Architectural Review Board - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call to order the 02/18/2026 planning zoning and adjustment for board meeting. And why don't we kick off by, starting with the pledge of allegiance, please? Okay. So thank you all for for being here. I see oh, Brian, you missed Is

your mic

the pledge of allegiance, but

I Mister think Drayna, know is your microphone on? Okay. So

yeah, I would like to ask you to stand up and do the pledge, but we've already done it, Ryan. So let's do it after. You got it. Okay. So why don't we start off with an approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Second.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes unanimously. Any changes to the agenda for tonight?

No, sir.

Great. Okay. Well, see that we just have one item, so that'll be great. Why don't we go ahead and swear in speakers, please?

If you will intend to be heard tonight on this item, would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Okay. And ex party disclosures, please.

Okay. Why don't we start with you, Yakis? Any ex party disclosures?

Yes. I spoke with our staff. I spoke with Councilwoman Maria Antonia, with Councilman John McGovern, and with Councilwoman Amanda Silvestri. And notwithstanding, I can be fair and impartial.

And could you just summarize the substance of your communications, the conditional use that's before us

today and what it entailed? Thank you.

I did not. I have no disclosures.

I have no disclosures. Just to clarify, is a separate disclosure from the same client last month?

Right.

Okay. Or same applicant. I have none.

Okay. I have none also.

I have none as well.

I have none.

Great.

Okay.

Okay. Good evening. Kelly Ferriolo, Planning and Zoning. Before you tonight is petition 2026Dash0002DashCU, a conditional use request for building heights that exceed 35 feet for four buildings within Wellington Village, also known as K Park, located on the Southwest Corner of Stribling and State Road 7 for which I would like to enter all files into the record. Building H is the hotel and was requesting a height of 86 feet.

Building G 4 is a two story restaurant with a height of 47 feet. Buildings D 1 And D 2 are a three story mixed use buildings with a height of 42 feet. Throughout this presentation and the staff report, K Park and Wellington Village is used synonymously. The agent Urban Design Studios on behalf of the applicant are here here to make their presentation first and staff will follow-up with the presentation.

Thank you, Kelly. Good evening board members. Lindsay Jean Louis with Urban Design Studio. Here before you tonight is a conditional use request specifically to approve the building heights above 35 feet within Pod B of Wellington Village. Those buildings are as follows, Building D 1 And D 2, which are 42 feet proposed in height, Building G 4, which is proposed to be 46.38 feet, and then Building H, is the hotel in the, tallest building within the pod at 86 feet.

As you guys may know, on 02/10/2026, we did receive village council approval of the master plan, MUPD rezoning, and hotel conditional use approval for the K Park site. This application follows it specifically to approve those heights over 35 feet. And this request is also subject to council approval and also going to your ARB board next week. And just to highlight on 12/09/2025, there was a zoning code text amendment to the conditional use process as well as the building height regulations within your Wellington ULDC. Specifically, no building permits for buildings exceeding 35 feet in height shall be issued before the approval by Wellington's council.

So that is why this application is coming through. If it's my understanding that we are the first proceeding under this process for the conditional use height approval. And we're all familiar with the site located at the Southwest Corner of Stribling and State Road 7. And this is the master plan that you saw at our earlier planning board meeting last month. Specifically, we're looking at pod b in the four buildings that Kelly had highlighted.

And this is just an outline of the Wellington Village as a whole. The majority of the buildings within the site are between one and two stories and below 35 feet. Our requests are specifically to Building H, G 4, D 2, And D 1, which range in building heights of 46.38 feet for Building G, 86 feet for the Building H Hotel, and then 42 feet for Buildings D 1 And D 2. And again, this is contextually placed most interior to the site furthest away from any potential impacts to other uses. So I would like to take the time to bring up Austin Lee with Alcushman Freddie who was the architect with the Wellington Village project to walk through the proposed elevations for each building that we're requesting high increases on.

Thank you, Lindsay. Thank you, council members. I'm Austin Lee representing Elksman Freddie Architects from Boston, Massachusetts. So as Lindsay mentioned, what you see on the screen here is Buildings D1 And D2. This is a three story mixed use building with retail at the base and two levels of office and co working on Levels 2 And 3.

You'll see that there's passageway between the two buildings and that they're connected by a bridge on the upper levels. The building has a mix of materials breaking down the massing. The total height of the building is 42 feet from grade to the top of Level 3. The first story is 16 feet for the retail levels and 13 feet for each of Level 2 And 3 for the office levels. These are the remaining facades of the building.

You'll see again that the massing has been broken down with a variety of materials representing both the retail and the office levels. This is a rendering of Building G 1. This is the restaurant building that's on the water just north of the hotel. You'll see the hotel off to the right of the page there. This is a two story restaurant building with restaurant program on Level 1 and associated dining and multi function purposes on Level 2.

This is a two story building. The total height of the building is 46.38 feet measured from the entryway Level 1 to the midpoint of the gable that you see on the bottom left of the page there. These are the remaining elevations of the building. For this building, we're considering mix of stone, thermally modified wood siding, and metals and glazing. And last, this is Building H.

This is the view of the hotel building as viewed from the project. This is the east facade and the the motor court in front of the hotel. The hotel is a seven story building, and it's the tallest tallest building on the project at 86 feet. It's flanked by our other tall buildings so that there's a transition in height from the seven story hotel to the three and two story office and restaurant buildings and then to the one and two story retail buildings. So the I know it says six to seven storeys at the moment, you'll see on the elevations that the hotel is a seven storey building.

Again, as measured from the zero point to the top of stair overrun, it's 86 feet in height. And you can see here, this is a composite at the bottom elevation and sectional cut showing the the stories and the the floor to floor height. Each of the upper levels in the hotel is 11 feet floor to floor with the level one being slightly taller. And the additional elevations of the hotel. For the hotel, we're anticipating mix of materials including precast concrete, stone cladding at the base and some use of metals, and again, the glazing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Austin. So with the December text amendment, there are also additional supplemental requirements that an applicant has to meet to request the building heights over 35 feet, and I'll walk through each of those requirements here. So specifically, the property must be a minimum of two acres in size. Pod B is 24.05 acres in size, so we meet that requirement. The second, requirement requires that buildings within a residential e, f, g, and h land use shall be located within a planned development and shall be within 500 feet of a collector road or road with higher classification.

We actually have a mixed use land use, so this does not apply. But even so, we're still located within a PD, and we're within 500 linear feet of State Road 7, is a principal arterial road. We also have to provide one foot of additional setback beyond the minimum requirement for every one foot in height for all portions of the building that exceed 35 feet. We meet those setbacks, and I'll just pick that in a table following the slide. And then buildings adjacent to single family residential properties shall provide two feet of additional setback beyond the minimum requirement for every one foot in height for all portions of the building that exceed 35 feet on the adjacent single family side.

Again, we're actually not adjacent to a single family, pod within our Pod B area, but even still, we would meet this requirement if we were to assess Farmington Estates as the most, the closest single family property. And this depicts the table. As you can see, it outlines the proposed height for each building. The height above 35 feet assessed for that request, and then adding that height above 35 feet to the minimum setback requirement which we outline here as 25 feet from State Road 7 and Stribling Way, and then 30 feet from our South property line. So the applicable required setback is that height above 35 feet added to our minimum setback requirement.

And in the last column to the right in green, see that we meet those required setbacks and in some cases very significantly above the minimum requirement. There are also certain design criteria that have to be met. The code amendment outlined that the applicant has to meet three of the five design criteria. Those criteria are having a parking structure resulting in reduced paved area, eco design facilities such as EV charging stations, green roofs, and solar panels. Funding for privately improved and maintained public facilities.

Adding public or or public open space for pedestrian streetscape enhancements. Having a lead based design at a level of silver or higher or providing a 30% workforce housing requirement. Of those five, we provide the three that are highlighted in green where our pod b will be providing EV charging stations. We are providing pedestrian streetscape enhancements as well as improvement of public amenities. And our buildings will be designed at a minimum of a lead for communities at a level silver.

Specifically to the hotel, there's an additional set of requirements since that building is requesting a height of over 72 feet. The code amendment passed in 12/09/2025 allocated that one building within a PD could ask for an additional 20 over the 72 foot maximum that results in 86 feet in height, is what we're requesting today. So we are consistent with the requirement that that allowance is limited to one building within a planned development, that the story height shall be a minimum of 11 feet floor to floor, and that the entire building shall be set back an additional two feet for every one foot above 35 feet. And you'll see how we comply with that setback requirement, as we actually exceed our the 35 foot height cap of by 51 feet. So again, that applicable setback addition is a 102 feet.

And you can see in red highlighted is what the code required setback is for a building that's requesting this additional 20%. And then in blue is our provided setback, which again as you can see, we meet on the South property line and we significantly exceed from the setback for State Road 7 and the setback for stripling. The code amendment also highlights landscape requirements for the conditional use height request. Each building that is requesting height over 35 feet must provide two sections of palms. One bucket where it's of palms that are greater than one third of the building height providing that gray wood amount, and that's 25% of your provided palms in foundation planting.

And then another bucket is 25% of palms that provide a minimum gray wood height over 12 feet of the foundation plantings. And as you may, recall and included in the master plan approval was a deviation to allow foundation planting not to be entirely adjacent to the building, but within the vicinity. And as you can see in the highlighted blue area, counting planners and some of the additional landscaping on the exterior as long as we meet the required or equivalent square footage that would otherwise be required if foundation planting was adjacent. So this is an approved deviation, and this is, where we're assessing the palms that count towards the conditional use height requirement. So for building D 1, you can see highlighted in blue are royal palms with a minimum gray wood height of 22 to 24 feet.

The requirement is that of the provided palms in the foundation planting, 25% have to be above a third of the building height. So for the Building D 1 and also D 2, it'll be 42 feet. We're providing a building, palm heights over that 14 feet. And of the eight palms in the foundation planting, we're providing three that count to the, first requirement and then three that count to the requirement that the gray wood is above 12 feet. In this instance, we're above the 25% requirement for both requirements.

Building D 2 is similar. There's six palms proposed for our foundation planting, and we're providing actually all six at the 22 to 24 foot Greywood height, which exceeds the one third requirement and also exceeds the 12 foot minimum. For Building G 4, which is the building north of the hotel, we're providing four palms in the foundation planting area. So as such, that requirement is that one palm would have to exceed 16 feet in the gray wood height and another palm would have to exceed 12 feet. We exceed that by providing royal palms at 22 to 24 feet in height or to clarify in the gray wood.

And then lastly, for the hotel, that, one third of the building height is 28 feet, and we provide multiple Washingtonian palms that provide that 28 feet of gray wood maturity. And then we provide three royal palms that are 22 to 24 foot in graywood height. To meet the requirement, only one of the, royal palms has to to count. But in total, we're actually providing, 13 or 16 or sorry. We're providing 11 Royal Palms in Washingtonians that meet that requirement.

And just to run through some site views of what the building heights will look like when constructed, this is the view from State Road 7 existing. And this is an overlay of the buildings, once constructed. This is a view from the Life Church parking lot to the south. And as you can faintly see in the back, it's pretty well landscaped and is gonna be fairly screened. This is another view, from Life Church to the south, and you can see the overlay of the hotel.

And we have also added views from that seventh story of the hotel, to ensure that there's gonna be really limited to minimal or no view into the properties to the south, not only with the landscape that's gonna be installed on our site, but with that significant setback to the closest single family residential. So that concludes our presentation. We have a representative with related Ross here as well as our architect ready to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. The staff have?

Yes. The proposed buildings are located central to Pod B and adequately separated from residential uses with over 500 feet from Farmington Estates to the South and 1,500 feet from Oakmont Estates to the West. Point of view images were provided in the staff report from various locations on the site including from the Top Floor of the hotel looking south to Farmington Estates. The LDR and the adopted project standards manual require increased setbacks for buildings taller than 35 feet. And buildings eligible for 72 feet or more require an additional two feet for every foot above 35.

This table provides the required setback based on the height of the building versus what was provided. All buildings meet and exceed the increased setback requirement. The LDR requires taller palms within the foundation planting areas to soften the visual impact of the building. The palms circled in the next few slides are required to have a gray wood of 12 to 28 feet depending on the height of the building. All required landscaping is a condition of approval and must remain as long as the building remains.

Any and all landscaping landscaping that dies, becomes diseased, or disfigured must be replaced. Projects that propose buildings greater than 35 feet in height are required to include at least three community benefits. The applicant is providing electrical vehicle charging stations throughout privately improved and maintained public amenities including promenades and plazas, and LEED based design or Florida Green Building Design Certification of Silver or higher. The community benefits are required to be shown on the site plan and are included as conditions of approval within the resolution. In addition buildings that are eligible for a height of 72 feet may request an additional 20% for a maximum height of 86 feet if each story has a minimum height of 11 feet, meets additional setback requirements, and be the only building of that height within a project.

And Building 8 H meets all those criterias. And at last, the architectural design. All buildings provide four sided architecture with windows that occupy a minimum of 40% of the elevations. Incorporate projects projections and recesses with varied lengths and depths, provide repeating patterns with colors, textures and material changes, are designed with an overall architectural theme and meet the guidelines within the adopted project standards manual and landscape and land development regulations. And based on the analysis provided in the staff report, staff has determined that the request meets the criteria of the comprehensive plan and land development regulations and comply with the requirements for a conditional use.

Conditions of approval are provided for in Resolution R-twenty 20 six-eight and this concludes my presentation.

Okay. Thank you. Questions?

I have a question. This rendering looks very different from the rendering that you're showing us on the screen. Is that because the rendering that you showed us on the screen was from a further southern Just

a bit further south. Correct.

And out of curiosity, what is what is what has Life Church thought about your project with the hotel? Has anybody pulled them?

Yeah. If you wanna speak to it. Yep.

Hi. Good evening. Kevin Ryan with Related Ross, executive development executive in charge of this development. We're in very good terms with Life Church. We've met with them many times over the course of the project. There we have a shared parking agreement we're working on with them. They're collaborating with us in terms of the access to 441, the stoplight. So we're in constant contact with them. They're very thrilled about our project. And the hotel, they've never mentioned to me any concerns.

In fact, they like the adjacency of the hotel. It's literally walking distance from the entrance of the church, as well as many dining and shopping opportunities. So I think that every they're very I almost call them a collaborating partner in a way. So, but as far as the hotel, we never heard anything other than positive comments.

I just had a couple neighbor questions too before you step off, if that's okay. One thing, we had people from Farmington, I think, that showed up at the last time. Have you had any communications with them relative to project? And then also one question that I had related to the hotel with the school. Is the school concerned at all related to the height, you know, in in sort of viewing into the areas? I don't know what the view corridor would look like into the school settings. Well,

let me take it in reverse order. The the school, the way that it's organized is the athletic fields sit immediately adjacent to the Life Church, so the distances of the hotel to the community or any of the school buildings is actually pretty significant. So it's not adjacent enough to have any type of view impact, they've never mentioned anything to us about a negative aspect of that. Farmington, we have not been in direct dialogue with them. We have reached out via communication with one of the, I think, Ken No. Answer. But we haven't had a direct communication with them. We have met extensively with Oakland. Oakland, yeah. And also Castellina. Well, they didn't show up here. I can give you updates

on They that as didn't show up at the meeting, so I'm guessing that they're not that as concerned. So, alright.

Maybe while I'm here, just give you a quick update on conversations we've had. Sure. So Oakmont, we have worked extensively with them sort of one on one and to including a community meeting with particularly the residents whose houses face the school property. And we satisfactory met sort of the conditions that they were looking for. And the main solution was that the boundary between the school and Oakmont is going be a seven foot wall on top of a three foot berm giving them a 10 foot sort of visual barrier as well as extensive landscaping on both sides of that wall as well as the road on the opposite side where the garage and other buildings are.

So they actually wrote a letter of support and a positive result in terms of the satisfaction with the solution. Castellina, we also had a significant meeting in terms of attendees. We had a resident meeting with the board members present plus probably 50 people in person as well as I don't know how many were attending online. But we gave a full presentation myself, the school as well as traffic. A main topic in the end being about the rotary and they're very much in support of the rotary.

The board, the vast majority of the residents are currently going through a process of getting a two thirds vote to endorse the rotary and that's only required because there's about a small land taking about 6,000 square feet for the rotary impinges slightly on their current entry. And not only we're not only putting a significant enhancement from a visual and traffic standpoint, but we're actually going to be fixing some of the drainage issues. So they're positive. We're very hopeful there'll be a two thirds vote, which is as again is currently in process. Great. So hopefully headed towards a positive outcome on the rotary because I know you all sort of endorse that as a preferred approach.

Excellent. Very good. Thank you. Any other questions?

Real quick with the hotel. There's no plans for anything additional on the roof? Just the overruns? No equipment? No?

Making sure there's no additional heights coming.

We're showing the stair overrun and the elevator overrun at the moment. That's all we're anticipating for the overruns on top of the building. I did have

a question about height on the hotel because it was obviously, we know what we're being asked to approve for the height total height in feet, that it said six to seven stories. I was just curious if that was if we've determined stories or if we're asking for and check the resolution language to see

if Yeah.

Think we've studied options of the hotel at six stories and at seven stories. Ultimately, going to seven stories allows us to include more landscape and public realm. So the current proposal for the hotel is a seven story building.

Okay. And then one more thing on the that might be architecturally relevant is the for the obviously, there's a lot of height on a lot of height, but relative on the restaurant for being it being a two story building as opposed to a three. I know it peaks out at the eaves on roof. But then also that's still going to is the I guess it's a staff question. The it still is proposes a two story building. So that they have to if they wanted to change that just because of the height sizing could theoretically allow higher, they would have to come back to get okay. That's it. Thanks.

Okay. Ms. Mariachi, the queue?

I don't have any questions.

All right.

I just real quick from a site plan perspective. Have you given any consideration to burying the electric lines? I mean, having FPL do it in the front? The they kind of showed up on

your rendering. That's a very good question. We are have evaluated the physical ability to do it as well as the cost to do it. We are currently contemplating including in our budgets. So it's a relatively expensive endeavor, but it's currently something that we're seriously considering doing. It would have a big impact, we think. But it's not a final decision yet, but it's definitely under consideration.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Question.

Nothing further? Okay. If there aren't any further questions, I'll entertain a motion to open public comment. Motion to open public comment. Second. Motion to the second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. We are now closed for public comment. Any further questions, comments, discussion? Hearing none, is there

a I'd just say that I think that you're thoughtful in terms of when we think about height considerations, I think four forty one is an area to take it more seriously. And I think they've done a good job on orienting them on the site, and it's appropriate. So I would make a motion to approve resolution r twenty twenty six dash zero eight for the conditional use for building height.

I'll second.

Okay. There's a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none the motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much guys.

Thank you.

And good luck. Okay. That's all for the agenda. Any comments from the public? Mr. Levin, you're the lone member of the public.

Sorry, didn't feel out

of heart. Okay. Just figured I'd give you a shout out since you're here. All right. I guess there's no comments from the public. How about from staff?

Just that we do have a meeting scheduled for March 18. We have one item on that meeting at this time. So that could change. But as of right now, that's the only announcement we have.

Okay. Very good. Any comments from the board?

None.

Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

Thank you.