is a greeter at Walmart. Please be nice to me. Try to be nice. That'll be like your fourth job, right? Yes. Be cheap bottle washer. The June 15th meeting of the Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Board is called to order, 502. Ms. Miller, if you could call a roll, please. Karen Keseliski. Here. Mitch Katz is absent. Dicker Strong. Here. Jim Chard. Here. Price Patton. Here. Roger Cope. Here. Gregory Snyder. Here. Okay. Are there any proposed changes to the agenda? Okay. I propose we accept the agenda as presented. I have a motion. Second. But Mr. Cope, second by Mr. Chard. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Agenda's approved. We have to approve the minutes from February 23rd. Are there any questions, comments, or discussion of the minutes? Can I have a motion to approve? Move to approve. Second. Okay. Motion by Mr. Strong. Second by Mr. Cope. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Okay. At this point, time to swear in everyone who's going to speak tonight. Please raise your right hand by the authority of estimate the notary of the state of Florida. You swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I was going to say comments from the public on non-agenda items. I see no members of the public present. So that's public comments closed. No presentations. No quasi-judicial hearing items. We have number nine legislative items, and we'd like to proceed with number 9A. GNS. Okay. Good evening. This is an ordinance that is a little more far-reaching than the land development regulation changes that the board normally sees. So this is an item that has been talked about for the last four years and has now had a professional study done that has made recommendations. And so if the commission is going to adopt impact fees, this lays the framework for a new Article 8 and a schedule of fees and adopts the study that justifies it pursuant to state statutes. Which is what I just said, but it's now on a screen. Okay. So this would establish the new 8.1. The only impact fee that the city collects for the city is a parks fee. And it is a parks fee that I believe has been frozen in time for well over 20 years. I will tell you other communities have adjusted their parks fees. Ours is one of the lowest that I found. So I hate the clicker. Okay. So adopting impact fees is regulated by the Florida Impact Fee Act. It is in Florida statutes and it governs all the rules related to what a city can adopt and then how much it can raise existing fees. So if you did your homework, and some of you did and some of you probably didn't. So I know someone did because that's a really good question that got me researching. So if you looked at the background, the recommendation for where the parks fee needs to be is much higher than what we by statute are allowed to raise it to. So but outside of that one time charge for parks in our city, we do not collect any others. We collect transportation impact fees for the county, which are really roadway fees, which is a whole other area of conversation. But this study, it's was specifically looking at very specific public infrastructure. So the important thing about impact fees is that they are a tool to help cities pay for and service the growth that is that is happening. But it is not meant to go back and like fix every road that is not directly affected by that growth. So this is not meant to help you catch up with all the investment you didn't make over the past 20 years. It's really meant to offset the impact by the new growth. So the impact fee itself is required by state statute to be based on a study. It has to be a study that uses data collected in the last four years. And the study has to have been completed within the 12 months preceding the adoption of the impact fee. So this is supposed to be real time dollars of how much it costs to keep up with the growth that you're servicing. The study that was attached to the backup is by DTA. And it was completed in January of this year. So we have to adopt something before January of next year. Otherwise, the study is stale. And we have to start again. There's a lot of background in terms of how they were managing growth, or how they were counting the anticipated growth, excuse me, what was needed in our CIPs and other impacts. And so ultimately, there's a series of different fees that are based on different metrics. So there's what they were calling is a city administration fee. Actually, you'll see in the ordinance table, that's not what we're calling it. We actually have something already on the books called a city administration fee. It's related to it's related to collecting county impact fees. So you can see that we actually were calling it a municipal facilities impact fee. There's a police fee, a fire fee, and then again, the parks fee. The parks fee, of course, having to follow the different statutes in the latest house bill that govern this. The current parks fee, just as a point of reference is $500 per unit or $500 per hotel room. The rest of things that you see there, we do not collect right now. It also has proposed residential water and also sewer impact fees. They were based on a residential unit are, I think I put the back up in there. The director of utilities, after looking at the recommendations of the study, he applied a sort of a percentage to the defined, I think it's called an ERD, which is an equivalent residential unit, to put it in line with what he thought the city really needed. So he was recommending a lower fee than the study promoted or suggested. And that was both whether it was a per unit or if it was based on meter size for commercial or other things. This one, I had a hard time. I really had a hard time understanding this, keeping in mind that we're going to have to program all of this into the new permit system for calculation. Because to me, I was like, well, I don't understand why you're going to charge a higher impact fee for one land use than another. The water's sheeting off the same. Does gravity work differently? I asked a lot of questions. Ms. Barletto provided a memo that came to me after this by an outside agency explaining why, how runoff is calculated differently. So it made, it makes sense. But this would not be based on, if you read the study, it said it was a fee per acre. And it's not about the acre of land. It's not the size of the lot. It's about the square footage of impervious surface. We already calculate that. We get those numbers for drainage calculations. We get those numbers for what ultimately becomes your trim bill on your, for stormwater on your tax bill. So that impervious surface calculation is something that we already readily have available. And it makes more sense for it to be done per square foot based on our increment of development. So again, the ordinance before you will establish a new section. It will adopt the required study, which is part of state statutes. It moves the park fee, which is right now in chapter five, and it will move it onto this new chapter to put them all together. And the, all of the, the pages of the ordinance explain how to calculate what you're giving credit for, how to appeal if you don't agree with your calculation. Um, and that there's an annual review by the city required that would be done in conjunction with the budget to show what came in, what's needed, things like that. That said, um, you can only raise an existing fee, a certain amount. So if you underestimate what you needed, you're still going to have to follow the state mandated limitations. The last page of the ordinance that was in the backup gives you a fee schedule, um, for all of the different impact fees. Um, and then the staff report provided a couple of examples, um, of how much this fee would be. And if the city commission decides to adopt the maximum with the, with the caveat that the director of utilities has already dropped the two recommendations for, I mean, we're in the middle of a water plant. And we have, uh, you know, there's, we know a lot about the water and what's needed and those things. So, um, but this is the maximum they can adopt. The city commission could decide to adopt a dollar. They could decide to adopt a hundred dollars. They could decide not to adopt anything. It's up to them, but this is the maximum they could adopt. And so for just a 2000 square foot house, if you're paying your $562 parks fee and you're paying a dollar 39 per square foot for your municipal fee and 61 cents per square foot for police and a dollar 22 per square foot for fire, um, your per unit, um, wastewater and water fees. And then it was a, for instance, on how much square footage the impervious surface would be, your permit fees would be now also collecting a $12,757.50 one time impact fee. So keeping in mind, permit fees are only for the review of permits. They cannot go into the general fund. It does not matter that I have $10 million in the building fund right now. We cannot spend it on parks. We cannot spend it on buying a new fire truck. We cannot spend it on Kevlar vests per other parts of the statute say your permit fees are only to pay for the review of permits. And if there's too much money, then we give it back to the people who gave it to us through a very long accounting exercise. So, um, those fees may go up or down depending on, you know, technology and how long it takes for us to review permits and what is the actual burden on how many employees it takes to look at it, those things, what's your software bill, how many computers did you have to buy, those things. This is meant to go into the general fund to offset the cost of infrastructure and facility improvements that are, that have an increased demand because of growth. So the way the credits work though, I want to make clear about this. If you, some of these, this is a, for instance of, and this is happening all over the city, you have a property that is actually two buildable lots that are put together, right? Somebody tears down the big house in the middle, changes it into two lots. So one lot is an entirely new house that was never, it's, it's a new household that was never in the city before. The other one might be a wash, right? Because you had a house there before, but this is what a new house with no credits would look like under this 2,000 square feet. So then we have, of course, much larger development happening, particularly along the Congress corridor. And when you think about, for example, fire impacts, you had a one-story building surrounded by lots of asphalt, and now you're building an eight-story residential building. The same fire apparatus cannot reach the eight-story residential unit the way that it could, it could serve a one-story smaller building. So this is meant, again, to start providing that impact of growth. So for fire, in this case, it would be $384,000 and change. That would go into a fire account so that the type of needs that they have to service the new growth would have a resource that is not just the city of Delray Beach's current taxpayers. That's the, the idea behind the impact fees. So this was a 267 building, 267 unit building. It had gross square footage of under air. We knew what the clubhouse was. We were testing sort of an existing example after I got the stormwater memo. I did not do the stormwater memo, but exactly right, Ms. Keloweski, she called, because we did it kind of just as a what's the net difference. And actually with the, with what was given to us as a schedule, there's a runoff rate for industrial. And so the industrial credit would have been higher than what a residential exchange would have been. So there's a couple dollars in here that are probably off, but I think it's still a pretty good estimate that under the highest possible adoption by the city, this project would have to write a check for $2 million to help offset the costs of city facilities and demand on services beyond what has been currently collected, which right now is $500 per unit for parks. So I went the wrong way. I think I did. So in terms of growth and what we're trying to do, why would the city want to do this? Aside from the fact that tax, you know, there's always this push and pull between our current residents having to pay for growth that maybe they're not really excited about having in the first place. There's that balance. Um, but there's also, um, you know, the, the real financial benefit behind that while we continue to try to lower taxes for our residents, um, the rollback rate that was adopted a couple of years ago, for example. Um, so this isn't a tool to raise money for needed funds. Um, we have, uh, a lot of comprehensive plan policies that talk about the superior park system we want to have. Um, all of these things take money. So, um, but then there are some other questions that have come up while we have been talking about this and I would ask, um, that you specifically weigh in on these topics because we will take them forward to the city commission for their consideration. We have other comprehensive plan policies about providing incentives for workforce housing and attracting workforce. So we have a longstanding policy of using a lot of different tools to try to achieve workforce housing. So if it's going to be $12,000 for the new house that was never built on a lot before, is this something that there should be a different schedule for to, to, um, provide an incentive for that? And then we also, the only other real policy driven, um, planning, you know, type over, um, development, um, effort we have is, um, historic preservation. So if you've taken on a historic property and you're doing an addition and you're doing a lot of other things that sometimes, you know, takes a specialized design or take different materials that maybe cost a little bit more than using, um, hardy plank or something like that, should we consider reducing or, um, relieving historic properties of a discount? And that's, um, pursuant with other comprehensive plan policies about that. So, um, we do ask that you choose from A, B or C because there is a time crunch on this. Um, you can recommend approval of the ordinance. You can recommend, um, amending it. You can, you can just say, this is a terrible idea. That's fine too. Um, and any comments you have related to, uh, this as a tool for this city, I think are greatly appreciated. If you're going to ask in depth financial questions, I will not be answering them. Assistant City Manager Jeff Morris is here and he's really been the project manager overseeing the DTA study. So that's it. Thank you. I guess it's up to us. Uh, who, who wants to start? I have some questions. Please. Okay. So yeah, I did my homework. So, um, and I, I'm familiar with impact these before. So, um, I do think, you know, the city, current city residents and businesses need to pay for a lot of infrastructure. I think we're going to need a lot of, um, uh, capital improvements in all these areas going forward, just because a lot of the city was built a long time ago and things are starting to get old and wear out. So I, and I do think that the, you know, current, current population and community should, should be responsible for that. And I do like the idea of having new growth and redevelopment help contribute to keeping the city, um, the way it is, um, and, and including these new areas. Um, my, my questions had to do, I had a couple of them. One was, um, it is a technical one. It's on the ordinance, um, item G, um, uh, uh, one, eight, one, two G that it, it declares everything except water and, and wastewater in it. And so I, I, I may have missed where water and wastewater water included in the where, where, where it has this kind of language G on page four. So no, it's on the ordinance, on the ordinance. So I, we just, I would just think you might want to make sure that we've included water and soar some, somewhere in those declaration. I mean, these are sort of declarations in my mind. Yeah. And then, um, another one was, I just want to make sure I clarified. There's a, there's a thousand square foot cutoff for additions. So I can add on to my house up to a thousand square feet. But if I added a, an ADU of a thousand feet, I'd pay for the ADU, but not my addition. Okay. There's a cumulative. Is that right? Okay. Very. So I just wanted people to be aware of that. So I think it's going to cause, it may cause more, not that impact fees may contribute to someone's decision, but it may keep someone from building a, uh, mother-in-law suite instead of. So ADU would be a separate item. The ADU, ADU would be, would have impact fees, but the, the addition would not to build the same amount of square footage. So I just. Up to a thousand square feet. Up to a thousand square feet. Yeah. Which is quite large. That's half my house. Pretty generous. So that was my other thought. It's whether a thousand, you know, where the a thousand came from, but I can live with that. And then, um, I, uh, I do like the concept of, um, thinking about something for workforce housing. I'm not sure what that should be. Um, and I did see in there that there's some opportunities to amend this based on policy decisions later. So I didn't know if that was something to bring back or not. So, for indulging me. Thanks. I'll piggyback on that. And I, I would propose to incentivize the historic preservation component. Yeah. Yeah. Either equal, uh, you know, in some significant way. Mm-hm. And I, I don't know if it's, if it's discounted now or if it's not, but whatever we can do to promote historic preservation, I'm all for that. Absolutely. Well, yeah, there's existing tax breaks. Um, um, um, you know, the, the 10 year, no, no more payment to the county or the city. Ad valorem. The ad valorem taxes. Yeah. Right. So that's, but that's like you say, that's just one of the, the tools that you have. So. And the existing isn't exactly generous. Right. But, um, I agree. If you could add more incentives for, um, to encourage, um, how would I say, responsible, uh, historic restoration, that would be good. All right. Do you have more questions? I'm sorry. I had a quick. Oh, so, so what you're proposing, you know, that example you put up to the 267 room hotel, their fees, their fees would go from, um, about $133,000 to 2.2 million. Right. If, um, the maximum was assessed or if all of the potential fees were adopted, because it's also possible, I should say this too, that the city commission will raise the parks fee and they could adopt police and fire, but then decide not to adopt the rest. Or they could just say, you know, the biggest issue we have is stormwater. We need to do that. Like they, they could, this is the menu at the maximum rate they can choose from, I think. And so. Jeff Horace, assistant city manager, this also, this scenario also assumes there's nothing on the land now and hasn't been for 10 years because we do have that series of credits. If you've had existing, uh, construction on that site. And, and I guess finally, my only, my only question. Um, I think it's, I think it's good because we've been, you know, and builders have been paying to the, to the county and the school, they pay to the school district too, which are like big, big hits. Um, but is, is this, is this to kind of establish a framework for if it, when, and if the, uh, the voters decide to eliminate the, the, uh, property tax? I mean, this is a four year effort, so we didn't, um, come up yet anticipate that, um, the, a drastic reorganization of homesteaded property tax would, would also be on the table. So we look really super prepared, but that was not, we just have known that, um, particularly with the life safety impacts that we need to be able, this will not pay for new officers or firefighters, but it will pay for the gear that they need to serve the larger growth. So that I think is important. Um, but yeah, we've been at this for a while. That's a whole other piece that, um, Well, because yeah, because of Delray's facing a $24 million shortfall because they raised the, uh, property tax exemption. I can tell you where this idea terminated from. This idea originally came from the fire department who are saying, we're coming up at some point in the future, we're going to need another fire station. And we don't want to stop development because somebody gets us to that point, that line in the sand where we need a new station, they can't build until we do it. So they had come up and said, we really need to look at the impact fee, um, uh, avenues. So all the new development from the point of adoption forward is going to pay for that new station and the development can continue. Uh, and then of course we looked at it through all of the avenues that were, uh, able to collect impact fees on just to lessen that burden on the existing residents. It's not their impact. They're not paying any of this. It's what is the impact of bringing new people in, bring that new square foot share and making sure that it pays. So the existing residents don't have to. And then like, just to clarify, like you said earlier, the impact fees, they're, they're similar to other, other cities. I mean, a guy was going to build a 267 apartment, you know, apartment building and his fees go from like 133 to 2.2. He's not, is he going to shop elsewhere? I mean, how do you try to build that down? He or she may shop elsewhere simply because each cities it's based on your individual city needs. So if you look at impact 50, see impact fees across cities, it's some not in the same ballpark in some areas, some very much right on target. It depends on what they've done over time, what kind of development they anticipate in future years and exactly what their costs are. Okay. That's that, that's all I got. Yeah. I'm sorry. The last thing too, I think it's important. I'm sorry. The last thing too, that's important that is not included. So, um, is mobility fee. Um, there was a lot of legislation changes that happened in the last couple of years, which I think were very beneficial to Eastern communities like Delray Beach who have been paying a rate of roadway impact fees to the county based on a county schedule that is the same for every development, whether it's East of 95, West of 95, et cetera. Um, and, uh, those types, by the way, the inner local says they are for new lane miles, new lane miles. We're built out. How many new lane miles are we building? So a lot of the Eastern communities have been great donors and the county's perception of course, is that, you know, we're regional people drive. Like I drive from West Palm to come to work here, but if you had a train station that stopped downtown, I could get on the West Palm one and write it here. So how are we going to pay for that train station? Right. So there's new, um, the new house bill that passed a couple of years ago, tops is part of why you're seeing that the county is tackling, um, a pretty extensive countywide transportation plan because they are now having to tie that fee that everybody's getting charged to actual improvements that are needed to build up mobility for the county. Um, the city needs to also have that mobility fee. And so in the CIP that will be considered, um, where you're going to see a line item for a mobility plan and fee. We were trying to do this before COVID started and then like the money went crazy cause everything went crazy. Um, so we started breaking it down into like the parking curbside management plan, the bike ped master plan. And we, now we need somebody to pull all of those plans that are not specifically roadway plans and figure out a fee assessment similar to this table. And it could be that if you're on military trail, you're paying the county impact fee because the countywide transportation fee is figured plan has figured out what happens there. But if you're in the TCEA, which by its definition means we're not widening the roads, then maybe that fee stays with the city and can be used to build a train station sidewalks, bike lanes, other things that we need, you know, to, to improve mobility here. This, um, ordinance is like laying the framework for bringing that fee in after that analysis is done as well. So I think it's important to, you know, even if you don't like all of them, we need to get some of this in place for the long term. If I may, just a quick summary of some of the important things to note. One is that this is not paid by existing residents. It is paid on new development. So it does not affect existing residents. The money collected for each is deposited into a separate fund for that grouping. So if you're paying a fire fee, it can only be used for capital projects for the fire department. So it's not mixed up with everything else. We can't pay for just whatever we want out of it. Statute also identifies that we've got to pay for specific projects in a timeline. All of our projects were came from the CIP coming forward in the future. We have an extensive list of inventory and projects that's included in this wonderful, exciting study that I had to read through several times. Um, so it's important to note that this is about the impacts of new development and new development only. It is not a fee that goes to the existing residents. It is something that will save them moving forward in having to pay for the impacts of new development. We will all pay for the general maintenance of those and some of those other items as Anthea alluded to. These dollars can't pay a new police officer or firefighter, but they can pay for the new vehicles that they need, can pay for their portion of new structures. Unfortunately, we're getting ahead on the police headquarters at this time. Had that waited or we had this impact fee 20 years ago, we would have had a fairly sizable pot of money to use and we wouldn't have to use all bond money for that construction. At some point in the future, as I mentioned before, we'll need to build a new fire station. It may not be for another 10 years, but at that time, there'll be a substantial amount of money waiting for that to happen so all of the residents don't have to come up with it at that time or the bond release that everybody pays in the future isn't quite so large. I thought the study was fantastic. I never understood that impact fees were so complicated and it was exciting reading. I didn't read it three times, but a couple times. I didn't find it quite so exciting. I kind of tozed off once or twice. It's okay. I wasn't going to admit that. This only is one-time fees, so it would do little or nothing for the reduction in real estate taxes, right? Maybe one year. It would have an impact moving forward on those simply because that portion isn't going to come. But just for one year. Just for whatever that project is at the time that that happens. So it isn't really a solution to that problem? No. It's helpful. It's not a solution. Secondly, Jeff, you said this was only for new residents. On the other hand, it talks about increasing the size of your home. We also talked about historic preservation, which are likely existing residents. Well, it's new development. My apologies. I said, for the most part, it's going to be new businesses and new residents, but it is for new development. It may impact minimally some of those existing residents if they're trying to expand significantly. Okay. So that clears that question. I noticed that the fee on water was apparently much higher than any of the others. Does that fee go down when the bond is paid off? Well, I think one of the reasons why the utilities director felt that we should not be charging the full amount is simply because we've gone to bond for the new water plant. And he just didn't like the calculation, felt that some of that was captured in the bond, and did not feel it was appropriate for us to charge the entire amount. That's why he went back to 50%. He also looked at the neighboring cities and felt it was a little bit more in line with what they were doing. He didn't want to be a far outlier. And I would tell you, most of those other cities probably will, next time they get a chance, will increase those impact fees, simply because of the impact of new legislation on water plants. And the things are going to have to increase and enhance to meet those new regulations. But my question was a little bit different. The bond is going to, is what, a 30-year bond? Whenever it's paid off, would that mean that we would readjust this fee, recognizing that the dollars going out are reduced? We may. We would look at this. The ordinance itself requires that we look at the fees every three to five years. Okay, great. So we will continuously look and update, do more studies to this effect to find out, you know, what is the needs moving forward? There may be some we met. There may be some new ones that come on, and they will adjust accordingly and make sure that the new development is paying the appropriate share of those. I assume that won't be a four-year effort. Probably not, but we'll have to be ready to do it when that time comes. Um, why, why are we saying land that has been vacant for 10 or more years? Why is it not five or more years? What's magical about 10? We're trying to keep consistent with, what did we have it with? Yeah, we didn't feel it was appropriate to keep it in there forever, just simply because there's, we do have some land out there that at one time had something on it. But at 10 years, it seemed appropriate to say, okay, you've not participated. The budget has absorbed whatever was there. If you jump on now, you're adding those new impacts. We thought that 10 years was a fair time. We looked at, I forgot what it was. There was something else we were benchmarking against that was 10 years. And we thought, we just thought that was an appropriate time. What was it? Was that maybe the tax evatement on historic preservation? Tax evatement on, on historic preservation is 10 years. It wasn't that conforming uses? We wanted to make sure there was some cutoff. We didn't want it to be there in perpetuity, simply because we have a hard enough time now looking back at what may have been on a property. So we didn't want to have to worry about something that may have been there in 1952 and isn't there now. We thought 10 years was a fair amount. I wish I could remember there was some other fee that went back 10 years and only 10 years. Well, maybe Rebecca can tell us at the next meeting. I mean, ultimately, if you have an approval, it's supposed to be for two years and you can get four years plus tolling on an extension. And so if you haven't built it in 10 years, you may not be ever going to build it. So these are fees that are due at the issuance of building permit. So a lot of what this board approves changes or it doesn't, it doesn't get built or it gets built right away. Like none of us know what different people's schedule are. So these fees are collected at building issuance because they could have been adjusted up or down or in response to the changing needs of the cities. So on that, on that same page, uh, two of the staff analysis, it says, the first example is a new 2000 square foot house. I'm assuming that that is just the example. This would apply to historic houses that have an additional 3000 square feet or something. Right. And, and I would think that that's, you wouldn't pay an impact on the existing house and historic houses are existing. But you're going to have more bathrooms, you're going to have bigger kitchens, more electricity. I mean, it's just, uh, it's going to have an impact. I don't understand. Cause if the house is historic and it's there, unless you're building a thousand square foot addition, you will not get an impact fee assessment. It's over a thousand square feet. If the addition is over a thousand, not the house, the change. Yeah. Most of the additions, I think are well over a thousand. Then they will pay an impact fee on not the 2000 square feet, but on, it would be half of this because if there's not an allowance made for historic, because it's based on the square footage and they would not pay a parks fee at all. We do not take parks fees. It's per, some of these fees are per residential unit. The residential unit's already there unless it's an ADU where now you have two residential units, right? So, um, you wouldn't pay a parks fee. We don't collect it now if it's a house that's getting an addition. So we wouldn't do it again. That taxpayer is already paying less than a thousand square feet addition, zero impact fee. That's what, yeah, that's the threshold where it starts. Unless you have a recommendation on we're open. The base that we used was Coral Gables fee. We were using Coral Gables fee as a little bit of a guiding because they've actually dropped their police and fire fees fairly recently and adopted a mobility fee. So they're a little bit ahead of us. So their parks fee is over $5,000 though, I think. That's why Jeff's like, let's get rid of the parks fee, do a new study and adopt it properly. So where you'll often see a higher parks fee is in a built out city because they're contemplating buying land to expand their park system. I notice here that that you're saying you're asking staff if we have any suggestions for include for reductions that should be included and certainly Roger's point about historic preservation I think is something worth considering. And then you have a section here where the LDRs are calling for an adopted neighborhood plan if applicable. So what would happen if a neighborhood does not have a plan? I'm not sure that all of our neighborhoods have plans. Can you tell me where you're reading? Yes, page three of the staff analysis under review and analysis LDR section 2.4.7 A5. A5. Oh and okay that that's the rule that it says you have to make a finding that the amendment is consistent with the comp plan and then it furthers of an adopted plan if applicable. So if you don't have one it's not applicable because there's no plan. Okay maybe just one or two more. Oh on the actual study it talks about preliminary proposed Delray Beach DIS and it does not specifically call out restaurants. It says office commercial retail which might be restaurants I'm not sure and it doesn't call out not-for-profits which we have quite a few of. That would be institutional and restaurants would be commercial. Yes. All right. I think that answers all my questions. Thank you. Yeah I don't have a lot to add. I think everything's been pretty well covered. I think to me the important thing that we need to do is make excuse me allowance for workforce housing of some form. I don't know if it would be a x percent discount on the fees if you're putting for a workforce housing unit and I you know what don't design from the dais I don't have a percentage for you but I think that's appropriate. No I mean I could say something but it's based on nothing so so what's the point? Chair this is a little different where it's not a quasi-editial privately issued application so if the board did want to make a recommendation of a certain percentage or type it could if it simply wanted to say some type of discount being afforded to different categories as part of the recommendation that would be fine as well. Yeah I mean I'm kind of not qualified but if the board as a group if we have a number that we want to put out I'm happy to support it. I'm hearing nothing. Well go ahead. I mean what do you think is appropriate? Well specifically what is the question? How much of a discount how much of a discount on the impact fee you get for workforce housing? And historic preservation. We'll talk about that next. And it would be so the board could just make a motion to recommend to the city commission they adopt some type of discount without a percentage or a number if the board just wanted to make that as a general recommendation to the commission. Does that sound fair? Unless unless staff says we should be selected. I mean I agree. You want a number from us? No. I don't want to be your company. Okay. We'll bring to the commission and we'll work with it. I mean half? I don't know. Are we talking 25 percent? 50 percent? At least half. Half. Half? Here's one of the issues. Yeah that's 50 percent. One of you all raised it last meeting about workforce. Yeah. We had two major developments that we voted on. Yes. Neither of them had workforce housing. Right. And the first one I believe was because you couldn't incentivize it for whatever reason. It was past that point or something. So yeah. We need to make it more substantial. All right. But Councilor. Yes. Would that not depend on the percent or the number of units out of the whole that are workforce housing? Absolutely. I mean if it were just one unit 50 percent seems too high. If it's 50 units. No. No. No. No. No. No. I think that I think some of those are per dwelling unit which makes it very simple. The workforce housing dwelling unit gets a reduction. If it's for the square footage then you have to take a percentage of the square footage. Mm-hmm. And so if if or or percentage of you know if you have nine units and three of them are workforce then that's 33 percent. So you take half of 33 percent off basically. You know what I'm saying. I'm not doing the math probably correctly but. I read a report somewhere that said if you if you're if you're supposed to build 30 workforce units and a builder wanted to only build 20 24 he had to pay an extraordinary fee like a you know like an in-lieu fee for those units. No. Well that'll be going up soon. Yeah. The fee. We just went. Right. So. We just went through that and the fee was ridiculously small. So the fee right now I believe and I'm working off my memory. 160,000. It's $160,000 per unit. Per unit. So we just had for example Bliss on 5th came through got approved small little lot next to the JT's building. What's it called? The Weisman building. Yeah. And a lot behind it off of Atlantic. Ground floor retail upper level. It was entitled to three units under the density. They got six additional units provided two of those were workforce. Right. So it went from three to nine. One was for moderate income which is 80 to 120 AMI and one was for the step lower than that which was low. And we had that by we just took this before commission who he's like very happy if he could just pay $320,000 and not build any. And the commission said no. You got approved saying you got all this extra density saying that you were going to build it. And they were saying that they're building the low income unit would be built at a loss which is possible which is why you shouldn't have negotiated your price maybe differently. But that does raise the question of maybe the percentage of discount is related to the income of the unit. You get a moderate income rental is over $2,000. I mean it's not when people are acting like this is like a lowing this is just moderate is most of us that you know have jobs and go to work every day. Right. That you start stepping down and then you have people that are working but they're not necessarily in fields that are paying that much. So that's why it goes to the 60 to 80 percent of the area median income. And then the very low to be fair we're typically in CRA housing authority you know people you know where there's a mission to build this housing. So we're not necessarily going to capture that through giving you a discount on your impact fees. But we could look at a sliding scale too. Yeah. Listening to that explanation it's obviously more complicated than just throwing out a number of 50 percent. And I think that we ought to just recommend that there be an adjusted fee or fee the impact fees should be adjusted for workforce housing. And I don't think we should sit up here and try to figure out exactly how to do it because we're not as smart as Anthea. Okay. We appreciate the recommendation. Yeah. I do think that's important. And the other one is the historic preservation. Although I'm puzzled a little bit because how is new construction historic preservation? There is some. Not much. You're building a new historic building. No. You're building an addition onto a historic building. There's infill. There's infill. Okay. But again I think that if it's historic preservation we're going to get some kind of a break. I guess that's the way to say it. That we should have. Is this discount probably the right word? I don't know. For workforce housing and historic preservation. Incentivize. Just say incentivize. Incentivize. Yeah. There you go. So I would be happy to hear a motion to approve this with those comments added. If anybody. Or not. Or whatever anybody wants to make. We're in agreement, right? I am in agreement. I think we are. I'll make a motion to recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance No. 3426. A city initiated amendment to increase the parks impact fee and adopt new impact fees by finding that the amendment and approval thereof is consistent with a comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the LDRs. With the additional consideration of providing incentives for, to encourage workforce housing and historic restoration. And historic restoration and infill construction. Historic preservation. Preservation and infill construction. Was that a second? Second. We have a motion by. I just have a question. When you say workforce, does that also include affordable? Yeah. Is it the same? Basically the same. That's a broad enough umbrella. The maximum level. Okay. That's right. The three levels. That's a broad enough umbrella. I have a question also. Would we want to say, I know we're not designing from the diets. But would we want to say up to as much as 50% just to indicate the significance that we're talking about? I would. After the discussion, I would kind of leave the numbers alone personally. So, we have a motion. We have a second, I believe. Do we need to call a roll on this? Yes, Chair. Okay. Ms. Miller is by Mr. Price. Mr. Price, Mr. Patton. And seconded by Mr. Strong. And would you call a roll, please? Karen Keseleski. Yes. Mitch Cassett's absent. Deidre Strong. Yes. Jim Chard. Yes. Price Patton. Yes. Roger Cope. Yes. Gregory Snyder. Yes. That passes unanimously. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thanks for your time. That's great. I think it's time. Yeah. I agree. Definitely. Time. No, the next one's exactly going to take a long at all. I don't think. How can we spend an hour on the weather? Please leave away. Right. There he is. All right. 9B. Good evening, board members. My name is Sean Adams, planner and training. At this time, I'd like to enter into the record file number 699-2026. So, the request is to provide a recommendation to the City Commission on Resolution No. 108-26, which would add Weatherspoon Way as a secondary name to the street segment, Northwest 12th Avenue. As you can see on the map outlined in red, that's Northwest 12th Avenue, and it lies between Northwest 2nd Street and West Atlantic Avenue. So, again, just to reiterate, the request is just to refer to the street segment as Northwest 12th Avenue slash Weatherspoon Way. So, for some key background information, Northwest 12th Avenue was originally platted in 1925. The city owned right of way. It's one of the oldest streets in the city. Approximately 30 properties front of the street segment. And as you see on the map, that's the entirety of Northwest 12th Avenue, again outlined in the red. For some key context on Reverend Weatherspoon, whom the city's being, or for the streets being named after, he moved to Dowry Beach in 1940. He was a key figure in Dowry Beach's black community for several decades. He funded Weatherspoon Paving, where he hired many migrant workers, and he paved many of the city's streets. He became a lifetime member of Dowry Beach's Voters League. Later on, he funded and built a primitive Baptist church on Northwest 11th Avenue. He's also received the NACP Community Service Award for his community efforts within Dowry Beach. And later on, his son, Jimmy Weatherspoon, entered local politics and became the vice mayor of Delray Beach. Also, I'd like to add that the Weatherspoon family still live on Northwest 12th Avenue to this day. And they have property on that street. So, this would be an honor to his legacy, Reverend Weatherspoon and the family still living here. Right. So, is the name acceptable? Here are the street's naming requirements. It states that the use of a person's name for a street is permitted only if they have been deceased for a minimum of five years. Given that, Reverend Weatherspoon passed away in April 1988. That was nearly four decades ago. So, he wouldn't meet that minimum criteria. Also, it states that the person had to have made significant contributions to the city of Delray Beach. And given the reasons I stated in the slide prior, we believe that he meets those contributions as well. And as for sign implementations, if the name and request is approved, of course, staff will replace applicable street signs. The Florida Department of Transportation will replace the street signs on the F dot right of way. And as for aesthetics, as you can see in the photo, there's an example of Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Northwest 2nd Street, which is also, again, an example of a street co-designation. So, it would follow that same style and format, but this would be Northwest 12th Avenue slash Witherspoon Way. Finally, here are the board's options for action to recommend a street co-designation request, to recommend denial, or to continue with direction. That is all. Thank you. Do we have any comments? I'm, of course, going to vote for this. The Witherspoon family has made amazing contributions for many generations. But I do have a concern, and maybe this is more appropriate for board comments. If you look at the laws or rules on street naming, they are fairly loose. And it shows up in two different sections. One says, in selecting names for streets or in renaming streets, consideration should be given to the use of names that are historically, culturally, or environmentally significant in the immediate area. And I'm just thinking, and I'm just thinking that two things. One is, this has been an issue that's been fraught with politics for as long as I've been here. At one point in time, I think there was even a rule that we couldn't name streets after a residence. And then I remember one issue where the CRA tried to name a street, and that really led to the takeover of the CRA by the city commission. And it was sufficiently political in that regard. And where I'm really concerned is we've had some very notable residents die just in the last year. I remember the former mayor, Rita Ellis, Mark Sauer, who probably put hundreds of minority children in colleges. Tony Allerton, who contributed to this city for 70 years, 65 years. Francis Bork, who basically invented Del Rey as a culture center. And Roy Simon, who just recently passed, is a very notable architect. So my question is this. The other thing I wanted to mention is at one time there was a county commissioner that wanted to rename Atlantic Avenue, or at least as a double name, Andre Fladell. Oh, boy. I don't know if you remember that. And if you do drive around this town, there are at least four or five streets named Fladell. And so I think those historical facts led the city to kind of tighten up the process. But I think it still needs more tightening. The language here is very loose. And the number of persons that we could or should be honoring is fairly large. I was short. You were. All right. What was the genesis of this? Did the Weatherspoon family approach the city? To the best of my knowledge, I believe that is how this came to be. And then the commission directed staff at a meeting several months ago to find a solution to this with the street naming. So, yes, I think the family and the city commission had started us down this path. Is there anyone in the city who keeps a list of famous people who have died for a future consideration? Not that I know of. The tightest thing we have is the person has to have passed away at least five years ago for them to receive this honor. Mr. Fladell is still with us. And apparently, I think. Was it before they changed the ordinance then? We never. Yeah. Is that a lot of time? Yeah. So, as I understand it, there was some kind of a fundraising effort in the city that allowed people to pay money to get names on streets. There was a fundraising thing. And it was a bit Fast and the Furious on the assigning of street names for people. No, I'm totally in support of this. As long as you, if you mail a letter to, you know, 122 Northwest 12th Street, it'll get there, right? Thanks. Just really quick, because I want to make sure the record is straight on this. Yes. The CRA did not recommend to name the street after Lamar Shuler. We only voted to support it. Hence the 2017 hostile takeover of the CRA. But, no, I'm definitely in support of it. As a matter of fact, L.C. Weatherspoon's church is still being used now with the elders table, which has had some significant impact with the city. So, this legacy is still living on after him. So, yeah, definitely. Absolutely. I'm in agreement with everything as long as mail goes through. I want to welcome Sean to the city. Great job on your presentation. In what little I know about the history of the naming of streets in Delray, they were never numbered streets. They were all originally named streets, always. And somebody can correct me. But in the 50s, apparently, the United States Postal Service, and I'm simplifying this down to my level of competence, they insisted that all streets be numbered in avenues and streets. So, we all had a street that you live on right now that didn't have a number. And to me, that would have given it so much more character. So, Mr. Weatherspoon family has been a dynamic family in the city forever. I'm in favor of voting for anybody's name on any street, other than the diagram number. So, I'm 100% behind this. But I have no idea where Andre Fladell Avenue is, and apparently it's way out west somewhere. No. Is it an alley or a street? Is it an alley? Marty Fladell. Alley. We have the... And the South County Civic Center is now the Dr. Andre Fladell Civic Center. I know. We're... Down on Jog Road. Man. That's almost hard to believe. He's a strong truck. Don't get me started. That's what he said. Hey, Roger... He lives around the corner from me. Roger, we have to reassert the name Parrot Way for Third Avenue. Third Avenue has a Parrot Way? It used to be. Oh, that's what it was before? Yeah. Because of the bird? I guess it was the bird. Well, the street that my historic house was on. It was Lawrence. They were typically named after those, you know, turn-of-the-century people that were settling the city and that may have owned the entire area. And so, streets were named after people that were significant in founding that area. So, this, in a sort of roundabout way, this is going back toward that direction. I'm in favor of that 1,000%. Sean, thanks. Welcome aboard. Nice to see you. Thank you. Yeah. Good job. And can I have a motion, please? I'd like to make an motion, if that's okay. Yeah. I'd like to recommend approval to the City Commission of Resolution No. 10826 to rename the existing public right-of-way, otherwise known as Northwest 12th Avenue, to Northwest 12th Avenue slash Weatherspoon Way, finding that the request meets the applicable criteria in the land development regulations and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Motion by Mr. Cope, seconded by Mr. Straughan. Diane, would you read the roll, please? Karen Kieselowski? Yes. Mitch Katz is absent. David Straughan? Yes. Jim Chard? Yes. Price Patton? Yes. Roger Cope? Yes. Gregory Snyder? Yes. That passes unanimously. Thanks. Great. Very good. Rebecca, did the language change in terms of the options for the word? Because what Roger just read is different from what I have here. He read that, I think. Did you read from the document or from the screen? Screen. His screen. Hmm. Maybe it changed. Just a quick. Well, I'm getting to it, but I've got it printed out here. It's not the same thing. Let me see. Thank you. I'm just... This is about townhouse. Okay. Understood. Okay. 9C. Ms. Pinkston, Holcomb. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. This is agenda item 9C, an amendment to the land development regulations, approval expiration dates for fee simple townhouse projects and city projects. And the request is to provide a recommendation to the city commission on ordinance number 33-26, a city initiated amendment to section 2.2.4, certification of action taken of the land development regulations to establish expiration dates for public projects and townhouse site plans with an approved plan. Pursuant to section 2.2.4, certification of actions of land development regulations, site plans, conditional uses, conditional use modifications, and subdivision plans expire 24 months after approval. Approvals are considered established or commenced when improvements representing 25% of the total cost, which excludes demolition, have been completed or a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Projects with approved plats are tied to the expiration date of the site plan. Other jurisdictions, such as Palm Beach County and Palm Beach Gardens, utilize plat recordation to establish commencement of a development order. Platting typically indicates an applicant's commitment to move forward in accordance with their development order. This is particularly problematic with approved fee simple townhouse developments as changes to the approved site plan that are inconsistent with the plat would require that one or both be modified. So this is specific to the city and CRA. Projects initiated by the city and the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency are also subject to the same expiration dates as private sector projects. Government facilities, however, require the preparation of RFPs, RFQs, and bids for various components. Additionally, unforeseen budget issues or public emergencies may impact funding and the ability to start in a timely manner. These potential delays could ultimately result in the development order expiring, which would require re-approval at an additional cost to taxpayers should the 18-month time extension prove to be insufficient. Non-governmental entities are not subject to these same requirements and have a faster path to obtaining a building permit and commencing construction within the given time frame. Please note that if approved, these provisions will be retroactive to January 1, 2022. So that's for the government and city-initiated projects. So this is a table that's just comparing different municipalities. So Palm Beach County and the Village of Wellington have exemptions in place for specific governmental entities. Applications initiated by the Village of Wellington are not subject to approval expiration. Palm Beach County goes further by also exempting applications submitted by local, state, and federal agencies. So just to compare, the city, it's a little bit harder for the city to get their projects through, not necessarily through, but constructed in a timely manner. So there could be any type of delay or something may happen, and then the application may have to go back through the process again. You would have to request a time extension. And this is just a description of the proposal. Item F, expiration of approvals, conditional uses, site plans, subdivision plans, and zoning certificates of use. So C and D are where the changes would occur. So C would read, site plans for fee-simple townhouse developments with a recorded plat shall be valid for a period of 24 months from the date of recordation. A 24-month time extension may be requested. So that, when we were making some edits, so that second sentence got removed, but that's to stay in there. And it's included in the ordinance caption. And D, site plan approvals for city and Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency-owned properties shall be valid for a period of five years. And this is just some of the findings and how they relate to the comprehensive plan objectives. So this one's particular to neighborhoods, districts, and corridors elements. And it just speaks to updating land development regulations. The next speaks to economic prosperity elements, encouraging predictability and consistency in the city's land development regulations, while allowing for flexibility and creativity in the site development process, promoting a culture throughout the city organization that continuously improves the predictability and reduces the cost of development review process. And options for board action would be to recommend approval to the city commission, recommend approval as amended, recommend denial, or to continue with direction. That concludes my presentation. Go ahead, please. I always have questions. I can't say it down here. I'll jump in. So I just wanted to make sure, I'm glad to hear about the 24-month extension, but everything else is still subject to their 18-month extension? Yes, only these that are mentioned. Only these that are mentioned. Yes. Okay. And then the five years doesn't get any extension at all for the city property should it need it, right? It would just, it's just five years, which is more than the 24 plus 24, so, yeah. Right. But I just want to make sure. Okay. I'm all for making this easier. A plat recordation is much easier than 25% and they're expended. So, I mean, I think that's a great suggestion. Ditto. I agree with you. It's 100%. Okay. Mr. Fraun? Yep. Mr. Pratt? Good. I'm good. Okay. We're good. Somebody make a motion, please. Oh. You want me to make a motion? Yeah. You got the right paper. I recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance Number 33-26, a city initiated amendment to Section 2.2.2.4, certification of action taken of the land development regulations to establish expiration dates for public projects and townhouse site plans with an approved plat by finding that the amendment and approved thereof is consistent with the competency plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations. Second. Motion by Mr. Chard. Second by Mr. Cope. Ms. Miller, would you please call the roll? Karen Kieselowski? Yes. Mr. Pat's is absent. Dr. Strong? Yes. Jim Chard? Yes. Price Patton? Yes. Roger Cope? Yes. Gregory Snyder? Yes. That's unanimously passed. Thanks, Barbara. Good evening. For item 9D here, I'm going to read into the record file number PZ000665-2026, and my name is Rebecca Dossery for the record. This amendment here is to modify procedures related to the Development Services Managed Group and Director responsibilities in providing relief for development applications. We are amending just one section of the LVR, the full text of ordinance number 3226 is provided as an attachment. So essentially, DSMG, as you can see on the slide here, it's an administrative body that grants relief from technical requirements for different applications. It's made up of different department heads within the city that have the relevant professional expertise to make these kinds of determinations. And the administrative relief that DSMG can provide is limited to modifications of CBD streetscape standards, deviations up to 5% to a max of one foot from something already, an already approved waiver during construction. So if, let me think of an example here, if as they're building and there's some kind of site constraint that they need to adjust and it's not really a big impact on the project, DSMG has the authority to do that rather than bringing the request back to the board that approved it. And then also adjustments to setback requirements for single family and duplex structures if there's a right-of-way dedication. So for example, if you have to dedicate five feet of right-of-way, DSMG is able to grant the relief to move your set back to 20 feet instead of 25, for example. DSMG can also grant appeals of administrative interpretations of regulations. And then in 2023, when we modified our Chapter 2 procedures for development review, we gave the authority to review and approve special event applications. Today, we are specifically modifying two procedures. So the relief related to a right-of-way dedication, we are proposing that we give that authority to the director instead of DSMG. So really, we're finding it's kind of a no-brainer in a lot of ways where there's not a lot of need to opine on, whether it's impacting utilities or roadway conditions, because usually it's us and our engineering department that has asked for dedication. So it makes sense to make it an easier path to relief by giving the director the authority to grant that instead of taking it to DSMG. We've had, I think we've had five or six requests in the last year that have been to DSMG, and it's approved every time. And then we're amending the DSMG powers and authorities to, again, take that power from them when we give it to the director. And then also to expand the authority for deviations up to 5% to a maximum of one foot if there's a tree in the way that doesn't allow them to meet the technical standard or if there's an existing utility line or an existing building. So very specific circumstances where we're finding a lot that it's not really necessary to take it to a board because the impact is so minimal and it actually is helping preserve something unique or desirable about the site. The board has to make a finding that the amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. And again, we always try to make things more smooth and streamlined here in the city for our applicants to move the process along faster. So in the spirit of that, we're looking for a recommendation, and these are your choices before you. Thanks. Anyone? I love the DSMG. The DSMG, yes. I've sat in on some of their meetings. They're in charge of ensuring that all the streets are the proper width. If they're not the proper width, they're recommending widening them in dedications. And like Rebecca said, setback relief that you may have to ask for in exchange for giving up some of your valuable land. So I'm in favor of all of this. It's a great tool. Great body of people to guide projects. Cool. Excuse me. Nothing more to add. I agree. Okay. Mr. Strong. Just to be clear, so you're taking away one authority on the section 2.1.1, but then you're broadening. A different power. I got you. Okay. Yeah, it's very narrow now, so this one just gives a little more wiggle room for really common sense kinds of asks that we don't have it built in to provide in an easier way than we currently do. I'm all for streamlining. Mr. Chair. Well, I'm certainly in favor of saying legacy tree location. That's cool. What about other kinds of easements? It specifically says utility lines, but there's a whole variety of easements on people's property that I'm not sure this encompasses. It's typically related to utility lines, I think, for tree placement, so that's the one we see the most, where the utility lines is the one that we encounter the most, but we can look back and see at the different applications if we have another type of easement that it would be wise to include at this point. I think there's some for drainage, for example. Yeah, so that one, we can definitely go back and look at that before we bring it to commission. I just, I think otherwise it's a discrepancy that'll be, come up and bite us. Other than that, I don't have any other comments. Yeah, I can support this. I have no comments. Do you want to make a motion that talks about what you just said? Sure. I have the right section, Greg. Recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance No. 32-26, the City-Initiated Amendment to Section 2.1.1, Administrative Officials, and Section 2.1.2, Review Authorities of the Land Development Regulations, LDRs, to amend the duties, powers, and responsibilities of the Director and Development Services Management Group related to relief from development standards by finding the amount and finding the amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan that means that set forth in the land development regulations as long as we include as an amendment the inclusion of easements along with the other indications such as utility lines and legacy trees. Okay, motion by Mr. Chard, seconded by Ms. Kiesiliski. I'm going to call the roll, please. Karen Kiesiliski. Yes. Mitch Katz is absent. Dieter Strong. Yes. Jim Chard. Yes. Price Patton. Yes. Roger Cope. Yes. Gregory Snyder. Yes. That's unanimous approval. Okay, one more. Good evening again. Item 9E, we are reading into the record file number PZ666-2026. And this amendment is brought forth to clarify how property lines along alleyways will be treated. So, as you all know, we have many, many alleyways within the city, and we're looking to adopt a rule to treat setbacks along alleys or to apply the rear setback requirements to lot lines adjoining alleys. So, based on the strict interpretation in the LDR, an alley is classified as a street. It's a secondary means of access to abiding properties and not generally for traffic circulation. And a street, again, is a thoroughfare. Larger volume than an alley, but it can, so the alley still does, can provide the vehicular access. So, because alleys are a local street, we've been, for setback purposes, treating them as streets on the side street, which has caused a lot of consternation. So, I think when you think of how an alley is configured with an alleyway width of 20 feet, it's not necessarily, there's not as high of a volume of traffic on an alley as there would be on a street. And when it's along a side street, we want to have it back far enough from the property line to protect from any crashes and to allow just sufficient space between the structure and the street. So, because of the different nature of alleys, we are going with a different interpretation that allows a smaller setback. So, this diagram here in front of you shows how we currently interpret versus how we're intending to apply it. So, if looking at the diagram on the left, so adjacent to the alley right of way, the structure would have to be setback from the street 15 feet. So, under the current interpretation, or under the proposed interpretation, the setback would then be 10 feet. And one case where in some of our older neighborhoods, particularly on the smaller lots, if you had an alley that was being treated as a side street, plus you had an alley on the rear, it could result in a very constrained development. So, we think this is a better way to provide the sufficient setback from the property line without overburdening property owners. And then, again, this is, the example I just showed you was in the R1A zoning district. For the R1AAA zoning district, similar scenario, instead of 17 foot setback along an alley, you could build with 12 under what we're proposing. So, the exception to this would be, we have about six different single family zoning districts. One of them, the side setback is smaller than the rear, or side street setback. So, we're going to stick with that, but for the rest, we're going to defer to the smaller setback. And we have a number of policies to protect our alley network, and we think this encourages people to utilize this great system of alleys for accessing their properties. If we can adjust the setbacks, and you have your options for board action, we'd be looking for a recommendation, and I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Yeah, I answered my question in the beginning, which is, this confused me when I read it, until I finally figured out that you were treating alleys as streets. Yes. Because I thought you were treating them as, it looked like you were making it bigger. But, no, it makes sense. Anyone else? Jim. A couple of thoughts. I know one of the things we're trying to do is move parking from swales and front yards and front entrances into alleys and in the back. And I'm wondering if this counteracts that wish on the part of the comprehensive plan and the city commission, because it reduces the amount of space that you can park in the back if you're reducing the setback. So, the rear setbacks would remain the same, but I think it is the minimum setback or maximum minimum setback. So, if you could build farther from the property line, this just gives leeway to how you could design your lot to give you options. I think for ADUs, for example, we're allowing rear parking either parallel or with the full length of the car. So, again, this is just providing options for people to design their property in the way that it makes sense for how they intend to use it. You know, I understand the intention, and I think that's correct. I'm just wondering if we have some unintended consequences. I know a lot of the work that was done, particularly in Northwest by the CRA, was to activate the alleys and the parking in the back to get rid of the cars that were in the front yards. And I'm just wondering if that's an unintended consequence of what we're trying to do here. So, this would only apply to the side property lines, which is currently being treated as a side street setback, which is a significantly greater amount of a setback. So, the scenarios where someone, I think, would be providing parking along a side lot line that was an alley would be minimal. But if someone chose to park along the side, they could still move the setback further back to accommodate it on the side rather than the rear. I'm just wondering if anybody would do that. The other thing, and I'm not sure how this pertains, but in the background, analysis, it talks about the uses of setbacks. And it talks about air circulation, fire protection, protect views, and so forth. It says nothing about landscaping or trees. And I realize this is the report, but I'm just wondering if that is baked into other places in the ordinances or the policies or the LDRs, because it would just seem to me that's one of the major reasons that we have setbacks. Certainly. In fact, we require foundation landscaping on any right-of-way facing a street. So, that's, like you said, if there's a street frontage, then you're required to landscape that side of your property. So, I mean, that's absolutely correct. There's, that's a non-inclusive, not an all-inclusive list of the things the setbacks do for us. Okay. So, that isn't language. It's resident in some other document. This is just the staff report. Just general language. But, yeah, our landscape regulations certainly provide all the space for the landscaping and the setbacks. So, I'm good. Thank you. Andrew? Just, so my question. So, if your house, the back of your house faces an alley. Mm-hmm. So, you're reducing the setback from 17 to 12 feet. No. So, I, I don't know why I didn't actually put the full chart on here. I should do that for commission. But, so let's say, for example, whoops, which direction? So, for example, here on this, the rear setback is already 10 feet. So, if we were. So, where, okay. On the proposed regulation? Well, for both of them, I see. Okay, okay. Yeah, so this would allow, so currently you would have to be 15 feet from the alley if it was along the side of your property. Under the proposed regulations, you could be 10 feet from the property line. On the side? On the side. Okay, gotcha. Whereas the rear is not changing. It's applying that rear setback, which is somehow less than the side straight. Okay. Yeah, I think we need to, last, I need to adjust the diagrams because I think having the alley on both of them made it confusing. But, correct, it's, that rear setback isn't changing. I'm good. I'm going to, I was totally confused. This, is this a reduced setback only when there's an alley on the side of a property? Yes. You just said that much easier. That was not clear to me at all. I'm very sorry. I'm sorry. I've been doing a lot of design on houses off alleys 40 years. I've never had a project where the alley was on the side of a property. How, how few of these properties are we talking about? We've actually been getting a lot of them in where there are the alleys along the sides. And especially on the smaller lots in the older neighborhoods, it becomes a huge challenge for, for design. So, we could possibly try to map that. But, we have been having a significant number of requests for zoning verification about how to treat the alley. And so, that's why we're bringing this forward. We used to treat it as a side street, and that was very penal. So, this is trying to give relief to that, and you're hanging your hat on. It's, like the other diagram, I think it was 17 feet. That's a common side street setback. So, you're reducing that from 17 to 12? If it was in the R1 AAA zoning districts. Okay, right. So, yes. I just did examples from two of the zoning districts. It's one of the smallest lots versus one of the larger ones to help kind of give some... Do you think the 12 to match the interior side setback? Yes. Is that the concept? In most cases, it does. There were some circumstances where it was a lot smaller than it should have been. I think, particularly in R1A, the side interior is 7 1⁄2 feet. 7 1⁄2 feet, yeah. And we thought that was a little too tight for potentially something that is quasi-street-like. 7 to 10, probably, hopefully. So, that's why, yes, we went with the 10. Okay. Hopefully, that will make it... I'm much clearer now. Thank you. There are very few properties out there. A handful? Not a lot. We would have to do the analysis, but we can see if we can do that for commission. I'm going to go out on a limb and say there may be less than 10 in the entire city. So, this is a very unique situation. Okay. Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion. My computer won't let me. I'd like to recommend approval to the city. Somebody else may. Mine keeps going out. Okay. I move to recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance Number 31-26. A city-initiated request to amend and update Section 4.3.4, Base District Development Standards, Subsection H, Setbacks of the LDR to specify that rear setback requirements shall be applied to side lot lines adjoining alleys by finding that the amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan that meets the criteria set forth in land development regulations. Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Mr. Cope. Ms. Miller, would you call a roll, please? Karen Kieslowski? Yes. Mitch Katz is absent. Dator Strong? Yes. Jim Chard? Yes. Price Patton? Yes. Roger Cope? Yes. Gregory Snyder? Yes. And then that's past unanimous. Thank you. Now we have staff comments. No comments, just the usual, referring you to the next meeting dates, July 20th and August 17th. Thank you. And Mr. Board Attorney, did we pass? Yes, Chair. No comments tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Board comments. Roger. Ma'am. Mr. Strong. Quick question. I got an email earlier this week, no, last week, about my, I guess, appointment coming up. It's, but I don't remember when I got appointed. I'm not sure. We will have the clerk reach out to you about that. Okay. Thanks. I'm good. Do we as a board ever have the opportunity or the encouragement to suggest looking at issues like this? I mean, this is all staff initiated. Is there any history of things board initiated? Yes, there are. We, our list of things we need to update is a very long, long injury list, but you are certainly welcome to provide a recommendation on some things you'd like to see updated. Well, one, one that I would like to discuss before the board, not tonight, but at some point in time is the way we do fences in Delray. We're kind of becoming a city of fences in many regards. And I think, I think there's a code enforcement issue. And I think there's also a problem in the LDRs about fences, particularly on corner lots. Too high? Too high, no transparency, you can't really see the yard or the house. That's good. I intend to agree with you. I don't want to do it tonight either. But if we can be prepared to do it in the future. Yeah, yeah. Because we certainly can recommend to the board that they, that we want, I think something needs to change that's been done. Would that, would you want to consider hedges as well? Because I see a lot of side problems around the hedges. Yeah. So they're now out as a street in a lot of places. And a lot of them are very high. Yeah. They're a 36-inch limit in height. Oh, well, then it's code enforcement. It's a code enforcement issue. Oh, yeah. I will say that we had an amendment in the pipeline to bring through that would have addressed the really big problem we're having with structural fill resulting in the fences being really, some of the fixes we were going to bring forward. We couldn't quite yet because of SB 180. So once that one is, but we certainly hear the, the complaint and we'll see if there's anything we could do now to try to address it. Okay. Anything else? I just brought something to mind to me. We passed, we made a motion on an all-county paving. You remember all-county paving? And our motion included them putting a hedge on the street side of their fence. And there's no hedge on the street side of their fence. So it could be that they were not able to submit for permits yet because their plat took a while to move through the process. But we just approved the plat, so they should be coming in for permitting shortly. We can follow up to make sure that. Yeah, I just wonder. I go by there and I keep thinking Mitch liked that and I liked it. Okay. And if no one else has anything, we're adjourned.