Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

I call the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of July 14, 2026 to order. Roll call, please.

Good evening, everyone. Chair Wu.

Here.

Vice Chair Garson.

Here.

Board Member Levinson.

Here.

Board Member Flasterstein.

Here.

Board Member Katana present.

Thank you, Mr. Garson. Will the leaders of the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Do I hear a motion to approve the draft minutes?

So moved.

Second.

I second.

All in approval say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Let the record show you approve unanimously. Stringing of the speakers.

Will those who intend to testify in this hearing stand? Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you sort of form that the testimony you will give in this matter will be the truth and nothing but the truth? If so, please state I do. Thank you.

Thank you. We do not have any expository communication because these are legislative matters today. The first case, 7A, is respect to the condo hotels and the allow multifamily dwelling as a conditional use.

Staff, you have the floor. The ordinance before you this evening is the result of an application by Maltese Diplomat Owner that's proposing revisions to the regulations of the zoning code. to amend the definitions of condo hotels and also amend the CRP zoning district to allow for multifamily residential dwellings as a conditional use within designated dashed line areas. Background on this item. On January 13th, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the applications for comprehensive plan text amendment that establish a dashed land area to allow residential density within specific boundaries of the land use map, future land use map. And it also amended the Fisherland use plan by designating 17 and a half net acres of the Shell Bay property to commercial recreation and irregular residential within a dashed land area. After approval on first reading and being reviewed by the state, the city commission approved second reading of both amendments on June 22nd, 2026. Current regulations, under the current regulation, hotel units are intended for transit occupancy only. Long-term occupancy and unrestricted owner use is prohibited. Occupancy is limited to no more than 90 days, and owner occupancy is limited to 180 days within a year. Hotel units according to code are counted as residential dwellings for density purposes and hotels are permitted in the CRP district and in the commercial recreation future land use designation. The applicant proposed amendments revise the hotel definitions and operational standard to allow extended occupancy and owner use in the CRP district within approved dash line areas. It also amends the CRP district to allow multifamily residential dwellings as a conditional use within those approved dash line areas provided each condo hotel unit is assigned one full dwelling unit of density. THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING RESIDENTIAL USES IN DASHLAND AREAS AND AT THE SHELL PAY CLUB PROPERTY. THIS MAP REFLECTS THE PRESENT LOCATION OF WHAT IS THE IRREGULAR DASHLAND AREA. on the map on the right shows the two designated locations within that dashed line area that residential units could be allocated up to 228 units. And with that staff recommends approval that the Planning and Centering Board recommend approval to the City Commission and that concludes the presentation.

Thank you, so this is the follow up to the prior actions that the commission took? Correct. So this is just a housekeeping matter to clean up the zoning action?

Yes, the code amendment is necessary in order to implement. Effectuate the land use.

Correct. Can you go to the zoning map? The last slide. So what is the effect of this after we approve it? Will there be development or this is just

Well, I'm sorry, repeat that question?

What is the effect of the zoning change? Will there be an application to move forward to be consistent with this?

The code amendment specifically requires a conditional use application that would have to go through the public hearing process before the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission.

So you anticipate a project coming through in the near future?

Yes, as I understand, yes, applicant is here to, and they can speak to that.

Okay. Any questions for the staff at this time?

Yeah, just so I'm clear, they're building a condominium tower right there, and so what they're proposing is 228 residential units subdivided into two shaded areas?

Basically, that would be the case. The building that's under construction now, I believe it's 120. Yeah, that's the designated parcel on the south.

The building was already approved. I know, that's been built. Yes. So this would allow them to change the use from hotel to residential, but in order to do that, they would have to come back for conditional use to do that. Okay, so. And a development agreement amendment as well.

So I understand something. A hotel was proposed.

Correct.

And now they're converting it to a condo hotel?

This would allow them to do that.

That's their intention. And then from condo hotel, I read somewhere multifamily?

So.

Why is the word multifamily here? Because this is allowing residential. A hotel goes to a condo hotel and now they're saying,

Then multifamily?

Yes. So this would allow it to be treated as a residential without restrictions on the length of stay. So for the zoning code, for code purposes, it would be residential. So this removes the restriction on length of stay, which our code currently limits how long someone can stay in a residence, in a hotel, even if you own the unit.

I get that. My understanding is that when you don't count a hotel as a residential unit, Because people there don't use the sort of resources of the city, which is, you know, schooling and everything like that. Right. And now you're basically saying, well, a hotel is going to be now a condo or a multifamily. And now there's families living there. And so the question also goes. Okay, so now you're gonna have to have school capacity for that.

Yes, so if they come through for the conditional use, it will be looked at as residential for all of those purposes. Because it is removing the restriction. I mean, the representative can address this, My understanding is that these are multi-million dollar units that are hotel units. If you purchase one, there's not going to be a restriction. You could live there if you want. You could live there for six months out of the year, but for our purposes, we will treat it as a residential, so that way all of those facilities and infrastructure is covered.

That'll be my question. That was it. Any more questions?

Yes. Just to clarify. The present condo, or whatever, the building that's being built, is that inside or outside the Dashland?

It's within the dash line.

It's within, sorry.

In the dash line. It's that parcel.

On the bottom there of that, okay. Yes. Now, so the 228 includes how many are in that parcel that's being built? 120. So there'll be another 108 that could be built on that north parcel, which directly abuts a house.

However, that is the location of the approved site plan for the development. It would be a change of use if they chose to do so at that point in time.

So if we approve this, if this gets approved, Do they have to then get approval for what they build on that north partial?

No, that's already been approved. The structure has already been approved. If they decide to take advantage of this legislation and change it to residential, they have to come back for that.

Right, but there's already an approved development. So just to zoom all the way out, if I can. There was now, under its present approval, it was a hotel, okay? This is now switching to allow for that residential component, but in order for them to do that, there had to be a comprehensive plan amendment, which was already approved, to create regulations for the dash line area. This is now the companion piece. The comprehensive plan amendment has passed. This is the land development regulation piece to now implement that change to the comprehensive plan. So now, once that is approved, if the applicant chooses to come forward as anticipated for the change of use, that would be the conditional use, and it would be subject to review by staff, as Assistant Director Williams has said. But as of right now, there's an approved development, but if there's going to be a change, it would not just be a change to the conditional use. There's also a development agreement which governs all of that. And so the development agreement would have to come back with an amendment to flush out all the different changes in the proposed use from hotel to residential.

Okay, so then if I understand, if this doesn't get passed, that building that they're building, the owners and multimillion dollar units can only be there 180 days a year unless we change.

Yes, that's correct. That's correct.

sort of, shouldn't they have done that before they put up the building? To get the approval, whatever.

Yes, you have a question?

I know I have a question. You have a question?

No, I don't. Okay, I'd like to open up the public hearing portion. Any comments?

No, Board of Speakers.

Any comments from the public at this time? Would you like a, we'll just get to you in a minute. I close the public hearing. Yes, the applicant. Your name for the record?

Hi, good evening. Jeff Kadams, land planner for this project. No presentation, but I just wanted to sort of reiterate that this site was approved in 2016 for $938 million. lodging units and most of those were actually condo hotel units. There were some that were designed specifically as hotel rooms on the lower floors but most of them were actually condo hotels, condo hotel units. So the current owner had a different vision for the property rather than a mega resort and that would have been huge. Very intensive use. We're looking at only two towers, not three. They're smaller towers, fewer units, and with the flexibility for some owners to have a more flexible allowance for stay. The tower that's under construction now, which is Tower 200, it is a condo hotel tower. It is gonna be managed by a boutique hotel management company, and all the units, well, those unit owners will have the option of participating or not. But again, these things all have to be ironed out in a development agreement and in a conditional use, which comes back to you. So we'll deal with those specifics at that time. But right now, this is just about length of stay and the ability to have actually a pure residential unit versus a condo hotel unit. And the impacts that you talked about, that you asked about, had been accounted for when we did the plan amendment. We had to show that there were school, parks, water, sewer, sanitation, drainage, et cetera. So that's it. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Any questions to the applicant? Okay, we already closed the public hearing. Any discussion from the board? Do I hear a motion? Approve, let's see. This is one plan amendment, I'm sorry, this is one code change, so we just need one motion. The 7-8, is there a motion?

I motion to approve it.

There's a motion, there's a second? I second the motion. There's a motion, there's a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Let the record show, approve unanimously, 5-0. Thank you very much, good luck. I guess you'll be seeing this again for the condition use. Okay, do we know what our schedule is coming?

I would hope to have it before you in the next couple of months, maybe three months, because I think the development agreement has to come here too, correct? No. And I think we'd probably do them together. So in the next two to three months.

You see the development agreement? No, it doesn't have to come here, sorry. Oh, it doesn't? No, we don't.

Okay, so yeah, I'd say within the next two months.

They go together when you go before council.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you. Next item, 7B, regarding sign and LED. Staff, you have the floor.

All right, my name is Zane Kermis. I'm the planning intern here at Hallandale Beach. Our presentation's on a change to the LED signs and the sign code. It's going to be an amendment to sections 32-607 and 610 regarding LED signs. So on May 20th, Mayor Joy, she had made a motion to have staff look into our LED signage allowances throughout the city where they're currently allowed, where they aren't. THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWED CURRENTLY IN VERY LARGE SHOPPING CENTERS AND SPECIFICALLY SHE WANTED US TO LOOK INTO MAKING THAT POSSIBLE FOR USE ON SMALLER SINGLE USE PARCELS ALONG HOLLANDALE BEACH BOULEVARD AND FEDERAL HIGHWAY. SO UNDER THE CURRENT CODE, LIKE I SAID, IT'S ONLY LARGE SHOPPING CENTERS ALONG FEDERAL AND HOLLANDALE BEACH BOULEVARD. Another thing that this amendment would change is that the enforcement authority is currently named the city manager, and that's inconsistent with the rest of the code, which typically names the authority as the director. There's also language in there about variances for signs that is obsolete because of section 32-965 variances. So yeah, staff determined that AMENDMENTS WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PERMIT LED TECHNOLOGY ON SOME SMALLER PROPERTIES AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION AND ALSO DECIDED THAT WE SHOULD CLEAN UP SOME OF THE LANGUAGE HERE FOR CLARITY. SO THE MORE SPECIFIC RITERIA CURRENTLY IS THAT A SHOPPING CENTER HAS TO BE AT LEAST THREE ACRES LARGE, HAS TO HAVE 500 FEET OF LINEAR FRONTAGE ON HOLLANDOKE BEACH BLVD OR FEDERAL. And the current code also, like I said, references the city manager as the administrative and enforcing authority to sign code. And something important to note is it's functionally the same as naming the director, because the director does include the city manager and those appointed by them, but it's just inconsistent language-wise. So importantly, nothing's changing in terms of level of review. And finally, there's the outdated criteria regarding variance subsection, which is referring to situations where a property has had a taking or something like that for public utility or anything by a public body. And that is resolved by 32-965, so it's just unnecessary and confusing, potentially. All right, so the most important thing here is that what staff did was we looked at the code regarding LED sign usage and we mirrored the same language currently used to permit large shopping centers to do it. And we just tighten that criteria for single use properties or loosen that criteria. So like I said, it's three acres currently for shopping centers. It would be reduced down to one acre for a single use property, a commercial property. AND RATHER THAN 500 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG ONE OF THOSE ROADS, IT WOULD ONLY NEED 100 FEET. AND WOULD STILL BE, OF COURSE, SEEM TO BE ALONG BEACH BELOWARD OR FEDERAL HIGHWAY. HERE'S A MAP. SO ALL THOSE BIG RED PARCELS, ALL OF THOSE CURRENTLY UNDER THE EXISTING CODE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET A FREESTANDING LED SIGN. AND ALL THOSE GREEN ONES CURRENTLY CANNOT AND WOULD BE ABLE TO IF THIS WAS PASSED. AND THEN AS FOR JUST THE LANGUAGE PARTS, LIKE I SAID, IT WILL REPLACE CITY MANAGER WITH DIRECTOR JUST TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE CODE. AND AGAIN, IT DOES NOT CHANGE AUTHORITY, DOES NOT CHANGE THE LEVEL OF REVIEW. AND THEN FINALLY, IT REMOVES SOME OF THE OBSOLETE LANGUAGE FROM 610. and would of course have any inquiries that would have affected are now gonna be reviewed under the standards at 4th and 965. And staff recommends planning zoning board forward a recommendation of approval to the city commission.

Can you go back to the map?

Yes. Do you have any questions about what each property is?

That's what I'm looking at. Go ahead.

All right. Two, one, you got that, it says along Hallandale Beach Boulevard or Federal, but, oh, okay, I see, it's on, that is on Federal Highway.

Yeah, that's the McDonald's there that's on Federal. Oh, okay. That weird L-shaped one.

That is one acre. Okay.

Yeah, just barely, that one's one acre.

Wow. My other question is, as we're trying to get Pembroke Road developed, is there a reason not to extend this to Pembroke Road also?

That wasn't brought up as a consideration amongst staff. Would you like to comment on that, Stephen? Did you consider that?

No, that's not something that we looked into, but I don't know if there are properties that large.

We can, if the board wants to make that recommendation, we can bring that to commission.

Yeah, I was thinking, I mean, I was thinking about it. I mean, maybe that the dollar general or family dollar, whatever it is, that probably would be big enough.

I would say it's also a major corridor. So if the board wants to make that recommendation, we would, we would, we can update this map with that information.

Yeah, I would. Is that something we would do after we take care of this or do we now?

Staff doesn't have an objection to the recommendation. I mean, you can either do it via motion or... Right.

You can make a motion on it as written with the recommendation that staff consider adding properties along Pembroke Road.

And what about Biscayne? I mean, it shouldn't, Biscayne being.

Biscayne is Federal Highway. Yeah, it's included. Oh, it's included.

Yeah. No, but not, it's not including north of.

It doesn't have one acre.

Yeah, just none of those properties. It's just because that's Gulfstream and then the beach gate parcels.

So there's two separate conditions. If you are a shopping center with multiple tenants, you have to be three acres. If you are a single-use commercial property, which is what the amendment is proposing, you have to be one acre. So this map shows there's no properties north of Biscayne that meet that criteria. Got it. Got it. Which we can double check to verify because it is kind of hard to believe, but I'm pretty sure that the GIS is accurate. Yes.

Okay, then if it's more than one unit, then it has to be three acres. Correct. It's one acre only if it's single use. Correct.

Don't the Atlantics have more than three acres? I'm sorry? The Atlantic shopping centers, don't they have more than three acres?

No. No. I think they're about one and a half or close to two separately, but no, none of them are three.

Can I ask, what is the rationale for why, if it's a single, like the family general, whatever that is, that's okay, but if they had three people or two different stores there would not be okay. What is the...

So the LED signs, they can be problematic if you have a cluster of them going at every shopping center with changing messages. So this is a way to kind of limit their use. And if you allow it for businesses that have multiple units, there's a chance that you may have competing businesses within the same property wanting the signs as well. So the way the code is written now, it's for the shopping center, right? So the reason we limited it to single-use tenants is because there's only one tenant on the property. And if the property is an acre or larger, it kind of guarantees a little bit of separation, and it limits who's eligible to use the technology.

Two quick questions. Sure. On your map, the red areas that are currently in compliance, do they all have LED lighting right now? No.

No. I'm not sure which ones do. Gulfstream for sure. Gulfstream for sure does. And I want to say Walmart does as well.

I believe Gulfstream on both major. That's it.

Okay.

Just Gulfstream. Only Gulfstream, yeah.

Are any of the green areas that are affected by this or that would have the potential to then put up a sign, are any of them looking for it?

I would say yes, because at the meeting where this was discussed by the commission, a specific business was mentioned. Okay. Yes.

Thank you. Very good presentation, by the way. Thank you. Thank you.

A single use on one of the green parcels, let's say, becomes two uses. What happens?

Are you saying in the case that an LED sign has already been constructed?

Yes. And five years from now, the business goes away and two different businesses come in. Right.

I believe it would then become... It would be non-conforming. And as part of the separation, they would have to remove that sign.

So we fall in the non-conforming section?

But they would have to remove the sign because they're conforming until they split the unit.

non-conforming section of the code gives a time frame when they have to remedy the non-conforming?

No, so what I'm saying is if If a business, if a property comes in to separate into two units that already has an LED sign, it would be part of the zoning reviewer's job to make that, like that is something that would have to be removed. The property would need to remain conforming.

Well, that's a lot of burden on the zoning reviewer to know that there is a zoning. The stipend, they may not, they may just come for a business license and one tenant becomes two and say, oops. And then no one told me that the LED light suddenly becomes illegal. So I'm concerned. And tenants come and go. You can't make an assumption that a single tenant is going to be there forever. And the one doing the BTR just doesn't necessarily think.

No, it wouldn't be at the BTR. You would need a building permit to split a unit. That would be part of the building permit.

Well, when they get the permit, they're just not thinking about the site.

Well, they would need to.

I think also...

They would need to think about the site. I mean, there's no other way around it.

Okay, I love that. There may be a few chances for that to be caught. I mean, I'm assuming the new business would probably want a new sign or to do something on the freestanding sign.

Yes, but they would need to think about the site.

Right.

Okay. That answers my question is how many LED, and the answer is only one.

There's multiple signs, but it's one property. Because Gulfstream has three or two? Two signs. Three. Two on Federal, one on Hollandale Beach Boulevard.

Is there any applicant for this request?

No, this is a commission-sponsored item.

Okay, did it open the public hearing yet? I open the public hearing. Any comments from the public?

No public speakers.

Seeing none, I close the public hearing. Back to the board. I am not in favor of LEDs at all. I think it's a clutter and just more conservative respecting the signs. So I just want to see that for the record. Do I hear a motion from the board or is there any discussion?

Move to approve the... or the ordinance with adding the proposal that Pembroke Road be added to the permitted area. Do you get that?

Yes, is it, and just a point of clarification, does the board want staff to add it in no matter what, or do you want staff to explore and make the determination and recommendation to commission?

I agree to the second one.

Okay, all right. I appreciate the clarification, thank you. Second as amended.

Okay, there's a motion with an amended recommendation. Is there a second? I second the motion. There's a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All in favor say nay. One nay. Motion approved, 4-1. You said yes? Yes. Okay, 4-1. Thank you very much. Next item. Remarks from the chair? I have no remarks. Do we expect a meeting next month? Okay.

When?

The second Tuesday of the month.

11th? August 11th.

I thought I heard a motion to cancel, did I not?

Gideon's report, we already got copies of that. Seeing none, meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much, staff, good job.

Half an hour.