Planning and Development Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Roll call, please.

Odalis Delgado.

Here.

Christine Corbo.

Here.

Joseph Stadlin. Richard Blattner.

Here.

Steven Morales. Here. Tara Jafarmadar.

Present.

Mena Morgan. Bob Glickman.

Here.

For transparency, Chair Joseph Sadlin has communicated that he will not be in today and that your acting chair as well as Mena also has notified that he will be absent.

Excellent. Gina Dennis.

Thank you.

Is now joining us.

Want to put that on mute in a second? Yeah. Okay. Board members, have you reviewed the previous meeting minutes?

Motion to approve.

Do I hear a second? Okay. Meeting minutes approved.

I'm sorry. Can you repeat the motion, please? Who made the motion?

Yeah. Staff addition, deletions, withdrawals, and continuances? Yeah.

I apologize. Andrea Winget, Director of Development Services, helping out our Chief Planner, Cameron Palmer, who will be here in just a minute. What was your question?

Additions, deletions, withdrawals, or continuances?

There are none at this time. Thank you, Board Chair.

City Attorney, any announcements?

YES, JUST THE REGULAR PROCEDURAL ANNOUNCEMENTS. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS FAROSHA ANDASHEVA. I AM THE SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SERVING IN MY CAPACITY AS ADVISORY ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD. NOW, MR. INTERIM CHAIR, BEFORE THIS BOARD TAKES UP THE QUASAR DUDICIAL ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA, I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE A FEW PROCEDURAL MATTERS ON THE RECORD. Certain matters before this board must be treated as quasi-judicial, meaning the board acts like a judge or jury, applying existing rules to a specific set of facts. In that role, the board's decision must be supported by competent, substantial evidence presented at the hearing. Public sentiment alone is not competent, substantial evidence. The City of Hollywood permits the parties and the public to waive the quasi-judicial formalities. Waiver requires the agreement of staff, the applicant, any member of the public present who wishes to be heard, and any party intervener if applicable. Now, Mr. Chair, at the start of each item, I would ask you to inquire whether staff, the applicant, or any member of the public objects to waiving the quasi-judicial formalities for the item that is scheduled to be heard. If the quasi-judicial formalities will not be waived, The chair will preside over the board. As board attorney, I will rule on evidentiary and procedural objections and advise the board on applicable law and necessary findings. The hearing will be informal but conducted with decorum. If quasi-judicial formalities are not waived, I will also be asking the board members to disclose any ex parte party communications and also swear in anyone who will be testifying on the item. And that concludes my announcements for today. Thank you.

Andrea, I know we usually do old business, new business. Do you want to do that first? Kind of wait for Parma a little bit or just continue?

I think we usually do that at the end. Do you move that?

I'm asking you if you want to wait.

No, I think waiting would be fine. It's currently at the end of the agenda.

Okay, so I think we could start with our first item. The first item file number is 26V35. It's okay. Are there any comment cards? Actually, sorry, does staff waive quasi-judicial?

Yes, staff waives.

Are there any comment cards?

There are four comment cards. We have two virtual and two in person.

With these comment cards, I'm going to read the name out. The person can come forward and can you confirm, state your name, address, and tell us if you waive quasi-judicial. Kayla Ferguson?

Here, Kyla Ferguson.

Okay. Do you state your name, address? Yeah. Okay. Okay. She waves. All right. Leone Mompier.

It doesn't appear that she's online. Okay. She hasn't joined.

Okay. Waleska. Please state your name, address, and if you wave.

Leonie . OK.

Sorry, one second. Please state your name, address, and if you waive quasi-judicial.

Leonie 301 South 57th Avenue, Hollywood, Florida 33023.

Do you waive quasi-judicial?

I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with that term. What does that mean exactly?

Attorney?

No, I don't

Sorry, my mic was off. So quasi-judicial means that if you accept to proceed as quasi-judicial, the board will be acting as a judge rather than a policymaker. And we will be applying existing rules to specific properties based on the evidence presented here. Waving those formalities means that we set aside the courtroom-style mechanics, such as the swearing in, the cross-examination, and so on. And we proceed more informally.

Okay, continue.

So, okay, all right. We take that as a yes? Yeah. Yeah. Correct. Thank you. All right, excellent, okay. Waleska, please. Sorry, I think you need to turn on the mic and, yeah.

Waleska Quindle, 307 South 56 Terrace, Hollywood, Florida 33023. And I wave.

Thank you. Diane Pietarelli.

Good evening. Diana Pitarelli, 201 Van Buren Street, Hollywood, Florida. And I waive quasi-judicial. Thank you.

Thank you. Staff, when are you ready?

Yeah, that was all the cards. Oh, the applicant.

Oh, sorry. Thank you. Yeah, does the applicant waive? Sorry. Or is the applicant here?

Yeah, thank you. Thank you.

Oh, yeah. Please come up, state your name and address.

Hello.

My name is Trevor Munilal, 315 South 56 Terrace, Hollywood, Florida. Do you waive quasi-judicial? I do waive quasi-judicial. OK, thank you.

Good evening, board, board chair, and members of the public. My name is Adrian Montoya, and I am with the Division of Planning and Urban Design. So the file... Can you click the screen? Thank you. So the file before you is 26-V-35. The location is 315 South 56th Terrace. The applicant is Trevor Munilal. And the request is for a variance to seek relief from section 4.1c of the zoning and land development regulations to reduce the combined side yard setback in a single family district for the subject property. So the property itself is located in West Hollywood, and it is situated south of Hollywood Boulevard and east of State Road 7. Here is an aerial of the property. As you can see, it is within the context of a single family neighborhood. And with regards to land use and zoning, the property has a land use designation of low residential and is zoned single family. The site itself is approximately 7,500 square feet. And again, based on the sea of yellow that you can see on your screen, it is within a single family zoning district. And with regards to the variance itself, the applicant wants to extend along a nonconforming setback along the southern edge of the main structure and is requesting a reduction of 3 feet and 9 inches. So the applicant is required to provide a combined yard setback of 18 feet 9 inches based on the lot width. with no side being less than seven and a half feet. They are requesting a reduction of three feet, nine inches, which would give them a new combined side yard setback of 15 feet while they will still maintain the minimum requirement that is seven and a half. And the existing setback is represented by the green line on your screen. And the applicant is proposing the setback represented in red. which means that this area highlighted in yellow would be the 3 feet 9 inches that would be reduced, which is up for consideration for this board. The applicant did pursue administrative review of their request pursuant to section 5.4 of the zoning and land development regulations, which does allow the city to administratively approve a variance to request if it does not exceed 25% of the required setback and it does not exceed five feet, which the request is consistent with. So notices were issued on May 8th, 2026, to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. And they were given a 10-day protest window. And after those notices were mailed, the city did receive letters of protest, which is attachment C in the package. And the request is no longer eligible for administrative approval. So it is before the Planning and Development Board tonight for consideration. So when we were reviewing the administrative request, staff did find that the variance is consistent with the criteria set forth in the zoning and land development regulations. And further, we did find that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan and the citywide master plan. And staff does recommend approval. So thank you for your time. And I am available for questions.

Thank you. Does board have any questions? Does the applicant have a presentation? I'm open to discussion. Thank you. Thank you.

I'd like to ask the applicant a question, actually.

Applicant, please rise.

Yes, I'm open to questions.

Yes, good evening. Over here to your left.

Oh. How you doing?

Good. How are you?

All right.

In reading some of the comments from some of your neighbors, are you currently living at this property, or is it being rented out?

Right now, nobody's living in it, sir.

Was it being rented out?

It was being rented out for about two years and decided that I'm going to be moving in it. And I have my sister and her fiance that are health care professionals that are looking to move in it and move into the community and wanting to use this property as something that they can live in and essentially have a I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

Due to different things going on, I decided to just have a rental period for a couple of years.

OK, thank you.

Any other comments?

I had a question.

Sure.

So whoever is going to live there needs the additional space? Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, so what we're planning to do is extend the back side of the property. It's about two feet. And I just wanted to have a little bit of a larger living area. It's going to be flush with the existing back side of the building. So right now, it's about three feet short. So that's why we're having to apply for the variance with it.

Yeah, I just don't know how this is not self-imposed, right? I mean, it's livable now, right?

It is livable now, but what we're proposing is to make it a bit of a larger living area and have something for them that's going to be what they can use for the future. Okay, thank you.

Thanks. I guess I'll have people from the public, if they want to come and speak. Diana, you want to go first?

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Diana Pittarelli, I'm a realtor in Hollywood. 12 years ago, I sold a client a home in this beautiful area of Lawn Acres. I don't know how many of you see Lawn Acres on a regular basis, but it's a great, charming, kind of older style section. The homes are all older style, and they're really just wonderful. And my client, who will be speaking later, was very lucky to be able to afford to buy a home in Lawn Acres. She's been there. for 12 years and very happy there. She called me when she saw a notice. Notices are important. We all know that. This is to inform the people what's going to happen or what could happen. And she got together with some other people. And she felt very, she's actually living right next door to this property. And I told her, look, this is why we have what we have. We have boards that discuss it and figure it out for you. So I think you should go ahead and make your feelings known. So that's what she did. Look, I don't think anybody has a problem about enlarging their home. I think it's the side setbacks. I think this is the problem. And a lot of times, you'll get variances for side setbacks. I've sat on your board. I sat on a historic preservation. And it goes smoothly. Nobody seems to, it doesn't. affect anybody or doesn't. But it seems to affect these people here. Now, I don't know if it's the older style houses. I don't know the reason exactly that the neighbors are not happy about it, but they seem not to be happy about it. So I'm just saying to please, let's try to figure this out so that everybody can be happy. If they want to finally move in and live there, I understand, and I understand enlarging, but maybe we can do it without these side setbacks, variances. So that's why I'm here, and I thank you for your time, and I know you all have the best judgments for letting this issue be heard. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Waleska?

Good evening once again. As I previously introduced myself, my name is Waleska Okwendo. I'm the owner for the past 12 years, the property adjacent to Mr. Trevor's property. I'm a teacher, and I was blessed to find this property, as Diana said, 12 years ago. I have concerns along with my neighbors that wrote letters. Concerns begin with the constant movement that we see of different people in the house. And by all means, I have nothing against our neighbors making their property beautiful, enlarging their property. It brings quality to our neighborhoods, right? It brings property, raise value to our neighborhoods. But when we see an influx of different people coming in at different times, as of yesterday, there was a young lady there with a Pomeranian. I've met different people throughout the various years as the neighbor that I have there. I'm also concerned because as one neighbor expressed to me after work, there was even police activity at that property. So I support my neighbors improving their home, expanding, beautifying. They're important. when they're completed within the zoning and land regulations established by the city of Hollywood. My concern is not with the homeowner making improvements, like I said before, but rather with reducing the required setback standards that help preserve the character and spacing of the neighborhood, which is what attracts us to Lawn Acres and what attracted us 12 years ago to purchase in Lawn Acres. I have several concerns regarding the variance, the drainage and runoff concerns associated with expanded building footprint, possible impact of existing septic systems and drain fields that we all share or we have in our property in our neighborhood. I'm concerned about the potential construction impacts involving the shared side yard and existing fence line. Our property is already close, close proximity. Reducing the space even further would only increase crowding and reduce privacy due to the closer proximity of the structure and proposed side viewing windows. In addition, I'm concerned that the reduced spacing will affect the perception of my own property when it's time, whenever it is in the future, to sell. I respectfully ask that the city carefully consider the purpose of the existing setback requirements and the long-term impact that approving variances of this nature may have on the characters of La Negra neighborhood. and surrounding properties. And again, I have nothing against my neighbor's building, just a long stay within.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Virtually, Leone?

Who's the first person, virtually?

Yes. Actually, no, it's the second. Yeah, number two.

Can you state the name, please?

Leone .

Yes, I'm here. What is the question?

You provided a comment card. You wanted to discuss your opinion on this file, on this project.

Pretty much I feel the same as the person that spoke before. The construction and like you said, it's close proximity. It's going to be a lot of in and out and trucks. And I just don't feel comfortable with all the noise. I do work overnight. So I'm not interested in that.

OK. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Kayla Ferguson.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Oh, OK. Yeah. I'm respectively opposing the request regarding the setback variance. I have concerns regarding increased lot overcrowding, reduced light and airflow between the homes, potential drainage, and stormwater runoff issues. And also it may create future setbacks reductions within the neighborhood. Also reducing the required setback for a sunroom so close to the property line raises concerns about privacy impact including increased visibility into the neighboring yards and living spaces as well as long-term effects on the neighborhood character and spacing standards established in its zoning code. So I agree with what everyone is saying. You know and also I had also respectfully request that the city apply the zoning regulations consistently and fairly among all property owners. So again it's nothing in particular regarding this neighbor that no one have an issue with. It's just that certain regulations were put in place and I don't see what's the necessity as far as the sunroof is concerned. to affect our neighborhood in this way. That's it. Thank you.

OK. Thank you very much. I'll now close the public portion of the meeting. Does the board have any discussion, comments?

This is a question for staff. Is that appropriate now? Just I'm curious. Looking at one of the attachments, the value of this property increased $100,000 in one year. That's amazing. Is there anything that we need to know about what's going on in that neighborhood?

I can speak to the merits of the variance request, but the property values, I do not have data on.

Okay, because it went from $383,000 to $480,000 in one year. Amazing.

Noted. Unfortunately, values and market conditions are not under the purview of our zoning review.

I had a question. So administratively, you could have approved this?

That is correct.

And there's a policy that if you get protest letters, then you can't?

That's how it's written in the code that is no longer eligible for administrative approval. And so they come to the board for the approval.

And the variance, basically, they still have about, what, 9, 10 feet in between?

The side yard setbacks on each side will be 7 and 1 half, and the combined will be 15.

Any other questions or comments?

Again, my question is going to, go to the renting the property and the claiming homestead exemption. I find that this is an impossible situation here in the city. And I would like city staff to address this, number one. we heard that they have a lot of in and out, and it seems like they may not be going to plan on living there. So I would be concerned that we're going to approve something for a rental and not for a homesteaded property where people are going to live. And I think this is what is upsetting the neighbors, and I would tend to agree with them.

Any other comments?

Well, can either of the city or state attorney address this issue with claiming homestead and renting the property, and if they're able to put this matter forth under false pretenses?

One moment. I'm sorry. So those are valid concerns. As far as it being a rental property, it does not fall within a specific district or zoning regulations that prohibit it from being a rental property. So that is not applicable in this case. But as far as the homestead exemption, I would say, one, this isn't within the purview of the board whether or not it's part of the homestead exemption or qualifies. But we can look to another department or the county to determine whether or not it qualifies for the homestead exemption. So those are two things that are not in the purview of the board. And we can check to see if there's some reason that it doesn't qualify for homestead, but that is not directly related to their request today.

Well, I think related to the request has to do with Perhaps the applicant is not being truthful in his application. I'm not saying they are or they aren't, but it's a possibility. And what do we know? That's it. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to ask staff to elaborate on how this meets the criteria for a variance.

So for the administrative variance, it allows you to deviate from your required setback. If it does not, let's see. If it does not exceed 25% of the required setbacks, which is calculated like four and a half feet, and then also it does not exceed five feet in total. So it's within the threshold for administrative review, which is what they pursued, and then the letters of protest have brought the item before you guys tonight.

But how does it meet the criteria for variance aside from administrative approval?

I may be able to provide some clarity on this. So under Section 5.4, administrative decisions, the criteria for an administrative variance is outlined by which the applicant has met. When staff made the administrative decision to approve it, then the notice went out and the protests were provided. The recommendation of staff does not change from the administrative variance to the regulatory variance because the thinking is, If it would qualify for administrative approval and staff actively approve the file, then when it comes before the board now, it's up to the board to clear the criteria of the variance, because staff's analysis lies on the administrative criteria. Nonetheless, we have provided an analysis of that criteria, of the regulatory criteria, in the backup of the report. And staff finds that the condition is not deleterious or malicious in nature and has recommended it come before the board for determination.

Okay, thank you. Any other comments or questions?

So I find that this variance request is actually self-imposed, and if there's no other discussion, I would make a motion to deny this request. Do you want to speak?

I'll second it.

Okay, motion made and second. Is the motion to favor or...

It's open for discussion of the motion.

OK. It's open for discussion? OK.

Yes, of the motion that was just made, put on the floor.

So my motion is to deny this request for a variance. I believe it's self-imposed. I think it changes the neighborhood and the neighbors, and they're against this. So that's it.

All right. Chair, can I request that we do a roll call vote? Yeah.

Let's do roll call.

OK. Sorry, I had one question. Can, do we have a slide with the variance consistencies that we, the regulatory? Like the slide you had. Yeah, with all the, the one that said consistent.

Can you click the screen please? Thank you.

There it is, yeah.

Okay. I know generally we don't look at criteria D. I mean, it's vague because self-imposed could be many things. How did you all come to that conclusion?

The idea is since that they qualified for the administrative review, that the code already sort of understands that these types of deviations are going to be pursued by the public, from everyone in the public. So they're just activating that part of the zoning code.

I see.

Okay.

Thank you.

We can continue with the count.

Christine Corbo. Do you approve or deny?

Deny.

Odalis Delgado.

So we're voting on the motion to deny, right? Yes.

Deny.

Voting on the no to the deny. Right?

So that means that you would like to approve.

Right, but that's not the motion on the floor.

Richard Blattner.

Against the denial. Into the mic, please.

I'm sorry. Can you please speak into the mic?

Against the denial.

My apologies, Chair. Just quickly, I would like to start the vote over and just clarify that if you're voting yes on the motion that's on the floor, that means you are voting yes, this motion should go, this motion should be, or this project, excuse me, should be denied. So if you want it to be denied, then you'll say yes. If you don't want it to be denied, you'll say no.

So the motion is a motion to deny. If you say yes, you are in favor of denying the project.

I said no. Can we start over with the records, please?

Yes, we're going to start over. Christine Corbo.

Yes, deny.

Odalis Delgado. No. Richard Blattner.

No.

Steven Morales.

I think my vote will come last.

Tara Jafarmadar.

No.

Bob Glickman.

Yes.

Steven Morales. Yes. So we have three yes and three no.

So based on those votes, Madam Clerk, you would say this motion is...

It's denied.

It's denied, yeah. It's denied.

I'll speak with the board attorney.

I want to make sure the record's .

I don't think it's happened before.

Yeah. Yeah. Full story of . Bye, Dallas. WHO ARE WE MISSING BESIDE JOST?

MEGA. MORGAN. MENA MORGAN.

I THINK THEY'RE EXTENDING THE APPLICANT.

That's what I heard today. Ask him. We did get another architect, though. We did get another architect.

This is where I wear a jacket.

I had it on my chair. I left it on the chair as I was walking.

I have a question. We're going to do the voting system one more time. OK. Just to make sure that we're clear because it seems like there might have been some confusion. So when we take the roll call, we're going to vote. The motion is to deny. Yes. So you're just going to say yes or no. Yes meaning to deny it. No meaning that you're in favor. OK. Roll call once again. The motion is to deny. So we're going to do the roll call over.

OK.

Christine Corbo.

Yes. Odalis Delgado.

No.

Richard Blattner.

No.

Tara Jafarmadar.

No.

Bob Glickman. Yes. Steven Morales. Yes.

So that makes this a tie.

And when it's a tie, that means no action can go forward.

So if someone would like to make another motion, We can vote again. But if no one wants to make a motion, then the tie means it did not prevail. So that tie was .

OK. Any other comment? Yeah.

Question. Does this move forward, or it's denied, denied, it's dead here? Does it get appealed to the commission?

Any decision can be appealed. It just depends on the type of matter that it is. So certain matters go to the commission, and others, they may go to circuit court. So it just depends.

So this continues to commission, basically.

I know the attorneys are just talking through Robert's rules and what happens next. So basically there was a tie vote, so no action was taken. This does not proceed to commission automatically. The board is here to make a decision on it. I don't know if the board wants to discuss the project again, see if there's another motion that somebody wants to make.

Is there another motion or... We're still out of time.

Can I ask another question?

Go ahead.

My question is for Cameron. In this area, is there precedence for using this administrative process for the type of variances?

Regarding the data for this area, I don't have it on hand, but we have used administrative variances to reduce setbacks in a manner that's less than five feet. It's also important to note that the code does provide provision for extension of buildings with non-conforming setbacks along the existing building line. The code allows for those to be done through the administrative variance process. So the code does contemplate situations where one would want to extend their building along a legally non-conforming setback line, and that the code anticipates that it's not a deleterious condition and therefore directs it into the administrative variance stream, understanding that it's less than 25 feet. So there are two mechanisms in the code that recognize this condition.

It was only the public comment that set this off, right? Correct. Yes, sir.

I have a question. Thank you, Cameron, for that. You raised a point. If the applicant came back with a site plan referencing the improvements that he wanted to make, would that make a difference in our decision?

It potentially could to the board. The board can always vote to continue the item if you wanted to give the applicant the opportunity to look at or present other facts that they may be able to find amenable.

That's a question to our fellow board members. Would any other data basically influence the vote?

I think since the comments from the neighbors reflect our concerns about the effect of an expansion, I'd like to know what does it look like? Maybe if I saw what it looked like and what is left after you make the changes based on your request, it would change my mind. I'd like to condition our denial, because that's what it is. This is the denial. It's 3-3 vote. If they come back with a site plan, bring it back with it.

All right. Staff, since we're at an impasse, the petitioner would like to talk again. Are we allowed to bring him?

So while you're waiting for him. If the board is comfortable with asking the applicant some questions, he can come back up and answer your questions if you're in that. Okay.

Would the board like to come up again? Okay.

I just want to say one thing. We've had tie votes before, and then whichever, and the matters were denied. I don't know why after 45 minutes we're still discussing this.

It's just- The attorneys want to make sure that how we've handled the items in the past and in the present moving forward, is how we should be handling them. So they are further discussing the Roberts rules and what should occur when there's a tie vote. I think in the meantime, the board chair asked the board if there was questions of the applicant.

Well, I would just say to you, about two months ago, a matter came up where the vote was tied and the matter was denied, and then they went to the city commission with it.

That one went to the city commission because the applicant chose to appeal it.

That's correct. Or it was called for review. I'm sorry. I want to correct the record. I don't understand why the attorneys right now are having this dilemma when we just did this a couple of months ago. That's the only thing I'm asking.

Give us one second. Staff attorney?

My apologies. I missed a couple parts of the conversation. I just wanted to make sure we clarified that in order for you to bring the applicant up, you would have to agree and vote to open it for discussion, because you've already voted.

So someone would have to make a motion to open the discussion. Would the board like to make a motion to open the discussion again so that the petitioner can come up again?

I make a motion to open discussion.

Is there a second? No second. So motion denied. OK.

It's final. It's a tie, just to clarify. And that means it did not prevail.

OK. All right. Thank you. Moving on, next file number is 23DPV34. Staff, if you'd like to present your case. Minimize it.

It has to be. It's the staff one, 23, 34.

Actually, sorry, one second. So we need to waive quasi-judicial, the staff waive? Staff waives. OK. Does the applicant waive?

Is it on? Yes. Applicant waves. State your name and address. Hi. My name is Ari Sklar with the firm of Sklar Architecture at 2310 Hollywood Boulevard. We're here for the applicant in presenting this project of seven townhouses. Do you wave quasi-judicial? Yes. All right.

Excellent. Are there any comment cards for this?

No comment cards.

OK. Thank you. Now you may proceed, Steph. Thank you.

Sorry about that. Good evening, Chair. Good evening, board members, members of the public, and staff, as well as those joining us virtually. My name is Umar Javid. I'm a planner three with the city's planning division. Before you is file 23, DP 34. The address is 2351 Thomas Street. The applicant is Ari Schuyler of Schuyler Architecture, and they are requesting a design and site plan application for a three-story, seven-unit residential townhouse development of approximately 19,000 square feet in the DH1 zoning district within the city's regional activity center. The lands are located in the central north portion of the city, generally south of Sheridan Street and east of the Interstate 95. Displayed here before you is the current viewpoint and existing context of the site. Right now the site is presently vacant. There was a previous demolition that occurred to accommodate the proposed development. The property is located within the Regional Activity Centre, as previously discussed. It's zoned Dixie Highway Low Intensity Multifamily Zoning District. In terms of the size, it is approximately 0.39 acres. Surrounding properties, the property itself, it's surrounded by a number of different uses and a number of different properties. To the immediate west is a single-family home at 2401 Thomas Street. To the south is a commercial warehouse use and property at 2342 46 Thomas Street. We have Boxfield to the north at 2310 North 23rd Avenue. There's also immediately to the east light industrial uses that exist at 2342, 2346 Thomas Street. Displayed here is the conceptual site plan for the proposed development. The applicant is proposing a project that is compliant with all standards stipulated in the city's zoning and land development regulations. No variances are being requested for this project. In terms of the proposal, the applicant is proposing a total of seven three-story townhomes These townhomes are meeting the setback requirements all in all the yards There's a total of 16 parking spaces that are being provided it exceeds the minimum parking requirements They also exceed the minimum open space requirements in this zone And this brings a total GFA for the project just under 20,000 square feet Staff also note that the applicant has fulfilled all public outreach requirements in accordance with the city's zoning and land development regulations Displayed here are conceptual renderings of the proposed development. In terms of the design, they've worked very closely with staff to achieve one that is promoted in the regional activity center. They're providing contemporary massing and articulation. You know, the building uses varied volumes, vertical tower elements, projecting balconies. They're also providing a number of varying materials. It combines warm wood tone panels, white stucco, dark accent walls. They're also providing enhanced glazing and balcony treatments along the townhomes. And they've also incorporated a defined entry inside access. As you can see, the central driveway entry feature, you know, frame vehicular access that creates a clear sense of arrival and distinction between the two sections of the buildings. Summary of findings, the city staff have concluded that the proposed request is consistent with the criteria set forth in the city's zoning and land development regulations, the city's comprehensive plan, as well as the city-wide master plan. As such, staff recommend approval of the design and for the site plan approval if design is granted. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation.

Does the applicant have a presentation?

Can I ask a question of staff before they move on?

Go ahead. One second.

Hi. Their last public outreach was two or three years ago. Hasn't that changed in the last several years? And have they met the new outreach requirements?

So this application, or the new requirements actually that you're referring to, those were passed on August 16th of 2026. This application came forward, or sorry, 2025, jumping a little ahead. This application came prior to that date. It would be subject to the requirements that were in force and effect at the time of the application. If you were to actually put forward this application in front of the new regulations today, it actually would qualify for administrative approval. Obviously, since they predate those requirements, they are subject to the requirements at the time, which would be them coming before the Planning and Development Board. Any other questions for staff?

You're flexing some residential units for this, or flexing two residential? These are flexed.

No flex units. This is going through our regional activity center tally.

Oh, okay. I thought I read something.

Any other questions?

For clarity, what you're referring to is the city commission approved the use of flexibility units within the regional activity center. Therefore, all applications that have been coming through the regional activity center after the adoption of that resolution has been drawing down on the flexibility units. So we include that language in all our reports. just to keep everyone abreast, ourselves, yourselves, the public, that the units that are being sought after in this application are being done through the flexibility units that were assigned by City Commission to the Regional Activity Center.

Okay. Any other comments? Any questions? Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant, please.

You can use that. Just push that. It's mostly just on the screen. If you want to direct... OK, thank you.

Hi, everybody. So as I mentioned before, my name is Ari Sklar with the firm of Sklar Architecture. We're here representing the client for this exciting new townhouse project. This is an area in transition. As you can tell, there's residential to the west. We're actually the first project in this new DH-1 district when the RAC was converted in this area. We're the first one developing something for the client. It's nice that it's the corner. So we're really transitioning from residential to a higher intensity of residential, single family to higher intensity residential. But really, everything there is industrial. And so the client is willing to take the chance to start improving the area, which is great. And we were very excited to have a park right across the street, Boggs Park. So it's great for the townhouses to be able to have access and views. And it's like an extra amenity for the project. So it's really nice. So we looked and tried to design a project that would function and transition nicely. And so we created these townhouses. We have parking in the center, so it's hidden, pedestrian access from all streets. And we could have had eight townhouses, but we eliminated one in order to have a pool amenity and to allow another townhouse to have the view of the park. So Adina, if you can take this. This is Adina from my office, project designer and architect also. Hello. Next one. That's the survey. And you can see we have a lot of streets around us. We have Thomas Street and 24th. the alley behind us, and then the 24th goes off northwest around the park. So it's not straight, but it curves off, and it makes an interesting intersection in that area. However, go to the next one. It's a unique alley. It's a very unique alley where there's parking for the park as well. So go to the next slide. So we have some little more marketing quality renderings that we are presenting now. So you can see the pool there and the townhouses. Next. A view from 24th, the park behind.

Next.

A view from the corner of Thomas and 24th. Next. And then this is a view how you enter into the parking. Each unit, it's on 24th, each unit has its own two-car garage. So you drive in here and park in the garage, and then come in and out. So it's all hidden away there. Yeah, so this is the site plan. We had to deal with many things, visibility triangles, right of way dedication, access to the park, which we have a walk across. We had a special trash area. along the alley. So a lot of things we had to deal with. Creating sidewalks. One sidewalk is on the right of way. The other sidewalk is within our property. So we even took away property to create a sidewalk to make it more pedestrian friendly. Continue. So since the garage is on the ground floor and we have to be above flood level, we had to make a transition from the garage up to the first level. So there's a small foyer den area there, which is shown in the white area. The hatched area is the garage. Next slide, Adina, please. And then the second level is the living areas, the public living areas. Next. And then the third floor is three bedrooms. And since we had a concrete slab, next. And then we have a roof deck, because it was simple to achieve. And the air conditioning units on the roof. Next slide, please. Next slide. That's just the high roof. And then all the area calculations and information we had to provide to meet, showing that we meet open space areas, the landscape areas, all the minimum and maximum requirements. Next page, Adina. And then this is the streetscape. The street profile is showing us with the other industrial buildings to the east and the residential building to the west. Next slide, please. A lot of details of certain areas, the trash and the fencing. Next slide. More details you have to present for the submittal to the city. Details of EV charging and the pool and all kinds of things. Next slide. Details of products and things we had to use. And then just more detailed drawings of the overall streets. These are elevations where we tried to create a variety of volumes and shapes and work with the scale and make it architecturally interesting and integrated with a lot of different features, overhangs, shading devices. Next slide. And the materials on the right side of the sheet Next slide. So it's the same things you've seen in the renderings, but in black and white, basically, and flat. Those are the garage elevations. If you go back, Adina, go back to. Those are the garage elevations. You see the garage on the bottom where you can go into the garage. Next slide. Section through the units, you can see the garage on the bottom and how we access all the levels. Next slide, please. More sections. You can continue. And then this is another site plan, a photometric study that we had to do, showing that we don't spill any light to the adjacent properties. Next slide. We have landscape drawings and civil drawings, if you'd like to see. But I think Umar did a great presentation. We've been working for a long time with staff. And we're looking forward to getting this project going. And we look forward to your comments. Approval, hopefully. Please let me know if you have any questions.

All right.

Thank you. Thank you.

Does the board have any questions or comments?

I do. I love the project. Thank you. Architecture is really cool in that industrial. It's different for downtown. Thank you. One of the residents suggested that you rethink the name, the 7, because the city branded the 7 as 441. So you don't want to have that thought that you're not in that area.

Sure, sure. We'll bring that up to the client.

And another question was the pool. Was there a way to put a higher fence around the pool? Or was that the only place that you could put the pool?

That was the best place to put the pool that we studied and we discussed and we decided between the client, ourselves, and the staff. In terms of fence, we will put the fence. We have to have a fence because of safety. And I think to the, yeah, on the alley side, actually, the staff engineering asked us to put a wall on the alley side to the industrial project to the industrial building to the east.

Yeah, they were just concerned about walkers by being able to look into the pool area and for more privacy.

Yeah, I think that's the height. We can only go to a certain height, but probably we can have landscaping that will go up afterwards.

Just a suggestion from one of the residents.

Oh, OK. Thank you. That's good.

Any other comments or questions? Mr. Battener?

Thank you. I'm very happy to see a townhouse project. I assume this will be an equity situation.

I'm sorry?

These are townhouses.

Correct.

There will be condominiums?

From what I know now, they're planning to rent them to be rental townhouses with maybe an option to purchase later or see how it goes.

A recent workshop that the city sponsored with the Chamber of Commerce, one of the comments was that we're not, and they were referring to all of South Florida, not building enough family housing. And this really comes close to that if there's an opportunity for people to buy. So I really do like the option you suggested, but we can't impose that. I'm just suggesting that I would support an option for people to be able to purchase the properties.

OK. That's something we can discuss. with the client, and they can hear your comments. So we'll pass that along. Any other questions or comments?

Just one. This is really a nice project. You really changed it up a little bit. It's different than most others. Have you made any changes in the last two or three years since you had the public outreach? Was there any changes to this project?

It's basically the same. A few small tweaks with how to improve the trash area, working with engineering. I think little details of where the water meters, how the water meters, and how the utilities work. But that's the main thing that I recall.

Thank you. It's very nice, though. Thank you. Any other questions?

So actually, playing off of that question, I did see a version that was drastically different from this. Can you tell me what that cycle was or what the change was and why? How long ago?

Yeah. At one point, there was a building of 18 or 20 units that we were considering on this site, and the clients decided to go opposite and go with townhouses. So it was going through staff, but it never came to planning board for the 18 units.

Another thing, I don't know if the rendering is accurate. Does the sidewalk just stop there at the pool, or does it actually continue on the site plan?

It actually does. That's within our property. Because it's an alley, there was no right of way to put a sidewalk. And we wanted to have pedestrian access to get to the front. So we pushed the townhouses back a little bit and put a sidewalk within the property.

And go to your primary view or your first rendering on the front? So I think this has evolved, right? Because I see steps where there's a driveway now. Is that what that is? I'm sorry? Are there steps where there's actually a driveway? Am I misreading that? In the very center.

Yeah, in the middle.

Yeah.

I don't see.

No, that was always a driveway. But maybe something happened with the rendering that it got.

OK, just clarification.

It's a glitch in the computer. All right, OK.

No, I think the implementation is very well done. The location of the pool with views to the park, that's a very good item. I think it's definitely going to be a catalyst for the neighborhood, and we definitely appreciate your design. Thank you. Having said that, do I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second?

Second.

Motion. Do we have a vote?

Go ahead. Oh, Dallas said motion to approve, but I couldn't catch second because it was between Christine and Tara. OK. Second?

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion passed. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Moving on, file number 26V27. The staff waive quasi-traditional. Staff waives. Are there any comment cards?

No comment cards.

Does the applicant waive quasi-judicial? Is the applicant present? Guess not. Sorry. Please state your name, address, and... No.

Can you turn it on? Hello, my name is Jose Vidal. I'm an architect with B3 Architectural Group. Our offices are at 8103 Northwest Doral, Florida. And I'm here representing our client, Mucaro Coffees, unusual coffee society. We are here seeking a variance for parking spaces. Do you equate quasi-judicial? Yes. All right, thank you.

That's it for now. Staff's presentation.

Good evening again. My name is Umar Javid, for the record, planner three with the city's planning division. Before you is file 26V27. The property location is 1980 Grant Street. The applicant before you is V3 Architectural Group. And they are requesting a variance pursuant to Article 4.6BCC1A and Article 7, Section 7.2 of the City's Zoning and Land Development Regulations to reduce the minimum parking requirements for commercial and warehouse uses where 12 spaces are required in the ND1 zoning district within the Regional Activity Center. The lands are located in the central part of the city, just outside of the city's downtown core, east of North 21st Avenue and north of Johnson Street. Displayed here is an aerial view of the subject site on the left side, and to the right is the existing context. The subject property contains an existing building that is presently vacant. With respect to land use and zoning, the property is within the regional activity center and it's zoned north downtown, low intensity multifamily district, ND1. In terms of site area, it's approximately .18 acres. Surrounding properties, the site itself, it's surrounded by a number of commercial warehouse uses, as you can see. Properties around it to the north, south, east, and west, they're all commercial properties, and the property itself is starting green. In terms of background, the property at 1980 Grand Street, it contains an existing commercial building, which was constructed previously in 1961. The applicant is proposing adaptive reuse of the existing building for coffee roasting, office storage, and commercial coffee operations for their coffee branding. The property currently contains one legal non-conforming parking space. Historical imagery indicates additional parking may have been used on the site prior to the adoption of this current zoning and land development regulations. Staff do note that parking will be addressed in terms of the existing configuration at the time of permitting. Pursuant to the city's parking requirements, the proposed use requires a total of 12 parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to permit their parking reductions in the zone where 12 is required. A key consideration for this application is that the ND1 zoning district specifically permits commercial uses through the adaptive reuse of existing buildings adjacent to North 20th Avenue, which this building is. And the subject property is located within this corridor. And I want to also note that this provision was intentionally incorporated into the code to encourage reinvestment and productive reuse of older buildings that may have physical limitations, including the inability to accommodate modern parking standards, as this building was constructed in the 1960s. The proposed project will improve the exterior appearance of the building. It will activate the currently underutilized and vacant property, and it will contribute to the continued revitalization of the city's downtown and its surrounding area in the regional activity center, which also highlights the city's long-term vision to promote a more walkable, connected, and urban realm that reduces automobile travel. I also do want to highlight that in addition to staff review, the applicant submitted a traffic study or a traffic and parking statement, which was prepared by a licensed Florida engineer. The study evaluated the anticipated traffic and parking impacts associated with the proposed use, and the engineer did conclude that they're not anticipating any negative impacts as a result of the business and the reduced parking requests on site. Displayed here is a conceptual floor plan for the proposed business. The code does allow for commercial warehouse uses as well as accessory uses. As you can see on the floor plan, majority of the floor will be occupied by commercial uses and it will include accessory uses which consists of internal office space for the business itself as well as storage and warehouse uses. The staff have also utilized Article 4 and 7 of the code to calculate parking requirements. And the warehouse and office uses will require four spaces, and the commercial retail component will require eight spaces. In total, the requirement in this zone would be 12 spaces based on staff review. Displayed here is a conceptual rendering of the proposed business from the corner of Grant Street and 20th Avenue. This rendering is just provided as a courtesy by the applicant. This is not for the formal requests, obviously. It was just a variance request that will be voted on tonight. So I just wanted to make that clear. This is just a conceptual rendering that was provided.

What does that mean?

In terms of the, so this, the request tonight before you is specifically just for a variance. There won't be any specific vote for design, site plan, et cetera. This is just provided as a conceptual, just to kind of provide you.

May or may not look like this.

That's correct.

Oh, okay.

In terms of variance criteria, staff have reviewed the requests against variance criteria contained in Section 5F of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations. Staff finds that the applicant appears to be consistent with criteria noted through A through D with E not being applicable to this request. With respect to the summary of findings, staff do find this consistent with the zoning and land development regulations, as well as the city's comprehensive plan. With respect to the recommendation, staff do defer the decision to the Planning and Development Board. And should the request be approved by the board, we do recommend the following condition. which is related specifically to the existing parking configuration on the site, and we ask that the applicant work closely with engineering, transportation, and mobility at the time of permitting for the existing parking.

Thank you. Thank you. Does the board have any questions?

Yeah, I do.

Yeah, go ahead.

So what happens if this business doesn't flourish and then someone comes later for another use? Would that have to come for approval again?

Through the chair, it really just depends on the nature of the request. This specific application before you, they're looking to reuse or make use of an existing building, so it really just depends on the nature of the future business that may come in. So, you know, if they're looking to redevelop the site or looking to demolish and rebuild, they would be subject to a full site plan review process. So it really just depends on the existence.

Yeah, there was a lot of cars parked all over the place when I went there today.

Further to that, variance is typically run with the land unless otherwise conditioned at the time of approval.

So the variance would be there for the next person. He would only be required to have one parking space, the one that's there.

Unless the board opts to condition it otherwise.

And what can we do to that?

I'm going to defer to legal to answer that question for you.

I mean, my concern is that one parking place, and you're eliminating 11, and you're only going to have the one. How is that consistent with any of our zoning in the RAC?

No, I know. I'm listening.

area where this is, I don't know if I'll live long enough for it to be a, you know, work situation. And it's, in my opinion, going to contribute to an even more chaotic traffic situation, so.

Right. So if I may clarify, I guess you're questioning more so the, I guess the self-imposure component of the variance, the criteria. Yeah, I guess through the chair, more specifically, we looked at kind of the unique characteristics of the property including the fact that this is an existing building. This was constructed in 1961, so it likely predates the requirements of our zoning and land development regulations. With your point regarding the zoning intent or the regional activity center, like I said earlier, the ND1 zoning district, it does specifically permit commercial uses through adaptive reuse of existing buildings on North 20th Avenue. Actually, I think I have a backup in here that includes... that reference so yeah this and this is actually taking a screenshot directly from our code if you can see in the highlighted areas it speaks about you know commercial uses being permitted in this zone and it also includes a at the bottom of footprint that speaks about permitted for adaptive reuse of existing buildings so based on stock interpretation you know we understand that the code recognizes that there's older buildings along this corridor and that may not be capable of meeting modern parking standards. So rather than demolishing the building or intensifying or adding to the building, the applicant is choosing to make use of this section in the code through an adaptive reuse process. And through that process, we've recognized that they would meet that criteria and the general intent.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I have one. So I guess the question that I guess some of us are trying to ask is can we approve this variance and make it conditional just on this property for this particular business, and if they do not, they go out of business in five years or 10 years or 20 years, it reverts back to what it was?

Yes. Yeah, I mean, I can elaborate, but under the city code, the board does have the authority and the power to grant with conditions and safeguards. We can tie the relief to the specific coffee roastery use, so it does not transfer to a potential future higher demand use.

So they mentioned you can apply a condition. Tara?

Currently, I think on the site plan that you were showing, there was more than one space. I was trying to understand that because when I was looking at it as well, it looked like more parking spaces.

Is this the one you were looking at?

Yeah, yeah. It's like the dumpster and then there's a few spaces. I was wondering what's the difference between them.

Yes, so what you see here is just an aerial image. I just want to note that the business isn't operating right now. This is just an existing image, or an aerial image of a previous photo. What you're seeing here is not conforming to the current zoning and land development regulations. The applicant has worked closely with planning staff, with engineering staff, to make at least something in the rear work in terms of parking. So they are going to work closely with staff at permitting And engineering has indicated that the existing configuration isn't to code. However, they may be able to at least incorporate one space, because the current configuration that you're seeing in the aerial wouldn't be allowed.

I see, because it goes outside of the property line is what it was. OK. Right. And when you visually see it, it looks like it is, but I guess from the survey.

Right. Yeah. And it's just a finale right there to the rear.

Yeah.

OK. So it's a little bit interesting in terms of the configuration. Any other questions?

Yeah, what about the employees? I mean, I read all the backup that it's either going to come together in one car, so that's one car. They have two other employees, and they're going to Uber. And customers, I guess, where are they going to park? It just doesn't. Makes sense.

In terms of business operations and employee count, I'll defer that to the applicant so they can provide clarity in regards to that. Before you, what we do have, though, is just conceptuals and just proposals, what we've got from the applicant.

And that's my other concern. If that... What it's going to look like, OK, that might entice us to have a better feel about what that particular building could do to that area. But you're saying it's not baked in stone, so to speak.

They're not required at this design approval right now, right?

That's correct. For this specific request, it would just be tied to the variance related to parking. In terms of design, the existing parking configuration, we will be addressing that at the time of permitting.

But what about the building is your specific question?

Sorry, just to clarify, building in terms of the design? Design, yes. Yeah, so the design, we would look at that component at the time of permitting.

Okay, administratively as well.

That's correct.

Can you go to site plan, please? Before I interject, any other questions?

Sorry, one more question. Go ahead, Tara. Currently, people park a lot on the right of way. adjacent to that. So is that kind of used as unofficial parking, and is that allowed legally?

I wouldn't be able to speak to the specific parking requirement.

Sorry, just to interject apologies. The right-of-way is not a formal parking space. It's not permitted for parking.

Thank you.

That was actually going towards my question. And I was asking for a site plan, and you were showing the floor plan. Is there an actual site plan showing basically the corner condition, sidewalk, et cetera? I think we have a survey in the back. Yeah, a survey would work. It's a little hard to see. So I guess you responded. There's no projected. Obviously, the variance is for off street parking. Is there projected on street parking in some way or anywhere?

They have indicated a very minimal impact in terms of trip generation through their traffic study. I believe that there's also a copy included in the attachments as well, if you'd like to take a look at that. But the traffic engineer did conclude that there's going to be very minimal amount of trips generated and on demand for parking as well.

Well, that goes to the demand. What I'm saying is the actual city Are you on street parking? Is there a projected on street parking anywhere?

To respond to that, there's no formal city on street parking spaces surrounding the subject site, despite the activity that happens illegally.

And what's the closest parking structure or parking lot to this?

Public or private are you referring to?

Either or.

There is a private parking lot across the street that's associated with another business. At this time, the applicant has not provided a parking agreement with that entity, but you are welcome to ask them for the details on their investigations.

OK. And so that's private? That's private.

Regarding public, there are no public in any notable near facilities at the site. But again, I would encourage you to ask the applicant regarding their discussions with adjacent property owners.

OK. All right. Thank you. Any other questions?

Since in the zoning we have, we are trying to support more intentional reuse of these commercial spaces. And I think this is a great business to see a coffee roastery coming into the space. Is there any thought about how do you provide, I mean I'm not a proponent of putting a ton of parking in parking lots or anything like that, but as far as like having ability to support the businesses in this area and have access to parking? Is there some thought around that with the city?

That's a very good question. And it's always a challenge in this portion, in this area of the city. I think the code, the indication in the code that speaks to adaptive reuses being allowed on the street is a step in the right direction. But I believe the intention was that these cases would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if a variance would be appropriate. The code does not provide relief in terms of parking for adaptive reuse, but does encourage it through the permitted use table. So what staff has recommended the applicant do is really look at their business programming and have the traffic consultant review that as well. Similar to not only the business programming, but other similar business models, how they actually function in real life. And that was also fed into the traffic impact statement. But I would also encourage you to ask the applicant about their other locations and how they function as well.

Well, I guess to me it's more about if we want to promote and have these type of businesses thrive in this area given the commercial reuse that we're trying to support through zoning, it's like how do we actually, because people are going to park in the right-of-way. We see it. There's no grass. There's no sod. It's being used, and we all know it. So it's just how do we intentionally provide, or I know it's not going to happen overnight, but how do we intentionally think about If we want more of these businesses in this area to become an economic hub, how do we actually support them with some level of parking? That's my question.

That is a very good question, and one that I believe the board is here to deliver. Further to which, again, we also always encourage applicants to reach out to your neighbors and see if you could strike up a parking agreement, because that is one of the best tools that we can use as staff to incentivize compliance with the code and reaching the parking provision.

Commissioner Blattner.

Yeah, I'm going to support this because it's silly not to. But it does raise the question that my colleagues have brought up that this is a very light industrial area. Been there for 80 years now. Not going away. It's attractive for small business. It's a good startup place. But parking is all over the place. There are no identified sidewalks. People park all over. And that's what's going to happen here, too. I mean, I could have parked in front. There's no enforcement. So what I said, it's silly not to approve this. It just is required. Let's get it done and so forth. But the broader picture is the city needs to be looking at how it wants to approach parking in an area like this. It's either enforceable or it's not. There is enough parking or there isn't enough parking. And if there isn't enough parking and we recognize that we want startups to be able to operate in an area like this, then we have to either close our eyes to the fact that there's not enough parking and people will park wherever they want. So I know we're not going to solve that tonight, but I think that we were trying to raise the point that there are areas like this all over the city that have sprung up over time and that Traffic enforcement, parking enforcement doesn't exist. So let's give them what they are required to have and close their eyes to the fact there are going to be four or five other cars operating out of this business, and we'll pretend they're not there.

Because that's what we're doing. How do you change the fact that businesses, buildings downtown have to adhere to the parking, taking away from their number of residences that they can have in a building because they need to provide the parking for commercial where The commercial use is much less than it's going to be in this particular project on the outskirts of the downtown, even though it's still in the RAC. I think you have to be careful. I mean, you have an ordinance specifically addressing parking. So how could it be enforceable in one section? And now we're saying, oh, we have to open it up. over here because it's the future of the startups, and then wind up in the same predicament where we are in the core of downtown with everybody screaming there's not enough parking. So that's my opinion.

I think the difference there is maybe if the building's grandfathered, and this is kind of the case, right? This is grandfathered and working with what they have.

A legal nonconforming structure, correct?

Exactly. Whereas that would possibly be applied for new structures and new buildings. But I think the same thing would apply in downtown if they have an existing building. That same applies, right? Nonconforming, yeah.

Generally, unless the code has a parking exemption, and then that prevails. I do know that the board is getting into discussion, but I would highly recommend you hear from the applicant.

Just one second. Can you show me where the parking is proposed? I'm sorry, you're just referring to that one existing space that they're looking to propose? The one that you're looking to propose, yeah.

So it would be a parallel parking space in the rear where you see those other ones illegally parked in the rear. It would be adjacent in the rear. And two don't fit because of the dumpster requirement? I believe there's a door or an entrance just along that wall, so they wouldn't be able to do two parallel. But yeah, we will look at that closely with engineering through the permitting. process but based on our preliminary review prior to this hearing they really would only be able to accommodate one based on the existing building configuration and the alley doesn't permit a back-in back-out parking it will I don't think it does I can defer that to our traffic engineering specialist but yeah there are very specific requirements with respect to parking in the alley and adjacent to the doorways and entrances of the building

Can I get that response about back in, back out parking? 90 degree, basically.

Good evening chair and members of the board. My name is Veronica Altuve. I'm with the Division of Engineering, Transportation and Mobility. Thank you for having me here tonight. Welcome. So no, we cannot have a 90 degree parking at this location because the vehicles will end up being parking on the alley right away. And we cannot use the right away for parking.

So my specific question wasn't about the dimension. It was more about whether it would be allowed to back in or back out.

Typically on alleys, when we have a new building that it's coming in, we no longer allowed parking on the alleyways, right? But this is a specific different case. The building is being reused. The building is not being demolished.

Okay. All right. Great. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay. Any other comments or questions?

I just have one other question. Do we know, does the applicant own this building or they're renting this building?

They own.

They own the building?

OK. Any other questions? OK. If the applicant has a presentation, please come forward.

Thank you. The first thing that I want to address that you mentioned, which is very important, is the building will remain the way it is. The reason for that is we've actually been working very closely with Walmart and a lot of the people in the city that have been helping us through the process, but it's been quite lengthy. And to that end, we're ready to submit for permitting within three weeks. All of the architectural drawings, structural drawings, simulations have already been completed. The only thing pending is the MVP drawings. So the building, just to put everyone at ease, it will look like that. As a matter of fact, we had to do some value engineering to bring it down. As an architect, we always want to go a little bit extra. So what you're seeing there is actually what we're planning on building. One thing that's very important to note, and the question that was brought up is very important, The whole purpose of this district is adaptive reuse. And to that end, you know, in order to make that transition, you need a catalyst. And in this case, as you mentioned, you have a lot of buildings there that are not going to change. And the master plan that you have envisioned to make this place more attractive, to bring more people into the community, nicer buildings and so on, is never going to take off unless you actually create an incentive, use a building as a catalyst to bring people into the area. So rather than maintaining strictly warehouses, which we all agree is a very important use, the nature of the zoning that we're trying to do here is basically to bring different type of businesses, to integrate warehouses, to integrate businesses such as this one and so on. And basically, that's something that we can do in this project. As far as the building that is there right now, the original use that was there is extremely similar. Because it's offices and warehouses, one of the big compromises that our client made is initially, and actually I'll make it brief, but before I explain the compromises, his business is based on basically teaching people how to use the equipment that baristas use and so on. So when it comes to like, he teaches Starbucks or whatever different brands to use the product. So initially, he wanted to have a coffee shop that would be the training center for his clientele. Obviously, because of the lack of parking, we took that into consideration. The city has been very good with working with us and showing us some compromises, et cetera. he's opted not to use the business as a coffee shop, which unfortunately is not great for coffee lovers. But what it will be used for is basically a training place where, again, if anybody's learning how to use a business, training employees, and so on, that's what's going to be happening there. So as far as the comment for the number of employees, in addition to the traffic study that we did to show the impact, which is basically like less than 1% impact on the community, on the traffic generated by the two main roads in the area, Their payroll has been fluctuating in the last 14 years that they've been in business between three and four employees. And the reason for that is because they don't have a lot of needs of employees for each department. So, for instance, the guy that you're scaring because you're saying he's going to go out of business here, he's actually part, you know, he's a CEO. but he also takes place in the roasting process, showing people what to do, their brand and so on. Same way where they have one employee that is not only managing the storehouse, the warehouse where they keep the product, but also doing office tasks and so on. So it's a very small operation, but with big volume. And for the most part, again, it's a training facility with offices and storage. And as far as all the warehouses that may be in the area where they have a lot of volume in a lot of truck deliveries and so on, the roasting material is delivered only a few times a year. And it goes through the process that is way beyond my understanding for the roasting and so on. But it's only a few times a year. that you're able to bring trucks in. And as far as the backing up of the project, again, when you compare what the city is trying to do here, which is the right way of doing it, it was allow all the cities nearby, like Wynwood and some other places, where there is a thriving activity. You have a lot of different type of businesses that coexist and help each other out. The reality is when you do something like that, whether it's Greenwood or Sheffield City in New York or whatever, traffic is an issue. So along the lines of what you're saying, one very important thing here is public works. How do we make those streets to have enough areas for parking? Because right now, our client is willing to basically pay the area with the cost of parking illegally. But he doesn't have the authority to do that, because that belongs to public works. And the sizes where everybody parks now doesn't meet by six inches, the width of the cars, and stuff like that. So it's really a thing about public works coming together and improving the streets to make it more efficient. But he's willing to do that. And again, you can rest assured that the building that you're seeing is what we're proposing. We're ready to go. We've been working on this for quite a while. And hopefully, you can consider that. Again, according to the traffic study that was done by Fox Engineering, basically we're going to have 10 trips a week on this item here. There will be share riding. Obviously, they're going to find parking on the street, do what everybody's doing. That's the reality. Nobody is blind to that. But they do have, again, three or four employees. And in their current facility, which is located in Opa-Loka right now, they actually don't have a parking agreement. And they have a space comparable in size to what they have now. Do you have any questions?

Thank you. I imagine there's questions by the board. Other questions, comments? I have a particular question. What's the distance from your back wall to your property line?

OK. So on the back property, we have a, and I'm going from memory here, it's in the cycling, it's about 16 feet. So it doesn't meet the ability, like the lady was saying, to back up directly into the back. So we're missing a couple of feet in order to be able to do that. So currently, everybody that's there is parking diagonally. So by code, we're only allowed to have one parallel space, which is what we are locating there. If we wanted to keep parking the way that it is now, we literally have five spaces. So that's . So for instance, in different municipalities, like the city of Miami, when you're doing adaptive reuse, they understand the fact that you have new businesses that are coming there. They may have different uses. As long as the building footprint is not enlarged, they're OK with the existing parking. And the reality is, yes, there's going to be traffic concerns. That's the reality. But they understand also that in order to modify the zoning and do something similar to, let's say, like the city of Doral that used to be only warehouses, And now they have a tribing retail, restaurants, and coexisting with the warehouses. That's the reality of what you need to do. You need to be able to have some of those buildings that you can do the adaptive reuse, which is literally the whole purpose of this district.

I understand your precedent. But I mean, Wynwood has on-street parking. Obviously, there was an excess of parking surface in Doral from the warehouses, which they can provide more parking, right? Our condition is that we have no parking. We don't have on-street parking. And it's not on you. It's obviously a condition that we need to deal with. Going back to engineering, your specific response, if you can clarify, your specific response was that new construction does not allow 90-degree back-in, back-out parking in the alleys, right? No. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, please.

That's correct. Whenever we have a new building that it's coming in, if an old building is being demolished and then a new building comes in, they're not allowed to have parking on the alleyway. The extent of the alleyway, it's for waste management or direct access for traffic to preserve that operations of the alleyway.

So that's your response for new building and new construction. Now we're dealing with a non-conforming existing building.

Correct.

Would there be leeway to do 90 degree parking? Back in, back out?

So we would have to explore that possibility. Because again, they only have 16 feet. The required length for a parking space is 18 feet. And if we allow it, then the vehicle that is parked there, then it will be on the way of the traffic going in and out.

And this is where I'm going, because obviously, like Commissioner Blattner said, the idea that we disapprove this is kind of, but we're approving something that is not helping towards what Tara mentioned, the viability of your project. For example, how many employees are going to be there at any given time?

It will be projected between three and four. But I would like to point out along the lines of what he's mentioning is the important thing with this adaptive reuse district is that this is a variance for a building that's existing where you literally don't have the space to do anything else. However, the regulations that were shown by Omar on the screen are very important because if we were to build this building from scratch, then those regulations that are there that are requiring X amount of parking spaces and so on serves the right purpose because any new structure under this adaptive reuse building is going to deal with making sure they have enough parking, not create other issues. So the difference between if we were to do a brand new building, we would be the first one saying we can comply by putting parking underneath the building and so on. So that's the balance, in our opinion, where when you're dealing with adaptive reuse, any applicant like us seeking the variance is a very different proposition. So I think it was in place for the adaptive reuse. The city has done a great job on that.

I think you went on the notion of a new building. And I think that the very wording of adaptive reuse is where you have to attach to the pie adaptive. How much of the building are you actually adapting? And the direction I'm going to is, can I get the floor plan again, please?

Hold on.

They put it in the front.

Yeah, I think it's in front.

Hey, hey. Here we go.

A lot of eye candy there, yeah.

Hold on. I just don't know where they put it.

OK. Staff, can you put it on the screen?

It's on this one.

Can I just suggest something while they're looking at that? If you change the angle of the angled parking, you may be able to actually fit the cars in. So instead of it being an angle like this, if you tilt the angle a bit, you may get cars in.

The angle parking is actually less efficient than 90-degree parking, just by projection. It requires more space, more depth. So actually, where I was going is you have 16 feet from a property line. You need 18 feet. Whereas if engineering were to work with you, you could bump in those two feet or three feet and require a back in, back out, basically backing backing in as you park. You would be able to fit more parking spaces in a parallel

No. And the reason for that is because the loading, we have it on the rear of the property. And we actually moved it to try to create more spaces. But because of the life safety where we need to have exit doors plus the parking, the parking spaces for parallel parking are actually 23 feet, which is substantially larger than the 18 for regular back and forward kind of parking. So the reality is our hands are kind of tied. We would love to do whatever is there. We're making it work right now where it is there. But the reality is, by code, we don't have the space to do 90-degree parking. And if we angle it, like you're saying, it's not as efficient. So, yeah. Where is your loading? Say again? Where is your loading? The loading is on the rear and on the alley.

I'm having difficulty understanding where your parking and your loading would be and your trash would be.

So where you see on the bottom right...

I'm sorry, sir. If you would need to speak over there, we have to give you a handheld mic. Otherwise, you have to stay on the dais just so we capture everything. Thank you.

So, again, on the back of this.

Thank you.

I think they're very helpful. So on the back of the property here, we literally can park. Everybody's been parking like this. Typically, when the building was operational, we saw like five parking uses back there. Obviously, people are parking all along here, as you can see, on the property further this way. But the reality is we don't have the space for the back by code because we don't want to block the alleyway. And again, as you can see from what we're doing is we're modifying this by creating all the activity on the outside, making it very user friendly. And people can see the roasting going on in the factory, that kind of thing.

So going back in the notion of adaptive, I don't see how much adaptive is actually happening here. If you go from column on the corner, on the exterior corner to the columns of the center, if that wall were to bump in, you would probably fit three, four cars, something, in a 90 degree.

It wouldn't allow, based on the size of the overhead doors and the requirement that we have for fire. Because in this particular property, because of the travel distances that we have for life safety, we need to provide access on the rear of the property. So what you're saying basically is if we were to bump into the building two feet, then we can probably put the parking 90 degrees into that, is what you're saying.

And you're saying you can't do it because of the door?

Well, we have the doors that are going to be occupying spaces where the cars are going to park. So that might yield, at the end of the day, three parking spaces. And it's going to be a huge burden on the cost, because we would need to redo all the entire structure on the back of the building. Originally, if I may go to the renderings. Yeah, for the presentation. Thank you. So originally, because of the budget, we had to shave down in the area. The intent here is along this street. We're showing the coffee, which is not going to be extremely for training. Initially, we have all this really interesting equipment that's used for the grinding of the coffee and processing. All of that was exposed, almost like when you go to a brewery and you see the entire process and so on. That was value engineered because of the budget. If we need to redo the back of the building as well, that's a substantial hardship on the money because, again, the budget keeps going smaller and smaller. And in this case, we've been trying to deal with the issue for the bearings now. for a little over a year. So that will have a big financial hardship on the construction in the back.

All right. Any other questions or comments?

So, sorry, one more question. I'm trying to understand. So the use case has been, so if I go back to the floor plan, is it on here or is it on here?

Staff had it. There it is.

I was just trying to understand. I know you mentioned that the use case has shifted, I guess. So we have the coffee roasting. There was storage and warehouse.

And then you have, obviously, the office space.

the commercial is becoming more of a training facility, you're saying, versus a retail space, correct, is what you're saying?

Correct. So in the areas that are shown in pink, the commercial, that's the area that used to be open to the public. Now the compromise was, since that would actually generate a lot of traffic, that it would just be strictly used for the training sessions and so on. And again, the building, as you see, takes the entire footprint. It's basically to the edges of the entire property.

So you're saying the reasoning to change it from retail to training is really because of the trip generation that was being done?

because they require parking correct. Very likely that would increase the parking, the uses of the people, and it will probably trigger a certain percentage more people. So it's a shame because the intent, the original intent for the owner, he's been in business for 14 years, growing his company and so on, is that that would create more branding. It would allow people that are nearby, even people in the area, to use it. reuse it, which is a shame that that can be doing it. But here's another point here where he's a little desperate to get this thing going, which is a little shame because when it comes to adaptive reuse, I mean, when you compare what is there now to what we're projecting, it's going to be substantially, in our opinion, more pleasant for the people.

Exactly. Yeah. I guess my thought, I mean, we can discuss it when time is for discussion, but it's really around what are we trying to do with this area and the zoning? And are we activating the area or are we just continuing to support more? Because to me now it's almost like more warehousing in a way and some training facility because we're spending more of the space is being used for management of the coffee roasting and whatnot versus actually creating a benefit to the local community and the walkability and the housing.

Yeah. Okay, any other questions, comments?

Question for staff. How long has this project been in the works?

I'm sorry, could you repeat that one more time?

How long has this project been in the works?

The subject variance application came before our department, I believe, in April 2026 of this year. But in terms of the discussion of the variance and the project itself, to my understanding, they've been working with staff in planning and zoning over the past year.

See, I don't know if I'm angry or embarrassed about this. I'll tell you the truth. Maybe both. I'm angry that we've put these people... for a year or more when it was obvious that this parking issue was really severe. Maybe we should have said thank you, but no thanks if we couldn't get this resolved. Meantime, they've spent a fortune. And I don't think we're any closer to resolving this today than we were before we started tonight. I'm embarrassed that after one year, we're here fighting over one parking place. And if we don't accept it, if we don't do it, what's being requested of us, what happens then to this business? They're going to go away after spending a lot of money and time and effort to find another place that has more parking and doesn't have the headaches this one does? It's embarrassing to me. I'm tempted to vote for this just to get it out of the way, which is a terrible position for us to be in, but that's the position we're in. We have a solid gentleman here making an excellent presentation, telling us this is what he wants to do, and we're trying to solve a parking place, one parking place problem, or the business doesn't work. It's just, this is terrible. I would vote on this just to get through.

May I ask staff a question? In this concept, and we know that that warehouse district has kind of been in our wish list for many years, is he the first one to come in? Is he the only one to come in? Are there other interested parties that would, I guess, make us move off the mark a little bit to say, okay, This could be something great. And we have to make concessions on parking, which the parking situation in Hollywood is horrific. When you listen to residents come here and talk about parking, and there's no parking. And it is an important issue. But is he going to be the only one in this district? Or are there others that are showing interest that you're working with now and will have this same conversation in another two months? So if that's the case, and he's going to provide this beautiful shop that you're promising that's what you're going to give us, it's not just a conceptual in my hopes. That would give me a little bit more confidence to say, OK, let's take a shot. We need that third space. We're looking for that now in downtown. But if this is just a one and done,

I understand your question. As it pertains to this particular property, this is the first redevelopment request that we've received. But within the regional activity center, there is a growing need.

In that district. I'm talking about in that particular district, the warehouse district.

It's specifically in zoning portions of the zoning of the regional city center that permits warehousing or did permit warehousing at one point. Adaptive reuse is a very topical issue where we have businesses who are trying to repurpose these spaces. Often they're doing it at the certificate of use stage. This applicant has been very responsible and has done it prior, earlier on. It's important to know that staff from the get-go has advised the applicant that this is a challenging site when it pertains to parking. But the applicant purported at the time that it's a very unique use and that parking could be overcome through the traffic demand study and through the programming of the site, to which staff allowed him due process to bring him here. But it is a request that we often get with legal non-conforming properties, specifically ones that were previously warehouses. that we have to contend with. And we try to offer them the best solutions we can, either through the code or through adaptive reuse.

Go ahead. Any other questions?

No, I mean, it's just more of really a comment for the city, for our planning department. I think there's a huge opportunity. There's a potential for this site. There's a lot of warehouse space. There's a lot of mixed use. There's a lot of residential. You see new buildings popping up on US 1. We want to make this area a walkable, fun, beautiful space. Actually, I'm really saddened that this business can't have a retail space because we can't think of this space more strategically. If you want to be able to support more multifamily, you're so close to the downtown area. You want to be able to have people to have a local coffee shop in their community, and to be able to walk there, to be able to come and visit. As a local resident, someone who was born and grew up in Hollywood, I wanted to see us to think about things here a little bit more strategically, support growing businesses. and not be a pass-through city. I want us to be a hub. And how do we, through zoning, support these type of businesses and create little micro hubs within our downtown and areas where we can? I know it's difficult. I know it's not. I mean, we don't have a lot of space. But I do think that it requires vision and strategy. It can't just be one-off. It can't be like one. I mean, I appreciate you all for actually coming forth with this concept. but it can't be one-off. It has to be some thought-out idea, because we already have a strategy for adaptive reuse. We need the infrastructure around it.

Thank you. If I may, if the project becomes a success, and that's what we're all hoping, I think you will see a lot more people. I don't have the crystal ball, but that's the whole point, to revitalize this area. And along the lines of what the mayor was saying, you know, if you take a look at Wynn with this, there's parking garages and stuff like that. And those have kind of like grown organically out of it. We've done a lot of projects in the design district, for instance. where it was a small little shop like this. I saw Wynwood, all of those areas, because I'm old enough to have seen the growth. And we were part of it. And we've seen a lot of those areas where there wasn't any parking allowed. There were conversions of little houses that became restaurants and so on. And then as an organic growth, basically, then a parking had to pop up, especially when now you have 500 high-rises that each of them has 300 units. then it's part of the growth. And that's something that is a learning curve for any city. And we understand that I guess we're the first guinea pigs here. But hopefully, if the product is successful, you're going to get more. If you don't do that, then we failed.

Thank you for bringing that up. That's basically why this conversation has been extended, for that reason, to bring up our concerns. Having said that, are there any comments, any other questions? OK, I'll entertain the motion.

We have a common card, Chair.

OK, sorry, my bad. Sorry, I can't read this. Who is this, Peter? Peter Hernandez, yes.

I don't know whose phone that is. It's not mine. May I? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board, attorneys. My name is Peter Hernandez. I am strictly here as a resident of the city of Hollywood that is very familiar with that area.

One question. Do you waive quasi-judicial?

I do. Actually, whenever you ask the public to waive, you can do it all at one time. I am so, my mind is about to blow up because this is not a legal non-conforming building. It's a legal conforming building that doesn't have parking. It was a warehouse and if you open the back door and you store the cars inside, you still have use for the warehouse. I understand that you're trying to change the area. Parking is horrendous. I'm so disappointed with our staff. I really am. No disrespect to the staff, but you guys were not here when, not all of you were here when the Regional Activity Center was promised that it was being strict and installed so that no variances would take place, particularly for parking. We're not looking about waiving one parking space, Commissioner. We're looking to waive 11 parking spaces to have only one parking space to do this thing. That's almost unheard of. My point is, are we looking to fix the area? Let's bring the businesses that fit with it. Does he need to modify the building to make it work? Yes. I saw a beautiful rendering of what it looks like a restaurant. There's about 12 to 15 chairs, at least that I could count on what was presented. This took time because it was being done strategically, working with staff for whatever reason, because staff goes away and the residents get stuck with it. I'm not here to support or deny this. I'm just here because I am bewildered with staff coming in front of you and telling you that this is the great thing that's happening when, in fact, it's killing the neighborhood. The parking complaints, the parking complaints, that's the only thing that we hear about. Can we retrofit the building? Can we do something? Yes, we can. I love the fact that they're looking to bring a new business to the area. But from 2022 to 2025, that place was working without a certificate of use. It had a business tax receipt but did not have a certificate of use. What is it that we're trying to do with the area? Enhance it or finish killing it off? I remember what staff promised the residents of the city of Hollywood when we instituted the original activity center. This is what we're going to do, and we're not going to have variances, particularly for parking. Why? Because they diminished the parking regulations. If this is a warehouse, it would need less. I get it. We're trying to do out of the warehouse, but we cannot. The one thing that we do not want to do is another Washington Park area where people have to park on the swells, just like what I experienced going by today and took pictures. And people are parking on the street where cars cannot get through, fire trucks cannot get through, and ambulance cannot get through. Again, I am not here for or against. That's your decision. My concern is what staff has been saying to you. versus what the staff said to the residents when the original activity center was in place. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Any other questions? Okay. I'll close the portion of the comment to the public. If there's no other comments, I'll entertain a motion in favor for or against.

I entertain a motion to approve with the condition that if it comes back as another use that's more intense, I agree that there's a parking situation, but it's there now without them being in operation. So I think if we want that reuse district, we're going to have to make some concessions. So I move to approve. The variance request.

Is there a second?

Sorry, it was to approve it for this business? The variance request, yes.

For this business specifically, yes.

Is there a second?

I second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Having said yes, passes. Thank you.

Opposed?

We're on call.

Christine Corbo. Odalis Delgado.

Yes.

Richard Blattner.

Yes.

Tara Jafarmadar.

Yes.

Bob Glickman.

No.

Steven Morales.

Yes.

It's five to one.

Motion passed.

Thank you. Thank you, everybody. We'll make you proud. And thank you for the staff. They've been working on this almost as long as us. Thank you. Thank you.

Moving forward, we're going to review... Actually, I have a question for staff. Since it's the same property, are we doing this in one review?

We'll be doing one presentation for convenience, but we'll read both titles into...

Okay. All right. File number 25Z13A and concurrently 25DPV13. Does staff waive quasi-judicial? Staff waives. Is the applicant here to waive quasi-judicial? Is the applicant here?

The applicant is here. We're just getting them to come back in.

OK. And interim, are there any cards, common cards?

No common cards. OK.

Do we know? Please state your name, your address, and if you will, .

Yeah, my name is . Do you waive quasi-judicial? Yes. OK, thank you. Staff, thank you.

Thank you, board. For the record, my name is Umar Javid, planner through with the city's planning division. Looks like our clicker is not working. Okay. So just for the record, these are two separate requests before you. Just for the purpose of the entire site, it will be presented as one application but voted separately. So for the first file, it would be 25Z13A. That would be for the rezoning request of 0.94 acres from the transitional core zoning district, TC1, to the retail core zoning district, RC1. For the site plan request, that would be 25 DPV 13. This would be for design and site plan for a six-story, 92,000-square-foot office building with an attached 70-foot parking garage and a variance request pursuant to Article 4.6 to reduce the front setback requirement from 10 feet to 5 feet in the RC1 zoning district in the Regional Activity Center. Before you, the applicant is BSD 23 Development LLC. And the address is 2910 Polk Street. With respect to location, the lands are located in the central portion of the city, east of the I-95 and north of Hollywood Boulevard. This property is down the road from Hollywood City Hall and is within walking distance of the Hollywood Tri-Rail Station. Displayed here is an aerial view of the site on the left side as well as the existing context of the site to the right. The subject property is located on the south side of Polk Street and is presently vacant. It also contains an existing billboard that is to be relocated and integrated with the proposed development. Staff note that the billboard is one of the original eight that were approved in 1991 under ordinance number 09143. With respect to the land use and zoning, the properties within the Regional Activity Center, and it's presently zoned TC1, Transitional Core, for the existing zoning. In terms of property size, it is just under an acre, 41,000 square feet across two parcels highlighted. The subject site is surrounded by a number of different uses. To the west, we have the I-95. To the north is a multifamily at 2901 Polk Street. And to the immediate east is a hotel use at 2900 Polk Street. To the south of the subject lands is Hollywood Boulevard, which is bounded by a FDOT-owned and maintained parcel adjacent to the on-ramp to the I-95. Before discussing the site plan itself, I wanted to take an opportunity to discuss the rezoning request. So we have a rezoning request from TC1 to the RC1 zoning district. The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property. And the property itself is located adjacent to the existing RC1 zoning district at the south and east, and therefore the request represents a logical extension of an existing zoning district rather than the creation of an isolated zoning designation. Staff does not consider this request to constitute spot zoning. The proposed RC1 designation is compatible with the surrounding zoning pattern. It's consistent with the vision for the downtown Hollywood and I-95 Hollywood Boulevard corridor. And also note that the staff has worked closely with staff through the development review process to refine the proposal and ensure consistency with the intent of the RC1 zoning district. Staff has reviewed the rezoning criteria against the applicable rezoning criteria and finds the request to be consistent. From an economic development perspective, the proposed rezoning would facilitate the development of a Class A office building, a product that remains limited within the city. Staff notes that previous economic development studies commissioned by the city identify a shortage of high-quality office space, and more specifically, A-class office space, and that study highlighted the importance of attracting additional employment and generating uses within the regional activity center. The proposed office use development represents a significant investment in the city's employment base. It will diversify land uses within the area, and it's expected to generate employment opportunities while supporting nearby businesses. The rezoning also allows for greater density and height. This serves as an opportunity to be a landmark site for the City of Hollywood, given its visibility from the I-95 when vehicles will be passing by. In terms of rezoning criteria, staff finds the request appropriate given the site's location, surrounding zoning pattern, compatibility with the regional activity center, and the economic development benefits associated with Class A office use. Displayed here is the conceptual site plan for the proposed development. The applicant is requesting a variance with respect to the front setback requirement highlighted in red. They are proposing a height of 75 feet or six stories for the office building, which is located on the south portion of the site. To the north they're proposing a nine level parking garage that will be associated to support the proposed development and they are meeting that parking requirement. They're proposing a floor area ratio of 2.30 parking spaces, 320 spaces and the billboard will be relocated to the top of the parking garage. All of these standards are in accordance with the new rezoning request that they are proposing. Regarding variance criteria, staff looked at Article 4.6 BCII to reduce the front setback requirement from 10 to 5 feet in the proposed RC1 zoning district. Staff has found the applicant to be consistent with A, B, and C. They have found the applicant to be inconsistent with D and E being not applicable. The proposed design is shown here before you. It incorporates contemporary architectural design that is intended to establish strong office presence along Hollywood Boulevard corridor and the regional activity center. The applicant has worked very closely with development review staff and urban design In the corner there, that's actually the original design that was submitted through the first submittal. And what you're seeing now is how the design has evolved through the stages of the development review process. They've worked very closely with staff to achieve this level of design. They provided glass to floor ceiling. They're incorporating public art. They're providing high quality materials. And they're also looking to activate the ground floor as shown in the rendering. With respect to the summary of findings, so I'll just read through the rezoning. So staff do find the proposed rezoning from TC1 to RC1 consistent with the criteria set forth in the zoning and land development regulations. And as such, for the rezoning request, staff recommend approval. And next, for the variance as well as the design and site plan, the proposed variance is consistent with three of the four required criteria. And for the design and site plan, staff find that the requests there are consistent with the city zoning comprehensive plan and citywide master plan. As such, staff recommend the variance to be determined by the Planning and Development Board. And should the variance be approved, we would recommend approval for the design and subsequently for site plan approval if variance and design are granted subject to the conditions of approval. Thank you.

Are there any questions for staff?

I thought in the report there was an elaborate list of conditions for approval.

Yeah, I've attached that in these last slides here.

And I guess my question really is to you guys. It looks like it's not ready with all this stuff. But if it's, I guess, something you all manage, that's up to you. But it just looks like a lot, a lot of conditions.

There are 40 conditions.

Through the chair, staff, Cameron planning, the conditions are indeed lengthy, but the applicant is due process. As we're advancing through the process, we have identified certain conditions that were certain comments that were not conditionable, and the applicant addressed those. And then the remaining of the comments the applicant has provided that they can indeed meet at permitting. And due to financing limitations and constraints, they've asked to be moved forward with these conditions for the board to make a final determination. We do understand that this is not the typical posture we bring an application forward, but again, the applicant has asked at their own risk to move forward with said conditions, advising that they can indeed meet them by permitting.

Do you guys want to review all 40 conditions? Sorry. Any comments, questions?

So what happens if they can't move the billboard? You know, who owns the billboard and what happens if they can't move it?

want to have an opportunity to hear from the applicant to see if in their presentation they address maybe perhaps some thoughts that you're having and if not staff's always here okay we can wait thank you any other questions or comments i have a question um go ahead commissioner well i i would just say understand that um

The exception that you were referring to, Cameron, in a way was the applicant needs to have some confidence that the city is going to approve this project so that they can proceed with financing. basically, right?

We've been advised that their financing is in jeopardy.

OK. Having said that, I will tell you that this is the most exciting project that I have seen before us in three years, or maybe more, because of what it does for that neighborhood and getting rid of some slum and blight that exists in that neighborhood. So I am advocating and I'm telegraphing my vote. I want to move forward with this, assuming that those conditions are met, because if they're not met, they can't go forward with the next item. So it's pretty clear that if we approve this, they can then begin to move forward with their financial plan. But voting on the following item would not proceed if we didn't do this.

Thank you. Any other comments?

Just one other thought.

In that economic development seminar that I mentioned recently, one of the participants, Paul Lambert, some of you know him, said, Hollywood has a shortage of class A office space. And here we are, folks.

Thank you. A question, I guess, to give me a, any other question? Yeah.

Well, my question is, can you approve the first one contingent on them following through and doing everything? I don't think you can approve the first one. And if they can't go through with the second one, I don't think it's right to approve the first one.

OK. Any other comments or questions? To give us a little bit more context, the property to the south, what's the intended use? And obviously, it's part of this rendering, but it's not part of the property.

Right. I think the rendering here is from the applicant's presentation. The parcel to the south is directly owned and managed by FDOT. We've been working closely with FDOT through the development review process, you know, to receive comments and feedback. They haven't indicated any plans for the property at this point. The only feedback that we've received from them is that they are conducting drainage studies related to the I-95 and the on-ramp directly adjacent to the property but at this point in this application there is no activity proposed on on the site south of the property is there any height limitations or it's the same height limitations if they put anything there for the FDOT parcel yeah to my understanding they're not looking to build up to develop the property itself given its exists the I-95 being adjacent to the to Hollywood Boulevard on that property. But the zoning, I can actually just put the zoning map here so you can see for context.

For context, the property that is owned by FDOT is in the RC1 zone, which is the same zone that is being requested for this property.

So the height limit would be seven storeys.

Okay. But then they haven't given any inclination to what might actually happen there? That's correct.

At this point, we don't have any indication or confirmation at this point.

Okay. And then the property towards the west, what is there and what would be the close, what would be the setback on that side if they were to actually build that in the future?