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.]