Loading...
Minutes 11-29-22 MINUTES � a PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 100 E. OCEAN AVENUE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2022, 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: STAFF: Trevor Rosecrans, Chair Amanda Radigan, Planning and Zoning Director William Harper Craig Pinder, Planner II Chris Simon Michael Cirullo, Assistant City Attorney Courtlandt McQuire Leslie Harmon, Prototype, Inc. Thomas Ramiccio, Alternate ABSENT: Tim Litsch Butch Buoni, Vice Chair Jay Sobel Lyman Phillips, Alternate OTHERS: Jeff Burns, CEO of Affiliated Development Elliott Young, Landscape Architect Michael Reiner, Land Use Attorney The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call Roll was called and it was determined a quorum was present. 3. Agenda Approval Motion by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Ramiccio, to approve the agenda. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (5-0) 4. Approval of Minutes 4.A. Approve board minutes from 10/12/22 Planning & Development Board meeting. Motion made by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Ramiccio, to approve the October 12, 2022 meeting minutes. In a voice vote, the minutes were unanimously approved. (5-0) Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 2 November 29, 2022 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Amanda Radigan, Planning and Zoning Director, provided a few updates on items previously presented to this Board. The first was a minor amendment heard by the Board and the second was a commercial requirement amendment. Both were approved by the City Commission and are now codified. The last update heard last month was the height reduction item, which was tabled at the last City Commission meeting. Comments were provided and direction was given from the City Commission. The table was to create a new set of standards, so instead of reducing the heights of existing zoning districts, they would be creating a new zoning district called Mixed-Use Downtown. That item will be heard for First Reading at the December 6, 2022 City Commission meeting and following up with a Second Reading. That is moving forward in a little different form that was presented to the Board and there will be access to that agenda, which was published today. Mr. McQuire asked if the Board is going to get a copy prior to the next Commission meeting. Ms. Radigan clarified that the item will be presented at the December 6, 2022 City Commission meeting for First Reading. Mr. McQuire asked if it would be significantly different than what the Board approved. Ms. Radigan replied yes, it changed form. Instead of a reduction to existing zoning districts,the discussion at the City Commission meeting was to create a new zoning district that accomplished all the things discussed by the Board. The new zoning district proposes a reduced height of 85 feet, a reduced FAR of 3.5 and a reduced density of 70. Also in that amendment, they retired and moved forward, so it keeps the zoning districts on the books and valid for anyone who has it, but it limits the use of those zoning districts in the future. Any other development that comes in would now be rezoned to Mixed-Use Downtown. Mr. McQuire commented that this was predominately to accommodate two people who attended the last meeting, so they could maintain their existing height at 150 feet. Ms. Radigan could not speak to that. She thinks this was done in a response to concerns and a desire to do more than just reduce heights. She believes this alternative allows for more to be accomplished and to limit possible exposure to litigation. Mr. McQuire mentioned one party did not apply, and the Board talked about possibly having an Addendum, allowing the parcel situated on NE Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway to maintain if it is a hotel. He is trying to get an idea as to what will be presented to the Commission at the first and final vote and how different it is. He would like to see an outline if possible. Ms. Radigan advised she can send a follow up email attaching a draft of those amendments as they currently stand. The draft presented only addresses height and she thinks this is a much more inclusive look at responding to some of the Board's comments. The idea is moving towards the Downtown Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 3 November 29, 2022 managing them for traffic. She thinks this approach allows them to do more and minimize exposure legally. Mr. Simon questioned if the City Rezoning Map will be redrawn and if so, when it will occur. Ms. Radigan stated they do not actively rezone properties; those are private applications. Whenever anyone is requesting to rezone is when the Map changes. Mr. Simon commented that they are adding a new zoning district. Ms. Radigan clarified they are adding a new district to the LDR's. Once that district is applied to land the Zoning Map changes. Mr. Simon understood it will be in written form until an applicant comes in. He questioned where the locations are and what restrictions would apply with the new zoning district. Ms. Radigan indicated it is loosely the remaining redevelopment area of the Downtown area. She can attach a Map that shows where this will apply. The Map will show everything currently shown as CBD that will have the potential to rezone if they so choose and fill out an application with the City. Mr. Simon asked if the new zoning district is to retain the height of 150 feet or if all the other areas around it drop to the 85 feet. Ms. Radigan stated anything rezoned under the new zoning district will be under the new regulations, which is 85 feet height,70 density, and 3.5 FAR. Anything that is entitled already under MU-4 will remain. Mr. Simon commented that it will not necessarily appear as a district, it will be on a lot per lot basis, so there might be one lot developed at 150 feet and the lot next door is restricted to 85 feet. Ms. Radigan indicated that everything built has been around 85 to 90 feet. She would think of Mixed-Use Downtown as a transition district to step down into the Federal Highway corridors because what has currently been rezoned is like the four corners of the core and what is left is the next tier. There will be situations where it is next door because it is being used as a transition district. Mr. Simon mentioned stepping down is towards the main intersections rather than back towards the single- family residences. Ms. Radigan clarified she is suggesting north and south in the less intense Mixed-Use districts. There are a lot of specific standards east and west. It would retain the maximum, but the way the LDR's are constructed, there are different measures if someone is on the Intracoastal or against single-family. Residential compatibility standards would apply no matter what the zoning district is. Mr. Ramiccio commented that it is exciting they are going to transition from the TOD concept of 18,000 apartments and 1,200 businesses within a half mile of the proposed Rail that probably will not happen. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 4 November 29, 2022 When this issue was addressed at the last meeting, he thought everyone understood the two Mixed-Use districts have vested rights; those that have projects and have been approved by the Commission and the Planning Board. The Board talked about many things and wanted to make sure the Commission codified the vested development rights that have already been approved with the height and density as was originally invested in their rights. Going forward, he looks at this new Downtown district as an overlay district that lays over top of the Downtown, and those that already have vested rights are being protected, but it allows the opportunity for some new concepts like the boutique hotel, and focus on design and standards for the Downtown, with a destination district. It opens them up to some new ideas in the future but protects the vested rights in lieu of other potential litigation that could come before the City. This focuses on the quality of development and creates things people want such as restaurants, shops, live entertainment, al fresco dining, etc. 6. Old Business -None. 7. New Business 7A. Approval of Variance (ZNCV 23-002) of Part III, Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4.B.3.c — Urban Landscape Buffer (Type 2), to grant a variance of seven (7) feet from the required twelve (12)-foot buffer, to allow for a five (5)-foot wide landscape buffer, and the elimination of the requirement to provide a six (6)-foot tall masonry wall. Michael Cirullo, Assistant City Attorney, swore in all individuals providing testimony. Jeff Burns, applicant, and CEO of Affiliated Development, provided a brief presentation of the project as follows: • This project was part of an RFP that was issued through the CRA, dating back to October 2021. • The site is comprised of property that runs between Ocean Avenue, Boynton Beach Boulevard, Federal Highway, and 2nd Street. • They are looking to utilize some of the current public rights-of-way;there are a few alleyways and a road that runs through the middle they will be utilizing for purposes of this development. • They want a visible presence from the corner of Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway and believe this is an important corner in the district. They want to create pedestrian connectivity and a presence, as this should be a Downtown. • This will be an eight-story, Mixed-Use Multi-Family development featuring 300 residential units with a public private parking structure in the middle of the project and access to the building through a common corridor. They will have everything from restaurants,retail, and office;the goal is a live, work, play atmosphere to give vitality in the evening and during the day. They want this to be an active location at all hours. • Hoping the long-term outlook on this site becomes a transit-oriented development with use of some Light Rail, they want to be sure to account for that in the early stages of design should that be the case. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 5 November 29, 2022 • One unique aspect of this project is that half of the 300 units will be dedicated for people who are currently cost burdened in the community for Workforce Housing. They will be giving the people a luxury Class A experience at an attainable rent,which is pursuant to their development agreement with the CRA. • Site Plan: One of the reasons for the variance request is the location of the garage. It is important they create activity along Ocean Avenue and Boynton Beach Boulevard. They have an agreement with Hurricane Alley, who has agreed to go to Boynton Beach Boulevard, which will help activity at that end of the development and help ignite additional repurposing and more active uses along Boynton Beach Boulevard. • Along Ocean Avenue they have primary active uses with a standalone restaurant, additional retail spaces, and an additional longer, more suitable area for clothing and fast casual dining along 2nd Street. There will be a drop-off corridor for the main building and the entrance of the garage as people enter off Federal Highway. • The garage is an important part of the variance because it is important to have it centrally located to enhance the pedestrian experience;they wanted to connect it to the building so people have safe access into their building as much as possible. He assured every inch of the garage was squeezed in an attempt to avoid the variance request. • There is a 12-foot landscape requirement, which is new to them in an urban location, and an existing wall, so they are asking to provide a five-foot landscape buffer, which will be treated with landscaping to help the appearance. • They have talked with the adjacent property owner and showed them their proposal and they are happy and comfortable with it should they continue to operate at that location. Elliott Young, Landscape Architect, continued with the presentation. Although the buffer is dimensionally narrower than the requirements, the first floor of the parking structure was set back to allow the entire 12 feet to be achieved at the narrowest end of the property, which was part of the hedges required as part of the buffer underneath the overhang in the second story of the garage. The second story is almost 15 feet above grade level, so there is plenty of natural light hitting the landscaping. The variance is requesting elimination of the wall in case the required masonry wall is placed along the property line, which creates a cavern area between the parking structure and property line, which they feel is potentially a safety concern for traffic accumulation, and landscaping would not thrive successfully if the wall were obstructing natural light. They are still able to place palm trees as well as Buttonwood trees in the buffer where tree spacing is provided. The code states a minimum of 20' to 30' and they are proposing 10' on center for those trees, so it is two or three times the code requirement. Meeting the hedge requirement, which is also part of the buffer, would be partially underneath the overhead structure, but also under the tree areas. The landscape plan shows the placement of trees, hedges, and groundcover, and the column structure of the parking structure can be seen. Mr. Burns stated when talking about criteria,they feel the parking garage is an important location for them to do a good job activating the entire site providing a nice pedestrian experience, focusing as little mass on Ocean Avenue as possible and as much of an inviting experience along Ocean Avenue. Without having parking centrally located, it could be harder to access from all points of the project. They believe a masonry wall would create a safety concern with trash accumulation and other things. Public parking garages tend Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 6 November 29, 2022 to accumulate more trash than private garages, which they do not want to encourage. The project meets the code and all other requirements. They have been through many iterations with staff and the project is better than it was when it was originally proposed. Chair Rosecrans open discussion to staff. Craig Pinder, Planner, provided a brief presentation on the project as follows: • The request is for a relief to the urban landscape buffer(Type 2),which requires a minimum width of 12 feet to the landscape buffer. The applicant is requesting a reduction or variance of seven feet to provide a five-foot landscape buffer. • Currently, the project is under review. There are several applications submitted for the Major Site Plan, Major Master Plan, Rezoning, three abandonments, and several Relief Applications. There are four Community Design Appeal applications for the parking garage, one for each elevation for the treatment of the parking garage, and the Variance Relief. • As the applicant stated, the proposal is for an eight-story, Mixed-Use building with a mix of approximately 17,500 square feet of commercial, 301 dwelling units, a freestanding parking garage, and private and public open spaces. The parking garage is a total of eight floors, approximately 74'6" in height, and the parking garage itself will contain 567 parking spaces with a total of 585 spaces provided on the site with some on-street parking as well. As proposed, with all the square footage and dwelling units, the project requires a total of 569 parking spaces. • The project location is within the Downtown, it is west of North Federal Highway and east of the FEC Railroad tracks. To the south of the site is 500 Ocean, east of Federal Highway is Marina Village, and to the northeast would be Casa Costa. The purple rectangular area shown on the slide is the proposed parking garage. • The required landscape buffer is 12-foot to 15-foot in width. Pictures on the screen show the proposed location of the parking garage, so that is the approximate outline of the property. • The area outlined in green is the approximate area of the required landscape buffer, so the image gives a street level visual of what that area can look like. • The rectangular area in gold and yellow is the proposed reduced buffers, so approximately half the width of what would be required. • An image of the landscape plan was shown. The applicant explained the difference with the required buffers, so the green rectangle shows the full width including the yellow rectangle, which is the representation of the reduced width. • A few elevations show the proposal in action. He pointed out that the vertical dashed line on the parking garage east elevation represents the property line and shows the distance between the property line and the face of the parking garage. Staff reviewed the applicant's responses to the review criteria and can say the last two criteria with the variance granted is the minimum variance. Staff is in agreement as far as the required and requested elimination of the buffer wall as well as the width based on the footprint of the parking garage. The applicant has requested the minimum to allow for construction of the parking garage as proposed. Granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent. Staff is also in agreement with the justification Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 7 November 29, 2022 provided by the applicant because the last statement provided will still meet the intent of the code to provide the level of screening, which is landscaping. Staff is recommending denial due to the following reasons: • The parking garage and development itself is a new development, so the applicant does have the opportunity to reduce the overall size and intensity of the development, which would give them the opportunity to reduce the size of the parking garage because there would not be as many parking spaces required for the site. • There are no special conditions existing that are peculiar to the site or land. Again, reflecting to Point 41, everything is new, and the applicant has flexibility with proposing the location and size of the parking garage, and granting the variance can give a special privilege to the applicant that may not be available or considered for other land within the same zoning district. Should the Board decide to approve the request, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: • Green wall treatment along the east facade of the parking garage. • Provide an enhanced pedestrian connection through the garage to the north end of the site where the proposed Hurricane Alley is to be located. Chair Rosecrans opened Public Comments. Hearing no discussion, Chair Rosecrans closed Public Comments. Mr. McQuire questioned what happens if the project is approved and the ice cream store wants to expand to eight stories. Ms. Radigan replied in theory, it is a possibility; however,to rezone to a similar rezoning district, she does not believe the existing parcel is large enough. Ideally, they would have liked to see this come in as a project that is inclusive of that parcel,but since it is not included, it creates an intensity difference between the existing parcel and the proposed parcel, which is the reason for the required buffer. Should the ice cream parlor redevelop, they would be held to the LDR depending on what zoning district they are redeveloped under. Staff will take into consideration any safety issues that come up through Site Plan review. Mr. Simon asked what the setback is for the portion of the property for the first and second floors. Ms. Radigan indicated according to code,there is technically a zero to build to line, unless something else is in effect. In this case since there is an intensity difference between this proposed rezoning and the existing lot,the requirement for the 12-foot buffer is in place. The requirement is a 12-foot buffer, which means it is a 12-foot setback comprised of a wall and landscaping that is clear to the sky. The proposal would essentially provide that at the first floor and an overhang over half of it on the subsequent upper floors. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 8 November 29, 2022 Mr. Simon thinks the encroachment of an overhang in a required buffer is an issue. He asked if the wall is required to be on the property line or if it can be within a certain distance from the property line. Ms. Radigan stated the way the code is written, the wall is required in between the buffers. The way it is set up with flexibility, the wall is usually six feet and then six feet to allow access to the other side for maintenance issues. In the past, they have approved with adjoining property consent to move the wall to the far end if the adjacent property wants; most of the time they want the landscaping and not the wall. Mr. Simon commented that no one wants the wall against the property line in this situation, certainly not the adjacent businesses. If they are going for a variance of the reduction down to five feet in some areas, the wall is unnecessary;the wall is the garage itself. He mentioned the elevation and the 12-foot and five- foot plan view and noted the slide shows what looks like palms in the green area and asked if those are palms or trees in the front. Mr. Young replied trees are in the front and palms are situated under the eave. The orange area has two types of trees based ten feet on center, which is double the space required by the landscape buffer. Mr. Simon asked if the Green Buttonwoods should be greater than a ten-foot diameter at maturity. Mr. Young stated the top of Sabal palms are 40 feet at full growth height. They are shown in a line, but they have the flexibility to be staggered. Mr. Simon questioned the projection of the overhang from the wall itself in the buffer. Mr. Young replied it goes to the edge of the green line. Mr. Simon mentioned a small circle symbol and asked if those are columns. Mr. Young stated the dark squares are the columns. The green area is a hedge that meets the requirements of the buffer; that hedge can also be underneath the trees and will fill in the entire buffer zone. Mr. Simon commented that all the palms and trees are positioned east of the overhang. Because of the columns, it almost read that one or the other was illustrated incorrectly. Mr. Young indicated the section on the right side of the image shows the garage on the left. Mr. Simon mentioned with that view, the palms on the right side between the wall and the property line are down to five feet to eight feet at best. Mr. Young advised it would be five feet at the narrowest because the property line is at an angle. Mr. Simon mentioned Royal palms in that location and noted that a canopy on a Royal palm is upward of 25 feet diameter. Any palm planted in that location will grow away from obstructions. When there is a canopy wider than the space provided, it is going to grow more than the distance from the obstruction. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 9 November 29, 2022 Every palm planted in that line over time is going to grow away from the wall and the canopy is going to be situated over the neighboring property. It is not an effective means of screening for the wall itself without encroaching, obstructing, or taking away from the buildable verticality of the neighbor to the east. He thinks it is a poor choice of material given the space allowed for the material itself. Then there are issues and legally, a neighbor can cut what is on their property at the property line assuming it does not damage, injure, or kill the tree or palm, so they could not technically cut the entire trunk and head of the palm down, but it is a means for a little bit of controversy between neighbors. It would be wise to change that out. Mr. Simon commented that the presentation shows they already meet the maximum allowable height for the parking garage, so they cannot reduce the footprint and go any higher because they are already maxed out. He is confused regarding access;there is a livable space on the southern end of the lot, but he does not see how people are making their way to the other portion of the space, which has canals and a restaurant on the north side. There is no real means of transition from Point A to Point B on the Site Plan; variances are for existing nonconforming conditions. Existing lots cannot do certain things due to code and setback changes, so a variance must be sought. This is a vacant piece of land that does not have restrictions on the lot. He thinks they could modify that aspect and come back with something that does not need a variance. In his opinion, he does not think the Board should approve this because it is very early in the stages of development, and they would be setting a precedent. It would be his opinion to deny. Mr. Harper asked what the developer loses if the variance is denied, residential or parking spaces. Mr. Burns indicated they have looked at many iterations of this project and there are many moving parts. They made agreements with the CRA to provide a certain number of public parking spaces in addition to spaces needed for servicing the development and for residential commercial tenants. Parking has been their biggest challenge, mainly because they want to provide as much walkability and outdoor amenity spaces as possible. They can extend the garage and take up more surface area, but he thinks that would take away from the functionality of the site as a whole and how people get around. He pointed out they have commercial space on 2nd Street, and they have created a pathway to create a nice pedestrian experience while moving from Hurricane Alley through the park onto Ocean Avenue restaurants, as that is the path most people will take. They would lose many units and probably would have to reduce their commercial areas. He thinks they were successful in winning the RFP because they were creating a little bit of everything, residential, office, and retail, and they are a significant revenue generator for the City. They would hate to lose units and parking since that dictates a lot in the overall Plan. Mr. Harper asked if this would be doable if it were to pass. Mr. Burns stated staff has said if approved the variance would be approved on the condition of two items. He does not believe they have any issue on the east facade of the parking garage incorporating green wall treatment,which is effectively what they are doing with the landscape buffer. As far as providing enhanced pedestrian connectivity through the garage, they are providing some walking lines, but pedestrian paths are not typically provided in parking garages. Mr. Harper mentioned this is his fourth meeting and he has heard the City wants a Downtown. The way to get that is by working with developers to bring those items Downtown that promote, grow, and bring people to the center. He disagrees with Mr. Simon and thinks there is no reason why they should not be Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 10 November 29, 2022 able to work with them on the seven feet. The ice cream parlor is currently a small building and the area where it is currently located probably will not always be a little ice cream shop. He does not see having 301 units and a walkable area to restaurants and other places impacting other businesses other than positive. He recommended granting the seven-foot variance. Mr. Ramiccio questioned how wide the proposed sidewalk will be facing Ocean Avenue. Mr. Young replied the sidewalks will be ten feet on all streets of the development. Mr. Ramiccio asked staff if this will continue along Ocean Avenue east on both sides to accommodate dining, outdoor cafes, and allow the five or six feet required for handicap passage. Ms. Radigan indicated the requirement would be a ten-foot sidewalk; they are also required to provide an active area of eight feet and a street tree area with a center line of about 2-1/2 feet. Standards moving east change slightly, the street trees are an eight-foot sidewalk and eight-foot active area as a minimum requirement. Mr. Ramiccio mentioned the Ordinance currently in place and noted that the code requires the 12-foot buffer. A 12-foot landscape buffer would be appropriate when designing a Downtown or TOD with 150- foot height, so they would want more landscape buffer between the buildings to allow for more green space and pedestrian active areas. He thinks the Board should look at the code because usually when using the word"Urban"they are talking about a reduction to some extent, so 12 feet made sense when they were looking at the density and height but in looking where the City wants to go, five feet is a typical buffer in an urban standard plan. He is not concerned about the reduction in the buffer; he does not like the wall and thinks it is redundant and unnecessary, and aesthetically it will not look good as people turn east on Ocean Avenue;he would like to see the wall eliminated. Regarding landscaping,when looking at the trees he agrees with the comments from Mr. Simon about the Royal palms. When those fronds fall, they crush everything underneath them and that needs to be taken into consideration on Ocean Avenue. As Royal palms mature, the fronds must be strapped to the tree to make sure they do not crush cars parked underneath. There are some options; he heard some heights for Cabbage palms and Sabals with 40 feet on the high end. One option is Washingtonians, which are similar, but a little thinner. They are used a lot up against buildings where a large canopy is not wanted and they have a small canopy,but still give the height and screening. As far as parking, he recalled a project about six months ago where the City was recommending on-street parking be calculated as part of the required parking in the project. He fears if they go down the road talking about precedence setting, it would precedent set if they continue to calculate and require them to reduce the garage and parking spaces, pushing those parking spaces on the street. He has no problem using the parking spaces as part of the calculation as long as it is not the majority of the calculations like they saw with a few other projects. He wants to support the parking garage and wants the project to support its own parking. They are already doing a public private partnership between the City and CRA and this development to accommodate public parking in the Downtown area. Just because Hurricane Alley was on the corner of Ocean Avenue does not mean people are going to drive to this site and then walk to Hurricane Alley. He thinks patrons will go to the site where the restaurant is located. There should be access for residents who live there and for businesses to be able to access the Boardwalk or the new Hurricane Alley, but he does not like the idea of putting it through the middle of the garage if Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 11 November 29, 2022 it can be accommodated in another place. He has no problem with the buffer or removing the wall, he thinks it is a necessity for the aesthetics and the nomeduction of parking in the garage. He likes the idea of green treatment to help a little above the tree height. He is going to support the project and he thinks it is a good cornerstone for redevelopment on the east side to connect with the City's cornerstone of this project. For staff, he thinks they should look in the core area especially with the reduction to require a 12- foot buffer; he does not know if it is realistic to require 12 feet. It is not precedent setting to grant a variance. Ms. Radigan advised that staff generally agrees with Board comments. She noted it is not required in the Downtown;this is a measure built into the code to protect existing properties that may not be redeveloping. In similar situations where residual parcels are not large enough to go to their foreseen zoning district of Mixed-Use-Core, the idea is that this built-in protection is for them to remain in place if they choose. Mr. McQuire questioned how many parking spaces would be lost. The loss of commercial space was mentioned, and he asked if the first level of the parking garage contains retail. Mr. Burns replied it does not. They want to make sure they adequately park this project within the structure, and they are not relying on adjacent properties, street parking, or to accommodate their uses. That is something needed for financing. To get Site Plan approval, they need to appease their lenders who are going to require they have adequate parking necessary to support the project. Doing so would force them to adjust their uses and they will have to pull from certain other private areas of the building whether it be residential or commercial to offer tenants the appropriate amount of parking they would need to get financing and be successful. Mr. McQuire stated he was looking at the proposed commercial space, which is approximately 17,000 square feet and 5,100 square feet of office or retail. He thinks that is what is currently on the property, and it does not seem like it far exceeded in terms of commercial space. He questioned what is there. Mr. Burns indicated the reason that was part of their proposal was for commercial businesses to be successful; this area needs critical mass. Units and disposable income are what is going to help create an urgency for these businesses to locate there and to be successful in the long-term. They were careful to select the right amount of commercial space for the project because they want to be successful, they do not want the spaces to sit vacant. As one of the first projects in the area, they feel like it is important to incorporate a healthy amount of commercial space, which this project has. They also want to have units, bodies, and people moving around, which will encourage businesses on the first floor to be successful. Mr. McQuire commented that the density is very high for the residential component. He sees no issues with supporting the retail; 301 units is a lot, and they are very tight. Mr. Simon wants to compare the required versus provided parking spaces throughout and he wants to address a comment that they were careful how they laid out and compared square footages provided to the businesses so they will succeed and not have empty spaces. The effectiveness of their visibility, access, and functionality are critical. If the businesses are provided for, the community, not only the residences, are extremely far from parking. If there are no parking spaces along Ocean Avenue, people have to park Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 12 November 29, 2022 in the parking garage and walk around the block to get to the area. He mentioned Casa Costa up the street, which has parking, but for someone who is not familiar with the area, it is difficult to locate. The parking lot is not being used to support the businesses because they cannot find it and even that short distance is a long walk. Part of this conversation is if they are supporting the businesses and trying to get a parking garage that works without a variance or that works with the City's requirements and what is needed for development; perhaps there should be a different configuration of the Site Plan without losing too much. There is minimal to zero requirements for landscape open space and 12 feet on one portion of a property. It is not passable, nothing is going to be there, so it is unlikely that they cannot install a sidewalk; it is dense vegetation. The number of parking spaces required per residential unit versus what is provided as well as the commercial spaces versus what is provided, and how far over they are meeting their minimums. He asked if taking out 20 spots would reduce the east facade or push it west. Mr. Burns stated there are two aspects, there is the code requirement and operating the business. They want this project to be successful and feel like this is necessary to attract businesses they want to see there. Parking comes with it and is readily available. He does not think parking a block away is uncommon for many people in other Cities. When they first looked at doing a project in Boynton Beach, their thought was not that they would be the only project and that this project must sustain itself. He thinks they look at this area as a whole and share the same vision of creating a place where people want to live, work, and play, an urban environment. They know the adjacent property owners and are familiar with their plans and what they are preparing to do. He thinks the public parking structure immediately adjacent to the property is going to be nice for a commercial development in the future. He agreed what is currently there is probably not the best complimentary use, but if this is truly going to be part of Downtown and part of an urban area, then they are trying to accommodate the future. He thinks it will be more walkable and more pedestrian friendly;they do bike sharing programs and try to promote other means of transportation. He is not concerned about someone walking a half a block to go to a restaurant. They have to juggle agreements with the CRA, commitments to the City, public parking, Affordable Housing, and a local business he told they would build them a new building. They have made a tremendous number of concessions moving things and bending the project as much as possible. Michael Reiner, Land Use Attorney for the project, advised that the stack of documents that govern this project are hundreds of pages on top of the code; they are just as much of a limitation on the project as any requirement in the ADA, they have the same force of law. This is not something of their making, so he does not think this is an impediment. The question is similar situations, the code says they are not allowed to look at other variances, nothing can be a precedent. Chair Rosecrans indicated he has seen a lot of variances during the eight years he has been on the Board. He does not see this as a difficult variance and would like to see the project move forward. Mr. McQuire questioned how many parking spaces are for the public and asked if they could add eight additional public parking spaces. Mr. Burns indicated there are 585 parking spaces with 150 for the public. Chair Rosecrans suggested waiting until this comes back for Site Plan review. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 13 November 29, 2022 Ms. Radigan clarified public parking spaces versus required parking spaces do not necessarily overlap. Currently, they are providing the correct number of parking spaces for what they are building and there is minimal access, which is what the code would require as public. They are sufficiently providing parking for commercial space and residential units. At the last count, she thinks they were at about eight spaces, and those are the ones that are purely public in terms of code because they are unassigned to developed uses. Code calculates parking based on the development proposed. Currently, they meet the required parking, but the parking is assigned to the uses they are building. Anything in excess can be counted as public spaces that can come and go. When talking about public spaces in terms of code,they are providing what they are building and there is an excess of parking; this item is on the variance. They are allowing conversation regarding parking because of the parking garage, but the relief is about the buffer. Staff is recommending denial because they do not meet the exact criteria for the code. This could be completed and designed, and the parking garage could switch to be along 4h Street, far from the use where the buffer is required; however, it has proven to be infeasible for the developers, which is why the variance request is before the Board. Since it does not meet the strict application of the rules, it is a recommendation of denial, but they are in agreement that there is a way to make the proposed Site Plan work with some concessions. Staff identified three concessions throughout this conversation; changing the types of trees proposed, green treatments on the east facade, and pedestrian connectivity. She believes the garage is separating this into two separate projects and they want to make sure they are maintaining an urban environment. Regarding the location of parking spaces, access through the garage closer to some of the active uses on Ocean Avenue would be beneficial. They are happy to reword that condition as enhanced pedestrian connectivity to unified, but staff would still ask if that were included if the Board chooses. Motion made by Mr. Simon to deny the request for the reduction with the buffer, approve the request for the elimination of the wall, and apply a condition of approval that the palms along that portion of property be changed to a more suitable palm. There was no second. Mr. Simon commented that the developer has reworked the Site Plan under the conditions of the requirements by the City. It does not seem that the parking garage can rotate and sit on the western portion of the property. He does not think there is a safe means for pedestrian access or passing through the parking garage without a risk of liability or injury. He questioned if the 12-foot buffer allows for an additional means for passing;perhaps there is a sidewalk or some sort of path, so it is an activated space on the east and north side of the parking garage itself, perhaps there is other access or entry points. There is also a means of security that needs to be considered; he does not think the wall helps security and feels that it makes it more unsafe. He thinks the 12-foot space might help or address some of the comments for connectivity. Mr. McQuire stated he is not bothered with an encroachment of another six feet, but he is hearing from staff that it divides the property. It sounds like staff is not 100% in favor of what is going on and he does not want to go against their advisement. As far as the fence, he can go either way. He questioned if passing the variance would help jumpstart the project or if they would come back before the Board with other requests. Structured parking is probably the most expensive part of the project, so it is hard to reconfigure and there are only so many tilt walls or concrete ways to do this. He is divided and is leaning towards staff recommendations. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 14 November 29, 2022 Mr. Ramiccio mentioned traffic flow from resident foot traffic he sees engaged on Ocean Avenue. The building is fronted on Ocean Avenue, and he thinks pedestrians will go out the front of the building and engage on Ocean Avenue rather than go to the rear. If this is a standalone project, he understands the connectability to the Boardwalk and the potential future restaurant. If this is looked at in its entirety, the next project will have an opportunity to cure some of the things he is not sure are real as far as pedestrian circulation. He noted the CRA has a 25% density bonus for Workforce Housing and the City Commissioners and leadership want to see Affordable Housing and Workforce Housing in this project, which is needed, but he would not want to see it on Ocean Avenue. He believes market rate apartments would support the restaurants and shops, not the Affordable Housing or Workforce Housing residents. He questioned the number of apartments being provided to the City. He noted these are income restricted and there is not a lot of room for profitability over a long period of time; all these dynamics must be taken into consideration. He stated this is minor for what they are getting and giving to the general public and noted this will be the first Workforce Housing built in the City. He reiterated they need Workforce Housing in the Downtown area, but not in their core area. Mr. Simon stated when going down to a five-foot buffer, anything planted higher than three feet is going to be wider than five feet, so it will encroach into the sidewalk area. He noted they need vertical elements. He mentioned the green wall and stated only two to three floors would be maintained, not eight floors. He thinks 12 feet against an eight-story building is probably less than adequate to provide proper coverage and screening to a wall that size. Mr. Ramiccio commented that following the existing landscaping would be putting one tree every 30 feet versus one tree every ten feet; they are putting twice as many. Mr. Simon did not have a problem with the fact they are putting more trees in; they are jamming more into a very small space, so every tree will want to go the same direction. He mentioned the overhang on the first or second floor and asked if it could step back a few feet for the remaining four floors to allow for the canopies of those trees; the trunk is only a foot wide. If the top four floors are stepped back 10 to 15 feet,they might lose three to six spaces in those areas. Mr. Harper requested Mr. Simon repeat the motion. Motion made by Mr. Simon, seconded Mr. McQuire, to deny the request for the reduction of landscape buffer,to approve the request for the elimination of the required six-foot wall, and to add a condition that the east facade Royal palms be changed to a more suitable palm. In a roll call vote the motion failed with Mr. Harper, Mr. Ramiccio, and Chair Rosecrans in opposition. (2-3) Ayes: Simon, McQuire Nays: Harper, Ramiccio, Rosecrans Ms. Radigan asked if the motion includes the two conditions recommended by staff with the modifications of green treatment on the facade and enhanced pedestrian connectivity. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 15 November 29, 2022 Mr. Simon clarified that the motion included the green treatment on the facade. He noted that the motion was seconded without those modifications. Chair Rosecrans entertained another motion. Motion by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Harper, to approve the variance as presented to include green treatment on the east facade, and flexibility of the species of trees. In a voice vote, the motion passed, with Mr. Simon and Mr. McQuire in opposition. (3-2) Ayes: Harper, Ramiccio, Rosecrans Nays: Simon, McQuire 8. Other—None. 9. Comments by Members —None. 10. Adjournment Upon Motion duly made and seconded, the meeting at was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. [Minutes prepared by C. Guifarro,Prototype,Inc.]