Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening ladies and gentlemen would like to call tonight's planning and zoning board meeting to order if we could please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance Flag is over there. I Pledge 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 I Thank you. Good evening. I'd like to introduce you to my fellow board members. From my left, we have Mr. Hector De La Torres, Mr. Alexander Spence, Ms. Jacqueline Scott. On my right, we have Mr. Monty Lawani, Mr. Kevin Buckley, Steve Gannon, and I'm Patrick McTeague. from our city staff this evening. We have Mr. Jim Hensel, Urban Design and Planning Manager, the Deputy City Attorney, Mr. DeWayne Spence. Mr. Hensel, could you please let us know who else is in with staff tonight?

Sure, good evening. To my left is Yvonne Redding and Nancy Garcia from our Urban Design and Planning Division.

Thank you very much. Do we have any comments or anything on last month's minutes, or do we have a motion to approve? Any corrections, anything? All in favor to moving the minutes from last month?

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. Very good. We'll do item number one, which is case number UDP S25001. And yes, you can have the floor. Shall I still do disclosures?

Yes, you should do disclosures also if you would swear in the witnesses as well.

Okay. Do I do the swearing? Can you do the swearing? If there's anybody who wishes to speak, if you could please raise your right hand. And Mr. Spence will swear you in.

Or Ms. Newell.

Oh, good. Okay.

All right. Everyone who or anyone who wishes to speak, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you affirm or swear that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. And I guess disclosures, Mr. De La Torres? Any for item number one?

On Harbor Drive, yes. I had conversations with opposing counsel, and I did a drive-by.

Mr. Spence? No disclosures. Ms. Scott?

Yes, I did a site visit and spoke to the applicant's attorney, and I think I got an email from someone else that's representing the building, and I don't remember the names of the people, quite frankly.

Mr. Lawani?

I did do a site visit and also spoke to Courtney.

Mr. Buckley? A site visit and spoke to the applicant's attorney. Mr. Gannon? A site visit and spoke to the...

Site visit, spoke to the applicant's attorney, spoke with the opposing attorney, I believe from the Harborage, I'm sorry, email from that attorney, and spoke, met with three Harborage Place residents.

Okay, I did a site visit. I spoke with Ms. Crush. I spoke with a gentleman by the last name of Mr. Love and a couple other members of the condominium. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, board members, Courtney Crush representing the applicant. You should have received a deferral request from our office this afternoon. We are requesting deferral of this item. We've been having very productive conversations with one of our neighbors, the Harbridge Condominium. that we've reached a, at least internal to our two properties, an agreement to make some modifications which will require us to go back to staff for some design changes. So we would very respectfully request a deferral to have time to do that on what we've agreed with our neighbors.

The exact meeting of next month, the exact date of next month's meeting is March 18th.

Okay.

Okay. Do we have a motion or do we wish to have any discussion?

I'll make a motion.

Okay.

I move that we defer UDP S two five zero zero one. Is that correct? The number I'm looking at, um, to a time certain of March 18th, 2026.

Second, do we have?

I'll second it.

Okay. Roll call, I guess.

Mr. Lovarney?

Yes.

Approve.

Mr. Gelatorrez?

Yes.

Mr. Spence?

Yes.

Mr. Buckley? Yes. Mrs. Scott? Yes. Mr. Gannon? Yes. Chairman Teague?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you, board. Thank you. Moving on, case number two, UDP V25001. Disclosures, Mr. De La Torres.

None.

Mr. Spence? None. Ms. Scott? Site visit. Mr. LeWanning?

None.

Mr. Buckley? Mr. Gannon? Site visit. And I also did a site visit.

Mr. Schein? Good evening, Chair, members of the board, Andrew Schein representing the property owner. The property is located at 1504 Northeast 8th Street. This is in the Victoria Park neighborhood. On the left, you can see Holiday Park, and then the Greek church that holds that yearly festival that I've unfortunately never been to is just catty-cornered to the northwest. Is it working? There it is. This is a close-up view. And there are two applications on the agenda tonight, this one and the next one. I did combine the presentations. It's the same property, very similar substance. So I'll go through and explain the very minor differences between them. This is the property. You can see it is quite in a regularly shaped parcel. Northeast 8th Street runs east-west, and if you've driven in this neighborhood, you know you have to make a quick little left. If you're going east on 8th, you have to make a quick left and then a quick right to continue on 8th. Back in the 1970s, there was an idea to straighten Northeast 8th, or at least to make it more curved rather than abrupt turns as it is now. That was in the 1970s, and it never moved forward. On the west side, Northeast 15th, There was also an effort in the 1970s to expand Northeast 15th to be a little wider than it is today. It's already a fairly wide street at 60 feet and that never moved forward either. This property at the corner of 15th and 8th was kind of caught in the middle of the planning for those street changes that never occurred. And this was about 49 years ago. The application tonight is to vacate a portion of the property that was supposed to be used as right-of-way half a century ago. The property has been like this in its current condition. I looked on aerials going back 20, 30 years. It's always been the driveway area for this property. So it's right-of-way, it's not owned by the owner. They're maintaining the area with landscaping, they're maintaining the driveway there. But they don't own it because of the dedications that happened in the 70s. So the property, this is just a brief history. The property was originally platted in 1912. This is an old Miami-Dade County plat before Broward was founded. This is the original plat line where the northern boundary of the parcel used to be. The triangle portion, which is, maybe not on the next slide, the triangle portion above that green line was vacated in 1976 via ordinance and given to the property owner. Northeast 15th Avenue right of way, which is only about five feet, you can see it here on the west side, that was done via plat in 1977. And that area in blue. So the green is this application, the blue is the next application. 49 years later, as I said, these streets were never widened. There are no current plans to widen it. We verified this multiple times with transportation and mobility. On the west is a 60 foot right of way, plenty wide already. 50 foot is the minimum in Fort Lauderdale. And on the north there's already 50 feet there. Quickly go through the criteria. I did put it in the narrative as well, but the good thing about right-of-way vacation criteria is it's very objective. A lot of times when we see right-of-way vacations come to this board, you see things like there are other streets that cars can go down or there are other sidewalks in the area that pedestrians can walk past. But this one, The first criteria is that the right-of-way is not needed for public purposes. There's no street there. There's no sidewalk there. There's never been a street or sidewalk there. It's not needed for public purposes. This is from Northeast 8th Street looking. That is the approximate area that we'd be proposing to vacate on Northeast 8th Street. As you can see, it's someone's front lawn, not a public use. This is the area on Northeast 15th Avenue showing it. Again, this is someone's side lawn. It's well away from the street, not needed for public use. Second is that alternate routes are available. Again, no alternate routes needed because it's not a street, not a sidewalk. That the closure of the right of way provides safe areas for vehicles to turn around, not applicable. Second to last is that the closure shouldn't adversely impact pedestrian traffic, and no sidewalks there. And the last is that all utilities have been located or will be relocated. We do have a fire hydrant in there that we are going to relocate a water main. Those plans have already been submitted to engineering and at least an initial review through this process, but that'll be done in permitting. Other than that, we are not aware of any other utilities in there. If needed, we can always grant easements, but for right now, there is a... A fire hydrant, and we will be relocating the water main, which is already a condition of approval. That's all for these. Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant. Okay.

Oh, yes. Go ahead, Mr. Spence. Yes. Does the current property owner use the driveway? And would they still have access to the driveway if their right-of-way is accepted?

Yes. So vacating the right-of-way, it won't actually change anything physical there. We can't close anything down we're not putting up you know barriers to there um so yes the driveway will continue to be used as it as it has been used um the current owner doesn't live in it now they're here um only a couple months out of the year they're uh six plus one here so it is rented out uh right now and yes they'll they'll continue to use the driveway oh okay then yeah you good mr yeah that was the same question oh okay uh miss scott why are you doing this There is an idea to do a future development here to be determined what it is. Let me take a step back. We really had two options. You can go for a variance for an irregularly shaped lot, and the issue here is going to be a setback on the north. When you have that curved part that juts in about 40 feet into the property, you have to be set back 25 feet from that, which, if you can think of how a house is designed, it makes for a Most lots are square. Most builders build on square or rectangular lots. So it was to make it a regularly shaped parcel again. When we were exploring it, the option between a variance and a right-of-way vacation, we felt right-of-way vacation was probably the best way because it actually meets the criteria for it. It's not a right-of-way anymore. So we decided to go this route.

Yeah, I doubt you're going to build single-family homes there.

Maybe not, looking at a possible duplex option, but yeah.

Okay, just curious.

Mr. Gannon?

Yeah, that's RMM 25. I believe you can do quite a few things on there, a lot that size with an RMM 25. I'm sure it'll be more than a duplex, I would imagine, whatever it's worth. But it's zoned that way, and they're entitled to the land and all that. Thank you.

Okay. Yes. Mr. Lawani?

Will you be also looking to ask for any exceptions on those setbacks? No.

No. No, everything in the future would be as of right, under the code.

No other questions, it seems, at this time. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for discussion and a vote. More emotion. Tell me the scripts.

So, so chair can provide some guidance on terms of the motion, the motion for consideration that you can either approve, which will be forwarded to the city commission as a recommendation for approval or deny. And that would deny the application and the applicant would have to appeal. that to the City Commission. So those are your two options. So if you find that they have met the criteria for a vacation, then that would be your motion that it has met the criteria for a vacation of a right-of-way, and therefore you recommend approval. question for mr spence i'm assuming this is two applications so it'll require two motions and two votes so you are currently only considering um case the second case on the agenda but we can address uh chair after you dispose of the first case you can call the second case forward acknowledge that the applicant has done his presentation ask if there are any members of the public i'm going to speak on it and move forward from there thanks for clarifying that sure

Do we have a motion? Anyone? Ms. Scott?

I'll make the motion. Motion to recommend approval. I move to recommend approval of case number S, no, just 25001, based on the following findings of fact on the city staff report as well as the testimony heard. And the board hereby finds the application meets the applicable criteria of the ULDR cited in the staff report.

I'm sorry, for clarification on the record, there are letters in front of the case number that are slightly different. Oh, I'm sorry.

I apologize. My screen was screwed up. UDP-B25001. Thank you. You're welcome. So the board recommends approval of the application subject to all the conditions included in the staff report and any other applicable conditions on the record.

Second.

Mr. Lawani.

Approve.

Mr. De La Torres.

Yes.

Mr. Spence. Yes. Mr. Buckley.

Yes.

Mr. Scott. Yes. Mr. Gannon. Yes. Chair Matee. Yes. Motion passes.

Okay.

Thank you all.

I think number three pertains to you as well.

So case number three is UDP V25002. It's the second half vacation right away. Do you have anything to add on this item? I do not.

This is for the western portion, the blue on 15th Avenue.

Correct. Okay. I'll make a motion.

If you would inquire if there are any additional disclosures and if there's any comments from the public.

Very good. Do we have any additional disclosures from the board?

Same as before.

Site visit. Okay. I can go down the side just to Mr. Della Torres. Yes. Site visit. Mr. Spence. None. Ms. Scott.

Site visit.

Mr. Lilowani.

None.

Mr. Buckley. Site visit. Mr. Gannon. Site visit. And I also did the site visit. Okay. And then are there any members of the public wishing to speak? Seeing none, I close the public portion of the hearing and bring it back to the board for a motion or discussion.

I can make this one if there's no discussion.

Very good.

Okay. I move to recommend approval of case number UDP-V25002 based on the following facts of finding the fact. The facts from the city report and are based testimony heard by the applicant and the board hereby finds that the application meets the applicable criteria of the ULDR cited in the staff report.

Very good. I'll second, please.

I'll second.

Scott?

Mr. Lomani?

Yes.

Mr. De La Torres?

Yes.

Mr. Spence?

Yes.

Mr. Buckley?

Yes.

Mr. Scott? Yes. Mr. Gannon? Yes. Chair Matee? Yes. Motion passes.

Thank you all. Have a great night.

Thank you. Number four, case UDP-A25056. Disclosures, Mr. De La Torres.

None. Mr. Spence.

I was contacted by the representative of the applicant. Ms. Scott.

I spoke to the attorney for the applicant.

Mr. Lawani. Yes, I did do a site visit and also had a email conversation with the applicant's attorney.

Mr. Buckley. I received an email from the applicant's attorney. Okay.

Mr. Gannon?

Email from applicant's attorney and site visit.

I also had an email from applicant's attorney and did a site visit. Thank you very much. The floor is yours.

Good evening, board members. Heidi Davis with the law firm of Gunster. Here tonight on behalf of Q Club Hotel, LLC, the owner of the Beach House Fort Lauderdale, a Hilton resort located at 505 North Fort Lauderdale Beach Boulevard. We are here to request a parking reduction for a new gym health facility within the resort. The property is located within an entire beach block, located between Rerumar and Verumar and between A1A and Breakers. With me this evening is Lauren Zirin, General Manager of the Beach House Resort. For background, the resort was originally approved back in 2000 and construction completed in 2007. When the hotel was built, there was a little fitness center and small health spa on the sixth floor. And over the years, improvements and modifications were made to the resort, including both hotel and public restaurants, bars and rooftop spaces. And we did pool renovations and connections were made to improve the resort. However, the small fitness center remained. submitted an application administrative review application to create this new full service gym health club facility, which will have high tech fitness equipment, large fitness and cardio rooms and full locker room amenities open to the public hotel guests and owners. There are no full-service gyms or health clubs on Fort Lauderdale Beach. And the closest is on the other side of the intercoastal, approximately two miles away at Galleria Mall, which is Powerhouse. And the next one is the closest is LA Fitness and the Harbor Shops at 17th Street Causeway. Although we're still working with a few different health club operators, these images on the screens are what we're envisioning for the facility. Amenities will include state-of-the-art cardio and workout equipment, free weights, cycling studios for spin classes, rooms for fitness classes, personal training, smoothie, juice bar, and full locker room amenities. We are here tonight to request review from the Planning and Zoning Board only for the parking reduction for the health and fitness facility. The actual gym facility plan was already reviewed by staff as part of an administrative review application. As the improvements are entirely within and internal to the resort, there were no changes to the exterior structure and it was less than a 5% increase to the floor area. We are requesting the reduction because the facility will be constructed within a portion of the existing fourth floor parking garage and 52 parking spaces will be removed. This is the existing plan and this is what we're proposing. It's a conceptual plan, so it's not the exact one, but that is where the gym will be located. So the parking reduction application satisfies the criteria in ULDR section 47-20.3.8.5. All adequacy requirements are satisfied and there will be no additional demand on public services. We submitted an adequacy statement with our application. It should be in your backup. Also with the application, we submitted a parking study from DC Engineers Inc. DC evaluated all of the resort's uses and peak times for each use based on the parking reduction criteria. They concluded that even at 100% capacity of all the uses within the resort, including the gym, during the peak times, which is 6 p.m. weekdays, there were still more than enough parking spaces in the garage to accommodate the additional gym use. The parking reduction criteria of two or more different users sharing the same parking space at different hours and the peak hours each use will be at different hours. Different users example like the hotel. The restaurants, the bars, the gym, sharing the same space at different hours. So if somebody is staying at the hotel for a conference, they're parking one car, but they're staying in a hotel use, they're going to the conference. They may go to S3, which is the restaurant down at the bottom, or New Bay to go have a drink up at the top. and also go to the gym. So there's five different uses this one parking person who has a car will be there. So additionally, because the resort is 100% valet parked, Q Club also had their valet parking company, Metropolis, conduct its own independent valet parking analysis, which physically counted available daily parking spaces in the garage during peak season from January to June. The valet analysis concluded that the average current utilization of the spaces in the garage was only 40, I'm sorry, was only 73%. With the inclusion of the gym, the utilization is predicted to be 86%, which is in line with the DC Engineering's parking study showing a surplus of parking spaces in the garage. While 327 parking spaces will be provided, only 313 spaces will actually be needed to accommodate all uses at the peak time of 6 p.m. weekdays. No public parking around the resort is being used for this request. The results of the parking studies conclude that there is an adequate capacity in the parking garage based on the various existing and proposed uses at the resort. So while the code requires 379 spaces for all the resort uses, including the gym, The shared parking analysis and the reduction only requires 327 parking spaces. And as the studies show, only 313 spaces maximum are needed when the resort is 100% occupied, leaving a 14 parking space surplus. As stated earlier, no parking around the public is being used for this parking reduction rationale. But there are 67 parking spaces surrounding and within one block of the hotel. If a gym member, like I said, it's all valet, so a gym member would have to valet his car. But if they didn't want to valet their car and they wanted to park in the public parking, they're more than, you know, they can do that anytime they want. So in summary, the reason for the parking reduction request is to bring this exciting new health club fitness facility to the beach house and to Fort Lauderdale Beach. The parking study and the valet parking analysis submitted provide that, again, even in the peak time of all uses in the resort, including the new gym, there are still vacant parking spaces in the garage. And as you know, more and more visitors and guests are using rideshare and taxi services without the need for cars to be parked. In fact, over 60% of the hotel visitors at the beach house come by rideshare. The application satisfies the parking reduction criteria and reducing the required parking will be compatible with and not adversely impact the character and the integrity of the surrounding properties. We went to the Central Beach Alliance. They reviewed this request when it was presented to its full membership and board on November 20th. And if you have any questions, we're here to answer them. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant at this time?

Yes, Mr. De La Torres. Yes, on the reduction of parking, how much reduction did you do to the handicap parking requirement?

I don't think any were reduced.

So you still have the same amount of handicap parking as you did before?

I believe we do. And don't forget it's all valet parking.

Oh, so you don't have any handicap at all?

Well, we have them for employees and things like that, but I don't think they, you know, like I said, it's all 100% valet. So if somebody was in a wheelchair or something, they would valet park and go.

Mr. Hensel, is that a consideration that staff had on this?

I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO NANCY AS THE CASE PLANNER ON THAT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WHETHER OR NOT THEY LOOKED AT THAT EVALUATION, BUT IF THE APPLICANT IS CORRECT, IF IT'S VALLEY SERVICES, YEAH, VALLEY SERVICES WOULD HANDLE ANY HANDICAPPED PARKING AS WELL AS PART OF THAT REDUCTION THAT'S CONSIDERED IN THE REDUCTION THAT WE EVALUATE. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S AN ISSUE, BUT I'LL LET NANCY KIND OF EXPAND ON THAT AS THE CASE PLANNER.

Hi, good afternoon board members, Nancy Garcia with urban design and planning. When we looked at the analysis, we only looked at the required parking spaces in the code and the code doesn't speak to the ADA spaces, but the only floor that's being affected is the fourth floor of the parking garage. No other floors are being affected.

No, I noticed that cause in your evaluation you missed that all completely. But if, if I'm a handicapped person, I'm going to drive into the, is there a public parking here where people come in and drive themselves?

No, it's all valet. So if they're on the first floor, they stop at the first floor. And then if I'm not mistaken, Heidi, the valet person takes care of the car and the person that's in the wheelchair, that's handicapped, just stays on the first floor and is able to access the hotel facility.

Got it. So I want to make that distinction because I'm asking about the requirement versus the practical use. So we met that requirement of the ADA code. That's the question, whether or not the use is that way.

So if there's valet services, the ADA is being handled by valet services. They've met ADA requirements because that where they're dropping the car off has to be ADA accessible for the person, the handicapped to get out. That's required. That's provided for the actual space itself. If it's being valet, it's not required because they're not going to be parking themselves. Okay.

Understood. Thank you.

You're welcome.

I have a question, Heidi. Yes. Just a practical question. If somebody joins your gym as a member, when they come there, they have to use valet, right? Or public parking, right? Or public parking. So they'll be charged for the valet, correct? In other words, if you have a gym card, it doesn't give you free parking in the valet, does it?

At this time, we are working out with the operator to see about valet parking or discounts on parking or whether it'll be included in their membership or something like that.

I think from a practical standpoint, the average person coming to the gym is not going to want to pay for valet parking. So they're going to be parking on the street in those places.

And what did you say there was 67 valet parking, or excuse me, public parking spaces surrounding the building?

Within one block, yes.

And how many members do you expect in this gym?

Oh, I don't know.

And it sounds to me like more than adequate, but that's my opinion.

Other questions for the applicant? Okay. Any members of the public want to speak on this item? Seeing none, close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for more discussion or a motion. Motion. Steve. All right, here we go.

So I've got to look at it. I've got to look at it.

Where is that part?

So in this case, it's just a simple parking reduction granting or authorizing the city to enter into a parking reduction order or issue a parking reduction order reducing the number of spaces from 379 spaces to providing 327 spaces. So your motion can be a motion to approve a reduction on the required the number of spaces required to be provided as stated in the staff report.

I'd like to make a motion to approve a reduction in the amount of parking required for case UDP A25056 as per described in the staff report.

Do we have a second? All second. Very good, Mr. Spence. When you're ready. All right.

Thank you, Wayne. Thank you.

Mr. Lawani?

Yes.

Mr. De La Torres?

Yes.

Mr. Spence?

Yes.

Mr. Buckley?

Yes.

Mrs. Scott? Yes. Mr. Gannon? Yes. Chair Matee?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you, everybody. Good evening.

Number five, case UDPT 26001.

Good evening, board members. Jim Metzl, urban design plan manager. You may recall at the December planning and zoning board meeting, there was some lengthy discussion regarding, did you need something? Sorry. Not on this one. Okay. Good catch, good. But you might recall back in December, planning and zoning board meeting, there was communication to the commission about amending our code regarding public notices and the requirement for public participation meetings not to occur too lengthy before an actual planning and zoning board meeting, and there was discussion about that, and the commission directed staff to make that amendment. So what's before you is a simple text amendment to the code, excuse me, that has a limitation on how early an applicant can have their public participation meeting, which is no more than six months prior to the meeting, and within 30 days of the meeting itself, planning and zoning board meeting. So that's all this text amendment is. There's no other language other than that throughout the section, wherever it makes reference to public participation meetings. So I'll take any questions if you like. Questions for staff?

Okay, motion.

Okay, I'll do it, but I've got to see which one to use here. Which one do I use first?

The text amendment. The text amendment. No, if there's members of the public that'd like to.

Okay, are there any members of the public here wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for discussion or a motion.

I make a motion that we approve UDP 1T 26001. I recommend approval, and the board hereby finds that the text amendment to the ULDR are consistent with the comprehensive plan. And I think that's the end of that, right?

That's it, right? Do we have a second?

Second. Okay. That came from Mr. Buckley.

Mr. Luwany?

Yes.

Mr. De La Torres? Yes. Mr. Spence? Yes. Mr. Buckley?

Yes.

Mrs. Scott? Yes. Mr. Gannon? Yes. Chair Matee? Yes. Motion passes.

Very good. Thank you.

I'm so glad we got that done.

Good job, everyone. We got that done. Any communication to the City Commission? Is there anything for the good of City? Do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. All in favor? Aye. Very good.