Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Hey, hey, hey.

[music]

Heat. Heat.

[music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat.

[music] [music]

Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey,

Hey. Hey. Hey. Yeah. Yeah.

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Hey, hey, hey.

[music]

Yeah. All right. All right. We're going to call to order the uh December 17, 2025 planning and zoning board meeting. It's our last meeting of the year. And with that, uh, Bobby, call the roll, please. Rich Deli here. Gigi Dbeck here. Paul Fischer here. Robert Hartzell here. Sandra King present. Carla Coleman here. Fred Stacer here. Okay, we got everybody for the last meeting of the year. We got the A team here.

Um, next item on our agenda is a moment of silence. So at this time we'll take our traditional 30 second moment of silence if you would please. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the November 19th uh, 2025 meeting. Chair will entertain a motion. So moved. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second. A motion and a second. Any questions on the motion? Any adjustments to the agenda? I mean to the uh, minutes. Okay, seeing none, uh, probably call the role in approval of the minutes. Rich Deli, yes. Thunder King, yes. Gigi Dbeck, yes. Paul Fischer, yes. Robert Hartzell, yes. Carla Coleman, yes. Fred Stacer, yes. Okay. Uh, next item on the agenda is individuals who will be testifying tonight need to be placed under order. So, if you're going to speak um at this time, you need to stand, raise your right hand, and you'll be sworn in by the secretary. Thank you.

You please stand, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay. All right. And with that, we'll move to the first item. Now, what we're going to do, Mr. Chair, I'm very sorry to interrupt you here. The email that we received from Bobby earlier today pointed out that there was two um correspondents that came in and I just I didn't have a chance to review them prior to sitting down tonight. I was hoping to be navigated to them because I can't find them on the backup material at all. Oh, okay. I'm sorry to interrupt. I apologize.

They're they're on LN1 uh LN 809. There's two on here. I had the same problem today. So, if you pull pull up the first Yeah. Would they be under the documents, I presume? Right. No, they had their they had their own They're not part of a zip file. No, they were uh Oh, okay. See, this only has the documents and the drawings. So, unless he put them into the No, this the those public comments were not No, they're not in that the manual drives. They're on Oh, I see. I found them. Thank you very much. Agenda item. Okay. Okay. Yeah, they're in uh the agenda, actually. Thank you. And those were the two only public comments from emails that we received from the public.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

All right. What we're going to do because of the nature of this, both items are um relative to each other. So, we're going to have um staff go through the entire presentation, not just for the administrative adjustment, which is item number one, but also for the site plan because it adds more uh clarity to item number one. So, and the applicant can do the same thing. That's probably a good idea. All right. So, at this point, we'll go ahead with uh item number one. Um Vera major administrative adjustment uh PNZ25-16 five one two three four zeros and a three. Um and the address is 1600 South Federal Highway. Mr. Katie, go ahead.

Uh good evening. Thank you, Mr. chairman and board members. Uh Jonathan Caddyy with development services. Uh this subject is for Vera Major Site Plan. Here is the location and the area view of the property. The property is located south of East McNap Road, north of Northeast 65th Street, Fort Royale Boulevard, and east of Federal Highway. The site is 1600 South Federal Highway, PMPO Beach, Florida 33062. The site is bordered by a general business B3 zoning designation to the north and west. To the south is bordered by a limit limited business B1 zoning designation and to the east is bordered by multiple family residents. So the applicant is requesting a major site plan approval to construct a mixeduse building. The building will contain 132 multifamily residential units and 3,650 ft of retail space. The applicant is also proposing 259 parking spaces through the requested major administrative adjustment which is after this item. Uh the height of the proposed building is 105 ft and there's an existing building on site office building which is 78,734 square ft.

Okay. I'm sorry. Okay.

So, this is the site plan. This is a a larger view of the site plan. [snorts] This is a more zoom in picture of the site plan. All right. Since the site abuts RM20 zoning to the east south, uh staff worked with the applicant to ensure the proposed development complies with city height transition standards adjacent to lower density residential uses. As shown above, the project incorporates a steeped height transition. Therefore, the height of highest point of the proposed building aligns with the existing building uh with the building height reducing from 10 stories to seven stories then to four stories. which set back 24 feet 7 in from the eastern property line where a minimum of 20 ft is required to provide an appropriate transition and compatibility with the adjacent lowdensity residential homes. This is a rendering of the transition of height [clears throat] should should well since we're doing this before the major administrative adjustment the first condition I'll read that out for you guys the proposed configuration of the site is dependent upon Upon successfully obtaining the major administrative adjustment for the reduction in the minimum number of parking spaces required to permit 259 parking spaces for the redeveloped site to obtain the approval of major administrative adjustment 25165003. So should the board find that the application has provided competent substantial evidence to satisfy the review uh the review standards for the

major site plan approval, the development service department recommends approval of the major site plan subject to the following comments and conditions. Provide the recorded plat to accommodate the proposed development and satisfy all condition restrictions of the plat prior to building permit issuance. Submit a recorded declaration of restrictive covenant specifying how the units uh and with what unit mix will be reserved for qualifying tenants as affordable housing. Deed restricting the affordable units for a minimum of 30 years for the minimum number of units necessary and consistent with the Brow County policy 2164. Standard condition of approval and or specifications required prior to building permit zoning compliance permit issuance are the following. Provide evidence that the development achieves at least 12 sustainable development points as described in the sustainability narratives submitted to the DRC by time of building permit. Provide a final SCAT approval letter from the school board of Brow County. plans are subject to compliance with the applicable code requirements included but not limited to DRC comments issued for the site plan. Landscape and irrigation plans must comply with all zoning code requirements as verified by the city's urban forestry division and a copy of the approved SEPTA plan approved by the Broward County Sheriff's Office must be submitted for zoning compliance permit approval as well as substantial compliance with this plan as submitted with this application. This concludes my presentation. I'm happy. Well, we're going to go directly to the next item.

Yeah, actually that was the You just read the conditions for the second item. Oh, for the second item for the site plan. You did. That's what you just read. Yes, correct. Yeah. So, we need to I think what we need to do is go ahead and read in to the record the conditions. Well, well, make the whole presentation if you have more presentation. Yeah, we had another presentation for the min uh major administrative adjustment. So, if that is denied, then this couldn't can't go through, right? So, I think we need to

Yeah. So let's go ahead and read in yeah that so this sub this subject for discussion is ver major administrative adjustment. Yeah we know the locations

right? So, the applicant is requesting a 24.5% reduction in the number of parking spaces required through a major administrative adjustment for the proposed mixeduse development. The request seeks to reduce the minimum required parking from 343 parking spaces to 259 parking spaces, resulting in a reduction of 84 parking spaces. This adjustment would allow the applicant to propose a total of 259 parking spaces on site. Here's the site plan. Again, this is the parking regulation for the res residential component. So, parking regulations for one to two bedroom standards is one parking space per 1,000 square ft in accordance with the city's code standards for the county's affordable housing policy. So, one to two uh bedrooms, they're proposing 122 um two bedroom three bedrooms each unit is two parking spaces for each threebedroom unit. And for guest parking is one parking space for each five dwelling units for a total of 169 parking spaces for residential. The above parking space uh parking regulations is for the commercial component required and provided by the applicant totaling 174 spaces with both residential and commercial totaling 343 parking spaces. The parking reduction shown above is not included in request but is represented uh presented by the applicant to

illustrate what is possible if these additional requests were to be approved which in fact the applicant did submit in their early submission and it was denied by the director because the request was deemed infeasible. This is why they came with the major administrative adjustment. Above is the total of how many parking spaces are required with this major well required by code. 343 parking spaces and the applicants proposing 259 parking spaces using the major administrative adjustment. Should the board find this application has provided competent substantial evidence to satisfy the review for major site plan approved deter uh department recommends uh we recommend denial of the applicant's proposal for major administrative adjustment and these are the conditions. If this applicant is approved, the applicant shall record the development order and administrative adjustment document with Brow County. A copy of the recorded approval should be submitted at the time of building permit. Provide designated parking spaces for all uses on the lot for all levels, including parking. clearly identifying which spaces correspond to each use or which space may be shared uh subject to substantial conformance to the site plan approved under 24120027. According to the state statute 3 366.94, it is unlawful for a person to stop, stand, or park a vehicle that is not capable of using an electrical recharging station within any parking space specifically designated for charging an electric vehicle. Ensure that sufficient parking is available excluding spaces designated for EV charging only and standard conditions of approval or specifications required to

building permit zoning compliance permit issuance. Plans are subject to compliance with all applicable code requirements including but not limited to DRC comments issued for the site plan. Uh this concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any question behalf of the staff. in attendance is the applicant to present their case of the item. Okay, we have questions uh before you run away, Mr. Kate. Yes, you want to go or you go ahead. Perfect. Thank you. If you wouldn't mind just going back a couple of slides. Uh I picked up on something that I hadn't noticed before. Are they proposing Keep going back one more here. Bam. This one uh go back up

this one. This one proposing 20% of the already reduced spaces to be for compact cars only. Is that accurate? Am I reading this correctly? So 46 48 spaces 46 spaces deemed only for compact cars. Yes, they're proposing that correct. Yeah, that's that is wildly unacceptable. Okay, thank you. No, just just to clarify, all all applications are able to use 20% of their parking as compact parking spaces. So that's not a reduction in parking spaces. They're just able to provide that amount of the spaces as Yeah. Yeah. But with the reduction that they're already asking for, they're still going to utilize the compact.

Some of the spaces will be compact. Looks like it's 20% of them. Yes. That's that is that's consistent with the permitted amount. I gotcha. Thank you. Uh, one moment. Max, can you just state your name and title, please? Sure. Sorry. Uh, Max Williams, principal planner development services. Okay. Mrs. Coleman.

Um, would you go back to the site plan and talk to us about how parking for the existing building and the parking for this building are meshing. So, I don't know if you can see from this uh site plan, but there's triangles each with color designated parking spaces in the bottom left. So, we asked the applicant to provide this within their site plan, and it's also a condition in the site plan uh submitt. Uh I would you rather the applicant explain how it's going to work? Yeah, let me get the

Okay, thank you. I I'll uh I'll wait till that presentation. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Hartzel, before we run off, do since we went through both of these, is the I don't know who can answer this, but if this parking part gets denied, does that deny the site plan approval? Yes, that's correct. They would have to come back to DRC review so they can update their submitt so they can comply with standards. Right. Anybody else? Okay. Applicant.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. This is the first time I'm back in front of you for it's been a while. [laughter]

My name is Paula West. I am land planner for the project. Company is Plan West. Uh address is 10152 Indian Town uh unit 159 Jupiter, Florida. And I just want to introduce the team. Uh so with me I have um uh Jean Francois Jerve who is the architect for the project. Uh I have Blake Kidwell who is the civil engineer for the project and uh also Carl Peterson from KBP who is the uh transportation engineer for the project. And I'm going to try to say this correctly. The owner is Nick Pushkin and owner's rep is Yuri Hartinon. I I completely screwed that up. Hartinov. [laughter] Okay.

So, uh this is the Vera site plan. Um I'm going to kind of condense the uh presentation for both items. So, I'll talk about a little bit of the site plan. I'll jump into the uh adjustment and then we'll finish out the site plan.

Okay. So, as um Jonathan mentioned, 1600 South Federal Highway is our address. Uh the property is at the south end of the city of Pompo Beach uh limits. We are um located in the Santa Barbara Shores neighborhood. And I just wanted to show a historical aerial uh in this slide just to show you that the office building that we're using in our design has been there since 1975. Before that, it was a mobile home park. So, just a little bit of history there. And that's just kind of an overall just to show you the boundaries of the city. So a little bit about about the project. The project is about 2.35 acres. We are within B3 zoning and C commercial land use. Uh we are utilizing Broward County policy 2163 which allows us to because of the amount of commercial space uh on the ground floor that we're propo proposing. We're utilizing uh six bonus units for every one moderate income unit that we are alo uh that we are designated uh designating affordable. Um and that allows us to essentially uh that allows you to approve the site plan without having to go through an allocation of flex units. Um, we are proposing a mixeduse mixed income development, 132 multif family units. Um, the 82,000 ft² that you see in front of you includes just a little bit over 3,000 ft of retail. And there's a little bit over 3,000 ft of a credit union within the existing building that we're uh using. And it's about 60,000 or so square feet of the office building. um the 75 or so thousand square feet that you saw in the site plan is actually based on Broward County property appraisers and I'll get into that. It's it's like 60,000 based on the rent roll. So the 60,000 is more accurate and we've uh confirmed that with staff or clarified that with staff. So this is

the table. So now I'm going to jump into the adjustment. So the adjustment is for 24 uh and a half% of a reduction in parking. I do want to clarify that we did not officially submit this as a minor administrative adjustment. So, it was not officially denied. We tried to go back and forth with staff to see if this is something they would support. And because of course the uh calculation for residential is already reduced by code. By the way, there's no adjustment. There's no variance. There's none of that necessary to claim that one per thousand square foot calculation. That's just allowed by code because of the mixed income nature of the project. uh staff felt that that was kind of already exceeding the 20% limitation of the minor. So that's what kicked us into a major. Um so and another thing that was not very blatantly clear in the narrative for the adjustment is that we are looking to reduce the office calculation. We are providing and again a parking reduction is a parking reduction no matter how you see it but the presentation and the justification is specifically focusing on the office building. Um so as you can see so we're providing 122 parking spaces for the residential use. Uh 20 spaces are required for the three bedrooms and above. Well there's only three bedrooms. Uh 23 spaces for the retail component. That's the bank and the new retail portion of the project. Uh the office building is required 151 spaces and we're providing the guest space at one per five which is 27 total. Now to justify the adjustment uh going back again to the minor administrative adjustment category. So in order to actually claim that for a site plan from the development uh services director, there are several items in the code that you can use to justify your request. So we are trying to um we're trying to um point or point your focus to these three different types of justifications. The

first one is a transit accessibility essentially saying that we have bus stops nearby. Um, and I'll get into that in a second. So, that gives you a 15% reduction in parking just because you have one nearby within 1,000 ft of the project. The second one is a special facility that your your project is providing special facilities for bicycle commuters. And I'll show you what that looks like. It's basically providing facilities um for people who use bicycles as their mode of transportation as opposed to vehicles. And then the third is kind of an other category that allows you to um claim credit for anything that kind of is similar or kind of does the same thing that the code allows you to do but in a same level or better. Um and then yeah that's it. So we're proposing 259 spaces. So highlighted in front of you. So this is just to to kind of focus on the first um category. This is the one about transit accessibility. The highlighted is where our project is located. We have three bus stops within our project. The code says as long as you have one within 1,000 ft, you can already claim this 15% reduction. We have one exactly in front of our project. And all three of these are within 500 ft. The second category, the one about uh bicycle facilities. Uh we're providing showers and changing rooms for um people who choose to use bicycles as their transportation as well as bicycle uh enclosed locker rooms. So that's just kind of a snippet of our ground floor plan to show you that allows you to claim 5% of a reduction in parking. And then the third option, again, it's that it's kind of an other category. uh we're proposing to dedicate an entire floor of the existing office building to co-working space limited only to the residents of the project. So what that means is that there the parking demand that would otherwise be needed for 5,000

ft which is 12 parking spaces is being used by the residents for working from home just like I do. Um in addition to that we uh that's when we went out and hired uh Carl. So what Carl did with KBP was he not only observed the parking demand for the office space for the office building. Uh but he also looked at what IT which is the Institute of Transportation Planners or sorry Institute of Transportation Engineers uh parking generation manual and he also looked at the uh urban land institute shared parking manual which talks about shared uses and what those parking demands were and he did include that in his parking statement to show you that parking demand particularly since the pandemic has been greatly reduced. There's not much of a demand. Now he also als he he also included that uh the ULI parking calculation for guest parking. Again we are not reducing the guest parking or the residential uses whatsoever. This is particularly to justify the reduction in the office space the the office space parking demand. So in front of you, you have the two tables. One, the one on the bottom is for the ULI guest spaces, and the one on the top kind of explains the um the uh it demand for office use. And I'm going to let Carl explain all that. Come on up, Carl. I have to keep my distance because Carl just recovered from the flu.

I think I'm better now. This is day 13. So if you get the flu, it's a two-eek process. I can vouch for it. So I'm Carl Peterson uh with KBP Consulting offices at 8400 North University Drive in Tamarack. Um it's a pleasure to be here with you this evening to answer any questions you might have, talk a little bit about the parking. Um, I initially became uh involved with the project primarily through the transportation side, the traffic engineering component of it and dealing with the access with Florida Department of Transportation as well as the platting process with Broward County. But of course, while I'm there on site, I'm noticing, you know, trying to observe the site, how it's functioning with the credit union, with the office space, and what the actual real-time parking demands are. Um the office component is over 90% occupied uh per the ownership. So what we're seeing in the field seems to corroborate that this is a fully occupied building for the most part. And so the actual real-time uh observations that we're seeing there reflect what the parking demand would be in a worst case scenario. Having said that, uh what we typically do is we'll take a look at these uh analyses to just kind of provide a little additional information concerning the parking requirements. I know Paula's talking uh has spoken about a lot of different reductions per your code and and different approaches. I'm looking at it from a different perspective. I'm saying okay the Institute of Transportation Engineers has collected traffic and parking data throughout the country for office buildings and ULI has done a lot of work with residential uh developments. When it comes to the uh office component uh the data that they've published you can see on the screen there there are two approaches for calculating uh the

parking demand for an office building. There's an average rate which you see in the top equation and then there's a fitted curve equation which is just a nicer way of saying statistically analyze the the uh the data there. And those two basically yield a parking demand for a 60,100T office building of about 117 parking spaces. So per your code uh that amount of general office space would require 151 spaces. So based upon the real-time data that we have from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, uh the parking demand would be 117. The other item that we took a look at was the guest parking. Uh essentially the the code requires one per five dwelling units or 20% of the parking demand. So what we took a look at at ULI, you see the table excerpt there in the lower right hand corner, ULI estimates the guest parking demand associated with multif family residential at 15%. So we're able to um reduce that guest parking demand from 27 spaces to 20. So the overall reduction that we're um seeing with these two approaches is 41 spaces. So we provide that as some additional information to hopefully give you some comfort that the request that we're asking for is reasonable and that there will be sufficient parking on site to meet the demand. So with that, I think I'm going to turn it over back over to Bala and I'll be here to answer any questions that you may have after our presentation.

Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Just I just wanted to ask Carl something. So the manual for the ULI is for shared uses. Is that right?

The the manual is the it's a widely used uh in the development industry to estimate parking. It's called the shared parking manual. It's the third edition is the current edition published by the urban land institute. Very wellrespected publication. The overall publication is geared towards shared parking. When you have multiple uses in one location, how can you use the synergy of those different uses and the parking not to be providing 100% of the parking for each individual use, but to look at those uses based upon time of day. And I you know the the classic example is office space and uh say hotel. That's a classic shared parking combination. If you have those two uses colllocated, the office space needs the parking mostly during the day between 9 and 5 and the hotel needs the parking in the evening. You wouldn't want to provide 100% of the parking for both of those uses because then you would end up with a tremendous surplus of parking. those two can synergistically use the same parking and and more efficiently rely upon a reduced parking supply to meet the actual demand. Now to Paula's question, yes, that manual is focused on shared parking as a technique, but within that manual, they also provide the parking generation rates for a multitude of uses. The one we're focused on tonight was the uh the residential component and even more specifically the guest parking component of the residential development. Is that it? Okay,

I appreciate it. Okay, so before I get into the standards for the adjustment, I just kind of wanted to point out um to bring your attention to three articles that we submitted with our backup. So the reason I submitted these was because I wanted myself I wanted to look at what has been happening to parking specifically to office spaces and in central business districts. What that trend has been since the pandemic because that the pandemic is really the the driver of the reduced parking calculation in the IT manual. And then is that really here to stay? So the first article and you have that in your backup. First article is from January of this year. It was uh written by Town Park which is a parking and valet company and the title of the article is five years removed the ripple effects of the pandemic on parking. And just what what stood out to me from this article was again bringing up the the the obvious fact that parking has been impacted by the pandemic but particularly office spacebased parking has been impacted. um and in the in the urban business districts. And then the biggest thing that jumped out at me in this article was the recent vacancy rates that were documented in major cities. So in in Chicago there has been a documented vacancy rate of 22 and two 22.4% Boston 23% New York City 23 and a half% Denver 33.8% and worst of all is San Francisco at 37%. So that kind of uh jumped out at me. The second article was in the census website that was again in January of this year. Uh new US Census Bureau data show detailed characteristics of homebased uh workers. So kind of summarizing the

percentages from uh 2019. So in 2019 there was 5.7% of the uh US workers worked from home. Then in 2021 that went up to 17.9%. Then it went to 15.2% in 2020 2022 and then 13.8 in 2023. It's kind of stayed somewhat around the same amount of uh percentages. But what jumped out at me was that in 2019 around 9 million people were documented to be working from home. In 2023 that number is 22 million. And then the last article, and my stuff just fell apart. Last article was from the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. That one was interesting uh because it talked about a couple of different uh surveys that were done. The first one was specifically for executives and executives that had this hybrid or fully remote working kind of model. So they were asked um uh for their data and 12% of them uh of the survey 12% who currently have hybrid or fully remote workers reported plans for some kind of return to office mandate in the year ahead which would have been this year. Many of those plan mandates do not involve a full return to work uh model. It's some sort of hybrid. So it could be um a couple days a week or fully remote. Um what's interesting to me here also was a separate survey that was done in December of last year uh from the survey of working arrangements and attitudes showed that only 44% of all so this this was not just executives it was um just American workers in general 44% of the respondents said that they would comply with a return to the office policy requiring full fully returning to the to the office. The rest said they would quit or start looking for a new job. And then the last quote that I'll leave with

you is that in a working paper released in February by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the researchers tackled the variability of measuring work from home across numerous surveys and estimated that as of 2025, work from home days account for a quarter of all paid um work days in the US. So again, so the and I forgot to mention so that article was from uh March of this year and the title of it was new survey indicates work from home is here to stay. So that is that is definitely the the uh the summary of that that survey sorry that article. Okay. So now getting into the standards. So everything we kind of showed you already, the um other category, the transit accessibility category, the um bicycle facilities that we're providing, we believe both all of those uh things including the studies and the articles and of course uh KBP's um stand uh traffic statement or parking statement. All of that meets A and B, the sta standards A and B of uh granting the adjustment. uh we do have the same standard uh as code required and we do not have any greater impact on adjacent lands based on everything that we're implementing on our project. Now going to uh standard B uh which talks about the comprehensive plan and what goals kind of support our request. We found four. They all kind of say the same thing, so I'll kind of summarize them. But in your comprehensive plan, particularly for your land development code. First one talks about regulating uh sorry amend amending regulating um sorry amending the land development regulations to reduce parking requirements for residential and commercial uses along major corridors like ours where it can be shown that pedestrian and transit amenities are provided shared parking is provided or sufficient public parking is nearby. Second one talks about uh revising

existing off- streetet parking provisions of the zoning code considering shared parking, parking space size. There's the comp the compact spaces that you mentioned, compact spaces, parking rates by uses, etc. Uh third one talks about revising parking codes and design criteria to include incentives for mass transit use and other transportation alternatives as we're doing uh that don't require parking spaces. And the last one talks about updating land development regulations uh to revise parking codes to allow for parking space credit for on-site accommodation for transportation options that do not require parking. All four of these support our request. And then the last standard for granting an adjustment has to do with providing one of several uh public benefits. We chose three to highlight and again it's just one. The first one is that we are pro providing deed restricted workforce housing and or affordable housing. Again, we're using the county policy. We don't require a flex allocation. We are going to be deed restricting 20 moderate income units within the project. All of that uh we are preserving 28 trees that are existing. Uh we're adding 33 mitigation trees. So the that's the third um third standard is talking about uh preserving or protecting trees. Uh we're providing 93 native species where only 17 are required. Just wanted to throw that in there. And the last one has to do with uh providing a design that is uh against flood damage. And so our project is going to be meeting the city's requirements which we know is above and beyond FEMA minimums. So there you go. Um and then I just wanted to show the site plan before I I push it off to the architect to do the site plan thing. Um, I just wanted to highlight a couple things on the site plan. So, on the top part of the site plan, that's where the bicycle facilities are provided for, you

know, the bike lockers and the showers and changing rooms. Um, I wanted to point out the drivethru the drive-through portion in front of the office building. So, when we met with FDOT to get a pre So, let me back up. We're also going we're going through a plat um process for this project. Because of that, we needed to go to FDOT to get a an approval letter. So FDOT worked with us, the county worked with us. We had to amend a whole bunch of things in the site plan. Um the one thing they did ask to make the circulation work was to rearrange the drive-thru uh portion of the credit union to go um to go north as opposed to south. So right now it's actually going south. We're going to be changing that to go north. Uh they also uh required that we had no openings to the this parking area down here because that would obviously push queuing out onto federal highway. So we have a very very long entrance here. Um the other thing Oh, so I wanted to highlight the build the office building is the existing um blue colored area in the middle. Again, that square footage is based on Broward County property appraisers. That's not accurate. It's actually like 60,900 or so based on the rent rolls. And then the last little circle is where the uh bus stop is located right in front of our project. Okay, with that now I can give it off to Jean Frol. Uh good evening. My name is Jean Fran. partner of ID Architects. Um, okay. 33 tree 23 northeast 163rd Street in North Miami Beach. Uh, there's a lot that has been said already uh by staff and by PA on the project. So, I don't want to repeat everything that has been said. Uh, we work very closely with staff to

uh to do what we think is a beautiful building. Uh, we met through the AAC a few weeks ago and um I think well personally I think it's a beautiful building. So we work very much in detail for the building to be very very well proportioned um using u modern material uh in a general composition where you have um um a base a shaft and and a capital. So uh the use of modern building the materials are are um are put in a fashion uh that is truly contemporary uh but the general composition of the building has uh uh some um more traditional classical appeal to it. Um repeating what has been uh done before um it's um threetory podium mainly occupied by the uh parking structure with seven um floors of dwelling units for a total of 132 dwelling units. The building is 105 ft height and very important characteristic of the building is the step backs at the rear of the building to minimize the impact of the new building in relation with the residential area um at the rear. Uh we have about 3,600 square ft of retail space on the uh front of the building. And um this is not a structure that is dedicated to cars, dedicated to people. uh we wanted to make very friendly for people to uh go from this building and to other destination using bicycle. So there's extensive uh bike storage on the ground floor uh that take Jason to locker room uh where uh bikers in the heat of Florida can uh use showers, lockers and facilities uh to make sure that uh they they get home fresh. Um I could talk about the building for half

an hour. Uh I'll be very happy to answer any question that you have. We think it's a good project. Uh we work very closely with staff to uh make it make it right. We believe and um we hope we hope that uh you appreciate that. Thank you.

Let me just add that when uh when we went to the AAC, the AAC was concerned about approving the project without the adjustment, but they understood that that's up to this board. Uh they did request that we made some sort of a matching um color or material element uh that goes from the new building to the existing building. So I believe we agreed to do the top the top darker color to bring that into that middle um solid member in the existing office space. And then let me go back to the landscape plan. Ken, come on up. Ken.

Uh, good evening. My name is Ken Gardner, GSLA Design Landscape Architects. Uh, our office at 17670 Northwest 78th Street in Miami. Um, as as Paul already had mentioned, uh, we're meeting and exceeding all of the landscape requirements uh that are that have been set forth by the municipality here. Uh, and we tried our best to to create a like a a garden that this building will set in. Um, we we took the the very fine architecture that was prepared by IDEA and and we're replicating it into the streetscape and and accenting the the verticality of some of the elements, the horizontality of others and and creating a a pleasant space for for pedestrians to move about the site as well as uh to create a setting for the buildings. um predominantly native species. We made sure that rooting areas were uh sufficient that we'll be able to sustain life and all these uh these species will be able to survive in perpetuity and look look excellent uh doing so. Uh again, I can talk about the landscape for probably longer and he can talk about the architecture, but uh I'll be available for any questions should you have any. Thank you. That concludes our presentation.

Okay. Um I wonder if we ought to go ahead and and have audience before we do this because I think there's going to be a lot of questions from this from this board. So rather than preempt the people, I think is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this? And if you would, would you please come up here? You can have three minutes and um tell us your name and address and then tell us what you're thinking. right here. Hi, my name is Maria Kaine. I live at 1550 Southeast 23rd Avenue, right behind where the project is going. I live in a residential house. Um, I've been there since 2001, raised three kids there. My youngest just graduated college. I'm I have seen massive changes in Pompo. I've been here since it was sleepy and nobody on the board wanted to develop anything to what's going on now which I think there a balance of of growth and charm is very important. Um I have no issue with planned good development that brings up the community and brings up our investment in our community. I have not been there for 20 years to to come in and have someone talk about I'm sorry showers, locker rooms, reduced parking, working at home. I can chat GTB every issue that you had and talk to me about and I can rebuttle. I don't have the same time allotted to me that they have. I am very passionate about this. I want improvement. I don't want to be dug down and have my life's work. I came from work. I left two hours early. I'm not getting paid for my two hours. This is my choice. I love my job. I chose my job because I love it. Okay?

You love your job. This is my home. This is where I walk. This is where I drive every day. This is not a joke. This is not about money. This is not about anything. This is about livelihood, my life, and what it's like to live there. I may die in that home. And I am not playing games. This I'm I'm just very passionate that why do like [sighs] I I don't mind development, but it has to be done right. And there should be no reduced parking. I'm sorry. I don't get reduced parking. Why do you get reduced parking? Do I have to come here and have a meeting so that I can have something special done to my house? But if someone comes in with money, it doesn't matter. I'm sorry. That's really all I got to say. Please do a good job for us. I love you guys and I'm I'm trusting you because if I see this garbage going on in my street and I know I didn't try to prevent it, I'm going to come back and I'm going to say, "Remember that meeting?" That's what I tried to say. That's what we tried to stop. That's all That's all I've got to say. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Uh, anybody else? Would you like to speak, sir? Yeah. Go ahead, sir. Name and address for the record, please.

Uh, my name is Francis Trenchard. I live at 1530 Southeast 23rd. I've been there for 12 years. Uh, I've seen a lot of change in Pompo. Uh, a lot of it for the good. Uh, especially, uh, when you did all that green zones, it was wonderful. you could see the changes up the road as they were happening and I commend you all for that. It was beautiful. Uh the the problem that I have is I think a lot more people would have been here tonight from the neighborhood if it was proposed as another 10story building next to the original 10story building with 300 and some units in there that people are going to be living in. uh [sighs] instead of just a parking space reduction. You know, I looked at it and I said, "Oh, they want to build a another little fast food restaurant right on the highway. That's why they're reducing it." But no, I find out it's going to be a monstrosity. And we've had such heavy development in that immediate area up in um Port Royal that's behind our houses uh put five new buildings in along with their monstrosity tower. So in the mornings when you go for get out for traffic, they're pouring out of there and you could wait two, three lights to get through that intersection

because the other side now has condo buildings or apartment buildings. It's just been a so dense. Uh when I wear my tap water at 6:00 in the evening, I notice it's hardly coming out now. It used to pour uh in the over the 12 years. So I know that the infrastructure has been so plagued just in that immediate area. We have the Publix. We have the CVS. We have the car wash. We have a new gas station. Uh we have a school, two schools that use 15th Street or McNab and uh uh the the Catholic school uh St. and uh the uh uh grade school that's next to Publix. But uh I just want you all to know that uh we count on you to look out for us and our best interests and that intersection and that part of road now is crazy in the morning and it's just going to get crazier. You've got two accesses for this building, the office building and the other. One driveway in, one driveway out. It dumps right on uh the uh uh route one and federal highway and uh they're going to be going up. They're going to be U-turning to go back the other way. It's a mess already.

Okay. every morning. Uh so if they put in 130 units, you know, maybe they should consider putting in 60 or 50, something reduced. Okay. Something not 10 stories high that's going to block my view of the sun again. I mean, you know, already I dance around this building that's there. Your time's up. Anyway, okay. Uh, if they would have just put announcement out that it was for this and not just a parking lot reduction, as I say, I think you would have had a lot more citizens here. Okay.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. Anybody else?

Name and address for the record, please, ma'am.

Yes. My name is Sarah Bolato and I live at 1581 Southeast 23rd Avenue right behind where their parking lot is. Um I just have an issue with reducing any kind of parking because we hardly have enough parking for anything anymore. And if you start reducing uh it's just going to cause chaos when you go down Federal Highway. Yes, we do have bus stops there. Yes, we do have um three of them I think from Walgreens area to McNab Road. The only problem is a lot of people don't get on and off at those stops. But the ones that do cause a lot of problem with traffic in the morning, people making the one turn off of Federal Highway to go into that building. And I think by having facilities with showers and with bicycle lockers and stuff, I think that that's not going to be feasible for our neighborhood only because there's not a demand for it. And we already have issues with a lot of homeless, displaced people that hang out at this building in that parking lot behind the trees and all of their debris comes over my fence. In fact, they don't maintain their trees. Their roots and stuff are uprooting my PVC fencing, which has cost me a lot of money. The only other issue I want to bring up is she brought up a fact that there used to be a trailer park back there. You know when that trailer park was there probably in the 50s or early 60s and that's you could say where CVS is. There used to be a drive-in movie theater right there on McNab. But so that's not really we don't have mobile home parks anymore on Federal Highway. If you notice up in

Lighthouse Point, they're all done. I think that if we make a precedence to change the parking for this building that they want to put up, then we're going to have problems with all the other commercial buildings that say, "Whoa, wait a minute. They have precedents. We're coming in. We're going to fight. Then where are we going to park?" There's hardly any more compact cars. Everybody drives an SUV. So by saying this is going to be for compact cars. That's not really feasible anymore. I think that this country is going to get back to normal. Everybody's going to go back to work and get out of working from home. That's shown that that's really not feasible for people anymore. You've got to get back into the workplace. By saying that, okay, this is fine. We're going to have all this working whatever in this building. I don't see that being feasible for the years to come. We want to make progress. We don't want to stay set back from the COVID scare. Now, as far as um their landscaping and stuff, they need to put a barrier wall between our homes and that building only because a car can go from the parking lot right through into my backyard and and that's it. They park so close. So, please vote for us to not have the reduced parking. Keep this under control.

Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else? Okay, Mr. Chairman.

Yeah, I Let me close the I'll go ahead and close that. Um I'll go ahead and close the public hearing at this point and then we'll get back to I'm going to let let you speak in a minute. But now that they've spoken, I think um I think we'll have the board go next. Okay with that. All right. And then we'll we'll let you uh speak at the end as well. Okay. And I'm sure there's going to be a lot of questions, so it's going to be a little interactive here at this point. All right. Let's go first. Mr. Fischer, you want to go?

Yeah, I got a couple questions. So, just to confirm, I know you mentioned a couple times. So, we're not touching any of the parking for the residential property. So, they get their 169 units. That's including the guest units or guest parking spaces. Correct. Correct. So, we essentially have 90 left for the 82,000 square ft of commercial office. Correct. That correct? Yeah. Okay. Just a couple questions then. Um the bike location, which is I'm assuming is to help with the office space commuters, is that that's located in the top corner. Is that correct? Right on the other side of the residential building, not connected to the office building. Correct.

Right. Exactly. It's in the new building. So that anybody will have access that works in the office building has access to the biker community parking and and showers and stuff. Yes. And I just wanted to me that Thank you. I wanted to that's one of the things I wanted to mention. The um the bike facilities are for people who are either working in the new um uh retail portion of our project, working in the office building, working at the credit union, or just living in the residential units that we're proposing. So, it's not it's not like a public facility that anyone can just come and shower. Okay. If they live there, they're going to go to shower probably in their own place, not live not shower in the ones downstairs.

Yes, correct. But it it would be access for from one side of the build the property to the other because it's not as close to to the office building space. Um I guess my question is for that gentleman in the parking Yep. Expert. So I'm assuming you did a site visit correct of the current parking. How many spaces are currently being occupied for the office space? There's about uh a little over 200 parking spaces there today. And um during our observations, we noted that they're about half occupied. That's why I mentioned that the the office building itself is virtually fully leased.

And that's why I questioned because when I realized the the parking demand in the existing parking lot is taking up about half of the spaces that are there today roughly. Um I wanted to make sure that we were looking at a building that was fully occupied and and I'm told that it is. Yes. So roughly 200 parking spaces and 100 are about taken up now currently. That's correct. Perfect. Okay. So that would be we're going to do 90 parking spaces for the office space when we're going to reduce down to 90, go up about a 10 surplus, and add 3,000 square feet of commercial retail space. Correct.

Um let me just make sure my other look And then the reduction that were used, you were mentioning on a previous slide about guest spaces that was referencing residential, correct? Yes, correct. We're not reducing the residential side. We're only reducing the commercial side. No, that was really just provided forformational purposes. I just want to clarify that one. Yep. It's just that 27 are required, but according to ULI, the 15% would be okay. More appropriate. I just I wasn't I was confused there for a minute. So, Yep. I'm think I'm good chairman. Okay, that was to show demand. Mrs. Coleman, go ahead.

Um, let me see if I understand this right. This is a 2 and [snorts] a half acre or 2.36 acre site and you've got bike facilities on the southernmost northernmost. Okay. I'm looking northernmost for basically the building that is in the middle for for for anyone the whole project. Okay. Right. Now, all of this is surface parking, right? No. There Well, some of the parking is within the first two levels, two or three levels of the residential building. Okay. But not enough for the entire residential building is in those first two floors.

I'm sorry. Repeat that. How many spaces are in the podium of the building of the new residential building? I'll have to defer to the architect.

Out of the 259 parking stalls provided, 76 are on grade. 76 are in the building. Can we go back to are on grade are on grade? Yes. Okay. I'm sorry I can't hear you. Sorry. 76 are exterior. Okay.

On surface parking and another one are another 26 are on grade but under the building. Oh 76 open air on grade on surface and another 26 at street level if you wish but under the building. And if you look at the configuration of the building, actually it makes sense because what you see in yellow is the new proposed commercial, the 3,600 and subchain square feet of commercial. And and we have behind uh um a certain amount of parking stalls that are likely to be used by uh the customer, the user of that commercial space. I'm just looking at a site plan that's going to have a number of people who live in that building parking pretty far away from their building and on the surface spaces.

But the uh the the the new proposed residential building has two full decks of uh that's what I was asking you. How many spaces are in the building? So, is it seven? Are you subtracting 76 from the total or 76 out in the parking lot when they're left? Yes. Okay. And what was the total again? The total is 259. Okay. And it's 76 and only out of the 259, there are 76 that are that are open to the sky and the balance is within the the footprint of the building. Got 183 inside the building.

Thank you. What? You got others? They I'm taking their numbers now. Yeah, I know. I know. I'll reserve my comments for when we uh after after Okay, Mr. Hartzel, go ahead. Where's the closest on street parking in case we're operating at a deficit, right? The closest on street parking outside of this project. Yes.

Probably in the bank or something on the north side if that's what you're saying. It's not legal. Is that what you're asking? Yeah. I'm not sure there's any on street parking if there was It's not on. Yeah, it's not on street. Yeah, it's not on street. But I'm not sure. That's why I'm asking. um the reduction percentages and I guess this one's for staff. The reduction percentages that of the bicycles of the bus stops and the others are those mandatory percentages or are they discretionary percentages are allocated by the city or by us?

Um right. So the the way that the reductions are presented in the code is that they can be requested by the applicant at the discretion of the development services director and it's up to the percentages that were provided in the applicant's presentation. They are providing them on their backup as reference of things that could be applied to the project. uh but because of the um other reductions that are associated with the u mixed income housing policies that the Broward County provides and the incentives that the city participates in. The director didn't feel it was appropriate to provide further reductions. Now the applicant did state tonight it's it's not a part of their backup and it isn't demonstrated on their plans but that their request is solely focused on the office. Um to be frank that that was news to us. Um and so I don't you know the the way that that our objections have been framed in the past were mostly focused on the residential and any sharing that may exist between residential and commercial uses. However, if the the focus is solely f solely on reducing the um commercial requirements, um our are our our um reservations related to the residential are a little bit alleviated. However, I think that it's appropriate to designate the spaces that are on the plan um for residential only. If if the statement is true that 169 spaces are reserved for residential, where are they? Do they exist within the garage? Do they conflict with the EV or the guest parking? Um, and what and then the balance of 83 parking spaces? Are those all surface? Um, and what is proposed

for any share that may occur off hours for for the um office uses? Um, I think the idea that people work from home is is valid, but people don't work from home in an office building. So, the office building exists and I think that the applicant has made an attempt to demonstrate that sufficient parking exists for that office building. Um, however, I think that part of their backup suggested that 117 spaces were appropriate rather than the reduction of um 84 from 153 that's required by code. So, it it the math didn't work out perfectly, but I think that now their request is the reduction of 84 parking spaces from the 153 that would be required for the commercial only 151. Thank you. So have you had the opportunity to evaluate that?

No. So that was part of our request was to demonstrate where on the plan these spaces are provided and what is the total per use and is there any share. We did receive a plan that showed some of the spaces on the site for guest, for commercial, for the new um commercial uses and then some of the spaces within the structure for commercial, which would then limit the ability to park 169 spaces within the structure. Um so my understanding based on the discussion tonight is that approach has changed. So should you find that to be appropriate, I would suggest that you make a condition that exactly those amounts are reserved in what specific locations is appropriate to to your um satisfaction. It would have to be a condition. Yes.

And this is it based on what was provided in the backup. It it didn't say 169 for residential. the the experts had said that the ULI and the IT standards are those the same standards that we have in our code?

No, our code suggests that you can find an alternative source to propose a parking requirement that's appropriate for a new development. Um so what they've done is take a ULI or or IT standard um to suggest a ratio that would be appropriate for the commercial use. Um however the reduction that they're requesting is beyond what that ULI amount um proposes. So I think that that's what the applicant needs to demonstrate is that a further reduction beyond what ULI proposes is appropriate. Hold on a second. Don't run off, Mr. Williams.

I because I have something I want to ask you before we go too far into this. What What is There's been a lot of discussion about the the amount of office space is 60,000 ft, but it's significantly higher, right?

Um on the uh what does staff consider the office space? So, we did accept the applicant's reduced amount. If this property came in today and was site planned, we would have very specific floor plans that said these are the areas that are reserved for office use. Um, a lot of space within the building is is likely, we haven't evaluated this, but corridor or common area that wouldn't we would not require for the uh to park today if it were a new development. So taking BCPA's total gross floor area um is is kind of a a safe um number, but it doesn't accurately reflect the true function of the interior of the space. Um so we were willing to accept that reduced amount, but we don't actually have uh floor plans to support it.

Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Sorry, Mr. Go ahead. Oh, okay. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I didn't want Mr. Williams to leave. Get back up. That's all. So, Miss West, but the other expert test

uh closer to the microphone, please. Oh. Um, the other expert stated that they went out and did a survey of the parking lot and that the building was predominantly full. Your staff report says that it's at 80%. What's the actual percentage? Is it full or is it 80%. I'll I'll defer to the owner, but initially I when I had confirmed it was 80%, the owner went back and actually confirmed it was actually over 90%. So, it's over 90% occupied. It's over 90% of 60,000. Yes. Okay.

And I also wanted to put into the record because I don't know if you heard Max, but we did request public records for the existing office building to see what the square footage was, what the parking calculation was. There was none. There was for the credit union, which is what we have in our in our table. I have one more question. Go ahead. Go ahead. Um, what's the predominant use in the building? Is it I know it was a medical center in a bank which customers coming in all day. Yeah, good. Thanks for asking that. I when I ran through the PowerPoint with my husband, he asked me that. Um, there is some medical uses in the in the building. It's mostly um consultants, lawyers. Um, you want to maybe mention anything specific?

What? CPA? Yeah, consultants. um just general office use and I think accurate land surveyors is there and so is uh Rex Nichols architecture that kind of thing. Do we consider um this question for Mr. Do we consider a bank to have a higher traffic impact higher parking impact or that doesn't matter? It's a

off the top of my head I don't know the specific parking requirement for a financial institution. It is a different requirement than office but I think they're comparable. Um Paula has it here. I guess it's one per 300 for a financial institution and the office is one per 400. So it is a a higher requirement. Okay. Have a question here. Yes. Um Max, maybe this is for you. At the last three or four commission meetings, there's been a lot of discussion about parking and parking garages. Maybe some of

I hear Mr. Chair saying Uhhuh. And so, um, maybe A doesn't have anything to do with B, but I can't I'd be remissed if I didn't remember all these hours of discussion as it relates to parking and parking garages and things of that nature. So I am I understand the the incentives that might be provided by the city but I also have to keep in mind that um there's been a lot of discussion about various parking garages um through so I I don't I mean I believe I have a judiciary duty to try and do right by by everybody here by the residents that's got up and spoke as well as being respectful to your client but I I've heard the commission talk um at nauseium almost about our parking and the parking garages and the $30 million that we're going to potentially pay for a parking garage. So now you're asking me to, you know, decrease parking. So I I feel like I'm in a little bit of a conundrum or maybe I'm just missing some of the information, but I I want to, you know, keep in perspective, but I have been to many commission meetings and parking has has been an issue almost. I can't remember the last time I've been to a meeting and parking hasn't come up in discussions about a lot of our um new buildings and new projects that are going forth. So, but now we're saying um deviate from that and and give the applicant less parking.

Yes, that is the request. Okay.

Um and and this as the staff report shows, it's not currently as submitted supported by staff. Um the commission is seeking centralized parking garages. There's not currently one proposed in this district, but certainly where those garages are proposed, shared parking agreements could be proposed to reduce parking offsite. That isn't an aspect of this proposal. Um based on the evidence provided tonight, they're purely looking to reduce the parking that's required for the office component. The residential component is is a brand new development and already is elig is is automatically eligible for a reduced parking requirement than our general code. That's the one per unit or one per 10,000 square feet, whichever results in greater parking spaces. That's how we got to 169 spaces for 132 units. Um, so that's already the reduction that we allow for the residential which which I believe is why the applicant is focusing purely on the commercial component to justify the reduction. Um, the office component, the existing office component. Um, that's

I'll run off. I I've got something for Max. Just a second. Okay. Mr. Mr. Williams, you and I have had a discussion after the and this is following up on Mrs. King's thing at the mission level. Okay. you and I had a discussion post the um overlay district discussion or or workshop that they had and you and I talked about I think there was only one item and the one item was a uh parking reduction in the AOC I believe it was that is suns setting next month uh yeah the parking reduction and we're not even going to discuss I mean my understanding is that is going to go away there is

reduction is going away there's no direction or or desire at this point in time to extend those reductions for the East Overlay district and the Atlantic Overlay District. Okay. I wasn't sure if it was both or just the AOC, but it's the AOC and the EOC. Correct. So, active development orders will remain. New applications will have to comply with the general code. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Deli. Thank you. Um either for you, Miss West, or the architect or whomever. Uh I'm just curious. All of the surface parking spaces are already in place, correct?

No, we're redoing the whole site except for the drive-thru section in front of the credit union. Go back to the site plan here. Yeah. Yeah. No, the all of the surface parking is new and we're increasing landscaping next. You'll be adding surface spaces throughout the site. Okay. Um still want to go on the a lot of questioning when we're adding the surface spaces and I noticed earlier and I pointed out uh the 20% for compact cars. Do you intend to put compact car spaces on the surface level or internally within the uh the deck? Internal internal to the building.

Okay. So, internally to the building, I did some numbers. Mrs. Coleman, by the way, it's 183 internal spaces. Taking away 24 for EV, we're left with 159. Taking away from that the 20%, we're left with 27 regular spaces internally into the building for 132 units. It just to me that doesn't seem like it's quite enough because it's not even one park spot per unit at that point.

I just want to make sure it's correct. Can you go through your math again? Sure, absolutely. 183 internal parking spaces based on your site plan including EV. So we take out the 24 for EV leaves us with 159. Then we take away the 20% for compact cars leaves us with 127. No, I'm not saying that. But I'm just saying for an individual with a car that is regular sized. So 127 spots for a regular sized vehicle internally to the property. Can I just also clarify that compact spaces are 8 foot 6 in and the current code is 9 foot. It's only a 6 inch reduction.

Still, it it's still a compact space is my point though. Like we're not going to fit regular like you can't fit a regular sized car next to a regular sized car next to a regular size car in a compact space situation. It's just not going to work. In 8 foot6 you can fit a regular size car. So, uh, other cities like Miami, this the standard parking space for Miami is 8 foot6. So, compact sounds like a wrong message, but it's actually pretty standard.

I appreciate your uh insight there. I uh I I don't see that as a place where we can where it gets to the point where I look at it and say, "Oh, that does make sense." But thank you. I just wanted to share my thoughts on that. If I can just also add so the EV parking spaces are not like set in concrete. So if they cause an issue, we can remove them. They're not required by code.

Um there was some discussion in the I don't know if it if we discussed it now or I read it somewhere or whatever. um that there's been some discussion about marking spaces that were like having a it sound like a parking plan or something that was going to mark spaces that were for the office versus for the residential. But I don't see that as a I don't see that as a uh condition. Is that a condition or did I miss it reading through it? I think it's a condition in the site plan. Oh, it's in the site plan portion. I was looking Oh, on the adjustment. Okay. Yeah, it's in the site plan portion.

Okay. So, so that would be a requirement. Well, I didn't even ask you. Are are you accepting? Yes, we're actually on the At this point, we're on the administrative adjustment. So, are you accepting of the five conditions of the administrative adjustment? Yes. And I also do want to reserve time for closing comments. Sure. No, that's fine. Um, okay. So, and we've also had I'm sorry, Mr. Mr. Fischer, go ahead. No, no, go ahead. So, just two quick questions. So, we're getting the 60,000 for the office because we're reducing that one floor. No. Okay. No, no, no. It's 60,000 because we went through the rent rolls to actually get square footage since we didn't have floor plans. Okay. That's the accurate number.

The accurate number is 60,000. Okay. Just want to make sure. And then security for the residential building. Is there a gate to go up to the second the next floor to for parking? Is there a code to get into the bike area? anything like that? No. Okay. So, there's no there's no gate for parking and then there's no Is there security for the pe bike area? Um not uh everything securitywise is in the subtit plan. I don't and I did the sub No, I did not do the subtit plan. So, I'll have to call the architect back up.

No worries. [laughter] I just want to make sure I want to make it accessible if if this does go through. want to make sure that anybody that's renting or leasing from the office building has accessibility to get to that biking area and not and it is secured because we don't want random people coming off the street. Yes. Putting their bike there or taking showers there. Obviously, we do have a

Yeah, that was a good point. Actually, it was one of the condition uh that was discussed during the um architectural uh appearance committee uh uh board. So one of the condition was actually to add uh biking racks in front of the commercial space to accommodate visitor to the commercial space. So um it's understood that the enclosed uh bike storage along with the locker facility would have some uh key card access limited to the the either the resident of the residential complex or the user of the office tower.

Yeah, perfect. Just want to confirm that. Um, only thing that concerns me also with residential overflow. Um, because there is some people that have the 10 threebedrooms and the guest places are taken up for the two bedrooms, then there's going to be overflow possibly onto the ground parking possibly. Is there going to be some sort of I know you don't have the plan confirmed yet, but is there going to be some sort of security on on the grounds to prevent that from happening from the residential overflow? Security a plan for security for someone to like a parking attendant or anything like that.

Some people you might spend the night or something be parked in the office parking spaces maybe not be gone by 8:30 when people get to the office and you're running into the problem when you're already limited spaces as is. So other than reserving it and requiring the tags, okay, for the residents. Just want to make sure. Thank you.

Okay. Um we'll probably come back to the board. Um Mrs. West, would you like to go ahead and sleep? There's one other thing that I think you guys are going to have to deal with in what I'm sitting here doing this math, but um do you want to go ahead and make your closing remark uh or or responses at this point? Yes. Thank you.

Um Okay. So, I made a couple notes. Let me just start with Okay. um when you when you were up and and you spoke, I'm not sure if you were talking about our project or a different project in the area, but you mentioned 300 uh units. We're not proposing 300 units in this project. This is 132 and some of those are going to be affordable units. I just wanted to go on the record for that. Um, second point, uh, when when the speakers, uh, got up and they mentioned they were at the I guess it would be to the east of our project. So, I asked Max to confirm what the zoning district was. The strip of residential units that are directly behind us, RM20

are zoned RM20. And I just wanted to put that in the record. See if I can go over there. So that strip of of what looks to be single family homes, but I don't think they are. That whole strip behind us are RM20. Next to that is RS2 just for for you for your just to help you guys understand. Um, [clears throat] third thing I wanted to point out, I understand that this is a significant request. However, the county the county policy for affordable housing foresaw something like this. This property is perfect for that county policy. It allows us to take advantage of the square footage of the office space that's already there. And I believe we're the first to be asking for rule 2 2164. Am I correct? This would be the first.

Dean told me that. Yeah. This this may be the first 2164 property that's outside of the overlays, but we have used the policy um to provide residential entitlements elsewhere um for for more familiar mixeduse development. But but yes, this is this is generally the intent of the policy along the commercial corridors to allow for this infill development. Um right,

I just wanted to point out that this this property is perfect to to take advantage of that uh county policy. So the county policy kind of foresaw that um your code and your your code and your comprehensive plan kind of foresaw that in that the comprehensive plan policies that we presented back up our request. The code also backs up our request because it allows for these adjustments to be requested, granted at an administrative level, which is something you guys wouldn't see. However, there are and and I just want to go on the record when a minor uh site plan asks for a minor administrative adjustment. We're not limited to just one, you know, reduction of 12 10% or 5%. You can actually request multiple as long as you stay within the 10 the 20% that's uh allowed by the the uh director. So again, your your code kind of foresaw this. Your comprehensive plan kind of foresaw this. Um, another thing I wanted to mention. So the uh one of the speakers uh mentioned that there's no demand for the um bike facilities that we're providing. I would argue that there isn't a demand and again the the bike facilities is not for the public. This is for the employees of the project. This is for the uh residents of the project. And then we have three bus stops nearby. So there is a demand for this type of facility and I think that's really all I had to say.

Okay, that's it. Thank you. My name is Nick Pushkin. I am one of the owners. The address is 2880 Northeast 23rd Place, Pampon Beach, Florida 33062. Could Could you give your name again, please? Nick Pushkin. Thank you. I'm one of the owners of the uh building. You just pull this up because you're taller than Paula. Oh, yeah. Yeah, sure. There you go. You don't have to bend over. Go ahead.

And um your board just wanted to do a little closing statement not to waste a lot of time. Uh but uh thank you so much for your comments and I understand you live in the city too. Um close to the building. I live [clears throat] myself in Pan Beach too for the last three years. My family, my parents, we live in PMP on the same street. And um the idea why we requesting the parking lot because I have a little bit different point of view. For example, I have lots of younger generation working within my companies. For example, my sister just graduated from uh Savana School of Art and Design and she's looking for a job. So she will get probably starting job at $35,000. The rents in in our area are expensive. So she will be able only to afford to rent the space and for the car you need to pay extra. Car payment can be what? 500, 600, $700 a month. So we want to tailor uh our building for a little bit uh generation who is like right right out of college. They don't have enough money to basically pay for cars. They might not have a car, but they might have a scooter, electric scooter, whatever, bicycle. I understand that we live in the state of Florida and everybody loves cars. I mean I love car but we all in you know in the age group where we can afford cars. We can afford maybe one to two cars but if you look at younger generation I have for example employees who were coming to this building. I used to have an office in this building. They were renting leasing in Oakland taking a bus to get to our office. Um, another another thing we have Ubers, lifts. I use Uber sometimes too. I have electric scooter. I go to the beach on electric scooter because it's hard to find parking on the beach. So, I can use different means of transportation and I think that's the the world is changing right now and [clears throat]

not everybody need a car. That's just my point. But obviously we try to accommodate as much parking as possible and but this is again sorry if you if you live in the area I understand your concerns and we will try to do everything possible to to bring this project and thank you so much. Uh would you be able to spell your name please into the Yes. Please my last name. Yes, please. P O L Y U S H K I N. Thank you sir. Thank you. You didn't you didn't get that from the pronunciation. No. Oh, okay.

I do have one more thing to mention. Um and I think it just escaped me. Oh, no. Um so, when Max uh came up and mentioned that it wasn't terribly clear in our report that we were just specifically focusing on the office space. I do apologize for that. Like I mentioned, a reduction is a reduction. I did want to focus completely on the office space because that has been the only thing that we've talked about with staff. It's been it's always been the office space. We don't have a way to confirm the square footage. We don't have a way to confirm, you know, uh, anything that has to do with the the parking demand on that except for what we've observed on on the site and what the the two different uh, resources that we used. So, I just wanted to clarify that, but it is specifically for that office space that we're asking the reduction for.

Okay. Um, all right. I'm gonna I'm gonna have some questions, but does anybody else have some more? Yeah, Mr. Deli, you go first. Well, you're done with your portion. Okay. Yes. Public hearing's closed. Yes. Public hearing's been closed. Yeah. For a while. Okay. M at the appropriate time. You know, you can go before I do if you prefer. No. No. Go ahead.

Um I'm very familiar with the parking that um the applicant has the parking studies that uh the applicant has used. Um and I I want to agree with some comments that uh King made. It's King made it. Parking has been probably the number one discussion not only here but uh at the commission level for some months. Um and uh that would it's been our discussions in the overlay districts because we're uh really trying to reduce need for parking. But it seems like that the um the need for parking and our desire to have the need for parking reduced haven't quite caught up with each other yet. And we've seen that with some of the other projects that we have uh approved and adjacent to single family homes and the intrusion in those single family home neighborhoods. Um it's been a real disruptor for everyone involved, including the people living in the new buildings when they're ours are ticketed and towed. Um my problem with this project is not the project. I think that it's a great project. I know it's more intense than what the neighbors want, but it's what the code allows. But when it comes to us to do away with one in every four parking place places, that's just a little too much for me to be able to support at this time. Um, shared parking is shared parking, not you can only park in this if you're residential, you can only park in this if you are commercial. And I'm going to use um you if you used one of the

examples that that the project has used for reduction of 17% here, 10% there, might have been able to support that. But when you come in and clump them all together and ask for almost 25% reduction in parking, one in every four spaces, I think we're asking for trouble if we allow that much of a direction in parking in a place where quite frankly we're not it's not in one of our overlay districts where we're trying to bunch um a lot of intense development. code allows it. I think that it's admirable to be doing these kinds of units, but 25% is just 24 piece percent's just too much for me to support.

Okay. Anybody else? You want to go, Robert? Yeah. Go ahead.

I think I'm just going to reiterate what what Carla said. I think this is a this is a you're asking a lot from the board. I mean, you're maxing out what we can give is parking. Um there's going to be something big that goes there, folks. And I live in that neighborhood. I understand the plight. Um I do understand that those are multif family houses behind it. Um, [clears throat] I don't see the traffic that has been talked about coming out of Port Royale. You know, I take 15 Street every day. I think, you know, I love your work. You do great work, Miss West, and I like your your new urbanism. For me, I think it it's a, you know, just a bridge too far for us to to do that big of a percentage on parking. It could be fixed. You know, I am definitely high and tight. You know, if you can put and it's in my neighborhood and I don't want to look at it, but if you can get it high and you get it tight and you can get the parking taken care of, you got my vote every day. Um, but I think not having enough parking and not having street parking available. Um, the last thing I want to see is somebody parking on your guys block on 23rd. Um, I go up and down interval all the time. I walk my dog down there. Um, there's no place to park. There's no park place to park on 14th or 15th. Um they there is no they took away all of the uh the easements and they grasped them. So when you have a car in in the road and somebody parks there and they stay overnight and they're having fun with

their guests over at the new place and they park on 23rd, that could be a major issue with people trying to get out in the morning and a safety issue um especially in that that neighborhood. Um, but again, you come back to me with less parking. You got my vote all day for more parking. That's it. Thank you. Okay. Yes, Mr. Deli. Go ahead.

Thank you. I I just I agree with Mrs. Coleman. I don't necessarily agree, Mr. Hartzell, that I would approve the project if there was more parking, but I I appreciate his sentiment. Um, I can't fathom approving a project that's asking for 24 and a half% less parking. And I just like to point out that the owner of the property even said, "I find it hard to find parking at the beach. You're coming to ask us to reduce the parking here." Parking is a is a is an issue within the city. We need to make sure that we are providing enough parking. This just isn't doing it in my opinion. So, I won't be supporting this item either.

Okay. Um I I wanted to go back because we've been throwing numbers around um so much. Um the total parking is pro potential provided parking is 259. Yes. Okay. And and how much is required because you said basically we we nixed out the residential portion. The total required is 3 343.

I'm sorry. The part that's required for the residential based on because you're the reductions that you're talk you said that the if I took this correctly, you said that the real discussion has not been about what portion was allotted to the residential, it's the portion allotted to the commercial. Correct. So what's the what's the out of that 259 how many of those are the guess undisputed portion of the residential is that huh 169

that's what I had written down but I wanted to make sure that's right okay so 169 leaves 90 okay now we we've we've heard we've heard testimony that said that office space is one for 300 I I think that's what you said. So that would be 200 spaces. Now that's the old formula. So I'm not not necessarily going there. Today there's 200 spaces. There was testimony that said about a hundred of them are being used. And yet there's no way we're going to have more than 90 in the best case scenario. And the other thing is is that the if I did the math right, we're saying there's actually 76 on this site plan. though 14 of the of the spaces what inside of the because we don't have this plan that has designated where they're going. 14 of those are going to be inside of the building. inside of the residential building on what the first floor

not for the retail for their I'm talking about for the commercial building

they don't have enough parking for the commercial building based on their own evidence the way that that I am interpreting this now I obviously I don't think 200 spaces is that's the old formulas that we used to use for pure office space and blah blah blah which is what you have today but the testimony was is that there's about there's a hundred that are needed based on what he saw and you're not even going to have that hundred based on what we're doing today. So there's minus 10 spaces for the overflow of the commercial. I I tend to agree that this 25% number or 24 and change number is it's just it's gone too far. I mean, it's there just is not that many spaces left over. Um, to to do that and I I did have something else I wanted to ask Max about. Um, what is the buffer if this was a new development? What would be the buffer between this and the RM20? What kind of buffer would it be in?

So, the required setback is a minimum of 20 feet. If it was a a parking area, we would require a type B buffer which would fall within that area. But it's all been addressed within the design. The the minimum setback that's required is 20 ft or 24 for the building or for the for the base of the building. Okay. But but would there be a buffer between because this is commercial so there'd be a buffer between this and the residential to the east and that can exist within the setback within this yes within the physical setback. Correct.

But there is is there one today? When I say buffer what's what is there today? Is there a there's a fence or something? I don't think so. I believe it's just uh some parking. It's just the hedges. Okay. Yeah, that would be another potential problem too then in my mind. Okay. So, the new buffer the so the setback is is 24 and 1/2 ft for the building from the property line. The buffer of 10 feet will be provided on the east side of the parking areas or the building and include a wall and landscaping if if this was a new development

as proposed and as for new. Oh, okay. So this development would Yeah. Oh, okay. It would have So it would comply with the BB buffer then? Yes. Yes. I guess that was their question because these people had asked I think that was one of the they on their I mean I I believe that the testimony was their own fence there. They will provide a a wall on their property at the property line and then landscaping on the this development. Yes. Okay. Okay. So it would abut the other fence then I assume or something like that there. the fence that's part of the other property and for that property. Yes. Got it. Got it. Okay. I was I was confused about that. Okay. Um

is there anybody else that wants to speak? Um yeah, I go ahead. Um so at this point, if there's nothing else, uh the chair will entertain a motion on um let's we'll deal with item number one first, which is the administrative adjustment. Mr. Chair, yes. May we request to table this item? Okay, with all that then um the chair will entertain a motion to table item number one. Uh so moved. You need like a specific motion or Okay, we have a motion and a second to table item number one. Do we need a like a specific motion or is just the motion to table acceptable?

Yes, sir. It's going to be table to a date certain. That's the only thing that you're going to be required to do. Okay, Mrs. West, are we going to How How long do you want? Mr.

Chair, if I may, I just want to ask a follow-up question, Mr. Williams. Uh, it should the item should the applicant since a lot of the discussion has dealt with the percentages of this adjustment. If there is some miracle that occurs on the third floor and that part particular percentage um becomes below I think I heard the 20% um that's an item that would not come back before potentially not come back before this board.

Right. So if the applicant m revise the request to a minor administrative adjustment that is something that development services can approve without bringing it to the planning and zoning board. Um of course that would be a condition that would have to be resolved before the site plan is approved. Um however our internal review of this project has included several iterations where reductions were requested none of which were acceptable to the director of development services. So yeah, I'm gonna take the next step because I think I I think well the reason I asked is we don't know if that would come back then that that one

I just wanted to make this board Yeah. I just want to make this board aware that there's a possibility that even though we we set it to a date certain it may not come back depending on the right what the adjustment is. So, so and I don't think this board's all hyped up necessarily about well, I shouldn't say that. We were pretty hyped up about it. Um, anyway, so but I think but the other side of that would be that let's assume for a minute it got down in the 20 below 20% range, which is within the director's that's within the director's purview. Yes.

Okay. But what if the director doesn't approve it? then you'd still have to bring it to us to approve an 18% or something if the dire I'm not saying he's not going to approve it and I'm I'm just asking question what happens if the director says I don't approve that you have to ask the planning and zoning board then yeah I mean that's kind of odd the the way that the No it's never happened but I just figured I'd throw it up to a certain percent is a minor administrative adjustment which the director can approve at their discretion and then up to 40% is a major administrative adjustment that's evaluated ated by the planning and zoning board. Up to 40% could include 18% should the director still not feel comfortable approving the minor administrative adjustment.

That was my point. Okay. So, we could classify a lesser amount as a major adjustment subject to your approval. Um, but I I just, you know, No, no, I understand. I mean, I don't I'm not sure that's ever happened where you actually brought it to us. I mean, but but I I never asked that question. That's the same way that like an appeal would work. So if we denied a minor, it would be like us, we would be hearing appeal to a a public the next level board, which would be us. Okay. Okay. Well, I've talked that one to death. Um Okay. So, um I think there was a motion and a was there a motion and a to we just need a date certain? I think that's what we were doing. Date certain. What did you guys decide?

We would like to request one month, 60 days. What's the date of the when's the deadline? One month or 60 days, which was it? So, yes, please. If it were up to me, I would do at least two months so that that allows the applications may include or what the next iteration may look like. We need to receive those plans, review them, prepare our reports, and then complete the agenda. Um, turning this around in one month was a miracle. Um, so I don't want to I don't want to do that again. We all We're out of miracles. Okay. Thank God the year's almost over. The miracles are almost over. You know, maybe the 25th will be once. Who knows?

Miracles on 34th Street, Mr. Chair. Okay. So, I think we decided 60 days, right? We're going to we're going to um What's the date of that meeting? Well, I just want to clarify everything first. Right. Mr. Deli, first motion. Correct. Yeah. Mr. Hartell, second motion. That is correct. And then the February date is February 25th, 2026. Okay. And Paula, you agree to that? 25th, you said? February 25th. Okay. And the deadline? Yeah, that's more important to Max. Um, I don't have [laughter] the meeting. I'm in January. If you give me one moment, I can check my email. Okay.

Yeah. [laughter] Just doesn't care when you bring it to us. He wants to know when they got to have it done within reason. No, I'm just kidding.

Where you going, Max? What? Where you going on the trip? Where am I going? Yeah. No, it's like he [laughter] said you're going to be gone. That's why you wanted to know how long you had. No, I'm always available. Okay. That's true. I've talked to you in Spain. [laughter]

We don't. You're still looking. I'm almost there. Okay. Okay. It's a moment of suspense. I think I need another piece of chocolate. [laughter] No, you can't have any. It's okay. I don't think it's so important as long as we're comfortable with two months and the applicant was comfortable with one month. The deadline is generally a month before the meeting date. Um, so I I think that we'll be we'll be comfortable with that for the applicant. What would happen if they needed to push it back before would they have to come here just to get the extension to the next month?

Yes. Oh, yeah. Got it. Okay. So, so at this point I'm amending my motion a date certain of February 25th, 2027. Sixth or sixth 25th. Okay. Second. That's the other 25th. Okay. Second. Okay. We have a mo. You're good with that? Yes. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion of the postponement of item number one? Just very quick curious thought. If it does get below the 20% mark, is there a way we can trigger it to come back to us regardless if uh if they do get the site plan is going to come back no matter what.

Oh, that's fair. That's actually a very good point. Thank you for that, Mr. Chair. Okay. But I haven't gotten to that yet. Okay. All right. So, was there any discussion on the motion? Any other questions? Seeing none, Bobby call the role on uh the tableing of item number one. Rich Deli. Yes. Robert Hartzo, yes. Gigi Dbeck, yes. Paul Fischer, yes. Tundra King, yes. Carla Coleman, yes. Fred Stacer, yes. Okay. So, the first item is table to the 25th. Second item. Um, we have to put it on the floor and then you're going to ask for table or you can actually tell you what I'll let you go ahead and ask for the table.

Thank you. Yes, we would like to request a table the site plan as well to the same date. Same date. Okay. So, moved. Uh the table item number two to date certain 22526. Second. Okay, we have motion and a second to table item number two to the same uh February 25th meeting. Any questions on the motion? Okay, seeing none, Bobby call the role on the tableabling of item number two. Rich Deli, yes. Robert Hartzo, yes. Gigi Debeck, yes. Paul Fischer, yes. Thunderre King. Yes. Carla Coleman, yes. Fred Stacer,

yes. Okay. So, I both items are going to be postponed until the 25th of February. So, if you have friends or whatever that you want to talk to, you have you have that time. Thank you. God bless. The And before u you run off, I does somebody want to give them code enforcement? They were sounded like they had a code enforcement issue with people throwing stuff over. Can you give them what is it? Mario's number or something. Somebody asked about that. I'm sorry. I have him on speed dial. No, not you. You're You didn't throw your clothes over. That's Pence. Come on. [laughter] I mean, thank you. Thank you, folks. Just Yeah, he'll get you that. Okay.

All right. All right. Um Okay, that's uh that's our two items for tonight's agenda. Um the next item in there is uh chair and vice chair. Audience to be heard. I'm sorry. Audience to be heard. Excuse me. I walked right over. That's the second time I've done that this year. Going to lose my chairmanship. I can see this. I'm in trouble. Okay. I think so. Okay. Um, anybody I know you guys spoke on this item. If you have anything else you would like to speak about, you're welcome. You can have three minutes to talk about something else now. And if not, then we'll No, no, it should be something different. I'm sorry. anything in general

in general if if there's something [laughter] thank you very thank you very much that I can't take credit for it um but whatever that's I no I appreciate it thank you thank you very much thank you for coming okay um so is that that's it for audience participation on that um next next item I'm sorry yes other business chair and vice chair nominations Um, this is this is like a our traditional I guess Christmas voting on chairman. Mr. Chairman, okay. No, no, you do it. No, it's all you,

Mr. Chairman. I'd like to nominate you uh for your continued service as chairman of this board. Second. Okay, we have a a nomination. Are there any other nominations for chair? [laughter] Nobody wants it. Okay. Um, all right. Well, with that, I'll close the nominations. Um, and since there's only one person, all in favor say I. I. I. And opposed.

Okay. Besides me. My vote doesn't count. It's like being at home. Yeah. Okay. Whatever. Um, okay. Um, thank you very much for that. Um, and the next item is the uh nomination of the vice chair. I'd like to nominate Mrs. Carla Coleman. Okay. Do we have any other nominations for vice chair? All right. Seeing none, I'll close the nominations for vice chair. All in favor of Need a second. Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. I do second.

Okay. Mr. Fischer was the second. Um, and all in favor of the um motion say I I and opposed. Okay, Mrs. Coleman, it looks like you got roped into doing it again. Okay. Uh, are there any reports of staff by staff? Do you guys have any reports tonight? He's not listening. Oh, he's not listening to me. Well, that's okay. It's like being at home. This is [laughter] Nobody listens to me at home either. So, anywhere in the world, I'm listening. I know it. I That's why I said I called you and you were in Spain for God's sake and you picked up. I couldn't believe it. All right. Um just Oh,

just because it's the last meeting of the year, I just wanted to give like a a very high level overview of the work that we've done this year. Um we it it feels I mean these meetings aren't short but there have been 30 items in the in the 12 meetings that we've had this year that we brought um you know variety of things from text amendments major administrative adjustments um the plat which we now take administratively flex applications and major site plans. Um there have of the um applications that we've received there have been 23 that were approved. There was one recommendation for a denial. Um that was the healthcare tax amendment which ultimately um went to the commission and um six postponed which now can you know we had two of those that we heard tonight. So that remains six postponed. Um you know some major projects came to the planning and zoning board. Uh not just the text amendments which I probably enjoy the most because my work I I feel like I put the most work into those items. Um but then in terms of site plans, we had the live uh residential that was by Cordish on their 20 acres. Um we had the McNab house and botanical gardens that was probably one of my favorite public projects that has come in a long time. Um and as well as you know a variety of of mixed use and mixed income projects. Um so I just wanted to to that very brief overview. um uh overwhelmingly we tend to approve the projects that come to this board and I think that's because this board really focuses on code compliance and we like to bring things to you that we can recommend for approval. Um so with that uh I have nothing further to report but thank you for a good year.

Thank you Max. Appreciate it. Um Bobby you have anything for us? um just that uh starting next year, this will be my fourth year serving this board and All right. just that it's truly a pleasure to work with all you. Um you guys are fantastic getting back with me RSVPN just and I hope it is the same way too. Truly enjoy working with you guys. Great. Appreciate it. Counselor.

Uh but following that act, I I guess I have to do the same kumbaya. Um, [laughter] I've enjoyed working with the department. Department does an excellent job in presentation uh and putting together the um the items and providing material to the board. Um, they work well with our office in getting into the nitty-gritty of of some of the things that come before this board. And so, we appreciate that working relationship um with not only Max and John and uh this guy over here um [laughter]

But it's been a pleasure working with each one of you and I hope our office has been um a sort of client or provided a concier service to you all. Meaning that uh when you have questions um [laughter] we'll send you the bill. But it when we provide that kind of service, you don't get paid anymore no matter what words [laughter] you use. Okay. I hope that if they've ever had a question, um, we try to make sure that we answer you promptly and give as much information as possible. Um, with that being said, I also want to wish each one of you a happy holiday and a prosperous new year. Um, and look forward to all the many things that we're going to do in the new year. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, Mr. Deli. Yeah, just staff has done a fantastic job this year. You guys, kudos all around. Um, I feel like it's been, this is my first year with you guys, so it's while I've a Thank you. Um, while I've done work like this in the past as a commissioner and, uh, on the ZBA even, um, this has been a a tremendous experience to work with and the pleasure to serve with everybody up here. Um, you alluded to the fact that this is the A team earlier and it truly is. you know, what we sit up here, while we don't always necessarily agree on everything, I think the cordiality and the ceniality and the way we go through every aspect of of each item, we do it with respect and with uh the good graces of our city in mind. So, I want to as I as my colleague, not my colleague, as the attorney just said, uh James, happy holiday season, everybody. Looking forward to keeping up with you guys next year.

Thank you, Mr. Fisher. man, feel like a broken record. But just seriously, staff, you've been amazing this year. Um, it's been great working with you. I think this is my with including alternate years. This is my like third or fourth year. So, it's been amazing and um 2025 was great and look forward to 2026. Happy holidays, everyone. Uh, and happy new year. Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Coleman.

I am a broken record at this po I am a broken record at this point. staff is has been absolutely phenomenal and I have uh I've called you with the craziest questions um and the craziest ideas from time to time, but you've always been receptive and and more than professional and uh very accommodating and I and I thank you all for your service. Um, having been a public servant myself, I know it's not always the easiest job in the world and um, uh, it's been an honor for me to serve. It's been an honor for me to serve as vice chair this this year and I thank you. I'm coming up on close to 10 years of service on this board and um, uh, it is uh, one of the highlights of my month to come here and see your faces every month. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. King ditto to what um my other board members have said and thank you to staff and everybody. Um I have the joy sometimes of sitting through commission meetings as well and I've learned so much when Commissioner Perkins asked me to um sit in this seat. I said I know about law enforcement. That's it. Nothing else except Ted. [laughter]

So I thank you. I've learned so much from you all and I've been able to um answer people's questions when they say, "Hey, I have a question. This fence is up in my yard. Can you ask some of the people I'm planning and zoning?" And so, it's it's been extremely helpful. Thank you, Attorney Saunders. And thank you everybody. I hope you guys have an amazing um 2026 and um best wishes to you and your family. Thank you, Mr. Hartzell. I don't want to be a broken record, but

actually I'm gonna thank the audience for coming out tonight. Um, it means a lot to us and it gives us a lot of input. Uh, when the people that are affected by our decisions, um, give us the reality of what the situation is on the ground and how it affects you. Um, a lot of times we look at it and people just come up and yell at us and tell us we're horrible people if we vote for it. But I

I thought that you guys came very prepared and you guys came with some good information for us about the on the ground and how it affects you personally. And a lot of times we just look at the rule book and look at what the code is and we don't take that into account. Um, so the more people that come out and if we can get this room full ever, but uh it's that'd be a long night. We will on the next high-rise on the beach, believe me. [laughter] But I do want to thank you and I wish you all the happiest of holidays and thank you for coming out and thank you for participating and thank you for being my neighbor. Um, thank you for listening to us.

So, and then of course always the staff is is is great. Um, our council was great. You guys do such a fantastic job to set us up. Um, today you you were overly prepared and you had all the answers to our questions and that helps us out. You know, we don't get into the the the nitty-gritty of it of the code and we have to ask you and you you came fully prepared and that makes me happy. Um, to my colleagues, I enjoy working with you. I look forward to working with you. Um, this is the highlight of my month. So, well, you have a problem. Happy holidays to my colleagues and a happy new year.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Parson. Mrs. Dubet.

Uh, well, I've learned a lot. This is new. This is my first time serving on a city board. So, I really appreciate the opportunity and I've learned a lot and continue am learning and I'm really happy about the fact that we're really making an effort about parking because I'm challenged by it every single day. I live over by the beach and it's it is a challenge and I think it's important that we're proactive about new projects coming in and are being shortch changing the parking. We have to be sensitive to that because when you don't have parking, it really truly is a challenge. And uh so I'm thankful that we are being very sensitive about that and really looking at you know why it's important to make that difference.

And so thank you for the opportunity and uh Carla the chocolate was amazing. [laughter] Yeah. I mean it was really good. So thank you for sharing. Welcome. And um I really wish everyone a merry Christmas and a great new year. And um and also Max and uh Bobby, you are do a stellar job. So thank you for that. You can't come past that. See? [laughter]

Okay. So I guess it's up to me and then before we'll I'll close out. Um, I was trying to do the math about how long I've been here. It's very disturbing. Um, but uh, actually since I guess it's this is my 17th year on this board

and I've been the chairman for 15. Um, and it's really been an honor and I um really enjoy the people that I work with um, this board. It's a it it's um very congenial um and also has a diverse opinion about a lot of different things. So sometimes that's a little hard to do, but but I think we managed to do it um smiling and um we have an amazing city. We we've we've come a long way in the 17 years. Not because of me, but because uh but we've come a long way in the 17 years. I I I remember um we didn't even have a garage on the parking I mean a parking garage on the beach and we had a torn up beach and a dilapidated pier and a closed down restaurant and we had a leaky roof on the library and we had mold in the fire station. So we've come a long way. Um, and and now Trip Advisor says we have a top 10 in the country beach. So that's I think that's a lot to be said. And I think this board's actually had some real uh been able to move at that ball a little bit as well. Obviously having staff that's this competent and forward thinking it makes a huge difference. So, um, and I'd like to I'd like to thank the elected officials who who put us here. Um, putting me on this board is probably shows a lack of judgment on their part, but whatever. Um, so, but anyway, um, no, I I actually seriously would like to thank them. Um, um, you know, because each one of us comes from a a has a different representative that we come from. And Mr. Hartzell is actually the

is the whole commission put him on. Um I only found one fool to put me on and everybody else has um somebody so that you understand um that that's the way that this works. Um we try to get representation throughout the city and input likewise from throughout the city. And um with that I would like to wish everybody a very happy holiday. And I move we adjourn. There we go. We adjourn. [music]