Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Everyone, I'd like to call to order the February 12 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. Cheryl, will you

call the roll, please? Yes, ma'am. Member Alloy? Here. Member Doris Gonzalez? Member LeBate? Vice Chairman Goldich? Here. Chairwoman Gonzalez? Here. Alternate Member Jones? Here. Alternate member Zacharias. We have a quorum.

Does anyone have lobbying disclosure forums, attorney? No? Are there any corrections to the minutes of January 8? Or can I have a motion to approve them?

Make the motion to approve.

Second. Motion by Member Oloy, second by Member Goldish. All in favor? Aye. Motion passed. Okay, we have consent agenda items. We have three items. Are there any members of the public that want to address any of the consent items? Any members want to pull items?

Nope. Make a motion to accept them.

Well, want to pull one and two.

You do?

Well, because they painted without approval.

But they weren't.

Is there anybody here from them, from Wells Fargo?

Come

on down.

There's a

little button.

Has a person on it.

The one with the little There we go. Good evening.

Hi. Thank you. So what happened?

Nicholas Abro, Vericon Construction. We are subcontracted out through Wells Fargo. When we do all of our permitting process and everything else, we weren't aware that we needed the board approval for a color change. And once we got notified, we came here for this meeting to address any issues.

So both the sides are completed, correct?

Yes. Yeah, they've been completed for some time now.

Well, next time you're going to

paint, make sure you have a

permit to do so.

Yes, ma'am. Is it a permit or it's a board approval for the colors?

Approval.

Yeah, I don't think there's actual permit needed for exterior painting. It was just the approval color palette

from the board.

Correct, yeah. You use the different locations. So Wells Fargo isn't doing a standardized color?

Yes and no. There's a standardized couple different grays and white versus going away from that yellow and then they're adding their signage and stuff like that to bring up all the new marketing. It's the majority of them are like a white with a dark gray tone and a light gray tone. That's pretty much their standard for this go around. And then depending on the location, if there's existing stone, then they match the design team matches that gray to more gray or less gray depending on if there's stone on a building or not.

Any other questions? Do I have

a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve all three consent agendas.

I'll second. Motion by

Member Goldich, seconded by Member Alloy. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

May I be excused?

Thanks for coming up.

Thank you. Do want me to turn this off?

Sorry.

Just for the newer board members, what is the procedure when an applicant does that without board approval?

I'm sorry, missed the question.

What is the procedure with the applicant that doesn't get board approval before they do something like that?

So I mean, code compliance goes out and cites them. Or if we see it, we'll certainly let them know if they're painting. And then they have to come in front of you. There is no permit required, as the gentleman had said. They just require architectural review board, which is what you guys

are charging. Is there additional fees they have to pay?

Not at this time. Perhaps it's something you all would like to bring up at board night when the time comes to the city commission. It's not been brought up by us. There are certain things that we're looking at that we do right now in the world of permits where there's extra fees that are required if you come in and you've built already, but nothing regarding painting at this time.

Can we

Go ahead. Sorry. I wanted to ask you, because I noticed they were on the consent agenda. We're always going to pull them. When they do it after the fact or they come for approval after they've already done it, we're always going to pull it. Can you just automatically put those in the new part of the agenda? Why is that going in the consent agenda?

Well, because we don't make a determination of whether the color change was done before or after. We consider them all proposed items. So while the building has been done, it's still, according to us, coming forward for the colors that are on that building. So for us, it's always whether it's been done or hasn't been done, it's a proposal that's in front of you which can be struck down or can be approved.

Well, it's not. It's different. Can you not consider that a proposed item when they've already been done?

If that's what the board wants to do, then we can certainly look at that and put it as regular. But you guys always have the right to take it off and let them know. The circumstances are a little bit different with each one. So there are some out there that

Well, you can never go wrong putting it on the regular agenda.

Right. But in some cases, a long agenda that we may have, the consent agenda actually does something in the fact that it clears those out relatively quickly so we can get on to the major items that are at hand. Again, up to you guys what you'd like to do.

Could we make that a

No. Remember, whatever you guys decide to do, you can always pull it off consent. And I know that you will always pull the items off consent when the document

It just seems to be happening a lot more than it ever used to before.

Well, hopefully that you guys, when you do pull them off consent, you're telling the gentleman like the one that was here that, hey, you don't do that again. Hopefully he comes back next time and doesn't do it again. And sometimes they just simply don't know because they don't have to get a permit. But as you do more work in the city, you start to realize what the responsibilities are.

We have one more item on the consent agenda, number three.

Oh, no. You voted that one already. We've already voted on that. That's already been voted on.

We do. We voted on

that. One, one.

Okay. I thought I interrupted you.

No, I said all three, and we said yes. We're on number four.

New business, number four, ZV20252425, Walmart, variance request. This is a quasi judicial. Do you waive your quasi judicial rights?

Do I waive my quasi judicial rights?

Yeah. No.

No. Let me swear everybody in.

Oh, you're going to swear them in?

Yeah, me swear everybody in.

Okay, you get to swear.

Anybody who intends to speak on an application tonight, please raise your right hand, I'll swear you in. If you're here for an application and you intend to speak. Do you swear affirm the statements or testimony given to if they should be the truth, the whole truth, and not the truth?

Yes, I do.

Thank Thank you, madam chair.

May I proceed, Madam Chair? May I proceed?

I can't hear you.

For the record, Wesley Hevia. I'm outside counsel to Walmart Law Offices at 3800 Northeast 1st Avenue, Miami, Florida, also offices in Broward and Palm Beach Counties. Here tonight to present two related variance requests for the Walmart store located at 12800 Pines Boulevard. The folio for the property is projected on the screen. You'll note it's an existing Walmart supercenter with a large surface parking lot surrounded by other retail uses.

There's a bit of context that I need to explain before jumping into the lighting related requests here. So as this board may recall, we presented maybe a year or so ago requesting permission to add additional online pickup and delivery spaces at this Walmart. If you go out there, there are some. But they're overused, we needed to add more. So we received permission from this board to do so.

Additionally, we are remodeling the store and adding, as Walmart is doing throughout the country, EV spaces within the parking lot. That actually was not before you, don't believe. But that's because the state is encouraging us to do that. So the nature of the requests are variances to slightly exceed the lighting standards in a parking lot in two locations, which are at the OPD spaces and at the EV spaces. So it's not for the entire parking lot.

It's specific to those two activated areas within the parking lot. And there are two different standards, which is why there are two different variances that we're seeking partial relief from. So one relates to foot candles, and the other relates to Kelvins. So foot candles, just to boil it down, is essentially brightness of the lights. And Kelvins are the temperature of the lights, so the color of the lights as it appears to the human eye.

So just to go back a slide, for the foot candles, we're requesting to go up to 15.8, where the code today allows 12. And for the Kelvins, we're requesting to go to 5,000 ks, where the code currently allows 4,000 ks. And I'll explain why in just a moment. So what you see on your screen now is the proposed location of the OPD spaces on the right side of the screen within the middle of the parking lot and the EV spaces on the left side of the screen also within the parking lot. So these, again, are the two areas where we'd like to, on the foot candle side, exceed slightly at the peak.

So not as a blanket, because obviously the light comes from light poles. So when you're closer to the light pole, it's going to be a little brighter by the light pole, and the light brightness dissipates as you get farther from the pole. And I'll show what the blended rates are. The average will actually be below the code standard. But at the peak, we're asking to go slightly above the code standard so that we can ensure that these areas are properly lit, given the activities that are going to occur there people getting out of their car to charge up, people pulling in and then associates coming to bring groceries and such to the car as part of the online pickup operation.

And again, on this sheet, just to point out, you'll see where the light poles are in red. You'll see that we're proposing to add a new light pole where the EV spaces are. And you'll see on the right side we're proposing to add a couple new light heads on existing poles. And I apologize that the text is very small. This is in your package.

If you want to pull up the actual PDF and zoom in, you can see the specific numbers. But it's as I described, which is right next to the light poles. It's a little bit higher of brightness. And as you go away from the light poles, it goes down to a lower amount. So you'll see and this is just a little table to explain basically what I just said, which is on the foot candle side, we're seeking to go to a peak of 15.8, where 12 is allowed.

On the color temperature side, we're seeking to go towards a brighter white color. And the reason for that is because the existing parking lot is already that same bright white color. So what we want to avoid is the image on the left, which is you'll have two different color lights in the parking lot. We want to avoid that. So what we're seeking on the Kelvin side is to match the existing conditions that the whole parking lot is lit with the same color.

And this is what I was getting at describing how although the variance requests up to 15.8 foot candles, really it's going to end up as an average of eight foot candles, which is below 12, and an average of five and four in the OPD, which is obviously well below 12. The reason we need to go to 15.8 is because in the EV parking area we have a peak brightness of 15.8 right next to where the light pole is. And then it dissipates as you get further from there. This is a rather short presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions. But essentially, the whole point of this is to do two things ensure that the OPD, online pickup delivery, and electric vehicle charging stations are a little bit brighter than the rest of the parking lot for safety reasons and practical reasons, and to ensure that the light temperature, the color of the parking lot, is the same exact color throughout.

So that actually concludes our presentation, and we're available for any questions. Thank you.

Kimber Goldich.

So just to clear it up, the spot for the EV you're talking about, you want to bring that up to what everything else is in the parking lot? Is that correct?

Can you repeat

that I'm reading through your proposal here. It says that to avoid it being darker than the rest. Excuse me. And so the way I'm reading it is, is it dark now, or is it the same lighting with a different color lighting?

It's a very good question because it's slightly complicated answer because the brightness differs throughout the parking lot relative to proximity to these light poles. Right? So it's both yes and no because in certain places it may be darker and other places it may be brighter. But our proposal would ensure that the EV and the OPD are definitely brighter, slightly, so that everything's able to be visible there. It's safer.

I would say it's best practices condition. And in fact, Walmart, as I mentioned, has already gotten zoning approvals for the project at large, which is interior renos EV OPD. They discovered that what they were proposing for best practices around the country did not meet code during the permitting process. So this is a little bit of a cleanup effort just to ensure that we're able to achieve best practices in terms of lighting for these operations.

Okay. So that would make it consistent with the rest of the parking lot?

Yes. Yes. Would So all your other

I'm sorry, all your other lighting is 15.8 now?

No, no. Rest of Or just

the Kelvin is different?

So the rest of the lighting would remain fully compliant with the maximum 12 foot candle requirement. This would allow Walmart to slightly exceed that 12, a peak of 15.8, only where the EV and the OPD are, which are in the middle of the parking lot and we think is appropriate.

What are the current lights again? What is the foot candles on the current parking lot lights?

So it's blended, right? So you'll have averages. So I'm told by our I had the same question for our lighting expert. Currently, the peak in the rest of the parking lot is approximately eight the peak is about eight foot candles in the rest of the parking lot. The blended average in the rest of the parking lot is slightly lower. With this proposal and I'll go back to the slide the peak in the EV area would be 15.8, and the average in the EV area would be 8.87. So the average would be about the peak of the rest of the parking lot, which causes for a nice blending of brightness.

So why don't you want to use the 12 foot candles in code if the current ones are even below that?

Can you repeat the question, madam chair?

If the current lights are less than 12 foot candles, Why don't you just want to use the 12 instead of going higher than that?

Sure. So the whole purpose of this is to meet industry standard best practices for all Walmart, EV, and OPD areas. That's number one. Number two, it's also a really good result when there's a slight difference in brightness relative to the rest of the parking lot. So we want to go slightly above what's present in the rest of the parking lot so that the eye can differentiate and it's brighter than the places where there's more pedestrian activity.

This is what we had. I thought it was a vision test because you I can't read

apologize. The PDF, if you zoom in on it, you'll

be able

to The

area where people pull in to pick up, I think there's currently four lights under the canopy. So where are you I can't even tell what you're putting. Are you putting new lighting there or new lighting past it?

Right. So which area are you asking about? On the left side or the right side?

The two rows where people park to pick up stuff.

Sure. So on the right side of the document you're holding, I have the zoomed in version right in front of me. So there's no new light poles that are being added there. There's simply new lighting heads that are being added to the additional poles.

And then I can't I really don't the red things all over the parking lot, those are going to be new lights? Or that's existing lights?

So the ones that are circled are proposed new light poles, of which there's one, or light heads, of which there's four. The other red are existing poles. Are what? Existing poles. Not to change.

So you're replacing all the old ones.

No. We're adding one new one, and we're adding new lightheads to one, two, three of the existing poles.

There's more than that out there, isn't there?

There is. I mean, there's many light poles throughout the parking lot. But we're only retrofitting three of the poles to add more light heads. And then we're adding an additional new light pole in the EV space area.

Yeah. I went out there two nights. And I have to tell you, that is one dark parking lot. And nobody parks out there because

it's It's complying with the code. We would love to go higher.

Anyway, but you're not changing the I think there's four lights under the canopy where they park. You're not changing that because that was not very bright either.

Right. So my understanding is that on that row that you're describing, Madam Chair, the light poles are remaining, but we're adding new lightheads. So there'll be more than just two. Right now, the default is two. We'll be adding additional lightheads to increase the lighting along that particular line and furtherance of safety for the online pickup and delivery options.

So that little circle there is going to shine on to where people pick up their orders? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Because I had no idea that parking lot

was so dark at night.

It's really dark. It can be, yeah. It can be. What happens then when the store is closed overnight?

I suspect the code requires that the lights be turned off. I'm sorry I don't have that information handy.

Yeah, think they're allowed to keep some lights on for security purposes, but most of them are to go off.

But these in particular

would be ones that you would not keep on? The brighter ones you would not keep those on? You know, board member Jones, I believe they're probably all on a circuit. I don't know how they're programmed or whether that's a possibility. And I don't know what the standard practice for the city is on that.

We'd certainly have to look at that. But if that were something where you were looking for those lights to turn off at that time because they are brighter, we can certainly work with our engineering department to make sure that gets done.

Any

other questions? Member Alloy?

The EV stations, they're open twenty four hours, or is it just the store hours? Because that would answer the question of the lighting.

That is a good point.

I was going to ask.

I believe the EV stations are accessible 20 fourseven, and that is a public benefit. So I suspect that is the case. And to your point, board member Aloy, I think perhaps if we were to discuss limiting lighting, it may make sense to not limit lighting in the EV spaces.

I didn't realize you're going to keep those open all overnight. See, the store used to be open twenty four hours before COVID. But now it's not. It closes at eleven So if those stay it was my understanding that Walmart does not want people in the parking lot when it's closed.

Yes, ma'am. And candidly, I don't have the answer to that question. I apologize. I'm not sure when they closed the EV spaces.

Actually, at the far what is that Northeast corner, there were a bunch of kids parked there. And they were just hanging out and dancing and doing all kinds of stuff, playing music.

I have more lighting to do

it. Good.

No, it was very dark where they were.

Hopefully the police murmur out Yeah, there

Okay. Any other questions? Do I have a motion?

I'll make the motion to approve.

Madam Chair, just one

Motion by Member Alloys, Just second by Member

one item here. Obviously, the applicants brought up the variance regarding those particular areas themselves. However, the variance

You have to say what number

The variance could apply to the entire center, if that happens to be the case. So if you are going to approve this and you want to do it for the center or just those areas that applicants brought up, that's your determination.

I couldn't hear a word you said because you're sitting over there and I'm sitting over here.

So the item in front of you tonight is to put the foot candles and the

The two items.

Yeah, the two items and the color of this applying to the whole entire shopping center itself. The applicant has mentioned that they were only interested in two particular spots here where they would exceed those particular codes. I know the rest of the centers already, as he said, meets the Kelvin requirement because it was probably approved back before we had a Kelvin requirement. So what I'm saying to you tonight is that if you move forward, you decide to approve this variance, you approve it one or two ways. You can approve it for the parking lot or the areas that in which the gentleman had brought up tonight as a need.

If I may, just very briefly, because I did mention that this is intended only for these two areas, and we would proffer that. And to the extent there was any confusion,

You

have that was not draw the the two areas.

Right, that was not the intention. I actually was unaware that it could apply. I didn't think so. Submitted our main exhibit only refers to those two areas, the drawing with the reading. So I'll make that clear

Who's for the

going to

amend your motion?

Well, just so I understand, so just those areas, which means you're still going to have that patch worked up where it's not going to match with the center of the parking lot. Because you provided an exhibit here that showed yes. So you got A and B, right? So my understanding is with this proposal is that it would be B that would light the entire parking lot.

So

correct. One of the two variances would allow us to avoid what's happening on the left side of the screen and achieve what's happening on the right side of the screen, which is color uniformity. So if you were to approve one of the two variances, we would be able to avoid a multicolor parking lot.

Approving the variance before us today would be the scenario where the entire parking lot is covered was uniformity. Fix that yellow spot. Right. So my motion is to proceed with approving where the entire parking lot is uniformity.

Well, it already is. What he's saying is the rest of it already is at the 5,000 temperature, they call it. It's the color. Kelvin. The lower the temperature, the more yellow it is. And then the higher the temperature, with 5,000 being the highest. It's more white, blue white. So he said and what Joe was saying back before we even had a standard that it was approved the parking lot was approved for that highest blue, white. And that's what it is now, except with these new lights. They're not included in those, right?

Am I understanding that right? So these are the ones that we have to change. We don't have to say anything about the rest of the parking lot.

So with this motion One moment, Madam Chair, if there's anybody from the public, we just want to make sure that they get their No,

anyone from the public want to talk about Walmart Lights? No? Oh, come on. No. All right. So we'll do this again. ZV twenty twenty five-twenty '4 is going from 12 foot candles to 15.8.

I make the motion to approve.

We'll say we already

I voted have on that letter?

C. Yeah, yeah, you have to have a letter.

Letter C.

Okay, and you're gonna second it, right?

I'll second.

Just like before? Mhmm. Okay. Then ZV twenty twenty five twenty five is the maximum of 5,000 instead of 4,000 ks.

I'll make a motion to accept that also on C.

I'll second. Motion made by Member Goldich, seconded by Member Oloy. All those in favor?

Aye. Thank you, board. Have a great evening. Appreciate it.

Thank you, sir.

Number 5ZB2020Six-one Oasis Church. Variance request.

There we go. Thank you. Go ahead. Good evening, board. Monica Enten, MAG Law.

Office is at 7950 Northwest 53rd Street in Miami. Joined today by Jose Gomez and his team at Baylins and Gomez Architects and Andres Martinez from Haddoni Engineers. We're here today requesting a parking variance for Oasis Church, which is located at 12201 Southwest 14th Street, also known as the Northeast Corner Of Flamingo And 14th Street. The variance is a parking variance to lower the count of what is required under the current regulations. This church has existed since 1991, and it has grown quite a bit since then.

Originally, they started in a triple wide in 1991 and ultimately bought this property and became the church that we know. As they have grown, they actually became the first church in The United States way before COVID to do online sessions and services That grew their congregants throughout not only the country, but the world. They do services throughout, especially in Haiti with families and children. That has resulted in their congregation growing. And so at this point, they actually will be back before the board requesting a site plan approval.

Because this application is to not demolish what is there, but actually build a new structure and provide parking. The existing structure would remain to house offices, storage, etcetera. In so doing, we do need a parking variance. And I know that Madam Chair last month had concerns regarding a parking variance, specifically for a church in a strip mall. I can assure you, Madam Chair, that this is very different than what you saw last month.

So in this case, in all of the city, when you look at parking, you look at what is the intensity of the use. So the parking requirement is based on intensity. For example, storage. If you have something that's storage, you would have the requirement of one parking space for every thousand square feet. Not so for offices.

For offices, you would be required to have three and onetwo parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet. In the case of a religious institution, as we have here, you have the requirement of eight and onetwo parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet. That, in this case, results in two eighty one parking spaces when we're providing two twenty four. But why is this different? And why is this different than what was happening last month or similar in this instance?

In any mixed use project, as in that strip mall that you had last month, every use gets their own calculation. So a restaurant would have their calculation at 10 parking spaces for every thousand square feet. But a doctor's office would have that lower count. When you look at a church, that is not the case. They do not do the mixed calculation.

Every inch of the property within the church walls counts to that eight and a half. And when I say every inch, I mean the bathrooms, the hallway, circulation. We all know that if we have a bathroom full of people, those people are not going to be in the congregation room. We know that the people in the hallway are not going to be sitting in the congregation room. So the way that the parking is calculated for churches, it's a little more intense.

So what we've done and you can see, I think it's going to be a beautiful addition to the city. You can see that this is the area. The white space is the existing structure. And you can see the new congregation on the left with a whole new parking area to the right of the screen. This calculation here shows you that we have a requirement at two eighty one parking spaces, and we're providing two twenty four.

And you can see at the bottom of the screen I don't know if it's a little bit hard to see that we have different colors of uses. As we go to this screen, what we did was we actually tried to give you a calculation to show you if we did a complete mixed use calculation where storage only had one parking requirement and by the way, even in our calculation, we did not remove the bathrooms or circulation, we would be required to provide you with two fourteen parking spaces. We're providing two twenty four. So under a true mixed use calculation, we're providing more parking than what would be required. Interestingly enough, if we look at the church that exists today and we use today's calculations for the parking, the parking would be well under almost 100 parking spaces less when what we're asking for is just over 50.

So the parking under today's regulations does not comply. So the percentage is minimal. And what we are actually providing is 80% of what is required under the current regulation. What was provided to you by the church in the strip mall, the fourth church that was going into the strip mall last month, that was only 50% that they gave you of parking. So we are much closer to the 100%. We improving the parking situation substantially. And importantly, we're not demolishing an existing structure. We're reusing it

for our

offices, our storage, rather than demolishing and building anew. Another reason that we're here for this variance is we actually had no intention to come here for this variance. We actually had provided a plan that provided the required parking. As you can see from this image that's before you, we have a lot of grassy area. We were providing parking within that grassy area.

One of the requirements that your staff has is that we go before the South Broward Drainage District to make sure that our plans comply with South Broward Drainage District requirements and that we are providing sufficient drainage. South Broward Drainage District did not believe that having more parking on this site and taking up more of this space would meet their drainage calculations and therefore denied our initial plans. So we went back to the drawing board. This is as much parking as we can provide and still comply with the South Broward Drainage District regulations. We do have an application before them.

We are still waiting for their approval. But our engineers have done the calculation over and over again to make sure that this parking will meet the calculations for South Broward Drainage District. With that, we ask for your approval of this variance. Thank you very much.

Any questions? So

to start off with, what is the total square feet of the new building?

Of the new building?

21.

Without the things that you deleted. Oh, sorry. Including the area that you deleted, the total square foot of

the building. The total square footage. I apologize because I'm looking at my architects so that they can give me the new building. Never want lawyer math.

Of the new building? Of the new building. 21,578 feet. Yeah,

but you said that you didn't include the bathrooms all that up.

No, no. Everything is included in our calculation.

Everything is included.

Everything is included. Absolutely. 100%, Every inch between the walls is included in

the parking did not.

No, I said even that. We even included it in our calculations, and we're still over if we did a true mixed use, we would be required two fourteen, and we're providing two twenty four.

Okay. And the other question is on page two of your letter, where it says, in addition to the introduction to new two story structure, you say in the second sentence, while additional parking is proposed for the site, a parking grant is required. So you're going to create more parking?

We are creating more parking. We are providing right now, there's only 140 parking spaces on the site. So we are going to be providing two twenty four parking spaces.

So you've got to create more parking with Okay.

Correct.

Because that wasn't real clear because

it said I apologize.

It says that this is what you're asking for, but down the road you're going be asking for more.

No, I apologize that I wasn't clear. Apologies. I wasn't clear. No, right now there's only 100 parking spaces on the site, and we'll be providing two twenty four parking

spaces.

Well, where is the existing parking on this picture?

This is not the existing. This is the proposed. And I apologize that I do not have a rendering for it in my presentation. I know it is part of your plans. Right now, is partially where the new structure would be. There's also another structure in the rear. So that structure will also be going down. That's more of a trailer. So that'll be going down in order to provide this parking.

Okay. When I was out there, thought you were going to be putting the office building into the new building because that looks very temporary, the office building there. And then you have a train station with a funny little building there. Is that going

to stay? So if you're talking about the buildings to the east The office when you come in on your right buildings. The office buildings. The small buildings to the right when you come into the church. Yeah. Yes. So one of those buildings is going to be going. We're only going to be keeping one small storage building that's in the back. So the other buildings where those offices are, that's not going to exist.

Where is it going to be?

In the main church. Where we have the church now, that's where we're going to have storage,

So it's going

to be

a much smaller area building? The building that you're going to have there is going be much smaller or the

same? But it's not going to have to house everything in the building anymore because now we're going to have the existing building to house those issues. But it's

going to be the same size, the office building?

Not the office building. So we're providing a new structure that's 21,000 square feet. And

we're just keeping drove in there, and it says office building on those things on the right hand side.

Right. But that's not going to exist anymore. That's what? That's not going to exist anymore.

I thought you said you're going to put storage

No, no. So if you go right now to the property, you drive into from 14th, on your left, onto the west side of the property, you have the church structure. That church structure is no longer going to be for services. That church structure is going to house storage, offices, some of the classes. The structures when you come in on that side to the right, which I believe is the office that you're discussing, that's not going to exist.

And the train station?

And I apologize because I don't know what the train station

It's on the north side of

It's a storage. It's a small storage. It's a train station that's

got things hanging down. It's a little building, but there's a big cement pad asphalt pad there in front

of Right. They currently use it for storage. And that small building will remain. And you can see it here on the plans. I apologize.

Because if it didn't remain, you could put more parking there. And it looks like all this area is grass, but it really isn't. It will be. This area the U shaped area there the grass, it goes down like this into a gully.

That's retaining that's a water retention required by South Broward Drainage District. Okay. So nobody can park there, right?

But the rest of it looks all green and like you could make parking and it's We

did. That is actually what we proposed, Madam Chair.

We proposed landscaping. You have a lot of stuff there. It's not

like it looks. We proposed parking in those areas. And as I said, it was never our intention to come here for our variance. It was our intention to use that parking in those green areas that you see in that plan to satisfy our parking requirement. Unfortunately, South Broward Drainage District, just as the city's requirements have changed over the years, so have South Broward Drainage District calculations. And so they're the ones who require all I of this open know,

but it makes it look like it's kind of deceiving because you said they can park in the grassy areas and it makes it look like all of

that is grassy area. No, no, no, no. We're not parking in the grassy areas. No, no. Just in the area that is highlighted as parking, identified as parking. We're using the grassy area as our parking calculation at all. So you're building a building. It's a

little bigger than the current church, right? Correct. And you expect that the same number of parking spaces are going to work?

No, no, no. We are more than double. The existing parking is 140. What we are going to provide is two twenty That's

what I'm talking about. You think that two twenty four parking spaces are going to accommodate two buildings the Right. Same

But the second building is not going to work as church space. So the second building is where our storage is going to be, where our offices are going to be. So at the time that the church is functioning, there's really no one in the second building because that's storage. That is offices. That is conference rooms.

So those are not they're different uses that don't get used at the same time. So if the pastor is leading service, he's not going to be in the storage area or in an office. While we do have volunteers that are working with congregants in the spaces, again, if we did the calculation under a true mixed use, under an office use, if we did a calculation using that building and having the numbers for storage, having the numbers for office, etcetera, we would only be required to give you two fourteen parking spaces. And we are giving you 200 not giving you, we're providing two twenty four parking spaces, 10 more than what would be required in a true mixed use calculation. So just as in the shopping mall last month, where you were very concerned about a bigger restaurant coming in, And you talked about the 27 parking spaces.

That restaurant had a specific amount of parking required for a restaurant. The church had a specific amount of parking required for the church. If an office came in, right? So those calculations would be based on each of the uses in that shopping mall. In the case of a church, they do not do that.

They count it all only as if every inch of the space was church, whether it's storage, whether it's an office. Every inch of the church is calculated as church use. Generally, in any municipality and other uses in this municipality, what we call circulation, a hallway that leads you from point A to point B would not be calculated in the parking requirement because people aren't sitting there, right? They're not people aren't coming to be in the hallway. So you don't count the hallway normally as having a parking requirement.

Similarly, a bathroom. A person didn't come to the church to use the bathroom. The person came to the church and subsequently used the bathroom. In a church situation, you have to calculate not only the congregation area, but the bathroom area at exactly the same time and at exactly the same number. It's impossible for a person to be in the bathroom and in the congregation room at the same time, but that doesn't matter. You are required to count the bathrooms as though somebody, as though every inch of the space were used at every minute in time.

But you're still about 59 parking spaces short of what's required.

Correct. We are 59 parking spaces short because the church is not calculated as any other mixed use. The church every inch of the church is calculated as needed parking the bathroom, the hallway, and the storage. The storage is calculated as having a requirement of eight and onetwo parking spaces for 1,000 square feet. When in another building, in a hotel, for example, or in that strip mall that you had last month, that same storage would have a parking requirement of one parking space for 1,000 square feet.

Because the use changes to church, that storage now has eight and a half parking space requirement. One versus eight and a half. It's still the same storage. The storage hasn't changed. The only thing that's changed is the main use of church. So where we have we would be required to have one parking if we were in a strip mall. Here we would be required to have eight and a half for that same storage area.

So you're saying that whole building is going to be storage? Not at all.

But what I'm saying is that areas that are currently calculated for storage, where we do have storage, The areas that are office, where it should be calculated at three and a half rather than eight and a half, all of those areas are calculated at eight and a half, as though they were still church use. Well, you put

the train station in storage, then you could have your other spaces It's back

not enough, ma'am. And unfortunately, we still have It looks

like it doesn't even belong there. It's got this gold stuff hanging down.

Yeah. Unfortunately, we wish, and recently, the commission passed a new amendment that reduced parking sizes. We worked with staff. Staff was great at letting us know about that. We went back. Our poor architects have tried to maneuver them and change them and angle them and straighten them and sideways them. And this, in order to meet South Broward Drainage District requirements, this is the maximum parking that we can fit on this land. Again, if this was a true mixed use, we would be providing 10 more parking spaces than what actually would be required for the building. But because it is church use, because they count the bathrooms, because they count the hallways

Could you quit talking about bathrooms, please?

I'm sorry. But we understand. I So you're

saying that every inch of space, Every every inch of

and the chairs.

Mean, that's not storage. JULIE Right. But that would be calculated at three and onetwo rather than eight and a half. So church still requires five more parking spaces for the same exact area that is office because it's not looking at it as an office. It's looking at it as a church. So if we had a 1,000 square foot office, we would have to have three and a half parking spaces. But because the same office is inside of a church, we are required to have eight and a half parking spaces. Five more parking spaces than if that office was in a strip mall.

I have a question for staff. So the second building, the side plans say it's a church? Well, she's talking about church versus storage.

Yeah.

I don't quite understand the nuances there.

Sorry, Madam Chair. Our zoning doesn't make that determination inside a building as the attorney is making. We look at it as church use. Walls change over time. Churches sell to other churches that decide to use things for different uses.

And so in our case, we look at it through the zoning at 8.5 per 1,000 square feet. It doesn't mean that it's a perfect science. It doesn't mean that the mixture of uses that she mentions is something that we're against or for. But from a zoning perspective, we get concerned because if we under park that building without getting a variance or something to that effect, then the next person who comes in, the building may not be conforming. So we look at it at the broadest rate.

But if it's church, Joe, if it's church, it's zoned for church, right? If someone else say they leave, they sell the property, and someone else comes in, if they're not a church, then the whole thing DELL: has to be

Well, I mean, it's a building. It's a building, and the building could be another church. And the church may not want to use as much storage area as the church before them has used. Maybe they want to use less. We don't know at the particular time. So again, the attorneys in front of you tonight, they're saying what they're actually planning on doing. They're asking for the variance that's in front of you. Also want to bring up to your point and again, we don't make recommendations on these items. So again, we're just listening to you guys. But I will tell you on this particular one, she was right with the South Broward Drainage District.

They do not have the room. We confirm that. But I will also bring this up to you. This plan will be in front of you very shortly, I think in April or so. So this building right here will be in front of you as a site plan later on. So again, they are asking for this variance in anticipation of bringing that site plan in front of you.

And just to be clear, we can clear this whole thing up, when you're talking about the church, I mean, understand what you're saying. To clear it up for everybody else, you're all encompassing both buildings. We're not just talking for parking wise. We're not talking about just the new addition. You're talking about both buildings all encompassing as the church,

Correct. Correct? Correct. We look at it as the greatest use at that particular time because Right.

Because there's no differentiation or whatever. Well, it's one building.

Yeah. In the past, we used to look at zoning. We would break these things up and stuff like that. But we found that we were creating nonconformities because, like I said, as soon as they did an interior build out to a certain area, then all of a sudden the numbers may not work out. If they got rid of some of the storage and made it more church, then they could actually, by doing that, cause themselves not to be able to be parked accordingly.

Sorry. To clarify, the existing church building that is going to be repurposed is not going to be parked at the church ratio. Only the new proposed church building will be parked at that ratio for the church Right.

But the new proposed building has within it bathrooms, lobby, storage, and offices. So that new proposed building is across the board being calculated at 8.5, as though that storage within the building, the bathrooms within the building

Yeah, you're just saying that we know what you're saying. Right. So that the parking that's required by the code is never going to be used because

And the use of the if a new building if a new church comes in and I don't know They'll likely have the same

a similar kind of style.

But even if they don't, if they want to change things, they're going to have to come back before this board. I mean, the gentleman that was here just two hearings ago had to come back to you to approve color of paint. So a new church is not going to be knocking down or adding without board approval. So this board will always have the ability to limit the uses to ensure that the parking is complied with. As I indicated, if we were a true mixed use, we're not only in compliance. We have more than enough parking spaces. We have 10 extra parking spaces. But because it does not calculate the same way, that is the only reason that we have this parking deficit.

But you could change what you're going to be doing in that building. You could have confidence that we've historically gotten a little burned on church requests for parking. There's one out by Johnson in 'twenty seven, and they started out with a very small congregation. Parking was fine. And then, now they're double and triple parking cars because they're more popular. They're doing more things than they said they were going to be doing. So you could be doing whatever in this

building eventually. But I guess we could say that about any use, whether legal or not. Anybody can say, even with the existing parking, they can increase and intensify without letting this board know. And that would always happen. You have the ability, when we come back before you with the site plan, to say these are the uses that are permitted in this shape, in this format. And if we don't do it, then we're in violation of that order. And we can be violated. Could We could

talk about site plan now because we're not dealing

with

side

plan. Understood. GREGORY But the parking relates directly to what the uses are.

GREGORY Well, would because, from what you've said of the drainage district, if we say to you, no, you have to put the required number of parking spaces there, The only thing you can do is change the plan for your building, right?

Or create a parking garage, which I don't think is what the city wants.

Or go up with it, yeah.

We're not trying to be invasive. We're not trying to add more. Like I said, we were trying to actually comply. It wasn't until the South Broward Drainage District that became an issue. And it wasn't until staff pointed out that in this city, church does not get calculated as a true mixed use. And that is the only reason we're before you.

Any

other questions?

Public speak. Public.

Any member of the public want to speak? Come on down.

My name is Perry. Last name is Eckton, E

C Can C. You put the microphone up right Oh,

thank you. Sorry. My name is Perry. My last name is Eckton. My mother is Jewel Eckton. And I live at 1345 And 1355 Southwest, 122nd Way, walking distance to this church. I did not know that the church was proposing to build a new church on that site, keep the existing church, repurpose it, and do that. I'm glad you guys make everybody get informed. I have nothing against Church in Church progress. But as you know, every Sunday, this church is packed.

Parking is on the street. Parking is across the street in the shopping center. And in December for Christmas, there's no parking anywhere. People are parked in my cul de sac trying to go to the event. I don't mind that. It's Christmas, but that's what it is. But there's a heavy traffic in this area. I would like to see something done to minimize not only myself and my family, but others. I have to go if I leave on a Sunday, I have to go out to Pembroke Road. I can't go to Flamingo. It's it's way too packed between nine and one or 02:00 on a Sunday. I can't get out that way without somebody being in danger. And that's not what I'm about.

Do they have people directing traffic?

They have people in the parking lot directing traffic as they enter and leave, but nobody monitoring the street. My concern is as you double the size of this facility, you triple the size of traffic in that area. And I am forced to deal with trying to find alternative means to get out. Do I have a problem with the church trying to increase its size? No. But just do it where it doesn't hinder other folks. My mom is 91. My neighbor who just passed was 90. My other neighbors are in their 50s and 60s. They have small kids.

So we're concerned about the impact of what happens there. The church is great. I've attended it. Not a problem. But let's be concerned about everybody else who's impacted by that decision. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. If I may briefly address some of the points that the gentleman brought up, Mr. Perry, I think. This variance in this building will actually improve the condition that he brought up. I'll tell you why. The existing church is 27,000 square feet. The proposed church is 21,000 square feet. Remember, the other building is not going to be used for church. That is not what's going to be happening there.

So church to church, the proposed church, is actually going to be approximately 6,000 square feet less. More importantly, the existing parking count is 140 parking spaces. The proposed parking count is two twenty four parking spaces, almost 100 parking spaces more than what currently exists for a space that's going to be 5,000 square feet less for church use.

Why don't you just make your building smaller and then you have to be doing this? You still have the

same number of people, though, coming. You expect the same

number of or more. We do expect the same congregation. And that's why we are providing 90 spaces more than what's currently there.

You could decide to have classes for kids. You could do all kinds of things in that building. And we currently do have classes for kids.

They're on the evenings after six they're actually from seven to 08:30 on Thursday nights.

And where do they meet? Are they going meet

in Well, the new in the new building. That's part of the offices. They might meet in the office or they might meet in the congregation area itself. But that's from seven to 08:30 at night on Thursdays. And children get dropped off by their parents and get picked up an hour and a half later.

The number of students that go vary between twelve and seventeen students. So again, we're not talking about a different calculation that wouldn't be able to meet these requirements. Also, when we talk about church and when we talk about those services on Sunday, we are talking about the children that are there. And the schooling that is provided, they actually get their own services in those office spaces that we have upstairs. Those are for children having their own services. So that they're different from the parents, still getting the same religious benefit, but guided in such a way that it is appropriate for children.

Do you want to address the questions that your neighbors had?

And I apologize. I didn't hear the question beyond we will be providing

How traffic is such a problem they can't go out the street on Sundays?

Well, to the best of my knowledge, where he indicated he lives is actually north of the property. If he was going to go south to go to Pembroke, he would have to go across Flamingo, which would not be adjacent to the property unless he's coming around the rear. And understand. I absolutely understand the parking constraints. Oh, in the rear. Okay. In the rear. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for clearing that up for me. And again, we are going to be providing 90 more parking spaces,

which is space that is smaller. But over the holidays that he was referring to or busier times, you probably is that sufficient? Can you direct your can you instruct your congregation not to go into private residential

Absolutely. And over the holidays, they get special event permits from the city. They don't operate under the regular regulations. They actually get a special event permit for that time period Because it is a big event. It is Christmas. We can absolutely work. We actually work with Le Petite, which is the neighbor to the rear between us and Mr. Perry. And we can work with them if we needed overflow parking from them. But we can definitely work with our congregation to make sure that we do whatever we can to maintain the parking and circulation inside.

Again, this is one month out of the year where a special event permit is pulled because we do bring in more people during that time. But during the rest of the year, we will have 90 more parking, 80 something more.

I don't understand why you just didn't see what the code said and just do that. Why did you have to

Ma'am, we did. We absolutely did. But South Broward Drainage District determined that we needed more drainage, that the site as a site needs more drainage. And so we cannot use our full lot for that service. We can absolutely do a parking garage. We don't think that the city wants to see a parking garage in this area.

Why not?

Why not? I think it's a big, bulky It

can't be done? You don't

GREGORY The circulation would be horrific to come in and out of the site. So we would have I don't think it would solve the problem. You would have multiple stories.

GREGORY Probably just two, right?

No, because when you do a parking garage, you actually need more space for a turning radius when it's enclosed. So it's a little bit different when it's

open. My problem is that what you do with that building might change, and then the parking spaces is out the window. You could be doing anything. You could have big conferences in there. You could be doing anything in there.

The church has been And we've

seen it happen in the past with other churches. But this church has

been a citizen of this neighborhood for over twenty six years.

GREGORY If I may, if they

do propose I mean, this is

the current proposed use for these buildings. If they were to modify the proposed use within the buildings, they would have to come to us. And at that point, we would verify the use that it's allowable and then also verify that there's sufficient parking. So as proposed, this is the number that's required. If they were to amend that, again, they would come back to staff and then eventually before you if a subsequent variance was required.

But as it stands now, you're permitted a total of three fifty occupants.

Correct. Correct. But normally when you go to church, it's not three fifty people. It's either two people, a family, a child, a couple. So with that, the parking calculations were done.

We actually had traffic to make sure that there is no impact with respect to the calculations. So again, if we were in any other use, if we were a hotel, if we were a strip mall, like the gentleman that came before you last month, we could open this up as a strip mall, knock down the building, create a strip mall, and have three other uses. And we could have a cafe and the retail and the storage, and only dedicate this square footage to church, and we would have more parking than what is required today. So if we were to sell this building, create a strip mall, and have the church space, only that church space count as church, we would providing 10 parking spaces, more than what is required. But because we are not a strip mall, because we are calculated at one rate in that building, that is the only reason we are here.

Because you do calculate hallways that are not calculated anywhere else. Because you do calculate parking for bathrooms, madam chair. We are penalized for that. We would not be penalized for that anywhere else. We would not be penalized for that. That area would not be calculated if we were an office. It would not be calculated if we were a hotel. It would not be calculated if we were a restaurant. But it is calculated only because we are a church. So if we created a strip mall tomorrow, we would have no parking issues.

Zero. I don't agree with that because we've had that problem with other churches and strip malls.

But ma'am, we would then have every one of those uses individually contested.

It's not really relevant to this issue.

It absolutely is, ma'am, because It not.

It is not relevant. I have a question.

Tamara Goldin? Two parts. One, when you presented to the drainage district, were they open to variants?

No. So the way that the drainage district works, you either have to provide the drainage, pay multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars, or provide a separate property that has the drainage. So when they did this church back in 2000, they actually were required to purchase a second at that time, a separate lot in the Everglades, which they did. But again, that has all changed since then. And even having provided that second lot in the Everglades, that no longer meets the current requirements.

Okay, so go to my question. Drainage District wouldn't allow you, by variance, to push your parking a little farther back than it is creating some more parking spaces?

I'm going to let our engineer address that. He's much better educated on these issues than I am.

Good evening. Andre Martinez, civil engineer, 7860 Southwest 21st Street, Miami, Florida. So this property as it stands today doesn't meet South Broward's criteria. So we worked in hand in hand with them to maximize the amount of drainage. And in the exhibit that you see before you, all that green area is not landscaped. It's dry retention area. And the parking has been brought as close as possible safety being concerned because the slopes there at one to four. You don't want vehicles anywhere near that area parking. So we have maximized the drainage and brought the parking as close as safely possible.

Okay. Second part of my question is, you're standing here, are you able to create egress and exit for traffic directly onto Flamingo rather than onto 14th on the west side of the building. I know you would lose parking, but you close off the other one and create parking over there.

So that's actually a transportation issue that would be transportation engineer. I did not bring him this evening. Normally, the transportation does not want to see new drive aisles being created. Not to mention you're going into a main thoroughfare as Flamingo. So that would pose, I believe, a lot of larger issues than what is proposed with this.

Yeah, you'd have to create a turning lane and Correct. And I understand that. To this gentleman's point, traffic is apparently quite horrible coming out of there after church or even before. He's in the 18

joking about parking.

I mean, it's about traveling.

Well, it's encompassing when it comes to parking and traffic. Because you're applying for a variance now for your parking before you apply for your permits and land use plans and whatever for the new building. So if we can get it straight now or figure something out now, then you're ahead of the game. We're ahead of the game, really.

We couldn't provide any access along that road. There is a minimum separation between intersections and driveways, where that being a high traffic state road, we don't meet that criteria. It would be another variance. And that variance in itself is more high risk and against safety because of the separation criteria. You have somebody pulling out within a certain distance.

125 feet being the bare minimum, the design speed is probably closer to 200 plus feet away from an intersection. You don't want those kinds of incidents being anywhere near each other. So proposing a driveway on that street is not very highly recommended. And the state does not look kindly towards those variances.

I'm just looking at his situation.

Mr. Goldich, I think one of the things that maybe we could do is maybe add if concern that the gentleman brought up is the parking on the swale areas that's creating that, maybe we can provide bollards in the area that would prevent vehicles from parking in that area. I think that's a simple solution to prevent vehicles from parking on the swale, which I think is the concern, correct? The concern is the cars that are parked in the grassy area. I think if maybe we provide bollards

He's really talking about being able to leave his home and go out to Flamingo rather than drive down to Pembroke and come back around. Right. That's what he's about.

I think the issue, if he lives to the east, the cul de sac on the east of the past Le Petite, so he would be coming west on 14th. And I think the issue is the vehicles parking on the swale on the north side of the street between the street and the church, the grassy area. And I think if we were to provide bollards in that swale, it would prevent vehicles from being able to park there. And that should alleviate the parking in that area because cars would not be able to park there. They would be forced to park within the church venue.

He's shaking his head now. There's not enough parking the church.

Correct. There's not enough parking in the church right now. But there would be.

Okay, I'm sorry. If you're going be speaking, you are going to have to come up to the microphone. And the chair will ask.

I'm not trying to create a harassment here, but I am trying to live in peace. The parking on the swell is not the issue. There's not enough parking spots in that parking lot now for the current congregation. So as you push an additional building there, now you're going to increase that parking demand. While I understand that they're creating this other parking structure back here, which is actually in one of those swells, but they've got permission from the water industry to do that. And I'm Okay with that. But it's still going to be super crowded in that area.

They're adding ninety

ninety additional parking spots.

90 more parking spaces will be added inside.

And how many more people are going to be in both those buildings then?

If I may, that I on the record apologize. The white building that you see, that's the existing structure. That is not the congregation. That's not for congregates. That's for our offices and storage. So the congregates that are the ones that I would believe are the ones that come on Sundays that create that are in the building that you see with the seats, So that calculation, we are providing 90 more parking spaces. That building is 5,000 square feet smaller than the white space.

But how many spaces are you taking out because of that building?

I can't give you that number, but I can give you the overall count. Right now, the overall count is 140 parking spaces. What we are proposing is two twenty four, 94 more parking spaces. What's your current occupancy? This new one we discussed was three fifty. What's the current occupancy? I apologize because I do not have that calculation. Do we know? City knows?

Yeah, because the concern is if you're making the building smaller, your congregation is

to decrease. Not Correct. A large part of the congregation is online. As I indicated earlier, our congregation is now international. So we do provide services online 20 fourseven, every day of the week. Do I anticipate that maybe more people will go So what happens with churches, and I think, is we end up having a lot of attendance in the month of December and January. People are very religious during Christmas and right after Christmas. They're also very religious right around Easter and around that time. And then it dies down. And those numbers are not the same May, June, July, August.

So the church and I'm sorry, something just happened. Don't know.

It's a phone update. Sorry. Sorry.

So we don't anticipate the same numbers in July, for example, that we have in December. It's just a reality of what the service is. So we do not anticipate that we are going to have this issue with parking because we are providing more parking. Right now, issue is we have 140 parking spaces. That's the issue. We have 140 parking spaces for our congregates. We're going have 90 more parking spaces. If, let's say, it's just two people per car two people per car, that's 180 more people. So if we had 100 So and 80 more 100 people,

we would still

something total, right? And your

I'm sorry?

So yeah, would be over 400 something total, And your occupancy is only three fifty.

Right. So we have more parking. There will be sufficient parking within the site. And I think that if we provided and I apologize because I'm going to point it for him here if we provided on the outside of the church where the grassy area is on the outside, if we provided bollards along the swale, that would prevent any vehicle from parking here and blocking the street.

The problem is not the street. The swell when Sunday happens, this swell is packed from here all the way. And it's actually the La Petite. They're using La Petite. I think that's staff from the church is using La Petite to park. But it's over here also in the strip mall. The first one near the dry cleaners and the restaurant that just opened, that's packed. This one is halfway back behind social security. So I appreciate the 90 more spaces here. I'm just thinking that you're going to drive a whole lot more people here during that, which is going to and then you're running multiple services. So between nine and 02:00 on a Sunday, I have to go this way.

And understand. We're an existing church use. We're trying to minimize and at the same time provide everything that we can. The only way that this would work is that the church didn't exist. Because from what you're indicating, it's always going to be busy and there's always going to be people. So we again, if I created a strip mall in this area and I put the church on one corner and I put every other use that's in this area, I would not even have to provide as much parking as I'm providing. I would actually have to provide That necessarily true.

And it has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

I'm talking about parking calculations based on uses. If I had any other use other than a church and I put these same exact uses publicly in another type of setting, each use would have a less and smaller parking requirement.

Again, my problem is that you may change what you're going to be doing in that building, and then the parking is not going to be out.

There will be a site plan approval that is required for this project that will absolutely say, this is the use that is permitted there, and this is the use that is permitted there. I don't think so. That is what is required.

It depends. You could work around that.

I don't think so. Mean, illegally we could do anything, but

What so could anybody about, as the chair suggested a little while ago, that little auxiliary building there.

It would not supply I don't believe it even supplies two parking spaces. Oh, it's that small? It's very small. I'm trying to find what it It is a very small platform.

Because what's that I thought it was this structure here, right?

The little white structure on the back. So you have to have turn radiuses. Have to have

have current office.

And it's not a small building either.

Okay. So current what is currently being used as the office That's the office.

Want to keep person at a time, please?

You want to keep the whole thing as a store that what is currently today being the office?

No, absolutely. So there are several structures in the rear, including, I think it's like a trailer area, that's all being removed. Only one of those structures is going to remain, which is this storage area. We have to meet parking regulations. There's a certain regulation for width and length, as well as circulation and access, and also fire.

So fire trucks have to be able to access. So if we look at this space, we would not be able to pick up the 53 parking spaces that would be necessary. It would still require a variance. And I am not sure right now, having the architects calculate everything, what the turnarounds would be and what the setbacks would be on that side. So we would not but I can tell you we would not be able to pick up the 53 parking spaces that we are sure.

You need to vote on the variance itself.

A single level anyway.

Does anybody want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion that we approve CV 22,601 under, I guess, this case, be A. Special circumstances due to the drainage district issue and all that. So that would be my motion. Second.

I'll second.

Motion by Member Goldich, seconded by Member Oloy. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Aye.

Did you all vote? Motion passes.

I didn't technically vote.

I'm still thinking. I didn't technically vote.

Are you

going to vote? We already voted. Did

you vote for me?

No, no one

I have a question.

Go ahead. What was

your question? Can we revisit when you bring their site plans and everything, can we revisit this or not?

When you grant the variance, that's what's necessary for them to complete the site plan to bring it back before you. So that's the first step.

And they couldn't take the parking required to make their buildings fit it. Could they? Do what? No. So has everybody voted?

Here's the thing. You guys were in the middle. You had a motion to second. And we don't know what the vote is. So we need to determine what that vote is.

All right. You need to call them.

I seconded the motion that was made

by Guldig.

Guldig made the motion. Aloy, with condition of A, seconded it. She asked all in favor. I didn't hear everybody. She asked all opposed. I only heard Linda say opposed. So it's either everybody voted yes except for Linda. I didn't vote.

So I would do a roll call. I would do a roll call vote so we can be clear on what the vote is. We need to know what the vote is.

I'm just buying time a little bit.

Okay. That's what I was trying to do. Roll call vote. Member Alloy? Yes. Member Goldich? Yes. Member Gonzales? No. Member Jones?

I'm going to say yes. I'm going to say yes.

Okay. So it's three to one. Motion passed.

Thank you, board. I appreciate your time and consideration on this matter.

We're watching. Please sit in the neighborhood. Work with the neighborhood. Yes, absolutely. Figure with your people how you can Maybe there's some commercial space nearby that is not used on Sunday that you can make arrangements if there is something. I don't know why it's not working. Because even though you have all those spaces, somebody prefers to park on the street apparently. So you can still have when everybody's parked into his areas, there could be 10 spaces available in your parking lot. And that's why

I think, as I indicated earlier, maybe that use of bollards will force them to come inside. That way it prevents them from being on the street.

Or predesignated parking and that kind of thing, lottery. This is your space except for handicap, of course. There's probably numerous things you could do.

We'll work

with the congregation and with the neighbors to see what we can do to make sure we alleviate as much as we can. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Big mistake. Items at the request of the board. Anybody? I'd just like to say that Florida recently passed a law called Yes in God's Backyard, allowing churches to build affordable housing without some of the restrictions. And currently, there are six projects going on in the state of Florida, mostly Northern Florida Northern And Central Florida, where churches are working with developers to build anywhere from 50 to 75 housing units.

Pretty cool. Excused absences? Excused absences? Oh, yeah. What about Zacharias? Did you

hear from him? I did not. Anybody Anything hear from him?

Rosalie Labate asked for an excused absence.

And Doris Gonzales.

And Doris Gonzales. We have two members that need an excused absence. Do I have a motion to excuse them?

I'll make the motion to excuse all members.

Motion made by Member Alloy, seconded by Member Goldich. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

In

that regard, how do we deal with the other issue? Is the second time, right?

If there are three unexcused absences in a row, members are supposed to be removed from the board. I'm not sure how our commission wants to address it. We would let them know the attendance record, and then the commission would address it. Did he call you at all? I didn't receive an email or a phone call.

I sent out the quorum check. I got no reply back to that. I was not up in the office from 05:00 to 06:00. I was down here setting up the meeting. If he called, I didn't get a call. Staff didn't hear from him while they were up there that I know of.

So I just have to make a point to not excuse those, basically, then. The board

you all can offer an excused absence for anyone. You don't have to.

I don't think it's a good idea to do that when someone doesn't He

could also turn around maybe Monday and send me a message or call saying, hey, I was in an accident. I wasn't able to get in touch with you. Can you please give me an excused absence against We

could address it at the next meeting if that happens.

Madam Chair, just to be clear on this particular item, I would always tell you guys to try to email the board secretary so that you have something in writing from them. Things come up every once in a while, emergencies, etcetera. So it's up to you whether you want to have an excused absence or not for the people who maybe did not inform us. That, like you said, could be the next meeting. Or at that particular time, if you choose not to do it, then they will go down. We'll have to vote it as an unexcused absence or you guys will.

Well, if you find that he called after hours, we can do it next meeting.

Maybe we should start doing the excuser and excuse at the following meeting for the previous, once we find out exactly what the Right.

We can excuse them at the next meeting if he'd call. But if there's two members called in, I'm not inclined to excuse a member that didn't contact anybody. Correct.

If it was the first time, then we could, but it's not the first time.

It's not the first time.

He'll say that he tries to make.

Okay. Does staff have anything?

No, not right now. We appreciate it tonight.

Could we go back we have extra time tonight. Could we go back and revisit what we were talking about when there's about the consent agenda? I don't Can we make that a rule? I don't know if that's something we need to vote on formally or whatever. Just so we can have an agenda that's properly organized when we know we're going to pull an item when they've not gotten a preapproval.

And the reason for that, for me, as I've stated before, is I don't believe that is transparent. And I don't believe it's in keeping with the idea of sunshine laws to let something just slide that did not seek preapproval. I think those people should at

least What are talking about?

I'm talking about the consent agenda items where they've already done what they're seeking. Well, you can't make them unpainted. No, no. But that doesn't mean they don't have to answer on the record for it.

Actually Actually, have code enforcement.

Did answer on the record.

No, enforcement's already Well, because we pulled it. JULIET To your point,

code enforcement already

JULIET That's why

I pulled it. JULIET But the other side of that is that's the way the city commission runs, too. They have their consent agenda as if there's a problem, they pull something. There's no reason why we shouldn't do

the same It's different.

They also have people that go against code. They have things that are already done that they have to deal with that are cited and everything else. I mean, why change things?

Well, because I'm saying

I understand what you mean.

I'm saying I'm going to pull it. So why not have an agenda that meets what we actually do?

Are you Well, talking It still does.

I have no issue of leaving it as it is.

Yeah. I mean, you still even if you pull it, you're still talking about it. You're still dealing with it. And then by the same token, if there's things on the consent agenda that you don't want to pull, then why put all those things back in the main agenda and

I'm not saying

of take the consent parent's agenda. I'm get saying when an item comes before the staff, when they're preparing it, when they've already done the work without receiving the approval, I don't want to see them on the consent agenda.

Want them said on just making it part of new business?

Because they did, yeah. If they've done the work already. If it had been Wells Fargo and they had not already painted beforehand, I would say, fine, consent away.

Well, they had to be cited by code. The guy had I mean, that's a pain. It's not something that's a main item on the agenda. It's a consent item.

Madam Chair, you know the intent of this was always to try to move the agenda along. There are some nuances here. Again, I'm not suggesting either way, but I'm saying there are some nuances here that would be problematic for staff. They painted the building. What happens if they painted a small portion of the building and then they realize they did something wrong? Does that mean that we put it on the agenda or don't put it on the agenda? I'm just trying to those details are

It's just not in keeping with the sunshine. I mean, attorney, what's your opinion? It's not transparent to

me. Not,

but I'm saying it's not in the spirit of Okay, it's not specifically an issue, but it's not in the spirit of that. It's not transparent. When you have someone who has done the work and then is asking to be excused after the fact, right?

Well, here's the thing. The consent is intended to be for these types of items. I'm not sure how the history got here. If you don't want to have something on consent, you want to discuss it, you pull it. And just because it's on consent doesn't mean that it's not the same noticed item as something that's not on consent. It still has the backup. It still has the memo. It still has the information that provides you with the knowledge you need to decide whether to pull an item or not. So it's not a sunshine law issue. We've to be very clear on what sunshine is.