Loading...
Minutes 10-12-22PRESENT: Trevor Rosecrans, Chair William Harper Butch Buoni, Vice Chair Chris Simon Courtlandt McQuire Jay Sobel Thomas Ramiccio, Alternate ABSENT: Tim Litsch Lyman Phillips, Alternate OTHERS: - None. MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 100 E. OCEAN AVENUE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2022, 6:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call STAFF: Amanda Radigan, Planning and Zoning Director Elizabeth Eassa, Senior Planner Andrew Meyer, Planner Jae Eun Kim, Principal Planner Sean Schwartz, City Attorney Leslie Harmon, Prototype, Inc. Roll was called and it was determined a quorum was present. 3. Agenda Approval Mr. Ramiccio requested an addition under New Business of Meadows PUD Park Discussion and Recommendation to the Commission. Motion by Mr. Ramiccio, seconded by Mr. Simon, to amend the agenda to include Discussion and Recommendation to the Commission for the new Meadows PUD Park. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (7-0) 4. Approval of Minutes 4.A. Approve board minutes from 08/23/22 Planning & Development Board meeting. Mr. McQuire advised his name was misspelled throughout the minutes; it should be McQuire, not McGuire. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 2 October 12, 2022 Motion made by Mr. Buoni, seconded by Mr. Simon, to approve the August 23, 2022 meeting minutes as amended. In a voice vote, the minutes were unanimously approved. (7-0) 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Amanda. Radigan, Planning and Zoning Director, made the following comments: • Ms. Radigan thanked IT for letting her appear virtually. • Ms. Radigan thanked the Board for input at the last meeting regarding the Parks & Recreation Master Plan. • Ms. Radigan introduced a new staff member, Jae Eun Kim. • Ms. Radigan went over the future meeting dates. There will not be a quorum for the next meeting date; however, there is business that needs to be conducted, so a special meeting will be scheduled. Chair Rosecrans requested his email be updated. Several other members mentioned they may not have received the emails. 6. Old Business - None. 7. New Business 7A. Approve modifications to reduce building heights in MU -C and MU -4 Zoning Districts (CDRV 22-004) amending Chapter 3, Art. III, Sec. LE, Table 3-4. Mixed Use Urban Building and Site Regulations. Elizabeth Eassa, Senior Planner, provided a brief presentation regarding the building height amendment. • The history of redevelopment planning over the last 20 years was provided from 2000 to present. Ms. Eassa stated that on August 24, 2022, a Height Workshop was held with the Planning and Development Board, and there was supposed to be a meeting on September 27, 2022, but there was a hurricane, so tonight they are having the Code Amendment presentation. The Adoption Hearings will be on October 8, 2022, and November 1, 2022, with the City Commission. Ms. Eassa explained the Amendment and pointed out that the presentation is incorrect as far as MU -1, it states that the maximum building height is 55 feet and it is 45 feet, but that is not the District that is currently affected. The change on the chart shows the current maximum height in MU -4 is 100 feet and the maximum height in Mixed -Use Core is 150 feet; the accompanying Ordinance proposes to change the maximum building height in MU -4 to 80 feet and the maximum height in Mixed -Use Core to 85 feet. Footnote 44 was referenced, which is being modified as part of this Amendment. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 3 October 12, 2022 The footnote states that any use or structure with height in excess of the height maximum that was in lawful existence or vested in an approved Development Order at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance shall not be construed as nonconforming as a result of the Ordinance and can continue until such time as a major development application or major Site Plan Modification is approved or a Development Order or vested project expires. Mr. Sobel commented that Boynton Beach is in many ways in competition with neighboring communities for development and for monies to come into the community. He questioned how Boynton Beach compares with the new proposed height limitations to Delray and Boca. Ms. Eassa advised Delray has a maximum height in the Downtown for four stories or 55 feet and there is one Zoning District that allows up to 85 feet. Boca has a much higher maximum and goes up to 160 feet. Mr. Sobel asked if Ms. Eassa spoke with any developers to determine what this would do to the viability of Boynton Beach to attract new money, new buildings, and new opportunities for the residents. Ms. Eassa replied that she personally did not speak to anyone. Ms. Radigan stated there was no discussion with developers. This is one entitlement in a slew of regulatory tools that need to shape density. The development seen in Boynton Beach overall has a maximum of 150 feet. Most buildings in the Downtown area range from 80 to 90 feet. Mr. Sobel questioned the motivation for doing this. Ms. Radigan indicated that the desire is from the Commission to lower heights. Mr. McQuire asked for the Chapter 3 footnote to be clarified and questioned if this applies for projects on deck. Ms. Radigan advised that anything currently existing is going to be legal, which allows existing structures to be rebuilt in case of hurricanes. Anything currently approved would be permitted to remain and be rebuilt in accordance with their approved plan. If a project is currently submitted, meaning not approved, they will be able to continue under the zoning they were submitted under. If someone wanted to demolish their property and rebuild, they would have to meet the current height limits. Mr. McQuire mentioned the second part and questioned if there are projects that are currently submitted that will not be held to the new potential Ordinance or lower height limit. Ms. Radigan replied it is possible. There are several projects, but she thinks there is only one in the Zoning District that may fall under the new modification. Mr. McQuire thought there were nine projects; he attended the CRA meeting, and the height was nowhere near 150 feet. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 4 October 12, 2022 Mr. Ramiccio mentioned the presentation given to the Commission at the last meeting. There was a lot of discussion, and the Board understands the will of the Commission is to lower the height and they want to support the Commission, but at the same time they want to continue to see projects move forward. One discussion was about Zoning in Progress, and he asked if they were to approve a Zoning in Progress if all the projects in the pipeline would then have to conform with the new regulations. Ms. Radigan stated it is her understanding it would not affect projects in the queue. City Attorney Schwartz advised that is correct. Mr. Ramiccio indicated that the CRA Plan allows for a 25% increase in density if a Plan provides Workforce Housing. He questioned if the CRA Plan would be amended to reduce the 25% incentive for Workforce Housing or if the Commission will leave the incentive of 25% if developers come in with Workforce Housing. Ms. Radigan indicated that the 25% density is intact and will remain unless there is other direction from the Commission. Mr. Ramiccio commented that Delray has a maximum height of 55 feet and their core area was 55 feet. One of the suggestions he made was 48 feet, because he thinks the largest City buildings should be in the core area, so they are the anchors. There needs to be a conversation with the Commission regarding the TOD (Transit Oriented Development). Throughout the Comprehensive Plan, it continually refers to the policy of City of Boynton Beach, which is to focus on a TOD in the core area. There are 1,200 residents in the core area of the TOD, and they need 18,000 residents to meet the criteria to comply with the TOD. After 20 years, he thinks it is time to get off the TOD and be what they want to be. Mr. Ramiccio mentioned the 20 -year Rail Transportation Plan for Coastal Link, Tri Rail, and Brightline, and Boynton Beach is not in that Plan. They need to focus on creating a Downtown and plan, as a City, to make the four blocks a destination with restaurants, shops, and hotels for patrons to enjoy. It is the Board's job to make a recommendation to the Commission to change the Zoning and he is going to support the 80 feet and 85 feet, but he would like them to be at 48 feet because there may be some opportunities for transit nodes west of town. Mr. Ramiccio believes they should say no to the developers; this Board and the Commission need to determine what they want the vision of Boynton Beach to be, and the developers can build it. Mr. Simon concurred with many of Mr. Ramiccio's points, and he supports the Commission to make changes that benefit the aesthetics of Boynton Beach in a positive way. He referenced the footnote and asked if an existing nonconforming use is allowed to come in and go to 150 feet since the maximum height was 150 feet at the time of their permitting application. Ms. Eassa advised if someone wanted to come back, they could not go to 150 feet after the adoption of this Ordinance. Mr. Simon stated in a sense, they would be existing nonconforming. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 5 October 12, 2022 Ms. Radigan indicated what is being considered as nonconforming is the existing building and their existing rights; however, if they come in to for a major Amendment or to get a new Development Order, it needs to conform to the Amendment. Mr. Simon commented that a new application does not have any ties to the new Amendment. Ms. Radigan stated whatever reason they want to build exactly what was approved is permitted. Nonconforming is important because it can lead to funding issues. Mr. Simon mentioned MU -4 and MU -C and thinks there was a missed opportunity by the previous Commissions in capturing the identity of Boynton Beach. This has to do with the scale and the amount of workable space in the area, especially up and down Ocean Avenue and Seacrest to the bridge. As part of the development, he tasked the Commission to discern what options they have to adjust the Plan and capture an identity for the City that creates a destination. The businesses in place are not necessarily the type of businesses that generate foot traffic, which most businesses require to survive. There is an opportunity to redevelop some of the buildings and create a unique, Old Florida type of vibe that allows for a broad range of businesses. He questioned the date of permit approval for Marina Village and if they are locking in something that is permanent or if this is a short-term verbiage that will be amended in the future. Chair Rosecrans indicated that the Commission needs to answer to the voters. Ms. Radigan advised the CRA Board has requested the CRA reopen the CRA Plan, and the process will start soon. Tools will be put into place to realize the vision of the Plan. Because there is a CRA, any changes will be publicly vetted through charrettes and then formally adopted. In addition, the City is currently updating their Economic Development Plan. Mr. Simon stated it would benefit the City to review new projects for functionality and longevity. Several projects have been completed and are in the works, and in his opinion, they will not allow a business to succeed. There is evidence in some of the completed buildings that businesses are not surviving and are turning over within a year or less because of visibility, parking, orientation, signage, etc. Many businesses rely on social media or marketing to let people know they are there, even though thousands of people per day drive in front of their door. There have been charrettes and the citizens lean towards a lower height restriction on development and the City and Commission say they want to allow what they want. Vice Chair Buoni thanked the Commission and staff for having the vision to revisit the height restrictions. Chair Rosecrans opened Public Comments: Attorney Bonnie Miskel, 14 SE 4 I Street, Boca Raton, FL, distributed a map to the Board members and noted that she is present on behalf of a property owner who owns the parcel on the east side of Federal Highway between Ocean Boulevard and Boynton Beach Boulevard to the north and NE 6 t to the east; it is the entire block. This owner acquired the property approximately a year ago and was attracted to the parcel because of the level of intensity, density, and height. He has been working on a plan since he Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 6 October 12, 2022 purchased the property, which has a Phase 1 and Phase 2, but it was rejected. The intent was to attract a hotel, but it would not be able to fit on the site within the height prescribed. Her client is the only vacant site that is not fully entitled. He is experiencing the fact that this change will affect what he intended to do with the site dramatically. They are reworking the Plan in an attempt to meet some of the requirements of the new Code section. Attorney Miskel provided a history of the Downtown area. She noted that the Mixed -Use Core parcels are the ones that would be affected by the change. All the parcels are either developed or entitled; they have rights to build under the Plan that came in with, and even a portion of her client's property is entitled, and it is about half of the site. When talking about compatibility, her client is surrounded by more intense higher development, and he hoped to be equal to his neighbors; he is the only vacant site that is not fully entitled. They are reworking the Plan to meet some requirements of the new Code section. Only two of the Mixed Use Districts are being effected, MU -4 and MU -C, and essentially the changes are going to impact her client, so they are the victim or the beneficiary of the change, but they do not view it as favorable because they will be singled out from those that are equally zoned as far as the MU -C. While the MU -4 looks at a 20% decrease in height, there is a 43% increase in the height that her client was expecting, so he would have the right to at least attempt to develop or design, but if this is approved, he will not be able to because they would be considered new development; they are coming in with a new Development Plan. This landowner develops land as well, but they are a property owner; they are paying taxes and the site is vacant, and they would like to make reasonable use of it. Attorney Miskel requested changes be made equitably; they are not affecting Ml, M2, and M3, but her client has a minimum unit requirement of 60 to the acre and they only have 30, but they have the same height to fit in. There is little difference between MU -3 that has a minimum of 30 units to the acre and MU -C, which is required to do 60 units. This is not a practical transition from one height to another. This Ordinance was not drafted in a way that looks at other things. There is also minimum first floor requirements, which is 15 feet, so they are being given much less than 85 feet. Finally, they are granting someone FAR rights, but not if they have the box to fit it in, so they are losing FAR by this restriction. Susan Oyer, Boynton Beach, FL, commented that residents of this City voted for a four-story maximum in 1989 and 93% of the residents said no to anything over four stories. The voters have spoken, and previous Commissioners broke their promise to the people. There is a need for a hotel, and she would be in favor of increasing the height for a hotel. She agreed with Mr. Simon regarding a problem with businesses having signage and visibility. She also concurred with Mr. Ramiccio and stated they do not need a TOD or a train station; they need to work on a Downtown destination. The City should be focused on owner/occupied housing and saying no to apartments and saying condominiums or townhomes only. This would solve a large portion of the Affordable and Workforce Housing crisis. They need to work with developers to find a way to make sure no one is losing and that the residents of the City are gaining. They also need to look at height and density; residents do not want either, it brings no good to Downtown; it does not make it walkable or livable. There is a lack of green space, and she questioned where the park is that was promised by the Cameleer Developer. Ms. Oyer mentioned how bad the water and sewer is in the Downtown area and stated they do not need any more homes; they need businesses. If the City is willing to bring taller buildings with office spaces, she is fine with 85 feet, but if they are not bringing jobs in, it needs to stay at 45 feet. They need to look at the entire environmental impact. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 7 October 12, 2022 Kristine deHaseth, Executive Director of Florida Coalition for Preservation, represents residents on the barrier island and along the Coast from Boca through South Palm. They have a large constituency in Boynton Beach, and they keep their pulse on what affects them environmentally. From a growth management point of view, they are all interconnected because what one Township does has a ripple effect on everyone else. She applauded the Board for their vision and taking time to vet this. She agrees this is a wholeheartedly opportunity to try to start this visioning process of a new identity. In moving forward with the identity, she thinks the end goal is sustainability. When talking about height there are other things to think about such as traffic, reducing parking requirements, and traffic at the four corners which could potentially start to effect EMT response times. Flooding at the at the base of the bridges has been horrific and these King Tides also affect the barrier islands. She commented that adding density and height is moving in the wrong direction. She encouraged the Board to start with height, but not to stop there, and to look at other things like density; make developers have a certain level of LEED requirements for environmental sustainability, more open space, more green space, more trees, wider sidewalks for walkability, and stop using the TOD as a false planning assumption. She requested the Board think about their future generation, not only for the City, but of surrounding neighbors. She hopes the Commission heeds the Board's advice. Attorney Barbara Hall was present on behalf of the owners of One Boynton. She mentioned a letter she sent to the Planning and Zoning Department. Attorney Hall understands the Board has wonderful goals for revitalizing areas of the City and keeping it walkable and encouraging employment, but what they are doing with height restrictions is only affecting a few properties. One Boynton is MU -4, and the current height is 100 feet. The owner of this property is looking to redevelop the central area of the project with additional units, and they will need the 100 feet to do so because of structured parking and the need to replace parking for commercial uses. The node of Woolbright and Federal Highway is important and creating height at nodes is what Planners do, especially in Downtown. She agrees that height and density everywhere is not consistent with sustainability practices, but where it is located is consistent with sustainability. Putting height in this location to accommodate the allowable density would not affect the City. The redevelopment of the central core would be consistent and not harm the City or deprive the City of their visions. It sounds like this would just affect Attorney Miskel's property and her client's property and create the inability for other redevelopment at that particular node. It does not prevent the City from doing all the good things they want to do, but it takes value from her client's property, clearly losing 20 feet. For the City to alter their property entitlements by 20 feet is significant to this property. They have the density and more than sufficient entitlement in terms of FAR in units. They could build 391 additional units, but 100 feet would not accommodate that, but losing 20 feet would clearly devalue the property and force her client to retrieve that value somehow. She does not think this accomplishes what the City wants, but it stops a project that would provide housing in a part of the City where housing should be. She hopes the Board will reconsider because what they are doing is small in terms of the parcels affected, but significant in terms of the property owners who have value in their property. Chair Rosecrans closed discussion to the public. Mr. Sobel mentioned the rules of order that this Board is governed by and questioned why the public was allowed to speak for more than the three minutes allowed. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 8 October 12, 2022 Chair Rosecrans questioned if Mr. Sobel has an issue of being more informed to make a decision. Mr. Sobel commented that they hear data that 1,000 people are moving to Florida every day and he asked if Boynton Beach is benefitting. He would like to see Boynton Beach be a destination and be a place to go with more choices. He asked if residents of Boynton Beach are going to support the restaurants and questioned if an uptick has been seen in the residents of Boynton Beach. He questioned what the income level over the last five years is for residents in Boynton Beach and if the City wants to create an environment that attracts the public. He is disappointed that there does not seem to be as much activity as in other surrounding Cities. He asked what it would take to have restaurants in the Downtown area that will attract people from other cities. He is disappointed that other cities have new restaurants opening and Boynton Beach does not. Mr. Ramiccio mentioned convenient parking and destinations like restaurants that will attract people from outside the area. If the zoning were changed on Ocean Avenue to allow for wider sidewalks and outdoor street cafes, that will bring in restaurants that will allow a different al fresco type dining on the street that currently is not allowed. With the proper parking, marketing, and destination, is where the vision begins. With a vision, they can put those components together and the development community will help them realize the vision. Ms. Radigan advised that the City is growing, the current population is about 80,308; there has been a 17% increase in ten years, and they are comparable to Palm Beach County, which increased about 13%. The uptick is concentrated in certain areas. Delray Beach is growing at 10% and West Palm Beach is growing at 17.5%. In 2020, there were 39,700 housing units and 5,000 vacant units. The median household income is $61,000 and in relation to the County, that is on the lower side. Growth over the last ten years has been from development on the west side of town, not the Downtown. Chair Rosecrans reopened Public Comments: David Katz, 67 Midwood Lane, commented that discussion is not usually limited to three minutes during Quasi -Judicial meetings. If there were 50 to 75 people, the Chair might ask everyone to limit discussion to two minutes, with two or three speakers. In the past, the Board voted against the height limit for the node at One Boynton and the Commission approved it. This Board and Commission need to hide elevators or working units within the 45 feet and not continue to give exceptions. Mr. McQuire stated the objective is to lower the height and what he gathers from everyone is that they are unanimous in that direction. There will be dissention from landowners no matter what they do. He referenced two parcels that were previously mentioned by legal; one is a fully built apartment building with retail on the bottom, with structured parking and nothing over it. He is unclear of the real intent and when this intent was submitted to the architect in terms of tearing down the existing structured parking because it is close to two and three-story townhomes and retail. He asked how that will happen and if the structured parking is included with the ability to build on top of it. As far as the other parcel, which is vacant, he questioned where the paperwork and vision are. He would be open to an addendum to allow for a hotel use only with retail. He thinks they need to get this moving. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 9 October 12, 2022 Motion by Mr. Ramiccio, seconded by Mr. Simon, to approve the footnote as submitted by staff with the modification to the Amendment with the recommendation to decrease MU -C in the core area from 160 feet to 48 feet and MU -4 from 100 feet to 48 feet. There was no vote. Mr. Sobel commented that the motion proposed reduces heights in the MU -C and MU -4 and there is 75 feet, 65 feet, and 55 feet in the other three areas; it is not consistent. He is bothered by the rush to judgment. Mr. Sobel stated spot zoning is a dangerous concept and he would prefer to push this back to staff for a clarification. Mr. Ramiccio stated nothing has been built to 150 feet since 2002, which is 20 years. Currently, the tallest building is 80 feet as pointed out by staff. Recommending half a reduction has no correlation to where the 150 feet came from. He noted that he has a different vision for the City and everyone has an opportunity to have a say in where the City should go. Mr. McQuire stated the reduction is over 50% and that is a slap in the face to the public. They want a vibrant Downtown, retail, less high density, and transient rental apartments. This is not only a step in the right direction, but also a huge step; 150 feet to 85 feet, and 100 feet to 80 feet. He thinks that shows the community that Boynton Beach is not Delray. He believes this is the right mix and the way the proposed modification was written, which was suggested by this Board, is good to go as is. Ms. Radigan indicated it would be difficult to change height with density. If this is the direction the Board wants to go, then she will request staff revisit the Amendment. Mr. Simon advised that the height directly correlates to density, and he thinks if they go greater or within the reduction considered, that density should be included within the verbiage of a Condition of Approval. He asked if the motion negates the opportunity to vote to approve the Amendment as presented by staff okay with it being at 85 feet. City Attorney Schwartz replied that a new motion could be entered. Motion by Mr. Ramiccio, seconded by Mr. Simon, to withdraw the motion. Motion by Mr. Ramiccio, seconded by Mr. Simon, to approve the Amendment as presented by staff. In a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. (7-0) 7B. 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. Andrew Meyer, Planner, provided a brief presentation on proposed Code Amendments regarding commercial frontage minimums. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 10 October 12, 2022 • Mixed -Use Zoning Districts and Overlays require a mixture of active and commercial uses along key corridors. • The code requires active and commercial uses to be located on the ground floor of buildings that front an arterial roadway. • The code does not provide a specific percentage of required commercial frontage and minimum design standards. • The code allows applicants to satisfy the existing active/commercial use requirement by establishing resident or service type uses such as lounges, gyms, common rooms, and recreational spaces, in lieu of commercial public space and uses. • The lack of clear commercial frontage standards limits staff's ability to require an adequate percentage of viable commercial space along the peak corridors. • It also creates the possibility of commercial spaces that lack sufficient depth and/or width resulting in vacant storefronts. • Amendments clearly define exactly what commercial uses and active uses are. • Proposed Amendments define commercial uses as uses serving the public such as retail, restaurants, bars, entertainment, personal services, and offices. • Active uses are defined as 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. • Staff proposed Amendments which require a certain percental of commercial frontage along key rights-of-way within the City's Overlay Districts and properties west of I-95 zoned Suburban Mixed Use. • The amount of required commercial frontage depends on the Overlay or Zoning District in which a project is located and the right-of-way which it abuts. • For projects east of I-95, the commercial frontage is largely dictated by whether a project is located within an Overlay District. • For projects west of I-95, the Overlay requirement is dictated by whether a project is zoned Suburban Mixed Use. • The commercial frontage requirement is designed to compliment pedestrian zone requirements already established within the City's code for properties within the Overlay Districts. • Staff developed a map to help illustrate the location of commercial frontage requirements and their associated percentage. • It is important to note that for properties west of I-95, the commercial frontage requirement is only required of properties zoned Suburban Mixed Use, which is currently limited to developed areas along Congress Avenue between Old Boynton Road and Gateway Boulevard and the parcel located generally southwest of the intersection of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road. • Staff has also developed a diagram to help visualize the commercial frontage requirements. • The first diagram shows the 50% commercial frontage requirement with the remainder of the frontage to be at the discretion of the property owner. • The second diagram shows the 70% commercial frontage requirement and any frontage not set aside for commercial frontage must be designed to support active uses. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page II October 12, 2022 • Commercial frontages will also have a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum height of 13 feet, which is based upon Industry and Market Standards. Chair Rosecrans opened Public Comments and limited discussion to three minutes. Susan Oyer requested the Board provide examples of this modification. Mr. Meyer explained that the Code requires any properties within the Overlay Districts have commercial and/or active uses fronting the first floor. It does not provide any minimums or standards, so they have seen a lot of designs skirting under the minimum, and this Code Amendment is to provide a set of design standards so they can have more effective commercial use thoroughfares to create more active pedestrian spaces along the pedestrian zone. Ms. Oyer asked what 50% would look like. Mr. Meyer did not have any specific examples, but he helped visualize what it would look like in concrete terms. When speaking to commercial frontage, they are speaking to uses that front the frontage, meaning the entrance; access is accessible from the street. An example would be like Hurricane Alley; it fronts Ocean Avenue and is accessible from Ocean Avenue. There are active uses within the active zone of the pedestrian zone requirement on Ocean Avenue. Other frontage in the 50% area would be up to the discretion of the property owner. Other frontage could be uses that are not necessarily active, but they are part of the building, and they must front the right-of-way in some capacity, so it could be a wall with windows; it does not contribute to any active or commercial frontage towards the street. It is limited to the main thoroughfares in the Map and Table but limited to streets that are not as focused as the main thoroughfares. The key is the 70% commercial frontage requirement, which sees the same kind of typical commercially fronted use like Hurricane Alley or another retail use that fronts the right-of-way, which would require 70% of the frontage, and then the remainder of that frontage. 70% is a minimum, and if they want to do 100% commercial, which would be within their ability to do so, but if only 70% was provided, the remainder would need to be filled with active frontage requirements. An example of that are uses that are not necessarily public, but they are active in the sense that they serve a Mixed -Use Development, like a gym, residential lobby, or an entrance to a residential on the second or third floors. If there are townhomes, there would be fronting to the entrances to those homes off the street to provide for stoops and some kind of interaction between the street and the facade. Chair Rosecrans closed Public Comments. Vice Chair Buoni questioned if Hurricane Alley is an example of using 100% of the frontage for a commercial purpose. Mr. Meyer stated if Hurricane Alley is its own building on its own lot, which would be a 100% frontage. Vice Chair Buoni commented that it would be acceptable if they only used half, but staff wants to make it at least 70%. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 12 October 12, 2022 Mr. Meyer indicated in that location along Ocean Avenue, it would be the 70% commercial frontage requirement plus the remainder active. The minimum development standard would be 70% of the building being the commercial frontage and the remainder would have to be some sort of active use. There is an exception in the Code for public plazas, which would go towards that. Mr. McQuire questioned if the objective of this proposed Amendment is critical foot traffic and retail commercial areas of the City, as they want to encourage landowners to have a more engaging first floor business. Mr. Meyer replied that is correct. Mr. Simon requested clarification on the Amendment and asked if they were going with 50% and 70% and if they are one over the other. Mr. Meyer referenced the Table and showed a breakdown. The commercial requirements are being applied to the Overlay Districts. Within the Code language under each Overlay District, there will be a requirement for commercial frontage at those percentages for properties fronting those rights -of -ways. Mr. Simon mentioned SE 4 I Street, which is in the area south of 500 Ocean. Mr. Meyer stated the property ends where the Downtown TOD District Overlay ends, which is just shy of Federal Highway. Mr. Simon commented there is the thought of pushing commercial retail space against the road without providing a clear destination for parking areas. He thinks there needs to be more thought. This is one small piece they are trying to address without looking at the entire picture. Mr. Sobel indicated there is a self-correcting factor; business owners will look at parking. Developers want to sell the property; they are businessmen, and they are going to make business decisions. Mr. Simon disagreed. The only reason retail space is provided in the buildings is because it is required; there is no value to the use in those spaces. Mr. Ramiccio believes one of the objectives staff is trying to bring to the Board's attention is what they have found, especially in Urban Redevelopment areas, which is professional office space, real estate offices, and things that do not generate the type of node of activity staff is looking for at the street level. By doing this, it will require the property owner to put the type of uses that will generate the type of node of activity on the street. Chair Rosecrans mentioned parking problems and asked if they would be addressed later. Mr. Simon thinks it needs to be considered when developing the verbiage. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 13 October 12, 2022 Motion by Mr. Ramiccio, seconded by Vice Chair Buoni, to approve the Amendment as proposed by staff. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (7-0) 7C. 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 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 IL 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. Jae Eun Kim, Principal Planner, provided a brief presentation regarding the current Code and proposed Text Amendments. The following highlights were noted: • Allow for the expiration of abandoned applications. • Create a process to request Land Development Regulations (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. • Adjust Sustainable Parking Reductions to include a reduction for Industrial uses. • Revise the perimeter for permitted Administrative Adjustments. Chair Rosecrans opened Public Comments: Susan Oyer believes the time for expiration of abandoned applications should be shorter. There is never enough sustainable parking and there are not enough chargers. Her main concern is that there is not enough Industrial, and she thinks this adds more Industrial, which they desperately need, because it equals jobs and brings in money. She mentioned major versus minor regarding Site Plan Modifications. Chair Rosecrans closed Public Comments. Ms. Kim mentioned Site Plan Extensions and stated there is a Florida Statute that says, "Emergency Access". The Land Development Regulations also have provisions that allow 18 -month extensions upon request prior to Site Plan expirations, which require active Building permits. This is two different issues, Site Plan Extensions versus abandoned applications. Chair Rosecrans questioned how they came up with six months. Ms. Radigan advised this is a separate issue from expiring Site Plans. This is specific to projects when designs are submitted and no other action is taken for six months, which is time to revise Plans. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 14 October 12, 2022 Mr. McQuire requested bullet point 45 be clarified. He knows the Board previously discussed increasing sustainable recharging stations based on national statistics. Ms. Radigan indicated that bullet point 45 is about meeting sustainable guidelines for Industrial uses. Mr. McQuire asked if they currently have to install electric chargers in any of the spaces. Ms. Radigan stated parking is being reduced to allow for more sustainable parking. Motion by Mr. McQuire, seconded by Mr. Ramiccio, to approve Item 7C as written. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (7-0) (Mr. Sobel left the meeting at 9:00 p.m.) 7D. Meadows PUD Park Discussion and Recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Ramiccio distributed attachments to the Board and provided a summary of a community meetings he attended on September 17, 2022, organized by Pulte Homes, who requested the City donate a parcel of land between the Meadows and Nautica PUD's. Around 300 members of the community attended and voiced their concerns. After listening to the concerns, he heard that overall, when the Meadows was originally developed, the City required they donate five acres to be used for green space/recreation/a park. He repeatedly heard concerns from the residents that they were promised a park and never received one. While conducting research, Mr. Ramiccio commented that he found a couple conclusions; one is in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan contains the Future Land Use Element and the Recreation Element. In the Recreation Element, Policy 1.3.1, speaks to the compatibility and consistency with the said policy documents the City enforces. He referred to Item G, which specifically says the Recreation category shall include active and passive recreation facilities in parks that are both publicly and privately owned. It shall be the policy of the City that all land acquired is for public parks, excluding those in the Planned Zoning District, and that they shall be placed in the Recreation Land Use Zoning category within five years. This property was deeded to the City in 1995 and by the year 2000, the City was required to change zoning from Residential PUD to Recreation. To further support what residents are requesting, which is that they begin the process to ask the City Commission to recognize the Recreation Zoning that was originally approved and agreed by the homeowners and the City in their own policy. Mr. Ramiccio presented three Exhibits. Exhibit A is a diagram of the PUD when it was originally granted to the City, and there is an outline that specifically states that this is Norwood's PUD Park Site, with a Map. Exhibit B is the legal description of the five -acre park site as granted to the City for the exclusive right of a park. Exhibit C is the codification field in the Clerk of Courts, so it becomes a legal binding document. In watching the last couple City Commission meetings, they put on future agenda items that this would be brought up, but they were doing legal research. The legal research has been done, and he thinks it is just a matter of the Board recommending that they recognize the Recreation Zoning that was originally granted to them. In the future, it seems that the Board should look at all PUD's because there might be other developments that also had this requirement to deed or reserve this property, and maybe it Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 15 October 12, 2022 was not codified. He recommended the Board recommend to the Commission that they codify the original Recreation Zoning when it was deeded to the property and to comply with the City's policy in the Comprehensive Plan to change Zoning to Recreation after receiving the property. He would like to make a motion to recommend to the City Commission that they begin the process of codifying the original Recreational Zoning that was afforded to the property when it was deeded to them with the Deed Restrictions and the City's policy in the Comprehensive Plan of requiring them to change Zoning to Recreation after they received the granted property Chair Rosecrans opened Public Comments: David Katz, resides in the Meadows, and, stated when he was on the Board, he would always ask that they budget the $125,000 for the Meadows portion; there is a Nautica portion, which is divided by a tree line, and together, the properties equal about nine acres. Both properties are under the same Deed Restriction that was given when developed. He encouraged the Board to go along with Mr. Ramiccio's request and for staff to follow up, because this will be staff initiated as well as Commission initiated. He requested Chair Rosecrans follow up as Chair, and he asked Mr. Harper and Mr. McQuire what they bring to the Board as far as background. Mr. Harper indicated he is a new resident in the City in the last three years and he graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in Urban Regional Planning. Mr. McQuire stated he brings a wealth of experience in terms of business; he owns multiple businesses as well as an advertising agency in Orlando. In this City, he worked, developed, and did marketing materials for some of the largest PUD's in Palm Beach County. Ms. Radigan advised staff is already looking into this. This does not necessarily need Board action if it is going to be resolved by the Commission; however, it does have to be notified and advertised. At the Commission meetings there are two options, one is to rezone parcels, and the other is to Deed Restrict parcels. Chair Rosecrans questioned the timeline before this Board can see it and before it can move forward. Ms. Radigan stated that staff is currently gathering information and then they will go back to the Commission to request a method to move forward. Mr. Ramiccio indicated he will provide information on the Deed Restriction, which shows when it was granted to the City of Boynton Beach, to the Clerk It was restricted and granted in the Clerk of the Court. There is not a lot of research to do other than to read the three documents. Zoning is currently PUD, so it is protected by law and by right because of the Deed Restriction. His concern is when someone looks at the Zoning Map and sees it zoned PUD and not Recreation, they get excited that there is a possibility to develop it and that is what brought forth the recommendation that the City donate the property for them to develop this project. Had the property been zoned Recreation, which is part of the policy adopted in 1995, and had they done the research, they would not have sent the developer to make a proposal to present to the community. He understands there is a bigger issue in looking at the other PUD's. He wants to make Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 16 October 12, 2022 a motion that this information be brought to the Commission and to staff, so it does not take long, and they can move it forward. They are going to initiate this here because it already came to the Commission and they heard comments from staff and the City Commission and it seemed like there was not a lot of confidence in understanding the Deed Restriction, the City's policy, the Land Use Regulations, and the Code; no one was handling the issue with clarity. As a Planning Board, this was brought to their attention, and to his attention as a Planning Board member living in the community, and he was asked to look at the basics of planning, which he did. Since this was not initiated by the Commission, he felt like it was the Board's job to start the process and make the recommendation to the Commission that they look at all Homeowner's Associations to see if there are others that may have this minor oversight. There is no fault of anyone, it is simply codifying and changing the Zoning to what it should be. Motion made by Mr. Ramiccio, seconded by Vice Chair Buoni, to recommend that City staff review the Zoning for the PUD of Meadows and Nautica Park sites. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (7-0) Ms. Radigan stated there are many players and there could be issues with the Land Use in general; it can be complex. Mr. Simon questioned if staff is going through the process of researching every PUD within the City and not making any moves until research is complete and they rezone all of them at one time or if they are going to begin the process of codifying and rezone as research is completed for each PUD. Ms. Radigan stated the conversation started specifically with Meadows Park, but as the project gets started, they will discuss different options. 8. Other Chair Rosecrans mentioned the holiday meeting and stated the dates to consider are December 7, 14, and 15, 2022. If they cannot commit, it can be done via email. He advised he is good on December 7 and 14, 2022. Vice Chair Buoni stated he will not be able to attend. Mr. Ramiccio stated he is only available on December 15, 2022. Ms. Radigan will send out an email confirming the December 7, 2022 meeting. 9. Comments by Members — None. 10. Adjournment Upon Motion duly made and seconded, the meeting at was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. [Minutes prepared by C. Guifarro, Prototype, Inc.]