Agenda 10-12-22 10/4/22,9:44 AM NovusAGENDA
CLOSE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MEETING AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 TIME: 6:30 PM
PLACE: City Hall Commission Chambers
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Approval
4. Approval of Minutes
4.A. Approve board minutes from 08/23/22 Planning & Development Board meeting_
5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7.A. Approve modifications to reduce building heights in MU-C and MU-4 Zoning Districts (CDRV 22-
004) amending Chapter 3. Art III. Sec 1.E Table 3-4. Mixed Use Urban Building and Site
Regulations.
7.13. Approve modifications (CDRV 22-005) amending the Part III LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, Chapter 1, Article II. Use Definitions, Chapter 3. Zoning, and Chapter 4, Article III.
Exterior Building and Site Standards (CDRV 22-005), to include requirements for commercial
frontage.
7.C. Approve modifications (CDRV 22-006)to Part III. LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS amending
Chapter 2 Land Development Process, Article II Planning and Zoning Division Services, Section 15
to allow for an expiration of abandoned applications and Section 7.G to establish a process for
Zoning Interpretations and; Chapter 3. Zoning, Article II General Provisions Section 11 to create an
exemption for City-owned telecommunication towers used for essential services and; Article III.
Zoning Districts and Overlay Zones, Section 2.13 revising the parameters for permitted Administrative
Adjustments; Article IV. Use Regulations, Section D, Footnote 23 to revise the regulations for
industrial uses on arterial and collector roadways; Chapter 4. Site Development Standards,Article V.
Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements, Section 3.G to include a sustainable parking ratio for
select industrial uses.
8. Other
9. Comments by members
10. Adjournment
The Board may only conduct public business after a quorum has been established. If no
quorum is established within fifteen 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
■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ w ■ ■ .9 i■ ■ i r ■ ■ ■■
https://boyntonbeach.novusagenda.com/Agendalntranet/MeetingView.aspx?MeetingID=519&MinutesMeetingID=-1&doctype=Agenda 1/2
10/4/22,9:44 AM NovusAGENDA
snan be conciuded. t3oard members may not participate turtner even wnen purportealy
acting in an informal capacity.
Decorum
Any person who disrupts the meeting while addressing the Advisory Board may be ordered
by the presiding officer to cease further comment and/or to step down from the podium.
Failure to discontinue comments or step down when so ordered shall be treated as a
continuing disruption of the public meeting. An order by the presiding officer issued to
control the decorum of the meeting is binding, unless over-ruled by the majority vote of the
Advisory Board members present.
Notice
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the planning and development board with
respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for
such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which
record includes the testimony, and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. (f. S.
286.0105) The city shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford
an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a
service, program, or activity conducted by the city. Please contact the City Clerk's office, (561)
742-6060, at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the program or activity in order for the city to
reasonably accommodate your request.
https://boyntonbeach.novusagenda.com/Agendalntranet/MeetingView.aspx?MeetingID=519&MinutesMeetingID=-1&doctype=Agenda 2/2
4.4.A.
Approval of Minutes
9/27/2022
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 9/27/2022
REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Approve board minutes from
08/23/22 Planning & Development Board meeting.
EXPLANATION OF REQUEST:
HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES?
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
STRATEGIC PLAN:
STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION:
CLIMATE ACTION APPLICATION:
Is this a grant?
Grant Amount:
ATTACHMENTS:
Type Description
D Minutes 08/23/22 Minutes
Page 3of70
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
' 100 E. OCEAN AVENUE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022, 6:30 P.M.
PRESENT: STAFF:
Trevor Rosecrans, Chair Amanda Radigan, Planning and Zoning Director
William Harper Craig Pinder, Planner
Courtland McGuire Elizabeth Eassa, Senior Planner
Tom Ramiccio Kacy Young, Recreation and Parks Director
Chris Simon Sean Schwartz, City Attorney
Jay Sobel Carla Blair, Prototype, Inc.
ABSENT:
Butch Buoni, Vice Chair
Tim Litsch
Lyman Phillips, Alternate
OTHERS:
Carlos Perez, Perez Planning, LLC
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
Roll was called and it was determined a quorum was present.
3. Agenda Approval
Amanda Radigan, Planning and Zoning Director, requested the Park System Master Plan presentation be
heard prior to the Height presentation.
Motion duly made, and seconded,to approve the agenda. In a voice vote,the motion passed unanimously.
(6-0)
4. Approval of Minutes
4.A. Approve board minutes from 05/24/22 Planning & Development Board meeting.
Motion made by Mr. Sobel, seconded by Mr. McGuire,to approve the May 24, 2022 meeting minutes. In
a voice vote, the minutes were unanimously approved. (6-0)
Page 4 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 2 August 23, 2022
5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff
Chair Rosecrans announced this is a preliminary staff presentation, so public comments will not be heard.
Ernest Mignoli, resident, was upset because no public comments were being heard.
Amanda Radigan, Planning and Zoning Director, commented that they did an informational item on
sustainability at the last meeting. They are in the process of drafting revisions and hope to bring it back to
the Board in the next month or so.
Ms. Radigan announced that Michael Rumpf is retiring next week after 35 years with the City. Everyone
is invited to celebrate with them on Thursday, August 30, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. in the third-floor lobby.
Ms. Radigan introduced Elizabeth Eassa, their new Senior Planner. There is an open position for a
Principal Planner that they are in the process of hiring.
6. Old Business -None.
7. New Business
7A. Receive staff presentation on building height regulations and provide feedback relative to
the potential reduction in the maximum building height permitted Citywide from 150 feet
to 85 feet.
Mr. McGuire indicated he attended the meeting about height restriction, and everyone looked at the
Comprehensive Plan. The idea was brought by Commissioner Turkin and supported by other members of
the Commission to bring information from that meeting to the Board to make recommendations to the
Commission.
Amanda Radigan, Planning and Zoning Director, advised this is coming to the Board under the direction
of the City Commission. This was held publicly at one point for the City Commission and the public was
invited to comment. Minutes from that meeting are included in the backup for review. At the previous
City Commission meeting, it was requested this Workshop be brought to the Board to get feedback on the
same information that was presented to the Commission. Based on the Board's feedback and the City
Commission's direction, changes will be made based on the recommendations.
Chair Rosencrans reminded the Board to give an acknowledgement to the City Clerk, so she gets it in the
minutes.
Ms. Radigan stated this is a lengthy presentation, about 45 minutes, and it was suggested they go through
the entire presentation. The last portion has examples of code revisions and then they proceed with
feedback.
Page 5of70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 3 August 23, 2022
Craig Pinder,Planner,presented the first half of the presentation and Elizabeth Eassa, Senior Planner,will
present the second half. Mr. Pinder presented the presentation and highlighted the following:
• Factors that shape the City, which include general factors.
• Geographic organization, the history, and the revision.
• Current height regulations.
• Structure and distribution throughout the City in comparison to neighboring Cities.
• Considerations, both legal and non-legal.
• Examples for discussion.
General factors that shape the City:
• General factors that shape the City, including size, population, growth and trends, the history of
the City, and the socio-economic factors including income levels, employment levels, education,
amenities, transportation, services, etc. Additional factors are the redevelopment, visions, and
goals, including the long-term redevelopment patterns and efforts, the downtown oriented
development vision for the City, the compactness of the development, or non-compactness of the
development.
• Economic Development goals include businesses, and if the City is able to attract new businesses
and the types they want to attract, including industry or offices, and re-creation of what those
destinations will look like and where they will be located, and looking at housing availability.
• Other examples show height, FAR, floor area ratio, uses, and setbacks, that show how the site can
be developed to its full capacity.
• Density was mentioned and it was noted a different method is being used, which shows the tallest
buildings and shorter buildings, as well as height and setbacks, which show how the building is
shaped and formed.
• One example shows the interaction of the building with the setback and how it interacts with the
pedestrian zone. The building is at a maximum height of 30 feet before it has to set back 30 feet to
realize the maximum height of 75 feet.
• Transit Oriented Development(TOD) was developed in the early 1990's and is a response to the
Environmental Sustainability Movement. The real goal is to put together a mix of uses; a mix of
Commercial, Residential, and employment, and focus on transportation such as transit and the
pedestrian environment.
• Another goal of a TOD is to reduce dependency on personal vehicles that move from place to place
and encourage people to use transit including New Wave and Mobility solutions to get from point
A to B and focus on creating a walkable environment.
• The diagram shows how a TOD is developed, which is before the Plan. The TOD Plan is where
they begin to organize or distribute uses and look at how the use of streets should be prioritized.
Public improvements start the TOD movement and partnerships improve amenities.
• There are some factors and principles of a successful TOD that include median to height and
density. It is an area within the City that has a higher net average density than the rest of the City
and it will be different from City to City.
• Land uses with housing, Commercial, etc.
Page 6 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 4 August 23, 2022
• Compact height quality,pedestrian oriented environment is when they look at the pedestrian scale
and if it is comfortable to walk around with a goal of improving the environment such as planting
street trees, incorporating pedestrian lighting,wider sidewalks,providing more separation between
vehicles and the pedestrian zone.
• Limited managed parking deals with trying to encourage people to take transit over using their
vehicles within the downtown environment.
• Public leadership.
• An outline shows the side of the City paired with I-95 and the railroad. The FEC Railroad is the
east side and then there is U.S. 1 Federal Highway. Several intersections were mentioned that
connect to arteries to the City.
• The TOD District to the north and south are the Federal Highway mixed use areas, which helps
determine how people enter the City going from a lower height to the higher height in the
downtown corridor.
• Districts, which include the Town Square area and more area for increased intensity. There is an
area that includes lower density, Residential, Zoning Districts, and some Multi-Family Districts.
Along the west side of I-95, is the Industrial District. All these areas are part of the CRA
Redevelopment Plan.
• Moving west, Boynton Beach Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard continue west, and they both
connect to Congress Avenue. The area at I-95 and Gateway Boulevard includes the CSX Railway
with the Tri Rail Station for future TOD development.
• Gateway Boulevard and Congress Avenue and Boynton Beach Boulevard and Congress Avenue
to the south have another correlation between the two with a relationship that encourages a more
intense development.
Redevelopment Planning:
• In 2000,the last known height was 100 feet, and the last known density was 40 feet. Also, in 2000,
a public workshop was held for the Federal Highway Redevelopment Plan and the vision for part
of the Federal Highway corridor. In 2001,the Plan was adopted with all the recommendations and
in 2002, the LDR were updated, which included the original Mixed Use Zoning Districts. These
were the first adoptions of height at 150 feet. In 2004, the LDR was updated to incorporate
Suburban Mixed Use, which was adopted and included heights of 55 feet to 75 feet having a
Conditional Use. In 2006, the Boynton Beach Boulevard corridor expanded the Mixed Uses from
the downtown corridor to I-95. In 2005, there was a public workshop for the Federal Highway
Plan and updates, and in 2006, the Federal Highway Corridor Community Redevelopment Plan
update for development was adopted, and later in 2006, the LDR was updated to split the Mixed-
Use Zoning District into four Districts. In 2016,public workshops were held for the Consolidated
Plan of the CRA, which was adopted because all the previous efforts were incorporated into a
single document. In 2016 and 2017, the LDRs were updated to breakdown some of the Districts,
which further distributed the height and density per the CRA Plan recommendations.
• The distribution of height through the City was shown, which was from 55 feet and below and
where 150 feet was allowed.
• The most intense heights are in the downtown corridor.
• Recent projects are going up to approximately 86 feet in height.
Page 7 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 5 August 23, 2022
• Blackout areas shows projects that are either constructed or being approved.
Current Regulations:
• Mixed Use has the same height at 55 feet.
• Zoning Districts go from 65, 75, and 100 feet, with Mixed Use at 150 feet, and that is allowed in
the downtown area.
Elizabeth Eassa, Senior Planner,provided a brief presentation and highlighted the following:
• Neighboring communities and height requirements.
• Jupiter has a maximum height is 50 feet with the intent to preserve the Village Inlet.
• West Palm Beach allows up to 350 feet in height because they would like to emphasize a program
with transit options.
• Delray Beach strives to maintain a Village by the Sea atmosphere with mainly low height
allowances. One Zoning District located along Congress Avenue allows up to 85 feet and there is
a maximum height of 54 feet throughout the City with the exception of the Linton Commercial
area, which allows up to 60 feet.
• Atlantic Avenue, east and west, from I-95 to the beach, allows four stories or 54 feet in height. A
newer Overlay District in the west Atlantic Boulevard neighborhood was put in place to put a
stepdown to the single-family neighborhood, which was zoned into the Central Business District.
They only allow a maximum of 30 feet in height.
• Palm Beach Gardens allows a maximum height of 150 feet within their Employment Overlay,
which is generally located along and east of I-95. Everywhere else has a maximum height of 60
feet, although, they do allow for height waivers within the Planning Development that go through
the City Council to exceed the maximum height of 60 feet.
• Boca Raton allows 140 feet in their downtown area and an additional 20 feet as long as it is a non-
habitable area. Their Planned Industrial Districts and their Planned Mobility Districts, they allow
a maximum height of 85 feet and Village Central,which is one parcel on the north end of the City,
which allows for 72 feet maximum height overall.
• Jupiter has the Indiantown Overlay, which is along Indiantown Road. In any of their Planned
Districts, the maximum height is 60 feet, but they do allow an opportunity to apply for a waiver
for an additional 15 feet or one-story, whichever is the lesser of the two. The rest of the City has a
maximum overall height of 50 feet with the exception of the Medical Center District,which allows
up to 85 feet, but it is specifically for hospital buildings.
• Boynton Beach has a maximum overall height of 100 feet in MU-4 and 150 feet in MU-C. MU-C
is located in the downtown TOD Overlay and in the SM-U District, which stands along Congress
Avenue, where the height limitation is 155 feet; however, there is a provision for an additional 20
feet, which is approved through a Conditional Use by the City Commission.
• Deerfield Beach does not have any set dimensional standards in their Planned Districts or in their
TOD, so an applicant has free range to apply for what they think is the best project and that is
approved through the Boards and Commission.
• Downtown West Pam Beach allows for anywhere between 10 and 25 stories, which can go
between 125 and 380 feet.
Page 8of70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 6 August 23, 2022
• Pompano Beach on the east side of I-95 fronting the ocean has a height limitation of 105 feet, but
they allow hotels to go up to 210 feet with a slenderness provision, which would allow for more
visual access to the ocean in that area.
Considerations:
• Potentially reducing height in the City will be the desire to have a TOD. Some things TODs need
to be successful are rooftop businesses, which are needed to make certain businesses viable in the
area. When certain businesses are looking for places to build and create their business,some people
ask how many rooftops are within a certain area to see if they would be successful. Jobs are also
important to establish a successful TOD. Land value, tax base, operational value, construction
costs, additional economic development considerations, and the impact of affordability,need to be
considered. Housing affordability is based upon supply and demand.
• A question to ask is if a TOD at a Rail Station site is desired. If it is desired, certain goals need to
be met for it to be successful. Currently, the City has approximately 1,173 dwelling units within
that station area, which is a quarter mile from the proposed station site. Another goal is
employment numbers in the station area. For a successful neighborhood station, there needs to be
between 12,000 and 18,000 jobs and currently there are about 1,500 jobs. In looking at the TOD,
which expands from a quarter mile to a half a mile from the proposed station,there are about 2,300
jobs.
• Another consideration is regarding compactness. It is there a desire to have more units, more
height, and more FAR in a smaller area or is there a desire to spread the height density and FAR
out over a larger area.
Sean Schwartz, City Attorney, advised that these types of policies that have been discussed are enacted in
two places;they are in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Land Development Regulations. The
Comprehensive Plan sets the broad overarching planning development within the City and the Land
Development Regulations are more specific as to height or implementing what the Comprehensive Plan
sets forth.
Amending the Comprehensive Plan:
Amending the Comprehensive Plan would require two Public Hearings, one would be enacted by the City
Commission, and then get transmitted to the State. The State would then provide comments and return it
to the City, then the City would have a Second Public Hearing and adopt the changes on the Second
Reading.
Development Regulations:
Development regulations are more specific than the general Comprehensive Plan; these are intended to
implement and adopt the Adopted Comprehensive Plan and must be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Page 9of70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 7 August 23, 2022
Zoning in Progress:
This is a tool that allows the City to require development applications that are coming through to comply
with future regulations of the City. The Plans that would be adopted in the future could require new
development, which is compliant with the upcoming regulations. Pending regulations do not require City
Commission discussion or action, but active documented steps of City staff is authorized to do the work
that will result in the zoning change. The City code provides a formal process for the Notice of Intent to
change the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 1, Article 9 of the City's Planned Development
Regulations. Zoning in Progress does not apply for proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
Moratorium:
This is a more formal process than the Zoning in Progress. This basically halts development while zoning
changes are ongoing. This is a valid planning tool to preserve the status quo while developing new
regulations. It is a limited duration, and a limited time is needed to study the Planning Development
changes. It must be adopted using two Public Hearings.
Bert J. Harris Act:
This is a Florida Statute that allows property owners to be awarded damages for limited action if the
government has burdened, or an existing use of real property or a vested right with a specific use of real
property. The property under that real property is entitled to relief. This is why many ordinances have
grandfather clauses or some sort of amortization, so there are not significant damages. There are altering
zonings with limited or permitted use, Comprehensive Plan Amendments that apply to specific properties,
and government actions such as a failure to rezone properties not to provide a Bert J. Harris claim.
Ms. Eassa provided examples as follows:
Examples for discussion:
• Potential action that could be taken to address building heights in the City.
• Example A is the most different than the current structure; it would propose to lower the height
maximum in the MU-C from 150 feet to 85 feet and lower the height maximum in the MU-4
District from 100 feet to 80 feet.
Example A for considerations:
• Most of the projects in the two zoning districts have been built or approved have come in at
considerably lower heights than the maximum permitted 150 feet except for two projects
previously mentioned,the Marina Village and Costa Cosa,which have been built. There is minimal
impact as much of the land area is already developed and/or has approved plans or vested projects
in place. The property owners in the MU-C and MU-4 Districts may consider this reduction taking.
The approved and built projects may be construed as legally nonconforming, which may lead to
lending problems or issues rebuilding after damage. They can cross language to try to counter
some of these effects; however, they cannot guarantee all of the effects would remedy as they are
not in control of lending or banking. The process they would take to make this change would be
Page 10 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 8 August 23, 2022
via a Land Development Regulation Amendment, which would come before Planning and Zoning
for a recommendation in the form of an ordinance, and then it would have two Readings with the
City Commission for final adoption. An additional consideration would be that the City might
want to amend the CRA Plan if that is the route they potentially go because this proposal varies
from what is currently envisioned in the Plan.
Example B for considerations:
• This would be lower the height maximum of the MU-C only from anywhere between 110 feet to
149 feet. This example is similar to the previous example except it only effects the MU-C and not
the MU-4. MU-C is generally planned at the node at the Woolbright area and MU-4 is usually
planned in the downtown area. Example A effects both nodes where this one only effects the
downtown node. All the other considerations would be the same.
Example C for consideration:
• This would be to make no changes to the Land Development Regulations, but to amend the
downtown district portion of the CRA Plan. One way that could be done would be to reduce
proposed intensities on certain parcels. They could remove the potential approval of additional
heights and intensity to change it from something with the Land Use from a Mixed-Use High to
Mixed Use Medium. In the CRA area,this parcel is planned to go to MU-C,which reflects at 150
feet. They could remove the Planned Land Use from the CRA Plan and make it Mixed Use Medium
instead of MU-4. Because they are doing it in the CRA Plan and not in the Zoning Regulations, it
would remove a lot of considerations from the first two examples. As City Attorney Schwartz, no
action taken on the property at the time of the CRA Plan,so this would be less likely to be construed
as a taking since no development rights were given to the property through the CRA Plan. This
can be done in different areas; they were able to call out different areas that were planned for
Mixed Use High as well as MU-4, that could potentially be reduced in height.
Example D for considerations:
• This would be to make no changes to the Land Development Regulations and the considerations
would be that most projects that have been built or approved have come in at considerably lower
heights at the maximum permitted under 150 feet. The MU-4 District area is a compact area located
in downtown and is TOD only. MU-4 is a compact area located at the secondary node intersection
limited to four blocks in area.
An unidentified female commented that this information goes to the City Commission with the Board's
approval without having public comment and it is to change a policy.
Ms. Radigan reiterated this is not an ordinance and when an ordinance is proposed this will come to the
Planning and Development Board.
Chair Rosecrans stated this will come back, it is just a preliminary presentation.
Mr. Sobel commented that the TOD is impressive, but he questioned if it is necessary.
Page 11 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 9 August 23, 2022
Ms. Radigan replied that City's go through redevelopment all the time. If there is a vision to implement
in the CRA Plan, implementation of the Plan takes a long time; 20 years.
Mr. Sobel mentioned downtown area heights and asked if anything outside of that area is the current
height.
Ms. Radigan stated examples given only effect the highest heights,which are in downtown;however,they
are happy to take feedback on anything height related.
Mr. Sobel referenced the TOD and stated that 300 jobs were quoted in these areas and 15,000 jobs are
needed. He questioned if that is realistic.
Chair Rosecrans asked if the math has been done that shows how many buildings would have to be
developed to meet those qualifications based on what there is now because they are only at 20% of the
jobs needed.
Ms. Radigan stated there is a combination. This study was done several years ago, so it probably needs an
update. While there are about 1,500 units, currently there are about another 1,500 units approved in
additional plans. Those calculations were a creation of the TOD to set the tone to try to meet some of the
qualifications. It is important to note this is for a specific type of station, meaning if they do not meet the
target for a neighborhood station originally planned,they might be qualified for a different level of station.
These are benchmarks for planning purposes to get Land Use and Zoning Rights to enable these types of
things to happen.
Mr. Sobel commented that cases A, B, C, and D were presented. A, B, and C had changes; everything is
built and there is no land. He questioned why they are bothering to go through all the pain and possible
legal exposure by doing this.
Ms. Radigan advised this was directed by the City Commission, it was not a staff-initiated request. This
has been actively vocal by the City Commission. Currently, staff has been moving forward in the direction
adopted within their plans. She suggested if these types of changes are made in the future that they start
with visioning documents.
Mr. McGuire mentioned setbacks and used River Walk as an example where they did not allow for enough
setback. He recommended that setback stipulations should be added to the language. When they do Mixed
Use parcels,they need a better way between Residential, Retail, and Office; he noticed a lot of the Mixed-
Use parcels are getting away with a lot because there is no ratio or balance in the current verbiage. He
thinks verbiage could be easily added. A green space ordinance is needed with language that all Mixed
Use should allow for green space.
Ms. Radigan advised there are open space requirements, but they are not necessarily green space
requirements. Open space requirements are things like public plazas. She thinks he was referring to
pervious space.
Page 12 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 10 August 23, 2022
Mr. McGuire stated he would not put in anything offensive that would turn down a developer. They are a
can-do City and want development and a vibrant downtown. He suggested introducing a sustainable
energy component to all developments, meaning plug-in. A lot of cars will be electric in the future, and
they need to tell developers to increase that. Other sustainable energy includes solar. He thinks the height
ordinance in the highest City code at 150 feet should come down to 120 to 125 feet. They want to make a
more manageable density for infrastructure, etc. He thinks that can be offset by increasing the Congress
Avenue corridor height significantly and he would be fine with 75 feet or higher because it is a great vibe
and they could create a new downtown, maybe even allocate some higher restrictions in the general area.
He thinks they need a decent hotel and should consider an exception height. He did not know if Affordable
Housing was part of this language,but he thinks there should be a higher ordinance height if a component
measured in Affordable Housing that is in perpetuity. It does not phase out, but transfers with new
ownership;perhaps the 125 feet goes to 145 feet or 150 feet. He questioned the status of the TOD.
Ms. Radigan indicated this has been a subject for at least the last ten years; this is a multi-county, multi-
jurisdiction project. Currently,the project is still within the long-range plan of the County; however,there
is no funding for the project. A lot of this is due to recent municipalities within the County not cooperating
to figure out a funding source or payment system to get this done. The other key they are talking about is
private property and they cannot get anything done until the property landowner is ready to negotiate with
the County; they have been working in other geographic areas. It is a matter of timing. A study that
happened several years ago cited possible train stations. This is not Brightline, it is RTA, so it would be
on the east tracks, which is part coastal section; it is Tri Rail.
Mr. McGuire commented that he does not want a big train station. He thinks they need to be careful and
mentioned Brickell because it is a magnet for crime.
Ms. Radigan mentioned Mr. McGuire's point regarding setbacks and asked if he was referring to setbacks
within the building or setbacks from the road, or if meant the max of the buildings.
Mr. McGuire clarified he was speaking to light and sunlight. If the architecture had a hole in the middle,
people could see through to the water or the sunrise, that sort of thing.
Ms. Radigan commented that Mr. McGuire was talking about the mass being broken up. She stated staff
is working on creating more rigorous requirements within the Mixed-Use Districts regarding
sustainability. There is a height bonus included within their Affordable Workforce Housing, so, if
someone is participating, depending on location criteria, they may be eligible for an additional one-story
or two-story, which is based on whatever zoning allows.
Chair Rosecrans questioned how many developers have participated.
Ms. Radigan replied no one has built using this program, although several have planned and say they will
participate. This is another topic staff is looking to revise so it is more accessible.
Mr. Simon mentioned the Florida Area Ratio (FAR) and questioned if a two-story building is taking a
quarter of the property and if that is the building itself or parking.
Page 13 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 11 August 23, 2022
Ms. Radigan stated FAR is specifically a built building, so the remainder of the property can be used for
anything such as surface parking, open space amenities, etc.
Mr. Simon commented the higher the density in downtown ties back to previous discussion with Parks
and Recreation and pocket parks. It is being left up to the developer to provide this within their
Comprehensive Plan for the overall site. There is limited to no requirements for pervious ratio within the
downtown area and there is no open space for the people or for children to play. He does not see where
public and pedestrian safety comes into play in an environment like that.
Ms. Radigan advised when a development comes in, they are required to pay Park Impact Fees; the
developer is responsible for paying their share of impact to the City infrastructure, so the City has funds
to improve facilities. There is a level of service specific to parks, which is reevaluated every so often. The
Mixed-Use Districts do not have strict green space requirements,but they do have open and public space
requirements. At least in design wise, the thought is that a lot of amenities are self-contained within the
buildings, so a high-density project will not be coming in that does not include amenities that have a tot
lot,pool, or dog park.
Mr. Simon questioned when developers pay into this if they are paying a portion based in Impact Fees.
Ms. Radigan stated they pay per unit.
Mr. Simon commented that the City is taking the Impact Fees and updating infrastructure, etc. He
mentioned that all the land is currently privately owned or CRA owned and asked if the City is interested
in purchasing land to make its own parks in those areas aside from what developers may provide. He
stated they are in a small area and there are a lot of buildings going up to 150 feet, so they are looking at
massive density.
NOTE: Mr. McGuire left the meeting at 8:55 p.m. and returned at 8:57 p.m.
Ms. Radigan indicated there are two points. This direction came from the City Commission. Staff is
currently doing a code review to include a quantifiable frontage requirement for Commercial within the
Mixed-Use District, which will hopefully help. Currently, the codes are a little qualitative and not
quantitative, and leaves it flexible in terms of how is designed. The second point clarifies jobs; there are
two types of jobs included in the TOD analysis. The first is how many jobs are physically within this half
mile and the second is how many people the station is feeding. The plan is to allow transit to feed the local
area.
Mr. Simon commented that goes back to the traffic.
Ms. Radigan reiterated the goal for the TOD is to move away from traffic and cars and into more transit.
Mr. Simon stated that is contradictory; it was noted that 12,000 to 18,000 jobs are needed for people to
come into the area and catch this train to other areas.
Ms. Radigan indicated there is a station with a train that is moving people in and out of the City, so it is
lessening the impact on the roads and moving it through the train station.
Page 14 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 12 August 23, 2022
Mr. Simon stated he has to drive to the train station.
Ms. Radigan advised they are trying to intensify and make this compact so people are living in the area
and walking to the station to get to their job or wherever they are coming from; they might be in another
transit area that they walk to and take to our station. This is one level of transit planning. The TOD mostly
talks about multi-modal and multi-passenger,which is looking at trains, commuter busses,and those types
of facilities.
Mr. Simon commented that the TOD does not have to take consider the cost of living. He asked if that is
taking into account the types of jobs and income of those jobs and provides housing for people in that
District.
Ms. Radigan stated the entire County is working on a program to try to ensure there is some level of
affordability within the compact areas. She mentioned half units that could be for single people to allow
a lower income bracket in a market rate product.
Mr. Simon commented that ties back to developers only providing retail space. He noted there is not that
many job opportunities in any of the developments. He mentioned the legal portion and he does not think
the buildings that are already developed should be viewed as a table in the future, which he used as
Example A. There may be construction issues, but they can get a variance. From what he knows of the
buildings that are already developed, they were developed not following the code that was in place at the
time, meaning they were allowed to be built higher than what the code allowed. He would lean towards
Example A and noted there is no change to Example B. He thinks rezoning is favorable and allows for
less density, not just height.
Ms. Radigan commented that this is a very complex conversation, which is why they wanted to have this
discussion at this Workshop format. She thinks taking claims come from the once legal ability to build to
a certain amount that they can no longer build.
Mr. Simon understood.
Ms. Radigan indicated if they could quantify, they could use something that is taken away, which is what
opens possible legal concerns. It could be related to height or density. Things were built under density,
but they had the right to build to a certain height and removal of this height inhibits them to build to a
density, there may be legal concerns.
Mr. Simon commented if they rezone the area in Example C and there is already a project, they are held
to what the rezoning regulations were at the time of submittal.
Ms. Radigan advised that Example C talks about the CRA Plan Amendments, which is different than
Examples A and B. Rezoning the area puts entitlements on the ground; it is an action they would take on
property. The CRA Plan does not take any action upon actual property,the CRA Plan informs has the City
recommends approvals of projects. This option says they are changing how recommendations are made
on property; they are changing the visioning document. It is addressing the vision of future development
Page 15 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 13 August 23, 2022
of that property; it has no effect on the actual zoning districts and on what is place now, it is just limiting
their distribution of growth.
Mr. Ramiccio indicated that it bothers him when staff tries to get direction from the Commission, and it
seems like it falls on deaf ears. The question was asked if they want a TOD with higher density, more
residents, and more businesses, of if they want a downtown. That sets forth the criteria for the Land
Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks sometime in the future, a TOD might
work, but believes they need to look at snapshots of time and deal with what is in front of them today. He
mentioned Ocean Avenue and stated if they are trying to create a downtown,the store, street frontage, and
the way it is treated with sidewalks and landscape, is missing. When the building was built it was with the
intention of having high density. Seacrest is four or five blocks from Federal Highway, so there is not a
large expansive area when talking about scaling of projects. He thinks City and government buildings
should be anchor pieces. He would like to see a downtown developed with shops and restaurants and
suggested they create Boynton Beach as a destination. Historic buildings can be preserved and coupled
with the Arts and alleyways. They need a hotel, and he has no problem with the exception for height for
design only, but they need to have good design guideline standards. When talking about considerations,
one of the things he noticed was not in the guidelines was quality of life; all the considerations have a
different connotation in the way he thinks of consideration. When things are considered, they should
consider the quality of life and how people visit and see things today. He thinks the numbers for the station
are not attainable in the future. The other thing with transit in Florida is that there is not have a connection
to go west. Mass transit works in high dense areas, and they do not have to go dense and high to have a
successful City. He would like to see a downtown and not a TOD. Regarding Workforce Housing, he
thinks the CRA Plan needs to be revised because there are incentives in the CRA Plan for density and
height if Workforce Housing is built.
Ms. Radigan stated Mr. Ramiccio is suggesting a very different vision than what is currently planned. If
the direction and vision of the City is to be changed so drastically from what is currently planned, there
would have to be a public participation process for the area. She mentioned that 500 Ocean was built
before the CRA Plan was adopted, so it does not realize some of the updates of the code that have been
done since then, including expanding pedestrian zones. They no longer allow things to come straight to
the property line,they must be pushed back to allow active spaces, such as outdoor dining, etc. Everything
that has been designed to go to a Mixed-Use corridor is entitled, the only exception is a project that was
under control of the CRA until recently, when it was awarded to the Affiliated Group. With that Plan, the
first realization of the code of 150 feet was 20 years ago and 80% of the buildings are gearing up to be
built now. She thinks 20 years is a safe mark and she does not want to set false expectations. Since these
projects are entitled,the current view of downtown versus the TOD is appropriately centered along Ocean;
she thinks the scale is more downtown, and since this land is already entitled, any changes to the
entitlements would be a taking to property since it has already been entitled. Changing the height from
150 feet to 45 feet would not impact any of the downtown since it is entitled already, but there is an
opportunity to form some areas that are still redeveloping and are not entitled yet, like some of the areas
on Ocean. She wants to make sure that expectations are set for these types of changes and how they are
going to come out physically.
Page 16 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 14 August 23, 2022
Mr. Harper mentioned the Tri Rail Station in Boca that has been booming for about ten years and noted
they have to have a whole park of jobs there. The main purpose of this presentation was height, and he is
having a hard time making a recommendation because he did not know the problem. His recommendation
would be to lower the height; bigger is not always better.
Ms. Radigan advised that because all the projects have been entitled does not mean they are realizing their
full 150 feet. Most of the projects have been approved at around 85 to 90 feet.
Chair Rosecrans commented that in the last five years most of the projects were at 85 to 90 feet and he
questioned the demand for 150 feet.
Ms. Radigan stated this happens with development cycles; many of those approvals happened in 2017-
2018. Currently, she does not think there has been a demand to go to 150 feet. What has been financially
feasible and approved have been unit counts that sometimes realize maximum density, but lower heights.
Chair Rosecrans mentioned infrastructure and he does not think they can expand transportation in those
corridors anymore.
Ms. Radigan indicated a lot of their roads are County roads, so they are trying to divert those funds from
the County to be held within the City to improve the infrastructure. Those focus on multi-modal options,
not solely vehicular. There is some right-of-way to expand in limited areas.
Chair Rosecrans asked what the Level of Service for Federal Highway and Boynton Beach.
Ms. Radigan replied that the adopted Level of Service is D, which is acceptable.
Chair Rosecrans asked what the last survey showed.
Ms. Radigan stated she would have to meet with Engineering. Regarding the limited area where height
and density is permitted, the idea is adding different types of mobility; they are realistically talking about
four blocks in the downtown area and four blocks of the lesser intensity in the node. She noted that the
type of Level of Service with a Mobility Fee would transition into a Quality of Service.
Chair Rosecrans commented that mobility fees were discussed in the past and they pay that to the County.
Ms. Radigan advised developers currently pay Impact Fees to the County because they are the owners of
the road.
Chair Rosecrans questioned the Return on Fees that have been paid to the County.
Ms. Radigan indicated in the last 20 years $20 million was paid to the County and investments from those
monies was in the amount of about$500,000 or $800,000. It is a very limited return. If this Mobility Fee
moves forward, that would transition. They have seen some legal updates happening throughout the
County that have adopted cost sharing, so a portion would go to the County and a portion would stay
within the City as a Mobility Fee. They are still working out some legal issues and are watching to see
what happens with some of their neighbors. A Consultant is working to make sure they have information
to move forward.
Page 17 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 15 August 23, 2022
Chair Rosecrans commented that it may be perceived by some that they are trying to pack so much in that
the actual TOD and the Multi-Modal action become a necessity. He noted the infrastructure does not lend
itself to public transportation like it does in other Cities.
Ms. Radigan thinks she has enough information. If the Board has strong opinions and a consensus around
one of the options, they do not have to create a recommendation. She did not see much consensus from
the Board members; she heard different things.
Mr. Ramiccio mentioned the TOD versus downtown because that is what they are trying to get the
Commission to do. He questioned if they want the TOD or to build downtown.
Chair Rosecrans asked who they are in competition with for a TOD. He commented that Delray is a at a
60-foot height and questioned why they have to go to 150 feet.
Ms. Radigan advised they are not competing with anyone. This was part of the visioning documents that
were adopted, and the direction given over the last 20 years from the City to work toward this goal. This
is not necessarily competition. She does not think Delray has ever planned a TOD.
Chair Rosecrans stated he is in favor of Example A.
Ms. Radigan indicated the next step they have been given direction to do from the City Commission is to
draft an ordinance considering Example A. That draft should be in front of the Board next month and then
at the following two City Commission meetings.
Mr. McGuire commented that he likes the direction of Example A, but he thinks it is a little too low; he
would like it a little higher. He thinks it would draw more traffic away from the downtown corridor
creating a new artery and balance the traffic issue.
Ms. Radigan advised there are different sets of complications with Congress Road. Congress Road is a
County Road and there is an agreement with the County,which limits potential growth and vested a certain
number of trips. She stated height does not equal density. The best course of action for drastic changes
would be to start with revisioning, communicate what the new vision is, and allow staff to present options
for changes to Land Development Regulations that accommodate the changes. A lot of what was discussed
is directly related to height; they are talking about height, open space, and density, that work together.
That does not change the direction they have, so they will be moving forward with this change for
comments in draft form. At the last CRA Board meeting, she thinks the CRA Board requested the CRA
Plan be reopened, so some of these things might be happening in tandem.
Mr. McGuire commented there was a consensus for Example A.
Mr. Simon stated he liked a component in Example C, which is adjusting the density.
Ms. Radigan stated she is going to create a list.
Mr. Simon questioned if Ms. Radigan was referring to stepbacks or setbacks.
Page 18 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 16 August 23, 2022
Ms. Radigan indicated she would create a compact synopsis of what was discussed. She thinks the
consensus is a desire to revision and the details will not take much longer.
Mr. Simon stated that the revisioning aspect will be difficult for this corridor because it is going to be half
built. He asked if they are only envisioning the Federal Highway corridor.
Ms. Radigan replied yes; revisioning in terms of what is appropriate for what is not entitled. The biggest
difference between Example A and C is that Example A makes changes to properties that are entitled and
Example C pushes more to revisioning and is not taking any action on properties.
Mr. Ramiccio asked if a Zoning in Progress could be done for projects that have already been granted.
Ms. Radigan stated that she will say, "In effect",which means there will be no changes to the Mixed Used
corridor. If they change the Mixed Used corridor drastically,buildings that have been approved anywhere
from 85 to 100 feet or so, there is minimal impact to the built environment because this Zoning District
was only recommended for a limited area.
Mr. Simon mentioned the process of approval and stated that some municipalities allow projects to come
in for approval, get approval, and submit a building permit within a year. A building permit is submitted
in the 11th month, which extends the project approval. He asked what happens if someone goes back to
the Board during that a year with a revision to the project,which extends the timeline. He questioned what
types of steps are being taken to allow them to not have to build for four years because if the verbiage is
changed, they might submit for 150 feet and then create a lawsuit against the City because they will not
allow it.
Ms. Radigan clarified their development orders are approval of the Site Plans; it is different from the
entitlement of the property, which is the zoning. Development orders are good for 18 months, and within
that time a vertical building permit must be obtained. There is a Building inspection for an additional 12
months per the code; however, what is happening is that the Governor's State of Emergency Orders have
extensions to all Development orders and 20 days are added. All the projects discussed have applied and
notified the City they are taking advantage of these extensions and that is what has kept the projects alive
since 2017. Options were mentioned and she thinks there are available options to go against Currency
Statutes.
City Attorney Schwartz advised that once the Governor declares an Executive Order Declaration of
Emergency,they get six months plus the total period of that emergency, so people are requesting a number
of years plus the additional six months.
8. Other
8A. Received a short presentation on the Park System Master Plan project from consultants,
Perez Planning, LLC, and provide any related feedback about Parks and Recreation
programming for their consideration.
Page 19 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 17 August 23, 2022
Carlos Perez,Perez Planning, LLC,was present. He provided a brief Power Point Presentation and stated
the purpose of this presentation is to assess the Plan and visit communities using a variety of techniques
to gather feedback.
Mr. Ramiccio questioned what has been done to get public input.
Mr. Perez advised they had four public meetings as well as virtual meetings. He stated there is an online
survey open to everyone.
Mr. Ramiccio questioned if one of the meetings was in District 4.
Mr. Perez replied yes.
Mr. Ramiccio commented on the survey where it mentioned the target the survey was being directed to.
He asked who they were trying to attract and what demographics they were trying to reach.
Mr. Perez stated he was not selective in that.
Mr. Sobel questioned what percent the survey went out to.
Mr. Perez indicated he would have to research and bring that information back to the Board.
Kacy Young, Recreation and Parks, Director, advised invitations went out to the entire City.
Mr. Perez stated he would share the online survey and noted there have been 167 responses to date.
Chair Rosecrans asked where the link is located.
Mr. Perez stated it is on the project website.
Mr. Young advised the website is reimaginerecreationboynton.com.
Chair Rosecrans suggested advertising on the City of Boynton Beach website.
Mr. Sobel stated he receives a weekly Boynton Beach Newsletter listing all the City events, but he has
never seen anything about the survey.
Mr. McGuire found the Newsletter to be extremely detailed and comprehensive, but he did not see
anything about the survey. Perhaps digital billboards throughout the City would be a link to get the
community involved. He questioned the terms of the lease and noted that the Benevolence Association is
leasing their land, which is vacant.
Mr. Simon asked if there will be future meetings and if they have established a threshold number. He
questioned if surveys are done randomly how they know who they are targeting and that they are not
getting in the hands of someone who will never invest time or visit a park.
Mr. Perez indicated the survey went out last week. To be statistically valid, only a certain number of
surveys must be received.
Page 20 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 18 August 23, 2022
Mr. Simon asked if they wanted statistics or if they wanted input.
Mr. Perez stated there are multiple ways of using different techniques.
Mr. Sobel commented that he has not seen the survey. He thinks if Board members had the survey better
questions would be asked.
Mr. Perez indicated the elements are already in place.
Chair Rosecrans commented that Mr. Perez visited some of the parks and he asked his impression.
Mr. Perez advised that across the system, the parks are very nice. The system is good and was done
throughout 100 communities in South Florida.
Chair Rosecrans asked if Mr. Perez was visiting parks that are open space.
Mr. Young advised they are visiting all the parks in the system.
Mr. Harper asked if a normal working family knows these meetings are being held.
Mr. Young stated meetings are posted on the visual marquis, flyers have been distributed, and there have
been community meetings in an attempt to reach out to everyone.
Mr. Harper questioned how Board meetings are advertised.
Mr. Young advised the meetings are posted.
Mr. Harper commented that he had no idea there was a website.
Mr. Perez asked Board members four questions as follows:
What are they seeing in the community as far as Parks & Recreation:
Mr. McGuire feels the park system is good, but it is weak because it does not provide for youngsters. He
thinks they should look at providing jobs, a dirt bike park, an Equestrian facility, and a skateboard park.
He noted there are plenty of walking trails.
Mr. Sobel stated he lives in a community of older people who are not active in using parks, but they are
active supporters of parks, as far as the community goes, they are committed to supporting the parks and
would like to see it expanded. He asked if Boynton Beach is part of the Park System.
Mr. Young replied yes.
Mr. Ramiccio mentioned District 4 and noted there are opportunities on the western side for future
expansion, He would like to see the Park System expanded, more neighborhood parks, and pocket parks.
They need to stop cut-throughs, which would reduce crime and create neighborhoods with boundaries.
One thing missing is a neighborhood network. Many new developments require open space, and he would
like to allow more open space in the future. He suggested asking for a butterfly area,but there needs to be
more interaction, and sometimes it is just green space.
Page 21 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 19 August 23, 2022
Mr. Simon indicated there is an incentive for developers to provide additional space in their development,
but they need some sort of mitigation where they can buy into the parks program. He mentioned the beach
and stated once they changed to parking meters the beach was gone; it is not the same as it used to be.
There is lots of parking and road rage and people cannot get in and out during the season. Something
needs to be done; they have the cheapest parking meters, but there is no resident parking along the public
beach. He agreed that a lot of the parks could use more staff, as it would reduce crime, litter, and tension.
Mr. Harper commented that pocket parks are great in his neighborhood. He is a big fan of parks and
bringing people together.
Chair Rosecrans commented that Girl Scout Park has been underdeveloped for some time.
Mr. Young advised the park is considered underdeveloped and tagged for development in the future.
Chair Rosecrans mentioned that he would like to see a skate park.
Broader Challenges:
Mr. McGuire mentioned there is only one Senior Center and asked if it is helpful to residents.
Mr. Ramiccio stated Boynton Beach has an opportunity to partner with the County for the Regional Parks.
He commented that Mr. Young does a really good with his program and it is a solid asset to the City.
Mr. Sobel questioned if there is a need for activity centers and if there is, he says, "Go for it".
Mr. Simon stated there is an opportunity for food services and noted that other programming could be
incorporated. He asked how those programs could be implemented.
Top 3 Priorities:
Mr. Sobel commented that children are the first priority, and the second priority is pocket parks.
Mr. McGuire stated he would like to see a motorcycle park; it would be something new and different. He
would also like to see employers hiring youths and adults and more food vendors having access to the
parks.
Chair Rosecrans indicated he would like to see the resources they have utilized at Girl Scout Park. There
is a triangle when you drive I-95, and he would like to see that open.
Mr. Young advised there is not any funding.
Mr. Ramiccio mentioned ECO Park and he would like to explore the opportunities. There is an interest in
native plants and plants that help environmentally. The priority over the next few years is to develop that
park, so it can be utilized by all residents in Palm Beach County.
Mr. Sobel suggested pocket parks. Their goal is to support people in the community of Boynton Beach
and to encourage and recommend that the Board focus on that and things the community needs.
Page 22 of 70
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 20 August 23, 2022
Mr. Harper stated the focus should be on citizens. He noted that pocket parks are a good place to have
monthly food trucks to bring the neighborhood out.
Mr. Simon suggested City sponsored events such as food trucks and/or movie nights.
What funding sources would you support:
Mr. Simon commented that the City has enough parking meters and he thinks pay as you go is realistic.
By increasing the fees, they can generate more revenue. He does not mind paying more property taxes to
have a nice City.
Mr. Sobel commented that raising fees at the beach will create a hardship.
Mr. Simon stated the main point is because it is the lowest fee it is not only attracting people from Boynton
Beach.
Mr. Young advised there are no longer any parking decals.
Mr. Simon stated the issue is there is no place to park.
Mr. McGuire commented that raising property taxes is a delicate balance that he would not be in favor of,
perhaps grants are a possibility.
Mr. Perez indicated that could be a recommendation.
Mr. McGuire commented a 1% fee for the Arts and 1% for a Development Fee is unoffensive to
developers.
Ms. Radigan advised pay as you go options are called Impact Fees,which is something currently utilized,
but it has not been updated in a while.
Mr. Ramiccio thinks they have to consider as a community, inverted presentations from staff during the
budget process. Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works are always overlooked. It would be
nice if the Commission would make Parks & Recreation a priority in the budget and prioritize children.
He noted this Commission has $248 million in revenue and he is sure they can find a few dollars.
Mr. Perez stated that could be a recommendation.
Mr. Young thanked everyone for their participation and recommendations.
9. Comments by Members —None.
10. Adjournment
Upon Motion duly made and seconded, the meeting at was adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
[Minutes prepared by C. Guifarro,Prototype,Inc.]
Page 23 of 70
7.7.A.
New Business
9/27/2022
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 9/27/2022
REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Approve modifications to
reduce building heights in MU-C and MU-4 Zoning Districts (CDRV 22-004) amending Chapter 3. Art 111.
Sec 1.E Table 3-4. Mixed Use Urban Building and Site Regulations.
EXPLANATION OF REQUEST:
At the request of the City Commission, this staff report outlines information regarding amendments to the
maximum permitted height in the Land Development Regulations. Specifically, lowering the maximum
permitted building height City-wide to 85 feet. This would affect two zoning districts: MU-C which currently
allows a maximum building height of 150 feet, and MU-4 which currently allows a maximum building height of
100 feet.
Upon the adoption of the accompanying Ordinance the current building height will be amended to be as
follows:
MU-1 Urban Mixed Use 45'
MU-2 Urban Mixed Use 65'
MU-3 Urban Mixed Use 75'
MU-4 Urban Mixed Use 80'
MU-Core Urban Mixed Use 85'
HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES?
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
STRATEGIC PLAN:
STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION:
CLIMATE ACTION APPLICATION:
Is this a grant?
Grant Amount:
Page 24 of 70
ATTACHMENTS:
Type Description
D Staff Report Building Height Amendment Staff Report
D Amendment Exhibit A® Text Amendment
D Exhibit Staff Presentation
Page 25 of 70
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 22-013
STAFF REPORT
TO: Chair and Members
Planning and Development Board
THRU: Amanda Radigan, AICP.4UX2
Planning and Zoning Director
FROM: Elizabeth Eassa, AICP, Senior Planner; Craig Pinder, Planner II
DATE: September 27, 2022
REQUEST: Approve modifications to reduce building heights in MU-C and MU-4
Zoning Districts (CDRV 22-004) amending Chapter 3. Art III. Sec 1.E
Table 3-4. Mixed Use Urban Building and Site Regulations.
OVERVIEW
At the request of the City Commission, this staff report outlines information regarding
amendments to the maximum permitted height in the Land Development Regulations.
Specifically, lowering the maximum permitted building height City-wide to 85 feet. This would
affect two zoning districts: MU-C which currently allows a maximum building height of 150 feet,
and MU-4 which currently allows a maximum building height of 100 feet.
EXPLANATION & PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
History of Height
Over the last 20 years, the City has embraced redevelopment planning which has been guided
by recommendations adopted within CRA plans. The adopted plans focus on the development
of a downtown which included specific emphasis on the topic of height. In the year 2000, when
the height maximum City-wide was 100 feet, public workshops were held for the creation of the
Federal Highway Corridor Community Redevelopment Plan ("FHCCRP"), which was later
adopted in 2001. The City subsequently updated the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to
implement the changes recommended in the FHCCRP and established the original MU-H and
MU-L zoning districts which increased the maximum height allowed in the City to 150-feet for
MU-H. Mixed use zoning districts were expanded to Boynton Beach Boulevard in 2006 following
the adoption of the Boynton Beach Boulevard Corridor Plan, which established
recommendations to increase intensity by adding residential components from Interstate 95
(being the lowest level of intensity) to downtown Boynton Beach (being the highest level of
intensity).
Also in 2006, the FHCCRP was updated which led to further distribution of mixed use heights
and densities and established three (3) new districts (MUL-1, MUL-2, and MUL-3) which created
lower levels of intensity.
The City hosted a series of public workshops in 2016 to consolidate the various redevelopment
Page 26 of 70
Page 2
Building Height
CDRV 22-004
plans, into a single Community Redevelopment Plan (CRA Plan). The LDR was updated in both
2016 and 2017 to further distribute the mixed using zoning districts, per the CRA Plan
recommendations. This amendment added MU-4, which provided an intermediate step between
the height caps of 75-feet and 150-feet within the Mixed Use and Mixed Use Core
classifications. There have been no amendments to height regulations since the adoption of
MU-4. Currently the maximum height allowed in the City's Urban Mixed Use zoning districts are
as follows:
MU-1 Urban Mixed Use 45'
MU-2 Urban Mixed Use 65'
MU-3 Urban Mixed Use 75'
MU-4 Urban Mixed Use 100'
MU-Core Urban Mixed Use 150'
The establishment of the various Mixed-Use zoning districts assisted in the creation of the
Downtown Transit Oriented Development ("TOD") District Overlay, which is outlined in and
around the site that is anticipated to become a future commuter rail station. TOD's often include
a mix of commercial, residential, office and entertainment centered around or located near a
transit station. Dense, walkable, mixed-use development near transit attracts people and adds
to vibrant, connected communities. Successful TOD's depend on access and density around the
transit station. Convenient access to transit fosters development, while density encourages
people to use the transit system.
On May 17, 2022, by the request of the City Commission, Staff gave a brief presentation at the
City Commission Meeting on the City's current building height regulations. To further the
discussion, on June 25, 2022, Staff held a public workshop on building height and again
presented the materials to the Planning and Development Board. Staff presented four examples
for discussion that could be used to address lowering the maximum height permitted City-wide.
The four examples are as follows:
Example A:
Lower height maximum of MU-C from 150-feet to 85-feet
Lower height maximum of MU-4 from 100-feet to 80-feet
Example B:
Lower height maximum of MU-C from 150-feet to between 110-feet and up to 149-feet
Example C:
Make no changes to LDRs;
Amend Downtown District portion of the CRA Plan;
Reduce proposed intensity on select parcels; for example, parcels slated to go to Mixed-Use
High could be modified to be slated for Mixed-Use Medium.
Example D:
Make no changes.
The City Commission has provided direction to draft a Land Development Regulation
Amendment to implement "Example A". On August 23, 2022, Staff presented the Planning and
Development Board with the same presentation provided to the City Commission on June 25,
2022 and requested feedback. The Board's responses varied during discussion ranging from
making no changes; lowering maximum building height from 150 feet to 120-125 feet; and
2
Page 27 of 70
Page 3
Building Height
CDRV 22-004
reducing the maximum building height to 48 feet. Collectively, the Board generally supported a
height reduction. Upon the adoption of the accompanying Ordinance the current building
heights will be amended to be as follows:
MU-1 Urban Mixed Use 45'
MU-2 Urban Mixed Use 65'
MU-3 Urban Mixed Use 75'
MU-4 Urban Mixed Use 80'
MU-Core Urban Mixed Use 85'
Considerations
In 1995, the State of Florida enacted the Bert J. Harris Jr. Private Property Protection Act that
created a new cause of action for aggrieved property owners. If property owners can
demonstrate that a governmental action "inordinately burdens" their property, they may be
entitled to some form of compensation. Prior to the Harris Act, governmental agencies were not
held liable for implementing zoning changes that had the potential to significantly reduce a
property owner's rights and/or investment potential.
Reducing building height could potentially limit a property owner's ability to develop and/or
redevelop their land to its existing potential under current regulations. In an effort to protect the
City from being accused of inordinately burdening property owner's that will be affected by the
accompanying Ordinance, Staff has included language which indicates that structures that were
in lawful existence or lawfully approved as of the date of the adoption of the accompanying
Ordinance will not be construed as nonconforming as a result of its adoption . Additionally, the
structure would be permitted to continue until such time that a new Major Development
Application or Major Site Plan Modification is approved or a Development Order or vested
project expires.
Should this language be accepted, a structure would be permitted to continue and execute
alterations and upgrades, however no additional height will be permitted. Any new structures
proposed on site would be required to meet the new height requirements. The structure would
also be permitted to be rebuilt, if necessary, so long as the proposal to rebuild does not stray
from the vested approval.
Attachments
3
Page 28 of 70
PART III.LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 3.ZONING
ARTICLE III ZONING DISTRICTS AND OVERLAY ZONES
Section 1.Overview
E. Mixed Use Urban Building and Site Regulations (Table 3-4).
MIXED USE, URBAN 13,14 MU-1 MU-2 MU-3 MU-4 MU-C
Lot Area,Minimum(acres):
Public park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
All other uses 0.50 0.75 1 1 1
Lot Frontage,Minimum(ft.)' 100 1002 1502 2002 2002
Structure Ht.,Minimum(ft.) 30 30 30 45 45
Maximum Height(ft.)' 45 65 75 8044Q4 8544942-54
Maximum Density(DUs/Acre)10,12 20 40 50 60 80
Maximum F.A.R." 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
Build-to-line(ft.)'
All sides abutting a collector or arterial road Factor of Pedestrian Zone Requirement'
Abutting a Local street 07 07 07 07 07
Interior side 07 07 07 07 07
Building Setback,Minimum(ft.)8
Rear abutting:
Residential single-family 255/05,6 255 255 255 255
Intracoastal waterway 255 255 255 255 255
Side abutting
Residential single-family 255/05,6 255 255 255 255
Usable Open Space,Minimum(sq.ft.)9 N/A N/A 0.5% 1% 2%
1. May be reduced if frontage extends from right-of-way to right-of-way.
4. An Use or 3trUCtUre with hht in excess of the h ,pmt rmmaxirmmU mm that was in laWfUl existence e or
vested with an aK)roVed development order at the time of ado ration of Ordinance e o. hall not be
constrUed as nonc onforilt of Ordinance e o. and c2n c ontinUe Until Uc h time a Alms car
� ';v♦/';Icm♦m,rmmry';rmt m colic.sticmrm cmr ! scar it � I srm lca ific.sticmrm i 3 s m mrcmv cmr s � ';v';Icm mrmient Order or vestedwhere property abuts any other MIJ or -i- flic+riM +
5. Plus one (1) additional foot for each foot of height over thirty-five (35)feet.
Page 29 of 70
N
N
O
N
r
L
E
O
Z
E ca
N
N
O
N
000
L
OC)
o
0 0
M
N
co
d
N
N
O
N
ONE= ti
13 MEN=
N
Baum
BE= (DL
low
od
cn
_
t
t a
a l 1 A
r � I �
jzwh
a
asp
G..OF
-� ���r •. I .. P b G u yI VI �j _ rnS: C.
I'I'l I'I' h HT,l i
.._. . . llxf-i OV 3f r' a
O
Q o
_0 O cn -
N -- (�
co
QL co m co
O
o
Q U
�
� U
� co
0f-j � -� O = U _0 0) M
co .� QL -0 � o
4- coCo m
� a 0 o f c ° cn
-f-j 2 o -f-j E
U) O N n- to U � O _0O O
0
-o > U co _0 Q c_0 N
70 U)
O J = QL '� N O O QL
0 E
LL X L- -a
E O CD
U E 7 Co
-� � co >,>
N OU E N
L- -0U N _0
E co 0 70 70a_0CU
O N L- 70 0 - N >+
U E U NX _ ca CD o Fn C � � � � � � 'Fn a) (1)
cu 0C c:O U N � ' O
N N Q- ca .,.. N NU)CU }'
...
_ O m ca (a O
� N :•_, J O
� O o � � � p � 1` ca
ca N O m O O E N N
U N J d' O
O r N N wtG tG O tG ,
O O O O CU -0 O V— U V— � U
O O O4- O O O O O O O N
N N N 0 N m 04 N N
O
O
co
(L) O Wit ,
� •N
O C �F
V
O
O V r
E +C O
co + m
O O O
V N
� O
O
06
O dA
'� o
o
0° o a M
a� co
s � a
a �
0 0
s �
CA >06
0Y �
'O
L � t
taA •� }'
a � o
o •E
�n
Y O
O V
}' V
Ln O _
t E
�
•O OV
t �
O V
� O
O ++
N
2
d
d
x
LU
ca0
0
ILLM a
Eox
it
y wf = �I ��I �Ill�ilr�
E oo a $ el�
C C)
LO C)
EE0
II
Q
0 0
� g
.a wE E
� E E
N NEE
0
Q. ¢ v -
0 CL M 0 3
Cy U � �
CD
a-J N
N N .i
> Q X
i
N >
O
0 .O
O U �
N N Q
O
O � N
� � 0
CD
�_ •� o
•X i 0 co
0 O
co
ca O
a
t1A O U �
O O N
z o
N U U
M
4-J
ca
� L),o N 0
O
ca
LU +��-+ +-+ 4O
V E N cn
v O O
>
0Lr N � � 0
M ++ N 0 O .0
0 CL O = f}6
_ >� CLO u
.
O Q m c Q
V LL m c Q
CIO m0
0
LO
M
N
0
co
d
. j
7.7.B.
New Business
9/27/2022
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 9/27/2022
REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Approve modifications
(CDRV 22-005) amending the Part III LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapter 1, Article 11. Use
Definitions, Chapter 3. Zoning, and Chapter 4, Article 111. Exterior Building and Site Standards (CDRV 22-
005), to include requirements for commercial frontage.
EXPLANATION OF REQUEST:
The proposed amendments encompass requirements for minimum percentages of commercial frontage along
specific rights-of-way. These amendments will contribute to the establishment of viable storefronts and
commercial spaces appropriate to the scale and fabric of the built environment along key corridors within the
city.
The following table provides a summary of the amendments being proposed:
Overlay Zone/Mixed-Use 50% Commercial 70% Commercial Frontage
District Frontage Required Required, Remaining for Active
Frontage
Martin Luther King Jr. N/A Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
Boulevard Overlay
Federal Highway between SE 18th
Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr.
Urban Commercial District Boulevard;
N/A Ocean Avenue west of SE/NE 6th
Overlay Street;
Boynton Beach Boulevard west of
Federal Highway
Cultural District Overlay N/A E Ocean Avenue east of N Seacrest
Boulevard
Boynton Beach Boulevard N/A W Boynton Beach Boulevard and N
Overlay Seacrest Boulevard
Federal Highway;
Downtown Transit-Oriented Ocean Avenue between SE/NE 6th
Development District SE 4th Street Street and Seacrest Boulevard;
Overlay and Boynton Beach Boulevard, west
of Federal Highway
Suburban Mixed-Use Old Boynton Road and Congress Avenue, Boynton Beach
Zoning Winchester Park Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard
Boulevard
HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? N/A
Page 36 of 70
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
STRATEGIC PLAN:
STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION: N/A
CLIMATE ACTION APPLICATION: N/A
Is this a grant?
Grant Amount:
ATTACHMENTS:
Type Description
D Staff Report Staff Report
D Exhibit Exhibit A® Rights-of-Way Map
D Amendment Exhibit B ® Proposed Amendments
D Exhibit Exhibit C ® Staff Presentation
Page 37 of 70
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 22-014
STAFF REPORT
TO: Chair and Members
Planning and Development Board
THRU: Amanda Radigan, AICP, LEED AP
���
Planning and Zoning Director
FROM: Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner
Luis Bencosme, Senior Planner
DATE: September 27, 2022
REQUEST: Approve modifications (CDRV 22-005) amending the LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapter 1, Article II. Use Definitions,
Chapter 3. Zoning, and Chapter 4, Article III. Exterior Building and Site
Standards (CDRV 22-005), to include requirements for commercial
frontage.
OVERVIEW
The proposed amendments encompass requirements for minimum percentages of commercial
frontage along specific rights-of-way. These amendments will contribute to the establishment of
viable storefronts and commercial spaces appropriate to the scale and fabric of the built
environment along key corridors within the city.
EXPLANATION & PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The current building and site regulations applicable to the mixed-use zoning districts and overlays
require pedestrian-friendly design, storefronts along the sidewalk, and a mixture of active and
commercial uses along key corridors, including Boynton Beach Boulevard, Ocean Avenue, Martin
Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Federal Highway. In order to promote the construction of mixed-
use developments that activate the street, the code generally requires these developments to
provide for active and commercial uses on the ground floor of buildings that front an arterial
roadway. The code also requires that the buildings occupy the entire length of the street frontage.
Currently, the code does not provide a specific percentage of required commercial frontage and
minimum design standards. Additionally, the code allows applicants to satisfy the existing
Active/Commercial Use requirement by establishing residential service-type uses such as
lounges, gyms, common rooms, and recreational spaces.
The lack of clear commercial frontage standards limits staff's ability to require an adequate
amount of viable commercial spaces along key corridors. It also creates the possibility of
commercial spaces that lack sufficient depth and/or width, resulting in vacant storefronts.
Additionally, while active uses are allowed to meet the existing Active/Commercial Use
requirement and are preferred in limited circumstances, they are not appropriate in more intense
corridors as they may not generate the same level of pedestrian activity that would be generated
by commercial uses and do not provide the services needed to support the surrounding
neighborhood.
Page 38 of 70
Page 2
Commercial Frontage
CDRV 22-005
Staff's proposed amendments include requiring certain percentages of commercial frontage along
key arterial rights-of-way. The following table provides a summary of the amendments being
proposed:
Overlay Zone/Mixed-Use 50% Commercial 70% Commercial Frontage
District Frontage Required Required, Remaining for Active
Frontage
Martin Luther King Jr. N/A Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
Boulevard Overlay
Federal Highway between SE 18th
Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr.
Boulevard;
Urban Commercial District N/A Ocean Avenue west of SE/NE 6th
Overlay Street;
Boynton Beach Boulevard west of
Federal Highway
Cultural District Overlay N/A E Ocean Avenue east of N Seacrest
Boulevard
Boynton Beach Boulevard W Boynton Beach Boulevard and N
Overlay N/A Seacrest Boulevard
Federal Highway;
Downtown Transit-Oriented Ocean Avenue between SE/NE 6th
Development District SE 4th Street Street and Seacrest Boulevard;
Overlay and Boynton Beach Boulevard, west
of Federal Highway
Suburban Mixed-Use Old Boynton Road and Congress Avenue, Boynton Beach
Zoning Winchester Park Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard
Boulevard
*The table has been visualized in a map format in Exhibit A.
In order to ensure quality commercial space is provided, the proposed amendments require
commercial spaces to meet specific design standards, including a minimum depth of forty (40)
feet and a minimum ceiling height of thirteen (13) feet. The proposed design standards are
consistent with industry standards and are similar to adopted regulations of several neighboring
municipalities, including West Palm Beach and Delray Beach. Specific exemptions to commercial
frontage are also being proposed, including provisions for vehicular access, public usable open
space, and site visibility triangles. In addition, definitions defining active and commercial uses on
the ground floor are being refined to assist in accurate interpretation of the code.
2
Page 39 of 70
Page 3
Commercial Frontage
CDRV 22-005
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Approval of the subject amendments to the Land Development Regulations to
support the establishment of quantifiable commercial frontage requirements and design
standards.
Attachments
3
Page 40 of 70
Exhibit • FrontageRequirements
YNTON
D ' 11 •
a
I I HYpoluxo ------- ------FrHypol; >
—3I4� Rd 1/ Rd& m I
1 1 1 (D Y 2
o a�
1 11 > I O
a 1 O I
1
Min Rd - IminedRd ner
1 Rd
I 1
1
a ew BI E Gatek, 1
Blvd
(D i
Gatewl Blvd r— 1 1 m=aI1
z = co J '
I I I I m
d I �-
� 1 z 1
CQ Martin L er j
J 1 King Jr
Old BovujonRdYMz
1
F 1
1
1 d E vnton 1
---_Boynton Beach E I d .1 s B nton Beach 6 z .. Be h BlvdtElOcean 6cean
tq 1 I °° R a e, 1 Ave m
1 I O 1 I
z 1 OI
1
1 s
jN W 1
1 LL 1
1 cin 2 Woclbri
r City Boundary 1 W It olbri ht Rd d
Frontage Requirements
U-
a as
50%;All Districts 1 I I
asom 70%;All Districts1 m
SW 23rd Aye a E 1
50%;SMU Only 1 yK 23r AV -�11
70%,SMU Only
�+ 1
0 1
i v `' 1
------! N ,d "'1
1 rr
1 m
i
1
1
I — ulfstrea
Blvd
1 �
Coconut I yid
Ln
0 1,0002,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Co --- Feet f�l
Page 41 of 70
PART III. LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS
ACCESSORY USE - See "Use,Accessory."
ACRE - Land or water consisting of forty-three thousand, five hundred sixty (43,560)
square feet.
ACTIVE/COMMERCIALACTIVE/COMMERCIAL USES ON ('_T?l1TTND FLOOR
Foams,1. Mixed use pFojectS %4thi-P uph-an mixed use zoning dist-TiCts Meet gFOUREI 140OF
12 e-si I-A e-pt-only SeFviee amenities such as lounges, gyms, C-OMMOR FOOMS, and Fec-FeatiOn
spaces maybe inc-luded- in _additian to the -ah-ove uses.
may be eambined 4444h building amenWessileh as lounges, gyms, C-ommon
-A-Rd Fec_-FeatiOR SpaGeS OR the gFOUREI 1400F.
ACTIVE USES ON GROUND FLOOR- Resident-only serving amenities such as lounges,
gyms, common rooms, and recreational spaces. This also includes entrances to individual
dwelling units that incorporate features such as porches, stoops, landings, or foundation
plantings within the adjacent pedestrian zone active area..
ADDITION -An expansion, extension, or increase in the usable space within a building or
facility.
COLOCATION - The practice of installing and operating multiple wireless carriers, service
providers, and/or radio common carrier licensees on the same antenna support structure
or attached wireless communication facility using different and separate antenna, feed
lines and radio frequency generating equipment.
COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE - The portion of the ground floor of a building which contains
commercial uses fronting specific rights-of-way.
COMMERCIAL TRUCK -A truck defined as such by the rules of the Florida Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.
Page 42 of 70
COMMERCIAL USES ON ('Dl1UND FLOOR - Uses serving the general public such as retail,
restaurants,bars, entertainment, personal services, and offices.
CHAPTER 3. ZONING
ARTICALE III. ZONING DISTRICTS AND OVERLAY ZONES
Sec. 4. SMU Mixed-Use Suburban District.
A. General.
1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the SMU zoning district is to implement the
mixed use low (MXL) and development of regional impact (DRI) future land use map
(FLUM) classifications of the Comprehensive Plan. In order to guide the redevelopment and
envisioned growth of the suburban area, the SMU zoning district requires a diversity of
land uses, accommodating a mixture of residential, office, retail, recreational, and other
miscellaneous uses. Ideally,the SMU district is intended to supplant the PCD district for
new developments and projects to encourage vibrant commercial centers through the
inclusion of residential uses and well-planned mixed use projects designed in accordance
with smart growth principles and best planning practices. Densities of such developments
shall be no greater than twenty (20) dwelling units per acre. This mix of uses may be
arranged either vertically or horizontally within low-to-mid-rise developments. The review
of SMU applications will emphasize aesthetics and design quality, and physical
compatibility with adjacent land uses. The specific objectives of the SMU district are as
follows:
a. Support and enhance development and redevelopment efforts in suburban areas
outside of the downtown redevelopment area;
b. Create major new mixed use areas in planned locations with appropriate densities,
heights, and mixture of uses;
c. Create attractive pedestrian environments through appropriate separation from
and design of vehicular circulation areas;
d. Provide public plazas and gathering places that are both well-designed and
integrated into the overall design of the development;
e. Allow flexibility in architectural design and building bulk,while maximizing
compatibility and harmony with adjoining development;
f. Create higher quality environments for residents, businesses, employees, and
visitors; and
Page 43 of 70
g. Encourage innovative design that achieves vertical and horizontal integration of
uses.
2. Prerequisite Location Standards. The SMU district creates an opportunity to promote
sustainability with respect to land use, energy conservation and resource management.
Rezoning to the SMU district is encouraged for proposed development or redevelopment
on lands that are in close proximity to existing infrastructure, public and alternative
transportation routes and modes, employment centers, community areas, or have
sustained or are complicated by environmental contamination.
The SMU district shall only be applicable to lands located west of I-95 on assembled
parcels along principal arterials.
D. Building and Site Regulations.
1. Building and Site Regulation (Table 3-21).
SUBURBAN MIXED- Types of Uses
USE (SMU) DISTRICT
Building/Site Residential Multi- Other Uses (includes
Regulations Single-Family Family Mixed-Use)
(Attached or
Detached)
Density(dwelling units 20 20 N/A
per acre)
Project Area, SMU district- 10 acres
Minimum:
Lot Area per unit, Flexible 12 Flexible 12 10,000
Minimum (square
feet):
Lot Frontage, Flexible 12 100 100
Minimum (feet):
Living Area, Minimum 1,200 750 750
A/C (square feet):
Floor Area Ratio N/A N/A 2.56
(FAR), Maximum:
Structure Height, 357 357 357
Minimum (feet):
Structure Height, 35 554°8 554°8
Maximum (feet):
Page 44 of 70
Build-to-line(feet):
Front: 101 1 W,3,4 103°4,s
Building Setbacks,
Minimum (feet):
Side: 15 corner 10 end 104 o4,12
Rear: Flexible 12 154 Flexible 4,12
Usable Open Space, 30%9,10 20%9,11 20%9,11
Minimum (square
feet):
Minimum Commercial
Building Frontage at
Build-to Line 13,14,15
N Congress Avenue, 70%16
W Boynton Beach Blvd,
Gateway Boulevard
Old Boynton Road 50%
(Congress Ave to West
City Limits), Winchester
Park Boulevard
1. Porches may be placed forward of the build-to line and shall maintain a minimum two
(2)-foot setback from any public sidewalk. Porches shall be placed outside of clear sight
triangle. Minimum setback for a garage facing or accessing the street is twenty (20) feet.
Where less than twenty (20) feet, garage access required from side or rear.
12. To be determined on a case by case basis, depending on the overall project design.
13. Minimum commercial building frontage must be located at the required build-to line.
14. Exemptions to required frontage include provisions for access, public usable open
space, and site visibility, triangles.
1S. Commercial frontage must have a minimum depth of forty (40) feet and a minimum
ceiling height of thirteen (13) feet.
16. The remainder of the building frontage along the corresponding right-of-way shall be
occupied with Active Uses.
Sec. 8. Overlay Zones.
A. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Overlay.
Page 45 of 70
3. Use(s).
a. Commercial Frontage Requirements. The required commercial spaces fronting the
following rights-of-way shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet in depth and a minimum of
thirteen (13) feet in ceiling height. Exemptions to required frontage include provisions for
access, public usable open space, and site visibili , triangles.
(1) Seventy percent (70%) of the ground floor frontage of structures fronting
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard must consist of Commercial Uses at the build-to line. The
remainder of the ground floor frontage along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard not
occupied by Commercial Uses must consist of Active Uses at the build-to-line.
ab. Uses shall be determined by the underlying zoning district, see "Use Matrix Table
3-28" in Chapter 3,Article IV, Section 3.D.,with the except of the following prohibited uses:
(1) Dwelling, single-family (detached);
(2) Dwelling,two-family (duplex);
(3) Automobile rental;
(4) Automotive, major repair;
(S) Automotive, minor repair;
(6) Auto/car wash, self-serve bay;
(7) Auto dealer, new;
(8) Auto dealer, used;
(9) Auto/car wash (polishing,waxing, detailing);
(10) Automotive window tinting/stereo installation/alarms;
(11) Drive-through facilities;
(12) Gasoline station;
(13) Group homes Type I, II, III, and IV;
(14) Adult entertainment.
Inc. Any other automobile-oriented uses not listed above are prohibited.
(1) An "automobile-oriented use"shall be construed as a business which has a
principal purpose of servicing an automobile or consists of a building type or feature which
is designed for an automobile, such as drive-through facilities.
sd. Live-work units are permitted,but may not front MLK Jr. Boulevard and do not
replace the required Commercial Uses on ground floor.
e-4. Additionally, no legally existing use shall be deemed non-conforming as a result of
the MLKBO regulations.
B. Urban Commercial District Overlay.
Page 46 of 70
S. Use(sl.
a. Commercial Frontage Requirements. The required commercial spaces fronting the
following rights-of-way shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet in depth and a minimum of
thirteen (13) feet in ceiling height. Exemptions to required frontage include provisions for
access, public usable open space, and site visibili , triangles.
(1) Seventy percent (70%) of the ground floor frontage of structures fronting the
portion of Federal Highway between SE 18th Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard,
the portion of Ocean Avenue west of SE/NE 6th Street, and f or the portion of Boynton Beach
Boulevard west of Federal Highway, must consist of Commercial Uses at the build-to line.
The remainder of the ground floor frontage along the portion of Federal Highway between
SE 18th Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard,the portion of Ocean Avenue west of
SE/NE 6th Street, or the portion of Boynton Beach Boulevard west of Federal Highway not
occupied by Commercial Uses must consist of Active Uses at the build-to-line.
&6. Building and Site Regulations (Table 3-27). Development within this overlay shall
be in accordance with building and site regulations applicable to the underlying zoning
district except as follows:
C. Cultural District Overlay.
4. Uses.
a. Commercial Frontage Requirements. The required commercial spaces fronting the
following rights-of-way shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet in depth and a minimum of
thirteen (13) feet in ceiling height. Exemptions to required frontage include provisions for
access, public usable open space, and site visibili , triangles.
(1) Seventy (70%) of the ground floor frontage of structures fronting Ocean Avenue
must consist of Commercial Uses at the build-to line. The remainder of the ground floor
frontage along Ocean Avenue not occupied by Commercial Uses must consist of Active Uses
at the build-to-line. C-A-mmeve-i-,l Uses on gFound flooy_ Shall be FequipCtivrrt-:-hp- StFecc
fFORtage of Ocean Avenue.
ab. Uses shall be determined by the underlying zoning district, see "Use Matrix Table
3-28" in Chapter 3,Article IV, Section 3.1),with the exception of the following prohibited
uses:
(1) Dwelling, Single-family (detached);
(2) Dwelling, Two-family (duplex);
(3) Auto Broker;
(4) Automobile Rental;
(S) Automotive, Major Repair;
(6) Automotive, Minor Repair;
(7) Auto/Car Wash, Self-serve Bay;
Page 47 of 70
(8) Auto Dealer, New;
(9) Auto Dealer, Used;
(10) Automotive Parts Store;
(11) Auto/Car Wash (Polishing,Waxing, Detailing);
(12) Automotive Window Tinting/Stereo Installation/Alarms;
(13) Drive-thru facilities;
(14) Day&Trade Labor Pool (Temporary Help);
(1S) Boat Dealer/Rental;
(16) Cleaning Supply Store (Swimming Pool, Janitorial);
(17) Convenience Store;
(18) Gasoline Station;
(19) Showroom warehouse (single-product line);
(20) Merchandise, Used (Other);
(21) Merchandise, New (Supercenter, Discount, Department, Club);
(22) Home Improvement Center;
(23) Coin-operated Laundry;
(24) Funeral Home;
(2S) Pet Care (Boarding and Daycare);
(26) Cemetery;
(27) Church;
(28) Civic&Fraternal Club/Organization;
(29) Group homes Type I, II, III, and IV;
(30) College, Seminary, University;
(31) School, Primary and Secondary;
(32) School, Industrial&Trade;
(33) Shooting Range, Indoor;
(34) Adult entertainment;
(3S) Temporary employment agency;
(36) Tutoring or Testing Center;
(37) Private Parking Lots; and
(38) Social service agency.
Inc. Any other automobile-oriented uses not listed above are prohibited.
(1) An "automobile oriented use" shall be construed as a business which has a
principal purpose of servicing an automobile or consists of a building type or feature which
is designed for an automobile, such as drive-thru facilities.
sd. Live-work units are permitted,but may not front East Ocean Avenue or Seacrest
Boulevard.
4e. School, Professional &Technical schools are limited to those that teach the
culinary and visual arts.
ef. Additionally, no legally existing use shall be deemed non-conforming as a result of
the CDO emulations.
Page 48 of 70
D. Boynton Beach Boulevard Overlay (BBBO).
4. Uses.
a. Commercial Frontage Requirements. The required commercial spaces fronting the
following rights-of-way shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet in depth and a minimum of
thirteen (13) feet in ceiling height. Exemptions to required frontage include provisions for
access, public usable open space, and site visibili , triangles.
(1) Seventy (70%) of the ground floor frontage of structures fronting Boynton
Beach Boulevard and/or Seacrest Boulevard must consist of Commercial Uses at the build-
to-line. The remainder of the ground floor frontage along Boynton Beach Boulevard and/or
Seacrest Boulevard not occupied by Commercial Uses must consist of Active Uses at the
build-to-line. C.A-mmeve-i-,l Uses o gFoundfl.,.,r Shall be r e the Stp-eet f-PoRtage of
ab. Uses shall be determined by the underlying zoning district, see "Use Matrix Table
3-28" in Chapter 3,Article IV, Section 3.D.,with the exception of the following prohibited
uses:
(1) Accessory Dwelling Unit;
(2) Dwelling, Single-family (detached);
(3) Dwelling, Two-family (duplex);
(4) Auto Broker;
(S) Automobile Rental;
(6) Automotive, Major Repair;
(7) Automotive, Minor Repair;
(8) Auto Dealer, New;
(9) Auto Dealer, Used;
(10) Automotive Parts Store;
(11) Auto/Car Wash, Self-serve Bay;
(12) Auto/Car Wash (Polishing, Waxing, Detailing);
(13) Automotive Window Tinting/Stereo Installation/Alarms;
(14) Drive-thru facilities;
(1S) Day and Trade Labor Pool (Temporary Help);
(16) Boat Dealer/Rental;
(17) Cleaning Supply Store (Swimming Pool, Janitorial);
(18) Convenience Store;
(19) Gasoline Station;
(20) Furniture and Home furnishing, unless integrated into a mixed use
development;
(21) Showroom warehouse (single-product line);
(22) Merchandise, Used (Other);
(23) Merchandise, New (Supercenter, Discount, Department, Club);
(24) Home Improvement Center;
(2S) Coin-operated Laundry;
Page 49 of 70
(26) Funeral Home;
(27) Pet Care (Boarding and Daycare);
(28) Cemetery;
(29) Church;
(30) Civic and Fraternal Club/Organization;
(31) Group homes Type I, II, III, and IV;
(32) College, Seminary, University;
(33) School, Primary and Secondary;
(34) School, Industrial and Trade;
(3S) Shooting Range, Indoor;
(36) Adult entertainment;
(37) Temporary employment agency;
(38) Social service agency; and
(39) All industrial uses.
I4c. Any other automobile-oriented use not listed above is prohibited.
(1) An "automobile oriented use" shall be construed as a business which has a
principal purpose of servicing an automobile or consists of a building type or feature which
is designed for an automobile.
Ed. Live-work units are permitted,but may not front Boynton Beach Boulevard or
Seacrest Boulevard.
4e. Additionally, no legally existing use shall be deemed non-conforming as a result of
the BBBO regulations.
E. Downtown Transit-Oriented Development District (DTODD) Overlay.
4. Use{s' Allowed.
a. Commercial Frontage Requirements. The required commercial spaces fronting the
following rights-of-way shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet in depth and a minimum of
thirteen (13) feet in ceiling height. Exemptions to required frontage include provisions for
access, public usable open space, and site visibili , triangles.
(1) Seventy (70%) of the ground floor frontage of structures fronting Federal
Highway,the portion of Ocean Avenue between SE/NE 6th Street and Seacrest Boulevard,
and/or the portion of Boynton Beach Boulevard west of Federal Highway, must consist of
Commercial Uses at the build-to line. The remainder of the ground floor frontage along
Federal Highway,the portion of Ocean Avenue between SE/NE 6th Street and/or Seacrest
Boulevard, and the portion of Boynton Beach Boulevard west of Federal Highway not
occupied by Commercial Uses must consist of Active Uses at the build-to-line.
(2) Fifty percent (SO%) of the ground floor frontage of structures fronting SE 4th
Street must consist of Commercial Uses at the build-to line.
Page 50 of 70
b. For the DTODD, allowed uses are based on the underlying zoning district. See "Use
Matrix,"Table 3-28 in Chapter 3,Article IV, Section 3.1).
CHAPTER 4. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ARTICLE III. EXTERIOR BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS
Sec. 6. Design Standards for Development in Urban Areas.
D. Standards for Windows. Windows shall be located at pedestrian scale.A minimum of
70% of windows on the front or side facades shall be transparent. The remaining 30% may
be opaque, provided that the following conditions are met:
a. Window construction using opaque glass shall appear identical to the transparent
windows:
b. Opaque windows shall not be superficially attached to the wall:
c. Opaque windows shall not be perceptibly different in texture, color, or reflectivity
than the glass of the transparent windows.
Page 51 of 70
zx C*4
0 C*4
C)
LL I-
o
N
L
f o
4� >= C--4 E
0 ui 0 > 0 -0 cl,
LL 0
co
■
LO
5
E 70 70
L-
I
-
. 1
- U M
I
®C�
LO
5
W
C ,a '�"►
_ O
t3.
Va
CN
U C2 CN
cm
;a tm
o -,
® 9
0
0
C%
UP
06
0
® 0® cu
CL
9 0
0
0
0 �
0
0
0®
LO
W
5
Z m
C � 7L ++ W
0 _0ca > to U) O ca
L ®tl �! V = C �
-Ft E ® 0 00 O
0 cu LL
L � N' Z
S3 = t
> W W G1 � = m
(j) Z
= � W '0Z, > a O L O
> 4- > Q s m O 'D >,
i 0 0 W O O m O 0
N Gm OLLmcu �
O Gs O cn
t
CO m CU O N' > I
LcnE m ai0i = m > _ a0 L
3 _ ._ > m Q 0Z3 '� Nm
m = = r_ 4-1L!)
Q L /�
L m LL —1 Q oo W oo LL fn 00 U 0
cu CL
0
CY)
_ /CY) 4-,
>�
V/
'� O
CO
a ? a _ �
® z z z z oa
= L
W G0 +;
® c W06
V
0
0
.Lr ®tl
L
r®
0tl
L L
® �®
w r
li
® m
CU 0
0
0 0 0
0
r® r®
LO
5
aD
y
G� 0 a
L c 0
� CC
co
0
J L
? N( dopej
f lfL,
c
PAIS Isa1399N LUUP
v
�j m
Cop ,
CL
r
Pnl
�o
Hle 3 -1
PTI y°oPanp c + ® s
®o mH I'Jagaj g 1 1
m °jltea p3j w ¢ H/¢papa
W n B;saJ°Pas N w Na ry I r
� A n
PniB lsa,�¢a t>
i m
Nlnterstate95 aa`CS
06
III n� p 8th St v i�
= yN8 C 51
N
LMI � 3
cu
t N
v
9 g a
1 �
I c_- antlssaa pN IB 3 I
1 � I
Ix
I aK
Pa
� 1 1
` m m
-----------
u
— Hoeg
1alll g
_ -
5
CIA
ILL
4?
r psi s�lltl� 'sr) '}�' rs\4�s)tS>v is�i ss(t 1
r,
UP
C
it s 14sr
sl til kyU{��t 11Ai � ��alis 4t� is11 ;}
06
11i}{�i£s�ti £ s��£�lit�2��� �}
r�slsr{st!f s�1{£�\ � t+��i1�\£�$§�'�1+t�Jl}fit
4?�1';it V ij ty� r�i ss���{it #��� Zf£;}fit
L £���}�4�1 (! {tssS�1}�s ry� �'�V !il} t i1,
t£1�� rst���ti ram �iSfs�£1���}��{1��S�bi+r'j,
cu
s
CL
'sS�
��tiltsis����� ■
Y >% Y
— m — c !�
1 _ 1
C: C:
o
_ ' i _ ' i
C: C:
CD in CD in 0
LO
r r
u u
ou
O
O
co
Ln
N
Z qc� 0)co>= d
o UJ
7.7.C.
New Business
9/27/2022
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: 9/27/2022
REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Approve modifications
(CDRV 22-006) to Part 111. LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS amending Chapter 2 Land
Development Process, Article II Planning and Zoning Division Services, Section 1.F to allow for an expiration
of abandoned applications and Section 7.G to establish a process for Zoning Interpretations and; Chapter 3.
Zoning, Article I I General Provisions Section 11 to create an exemption for City-owned telecommunication
towers used for essential services and; Article 111. Zoning Districts and Overlay Zones, Section 2.13 revising
the parameters for permitted Administrative Adjustments; Article IV. Use Regulations, Section D, Footnote 23
to revise the regulations for industrial uses on arterial and collector roadways; Chapter 4. Site Development
Standards, Article V. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements, Section 3.G to include a sustainable parking
ratio for select industrial uses.
EXPLANATION OF REQUEST:
Staff is proposing a series of various modifications to the City's Land Development Regulations. The
amendments largely focus on clarifying the intent of the existing regulations. The changes are as follows:
• Allow for the expiration of abandoned applications;
• Create a process to request Land Development Regulation (Zoning) Interpretations;
•Allow for an exemption to the Land Development Regulations for emergency facilities and essential
services;
• Adjust regulations for industrial uses permitted on Congress Avenue, and;
• Adjust Sustainable Parking Reductions to include a reduction for industrial uses.
HOW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: None recommended.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
STRATEGIC PLAN APPLICATION:
CLIMATE ACTION APPLICATION:
Page 59 of 70
Is this a grant?
Grant Amount:
ATTACHMENTS:
Type Description
D Staff Report Text Amendment Staff Report
D Amendment Exhibit A® Text Amendments
D Exhibit Staff Presentation
Page 60 of 70
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 22-015
STAFF REPORT
TO: Chair and Members
Planning & Development Board
FROM: Amanda B. Radigan 451,e
Planning & Zoning Director
DATE: September 21, 2022
RE: Approve modifications (CDRV 22-006) to Part III. LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS amending Chapter 2 Land Development Process, Article II
Planning and Zoning Division Services, Section 15 to allow for an expiration of
abandoned applications and Section 7.G to establish a process for Zoning
Interpretations and; Chapter 3. Zoning, Article II General Provisions Section 11 to
create an exemption for City-owned telecommunication towers used for essential
services and;Article III. Zoning Districts and Overlay Zones, Section 23 revising the
parameters for permitted Administrative Adjustments; Article IV. Use Regulations,
Section D, Footnote 23 to revise the regulations for industrial uses on arterial and
collector roadways; Chapter 4. Site Development Standards,Article V. Minimum Off-
Street Parking Requirements, Section 3.G to include a sustainable parking ratio for
select industrial uses.
PROPOSED CHANGES
• Allow for the expiration of abandoned applications
Currently, the City's Land Development Regulations lack standards that allow Staff to formally
close an application that has become dormant. The proposed amendment allows staff to close
applications after six(6) months of inactivity. This amendment prevents applicants from submitting
`new' projects under abandoned applications and helps the City streamline processes in
accordance with best practices for recoding keeping.
• Create a process to request Land Development Regulation (Zoning) Interpretations
The Land Development Regulations currently contain a process for applicants to request a Zoning
Verification Letter, however; no process is codified allowing for the Planning & Zoning Director to
create a series of Code Interpretations. The proposed process is a valuable internal tool as it
permits Staff to draft formal interpretations when code provisions conflict or lack clarity, or permits
an applicant to request an interpretation for assurance in the applicability of certain code sections.
This process also creates an alternative to requiring repetitive amendments to the Land
Development Regulations.
• Allow for an exemption to the Land Development Regulations for emergency facilities and
essential services
The current Land Development Regulations affords exemptions and flexibility to public entities
when developing infrastructure such as emergency facilities and essential services. The proposed
Page 61 of 70
LDR Amendments (CDRV 22-006)
Memo PZ No. 22-015
amendment adds City-owned, essential-service telecommunication towers to the current
exemptions.
• Adiust regulations for industrial uses permitted on Congress Ave
The proposed text amendment clarifies the current intent of requiring commercial uses on
industrial properties on Congress Avenue. Industrial properties with building frontage on Congress
Avenue will continue to be required to have commercial uses fronting the road. However, in certain
occasions where buildings are not fronting or visible from Congress Avenue, commercial uses will
not be required.
• Adiust Sustainable Parking Reductions to include a reduction for industrial uses
The Sustainable Parking Regulations currently cannot be utilized by industrial developments. New
industrial development typically contains vast amounts of impervious area and minimal pervious
area. Additionally, industrial uses are modernizing with the use of technology and are reducing
their needs for surplus parking areas. This proposal allows for industrial properties to take
advantage of a reduced parking rate if the development complies with the sustainable criteria
outlined in the Code.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the subject amendments to the Land Development Regulations.
-2 -
Page 62 of 70
PART III LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 2. LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
ARTICLE II. PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION SERVICES
Sec. 1. General.
E. Completeness. If the application is not complete, it shall not be subject to further review until all identified
deficiencies have been remedied. The Director of Planning and Zoning or designee may rule that certain items
are not required for the review to commence. A determination of completeness shall not constitute a
determination of compliance with the substantive requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land
Development Regulations, or any other applicable codes.
=. Abandonment, Agglications which have no ctiv" for tim, ireater than six months will be considered
bandyo neda sada theii c a tion will b e c iia s e da.
C . Fees. Fees shall be paid at the time each type of land development application is submitted, according
to the fee schedule approved by the City Commission.
Sec. 7. Other Applications.
G. Zoning Verification.
1. General. The purpose and intent of this subsection is to set forth a uniform procedure for the
processing of formal requests from the public for written information from the city on zoning and land
development regulations (i.e. zoning verification) or other data associated with real property or the applicable
process for development or redevelopment thereof.
2. Submittal Requirements. The request shall be represented by a letter describing the desired
information and must include any applicable details on the subject property, such as a legal description, site
address, property owner, and the like.
3. Issuance of Zoning Verification Letter. Staff shall review each request and provide a written response.
I-�. Ir�tr rtti�ar� � lr�r�ir� �ar�ir� ir �t�a€.
1. General 'Thr- rid intent of this subsection is to set forth unit rrr� rocedur tsar the
r � ir1 gat t arra i r t tsar �,... r� 7 o l acr� nt Ike ul tion inter r t ti ans,
ubrriitt i I g uir rnent . .. h !e2uest shall be rr' orese a letter describirl the desired
information the code section for which inter r t tion is r- nested and must include n livable details.
3. Issuance of Inter r t do i b Plannir & Zoniri Director, Staff shaii review each re- nest ar
written rare .
Page 63 of 70
PART 111 LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 3. ZONING
ARTICLE 11. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 11. Municipal Operations and Emergency Facilities, Essential Services and Support Infrastructure.
Municipal projects, including emergency facilities, essential services, and related infrastructure, shall be
exempt from certain development and site standards, which are limited to minimum lot area, minimum lot
frontage, maximum lot coverage, maximum floor-area-ratio (FAR) and building setbacks. itV..� ur�
telecommunication t aur for essentialservi are exerniot frorn the maximurn hr, ht r �iP tia r� hit
r� ar�i h ars tr �t tea h i ht it tea phieve the nc r ro ies, The purpose of this exemption
is to provide for the necessary flexibility in siting, replacing and maintaining essential public services and
infrastructure, and to ensure an expeditious process when necessary. Exempt projects shall be reviewed
through the site plan review process for compliance with all other development standards, including the intent
of the Land Development Regulations. The review of all municipal projects should ensure that such
improvements farther the city's vision and initiatives with respect to sustainability, capital improvements
planning, comprehensive planning and redevelopment planning. Eligibility also 1 requires the subject project to
be the principal use, and on city-owned property. Municipal facilities, essential services and infrastructure are
defined within the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 1, Article 11, Definitions.
Page 64 of 70
PART 111 LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 3. ZONING
ARTICLE III. ZONING DISTRICTS AND OVERLAY ZONES
Sec. 2. Residential Districts.
B. R-1-AA Single-family Residential District.
4. Administrative Adjustments.
a. For lots platted prior to August 19, 2008, the following administrative adjustments to the minimum
yard setbacks for first floor addition to existing residential structures may be allowed:
Front and side yard: 20% reduction*
9 9
Rear yard: 25% reduction
These setback reduction provisions shall not supersede any setbacks that are recorded on a plat.
b. An administrative adjustment may be granted if any first floor addition follows the building line of a
legally nonconforming single-family structure, or a building line previously approved by a variance.
c. See Chapter 2, Article II, Section 4.A. for the administrative adjustment process.
5. Accessory Structures. Walls, fences, pools, sheds, screen-roof enclosures, and other structures are
regulated in accordance with Chapter 3. Article V, Supplemental Regulations.
Page 65 of 70
PART 111 LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 3. ZONING
ARTICLE IV. USE REGULATIONS
Sec. 3. Use Regulations.
D. Use Matrix (Table 3-28).
22. General Note. This non-industrial use is allowed within the M-1 district, provided that it 1) is located within
a multiple-tenant development on a lot that fronts on an arterial roadway; 2) does not exceed five thousand
(5,000) square feet; 3) excludes a drive-up, drive-through, or drive-in facility; and 4) complies with all off-street
parking requirements of Chapter 4, Article V. In addition, the sale of used merchandise is only allowed as
accessory to the sale of new merchandise.
23. General Note. This use is gnly allowed on an arterial or collector roadway within the M-1 district
provided that the buildinc containinrlthe use dues not have frontage on or is in view of Conrress Avenue or if
the use contains an#�at�c accessory commercial component to the operation.which . This ®r+7hrrhment
will be r®^6iir®4+^ meets the following criteria:
a. Location. The accessory commercial component shall be located within a building situated on a lot
that fronts on an arterial or collector roadway; and
b. Interior. An indoor showroom of at least two hundred fifty (250) square feet for retail sales shall be
required for establishments twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet or less. An indoor showroom area of at
least one percent (1%) of the gross floor area shall be required for establishments greater than twenty-five
thousand (25,000) square feet.
24. General Note. This non-industrial use is allowed within the PID district provided it is located on a lot
that has a Commercial (C) land use option.
Page 66 of 70
PART III LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 4. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ARTICLE V. MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 3. Special Reductions in Required Off-Street Parking
G. Parking Reductions for Sustainability. To promote or recognize sustainable design or operation, including
increased pervious area, reduced parking fields, promotion of mass transit and uses of renewable energy
sources, lower parking requirements will be granted to eligible developments as follows:
Use Minimum Number of Required Parking Spaces '
Building area is based on gross floor area unless specifically expressed otherwise.
Efficiency or one (1)-bedroom apartment 1.33
Two (2) or more bedroom apartment 1.66
Shopping center 1 per 250
Office - Retail complex 1 per 250
Grocery store 1 per 250
Industrial Uses: 10004 ® ®r<<o�
.. I�ir1 phi ir1 tr�I�I�ir1 n�
r oyLn
. Warehouse Wholesale DjStrj�%ution
Lm l °-t n nt building)
- Warehouse Internet sales
Only represents the base minimum parking rations. Other requirements may also apply including parking
for guests and recreation area as describe in other sections of the Land Development Regulations.
Page 67 of 70
Z :r 0 C*4
ol Q
C)
LL co�
o
N
✓ cc
d
■
5
L
. .
L
0
0
rn
LM cc
LMd
tl
L
•
L
X
—
0 0 C: 1--a 0L
L
L
ou
O
0O
Z qc�
co>= d
o UJ