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.]