Planning and Development Board - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the March 10 Planning and Development Board meeting. It is 06:00, and I will ask for the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Hernandez, would you like to lead us, please? Thank you, Commissioner. Roll call, please.

Hodalis Delgado.

Present.

Christine Corbo.

Present.

Joseph Stadlin.

Present.

Richard Blattner.

Present.

Steven Morales.

Present.

Tara Jafarmadar. Present. Mina Morgan and Bob Glickman have both advised that they will be out today. They have advisor chair, as well as us, so they are excused.

Correct. Thank you much. Since we have more than five, this meeting is now called to order. Approval of the previous minutes. Has anybody had a chance to review? Are there any questions, comments, or a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve, second by

Second.

Bladder, second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Seeing none, motion carries.

I'm sorry, was there someone who opposed?

No.

Oh, okay, I must have misheard.

SPEAKER April fools. No.

I didn't hear if it was. Are there any one: additions, deletions, withdrawals?

There are none.

SPEAKER Okay. City attorney announcements.

GREGORY Sure. Florida courts have determined that there are certain type of matters, including items one through two, on today's agenda, which are to be treated differently from other issues considered by the board. Most decisions of the board are legislative in nature, meaning that the board is acting as a policy making body.

However, in quasi judicial matters, the

board is applying existing rules and policies to a particular factual situation and is therefore acting like a judge or jury in the courtroom. In such cases, courts have determined that due process and fundamental fairness requires that more formal procedures be followed. Therefore, in quasi judicial matters, all witnesses are sworn in and subject to cross examination by the parties. In addition, the decision of the commission must be supported by competent and substantial evidence presented at the hearing. However, in Hollywood, we have adopted a rule that allows for the waiver of quasi judicial formalities.

Waiver can only occur if agreed to by the staff, by staff, the applicant, and any member of public who is present. Therefore, at this time, I ask that the chair inquire as to whether there is anyone who objects to waiving the quasi judicial formalities.

JOSHUA Thank you. Calling the first file, file number 25Z91. Staff, do you waive quasi judicial?

Staff waives.

Applicant, please approach. Hey, Liz. Name for the record and whether you waive quasi.

Liz Summerstein, 200 East Broward Boulevard, and I waive.

Thank you. Staff, would you like to make the presentation?

And just for the record, there's no member public here. So that way

Okay.

It's not it.

Assume there's no cards? Okay.

That is correct, Chair.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Planning and Development Board. My name is Laura Gomez with the Planning Division. Today, I'll be presenting the rezoning for 2200 Jackson Street and adjacent parcels. Before you file 20 five Z 91, the location is generally located on Jackson Street. The applicant is Bridge Asset Management LLC.

And the request is for a rezoning of point 59 acres from Dixie Highway Medium Intensity Multifamily District, DH2, to Dixie Highway High Intensity Mixed Use District, DH3, for a portion of the property located at 2200 Jackson Street along with an unaddressed parcel on Jackson Street under folios 5142, sixteen oh one, twenty three seventy, and 5,142, 1601, 850 within the regional activity center. I would like to clarify that the notice that went out for advertisement, it had the incorrect rezoning, a notice for point seven nine acres. And the current request is for point five nine acres. The actual request is for less and resulting on a less impact of a request. Okay?

The project is located along Jackson Street and near Dixie Highway. It is located within the regional activity center which encourage mixed use development and high density redevelopment along the major corridors and transit route. The applicant is under contract going through the process of purchasing and assembling the three properties that you see on the conceptual diagram. Under Parcel one, illustrated conceptually as a Parcel one, 2200 Jackson Street, Parcel two for the unaddressed parcel, and Parcel three for 400 Dixie Highway. The property at 400 Dixie Highway, it's already zoned DH3, so that will now be part of the request.

Today, the request is for portions of the parcels that are located within the DH2 zone. The current site has a split zone condition between DH2 and DH3. These occur due to historic folio configuration that caused the zoning boundary to go along the parcel rather than going on following a consistent alignment. The Sonia request is for point 59 acres and it consists of portion of parcel number one, which is 2222 Jackson Street, and is approximately 1,700 square footage of the area. And it will be also including Parcel Number 2, which is approximately 8,700 square footage area.

The rezone will be the request from DH2 to DH3. The surrounding properties, the property is surrounded by multifamily development along Jackson Street and mixed use development along Dixie Highway. The current zoning district is Dixie Highway, Medium Intensity Multifamily District, DH 2. And the proposed zoning today will be Dixie Highway, High Intensity Mixed Use Dixie District, DH 3. The current image shows the current, the existing zoning patterns on the side on the left and the image on the right, the proposed rezoning.

Under the current zoning regulations for the H3, sites or portions of sites located within 200 feet of DH2 District are limited to a maximum height of five stories or 55 feet. The intent of the high limit is to mitigate potential negative impacts associated with toddler development and to protect lower intensity development within the DH2 zone and adjacent properties that are adjacent within the DH3 zone. However, in this case, the applicant will own lands on both sides, the DH2 and the DH3 sides to be developed. And this will create cohesively development and as a single site. And that's the intent of the applicant.

The request will still maintain the purpose of the high buffer, but in a more efficient manner. As you can see on Figure Number one, it shows the 200 buffer high restriction with the current zoning. And Figure Number two, it shows the 200 buffer high restriction with the proposed rezoning. Staff evaluated the request using the five rezoning criterias in the zoning and land development regulations from Article V. All the criterias had been provided within the package that it was posted on the agenda.

Staff found that the request meets all the applicable rezoning criteria's. In conclusion, staff find that it's consistent within the zoning and land development regulations and the comprehensive plan. Staff recommends that the Planning and Development Board forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission. The applicant has submitted a companion design and site plan application proposing a multi family development. The conceptual illustration shown here is currently under the development review process, DRC.

And this is only being provided today for informational purposes only. Today, the action focuses on the rezoning request which is necessary for the purpose of the redevelopment of the site. So just a reminder, the item before you today is for the rezoning request. Thank you.

Thank you much. Before moving on to questions for staff, city attorney, I just want to confirm and have it on the record that the difference of the notice between the 0.79 per 0.59 is not a material issue, and we can proceed as properly noticed.

Correct. It's less impactful than what was noticed.

JULIE Okay. Any question for staff?

I just wanted to know if when DELL: you review when you're reviewing the site plan, that's when you determine whether there's a traffic study that would be required.

Is that when you determine that?

Yes.

Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Will the applicant please come forward and be heard?

Hi. Good evening. Liz LISS Sommerstein again. Our presentation is very similar, so we're here to answer any questions that you may have. I won't go through it again.

Okay. Any questions for the applicant? What's the adjacent zoning?

The adjacent zoning?

Zona, yeah.

Well, it's DH3 to the north and south of us, and then DH2 to the west. So you can see just it's really to correct this fragmented zoning that was in place because of the parcel boundaries. So you can see it's generally a straight line all along Dixie on both sides of Dixie Highway.

Any other questions?

I just had one question at the public meeting. Two of the residents that were in attendance were concerned about commercial space.

Right.

And they were hoping that there would be no commercial space.

There is no commercial space. Going be purely residential.

I'd like to make a motion for

Please speak into the mic.

I would like to make a motion for file number 25Z-ninety1 for site plan approval.

For rezoning? Rezoning. Okay. And it's recommendation to approve to the city? Yes. Okay. I second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Seeing none, motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you. Moving on to the second item on our agenda, file number 25 DP47. Staff, do you waive quasi judicial?

Staff waives.

Applicant, please come forward, state your name, and whether you waive quasi judicial.

GREG Good evening. Craig McDonald with Corp Property Services on behalf of McDonald's USA LLC. And we agree to waive.

GREG Thank you. And there's no comment cards for this? No public?

No comment cards.

CHRISTIAN Sounds great. Cameron, would your staff like to present?

Good evening Chair, Board members and members of the public as well as those joining us virtually. My name is Umar Javed. I'm a Planner III with the City's Planning Division. Before you is filed '25 TPDash47. The location is 6601 Taft Street.

The applicant is 6601 Taft Hollywood F Florida LLC, and it is a request for a design and site plan for a 3,859 square foot fast food restaurant with a drive thru facility in a C3 medium intensity commercial district zoning district. The lands are generally located on the West side of the city, West Of North 66th Avenue and North Of Taft Street. Displayed here is an aerial image of the subject lands as well as the existing context of the property. It is two parcels on the Southeast corner of the Hollywood Festival Shopping Plaza. Right now the parcel is presently vacant as well as a combination of shared parking for the commercial plaza.

Displayed here is the land use and zoning map. The subject lands are designated as general business in the city's comprehensive plan. It's also zoned C3 in the city zoning and land development regulations and the site area is approximately 0.81 acres. And again, it is two parcels within the Hollywood Festival Shopping Plaza. Surrounding properties include a retail food store to the direct west of the property.

This is at 6621 Taft Street. To the north we have 6000 Hundred 3 Taft Street. This is the general Hollywood Festival Shopping Center, a variety of number of different shops and retail uses. And directly adjacent to this site across North 66 is 18011841 North 66th Avenue. This is another commercial retail plaza. It's not associated with this site. It's just directly across. Displayed here is the conceptual site plan for the proposed development. The applicant is proposing a 38 square foot fast food restaurant. Again, the site itself is across two folios that make up a total of 33,000 square feet.

As part of the proposed development, the applicant is not requesting any variances. The maximum height for the development will be just under 19 feet and they are proposing setbacks that significantly exceed the minimum requirements given the size of the commercial plaza. The applicant is proposing a total of 39 spaces specifically for the fast food restaurant which would bring the overall plaza parking count to approximately five twenty five parking spaces. This exceeds the minimum parking requirements stipulated for the site. And as part of the public outreach requirements, the applicant has fulfilled all those requirements through the development application review process.

In terms of bicycle parking, they are providing two bike racks at the front of the restaurant. I also wanted to put up a more detailed site plan, just a little bit more zoomed in. As you can see, red lines delineate the vehicle path of travel. The vehicles are to come off of North 66th Avenue. That will be the entrance primarily for the fast food restaurant and the drive thru facility.

They are proposing a total of two lanes for ordering that will eventually transition into a singular lane towards the pickup windows and cashier. There will be an escape lane that will be shared with the drive aisle adjacent to the drive thru. And this is the proposed design. If it isn't obvious already, they are proposing McDonald's. This is the elevation seen from the south and west side of the property lines.

And these are elevations that they've submitted for the east and west. Our staff have worked very closely with the applicant to achieve a design that is commendable in the zoning district as well as the plaza overall. Summary of findings. The proposed request staff finds it to be consistent with the criteria set forth in the city's zoning and land development regulations, as well as the city's comprehensive plan and the citywide master plan. Staff are recommending approval of the design and they are recommending approval of the site plan if design is granted with the following conditions.

And I do want to note there are six conditions here. There are some that have been modified as the applicant has worked closely with staff to address some of these conditions prior to the meeting. They have been modified accordingly. However, should the application be approved, it would be in accordance with the conditions listed above. Thank you.

Thank you much. Any questions for staff? Dick?

I said the signage is basically the building itself. Is there a freestanding sign that I missed somewhere?

I'll just go back to the elevations here. The applicant is only proposing the signage that we're seeing here on the east and west elevations. They will have to submit a separate signed permit through the building permit process.

So we would not weigh in on that?

Any signed permits or whatnot would be reviewed separately after the site plan process. The design that you would be voting on would just be the conceptuals that have been provided through our design process, which have also been reviewed by staff through the DRC review.

But if there is a site plan tonight, and there is, why would the sign location not be identified? Even though there's a separate permit required for the sign, Why would it not be a part of the site?

I'm sorry. Can you please speak into the mic? We're having a hard time hearing.

Sorry. I'm asking if we're being asked to approve the site plan. And if there's going to be a freestanding sign, it should be a part of the site plan.

Through the chairs. They aren't necessarily proposing a freestanding sign. They are proposing wall signs. And these are designs that are generally

And I'll ask the applicant when they come forward. I'll ask the applicant.

JOSHUA Oh, yeah. We can defer that question to the applicant. That's no problem.

JOSHUA While we're asking staff, what is the concern? Just that it's not appeared before you? JOSHUA No.

JOSHUA Okay.

Gotcha. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Sorry about that. Good evening. Craig McDonald again with Corporate Property Services on behalf of McDonald's USA LLC. I have a brief presentation I can run you all through. And to answer your question, we do have a monument sign. It's in the southwest corner of the site. But I'll show you on the site plan as soon as I get to it. We had our participation meeting on 07/01/2025. There's a Chinese restaurant with a big meeting room in the center here. We held it there.

There were a few residents showed up, but there were no objections at the time. We're requesting site plan approval and design approval for a 3,859 square foot McDonald's restaurant. It's got the dual side by side drive through lanes in the C3 Medium intensity commercial zoning district. This is just an aerial that kind of shows you what's happened. So 6,601 is that front square parcel. We're going to be utilizing a portion of the parking lot directly north of us in the red boxed area. Right now, they're part of the Platt application that's at Broward County right now to combine those two together. And then I'll show you that in just a second. That's Platt application 33, MP 25. Here's just the survey.

Shows you really the same thing. This is just the Platt application, to let you know. It's been submitted to the county. They've got the development review report. They went back in with the objections and approvals. They're working through that process. And that's the shopping center owner, Noble Properties, that's doing that. So here's the site plan. It's hard to see down in that southwest corner nearest the farm stores. It meets the setback requirements. And it will meet all the square footage requirements. It's right down in that corner. We're actually dedicating a portion of the corner, the clip, as you turn there, part of the plat. So we couldn't really get it at the intersection right there. So we moved it to the west side of the property.

As I said, we got a write in, out off of North 66th Avenue. We have a raised median there to control that activity. We've got cross access with a shopping center at the northwest corner of the parcel. We have 31 parking spaces required. 18 are on-site. 21 are with a cross parking with the shopping center. We've got two bicycle parking spaces in the front of the restaurant facing Taft Street. We've got the side by side drive through that you can see right there with plenty of queuing for the drive through. The dumpster is located away from the intersection back in the Northwest corner. It's constructed of concrete block walls we painted to match the main color of the building.

It's got opaque gates. And it has pedestrian access that leads back and you can see the striping there back to the back of the building to make it safe for employees to take the trash out. As you can see by this, the site's heavily landscaped as compared to what's out there today. And we're reworking just the drive all behind us and putting some new landscaping in on the shopping center side as well. So we're actually exceeding the landscaping requirements here. We're not requesting any variances from the land development code. We meet all the code requirements. And we are consistent with the comprehensive plan with the city of Hollywood. These are the elevations we discussed. These are contemporary architectural design style.

We've got an articulated parapet, which screens all the mechanical equipment. We've got a varying roofline to avoid the box like structure. We've got vertical wood grain aluminum batten accents to break up the walls. We've got varying material treatments, such as stucco stone and siding. There's vertical tower elements at the front and side entrances with a horizontal aluminum canopy, that white canopy that connects the two. The earth tone beige and brown building colors, as you can see. And obviously, the signage is minimal, a couple of arches, McDonald's sign. But it's very complementary to the building. And let me just go forward one. So here's the drive through side.

We have the aluminum canopies over the drive through as well. And you can see the stone on the bottom, the siding. And we broke up that wall pretty good on that side. Let me show you the renderings. This is taken from the Southeast corner looking to the Northwest.

This is looking from the Southwest corner, looking Northeast. And we do agree with all the conditioned approval for staff. We've been working on those with engineering for a little bit of time here. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions everybody has. Thank you.

DICK, does it answer your question on Yes. Also saw there's a long list of additional criteria for design is approved, and you're Okay with the wording. You've accepted

the DICK Yeah. Oh, everything's been modified. We agree with those modifications. Okay.

Sounds great. Any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none, we'll bring up questions and comments here.

Thank you

very much. Any comments, questions, deliberations? I'll entertain a motion for design.

Make a motion to approve site plan approval for twenty five DP forty seven.

So moved. I second. And second. All in favor? CHRISTIAN Opposed? Seeing none, motion carries. Now going on to site plan with I said Yep. Long And can you pull up the revised? Yeah, the revised conditions. They seem to differ from our agenda.

Thank you much.

Appreciate

it.

Thank you. Took out a few trees on this one. Any other comments questions or deliberations on site plan

seeing no comments I move to approve site plan for file number D25DP47 with conditions one through six.

I second. Do we need to read the verbatim into the record? Or are we okay with do we need to read the verbatim into record? Or are we okay with the handout?

No, you don't need to read the verbatim being done.

Thank you much. It's been moved and second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Seeing none, motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you. Okay. Moving on with no other agenda items in old business, moving on to new business.

Good evening, board. Thank you for your attention and for your patience in getting through our lengthy agenda. New business, the first item is review of projects before the development review committee. In our last DRC meeting on the March 2, we had 2910 Polk Street reviewed by the DRC. It's an office building proposal with a request site plan and that are companion to one another, moving through the development review process right now in the second submission phase.

How big of a building? How many square feet?

I can get that information for you. It's roughly four floors.

Okay, significant. Okay, thank you.

JOSHUA Regarding and that was it for that DRC meeting. And the DRC meeting prior to that had no items. As a reminder and I'm going to keep saying this that no items on a DRC agenda does not imply that no items are moving through the system. It means that for that particular DRC meeting, no applicants needed additional support from staff and are moving through along the normal trajectory. The next item under new business is a summary of city commission actions.

And the first and foremost is that in the last city commission meeting, 9 Hollywood Phase 2 went forward for first reading of rezoning. You may remember this board proffered a recommendation of approval for that item. And now it's making its way through the process onward to second reading on the March 25. It received approval at first reading and onward to second. The next item that I wanted to bring up with you all pertains to an item that was previously heard by this board, 2101 North 16th Avenue.

I'm going provide a little background, I'll tie it back to commission items in a second. This is a request that came before this board last month for a four story, 22 unit multifamily building. It was a request for a design, site plan, and variance. As a quick refresher, the variance failed, and the design and site plan was never actioned upon because they failed by default. As you may know, commissioners through the code have the ability to recall an item for review should they would like to review an item de novo based on the board's determination of what the board determined.

In this case, we have received four requests from commissioners to recall this item for review at the city commission level, a de novo hearing. And again, a de novo hearing means to be heard fresh, so to speak. I just want to advise the board that while this item has been called for review, this board does have the ability to make a motion to reconsider this item if they want to bring if you all if it was your pleasure, you want to bring it back to be heard, understanding that the variance is no longer part of the request. And so you'd be hearing design and site plan. This item can be returned to this board if a motion is made.

Having said that, if that's not the board's will, then it will follow its trajectory right now to the commission at the next available meeting to be heard by the commissioners.

Out of curiosity, which commissioners requested the hearing?

It was the mayor, Commissioner Biederman, Commissioner Gruber, and Commissioner Hernandez. So that was my update to you all. And again, it falls under commissioner update because it eventually will go to the city commission.

And so should the board desire to make a motion to reconsider this, it would have to be from someone on the prevailing side of the motion, so someone who voted to support the denial of the variance. And I believe Cameron, can you

state

who those board members were? Board

member Klickman, board member O'Dallas, and board member Blattner would be the prevailing JULIE board members that would have to make the Make

the motion, and then the entire board would have to vote on that.

If I may, just to add on to that, if you were to consider a motion for reconsideration, it would have to be made at today's meeting. So that's the only caveat when it comes down to it as far as Robert's rules of procedure. It's the immediate following meeting or the meeting itself where the action took place. And for further clarity, it would not be that we're rehearing the item tonight. You would just be motioned to reconsider of even the item as a whole, but not that you're voting on something tonight.

JOSHUA You mentioned that variance would not be part of if we were to reconsider it, variance would not be part. JOSHUA Has the application changed in that aspect?

JOSHUA Regarding that, no, the application has not changed. Regarding the merits of the application, I don't think we can discuss much more on it.

Yeah, I would encourage and your attorney can advise you otherwise. But I would encourage the board not to get into the merits of the petition. It's just with the board

No, it was a simple question that you said that we would not be if it does come up for it, we would not be considering the variance. And I was wondering why that change.

You may recall at the time

I don't. That's what I'm asking.

The board's determination, there was uncertainty behind the need for a dedication, a corner cord dedication. And the applicant chose to go forward with the project at that hearing while we were still working out what that dimension would be, if it would be a dedication, an easement, and what size of that area would be. At the time, based on the information they had, they decided to go forward for the full variance. The board then did not approve the variance. And so we've looked back at it with them.

We believe that the variance would not be needed, that there could be a partial easement and dedication, And then only a design and site plan would be required. And so based on that, we're asking the board, would those on the prevailing side consider making a motion to reconsider the project?

And to add further clarification, you denied the variance. But by denying the variance, you ultimately denied the site plan and design. And that was explained during the meeting. And you all voted and understood that, right? Okay.

It's answered. I have a question.

Shoot.

In going forward, now that there's no

Please speak into the mic.

Now going forward that there's no variant, that leaves the applicant as by right. Is that correct or no?

MARY Correct.

MARY Okay. So by right, we've denied an application because the residents in the adjoining surrounding area were upset because of various things. But now we're causing a problem to go forward with a by right

GREGORY I'm not sure staff can answer why anybody on this day has voted one way or the other.

GREGORY No,

no, no.

I'm not asking them for information. I'm just trying to clear it in my head that

I think what you're asking is, if they didn't need the variance, would this have just been a project that they could build automatically because the zoning matches?

No, no, no. I know they would have to get approval. But there's a difference between asking for a variance and by right. So we're not approving it. It was denied three to three. And now they're going to the commission. We have the opportunity to approve it We based on the actual

have an opportunity to hear it again and make validations. Right.

JULIE reconsider it.

JULIE Exactly.

So I'm asking my board, maybe, that we should reconsider it before it goes

According to the rules, it's only those that determine not to approve that can reconsider it. So who are those names that did not approve? DELL:

Their names are board member Glickman.

He's not here.

GREGORY Board member O'Dallas.

Okay. GREGORY

I have questions about, at the commission meeting, were members of the community in attendance at that meeting? Did they speak?

This is a request for recall that comes through a written request from the city commissioners. So it has not gone to a city commission meeting as of yet.

So if it goes back to the city commission, what's the process? Who speaks? Is the Just

to clarify, and I'm sorry to interrupt you, Board Member Blattner. We're bringing it up because this has been recalled to the commission. The discussion about the item has occurred. So if someone would like to make the motion to reconsider, they can. But procedurally, we can't get into the merits and details of the application because the city commission has to follow a specific process.

I believe and I don't want to put words into Dick's mouth here but you're just asking about what the procedure is, not

I'm sorry. Would you repeat that?

Two people said something to me.

I'm sorry. Yes, we were talking. The notification procedures would be the same in either situation.

Which is a mail out of 500 feet.

Wait. Say that again, please.

It would be a mail out notification of 500 feet radii to the property as it is for planning and development board as per the original notification.

So it either goes to commission for approval or it goes to the planning board.

Consideration.

Yeah, consideration for approval.

This board could reconsider the item, make a motion to reconsider it, or the commission has called it for review, and the commission will consider it.

That

was called for review from four commissioners based on the decision that was made by the board. So in conferring with the city attorney's office and the applicant, we looked at the rules and the procedures and wanted to give the board an opportunity to consider tonight at the following meeting to make a motion to reconsider hearing the item at the next meeting.

JAMES Thank you much.

I, for one, would love to have the commission make this hearing, have the hearing before the commission.

JAMES All right. So with the two people that have the ability to reconsider this on this board, neither one is willing to do so. So I think this board has made a decision that the commission will make that determination. We will not be reconsidering that.

Understood. Thank you. Mr.

Chair, may I make a comment here? Sure. Because I think this has troubled me since we had this meeting and we had this discussion. I was actually shocked that with two attorneys in the room plus staff, nobody said you can't do that. You can't do what we did because we never addressed the reason. No one was ever asked why are you turning this down? Why are you saying no? When an item comes before us, there are conditions that have to be met that are spelled out in law. Right? We're asked to approve a variance or not.

The denial no explanation was given for the denial that met the qualifications for denial. Do you understand what I'm saying? I said I don't like the project. I think the neighborhood is great the way it is. Keep it that way. And That's that is really, honestly, not a reason for to deny the project. Normally, what the staff attorney and the board attorney would say is that is not a legitimate reason to deny this project. I was shocked that neither attorney or staff did that. And that's why, at this point, I'm saying, I'm fine with the commissioners weighing in on this and if they wanna hear it, let them hear it.

If I may, through the chair, I think we should correct the record. If you recall and I recall very clearly at that meeting when you made that statement. And at that point, I chimed in through the chair and explained that any decision that you all made needed to be made based on the code provisions and what was allowed. That was abundantly clear as to your reasoning. And at that point, board member O'Dallis chimed in and explained her reasonings based on the criteria that she read out loud from staff's memo.

So we made clear on the record as to why she wasn't in support. And also, your reasoning is that I'm not sure if they were ever corrected, why you were not in support of it. But ultimately, a motion to deny was not offered by any board member. It was a motion for approval. At that point, a three to three vote means that it fails.

There was never a motion to deny on the table. And so I just want to be very clear here that, indeed, I did interrupt, through the chair, to state that your decision and this body's decision needed to be based on the criteria and the code. And again, it was reiterated through another board member why they were not in support of the item. So that was clear from the record.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you much. GREEN: Anything else on the new business?

No other new business.

JOSHUA Okay. From the dais, anything for the good of the board or any other announcements? Seeing none, meeting adjourned. Thank you.