Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey.

Today is January 6, 2026. It's 6 p.m. This is the planning and zoning board meeting of the city of Boca Raton. Will everyone please rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Kathy, please call the role. Chair Seville, here. Vice Chair Dornblazer here. Mr. Mitchell, present. Miss McDermad here. Mr. Matthews here. Mr. Morabi, present.

Mr. Morgan is absent. You have a quorum. Okay. Thank you. Uh, do we have any amendments to the agenda? I don't think so. Not that not. We'll move on to the minutes. We have first the regular meeting of November 20th, 2025. I'll look for a motion in a second. So motion second. Second. Whoever. Any discussion changes? No. All in favor? I I Okay. Next is the regular meeting of December 4th, 2025. Need a motion and a second on that. So motioned. Second. Any changes or corrections? No. All in favor? I I

Okay. Minutes pass. First item is a qua judic judicial judicial hearing. I would ask the city attorney to explain the procedure. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Christopher Fernandez, senior assistant city attorney. The rules of the city council provide that each applicant requesting approval, relief, or other action from the planning and zoning board this evening shall disclose at the commencement of the public hearing any consideration provided or committed directly or on its behalf for an agreement to support or withhold objection to the requested relief or action. A copy of the quasi judicial rules governing tonight's public hearing are attached to the agenda and are available from the city clerk.

Thank you. Will everyone who's going to speak on any topic this evening please rise and be sworn in? Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give will be truthful and accurate? Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. The first item is Bokeh Technology Center DRRi amendment. I would ask that you please read that into the record. A resolution of the city of Bocraton making findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to the Bocratone Technology Center development of regional impact DRRI generally located west of Interstate 95 and south of West Yamato Road. Considering an amendment to the DRRI development order to reduce the total acreage of the DRRi from approximately 217.5 acres to approximately 87.9 acres and approximately 129.6 6 acre reduction by removing the approximately 124.2 acre Boca Raton Innovative Campus Brick property generally located at 5000 T-Rex Avenue and the approximately 5.4 acre property generally located at 950 Northwest Spanish River Boulevard modifying exhibit 2 master plan H1 of the DRRI providing for repealer providing an effective date.

Thank you. Uh, with that I'll turn it over to Peter Begovich to make the presentation. Thank you, Chair Seville. Uh, good evening. My name is Peter Begovich. Excuse me for a second. Any exparte communications on this? I spoke to Mr. Millage. I received a voicemail from Mr. Millage. Okay. I spoke to David Millage. I spoke to David Millage. I also spoke to David Milage. I spoke to David Millage and Bonnie Mscoll.

Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Thanks. Thanks, Chair Seville. Uh, for the record, Peter Begovich, senior planner with development services. Um, I'll pres I'll be presenting an amendment to the Bokeh Technology Center, DRRI. Uh, the amendment requests removal of approximately 129 acres from the DRRI and requires a recommendation from the board prior to consideration by the city council. Uh the applicant is requesting an amendment of the Bokeh Center Bokeh Technology Center development regional impact master plan H1 to reduce the total acreage of the DRRi from 217.5 acres to 87.9 acres which is a reduction of 129.6 acres by removing the Boca Raton Innovation Campus or brick property from the DRRI. Um, as previously stated, the Bokeh Technology Center DRRI is generally located south of Yamato Road and east of Military Trail and northwest of I95. The 129.6 acres proposed to be removed from the DRRi is located at 5,000 T-Rex Avenue and 950 Southwest River Boulevard. It's highlighted in purple on the map on the screen. The overall DRRi is outlined in yellow. I'll start off with a brief background and history of the DRRi. In 1999, the Blue Lake DRRI was approved. On September 7th, 2000, the DR the city purchased approximately 300 acres located within the Blue Lake DRRI and the name was changed to the Bokeh Technology Center DRRI. The resulting approximately 120 224 acre DRRi consisted of approximately the 124 acre former IBM campus now known as Bocarone Innovation Campus and approximately 100 acres of mostly vacant land. Since its approval in 2000, the DRRi master plan

has implemented was has been implemented through a series of approvals and amendments that facilitated the development of Bokeh Village, the shops at Blue Lake, Sentra Town Homes, and the Boca Raton Trial Station among others. Last year, the city council approved an amendment to the DRRI to remove 6.6 acres from the DRRI, which consisted of a portion of the Boca Raton trial station. On screen is the currently approved MA master plan map H1 uh by removing the 129 acre property from the DRRI. It's the brick. It's repetitive. Sorry. And the 5 acre site which includes an FPL facility, a generator station, shared use pathway, and the preservation parcel located south of Spanish River Boulevard. So, here's a look at the proposed master plan H1. As you can see, the 124 acre brick campus and the 5acre utility site are removed from the plan and the plan notes and tabular data have been updated accordingly. Um, we received some public Oh, that was the old plan. Sorry. Um, yesterday we received some uh comments from a representative of LV Partners stating some concerns with the amendment. I did reach out to that individual and sent them a copy of the staff report and uh today we received a request for 30-day continuance from a representative of Geog Group. Um, both of those items were were added to the emails have been added to the application. Um, okay. So our findings staff recommends approval of the DRRi amendment based on the following analysis. The DRRI amendment does not create any additional regional does not create an additional regional impact or any regional impact not

previously reviewed by a development of regional impact process for the DRRI. The DRRi amendment neither in results in an increase in external peak hour trips nor reduces the amount of open space or conservation area within the revised Bokeh Technology Center DRRI. And staff recommends approval of this application for the following reasons. Uh approval of the proposed DRI is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies in the city's comprehensive plan. and the proposed DRI amendment map to map H1 and revisions to the tabular data meet the standards and procedures in the comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Uh development services department recommends approval of this amendment to the Poker Technology Center DRRI. And with that I thank you and be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Questions for staff. Miss McDermott. Mr. Mitchell, what's the practical effect of the change in your opinion? So, essentially the Bokeh Technology Center DRRI is essentially built out. There's approximately 49,000 square feet of office and 100 square ft of retail left in the DRRI. So much like the amendment to the DRRI that hap occurred last year to allow Tri Rail to develop their site, it will allow um the current process of traffic concurrency uh to occur just like any other project in the city. Thank you.

Mr. Morabi questions. I was just wondering, so the the circular pond and everything that's going to remain the landscaping buffer and the open space that'll continue to serve the other um properties that surround it uh going forward or um are you talking about the the large pond, Blue Lake? Um I'm not sure. The the report says the open space on the property consists of the circular pond in its center. So I think it's probably the small one.

Yes. Yes. So that's that's counted towards the open space that was that's the open space that's coming out of the DRRI by the nature of that the brick property leaving the lake is going the pond is going with it is that it Mr. Matthew. Uh, no, no, no comments, no discussion. Uh, just to confirm, this makes no changes to the site plan. If they want to change anything down the road, they still have to come in front of us with a site plan approval and any amendments or anything else. Correct. The site plan for brick. For brick. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

One question. What effect, if any, does this have on the remaining DRRi properties? So, all of the, you know, the DRRi entitlements are are still available for the rest of the DRRi. It doesn't take their entitlements away. Um, the DRRI remains in effect for the rest of the property. Thank you.

Okay. With that, I will ask the petitioner to come up and make a presentation. Good evening board. Uh David Millage for the record on behalf of the applicant. Um thank you Mr. Beovich and staff for their review of the project. Um I'll go through this quickly. Again, this is the the outline of where the DRRi is today. As Mr. Mr. Beovich has stated the tri rail parcel was removed back I believe it was approved January 2025. Um this is a reduction of the DRRi. It consists of the uh brick campus as well as the generator site on the south side of Spanish river boulevard. Um this is what's being removed. Again, as you can see, it's uh brick campus and the generator site. So, this is a map H1 that's part of this application. Again, it shows brick being excluded. It revises the tapular data. Um, also, as Mr. Begovich had pointed out the the DRRI development program will still have nearly 50,000 squaret of vested traffic trips that are available for the remainder of the owners within the DRRI. So, you know, to answer some of the questions, what's really going on here? We're not seeking any entitlements. You know, no entitle, we're not seeking anything. This is just a additional layer of review that uh is no longer needed. Um the DRRi statutes have been

amended many times throughout the years and essentially all of the review has review process has been relegated to to local government. Um as I mentioned all of the vested traffic trip concurrency is remaining um with the owners that are left within the DRRI. We're not taking anything out. Um, they will have access to utilize that as they see fit. The pro our project, there was a question about the site plan. It's not changing with this application. It still remains consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and LDRs. Um and also something of to note as well is that whenever the the DRRI was approved, it had a list of traffic improvement um to mitigate the impacts of the DRRI. All of those have been constructed. So there are no remaining mitigation required for the DRRI. Um don't have any other comments. Happy to answer any questions that the board might have. Okay. Any qu questions for for the petitioner? M. McDermott?

No, I think you answered it. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. Uh, none at this time. Mr. Dorblazer. No question. Mr. Matthews? No. Mr. Morabi? No questions. No questions. Thank you, sir. Okay. This is a public hearing. Uh at this time, we'll ask people who want to speak to this item to please come up. State your name and address for the record. And did you all fill out cards? Yes. Okay. You have three minutes. Okay.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Steve Tilbrook. I'm an attorney with Acresman Law Firm and I'm here representing the GEO Group. The Geog Group is a property owner within uh within the DRRI and within the the association that oversees the DRRi. Um we're here uh because we just found out about this on Friday. There were signs that went up. Uh we didn't get the mail notice that has been identified. Uh we've been scrambling to catch up to speed. I did talk to David Millage today. I appreciate David for being available and I've spoken with uh Peter Begovich a few times, asked some questions. There's a lot of questions in our opinion that are still outstanding. There are a number of property owners within the DRRI that will be impacted by by this change. The brick is the primary developer of the DRRi. And there are many obligations for the developer within the DRRI and the DR statute. Continuing obligations for monitoring, maintenance, including every two years doing an annual report. The the association has been doing that for the developer for the last many years. Now that the developer is leaving the DRRi, the question is who will be the new developer? and the city is one of the applicants in one of the property owners within the DRRI as well. Will the city take over as a DRRI? That's a question. Will any of the other property owners take over as a developer? There are many questions about how this DRRI will proceed moving forward. Unfortunately, the developer did not reach out to any of the other property owners within the DRRI to explain this process to in even indicate that they were filing this application. We found out at the last minute. We reached out to them. We haven't had a chance to review the master plan or any of the other site plans and we haven't really had a chance to dig into how the DRRi is going to continue moving forward or whether it should continue, whether this DRRi

should just be terminated. It's a fair question and I think an honest question. And I think it's a question that you should be asking as well. What is the future of this DRRI? What is the need for the DRRI? Should the city be initiating a termination of this DRRI? All good questions. We haven't had a chance to answer those questions. We wanted to lay those questions out for you and ask you for a continuence before you make a recommendation. We think you should have answers to some of those questions so you can make a thoughtful review and take the next step uh knowing all the information that there is to know. So, we're here asking for continuance. Uh I'm here with Daniel Rebior who is the VP of real estate for Geog Group. Geog Group is a significant employer and and property owner within the city of Boca Raton. They're just asking for your consideration to slow this down, allow our property owners and our our client to have an opportunity to speak with a developer who hasn't had a chance to speak with us, share information so we can get some qu answers qu questions answered and we can be hopefully in support of this application moving forward. Thank you for the opportunity to pres present this request and we we hope that you'll consider that continuence.

Thank you for your comments. Who's next? Mr. Rebier.

All right. Good evening, everybody. My name is James Matthews. I live at 1454 Northwest 48th Lane, which is a townhouse inside. All right. Central. I'm the I'm the president of the Central Homeowners Association. Sentra. Uh, as many of you may know, it's a 198 unit town host town home complex. Uh, inside the DRRi, uh, Sentra, we estimate, has about 600 residents and maybe two to 300 registered voters. Um, we feel that Sentra is uniquely affected uh by this uh, amendment because it's the only residential property within the DRRI. Um the homeowners of Centra have virtually no idea um what the Boca Raton I have to read this what the Boca Raton technology center development of regional impact known as DRA is or what really what brick is. Um I as well as the four other um um me or four other um members of our board have a little idea of what this is, but our residents really have no idea what this is. And really why? Because nobody's ever come to us to explain this. Um all the owners all the owners of Centron know is that they pay about $130,000 a year to T-Rex um for association fees. Um um we don't know who T-Rex is. Like who is T-Rex? They're not mentioned in this public notice. Um I sent an email to Peter J. Begoich um earlier this week to ask and ask him a list of questions. Um I did not get a reply and I did not get an acknowledgement of that email being sent. Um I attended the December 1st, 2025 annual meeting of of T-Rex. I met three other members of the uh three other members of T-Rex at at that at that meeting. Um All right. Um at the meeting, uh the

officers held this hold a super majority. Um they had the they had voted for a budget that had some obvious math errors in it. Um they have um we estimate maybe5 to$6 million collected in association fees over the last 10 years, but they don't have audited financial statements. One of the members uh at that meeting asked for financial records like general ledgers and there really was no no response at all. Um after the meeting the T-Rex officers invited us to take a look at the board of the schematic of what everything that was there tried to explain and I got some idea but then I was kind of thrown off a little bit when I didn't see the name T-Rex in this public notice. So, what we're asking is that everybody slow down a little bit and um you know have some understanding and possibly send somebody over to Sentra or invite us to a meeting where we can understand what's going on and we can explain it to the homeowners. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Who's next?

Good evening. My name is Patricia Amy and I am the uh the representative and property manager for BV Partners Limited who owns the retail parcel and the McDonald's and the former Chase building in Boca Village. Uh, and and I just first heard of this. I got the notice in the mail this week and um I didn't, you know, it was it was a shock to me. I hadn't heard anything about it before. And um and I immediately started looking into what this means, which I could not figure out what this means or if there what are the pros, what are the cons, is it good for for my client, is it is it good for the other properties? I have no clue. I called or I emailed Peter and he did, you know, graciously called me back and he explained a lot of things to me, but it's it's still too much to really understand at this point and and I agree with with um the other speakers here that we need more time. Uh we need we need to understand how this affects us. I mean, if T-Rex is being pulled out, then T-Rex has kind of run the show, I guess, has been the developer all this time. So, uh, who what are we going to do? The the few parcels that are left, uh, is a DRRi should that just be abandoned completely? What would that what would that mean? We have no idea of of, you know, what we're looking at here. So, um, we need time to investigate and determine what we think. So, thank you.

Thank you. Who's next? Jeff Barker.

Evening board members. Uh, chairman, my name is Jeffrey Barker. Uh, Nelson Mullins, 1905 corporate boulevard. And yes, I was sworn in. Um I represent one of the other property owners that's remaining in the DRRI at this time and um as we're not necessarily opposed to the petitioner's application. Uh we just have some similar questions that have already been raised uh particularly by the um the GEO group. Um, specifically following up on your question, um, chairman, we the we would we would like to know any of the specific obligations that are imposed by the DRRI, financial or um, sort of ministerial um, obligations that are imposed by the DRRI. are is the departure of this primary member of the DRRi going to increase the obligations on the other remaining people in the DRRI? That's that's our that's our only question and it's maybe more for staff, but um we'd like to see if we can answer to that question. Again, we're not opposed to the um you know, the dissolving of the DRRI, provided that as we are one of the parcels that does have some remaining entitlements that are approved under the DRRI, as long as those entitlements can be somehow attached um officially so that we don't have any extra hoops to jump through when it's time to use those entitlements. Uh we're not opposed to the DRRi being completely dissolved. Um and again we're not opposed to the petitioner's request provided that it's not any direct um increase in the obligations that us and the other remaining DRI members would have regarding the financial and ministerial obligations of the DRRI. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Uh good evening. Uh Dan Rebuior. the VP of real estate at the Geo Group. And just to, you know, echo the comments presented by our council, um, we are are trying to be a good neighbor. Um, but we would like to to be a good neighbor, it's important that our neighbors are good neighbors and provide transparency information as to what is transpiring here. And as as council mentioned, we found out about this on Friday, retained acrement on Monday, and over the last couple of days have tried to gather as much information we can. we have a pending um uh document request, you know, with the city so that we can understand what the impact is. And I think what you're hearing is is very similar comments from all of the other owners is what how is this going to this change to the DRRI? How does it impact those of us who are remaining in the DRRI, you know, what are the long-term what what's the long-term implications here? As well as just candidly, um transparency. Um, we had a meeting as was mentioned by another owner on the 1st of December as part of the association. CP Group controls the association. They control brick and there is no discussion of this. And so what we're asking the the board tonight to do is just simply slow things down a little bit so that we can engage hopefully engage with CP and get the get the answers to our questions, engage with staff and city attorney's office and understand what the impact of of this change to the DRI is going to be and then as a result of if CP ultimately does leave, what are the implications for our remaining owners? um you know, as simple as who's going to do the report every two years. And so I think what we're faced with tonight is a lot of unanswered questions that the answers are probably out there. CP probably has them, staff has them, city attorney's office has them, but the owners don't have them. And so what we're simply

doing is asking for a little bit of time um to interact with staff, with the city attorney's office, with CP to get those answers. And then as this gentleman mentioned, we may not oppose this, but at this point we don't have enough information to know whether we oppose it or we do not oppose it. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Um for clarification, could ask the city attorney, can you explain what the process is because I'm told this doesn't go to council until February 24th. So

I can't speak to the scheduling. I can confirm this. The board is making a recommendation to the city council tonight. So, this is not final action. Um, that that much is correct. Yes. Okay. Do you have any any comments, Mr. Shad? Um, yeah, Brandon Chad, development services director. So, I I spoke with the applicant during during the comments and um I think that the applicant agrees that the other property owners in the DRRI could it would be fair to give them more um information. I don't want to put words in the applicant's mouth, but doesn't just try to sort of relay the conversation. So maybe if they want to speak to that, um, do you want to let the applicant speak to that? Mr. Millich,

Mr. Millig, I I do think, Mr. Chair, okay, more cards. All right. Did you fill out a card?

No. Jonathan Unen 6501 Congress Avenue. Uh I wish you guys all came if uh when when Brick was trying to redevelop. I'm pretty sure this is just a formality of the massive redevelopment that they're going to do, which I'm not opposed to. Um but but the reasoning um of of Brick to EM uh this is it seems like this is 2.0 of it. Uh you may know I'm pretty much the most vocal person in LAR. Um and Brick did this the first time. Uh they they wanted to reszone their own property. Uh they're the definition of the zoning district of LRP. Lurp without Brick. And now they're leaving the DRRi similar to what LRP was left after Brick tried to get out and and I fought to get all of our zoning restrictions removed that Brick and Angelo Biano didn't do on behalf of the district. Now they're doing it again with the DRRi, leaving all these people on an island. The DRRi looks like a joke. You remove this thing. What What is this DRRi? It's got a big big big circle around it. It looks almost as bad as the map of what you're going to discuss later regarding the emergency rooms where you're going to put those where this city and where council member Nacklas decided to allow for that use. Nothing makes sense that this city does on behalf of Crocker partners. And for the same bulk of people out there that are listening, Meer Parks next. I know they want that too. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay, Mr. Millig, can you now address this? Okay, Amy, please give Mr. Unen a card to fill out. Do you want me to respond to comments or just to Mr. Shad's comment? I think we'll start with Mr. Shad's comment, then the others.

Yeah. Uh the applicant has no problem with speaking to the remaining DRRi owners. They're going to have four to six weeks between tonight and city council. So, we're open to have discussions delaying this hearing for 30 days plus notice periods. It's going to kick this project all the way into April. Um that's not fair to us. We've been in the process for 7 months. They have more than enough time between now and city council to do any due diligence that they need to do, which should only take a day or two based off of this request. Um, so they have the time that they need. Um, as it relates to should I provide closing statements or

Okay. Or would you like to close public hearing?

Okay, I'll I'll keep going then. Um there was a lot of talk about they don't know how this is impacting them. Well, we're not impacting them at all. There's nothing that we're doing. We're not taking any rights away from them. Um we are not the developer. The developer hasn't existed for 17 years. We might be the largest property owner, but we are not the developer. Um there's a lot of talk of we don't know what's going to happen at Brick. What's the future of it? Well, there's separate applications for these master plans and site plans. Those are being reviewed by city staff. They are not going to public hearing for, you know, months in the future. They have more than enough opportunity to speak to us or the other developers that are processing those applications. Um, and again, nothing prevents the city or any of the other owners to either seek amendments, seek termination of the DRRI. We're not preventing that. We're just looking to get out of it. And I think one of the biggest things that needs to be explained is that the DRRI is a process of government review of the development. There's a lot of talk about the POA. That's a private declaration which is outside the purview of this board and it sounds more like a civil dispute than it is one that should be uh discussed before the board. Um and there was one comment about the last POA meeting in December that was a budget meeting. So any discussions relating to anything else outside of the budget would be improper during a budget meeting. So if they have a problem that they didn't get an opportunity to speak about the master plan, you know, they can wait till the next notice POA meeting that they have. Um, and to Mr.

Unen, I mean, there's no reszoning to EM. EM isn't a zoning district. EM is a land use. Um, and again, the nuance here is that we're not seeking entitlements. We're leaving what'sever remaining within the DRRi. Um and happy to answer any further questions. Okay. Thank you. Do you have any staff have any closing remarks?

Yes. So to give a little bit of a bigger context given the conversation. Um so the the DRRI as you heard was approved I believe it was 1999. It's been a long time. So when it was approved at the time, essentially what it did was it laid out a series of entitlements, projected what the impacts of those, you know, that future development would be, and then uh laid out a series of requirements that the developers, the the land owners, and the DRRi would have to fulfill. Where we're at today is essentially all of that has been done. The the entitlements are nearly exhausted. You heard there's about 50,000 square feet left. Um the obligations have all been fulfilled. So we have uh we have a a DRRI that still exists on paper, but essentially its purposes have been fulfilled. Um what the city's staff position is yes, we would like to terminate the DRRI because essentially what it is now is an extra layer of paperwork. Um, however, that being said, I do not expect the other land owners to take my word for it. I think it's fully legitimate that they want to look into the matter and I respect that. Um, and I hope that the land owners, the applicant and the other land owners will get together and they will do that and they will all be satisfied and certainly if they want to speak with city staff, meet with us, call us, we're available um to do that and we're happy to do it. Um so you know we are recommending for this and we hope to move forward and terminate the entire DRRI in the near future but in the meantime um this is the request that we received the application we received and we processed and we do recommend approval of it.

Thank you Mr. Tilbrook as a courtesy you have you wanted to add something. Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh just simply that uh we haven't received outreach from the developer up to now. It's good to hear that they're interested in speaking with us. We'd like to have that commitment on the record so that we do get information that we have an opportunity to have dialogue and if you do proceed with the recommendation that uh that we have a chance to meet with your city staff and your city attorney to understand exactly what the city's role in this DRRi will be moving forward since they're a property owner as well. Okay. Thank you. And he is on the record saying that he would help you with the information

and perhaps it could be a condition. Hopefully they will follow through with that. They haven't done that up to now. We will take him on his word. Okay. With that, I'll close the public hearing. I'll look for a motion and a second for approval. Motion to approve. Second. Okay. Any discussion?

I have a question. Um I'm not clear. I'm a little confused as to who was responsible to notify the neighbors on this and Mr. Millig mentioned that they've been working on this for 7 months. So I'm not sure if it was Miss Gachman's responsibility or the city's responsibility. Could somebody clarify that please?

Sure. So on the city side, we are required to provide notice to the owners within the DRRI by mail and to post signs on the property the subject of the application at least 10 days prior to any public hearing, which we did. We always encourage applicants, all applicants for all kinds of applications to reach out to their neighbors and any other potentially affected parties, but to actually do that is up to them. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Not. Kathy, please call the role.

McDermad. Um. Yes. Matthews. Yes. Morabi. Yes. Sevel. Yes. Dorne Blazer. Yes. Mitchell. Yes. Motion passes. Six votes to zero.

Thank you. Thank you everybody. Okay. Next we have regular public hearings. The um first item is an evaluation and appraisal of the comprehensive plan. And that's Mr. was going to present that. Would you like me to read the ordinance? Mr. Sevel, I'll read the ordinance.

I'm just let everybody leave the room. An ordinance of the city of Boca Raton considering the adoption of amendments to the Boca Raton comprehensive plan and its goals, objectives, and policies in accordance with a requirement in chapter 163 Florida statutes to conduct an evaluation and appraisal of the comprehensive plan amending the community profile, future land use element, transportation element, housing element, infrastructure element, coastal management element, conservation element, recreation and open space element, intergovernmental coordination element, historic preservation element, capital improvements element, and the map series providing for severability, providing for repealer, providing an effective date.

Thank you, Mr. Bell.

All right. Uh, good evening, Chair Seville and board members. Jim Bell, long-range project manager with the development services department. I will be be presenting to you the comprehensive plan amendment staff has prepared to fulfill the state's evaluation and appraisal requirements. This is a project that I've been worked on together with staff from several departments for the last year. I would like to start by explaining what is the comprehensive plan. This is a plan that all local governments are required to have by the Florida statutes. The plan is like a blueprint for the city and describes the way the city will develop and grow. The plan contains principles and strategies which are provided in the goals, objectives, and policies, also known as GOPs, which describe how the city's programs, activities, and land development regulations help implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. The plan lists the policies of the local government and those policies help direct programs, budgets, and decisions. On this slide, I have listed all the elements of the comprehensive plan. I will be reviewing each element with you and will provide you with an overview of the changes proposed. Per Florida statutes, local governments are required to monitor numerous community characteristics relating to population growth and development, public services and facilities, and environmental protection. And every seven years, we are required to determine if an evaluation appraisal or EA of the comprehensive plan is needed, which is basically where we would determine if we need to update our plan and accordingly notify the Florida Department of Commerce, also known as Florida Commerce, and formerly known as the Department of Economic Opportunity or DEO. The last major update of the plan was completed in 2020. Since 2020, there have been changes locally within the city and at the state level. For instance, our comprehensive plan still references the Department of Economic Opportunity or DEO, but that department was abolished in 2023 and replaced with the Department of Florida Commerce. As a result of these changes, in particular, a change in required planning horizons

for a comprehensive plan, which I will describe shortly, we determined that we need to update our comprehensive plan and submitted a letter of intent to the EA to the Florida Department of Commerce in September 2024. Some of the amendments that are proposed are done so that our plan is consistent with changes in state statutes since 2020. Changes are also proposed to reflect local conditions such as incorporating updated population projections which include both permanent and seasonal population updates. The most overriding change since 2020, which affected multiple elements since the last plan update, addresses a new 2023 requirement to red to require a 10-year or year 2035 and 20-year year 2045 planning horizons. The state previously required five and 10-year planning horizons. Overall, most of the amendments are housekeeping in our minor nature, such as updating references to comprehensive plan requirements, clarifying existing languages and policies to reflect programmatic changes, and updating statistical information from the 2020 census. As I previously stated, in September 2024, we sent a letter to the Florida Department saying that we would intend on updating our comprehensive plan. And the department replied that the city has one year to transmit an updated comprehensive plan. Our next step is to present this to the city council and then we transmit to Florida Department of Commerce. Once we transmit the amended comprehensive plan, Florida Commerce will have 60 days to issue any objectives, recommendations, and comments known as the ORC report. And then the city will have 180 days to adopt the amendments after we receive that report. First, I would likely I would like to briefly review the first element, which is the feature land use element. This element provides a criteria for the locations, pattern and character of land uses and development and the inter relationship between land use and transportation planning. It provides overall guidance for the provision of infrastructure and affordable housing as well as the conservation of the city's natural and historic resources. The most

significant changes that we are proposing with this update are modifying policies to program street state improvements such as street tree insulation for city projects near schools and parks. And there's also a similar policy in the transportation element that will also be revised. We're also revising a policy regarding cross- access connections to provide cross- access connections to mixuse projects with industrial areas. Now the transportation element that provides for a safe convenient multimodal transportation system that emphasizes pedestrian and public transportation systems in the city. It is coordinated with the future land use map and is designed to support all elements of the comprehensive plan. The significant proposed changes to this element include a policy update to 2045 transportation performance measures to account for the construction of the Bright Line station and B connect on demand transit service. There's also a new policy to reflect the city's involvement in recent ongoing Palm Beach County transportation master plan process. A new policy to allow for modifications to land development regulations and traffic and currency requirements if needed to support the downtown government campus. and to provide for the implementation of the city's vision zero initiative which began in 2022. The housing element looks at Bocarone's existing housing supply, analyzes housing trends in relation to population change, and supports policy objectives necessary to meet short and long-range planning goals. This element defines the methods and programs that the city intends to utilize in order to meet current and future housing needs for city residents. There are no proposed substantive changes with this element. The changes proposed are very minimal and more housekeeping in nature. The historic preservation element recognizes the importance of historic res resources in community life and the element focuses on organizing and directing community efforts to preserve historic resources that are recognized

for their cultural, social or economic value. The plan also defines the goal of government in that process. The changes we are proposed for this element are very minimal and also are more housekeeping in nature. The recreation and open space element identifies the recreation needs of current and future residents and assures that they will be met through proper planning. Planning to provide a well-rounded functional and aesthetic park and recreation system and planning to reduce the overall cost of development of recreation facilities. The proposed changes to this element are the following. Updating the element to provide park level of service or LOS standards for the years 2035 and 2045. Deleting a requirement to have formal meetings in a park planning process with Palm Beach County for planning near county borders. Deleting a policy requiring the adoption of a comprehensive waterfront master plan since the city will no longer pursuing this effort. And a sim similar policy will also be deleted in the future land use element and providing a new policy encouraging native plants and environmental friendly landscaping and parks. The conservation element addresses natural resources in the city. It sets the policy framework for conserving, protecting, and appropriately using andor acquiring unique native habitats and ecological systems. And it's also for restoring degraded natural systems to a functional condition and protecting fisheries, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and marine habitat. The changes we have proposed as part of this update primarily involve providing updates to further the city's sustainability initiative and the sustainably action plan and our future landscape code such as encouraging native plants, environmentally friendly landscaping, expanding the plant species of exotic invasive vegetation removal and providing tree canopy and street trees in rightaway projects. The goal of the coastal management

element is to maintain, restore, and enhance the overall quality of the coastal zone environment, preserve the continued existence of viable populations of all species of wildlife and marine life, restrict development activities that would damage or destroy resources and protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas subject to repeated destruction by natural disasters. And the changes we have proposed with this update are including languages language to allow habitat restoration or creation in soil dep deposition areas updating language to reflect the city's climate change vulnerability assessment assessment which we completed in 2021 and updated in 2022 to meet statutory requirements of the resilient Florida legislation in 2022 and the city's creation of a resilience adaptation and action plan to reduce flood risk and address impacts to sea level rise. eyes in the coastal area of the city. The infrastructure element is divided into five sub elements. Pottable water, wastewater, storm water, groundwater, aquifer recharge, and solid waste. The city operates and maintains systems for potable water service, wastewater service, and salt waste collection. And the city has adopted regulations for storm water treatment and for the protection and conservation of groundwater supplies. The goals and objectives and policies in this element help define the city's commitment to the supply and distribution of these public facilities. And the changes we have proposed with this update are providing a 20-year 2045 planning horizon for both water and wastewater services as required by the Florida statutes and providing updated language consistent with current operations. the intergovernmental coord coordination element. With that, the city of Bocarone fosters relationships with state and regional local agencies through intergovernmental coordination activities in order to maintain the city's infrastructure, services,

environmental maintenance, and transportation options for all residents. The intergovernmental coordination element incorporate incorporates an inventory of all adjacent entities and their primary city department liaison. The changes we have proposed with this update are not substanti substantive and mostly reflect current processes with other governing bodies or entities. The capital improvement element or CIA CIE excuse me evaluates public facilities requirements for the city. It identifies specific public facility standards as it relate to municipal services and it updates the capital improvement element projects that are necessary to maintain the level of service standards of the city. The changes we have proposed with this element involve updating the level of service standards for roads, potable water, storm water, parks, and schools to ensure to ensure compliance with 5-year capital improvements and 10year 2035 and 20 year 2045 planning horizons. We also with this element are incorporating the metropolitan planning organization's 20 2050 long range transportation plan for long range transportation planning projections and modifying policy language to reflect current drainage review practices with the South Florida Water Management District and the Lake Drainage District. The comprehensive plan also has a community profile and that consists of two sections. the introduction section which contains statistical information, a vision for the future, overview of the other plan elements etc. It also has a glossery section which has definitions and acronyms. The changes we have proposed involve providing updated information related related to the city's total acreage, population, amount of vacant and developable land, and housing statistics from the 2020 census to reflect the 20 the the new 10 year sorry the 10 year

and the new 20 uh 2020 statutory required planning 2045 planning horizons and also including important city activities as the construction of the Bright Line station in 2022 and implementation actions. related to the city sustainability initiative. There's also language reflecting the addition of the new enhanced mobility EM mixuse land use designation which was in 2023 and language reflecting the new mixeduse multifamily development or MUMD and commercial industrial multifamily development CIMD affordable workforce housing categories that are now in the comprehensive plan. Lastly, we made changes to the map series. There are 37 maps total of which 17 were related to transportation. The updating map updated map series proposes now 35 maps. With the map revisions, we have updated information related to the road network and road functionality. We have added Bokeh connect shuttle service area to all applicable maps. We have updated pedestrian network, bicycle network and shared use paths maps to reflect proposed projects and existing conditions. We have updated the existing level of service roadmap to reflect 2025 traffic counts. We have updated the future level of service roadmap to reflect the metropolitan planning organization's 20-year 2045 planning horizon. We have removed the future maintenance responsibility roadmap and incorporated into the existing maintenance responsibility road map. We have also renamed the recreation open space map as the parks and preserves map and updated that map. We removed the natural areas map and incorporated it into the new parks and preserves map for parks and publicly owned preserve areas. We updated the historically significant housing and locally designated historic sites maps. We renamed the Boca Raton airport clear zones map as the Boca Raton airport hazard areas map and

updated boundaries of runway protection zones and airport hazard zones to be to be consistent with state statutes nomenclature. We updated the hurricane evacuations map uh areas map to reflect Palm Beach County's evacuation zone and add more road labels and zone boundaries. And lastly, we revised the wastewater service area map to remove septic service near Woodlands Park and update the septic service areas. To conclude, these proposed amendments meet chapter 163 Florida statutes and other Florida statutory requirements. The proposed amendments are also internally consistent with other elements of the comprehensive plan and the development service department recommends approval of the amended comprehensive plan to fulfill the state's evaluation appraisal requirements and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you. Anyone have any questions for Mr. Mr. Bell? Mr. Mitchell, thank you very much. That was a lot of information and you gave it to us in bite-sized portions. So, I appreciate it. I I have one question. How many manh hours are in that report? It's a lot because there's a lot a lot of coordination between a lot of different departments. Yes. Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I'll I have one comment. I wanted to say I read the whole report and I appreciated the thoroughess and it was um it was good reading. So, thank you.

Okay. Okay. The public hearing is closed. I'll look for a motion and a second to approve this item. Motion to approve. Second. Okay. Okay. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, Kathy, please call the role. Matthews, yes. Morabi, yes. Sevel, yes. Dorblazer, yes. Mitchell, yes. McDermad, yes. Motion passes, six votes to zero.

Okay. Thank you. Last item on the agenda tonight is the freestanding emergency facilities and it's a recommendation to city council. Kathy, please read this item into the record. An ordinance of the city of Bocraton amending chapter 28 zoning code of ordinances amending article 1 division 1 section 282 definitions to create a definition of pre-standing emergency facility and amending the definition of outpatient surgery center to exclude emergency room procedures from said definition amending article 11 business and commercial districts to provide that freestanding emergency facilities shall be conditional uses in the B4 MC C city CG and city CHO zoning districts and amending article 15 supplementary district regulations division 1 to create a new section 281320 code of ordinances to set forth eligibility criteria for properties to include a freestanding emergency facility providing for severability providing for repealer providing for cotification providing an effective date okay thank you with that I'll turn it over to Tamas Raman to make her presentation Thank you. Good evening. My name is Tamas Benman, chief um planning administrator with the city of Boca Raton. This evening I'm presenting ordinance number 5767 for freestanding emergency facilities. This is a city initiated text amendment to chapter 28 of the zoning code to allow freestanding emergency emergency facilities as a conditional use. It will apply to the following commercial zoning districts. medical center, city CG or city uh city CG which is city commercial general city commercial high office or city CHO and the B4 the general business zoning district. It will establish regulations for this use freestanding emergency facil facilities are not currently located in the city.

Most recently, the planning and zoning board approved resolution 20251, which approved a site plan for a facility at 101 East Telecom Drive. There was an appeal filed by an adjacent property owner and the city council reversed board resolution 20251. Related to this, ordinance 5698 was adopted in August of 2024. This reduced parking requirements for medical offices. It did did it did not apply to outpatient surgery centers which was defined to include emergency rooms. So with this amendment, the parking requirement is one space per 175 square ft consistent with outpatient surgery centers and uh the dedicated ambulance loading area will be required to prevent ambulances from blocking any parking areas, vehicular travel areas, sidewalks, etc. A property must have direct access from an arterial road to qualify to develop with a freestanding emergency facility and access to the property cannot be through a school zone. Lastly, a property cannot be adjacent to a single family residence or single family residential zoning district. This map illustrates the properties that have the city CG, CHO, B4, and MC zoning district that also meets the requirements I just discussed, such as having direct access from an arterial road and not being adjacent to a single family residence. This map illustrates the applicable properties along North Dixie Highway and around Spanish River Boulevard in North Bokeh and along North Federal Highway near 20th Street. We're proposing these zoning districts as these commercial zoning districts allow a wide array of commercial uses. As we process developments for freestanding emergency facilities in the city under this proposed ordinance, if

it is adopted, we will evaluates its impact and determine if we should allow this use in additional commercial zoning districts. To conclude, this ordinance establishes regulations for freestanding emergency facilities and the proposed ordinance is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. We are recommending approval of the proposed tax amendment. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dumblaser. Questions? So, what are we we're adding zoning districts where we're going to allow these? Just to make sure. So, we are going to allow this use as a conditional use in four zoning districts.

So, we still have to come in for approvals and all that since it's conditional use. Thank you, Mr. Matthews. Uh, no. Mr. Morabi, no. Mr. Mitchell.

Um, after reading this and reviewing some of the comments that were provided to us, it does seem rather restrictive based on the map. If you could pull it back up. There's only pretty much things that are in east side. I mean, I can't tell the yellow. It looks like the red and then the one section there. So, vast swaths of the city are completely off limits to a potential freestanding emergency room. Um, is there a way we can propose or recommend approval with changes to the document or is it a yes or no to the actual proposed language. We could do an amendment

because I mean I the arterial question to me I guess I'm talking and not asking questions. Forgive me. Um is the biggest point. Why does it have to be an off an arterial road versus what if there's an entrance just a little bit down on the road that you come through via side street if it's a commercial side street not a residential side street? The concept with keeping it on Ontario roads is uh essentially that we're talking about um ambulance arrivals. Uh we're talking about um uh potent an use that potentially could be impactful to neighbors and that sort of thing. We're trying to keep it on the main road and and thereby avoid negatively impacting side streets and the kinds of uses that are on side streets. So with both the zoning districts chosen and with the uh criteria for the location um essentially we're trying to limit impact right. So um the zoning districts that have been chosen are districts that you know one is the medical center district which is that's an obvious connection. the other districts are already allow intense uh commercial uses that are you know relatively impactful that that bring a lot of trips that require a lot of parking that um it may have other impacts. So the thought is to start with those districts. This is a use that we don't you know it it exists in the world. It's relatively new but we don't have any in the city today. So based on experience that we might have with these uses that'll give us a better idea of where in the city they are appropriate. Um when you pointed out that there are you know most of this is east and vast swats of the city are off limits that is true. Um, I also point out that vast swaps of the of the city, um, and I'm

thinking, you know, of the northwestern portion of the city are largely single family large, you know, gated communities and so those are obviously uh not appropriate. Um, and other portions of the city where we're sitting today, for example, are this is LURP. It's primarily an office and light industrial district with, you know, residential and some limited commercial that's been introduced in the last 10 to 15 years. Um, but that is not the same thing as a, you know, a commercial district that invites these um, intense commercial uses that it appears that this use would be similar to.

Thank you, M. McDerman. So, not to beat a dead horse, but exactly why is LURP not included in this since it's based on the research I've done, it's not like there's they're as prolific as urgent cares and I think there are only two right now in the whole county. So, I'm just wondering if since this is a maybe for the future, could you just clarify that please?

Sure. So, so the ordinance was um has been introduced or or sponsored by a council member um who proposed these zoning districts and we found these to be appropriate zoning districts. We didn't uh we didn't feel it was appropriate to expand, you know, beyond that again because we're trying to take a conservative approach and see what the impacts are. Um, we've pointed out, you know, I think we pro you probably heard me say this before. It's it's easy to expand allowable uses. It's much more difficult to go in the other direction if it didn't work out so well. Um, LAR is, you know, acreage wise is a huge area. I think it's 900 and some acres. Um, so if we were to just say, hey, you can put these facilities anywhere in Lur for example, that's a potentially enormous impact that we don't really know, you know, what that's going to look like. So the thought of being taking a conservative approach is we have these limited districts with uh location criteria.

Okay, Mr. Garrett, you done? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. The only question I had is why was wasn't LERP considered in this? But you just explained it pretty well. Okay. Okay. U this is a public hearing. Um do we have cards from members of the public? Jeff Barker.

Please state your name and address. Leslie Delmont. Leslie Delonte. Not Jeff Parker. Good evening, board members. Um, I'm an architect and a planner. Please state your address.

Absolutely. 480 Northeast 91st Street, Miami Shores. Um, with over 20 years experience, um, including over a decade of municipal experience um, reviewing and overseeing uh, land use. As you yourselves are pointing out and mentioning, the LUR um, district is one of the areas of the city that merits us looking at this further. Um there are different mechanisms that could be used such as distance separation. It doesn't mean that there's going to be one in every corner of those 900 acres. You could institute distance separation. You could say um you know limit them within the LR district. But the lurp district is one of the fastest growing um areas of the city and where the majority of the densities in the city um are going. This is where a lot of people already live and a lot of people are going to be living in the future. So, leaving these areas out that service neighborhoods, that service residents, that service communities, it is not appropriate. Um, what's hard to reconcile is why this is being treated like an adult use. Essentially, this is being treated as a very egregious use um when it really isn't. These services are necessary for the health and safety of the city. As you mentioned, there's only two in the county. Um, these uh types of uses support the hospital, support health facilities. We should want these uses. These are not negative uses and do not have negative connotations attached to them. As the staff report states, there aren't any in the city. So if they're not there aren't any in the city, what problem are exactly are we addressing? Where have we seen this be a problem that we have to go that conservative?

Um it the map itself, I mean, you have to squint to even figure out where those are. There's huge areas in the northeast and northwest that are not being serviced by facilities like this and could be. Sure, they're single family residences, but those people still get sick and need access to these services. The staff report does not have any data showing whether fire or PD was contacted or consulted on this. This is something that affects their demand. It affects their daily operations. Why was their input not seek out and not included? Um, but we don't have to even go into I' I've actually gone into it much further than I intended to. We don't have to debate it that much.

Less than a year ago, please wrap it up. Your time's up. I will. Less than a year ago, the city considered that a use like this was actually appropriate in LAR and approved it. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Who's next? Good evening again, board chairman. Jeffrey Barker, Nelson Mullins, 1905 Northwest Corporate Boulevard. Um, thank you for your presentation, staff. U, I just wanted to reiterate a couple of things that were just mentioned. Um, we did pass out ask the clerk to pass out the list of um, the proposed amendments to the um, the ordinance. Um, as staff said, they sort of took what was given to them at face value and didn't try to change it. Um, but I think some of the comments that are coming from the board tonight and also from the public show that uh this map sort of demonstrates the deficiencies of the proposed ordinance in its current fashion. Um, I think that it was mentioned that the medical center district is one of the approved districts, but if you look on there, none of the medical center districts are even in yellow. That's because there's this extra requirement for this arterial roadway. Um, so the hospital itself can't even have one of these. So there's there's some things that really don't make sense with this. Um, the other thing that I wanted to just mention is that um, as Mr. Millig alluded to earlier today, there was um, you know, there's a 7 to 12 month process a lot of times to take a petition through the whole process. And as I represent developers, we respect that. You know, there's times when you don't want something to get postponed because it really messes up the dates and the timing of the whole process. Well, this isn't one of those times. There's no um developer here. There's no application. This is something that is the city is initiating and there's no um there's no line out the door of of these things trying to get into the city. What

there is no rush to have this heard first reading by the city council and then come to you guys and then go to the city council. Again, we're asking that you um either postpone this so that staff can evaluate some of these additional zoning districts that we're recommending be included. The normal um commercial zoning districts, RB1, LP, which is evolved drastically from what LP used to be. Um now it is more of a commercial zoning district instead of a light industrial district. the the the large areas of the city, Woodfield Country Club, Broken Sound, has there been any analysis of the time that it would take to drive from those places to these yellow areas? It's probably at least 15 or 20 minutes. And and a and granted, there's none of these existing in the city now, but it is a newer phenomenon that is starting to happen. And so to to again you you look at that map as um was just previously stated. It looks like we're trying to pre prevent strip clubs and have like two little tiny places in the entire city where you can have these things. We have a use that is not um that's actually for the public's benefit. And if I can just add one more last comment as I finish up. Let's go.

The um the the the note about intensity is these are um these are not a high intensity and ambulance is coming in and coming in all the time. Most of the time there's an emergency with an ambulance. They are going to go to the hospital. It's very rare and the city has this data as to how many times there's daily trips that are public automobiles versus um ambulances. So that would be our only request is that this be a permitted use in the districts the normal commercial districts and to remove the requirement for the arter um arterial access. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else

Jonathan, Larry Silver, and Greg De Santos.

Jonathan Unen 6501 Congress Avenue. Um, so a lot of the things I was going to say have already been touched on. Um, the fasttracking on this makes no sense. I'd like to ask you all up there if you tuned in to the Tuesday night city council meeting because they acknowledged for the first time that city council's hearing something before PNZ is. So potentially by the questions or lack thereof, you've all been prejudiced in your decision. Based on that, I don't understand why this is being treated differently than any other, why it's being fast-tracked in any other manner, why these districts, which by the way, Mr. Shad stated, MC, for good reason. The only place I see MC up there is on the farthest most northern part, a teeny teeny little block of what could be one property, it looks like. Is anybody gonna even know that they're zoned for such a use? This is basically spot zoning. So, you know, it's very, very concerning that we're putting these restrictions and we're saying that it needs to be on a main arterial road. The hospital's not even on a main arterial road. You've been there, Meadows, lane roads in each direction. But yet for this that has a lot less traffic, we're going to require that. Make this make sense. The council member who did this also happens to be familywise a in the past a medical office building owner. Is there a property that maybe they're they own that they're considering

something that they're making them giving themsel a property right? how LERP is not included in this. The only application, the only hospital that wanted to have such a use wanted to have it in LARP. If, god forbid, you got sick and needed to get to a hospital at 3, 4, 5, 6:00 at night or needed to get to an emergency room, how long would it take you? 20, 30 minutes? It's a disgrace that LURP, the only place that such a use has been proposed, isn't being considered. So, I ask you to make that a consideration, to make that an amendment, that lurp, if you are going to fast forward and fasttrack this thing so it can be up there in a month at city council for their second reading, which is really the first after your approval. Please consider lurp there because this part of town makes the most sense for that. I've always heard traffic is a deterrent for development, but now we want more traffic in order to put this high traffic use. Mr.

Make that make sense. Thank you. Your time's up. Please address for the record.

Larry Silver, 9293 Hawk Shadow Lane, Delray Beach. I'm also the owner of 101 East Telecom Drive. We've had a corporate headquarters in Lur in that facility for 22 years. We're on to our third generation. We're not planning on going anywhere. We've been very very careful about that hard corner to put with everybody's little bit of imagination you need to have that we've had many many contacts and many to many deals that we've just refused to put there. Um we're a national developer. We're in the capital business around the country and we've done many many large projects and small and large. It really is shocking. This board, probably some of the members were different, approved this project last year. It was appealed the last three days of the appeal period by a neighbor. something is really we've done master projects with housing in millions of square feet of commercial in different parts of the country that are really high traffic. These facilities which we've proven in studies and traffic engineers that work for the city that came here and the staff who's now changed their mind knew that it is low traffic. We asked for a small change to parking. Um, you have a tremendous amount of the county with the country clubs that we discussed, the 2,000 or 3,000 units you just approved, many thousands of people that are employed in that area. And in an emergency situation, it is close to all of them. But the best

thing about it is there are parts such as our site, but I'm not here just talking about our site that can be that are avoided or that are not close to a particular neighborhood. So, it's any disturbance even though it's 20 about 20 patients a day. They come maybe two ambulances and they usually send them away. Um, it's everyone's duty on this board and the elected board to look out for the health, safety, and welfare of the people living there. Anybody who would vote for this, it's obvious that it's a competitive reason. It's a selfish reason. It's some other reason, but it's not good planning. I could bring planners from all over the United States. No one would say it's good planning to shove everything to the busiest part of the county in the highest traffic area, which they're saying is a good reason. I hate to be disrespectful.

Okay, but I've been involved in this business more years than y'all are old. Please wrap it up. Your time's up. I got two seconds left. I wasn't over. You're over time. Oh, I am over. I apologize. You got my point. I don't know how anybody could vote on this. Thank you. and you haven't voted yet. So, anyone else? Kathy,

thank you. My name is Greg Dantis. I live at 1926 South Club Drive in Wellington, Florida, but I'm the chief operating officer of the Silver Companies, and we were the applicant uh for the approved project next to our office on Telecom Drive. I'm here just to tell you that I am the U resident expert about these freestanding emergency rooms in our office. And if you have any questions, any detail that you would like to ask me about uh traffic and parking and ambulances, uh we did um a lot of research. our uh our customer that we had going there which you know was HCA spent uh a million dollars on engineering plans and architectural plans to submit and as you know this body here approved that project but if there's any detail that I can help you uh with so that you have a full understanding uh about what the impact on the area um if one of these projects were located I have the information and I I think again it's wrong to move one of these projects away from where the population is and where it's growing to. And and as I said, I'm happy to answer any and all questions if if you may have any. Thank you.

Thank you, Kathy. Do we have anyone else? Okay, last call. Is anybody else need to speak? Nobody else left. Okay, thank you. Uh, with that I'll look for uh you have a comment. Yeah, I'm waiting for us to talk. Okay. So, we can have a a motion and a second then for discussion. I motion for discussion purposes. Okay. Second for the same reason.

Okay. Okay. You're up. I've looked at this and I've read it and and by trade I read contracts and I think this is oops I just lost a place on my phone but I think it's too restrictive. I think looking at this map I think lurp should be included. I think we can put restrictions within lurp to ensure that it's not in too many places. I think arterial road if you want it on an arterial road 100% get but as as someone mentioned the hospitals it's not even on a road adjacent to an arterial road you have to like drive back between houses sometimes to get there from different parts of the city you have to find it

right so and again it's been there forever and my you know one of I think my great-grandfather helped plan it so I get it but I feel that this is overly restrictive I get the parking we want to make sure there's enough parking I would be okay with some of the requirements for the ambulance. I think that is also a little bit too restrictive. I think the person building it will understand their needs. And if they if at the individual time when they're building that particular building, we need to add a parking spot for an ambulance or a loading and unloading zone for an ambulance, I'm all for that. But to put it in the statute this broadly and this restrictively, I don't think is the best needs for our city. I also believe that though most of the neighborhoods in the upper left in this illustration are strictly residential, by definition, that's where you want it in the middle of the night when you're having an issue. You want to be able to be taken to a place in 3 or 4 minutes. And I guess the middle of the night there's no traffic, so maybe it's 10 minutes to the hospital, not 20 of some other people I mentioned. But when you're having major issues, every second and every minute counts. So I would be against this the school zone issue. I don't believe it should be restricted in school zone. School zones are really 4 hours to 6 hours a day. So, you're taking off a whole area of the city for the other 18 hours of the day. Um, I'm against the arterial road. I'm against restricting it in LAR. I believe all that should be amended in our recommendation.

Okay, Mr. D, please sir.

I'm going to say I agree with with pretty much everything you said right there. Um, I do think it is overly restrictive. We can definitely open it up to more to more areas, including LURP with more uh with other requirements on it. Um, yeah, cuz there are huge corners of the of the city that are going to have potentially nothing. And who knows, a developer may not want to build any of these, but they should have the option to do it. Um, I would say though to everybody, um, you know, here we, this board is constantly beat up for, uh, going too quick on things, allowing too many different, uh, developments, and, uh, tonight we're being beat up because of something too conservative, just irony.

Thank you. I have a question. I don't know if it's for uh, Chris, our attorney, or Brandon. Could we amend this to say in Lur that there can only be LAR's 900 acres if I heard correctly? I'm sorry. The question was Lur is only 900 acres. Is Lur 900 acres? I believe it's a little more than that. Okay. So, let's assume it's 900 for the augment sake. Could we put a condition on that these will be allowed in LERP based on one per 30 one per 30 uh 300 acres. That would give you three in lurp, which probably would never happen anyway.

So, you just limit the number that could be in the zoning district. Yeah, I think I would have to consult with the city attorney's office on that question. I'm really not sure is I mean, I have to I I I'm not prepared to give an opinion on that. We'd have to look into it. Certainly, there's distance separation requirements you could impose, for example. Um whether you could cap the total number, we have to look into that. Could we make it as a condition? And if then if it's legally okay close. To be clear, the board is making a recommendation. So you I mean it's up to the maker of the M which Mr. Mitchell the maker of the motion to frame the motion. So if you want to frame it as recommending approval with the following changes. Yeah, you're free to do that.

Okay. Does anybody have any comments on my idea? I'll wait till they speak first. Any comments? I would ask uh staff to just give us some more feedback what their thoughts are relative to these proposed changes. Did you get a chance to look at them? Yeah. Well, um I I got it as we walked into the meeting. So,

I'd like I'd like to comment on the handout because it's not fair to us to be handed something in the middle of a presentation. It's happened before and I think we need a policy on that. And would that come from city attorney's office? Yeah, we can we can discuss that after. Something needs to be given to us by certain time the day of the meeting like noon or something like that because this kind of stuff doesn't work. We can certainly look into that, discuss it. Thank you. Okay, back to the Okay, so where were we? I don't have any other comments. I mean, I think the comments that my colleagues have made are

excellent comments. I think that um I would just ask the staff give us uh their input um before we make a final decision. Um if that means we need to do a postponement, so be it. But um I think we we need to try to all be on the same page with staff. They gave us their comments. Well, he hasn't seen these proposed changes, but we can we can make we can make those conditions. Sure. Okay. So, do we want to create a condition, Mr. An amendment? Mr. Mitchell, you want M. McDer? I I would like that. I like I would too. Mr. Mitchell's suggestions.

Mr. Mitchell, since you are in the contract business, putting me on the spot to draft something. Um, I would recommend approval with the condition change to this language that the property be on an arterial road, but that the access is not necessarily through the arterial road. I have no problem with it being on a main thoroughfare, but if there's side streets or things like that. Um, wait, is somebody taking notes? Because we're going to make this an amendment. Okay, you got it. Okay. So, make sure you

I recommend removing the school district restriction. I'm not a dead set on that one, but I would recommend it. I believe we should include LAR in the area that is permitted. Um, but and I'm going to put a How about a limit on the number? I agree a limit because I don't want there to be 10. I don't think capitalism would allow for 10. Um, so I'm not actually worried that someone's going to put three of these in that area because they'll just kill each other and they'll all go down of business. Um, so can we go along with three and lurp?

I think it would be better if we did distance requirements for legality reasons than a total number. So I just don't know the size of LAR in order to state a distance requirement. What is the width and breadth of LRP? Do we know? I can't really give you numbers but I could describe it. It's it includes brick it go and then from to you know going north from Yumato generally to Clintmore generally east of 95 generally west of military. What if we said a mile and a quarter? It's a good guess.

Yeah, I was saying within a mile it goes in lurp. can't have another one within a mile. I'm okay with a mile. It's a long enough distance. I don't think we're too worried about it, at least right now. And if we all of a sudden start getting worried about it because there's two within a mile, come back and we revise it accordingly. Can I can I clarify for you? Uh or can you clarify? Would this distance requirement only be in lurp or for any freestanding emergency room anywhere in the city? I would propose anywhere in the city, not just in LR because I think it's appropriate not to have two that are that close together. I don't think it would happen. Again, capitalism would do what it does, but okay.

Um, so no limit on your mic. Sorry. No limit in within specific to lurp but an overall limit of one mile one mile distance. Correct. It would apply to lur by definition but I believe it should whether it's in these red dots or not. I wouldn't want two next to each other or within a quarter mile anyways.

Okay. Sorry. I'm going to check my notes. Give me a second. Okay. So, while he's doing that, I assume we're going to have one amendment to the to the vote. Well, we need to vote on the amendment separately. No, again, it's it's the the motion as originally made was not exactly clear. You said motion for discussion. So, just to be you I'm going to have to whole thing. I would suggest you clarify what your motion is, lists all of the specific recommendations you'd like to make, and let the other members vote yay or nay on that. Okay. Well, you did. Correct. You did. So, we're good.

Are we good? Give me a second. We get to have fun tonight. Sometimes we just approve or disapprove. How about parking? John to to the to the extent it's relevant to the board's discussion. I would also point out to and Mr. Shad may want to elaborate. It is proposed to be a conditional use. So it there is some ability in to review it in specific circumstances to determine what's appropriate. So I would just submit that for your consideration when you're discussing when you're getting specific about particular rules. I'm okay with it remaining a conditional use. So,

so I propose for approval the following amendments. Um, the discussion of including LERP. You're proposing improve you're imposing approval including these amendments. Correct. Right. the addition of LURP, the addition of a onem radius restriction, the addition, the adjustment of the arterial road reference to include the fact that the property is on or the proposed freestanding emergency room is on an arterial road, but the entrance does not have to be. And I'm also um recommending the removal of the restriction of the school zones. Okay, I'll second it. Second. Okay.

Yeah, you already did it, but yep. Agreed. Okay. Any further discussion? Kathy, please call the RO. Okay. This is with the uh amendments as read. Morabi, yes. Sevel, yes. Dornblazer, yes. Mitchell, yes. McDermad. Yes. Matthews, yes. Motion passes six to zero. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any Republic requests? We're at that section now. You can't help yourself, can you?

Well, I I didn't get a chance to get it in. John and 6501 Congress Avenue. Um, the one thing, you know, and I appreciate that all all that discussion and and thank you. Um, the one thing that wasn't really mentioned was the parking requirements, and I didn't really get a chance to, and I didn't know if you had read the email that I saw that John Donaldson had given. I just think it's a little hypocritical in this city that the IT is good for so many things. The Institute of Traffic Engineers reports on these studies, these this use has one per 500 square ft for parking. that this what you just made that condition for is one per 175. It is massively overparked for what it is. And I just I I didn't get a chance to get that in and I didn't I don't know if you had seen his report and

uh and you know so I it's got to go in front of council and at least that was a good first step and the right step. Um, and you don't get praised too much. You get, you know, there there was no rubber stamp today and I got to thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? No. Okay. With that, close the public request section. We have a director's report this evening. No report. Okay. Chair has no report. I did have a question. The special meeting later in the month. Do we know the 29th? The 29th. Do we know the topic? Yeah. Downtown. Yeah. I figured what about downtown? Be surprised. Okay.

I'm sorry. I don't know. I I will send you an email though. I'm sorry. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? With that, at 7:34 we are journed.