-hour client/care testing, and currently this Conditional Use approval required in the C-1 Office Professional Zoning District, within 50 feet to the property line of any use of abutting Residential. When a use is proposed within 50 feet of a Residential property line, it requires a Conditional Use. Locations of lesser intensity were looked at to determine if they are compatible or more similar with Standard Medical Office Use; locations include Medical Offices along collector streets. The proposed Amendment is lower intensive for in-patient medical uses, providing services or testing commonly require less than 24 hours of in-patient stays, and those that appear and function in conventional Office Uses that would not be any different than a Standard Office Use. Brewery usage includes Micro Distillery Micro-Brew, Brew Pub, and Tap Room Uses. Breweries producing between 1,000 and 7,500 barrels per year represent the largest growth in the industry,provided these are complimentary Commercial components. These types of breweries are not linked to large distribution type breweries, they are a little smaller. Staff has received increasing inquiries regarding the establishment of Micro-Brewery, Brew Pub, and Tap Room Uses on properties zoned Commercial or Mixed-Use. Currently, any establishment that produces alcoholic drinks falls under Beverage Manufacturing, which is restricted to C-4, General Commercial, Wine Industrial, and PID, which is the Planning Industrial Development. This is the introduction of four uses. A Brewery is an Industrial Use, similar to Beverage Manufacturing, which is how breweries are currently classified, and they produce alcoholic beverages. There are no limits on production and a Commercial component is optional. No food services are allowed; they create an additional parking demand and cannot be accommodated by these types of Zoning Districts. This includes Winery and Distillery. Micro-Brewery produces a maximum of 3,000 barrels per year and it combines manufacturing and distribution of alcoholic beverages with on-site food service. It is more of a Commercial component and is publicly accessible. A Commercial component is required as part of this. The Tap Room and Brew Room Uses are similar, but they are both restricted to a maximum of 1,500 barrels per year. Anything produced on site is exclusively for on-site consumption, so there is no distribution allowed; no trucks coming in and out; everything must be served on site. The Tap Room is regulated like a bar use and a Brew Pub would be regulated like a Restaurant Use. Brew Pubs, which are similar to restaurants, are permitted by right in all Non-Residential Zoning Districts, and they are also allowed accessory, public use, and recreation. The rest are going to be permitted through a Conditional Use. A brewery would be permitted in C-4 and a Micro-Brewery is a Commercial Use in all Commercial Use and Mixed-Use Districts, except C-1 and C-2 where they are not permitted. A Tap Room would be C-3 and C-4. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 14 January 25, 2022 The last proposed Amendment is take-out restaurants. Staff has noticed growth in the take-out, delivery industry in the popularity of third-parry delivery companies. There is a new type of take-out restaurant emerging and these fulfill orders exclusively from third-parry delivery apps. These uses that only deliver through third-parry apps differ from standard take-out restaurants because customer visits are brief, their order is placed on the app ahead of time and there is no waiting on site, customers are only there to pick up their order that is ready. It does not require high traffic exposure. Currently, take-out restaurants are permitted in M-1 if they are along collective and arterial roadways and do not exceed 25,000 square feet. They are proposing the take-out restaurants would be permitted within M-1 without roadway restrictions and the same limits on multi-tenant developments and size; transactions must be tendered off site prior to the customer arriving on site. Chair Rosecrans opened discussion to the public. Ernest Mignoli, 710 NE 7t' Street, mentioned medical and in-patient, and questioned if they are looking to allow less than 24-hour service in more locations. He asked if the public would know if they were trying to expand something and how it would affect them. Regarding breweries, he asked if there is an effort in Boynton Beach to compete with places like Delray, where wine, alcohol, rooftops, etc. Mr. Meyer indicated the question is if they are expanding uses within the City, and that is not the case. This Amendment is proposing in-patient uses that fall under specific criteria; it is a waste of staff's time and is a process to bring it through a Conditional Use if it meets specific criteria they are proposing as part of these Amendments. It is already an approved Conditional Use in these locations; however, if uses vary in terms of function and how they affect the neighborhood, the Planning and Development Administrator has the option to waive the Conditional Use requirement for these uses. Mr. Simon asked if they were trying to allow a doctor to perform surgeries or procedures in their home. Mr. Meyer stated that would apply to the C-1 Office Professional Zoning District, which does not currently permit Residential. No doctor is going to be allowed to perform a procedure in his house. Regarding the proposed brewery uses, they are allowed under Beverage Manufacturer and as part of the Amendments, they are changing the definition of Beverage Manufacturers and non-alcoholic beverages and introducing the use of brewery to capture the uses. The introduction of Tap Rooms and Brew Pubs are like bar and restaurant uses. The reason for the separate use is the manufacturing component on site and there are restrictions as to distribution and things like that. It is accommodating the new types of uses in the City, as there has been an increase in inquiries for them from the public. The Micro-Brewery is kind of a mix between the fully Commercial and fully Industrial. Mr. Litsch mentioned ghost kitchens, which is for places that work solely on applications. Mr. Meyer advised those are standalone operations where ordering and payment is online, and someone brings the food to you. This Amendment is intended for facilities that operate solely on apps. This allows them to move into smaller Industrial spaces that does not require the height, street frontage, etc., but parking standards are proposed;the required parking ratio will be one parking space per 350 square feet. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 15 January 25, 2022 Mr. Simon requested clarification of restaurant criteria and mentioned the parking allotment. He asked for clarification of food services at breweries and noted there were limitations that this Amendment would be held to the industry. Ms. Radigan clarified parking is a minimum of one per 350 square feet and the use is restricted to 2,500 square feet, so they are looking at about seven or eight spaces. The Code has a minimum of four spaces required for any Commercial use. Mr. Meyer stated the Micro-Brewery will include food service on-site. The intent of the Micro-Brewery is to serve food on the premises. Breweries will still be allowed to have food trucks outside, but not within the walls of the establishment. Mr. Buoni mentioned medical and testing and noted that in a past situation it was said there cannot be testing in the same place someone stays overnight. He asked if that is included or if anything will change. Mr. Meyer indicated it is not because of leniency in regulations; it will be covered by the changes. Mr. Buoni questioned if any input was received from breweries or any destinations regarding alcohol issues listed. Mr. Meyer stated they consulted with people involved in the industry to get an idea of the use, trends, and sizes, and that is how they came to those conclusions. Mr. Rumpf advised this is an attempt to meet a request from a restaurant and brewery in town to work collaboratively. They looked at Industry standards and best plans and practices and they did not come up with a conclusion of allowing the business model they wanted. He noted the changes would not affect statutory requirements for medical places. Regarding breweries,this was a collaborative effort with local businesses and the City. Chair Rosecrans asked about the take-out, grease traps, and sewer, and questioned if that would have to be provided and improved if they move into a Commercial warehouse. Mr. Meyer replied that improvements would be needed. Motion was made by Mr. Simon, seconded by Vice Chair Buoni, to approve Item 7E. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (7-0) 8. Other—None. 9. Comments by Members —None. 10. Adjournment Upon Motion duly made and seconded, the meeting at was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. [Minutes prepared by C. Guifarro,Prototype,Inc.]