Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music]

Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey, Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. [Music]

[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Hey, [Music]

hey, hey. [Music] Okay, here we go. All right. Call to order the October 22nd, 2025 uh planning and zoning board meeting.

Uh Bobby, call the role, please. Present and accounted for. Yes. Here. Here. Here. Here. Present. Here. All right. Tonight looks like we got the whole first team. Uh, next item on the agenda is our traditional 30 secondond moment of silence. So, at this point, if you would um please be silent for the next half a minute. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Um, next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the September 24th uh, meeting. Chair will entertain a motion. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. Are there any uh, corrections, changes, adjustments? Okay, seeing none, Bobby, call the roll on the minutes. Rich Deli, yes. Paul Fischer, yes. Gigi Dbeck, yes. Robert Hartzell, yes. Tundra King, yes. Carla Coleman, yes. Fred Stacer.

Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is individuals testifying tonight need to be placed under oath. So at this time, if you would please stand, raise your right hand, and uh Secretary Bobby will swear you in. Thank you. Do you swear affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you.

Okay. First item on the agenda on the under new business is uh uh Reagan Xany Group warehouse major site plan BNC 23-12455. It's on Southwest 14th Avenue. So you're presenting tonight. Perfect. Thank you so much. Uh, good evening chair and board members. Saulana here, planner with development services and I am here to present the site plan for Reanzani Group Warehouse. The property is located on Racetrack Road um, just south of Andrews Avenue. Um right before you get into the tra um PMPO live location next to the warehouses there. Um a little background information on this project. Uh it is currently vacant uh in an area where there's a lot of industrial um uh built from back in the day. Uh so a lot this would look like a lot different from the block area because it will be built in today's code. So, we'll have landscaping and it will have everything that we didn't require back in the day. Um, the applicant is being require is is required to dedicate an additional 13 ft from Racetrack Road. So, on the site plan, if you notice, the property boundary has been moved uh south a little bit more. And I also wanted to point out that on the alley or on the rear of this location, it's actually an alley, not a street. Um so just it for and I'll explain why that matters in a second.

And uh the AAC did approve this project uh in two weeks ago and the only condition that they added was that they provide the same canopies they provided here to the rear facade. And finally we are at the site plan. Um they are here to approve um four bays a warehouse with four bays. uh each with own entrance and loading and parking spaces. Um I wanted to point out that in the staff report I only made a reference to the individual uh footprint which is how we uh calculate the L coverage. Uh but how we calculate the parking is by the overall uh gross floor area of their use. So this includes a mezzamine that's why there is a footprint and a gross floor area that difference. Uh, so we calculate, we go by the 9,000 figure for the park parking calculation and everything meets code, so it's all good. And as I mentioned before and the previous slide, there is a alley. So as you notice that you uh most site lanes don't come in with backout parking uh because that's not allowed by by code, but only for streets. So that is why there's a difference in configuration for the parking along South 14th Street versus the rear and the alley. in the alley, you can just go back out and load in. There's no issues with the code. Um, but that would not be allowed on 14th Street. And these this slide contains the review standards that were provided in the staff report. The plans meet all review standards and provided they meet all conditions of approval upon the per building permissible. And these were the conditions provided in the staff report. uh three conditions. Number three is just standard. Um the applicant is here uh with their own presentation um should you wish to wait uh and ask questions until then.

Okay. With that go ahead Mrs. Coleman. You have I have a question of staff. Sure. Um oh can you tell can you go back to the um Miss Coleman is your mic is your mic on Yeah. There. How far back does that alley go? And is there that's on actually goes um all the way out. Uh can't remember the actual context, but it does it is a dead end. It goes all the way uh down and there's nothing front facing on that alley. No, it's all reared. It's all reared. They are still required to make it look somewhat uh like Well, absolutely. I just want to make sure there's nothing I didn't think there would be anything front facing, but I just wanted to make sure.

Right. Right. uh other loading and and uh is permitted there but because it is an alley you are you're allowed to put their their loading doors from there. Thank you.

Okay. Anybody else before we go to the applicant? Okay. Seeing none applicant want to make a presentation or Okay. Name and address for the record. Good evening. Good evening. Lewis Larosa. I'm the architect of record. Office is at 9,000 Sheridan Street in Peenrook Pines, Florida. So, just to touch a little bit on on Sal's, we on the front which is facing 14. Um, we've we've done a really nice job of we've had movement in the building, you know, changed some colors, added some architectural banding, and then along third as well, we've highlighted that elevation as well to mimic the front. Fortunately, we did have we do have a dedication which we've lost 10 or 11 feet, which made things a little bit more tight. The rear of the property um does have man doors and it does have overhead doors and as a condition of the AAC, we've provided some canopies like we did towards the front. Um the landscaping is extensive and most beautiful landscape we've ever done for a warehouse project, but that's sets the standard and changes the neighborhood. So, we're proud to do it. We worked hard with staff. Wasn't easy, but I think we we got it done. So,

Okay. Yeah. Um before before we move on, did um your your clients fine with the three conditions of staff? Absolutely. Okay. Go ahead. Questions? Anybody? Okay. Seeing none, um is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this? All right. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the uh to the board. And um if there are no more questions, then the chair will entertain a motion on item number one. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Mr. Dowy, go ahead.

In consideration of planning and zoning application number 2312000055, I move that the board finds confident and substantial evidence has been presented that satisfies the review criteria and approves the major site plan with three subject to three conditions provided by staff. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Any questions on the motion? Seeing none, Bobby, call the roll on item number one, please. Rich Deli, yes. Tundra King, yes. Gigi Dbeck, yes. Paul Fischer, yes. Robert Hartzell, yes. Carla Coleman, yes. Fred Stacer, yes. Thank you very much. Good luck with your project.

I was just saying I love seeing vacant land get utilized. Yeah. Yeah. It's nice. Yeah. Okay. Item number two, uh, LT2, uh, excuse me, LT 20 warehouse edition, PNC25-124014. It's major site plan at address 115 Northwest 16th Street. And this is also Saul. Go ahead.

Good evening again, chair and board members. Saul UA, planner development services, and I'm here to present the site plan for the LT20 warehouse expansion. This one is located uh north of Northwest 16th Street and west of Dixie Highway. It's actually right across from the air park and by the Goodyear blimp uh location. Um it is adjacent to vacant uh properties and also single family homes to the north of this property. Again, I wanted to provide some background information on the actual site plan. Um the existing uh warehouse was constructed sometime in the 1960s. Uh back then it was part of a larger development and staff research was a little bit inconclusive as to how we arrived to a zero foot setback next to a single family home but that is how um we're we're assuming that it was part of a larger development back in the day. And the irregular lots uh irregular shape of the lot also came into play by previous owners that we have no uh clue how we how that shape lot became the way it is today. That would not be permitted today. We do not allowed um those type of reg regular uh shaped lots to be done. However, this was not done by the previous uh by the current owner. It was always done by previous owners. Uh as part of the approval of the fire, they are being required to maintain access to the south property line. Due to the shape of the lot, uh fire truck can't back out. So what fire department asked for them is to is for them to for the truck to be able to circulate through the neighboring property. That agreement has already been recorded and the property owner to the south has agreed and recorded that access easement. So he's going to keep that open for them and emergency vehicles only, not for actual traffic. Um and again so the property the current owner purchased the property in February

2025 and they intend to modernize and expand the facility. However uh in in order to modernize and expand the facility the property will be subject to today's code. Uh that today's code requires a 30-foot setback on the rear. Uh as you can see where there it is right now it's at zero and 10t on the side. So it they actually in order so in order for that to they had to go to the ZBA and get those variances approved as part of the ZBA order they got that approved for the ex existing because it by the nature of the repairs and the increase in height the the the work needed is sub substantial. So it would have to come back here anyways for the existing because of how much they need to do. Um so the the variance was granted for the existing and the expansion and the board the CBE board knew at the time that about the conditions of the site and how that it was irregular shaped lot. So they knew all those conditions when they when they approved this. Uh and I just wanted to point out that in my conditions I say that they have to close out they have to meet the conditions of the variance and in that variance there were conditions related to closing out all violations. However, all code violations are related to the state of the property. So, by virtue of doing this expansion and in uh and additions, uh all those code violations should be going away because they're all related to the state of the property. Uh and then the AAC did approve this property, this project uh two weeks ago. They were concerned about the zero foot setback. Um that is why they included in their condition that uh that the gutters be provided along the property line for to pro uh to prevent water runoff. Um they did they did they thought that was important to add to their approval. However, as part of standard practice, we would never approve a site plan that

drains into a neighboring property. That's just not something that we allowed in the building department allowed. So that's just part of standard practice and they're not proposing to do that. They're not proposing to drain into the neighboring property. They can't do that. So, finally, we are here at the site plan uh an approval to remodel the existing 7,900 ft² one-story industrial building and add a 4,848 ft warehouse to the west side and improve the driveways for better access and circulation, upgrade the landscaping and irrigation, and provide uh new parking. The remodel remodeling includes raising the height of the existing warehouse um from about I believe 14 ft to 22 to the flat roof line. Um and the main main egress and ingress from the narrow driveway entrance will remain from the south on the south. These this slide contains the review standards that were provided in the staff report. the plan meets the review standards provided they meet all conditions of approval upon building permit submitt and the conditions on the variance. Here are the conditions listed out in the staff report and I'll read out uh number one sess one successfully satisfy all the conditions of approval variance PC251100000012 as mentioned on the staff report. Two prior to building permanent approval the rightway dedication must be approved and recorded. And number three is our standard um conditions we give for everybody. So if you have any questions, I know the applicant is here too. Uh they have their own presentation. Um but I'm happy to answer any questions before that.

Okay, we have any question? Yes, Mr. Deli, go ahead. Thank you. Um so how are you tonight? Great. Just so I'm clear, are they going to have a setback from the residential community or is there going to be no setback? The the variance was granted with zero foot setback. Yes. from the residential for the north. All right. Thank you. Anybody else before we go to the applicant? This is Mrs. Coleman. Why? I think we can let the applicant explain the same reasoning they explained to the CBA board. It was all financial gate. Uh Mr. George here, if it's if it's more appropriate for me to wait and let him

I can answer it. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah, because this is right up against residential. Okay. Okay. Yes. Any anybody else before we go to the applicant? Okay. Seeing none presentation. Okay.

Just name and address for the record, please.

Sure. My name is George Ramos. my address 5341 Northeast 16th Terrace in Fort Lauderdale. Good evening. Uh, a lot of what's all covered was I was going to cover in sections, but to give you a little bit better context, aerial location you already talked about where it's located next to the air park. Uh, it's a flagship property. We inherited it in this condition, which is why we have had to go through all these various approvals. a little bit about the existing conditions which I think will give you an idea of the property. This is on the left side from the east looking west. So this would be from the Dixie Highway side looking at the property. There's some fencing and some landscaping there as part of our improvements. We'll also be updating the landscaping to code. The right side from the south looking north that is going to be the entrance to the property that is already existing there. That is going to remain. I believe we actually are going to widen that by a couple feet, but that is going to stay the same. Getting to your point about the homes that are on the north end, we have tried to reach the property owners on numerous occasions, but both houses are Airbnbs, so there's nobody that's actively living in the home. Uh on the two, three occasions that I've gone there, there hasn't been anybody in the house. Uh you can see how the wall is there. They've overgrown vegetation. It's a little dilapidated. So, part of our plan is actually going to be cleaning up that wall, raising the warehouse marginally, but it's going to be painted and aesthetically pleasing. One of the neighbors, I don't know if you can see it on the picture on the left there for their Airbnb, they've actually created some type of mural wall art on the wall. If we're trying to reach out to them, that's we don't have a problem with it staying if it, you know, allows for them to enjoy the property, but we're going to clean up this side from the north section. So there is nobody actively living in the homes. Existing conditions about it. Uh Saul

talked about the code compliance the we're not able to to close any of the violations before a building permit is issued. But because we're going through this and the permit's going to be issued, we are going to satisfy all the conditions. Uh it was previously used as a part of the I1 group. There was some storage and there was stuff in the building. Walls are damaged. Our renovation is basically going to be ripping off the roof in its entirety, increasing the height of the building, adding the addition, new roof, new trusses, impact windows, the whole nine yards. Uh, again, I want our use what was previously is consistent what the proposed plan is going to be. I actually am going to move in with my business to part of the facility. So, I'll be on site as well, uh, making sure that the property is maintained. We intend to rent out the other facilities to some local businesses in the area. site plan. He kind of went through that as well. Um it's a fairly simple plan. You can note on the left side the dark shaded area that is the proposed addition. Uh the kind of lighter top part that's the existing building that's going to remain like I said, but all new roof trusses and everything that footprint is actually not changing. And Saul also said I was at the AEC a couple weeks ago. We have no problem putting the gutters on. and it was already in our plan anyway. Like you said, we have to do it for our building review. So, no problem. Landscaping. This is in we meet all the code requirements. We've also included some landscaping for the CPTD. Uh we've got palm trees, uh pvious area. All those conditions we satisfy. I'm going to actually skip the elevations because I think the rendering provides a much better look at what the property is going to look like. So, this is looking basically from the southeast angle, uh, standing southeast angle looking to the northwest. Uh, you see our access lane there. And we've tried

to make the building more modern and contemporary to modernize it, make it blend in with some of the existing buildings that are already in the area. Uh, like I said, impact windows, roller doors, but we've got some nice architectural features included in there as well. Uh, I have Matt here. I don't Do you want to talk about any of these conditions as well as he kind of discussed it? Name and address for record, please.

Sure. Matthew Scott. Um 200 East Bar Boulevard. Um I Yeah, so we worked pretty hard with your staff to address all code requirements. So we check all the boxes. That's why we have the green checks. Um the only items that we couldn't meet, of course, were the non-conforming features, right? It's an existing non-conforming building. That's why we did the variances first and those got approved allowing for what we're proposing tonight. So there are no issues with the proposed conditions whatsoever. Um and nothing that we're disputing from staff. Everything's met and clearly so shown on the rendering presenting a drastic improvement to what is a pretty rough little area. Um and so we'd request approval.

Mr. Chairman. Yes. I'm going to go back to my question. Thank you. Is the back side of the building the wall or is there a wall in back of the building? Can you clarify a little bit? Are you talking about the northern? Yeah. So there there's already It's interesting. Okay. Because there's already part of where this building is. So, if I go back to some of the existing condition photos, this that you're seeing is actually the rear part of the existing building.

Okay. So, that so it's right on the lot line and it was built right on the lot line. Yes. Correct. And there's already uh on the right side photo, it may be difficult to tell, but there already is an existing wall that is also on the property line on the north and the west side. And that so part of it is the building and part of it is a wall. Correct. When you finish your renovation, is it all going to be a wall or is it all going to be building? It's going to be, as the rendering shows, it's all going to be building. So the So what's already there is not going to move. It's just going to increase in height and have a roof.

Okay. This is the first time in the 10 years I've been sitting on this board I've seen someone come with with a variance that allowed them to do that, which is why I'm asking these questions. Um, and I understand that those are Airbnbs and you can't get a hold of anybody there, but there are owners of record. Um, and I guess I need to ask staff. No one came forward to complain about this or comment on it during when they were notified. Before staff answers, just to clarify, irrespective of what this board does tonight, Uhhuh.

the entire uh south side for those folks, so our north side remains a wall irrespective of what happens because it's walled all the way through. So we're not changing. It's going to be a wall. Okay. It's going to be a wall. Okay. as it's shown in this photo. Yeah, it's going to be the same just a little bit higher. Mrs. Coleman, can I ask you a quick question here? I'm sorry. The wall with the mural, is that the wall? Like that's your building. That's part of the building. So So that is the building. So connects.

It connects to That's That's why I kind of struggled to answer this the first time. So the picture on the left, right, where the mural is, that is on the building picture on the right. So I'm I'm standing in the street right taking a picture from the left and the right side on the right side which would be the western port part of the property building ends and a existing 11ft wall continues so it's already a solid wall on both sides. Okay that makes sense and it's been there I think what since the 60s. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

No problem. Uh sorry, just to answer the question, at the ZBA, there was one letter of support which I believe is from the neighbors uh to the west west, but nothing from the uh residential areas. Okay. No opposition from the residential areas. Thank you. Okay. And Mr. Fischer, go ahead. And then the street actually abuts the wall as well, part portions of it. No. So the it's a culde-sac. Okay. So that if you kind of think I don't think we have so this aerial kind of shows that street to the north it's almost at the end of the existing building that's there but will be in the middle of the property but that that entire north side is is already existing

portions of it is actually not in someone's yard. It's in the end of the street. That's what I'm trying to get to. No, none of this is in somebody's yard. None of it's it's we're all on our property. Perfect. Go ahead. Thank you, sir. I think we have a guy driving down the street going through. Yeah, I'm just This is like a really unique situation. Um staff, are we confirmed these are registered Airbnbs with the city?

Uh no, we we didn't do any kind of different analysis. If these were uh occupied by a owner occupied, rental occupied or Airbnb occupied, it wouldn't have changed any of our review standards or the information that was provided in our reports. So I I have not done any verification of the occupancy of those. They're they're coed as single family residential units. Okay. Thank you. For the record, that was Max Williams. Max Williams, principal planner development services. Okay. But they are available for rent if you want. Yeah. 250 night. Beautiful area. Beautiful area.

The Okay. Anybody else right now or you want me go? Okay. Got something. Go ahead, Robert. This is a question for staff. What was I mean, is there a notice requirement when they got their variance? For the variance? Yes. It's 500 square feet. Sorry, 500 radius from the property site. So everybody to the north within 500 ft of this northern property boundary. All right. So it would include the residential areas. Included the residential. Correct. So everybody had an opportunity to be heard if they were against it. Correct. Plus everything that was posted on on Sentinel or whatever. All the requirements.

Probably the first 10 houses or something or maybe more depending on how wide the lots are. Um okay. Anybody else? Yeah.

No. Okay. So, I'll I'll go ahead and go for a second. For the record, I've talked to the applicant's attorney. Nothing that was said would affect my uh opinion on this particular issue and I'll just rule off of what I've heard tonight. Thank you. Um so, so that wall continues on today where the building stops on the west end. The wall continues on to the corner of the lot lot to the west. Yes. So, if you look again, I'm gonna use this arrow because I think that's the best picture.

And and then it turn I'm not done yet. And then it turns and goes south to the to the uh what would be the northeast corner of that building? Is does the wall go down or the wall goes down? So, it so so it's like an L-shaped wall that closes off the that northwest corner. That's correct. And the actual neighboring property, that other building is continues. So it's actually walled on all the sides. So So that wall keeps going down to street north or down to that next building. Yes. And that building that building in the building goes on down to the street. Okay. Correct. Correct. Okay. So today it's actually closed off. It's not nobody can come in from the west or from the north.

Correct. Okay. And then your building is going to effectively do that in the after condition when you do it. It's going to be the same condition just slightly high higher with Yeah. Gotcha. Okay. I just wanted to make sure so that condition doesn't change in terms of the access in or negative access I would say. Well actually I guess technically it's probably better because it's taller and they got to come over the top of your building. It's going to look prettier over your building to get in now or something. Whatever. Um, yeah. No, it's it is going to remain as is slightly higher with the roof. And you're the applicant. So, you agree to the three conditions of the staff? Yes.

Okay. All right. Anybody else? Okay. Seeing none, anybody in the audience want to speak on this item. And seeing none, I'll close the public hearing at this point, bring it back to the uh board, and the chair will entertain a motion on item number two. Mr. Chair. Yes, Mrs. Coleman.

I make a motion in consideration of PNZ application 20 Whoops. 5120 0 014. I move the board finds that compliance substantial evidence has been presented that satisfies the recruit review criteria and approves the uh major site plan uh subject to the three conditions provided by staff. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second.

We have a motion and a second. Are there any questions or um comments about the motion? Uh, Robert, Mr. Hartzell,

um, uh, if they didn't have the variance, I would be very hesitant to do this. Um, again, it's not one, you're a magician, so it's not something that I like to see. I don't think it's great planning. you got stuck with the property you bought should be allowed to do what you bought it for and not add on. Um to that extent I don't sit on the variance board. They do. Um I'm going to vote for it because it complies with the city's rules. It complies with the variance. Um so that's my position.

Okay. Anybody any other comments? Well, it certainly looks nicer than what it did for sure. So, you did a nice job with that. The landscaping looks good. Thank you. Okay. Any any other questions or comments about the motion? All right. Seeing none, Bobby, call the role on item number two. Carla Coleman, yes. Tundra King, yes. Rich Deli, yes. Gigi Dbeck, yes. Paul Fischer, yes. Robert Herzell, yes. Paul Fred Stacer, yes. Okay. Thank you very much and good luck. Thank you. Clean it up. It's got to look better. Mr. Chair, we didn't ask him what his business was,

what business he's putting in there. You'd be lucky if it was like what your business is, what you're putting in there. I have a pallet manufacturing and recycling company. I'm sorry. You have a what? I have a wood pallet manufact. Thank you. Okay. Welcome. Thank you. All right. Okay. Uh, next item on our list is a text amendment described as landscape demolition sites and tree preservation. Mr. Williams, you're going to present or initially anyway.

Hi, good evening everyone. Max Williams, principal planner and development services. I'm going to keep this really brief. Um, this is a amendment that's proposed by staff and we're facilitating a request initiated and authored by the city's real property manager and she's here tonight supported by the CIP manager. Is this your title? Tammy, Dr. Tammy Good, and new CRA director. Um, the the request is for a text amendment uh to two sections of the zoning code to address challenges identified during implementation of the city and CRA projects. um to ensure the responsible use of taxpayer funds. The backup includes a proposed amendment as well as a memo providing a justification for the amendments and the responses to the review criteria. Um so very quickly I just want to go over what the code sections are and what they require. Um I'll I'll touch on the amendment but really I'm going to um introduce the the author to go over the uh bulk of the amendment as well as the justification. Um, so what our code currently requires for demolition sites is that they that if somebody is submitting a plan for demolition, there's either a plan to redevelop the property or to return it to a graded sided clean condition. Um, and the existing trees are are to be protected. So, for example, I'm providing a single family home aerial. Um, you can see the trees on the property. It's a house, driveway, paved areas, maybe a shed and gazebo, as well as a pool in the rear yard. Um, so our demolition requires that the trees are protected. There's barricades that go around them to preser to protect them during the demolition process. The removal of the structure as well as any accessory or site features. The return of the property to a sodic condition, the removal of the barricades, and now it's in a natural condition. Um the um the proposed amendment reads as follows. It's if any or all existing structures on a lot are being or have been totally demolished or on property owned or leased by the city of PMPO Beach or the PMPO Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, the city manager

shall have the authority to authorize exemptions to those requirements. Um, in the code, it'll read as section A and B above related to the uh restoration of the site. Um, additionally, the tree preservation section of our code requires that the removals um tree removals are Oh, I'm sorry. The removals are not permitted unless it's to accommodate a new proposal. Um, and those that are proposed to be removed are they require the mitigation. Um, so exemptions exist already in our code for Broward County property, property owned by the um county commissioners um either properties or trees that are designated by the Broward the county commissioners or the school board. The exemptions that are proposed to the code are read as follows. Owned or properties owned or controlled by the city of PMPO Beach and the PMPO Beach Community Redevelopment Agency. So adding the city or the CRA to that existing list of exemptions. Um so to go over the review criteria and the um justification, I'm going to invite um the Cassie

Lima Surier. Is that right? me. Okay. Real property manager.

Good evening, chair, board. Cassandra Liserier. I get the joy of being the real property manager for not only the city but also its community redevelopment agency. It puts me in a unique perspective where I get to see the issues that challenge both of those, not just one or the other. So, I would like to incorporate by reference the memo that was included in your backup that it does address the criteria with regard to a proposed text amendment. And really, these ase amendments are being proposed for unique circumstances, not for something that we would do on a normal basis. For example, the community redevelopment agency, you know, as part of our downtown has purchased and demolished structures on 13 properties in the past, not even year. Out of those, we've done site restoration in SAD on all but two of them, and those two are very unique. One of them's outside of the downtown. It's the Wells Fargo drive-thru that's directly east of McNab Park. that will be developed as parking, but there was a small 500 square foot drive-through building that was removed. Well, in order to close the demolition permit, as the code's currently written, we would need to have the sod installed to do the site restoration on the other property that it was not done. That was because of the need for parking in Oldtown and we've created that temporary surface lot where the Pompo Pharmacy building was. So, I I want to be clear that these are very unique circumstances. And the reason why we're doing this is because the amendments are going to ensure that we are being responsible with the taxpayer money, but that we're also being able to meet community needs because our need for parking and for affordable housing has definitely outpaced that availability. And so we're proposing this because we want to allow a coste effective use of the public property while we're maintaining that flexibility for future redevelopment.

So the first amendment that we were proposing with regard to the demolition sites and this is where I'll use my reading glasses for you guys because I'm of that certain age. So what we were asking for is for something in a unique circumstance and it's not just necessarily for the public parking. So, for the example of the Office of Housing and Urban Improvement, there have been some opportunities where there's a site that has an unsafe structure on it where the property owner is not going to move forward with demolition, and the Office of Housing and Urban Improvement can step in, become the property owner, demolish the structure, and then make the site ready to be developed for affordable housing for an incomerestricted buyer. But there's often a lag time from when they're able to get that property until where they would actually be able to get the permit for the construction of the new home. So, as the way the code is currently written, there's really not an exemption for that. And we want to maximize the funds that are in the affordable housing trust fund to be able to build more affordable housing. And this is a mechanism that would allow on a very specific case byase basis where the city manager could wave that site restoration understanding that there is going to be full compliance with the landscape code when the house is built. So then the other that we were asking about was the text amendment that right now under the tree preservation section and I've outlined in yellow the current exemptions that are there. This is going to provide the same exemption and exception to the city of Pmpno Beach and the community redevelopment agency that's actually already provided to both Broward County and Broward County School Board. And again, I really have to emphasize that the final development of the property is going to have to comply

with all of the development standards in article 5, including any landscaping. And so when seeing these challenges that come forward and understanding that we're trying to be responsible with our taxpayer money, the goal is not a blanket exemption. It's not to leave property in condition where there's just dirt that would impact the neighboring properties. It's for these unique circumstances, especially when we're trying to provide the public purpose of affordable housing or public parking where we would be able to then do that. The other example that's a little bit unique is we're getting ready to demolish the Sun and Beach patio store that's at 35 North Dixie Highway. So, just caddy corner from where we are now. that site and adjacent to it has some environmental contamination. There used to be a gasoline station. There was Hannah's Fuel or excuse me, Hannah's Cleaners. It's actually part of the state's dry cleaning solvent program. Well, before we would build a new city hall there, we need to go ahead and have an environmental company install additional groundwatering me wells and do sampling. And then we also need to do geotechnical site testing. Knowing that we're going to have a company come in that's going to be doing that type of work once we remove that building. It makes sense to us that we wouldn't immediately go and resod the lot to close out the demolition permit because that company is going to go in and do that work and do the site preparation. But we also know that we have not submitted for the site plan yet for the new city hall. So, it would not meet the requirements that were required when it comes to the demolition site restoration. But really about the tree preservation, it's not that we're not wanting to meet landscaping requirements when it comes time for final full site redevelopment, but we're in a unique opportunity in the

city where we have a lot of redevelopment that's occurring. And the challenge that you have with open demolition permits per se is that those actually create a cloud on the title. So in the example of the city hall site that's going to be on SRA property that will need to then be conveyed over to the city of Pmpno Beach and it needs to be free and clear something that they have a title policy on because they'll be financing and building a new city hall building. So, those were a few of the examples that I wanted to share that I've had the opportunity to see over the past few years where doing the amendments in both of these sections of the code is not something that's looking for a wholesale exemption, but it's for these unique circumstances so that we're not spending money in the site restoration to go put sod in that we know in a short time period would turn around and be removed for redevelopment or temporary uses. And with regard to the tree preservation that we're not using money for example we had a parcel that came over from Broward County as a sheet unclaimed property had a very large tree in the middle of the property and office of housing and urban improvement wanted to build an affordable home on it. Well in order to do that they needed to remove the tree. It was literally in the middle of the property. But by the way, that they have to apply for that tree preservation. And even if they would have met full landscaping code when they did the new house because of the canopy area, if you apply the formula, they still should have actually had to take money from the affordable housing trust fund to put it into the tree canopy fund. And so that's where we're talking about those unique circumstances. And that's really why we've put forward both of these text amendments. So I do have CRA director Newan Tran joining me as well as our capital improvement project manager Dr. Tammy Good so that we can answer questions that you all have about these proposed amendments. We thank you for your consideration.

Okay. Um questions at this point? Somebody else has question first. I'm glad to let them go. Go ahead, Robert. Mr. Hartson on the tree amendment. It doesn't say for use as affordable housing on it, right? No, the for the text amendment, that's the second portion. Yeah.

It's really just asking for the same exemption that is currently granted to Broward County for property that they own or control and property that's owned or controlled by the Broward County School Board. It it's a strange circumstance where we would give special privilege to other government agency that then we would not be extending that same opportunity to ourselves for property that we own.

Okay, Mr. Deli, I find really no fault in most of what we talked about tonight. The one piece that I would just say uh I would like to see a change in is instead of it being um approved through the city manager, I'd like to see it go before the commission for uh an exemption uh to the rules. I think that they are the policy makers. So I feel like in situations where an exemption shouldn't be made, it should be done through the elected officials. Okay, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Mrs. Coleman. Um, I understand what you're saying, but I have long been a leading opponent of letting the city out of any requirements that we require from private developers. And that's not the first time you've heard that from me. Um, and I understand what you're saying in that it wouldn't be blanket, that it would simply be an uh in extraordinary circumstances, but that's not what either of these amendments say. It simply says if you decide you don't want to do it, city manager can write off right off on it and that's it. So, um I think that I think that maybe we need to find some middle ground here and I don't think this is quite ready for us to vote on tonight. Mr. Chairman, um I would like to see some definitions of extraordinary circumstances. Um, I'm reminded of a conversation that we had about the air park and wanting to make sure that if there were specific areas deforested within the air park that that they the mitigation of that happen um uh in a very organized fashion as we talked about to create a tree canopy on the outside perimeter of the air park. Um, I would I know that's not specifically city-owned land, but um we're even requiring the air park to do these things. I I I uh I think that we need to put some more parameters around what an exter ex extraordinary circumstance is. In both cases, um we've got temporary

use permits. We've got other ways we can get out of requirements for a certain length of time in extenduating circumstances. I'd like to explore and understand better what those are, what those options are, and then see if we can come up with some definitions around extraordinary circumstances. That would make me feel a lot better rather than just saying, "I don't like this. I want to vote against it. I want to work with you to get there, but I don't think we're there yet.

Yeah. And the challenge we have is when we do those those temporary parking lots, we do get the temporary use permits, but the way the code's written is that temporary use permit in and of itself doesn't absolve you of doing the site restoration in order to close out the demolition permit. So, if you don't have your temporary use permit in hand right at that point in time, it's it's not speaking to the fact that you still have site restoration requirements. Um, and I I do understand your concern. I very much appreciate it because anytime you're asking for some type of privilege for the CRA for our property, people are concerned that it's going to be used in a manner that wasn't intended. And I think the challenge that we have with trying to identify those extraordinary um circumstances are they're unique. If you would have asked me this question a year ago, I would have talked about the Office of Housing and Urban Improvement and some of their challenges. I would have talked about the need to try to create that public parking, but I wouldn't have necessarily had on my radar, hey, when we do this demolition on the Sun and Beach patio building, we need to do additional environmental and geotechnical testing, and we know that we're not going to have a site plan within 30 days of our demolition, but we need to get the building down because they want to see what's underneath there, and that requires removal. So that I think is the challenge though of how you define those extraordinary circumstances because the whole reason they're extraordinary is because they weren't something you anticipated. Kind of like why you have a contingency in a construction budget. It's for those unforeseen circumstances.

I understand, but I would really like to support you on this. And as it's written now, I cannot support you on this and I would like to try to find a middle ground. Okay. Um I I had some more specific questions about some things that have happened in the past. Um like how did that happen? The the the parking lot that we share on the that's going to be developed on the corner of um A1A and Atlantic Boulevard where um related's going to develop. that has been a temporary parking lot. And I'm not talking about the part we physically built ourselves, but the part north of it for probably five to 10 years. And so are you saying that like that's not done legally?

Um, not necessarily that, but that it didn't entail demolition to be able to utilize the grassy lot north of the paved lot as parking. And so that's where we're talking about where we're taking down a building and in the interim before there's full site redevelopment, we're creating public parking. And and I think perhaps Mrs. Coleman, that addresses part of your concern too about why the city's asking for this and why we should bestow be bestowed this privilege rather than a private property owner. And it's not that a private property owner is going to come in, demolish, and then free of charge. they're going to come in and do some temporary public parking for us. It just doesn't happen. It's it's us trying to be able to meet that public need where I think as a city and a CRA, we have different objectives and goals than private property owners when they're developing or redeveloping.

Let's go back to my property one more time. There was a hotel there before before that that whole thing. So yes. So was that not a requirement at the time or something or or So predates part of my time as far as the grassy lot. Yeah. Um that parking license agreement has been in place going on I think possibly a decade or two. That's what I'm thinking. Yeah. And so that's really something that's managed underneath the parking division. So, it's not something that I've been involved with. Um, it's something that

they've got their license agreement, but as far as any other approvals that they had to require for that, and I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, Max, it predates you as well.

I I remember when they built the parking lot, you know, I mean, because the whole thing looked the same at that point. And then and then whatever the deal was that was made, which I know Mr. Tran knows exactly what the numbers were, but it's okay. I don't I don't need to know what the numbers are. It's like a 4060 split or something and whatever. It's it's all done now. So, um but I was just curious. So, so what does that where would that put us like on the across the street where we have the um the pharmacy that's been torn down now? What I mean obviously we're not until So is that going to get put off because

we're we're obviously at some point going to build a parking garage and some other improvements there which you guys are already working on. So I'm not denying that it's moving forward. We've talked about it pretty extensively.

Evening chair, uh members of the PNZ board, new insurance director. So um like Cassie said, these don't come up very often, but they are there. Um, you know, it's not such a big deal that we have an open demo permit if it's a city or CRA project that's going to go forward, but it it does cloud the title. Um, you know, a recent example is for instance the transit hub right on US1 between the aisles tiles of PMPO and the moorings. We own all that property there. Uh, we demoed those buildings there. We left the the foundation for the time being, but you know, in order to to close out that demo permit, we'd have to rip out the the foundation and also saw it and then call in for an inspection for the sod. Well, the city was supposed to come in and redesign that for a public parking lot. Um, and and grant fundings, you know, they were looking at grants funding and and they couldn't get any. What happens is we still have an open demo permit there and and the city's going through and and putting millings and and trying to make that a temporary parking lot. So situations like that come up where look, I hate to go rip it up, put down sod and rip up the sod to do, you know, a temporary parking lot. That's where we're encountering these these issues is spending the money, the taxpayer money to close out a permit when we're going to have to rip it up. Um, I totally understand Mr. Deli's point and and maybe that's where we go with this, but we're trying to, you know, kind of streamline it a little bit when these these situations don't come up that often. As as Cassie said, we we've acquired a lot of properties in in the Northwest for the downtown and we've complied with all any tree mitigation, any sorting because we know that that development isn't going to come for at least probably three years. So, you

know, it makes sense for us to to to make that site clean and to close out those permits, but there's certain situations where, you know, we have to transfer the properties over to to the developer free and clear on title. And the barger property, the the PMPO pharmacy is one that comes to mind that this is another example. We didn't intend to do a a public parking lot right away, but because of our negotiations that fell through with the church, it came to the point where, hey, city wanted to to do a a milling and resurfacing and do a temporary parking lot. That came up really quick. So, we have an open demo permit there. Um, I'd hate to rip up the milling and resurfacing, put it outside just to close out the demo permit. So there is

that's completely impractical because and that's what made me think of the thing on the beach because it's it's situations like that that doesn't make sense for us to do and and there's no out there's no out for us except if we went to commission that way.

I firmly believe that that is probably the best way to go about this because it puts the onus back on the elected officials to make these decisions on a case-by case basis. I'm that's not my issue. My issue is some sort of criteria in here. And you know there's a lot of smart people in this room. I think they can come up with some sort of criteria on uh even if it's such as examples u for um uh for granting these exceptions. I just don't want a um an open open book on it.

Go ahead, Mr. Fischer.

So, I understand your comments. Um I would say of them voting on this text amendment would be them in support or in not in favor of it. Um but I also see the concerns. So I would maybe recommend for me to I'm not might not support it in the sense of for Carl Coleman side but for this side of things maybe notifi at le if city manager does do this like they're doing with contracts or anything like that notifying the commission um or CRA board uh that he did use he did say this is going this is why we're doing it. Um I think the notification part should be put in there. Um I don't know if every situation be voted by the commission. um but at least be notified if he does use this certain power that is given to him. Um so that just would be my comments on it.

So it sounds like a proposal would be on the text that I have up on screen right now at the the end of it where you're talking about the city manager shall have the authority to authorize exemptions to the requirements in section A and B above and advise the commission of exemptions or report to the commission exemptions. And I'm not words smmithing here, but that sounds like what you would be looking for is some type of language. I'd feel more comfortable if it was a notification and then the option for the commission to request it to come before them potentially for a situation where it's uh they don't approve of it or they collectively don't want to see it. Something along those lines.

Yeah. And I have to um preface this by saying the the push that we're getting right now for the public parking for the development in Oldtown actually did come from our elected officials. And the push that we're getting now, it actually was brought up at yesterday's CRA board meeting um from the vice mayor is when are you going to do something with what was supposed to be the microtransit hub? the businesses in the area keep contacting the city because understand the CRA owns the property but the city has an interlocal agreement and the city's actually the one that's responsible for the cost and the work that occurs there and the thought behind going ahead and doing it as temporary parking is because one we can do it much quicker but also we can do it in a much more affordable fashion. Uh the city did go out earlier this year for some quotes to see how much the cost would be to develop that as a paved parking lot and it the quotes range from 918,000 to $943,000. If we chose to go the route of temporary parking with asphalt millings and wheel stops, the only cost we would incur because we get the asphalt millings for free would be for the purchase of the wheel stops. So for a 75 space parking lot that we could do, it would be a $7,500 cost. And so that's the other reason to explain why we're looking at temporary parking. And especially when you're talking about the microtransit hub area because that is slated at some point in the future for redevelopment. It's zoned for high density. If you're doing a development, you can go up to 105 ft in height. And so that was always part of the ET talk ex expecting that that would be replaced with a development that possibly could also incorporate parking parking that would be structured parking that possibly could include some public parking. And so it's it's um a circumstance now where we don't want to go ahead and spend almost a million dollars of city money to put a permanent parking lot in knowing we don't have a definitive

timeline. It may happen in three years. It may happen in five years. and it may not happen for 10. And so that's where we know we've got specific areas that are going to be redeveloped and we're trying to meet that parking demand. So just to kind of give an idea of that specific circumstance with the microtransit hub, it's actually city money even though the CRA is the owner. So it clouds our title, but the bill comes to the city if they're the ones that have to go install the sod to rip the sod out so that we can have a closed demo permit so that they can go put asphalt millings and wheel stops in. Mr. Chair. Yep.

Um, and so I I think there's lots of discussion that's occurred tonight and I want to make sure that the task before you is addressed. The task that's before you is a text amendment that does not necessarily deal with approvals of public parking or approvals of affordable housing or any other activity that a project that's proposed. What's before you is a text amendment that will permit certain types of projects that occur on city-owned or leased CRAowned or leased properties. And the text amendment is trying to based upon what I can't pronounce the last name either. Um, what Cassie is proposing is to provide, what I've heard so far, a specific area that the city manager would be able to administratively permit um, exempt, excuse me, the city and CRA from taking the actions already in place in the demolition sites at least. And so that they'll be able to either utilize the property I've heard so far as public parking or you on a temporary basis or as she mentioned earlier they are soding um other sites but there are instances where certain sites will not be redeveloped for a longer period of time and may need to have certain types of environmental testing to occur. So those specific instances

will not be apppropo for residing and in order to close out a demolition permit which for the CRA and potentially C city would create I'm going to call it cloud on title. I don't know if I 100% agree, but at least from for for the discussion purposes. Um, so that's one piece of your consideration. The other consideration you have is their request to be considered just like the other local governments or governmental entities, school board, Brower County being exempted from the tree preservation. Again, it's a text amendment to be included among that grouping. That's that's the second piece of this. So, we've had lots of discussion. I think you've given some direction. you have the ability to give further direction for staff and for our office and whoever else you may designate to put the particulars because I would hate for you to, you know, kind of get lost in all the particulars. But I think there are some things that can be highlighted that have been mentioned tonight that can be specified. Miss Coleman, as you mentioned, criteria-wise that between um staff and myself and and and development staff u can actually carve out those specifics that you believe um should be referenced in this discussion and we'll work out the details. And if you approve that, then rather than slow the ship down, we can make those changes. If you want us to bring staff to bring it back, they're more than willing to do so. If not, then that you can move the item forward to

the commission with those specifications that you have directed. Well, if that's the case, it um I I think that the folks on the far end would are probably okay with their their situation, but I don't know that Mrs. Coleman is. So, um do you have anything in specific that you would like them to? Do I?

Yes. I want some parameters around a definition of extraordinary circumstances so it is clearer in this ordinance change that it's not just at the discretion of the city manager or the commission or whomever should make that question. I really do not want it to become common practice just to say because we can uh and maybe that and I know that's not the intent of staff here tonight, but intent and what it says are sometimes two different things. So, um, so I would ask that there be some language that, um, the attorney and staff work on, uh, to add a definition of extraordinary circumstances if if we're going to be let out of of, uh, of these requirements. And I think the fact that the school board I understand other governmental entities are we are forcing requiring it's not forcing it's requiring others who build to to live up to certain standards and I just I just think that we should too. Um uh I'm less troubled by the tree tree mitigation. Less troubled by that. But I don't want to get into a situation where we're letting ourselves out of tree mitigation either. Um there just needs to be better definitions in here before the city are or better criteria in here before the city triggers either one of these.

Yes. So, I'm hearing the concern definitely about adding language to the first proposed text amendment um with regard to the notification to the city commission upon approval of those exemptions. Um I think we could work with staff to try to create some parameters. Again, this always concerns me because you don't know what you don't know when it comes to those extraordinary circumstances. That's why I'm not sitting here going through a list of what I think they are.

I understand and I do very much appreciate your concerns because the the public does hold us to a standard and that's why in presenting this I I wanted to make sure that we were highlighting some of the unique circumstances and the fact of compliance in all the other properties that have been demolished in the past year and that it's not something that it's just a wholesale out that we're looking for. Um, so if you would like for us to work, this is not something we're asking for it to happen today. I've seen this problem occur ever since the microtransit hub was demolished back in January of 2021. It's not a new problem, but as time goes on, I see more added to the list of how this is impacting us. And as a PMPO Beach resident and taxpayer like all of you, I am extremely frugal with my money. I want to know my taxpayer money is being spent well. And so I think uh we can work with staff to try to put some guard rails in that might give a comfort level as well as that reporting requirement because I I also agree any action the city manager is taking on behalf for exemptions we should report up and I don't see that being an issue. I think it is the right thing to do.

One Mr. Chairman if I might. Um, we sat here to approve a site plan of a major city project a couple of years ago and the there was um they wanted to be let out of having the utilities underground and I asked why and the response from the city's consultant was well that's expensive. we don't want to spend the money. And that was kind of a trigger. Uh yeah, it's expensive. Nobody wants to spend the money. Um but if we required of others, we required of us. And this is a little different. I just want to make sure it stays a little different. And um is is it is there any um real issue that you need to get this out of here tonight?

That was my I was going to ask her that. uh or do you it I'm asking seriously if there is understand what she's saying is that do do you want it to go to them with our approval or do you want us to leave this as a whole list of hey we don't like this type of thing or or we we want to have a more of an understanding I think you'd rather have us I I am no no no I I I understand that's always an option you know but but is it really something you need out of here tonight or do you want to work on it and bring it back to us next month or do we want to we're not holding one thing up. I mean one big thing. We just don't want to hold it I don't want to hold anything up

this month. This is our first stab at it because there was no way out for us other than spending the money and ripping it up which didn't make sense. So we will come back and get you all on a comfort level and to outline those parameters as best as we can to to give us that out. Now we have two different things at the far end. We have a different situation with with that. But Mrs. Coleman as you understand is concerned about something else. She has agreed to if you want to come up with your own stuff and then you guys talk before it comes. I mean, in the interim of the month, she will make time. I'm available if you need me. We don't.

So, so we're not trying. She's trying real hard to make sure that she's as comfortable. We don't need this pass tonight. We will come back to make sure that everyone is very clear on when this would Okay. Because if you had to have it passed tonight, I I was going to be willing to um trust you, but I would rather see it. Well, and it'll it'll come with a different set of it's going to go up the hill with a lot different attitude obviously if we can get behind it and say, "Yeah, we did question you about a couple of things and you guys made some changes and you're and we're now comfortable." I

I would be more comfortable if you if we worked on it together and you came back to us and and and we could wholeheartedly send it forward. some of that's why we welcome this discussion in your comments because it is you are the planning and zoning advisory board for a reason and I think it bears weight to have a favorable unanimous recommendation from your board rather than a split decision and concerns. Not saying necessarily that we will address 100% of your concerns with all the guardrails we can put in place,

but it's not. We've had open demo permits for over four years now on one of the sites. So, it's something we've got a little bit of time and we'd be more than happy to work with the board members, take your direction, work with staff as well to be able to address both Mr. Dy's concern as well. And I'm hearing it not just from Mrs. Coleman, but but from you as well, Chair Stacer, that we want to make sure that we're clear in what we're asking for. I I can't say that they're going to be extremely defined criteria, but we can definitely come up with something that's a compromise. I had a question. Yeah, Mr. Sher. Yes, Mr.

Um maybe maybe more of a comment than a question on here about the demolition. I know that there uh one of the corner stores, Saxon Wall in particular, was demolished um by the city and it looks like it's some kind of sod or something there now and it just kind of sprung up and the community was definitely inquiring about it. So, I think it's incumbent upon us as mentioned down here um about letting the commissioners be aware of it, maybe even perhaps as early as we can because I kind of just drove by there because somewhere I drive by often and it was gone and then it was it looks like there saw it. So, I know you're saying and you're um it's important to you and it's incumbent upon you to make sure that taxpaying dollars are well spent. I'm just going to tell you from the community, they were not happy that that occurred in that fashion and that my commissioner was not aware of it and that it did not seem to some people in the community that our money was being spent in a good fashion um because we didn't know and then we're like, hey, is there something going to be built there to to enhance our community or is this part of the MLK project? It just was a lot of unknown. So, I agree with Miss Coleman that if we're going to do this, um, I think it has it has to be way more guard rails and especially for the community to be aware of and the commissioners to be aware for if it's in their particular district and in this case it was in a district where I reside. Thank you.

Yes. So, in response to that, chair, uh, there was a motion made to notify uh, uh, the commissioners of every demo. So, uh, I did send out an email yesterday, uh, letting them know that quick stop is next within the next two weeks as well as the Sun Beach patio because that's all part of the downtown. Um, and also the demo of the transit hub foundation. So, uh, we will put it on our radar that every demolition activity that, uh, we are involved in, they will be notified in advance. So,

thank you. So why couldn't we have the commissions involved making the decision and they can notify the city manager? Well, usually on on the the day-to-day operations, we're the ones that know ahead of time uh that we let the the city manager know. Um, but you know, I just went straight to the commission because that was the motion that was made was to let them know before the demo occurs. The the the issue is though, they're not always getting notified and so when they don't get notified, the people don't get notified and this has been happening a lot

previously. Well, and that maybe that's why we make a change in going to the commission first and letting them notify the city manager because they're the ones that, you know, talk to the people in their districts. They we report to the city man. I was going to say they they can't legally report. Only the city manager can report to the commission. That's the way the law is set up.

Yeah. In the same way we were very very mindful about putting out the social media notice in the press release uh while the city's not the one completing the demolition. Finally, the beach concession kiosk building is going to be coming down so that the tenant will invest their $2 million and be doing the new one. But because it's in the beach, highly sensitive area, we wanted to make sure and we got that out on social media well in advance before any fencing's going up and any activity is going to occur. And so we very much heard that motion and we're making sure going forward, not only for CRA demolitions, but also for city demolitions that we're trying to get that word out so that people know what's occurring because we want to make sure they understand. And you know, when people see demolition occurring down on the beach, of course, they get very concerned. And I' I've seen comments even about, oh, the city's wasting our taxpayer money. And we're like, no, no, no, no, no taxpayer money is being spent on that. That's the tenant, the lei that's investing their money to do that. So, we very much have heard that. We heard the motion and we're very much complying with that going forward.

Mr. Chair. Okay. Yeah. Mrs. Coleman, you want to if it is appropriate. I'm sorry, Mr. Mr. Hartzel. Go ahead. Down here. Come over. Put your hand down there, man. I'm on a I'm on a Coleman bus. Um, but I I I I have to distinguish it a little bit on the tree canopy

because I I I love you guys. I love staff here. I think you guys are like, you know, top-notch and we don't, you know, our CRA staff is great. What happens when you're not here? And you have that type of language that's so loose, it's going to, you know, you get a couple bad guys in here, and I've seen it happen to cities and towns across the state where all of a sudden an election happens, people move out, there's a new staff, and that city manager comes in without any morals at all and starts just, okay, we're just going to go. So I would like to see both on the tree canopy as well I'd like to see there be you know just define what an extraordinary circumstance is and it's in other parts of the code so we can define like the tree canopy I don't want to see I'd like to see some sort of temporal time limit on it that are we doing affordable housing you guys gave great examples so I'm like yeah in those examples I would absolutely 100% vote for it but in my head I'm thinking about like just these egregious things that could happen that the city manager goes, "Oh, we need to really save money in the budget. We're not doing anything to these parking lots. You know, these we're going to demolish buildings or we're just going to leave them that way." And there there's got to be some some guard rails on that. So when you guys aren't here, your next the next people that come in and sit in your seats are like, "Oh, we had these guard rails up." That's what I'd like to see. I mean, the parking lots, great idea. I mean, everything that you every single example you gave is 100%. I'm 100% behind it. I'm just thinking in my head of all the, you know, hey, we're going to take out all this tree canopy and then the property is going to sit vacant. And I we see a lot of vacant sites out there that are just empty and they'll sit empty for years and years and years. But for affordable housing,

yeah, we don't need to, you know, add more cost to affordable housing.

Yeah. And the amendment is proposed specific to that section with regard to the tree preservation was just to be consistent and literally use the same identical language that's in there with regard to the Broward County and Broward County School Board property. It wasn't something that was putting guard rails in with that. where we've seen it in circumstances as well is there was actually a property that the city got through foreclosure and they demolished the structure and there was a tree extremely close to the structure that ended up having to be removed and this occurred long before my time before I was ever with the city and then the city said oh this is going to be part of the future downtown let's go ahead we're going to convey this property over to the CRA with an open demolition permit and because of the requirement for tree protection, tree replacement. We know the property is going to be de redeveloped in the near future now as part of the downtown, but upon discovering this open demolition permit that no one knew about that we found out about within the past six months because we don't have that exemption in here. Now you're talking about using taxpayer money to pay for tree mitigation because you're not going to do tree replacement on a site that you know is going to be redeveloped. And so it's really a lot of it's stemming with redevelopment. But with regard to putting guard rails in for the tree preservation section, I would propose that if Broward County and the Broward County School Board haven't abused that section of the code, why would the city in CRA because there are even more eyes on us within our own city than there are for property that's owned by Broward County or the school board?

I do I do appreciate your concerns. I'm not sure. I share his concern because they own very few plots of land in the city of of PMPO Beach. School board and the county have limited footprint here. The city and the CRA have a lot more footprint here. I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree with it. I think that we need those same guard rails. Yeah, the only way that it looks a little bit more as far as county owned property is it actually does include the right of way as well. So, anything that's a county road in the city, this exemption does apply to property that's right ofway, not only just buildable lots.

Yeah. Let me just if if if I can ask council is Broward County would they be required to comply with our code either way? School board, landscaping. Okay. When you say comply with our code, what do you mean? Right. If we didn't have that exemption in there, would they still have to comply with the tree canopy? No. Based upon the listing here and those requirements within that section only, right, they would be exempt. And again, I I have not looked at that total section, but that section only is what they're being exempted from.

This is preservation only. If they rebuild development, they're gonna have to meet our requirements in building. Mr. President, again, I I don't want to speak that broadly without having looked at the sections that are specifically referenced um because it may be a very limited group of items that they are actually uh being exempted from. If I may, because I think we've gotten a lot of discussion and what staff I believe is agreeing to do already is to accept all these comments, go back and rework it and bring it back to you and and I I think we can we've gotten the gist of what you're looking for. Yeah, I think we're getting close or we might be there already. I'm not sure. You want another comment?

I just want one more comment. Okay. And it was just to address the, you know, as far as sending it to the board the you know the count the city commission every time that you make these smaller decisions and I think Mr. transited, you know, like these are the the mic minut minutia stuff. This is the the zoning. This is the the smaller things that you don't want to bog down a commission that doesn't have the the the knowledge and the specialty of planning and and CRAAS. So, I would not, you know, I'm not a big fan of sending everything to the commission, but as long as you have guard rails, you know, then I think you're in place. Okay.

Yeah, the county actually owns more than you think. The Alpha 250. Is it Alpha 250 Platax? Cassie, you're not going to win this one. Let Let me make a motion to table and get us out of here tonight. Absolutely. Okay. That we would love to be able to get our hands on that thing for development, but unfortunately, as we all know, it's been a homeless camp for years. I know, Mr. Mr. Chair. Yes, Mrs. Uh if it's in uh uh if if it's appropriate, I'd like to make a motion uh uh staff motion to table this application for additional information as requested by the board. I'd be happy to make it time certain for next meeting. If that gives you enough time,

I I think that should be able to give us enough time. If if not, we can show up at that meeting and ask that it be postponed to your December meeting. Just let us know when we can do that. Absolutely. We we appreciate all the discussion and your input. It's very valuable and and like I said, it's important to have a favorable recommendation and you can see things from a different viewpoint than perhaps staff that deals with it day-to-day in the trenches. So, we very much appreciate your input and your time. Okay. Second. I was going to say I don't have a second yet, but that's all right. Everybody wants to comment. Um, okay. We have a motion in and a second. Bob, you know what the motion is, right? Okay. We're mo we're going to postpone to the uh November 19th table to the November 19th.

Perfect. Okay. So, anybody have any questions on the motion? All right. That's next year. Seeing none, Bob, you want to call the role on item number three? Carla Coleman, yes. Paul Fischer, yes. Rich Deli, yes. Gigi Dbeck, yes. Robert Hartzo, yes. Tundra King, yes. Fred Stac, yes. Thanks a lot. I thought it was really good discussion too. Thank you. Um and we'll make ourselves available.

Or at least Mrs. Coleman will because I made her volunttold is the is the terminology. Yeah, exactly. The buck passed here. Thank you. Um, okay. Next item on our agenda is audience to be heard. And it looks like we have no audience tonight. Uh, next item after that is approval of the 2026 board dates and deadline calendar. Did everybody get a chance to look at that? And um, the first meeting of the year is the first meeting of the year is on my birthday. I just want to point that out.

Does What does that mean? Will you have to bring a cake or what's up? I would love one if you're offering Mr. Chair. Okay. Well, at least I know where you're going to be if you're not here, right? You went out with your family instead of us. Okay. Got it. Okay. Um, anybody have any comments about the the dates or and if not um No, they're good. Okay. All right. So, do we What do you need? A motion? Yes. Motion to second and vote. Somebody want to make a motion to Motion to approve the meeting dates for next year. Second. Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second to approve the schedule for next year. All in favor say I.

I. I. Opposed. Okay. It's unanimous. Uh reports of staff. You guys got any reports tonight? [Laughter] When's your birthday? You know, when the first meeting of next year, there's going to be cake by the chair. No. Well, are you tell us when you're send us an email or when's your birthday? I mean, you know, man, I'll tell you what. She She wants some of my cake that you're bringing. That's what it is, Mr. Chair. When is your birthday? The first meeting of next year. Deli says, "Let them eat cake." It's just greedy.

Okay. So, um, next item is board member discussion. Mr. Deli, do you have anything for us? I do not. Thank you. Mr. Fischer, nothing tonight. Mrs. Coleman, thank you so much. Mrs. King, I don't have anything. Thank you. Mr. Hartell, nothing.

Mrs. Dub, no. I just had a real quick thing and it has to do with our uh volume, construction volume. This is an issue that comes up every year. We talk a lot about I spent more time than I wanted to with the uh with the building official. Um actually I shouldn't say that. I actually really like he's my neighbor, but whatever. I didn't mean it that way. Um so last year um the total project the the accounting for this is slightly different. I had a discussion with Mr. Williams about that. Um how the zoning department accounts for their stuff. So if you ever look at one of these reports, which I'm probably the only person stupid enough to do that, um so uh it looks a little different from last year, but um there was concern earlier in the year, I think Mrs. Coleman, you had expressed um on on dollar volume. So, as of the middle of the month of October, we were at about the whole building division, not including zoning, was at about 566 million um for the year and last year was 72, which was an all-time record. The year before that was an all-time record and it was in the low 600s in my recollection is like uh whatever it was like 620 or something like that. So, we're still, it looks like we're going to probably almost definitely end up being the second highest year this year, unless we had some really big project that went out at the end of the year, but we'll probably still go from 565. We should go probably to the mid mid to mid600s probably by the end of the year. So, it's it's not as concerning as it was once we were first looking at it. It's still going to be at least the second all-time highest number. So anyway, that's that's it. Please don't look at this stuff because I'm the only person who really is stupid enough to

look at it. What can I say? So So there. Anything else? Anybody got anything else? And if not, I move we adjourn. Okay, there we go. [Music] [Applause]