Architectural Review Board - Regular Meeting

Everyone. Okay.

Pledge? Yep. Called, we're calling the meeting the 01/28/2026 meeting to order. And let's stand for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of

The United

States Of America and to the republic

for which it stands,

minutes? And are there any modifications? Nope. No. No. Can I get a motion?

Move to approve minutes 20 Five-seven508.

As the chair for tonight, you can't make a motion. I'll make

a motion to approve the minutes from the 10/23/2025 meeting.

Okay. CHRISTINE I'll second. CHRISTINE All those in favor? CHRISTINE I suppose. Hearing none. CHRISTINE we have

any additions, deletions?

There is no additions or deletions. And if you and swearing in as speakers, I will swear in anybody that is going to provide any testimony tonight. So if you are going to speak or or do any public comment, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes. Yes.

You are sworn in. Thank you. Is there any ex parte communication for any of the items?

Kelly, I drove by three of the items. Which items? The Owsley Hay and Feed Okay. Self storage, and LA Medical signage. I didn't speak with anyone. Just drove by.

Can you be fair and impartial?

Yes, ma'am.

Anyone else?

No. I

drove by 50th Street myself and happened to run into a owner that was nearby. I had a conversation with an owner, but nothing that would

And that was about the 50th Street project?

Yes, it was. Okay.

And you can be fair and impartial?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Okay.

All right. So first up is Petition number twenty twenty five-twenty three ARB, Ausley Hayen Feed Exterior Elevations. The property is owned by Farniente Stables. It This portion of the site is on the west side of this 59 acre site, and that portion is 10.11 acres. It has a feature land use map designation of equestrian commercial wreck and a zoning designation of Equestrian Residential, and it's in sub area C of the EOZD.

And they're requesting approval tonight of the proposed hay and feed store elevations and materials. The site is previously known as Littlewood Equestrian Center back in 2007, and it was approved for a showgrounds facility with 2,000 permanent and temporary stalls, up to 60 RVs and other showground facility amenities such as vendors and food and other type things like that. And there are currently applications in progress for this property. A comprehensive plan amendment to remove some site specific use limitations on the property that were a part of that 2007 approval. That is not something that we do currently.

It's not a practice that we provide use limitations on comp plan amendments. It's usually on master plans. So it's more of a cleanup. And then to update the legal description, because when the original comp plan amendment was approved, There was an issue with the legal description once it was mapped. And so actually the boundary of the site doesn't close on the future land use map.

And then a rezoning of the portion of the property as Equestrian Commercial Rec. When in 2007, when they changed the future land use map designation, we don't know why at that point it wasn't rezoned as well. It remained residential. And so when we did the update to the future land use map and zoning map in the early 2020s, we didn't change any of the zonings for any of the properties. We just renamed them to Equestrian Residential.

We don't know why back in 2007 it wasn't changed at that point because equestrian residential is not compatible with an equestrian commercial rec land use. So that again, it's more of a cleanup. And also, there is a site plan in progress for the hay and feed store, which is what you're going to be seeing tonight for the elevations. This is existing site conditions of the portion of the property. The Northeast portion or the Northwest portion of the property, that's the Hay and Feed store.

It is currently vacant. This is the proposed site plan for the Hay and Feed store. It has not been approved yet. It is nearing approval. Usually the sequence is the site plan gets approved and stamped before it comes to ARB.

But because it has been approved for certification, and we don't plan on any modifications to the site plan because it's been in that process for a while and we've been waiting for the other applications to go through, we felt it was appropriate that the Hagen Feed Store elevations come before you tonight. These are the proposed elevations. These are updated elevations from what you received in your packet. The only modification is that they remove the signage above the front door because they can only have one sign. And the sign that they chose, the location, says signage by others.

They are not requesting any technical deviations, which is why there was no signage in your packet. If they requested the sign above the door and I had advised the agent, then that would be considered a technical deviation. They'd have to come back later. So they didn't want to do that, so they removed the signage above the door. So they will only have one sign, and it will be per code.

So that's the front elevation. It is a metal type building, but they are using stucco and other veneers and finishes to incorporate to the front and to the sides to make it more inviting and to blend in with the neighboring equestrian neighborhood. And this is the side. The sides, the loading areas, again, there's going to be landscaping along the bare side on the north elevation. And this will be somewhat landscaped on the areas that can be landscaped.

But mostly this is a loading area. This is just the dumpster detail. Just like all other projects, it will have to match the colors and the siding of the principal structure. The monument sign, the same thing, but they're not requesting any technical deviations, so no additional approvals for that is required. And they will be providing bicycle racks as well.

And based on the findings and the consistency with the land development regulations, the planning and zoning provides the conditions approval in the staff report if the ARB votes to approve the applicant's request. And then I have the agent here. He has a presentation as well. So you'll be hearing from him also.

Good evening. My name is Walter Hyde. I'm a registered architect here to represent the AustLee Hay and Feed store at 14833 50th Street. You heard a pretty good summary about it already, so I'll recap the best I can here. There is a proposal for a structure.

It's 14,000 square feet of which a little more than 9,000 is predominantly, prefab metal structure. It's 25 feet tall. In order to build up to that, that that structure is predominantly agricultural agricultural related storage. It's gonna be fronted by a masonry structure. It's just under 5,000 square feet.

It's gonna house some condition storage along with a pretty small retail area, which is what we're here to talk about. Going through the LDRs, we did the best we could to avoid solid blank walls, especially on facades that are viewed from the public. The storage building does house materials that is negatively affected by sunlight, so we only provided some transom windows just, again, to not provide a completely blank facade to give some sort of architectural element. But we don't want to provide too much glazing. Let me start skimming through this slide here.

So here are our elevations. The side that faces south houses the overhead doors loading area for not only drop off but also for customer pickup and the other two facades that that aren't really seen again just feature those transom windows. Our main facade is going for an equestrian southern farmhouse look. We we don't want this to scream on the commercial building. We want this to fit into the context of which it stands.

So we provided some gable roof elements on the front, the man side roof that will provide a parapet and screening for some rooftop units. We've provided some, in my opinion, appropriately sized windows with muntins that are broken up. The facade has a mix of materials, stucco, stone veneer, metal roof with some timber accents to really help drive home this this farmhouse feel. The LDR article six point four point four b list a few sections where certain amount of elements are to be featured on nonresidential facades such as a raised cornice, which we do feature underneath our mansard roof. We do have peaked roofs, ornamental structure.

As you can see, there's some columns that support this kind of portico feature on a pediment the main entry, which number 15 mentions a desire for the customer entry to be readily visible. I think that is successful here with this design. The metal roof is a predominant feature of the structure. The facade includes breakouts of 12 inches minimum for these reverse gables to come out and the main pediment to just provide some relief and architectural interest in this main facade. Jump through here.

Here's an highlight of some of these features that I've talked about. A step in water table, the windows are gonna have a casing. And we do have some rafter tails underneath that roof. The color scheme is pretty neutral, just whites and beiges. The general front facade is going to be the spun wool with some accents on the water table of the polar bear color with the larger metal structure being the warm white with the regal white accents.

The windows were are gonna be Florida bronze. We do feel that this building fits within the context and meets the regulations and abides by the policies of the comprehensive plan. And I don't think I have too much more to add.

Do you want to open it to the public? Is there a motion to open? Yes. Public? South? Is there a second?

I second.

All those in favor? Aye. Does any of the public have any comments? Hearing none, a motion to close?

Motion to close.

Motion to close. Public

comment. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye. Okay.

Any questions?

No. Personally, I love the design. I love the color palette. I like the softer tones.

So I

think you guys did a nice job of blending this with the structure. I think it's going to be great. I like it a lot.

Kelly, I have a question for you. And I could be going outside my lane here. If I am, please rein me back in. When I first read this, I was also on the Planning and Zoning Board for a while. Now I'm on here. And when I first saw Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning are in progress. Okay? And so immediately, my first reaction is, why are we going to sit in here and have people go through all the motions and everything else if if the zoning hasn't been been approved. And and and then I sat here and I read this. I don't know if this is being read into the minutes. Yeah.

So this is part of the record, which we informed mister Volpe, who wrote the letter, that it would be part of the record.

Can you explain to me again, has something changed? Like did the village council say, listen, we're going to now start hearing applications prior to zoning and and

So right now the zoning is equestrian residential and the land use is equestrian commercial residential. Residential?

Correct.

Okay. In the Wellington's land development regulations, there are certain land uses that are compatible with the various zoning districts. In our LDRs, equestrian residential is not compatible with equestrian commercial rec. Why would you have an equestrian commercial property with a equestrian residential zoning? So that is why we're doing the cleanup with the land use.

And the land use no, I'm sorry, with the zoning. The land use modification is just to delete site specific use regulations use limitations that are on there. And that was at the point where they were going to put Littlewood there back in 2007. And there are a bunch of uses that are specific that only can happen on this property. A hay and feed store staff determined that a hay and feed store is something that can be placed on that property without any of the approvals that are going through the process right now. Because when there is a conflict with the land use and the zoning, the land use will

Supersede.

proceed the zoning. So a hay and feed store is compatible with an equestrian commercial rec land use. That's the only place that you can have it. You cannot have it in, you know, just a residential A, which is the majority of the equestrian area on those land use on those properties. So it like I said, it's more of a cleanup going through the process, which doesn't have a hindrance on what they're doing today.

And then a lot of this letter has to deal with the manure blending facility. I know it says manure transfer, but it's really a manure blending, so I wanted to put that on record. A newer blending facility to this that's on that 10 acre site to the south The of manure blending facility is an agricultural use. It is a we've determined that it is a bona fide agricultural use. And it has nothing to do with any of the applications that are before you tonight or before counsel that are going through the process with counsel.

So if you look at this letter, a majority of it was referencing the blending facility and how the blending facility doesn't meet the requirements of the comp plan and how it doesn't, it's not compatible with the surrounding area. Well, that's not part of what's discussed tonight.

Right. Yeah. I definitely understand that. I was just like, if we and listen, it's a beautiful structure. Love everything about it. But I'm like, all right, if we approve this and then for some reason this goes to PR planning and zoning and they knock, they say nay to that

part of it.

By us approving this, does that give any, know, can that cause a future conflict?

Because they're not a part Well, this is You're approving only the elevations, so there's so much more that has to be approved. You know, the site plan before they get building permits. They have to get their site plan approved before we'll sign off on the building permit. And they have to get, you know, ARB approval for the elevations. And they need all of their entitlements even before that to even get to the building permit process.

Our approval would be moot if PCAB and council doesn't approve. Right.

And then just an update. EPC approved it unanimously, and PCAB approved it unanimously, and they're going to the February 10 council

meeting. Meeting. I was just worried about a possible conflict by No, turning the I understand.

I know it's little to

the horse, so to speak.

It really is. It's confusing a little bit. But Okay.

I understand.

Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate it. Good job. Thank you.

I think that was great.

Any other questions? Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve petition number 20250023 with the staff conditions as provided.

Is there second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Hearing none. Petition passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

You bet. Good luck guys.

Great building.

I had the same questions too. Exactly the same.

Okay. Next up is the self storage at Irrizo.

You want these back, Kelly? Yes. Samples.

Good evening. Damian Newell with the Planet Zone Division. This is the self storage at Brazil. Petition number is 2020Five-twenty4ARB. Again, the request is for approval of the exterior color for the self storage building, which is actually under construction currently.

This is this slide is showing an illustration of the site plan that was approved with the self storage building on the west side. Just so you're familiar, the LA Medical, which was the former Cheddar's restaurant, is on the east, just in front of it, along State Road 7. The site is 5.45 acres. And this request again is for the proposed self storage site as illustrated in the yellow highlight. If the board members were here in the 2023, this did receive approval for the elevations as shown.

The color palette is, you know, laid out with the main part that they're changing is the blue awnings on this image. And they're also changing the signage, which is meeting the requirement to the proposed tenant who's changing. So it's changing to extra space storage. And they are now introducing the green color in the in the color palette. So we can go back between them to see the changes that they are proposing.

In your packet, they do include a paint sample of the the green that's gonna be painted on the band and on the trim. And I also showed the board today the awning, the metal awning color. So that you have an idea of that green color. Again, is the color palette essentially that was approved back in 2023. The only changes that they're introduced introducing is the green color.

This slide is just some illustrations of other extra space storage within the surrounding areas that are being approved by other jurisdictions. And they currently don't show the green color. So this is not something that is necessarily a brand in or copyright or anything for that for that facility. Staff does recommend approval, but without the green color. It is recommended that they they change the awning color to a black awning.

And the signage will incorporate the green for the branding of this this facility. The green color staff does not feel that it enhanced the building or the overall project, the design, or the style. The green color also is not a color that's on the ARB list. The prior blue color, even though not on the actual color chart, it was similar to other colors, which is one of the reasons staff did support it at that time. And the other item is, again, if this is allowed, it's more the way the colors are used could be considered part of the signage branding for the building.

This does conclude staff presentation. The applicant is here to answer any questions and also to review us. Good

evening. Gerard Rippo for the applicant lockup self storage. I want to thank Damian for preparing this presentation. It's obviously a pretty simple request as it relates to the colors. Damian and I went back and forth.

And just to clarify, you would recommend no green on the awnings or the building, correct?

Correct.

Correct. Okay. And that was my interpretation as well. We are going to continue to be the owner of this building. We operate under the lockup. That's our brand. We made the decision with what's happened since this approval and what's been going on in the industry. We wound up selling an asset. So we only operate one right now, so we're utilizing extra space. My hope is, is that three, four, five years from now, I'll be back in front of you asking for Blue again because we will ultimately take it over should continued success here on the East Coast.

We didn't really want to go into a back and forth. We felt like it was really you guys have the power to make the determination and improve those colors, whether or not you feel that they're amenable and whatnot. From our perspective, the lack of blue banding on the previously approved one, that was frankly just an oversight on our part. We would have probably wanted to see that back in the day. So that is a different change than what was originally approved.

There was a lot of moving parts in our original approval, and frankly, we just kind of missed that one right there. So it is a change to green. From our perspective, it's very comparable to what we try to do with a lockup, which is you add an accent color, you provide continuity between your project and add cohesion to the building. If you choose not to support it, I need to give my contractors some we need to order materials and stuff. We just put the roof on this thing.

So at the end of the day, if you choose not to approve it, we respect that decision. We will withdraw this application and just put the blue up and then go with the extra space. It's going to be a little goofy, but we get it. And at the end of the day, it's really your decision, whether or not you think it's going to be compatible or provide any sort of detriment to the aesthetics of the property. The only other thing I would say is this building is behind the LA Medical as it relates to its proximity to State Road 7.

So as it relates to interface with the public, it's really going to be our customers that are going to see it. I don't know that it's necessarily going to provide anything that's going to be captivating to I would love for it to be captivating to folks on State Route 70, but I don't know that that's necessarily going to be the case. So we are up for whatever you guys decide. If you do ask me to withdraw that, we will certainly do that. And I thank you guys for your consideration.

Thank you. Well,

I have to tell you, when I was driving around to the South, behind that tall office building, houses a sweet salon, oral surgery center, even a cannabis dispensary. But all those buildings and colors are very muted, very Wellington, I you also happened to drive by the extra space down in Boca, and this lime green is not on their building. So having seen it, I am not in favor of the lime green. Is

there a motion to open to the public? Oh,

sorry.

I'll retract that.

No, no, it's fine.

It's okay.

I'll second.

Okay. All those in favor?

Aye. Are

there any comments from the public?

Motion to close.

Hearing none. Motion to close. John, second? You can't make a motion. Sal. That's why I'm saying somebody. All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

Can continue.

Now do

I say it all again? I have

to say it

all over You're not alone with your comments. I the effort to incorporate some color into the village, but I'm going to kind of follow staff on this one and keep it a little bit more muted. And I just don't see this particular lime shade kind of working in with the surrounding community and buildings in close proximity. We try to

be pretty open minded here, but this one just struck me as really kind of off the charts, literally. JAMES Kelly, the summary, it says it speaks to black awnings, but he was speaking to blue awnings.

Yes. So staff recommendation is to have the awnings in a black color. What the applicant is just representing was that if the board is not willing to approve the green, that they would like to go back to the blue awning that was previously approved by the board in 2023. Okay. So essentially they would rather withdraw the application than a denial.

So if they withdraw the application, they can continue to use the blue awnings?

Correct. So that's

That's correct. A royal blue initial essentially is

Just to confirm, Damian, that there's no blue banding on the previous approval, Correct.

So it

would just be the awnings.

Just the awnings. And obviously, the sign would change to the green.

But that banding that's on the actual structure in application that's green, that would not be?

That would not be, no. Okay.

Okay. And if the applicant said that they would withdraw this, that essentially means that they would be okay with going back to the blue?

Correct. And I would suggest if they are requesting to withdraw it, they would probably want to do that before the board votes, an official vote.

I don't know the cadence of that. Yeah.

If you're counting, you may wanna

Yeah, I was gonna

may wanna withdraw your application before it goes to a vote.

Yeah. Great. You need

to So

do I need to get, am I allowed to open it back up then?

Oh, You're part of

the

agency. You're part

of the conversation.

Understood. Okay. Well, then JAMES we will formally request to withdraw our application for the current approval and proceed with the approved blue. Thank you for

your consideration. Appreciate it. Thank for Thank understanding.

Good luck.

And we're excited.

The next item item is LA Medical signage, and Jonathan's going to present that one.

Good evening. My name is Jonathan Sandoval. I'm planning here for the village of Wellington. Tonight, I'll be presenting sorry. I went too fast.

Tonight, I'll be presenting petition 2025Dash0025DashARB, a request for ARB approval of a wall sign with a technical deviation for LA Medical, a clinic located at 925 South State Road 7. The owner of the property is Amkol Enterprises LLC with the applicant being Ben Dolan of two g h o Incorporated and the agent listed as Pat Lantini. The current request is for approval of a minor tenant wall sign along with the technical deviation related specifically to the heights, of the primary facade wall sign. The sign itself will be compromised of an aluminum cabinet with LED lighting inside. The face will be white lexan with an aluminum frame around it to secure it to the cabinet.

The logo and letters will also be cut from aluminum and bolted to the face. The site is located along State Road 7 at the corner of Old Hammock Way and South State Road 7. The subject property has a commercial future land use designation and a multiple use plan development zoning designation. The tenant space is an 8,800 square foot commercial space that was previously occupied by Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen. Per Wellington's LDR, land development regulations section seven point nine point eight point a, a minor tenant is permitted one primary facade wall sign, a maximum sign area of two square feet per linear foot of facade not to exceed a 150 square feet, a maximum height of 30 inches, and a length not to exceed 80% of the facade.

See, the applicant is proposing one wall sign, a sign area of 48 square feet, which is within code, a sign length of 10 feet also compliant. However, the sign height is proposed at 87 inches. This results in a 57 inch technical deviation height with all other sign standards being met. Now displayed is proposed wall sign on the eastern facade of the building. The charts being displayed are of the standards and the proposed deviation that I spoke about in previous slides.

Based on the findings of fact, staff recommends approval of petition twenty twenty five dash zero zero two five dash ARB subject

to

the following conditions. Number one, the wall sign must be consistent with exhibits in the approved dimensions including this 87 inch sorry, 57 inch high deviation. Number two, permit approval is required before installation. Number three, any modifications during perm permitting the permitting or construction process will require ARB approval. And number four, the final stamped ARB approval must be used during during installation.

The applicant's justification for the deviation is that the 30 inch sign sorry. The 87 inch sign would be out of sorry. The 30 inch sign would be out of proportion with the scale of the building facade. The increased height allows the sign to remain visually proportional to the wall area while staying well under the maximum allowable sign area. The sign is also significantly shorter than that could be allowed based on facade length.

Staff's review found that the requested deviation does not create negative on off-site impacts. Due to due to the building's location alongside State Road 7, the sign height will improve visibility for customers without adversely affecting surrounding properties, tenants, or traffic while also enhancing the overall aesthetic of the clinic. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Does the agent want to add anything to the presentation?

Good evening. Thank you for your time. Ben Dolan, 2GHO, Landscape Architects, Planners. I believe he's covered it very well. It's a pretty simple request due to the existing conditions. We're kind of left with what we have in order to for the space to place a sign. And that's really what's driving the actual location. And we have actually been in coordination with Damian and was actually recommended by staff in order to go this direction.

Do you want to make a motion to open to the public?

I'll make a motion to open to the public.

Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Does any of the public have any comments? No? Okay. Is there a motion to close? I

make a motion to close.

Is there a second? Second.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Public comment closed. Does anybody have any questions?

I have a question. So approved signage, zero deviation, one. So they weren't approved for any signs at all? I'm sorry.

So the it's, on the table it says number of signs, allowed one, requested one. So they're not asking for a deviation for the number of

signs.

Ah, okay. I'm sorry.

They're only asking for the Just for

the height.

Just for the height.

They could add the top portion.

Oh, yes. So the deviation is just the 57 inches in height. Correct. Okay. And staff

was object. Okay.

His Correct.

I have different That's a different piece of she has. Okay. That's that makes sense.

Wait. What? His is different.

Mine's just slightly different. But I think because I had Damien's coffee.

Oh, it's the

back page. The

back page? Oh, that's why.

I'm not wrong.

He's good.

No, I

don't have it on here.

Keep going.

Okay. Well, that's a misprint. They're not asking for a number of signs. They're just asking for a

number signs.

Following up for that, Sai.

End user error.

Yes, it is. Any

other comments?

So then just confirm with me as well then, Kelly. So the deviation is thirty fifty seven inches or 30 inches?

57.

57. Seven.

The original is 30. They're requesting 87.

k. So Oh, the smaller sign here

is For for for a minor tenant that's below the 10,000 square feet.

So the small sign here, you can see the small sign. That is what CODIS allows. So they provided an elevation with a 30 inches sign. And then the red is what the sign that they're requesting and how it would fit more into that area. Correct.

And the signage dimensions are determined by the size of the building, of course.

Of the facade as well, yep.

The facade. And the facade. Okay. Understood.

So what they're doing is adding the LA to the top lowering the medical to fill the space and yet get the most maximum

That's correct.

Out of the It's the

lower side. Correct. Yes.

It is still

it's all one side. Yeah.

They've moved it to make the LA up top

and medical on

the bottom. Do the architectural

Of the

Of the existing building.

It will be backlit?

Yes. Okay.

This is the only place that they can have the sign. It's not like there's another area that they can put a longer sign.

It's visually more appealing than the first version. It's just are we setting a precedent with this or no?

No. I think you're just using the space that they have.

Got it.

And they're still under the maximum sign area. It does say 48, but it really is about 70 square feet because we measure square square footage of signs with a box.

Got

it. So they're still well under the one fifty that they're permitted to have. Okay.

Was that the justification from the staff then, Kelly? It's just that overall square footage is less than what they would be. And no issues with the color of the LA, the blue? That's backlit? That'll be Correct.

Is there a motion to approve?

I'll make a motion to approve 2025, 2025 ARB LA Medical signage based on staff's recommendations.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Those opposed? Hearing none.

Thank you very much. Have a great evening.

Next up is POD F Showgrounds, restrooms and seating, petition number 2020Six-oneA or B, which I would like to enter all files into the record. Potash Showgrounds is the owners is Farniente Staples. It is 114 acres. It has a future land use map designation of Equestrian Commercial Rec and a zoning designation of Equestrian Commercial Rec, and it's in Sub Area D. And they're requesting approval of the restroom buildings and stadium seatings for Pod F.

Back a few years ago, they received a series of approvals for a major equestrian venue within this PodF showground site. And then it just shows a list of all of the facilities that were approved in the showgrounds, most notably, 84,000 square foot covered arena, eleven oh eight stalls, which they have the ability to increase to 1,500 seating, thousand seat International Arena and then some other facilities as well. And as part of that approval, anything that was not ag exempt would require ARB approval, and these buildings are they need approval from ARB. These are some of the existing conditions on the site that were recently taken as of Friday. You can see the dressage arena on the right hand side and the covered arena in the center.

This is the large covered arena, the dressage, and then the sand rings. And this is just more pictures of the Derby Field. I'm sorry, Derby Field, not dressage. And these are the permanent barns are under construction. So this is the pads that they are building for those.

And this is the proposed seating facilities, that they're requesting. They are requesting, regular bleachers. They're they're like regular bleachers, but they have a metal frame around them to cover all of the metal portions of structural portions of the bleacher to make it, you know, look more aesthetically pleasing. These are more and there'll be an opening so that you can walk through the pedestrians can walk through underneath the bleachers. And then these are the restroom facilities.

These are permanent restroom facilities, and there'll be five of them throughout the site. This shows the site plan with I'm sorry. There's six of them throughout the site. This is the site plan with the stadium seating circled in red, and it's going to be next to the International Arena. And then the restroom facilities are proposed in green.

The seating is 20 feet tall and 272 feet long. It has 13 rows with over 1,500 permanent seats. They're using green seating and then cladding around the base to cover the metal structured base. And the restroom facilities are six forty six square feet, and they're going to be located throughout the showgrounds. They have slat cladding, stucco, slat beam panel, and their sleek modern and complement the facilities, and they will also have landscaping around the base to soften them as well.

And based on the findings and consistency with the land development regulations, the Planning and Zoning Division recommends approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. And we have the agent here that also has a presentation. You wanna present it? Or

Oh, I'm just gonna answer

any questions. Okay.

Come up. I appreciate you doing that for me.

Sure. I'll show you. Just the arrows.

I apologize for the delay during this tutorial.

It's just the arrows up and down. Okay.

Name is Paul Regal. I'm the Director of Construction for Wellington Lifestyle Partners, the developer back on Pod F. And Kelly, thank you very much for that comprehensive overview. I primarily, I'm just going to be here to answer any questions you may have. I did bring along a couple of gentlemen that are participating in this effort. Adam Torpy with six point five, who's the seating Thomas Benz with Katana House, who's the bathroom. So if you have any more questions that are a little more specific or technical, they'll be able to address those for you as well.

A motion to open up to the public.

I'll make a motion to open to public.

Second. Second. All those in favor?

Aye. Any

comments?

She needs to be sworn in Kelly because she came in after. And

then you're done, you can fill out a comment card. And then we're just gonna swear you in. If you please hold up your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. Okay. Thank you. I'll give you the card after. It's here somewhere.

Sure. That's fine.

Go ahead and state your names. Yes.

Just follow that

one. Hi. Sorry about that. My name is Laureen Capone. I live at 1385 Pampas Way in Wellington. And I have a few concerns about the can you put up the it said something like seating facilities.

I'll put it online.

The slide that says seating facilities. So I'll start with the one. The current Village Of Wellington ordinance on BMPs has not been updated to include the most recent rules by Florida Department of Environmental Agricultural Services for equine BMPs. This went into effect in late twenty twenty four. And how does that apply here?

The amount of manure that's going to be produced on this site hasn't really been taken into account and where it's going to go. Number two, there is no evidence that the owner has applied for any determination as to whether they are a CAFO, which is a concentrated animal feeding operation. A large CAFO is 500 horses boarded for at least three months out of the year. The showgrounds functions year round. And I think typically with dressage they do.

And they hold a lot of other things there because it's covered. Planning staff does not have the expertise and they should not be allowing more land to be used that needs to be dedicated to storage for the on-site handling of all the manure from the 1,500 horses. I don't see anywhere on here that you've shown where this is going to be. Is it located near a sensitive wetland? Has this been approved by the Water Management District?

Do you have Department of Health permits for the septic? Because from the last I understood, POD F was a reservoir for our drainage water. And how it all of a sudden became a facility that because the district or because the village said that all of a sudden they've decided they're going to finagle land to give them development over here, all of a sudden they automatically have this approval for a very environmentally sensitive area, I'm concerned. And we haven't if the DOH, Department of Health, South Florida Water Management Permits are in place, and I saw them, I might be happier. But this last I talked to the Corps of Engineers, this was still a wetland and they weren't supposed to be filling it.

So I think this is putting the cart before the horse. I think that you're asking this board to give you permission for something that you don't have permission from the federal government, from the state government, and the local government is obviously not paying attention here. Of course, the biggest elephant in the room is where is all the manure generated on POD F going? That wasn't a part of the application. It wasn't answered.

If it's just going to end up next door, that's problematic for everybody that lives in the area. And I think that these are some concerns that the applicant deserves to answer the residents. And this is a huge facility. And what is that in the back? Are you coming back and going to say, oh, they approved a hotel in the back? I would like that to be struck from the application or somebody tell me what those buildings are. Because well, as I know, Pod F and all of the barns that I've been in back there, there's a bunch of Polo Barns. I've never seen that. So tell me what that is.

Oh, that is just a background that the illustrator put together and has there's going to be no structure any way, shape or form, either one of those structures back there on Pod F. The only our only focal point here, ma'am, are those seats.

Well, that is just, you know,

that's That's too too much.

Yeah, it is. It is very alarming because it's something I brought up just a couple of months ago in another similar meeting on this whole group of applicants.

Do you want to finish up? The three minutes is up.

Oh, yes. Sure. So that's all I have. But I would be very careful. And this is architecturally just I don't think it's what we're asking for in Wellington, do we deserve. Thank you.

Look, to be clear to Lorraine and the public, I think our only responsibility this year is what was presented in terms of architectural materials, colors. You bring up points that there's probably a different forum to have those conversations and different bodies to argue in front of. I'm not going to sort of defend or debate whether or they've got proper permits. I don't think they'd be this far if Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District and everybody hasn't signed off on this. So our job, just to be clear, is looking at the architectural details and elements that were presented to this Board, and that's all we're going to be talking about.

Okay. Well, it does say in this architectural I can have it in response to his this

is a time to have a back and forth. You had your three minutes. It's just like counsel, where you don't go back and forth. Motion to close. Are there any other comments?

Motion to close. Public hearing.

I'll make a motion to close.

All those in favor?

Aye. All those Okay.

Public hearing is closed. Are there any questions?

Paul, my only question to you guys is I know you spent a fair amount of money putting cover over the seats over at Dressage this past year, but yet there's no covers over this. Is that an oversight? Or is

No, mister Green. Right now, I think that that's the decision that's going to be made here. I think that, you know, and I'm sure you know the backstory that our timetable is quickly evaporating here. So priorities are to make sure that we achieve all the condition seven requirements. And that's what this is right here. That question was brought up by staff. And again, at this point, that determination has not been made, sir.

Other than that, I really

don't have any issues with the architectural details. I think it's a nice design. I think the bathrooms are great. It's certainly going be an upgrade to where we currently compete. I'm looking forward to seeing this thing open and moving all your projects along.

So are we, sir.

Hopefully, the parking will be easier.

More comments? Otherwise, I'll be happy to make a motion. No,

the only comment that I have is that we're always open, and we so much appreciate that residents of Wellington come out and voice their opinion. I think it's very important. And I think it takes a great deal of courage. So I'm just grateful that that citizen came up and voiced her opinion today. Thank you for that.

And ma'am, it's well heard. You brought up very valid points. And like Mr. Green said, some of those points are not here for us to decide what can be done or should be done or will be done. But your voice was well heard. Good for you.

And with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve twenty twenty six-one ARB Pond F Showgrounds Restrooms and Stadium Seating based on staff's conditions. I'll second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Opposed?

Hearing none.

Motion passed. Good luck with you.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

You bet. Very,

very beautiful. Good job. Thanks. Any comments from the public?

Any comments from the public?

Comments from staff? We do have a meeting on February 25. We do have

Kelly, believe we would like to make public comment public. Okay. Come on up, Lorraine.

You can come up here.

Of is it's not really in your jurisdiction to approve

We're

the structure the the color

and the with Not the plumbing pipes and where it goes. Its location. Which is your concern, it's a valid concern. We understand that. But we're here to just approve the structure itself and allow that stuff

I like Mr. Personally have put myself in that position. Would have said this, you know, I would have done some homework and said Army Corps of Engineers has this classified as a wetland. And they have jurisdiction over it. They have enforcement.

But that's out of our scope.

So how can they come before us? I would have just said I couldn't. Understand the position you're in. I get it. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank Thank

you for your time. Thank you so much.

So on February 25, is our next meeting. We do have some items before you. We will be seeing a Council just approved the zoning tax amendment, which amended the way that building height requests go through the system. So a building height request for an increase higher than 35 feet has to go to council, for approval, but it has to make its way before they got their approval from council. And then after that, they'd went to ARB, which was kind of backwards because council approved the elevations and then they have to go to ARB.

So now we switched it. So it's going, the height approval for the hotel within K Park will be going to PZAB on February 18 and then it will be going to ARB on the twenty fifth, and then ultimately kept to counsel for final approval on March 10.

What is that proposed height for that hotel?

86 feet. Really? 86 feet, and then there's three other buildings that are higher than 35 feet, but they're it's only because the architecture made them a little bit higher. What about the building? I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Jen.

The buildings are the hotel, educational institution.

Yes. But those are not part of the request. It's only the commercial pod, pod B. And it's the hotel and then some buildings around

it. How many floors are 86 feet? At least

Seven. Seven

Seven.

What's the hospital height? 65?

I'd have to double check on that one. I know it's four floors. I know it's four floors.

So how much of what we discuss and vote on and that determination, I mean

So you'll be making a recommendation to counsel, just like PZAB makes a recommendation to counsel as well. So you ultimately wouldn't be approving that elevation. You'll just be making recommendations to counsel.

That'll be on height as well or just the could you

The elevations.

On that.

Just

elevations. So I can't say I like this, but I like it at four stories, not seven?

That I'd have to double check. I think it's mostly on elevations, but I will get back to you on that.

Okay. Wow.

They're ultimately approving the height, but they need to see the elevations in order to do that.

They Did might bring hear some people from Oakmont at that hearing?

It's actually pretty far from Oakmont.

Is And

they will be providing point of view. We I asked them to provide point of view images from Farmington Estates, because it's closer to Farmington Estates, and 441.

The are these approvals contingent on the sale, or is that complete?

They're going through the process right now. They had their first reading last night. It got approved four zero, and then their next reading is February 10. So by the time it gets to PZAB and ARB for the height, those approvals have already been approved for the conditional use for the hotel and the master plan and the rezoning.

Traffic studies are

Oh, they always pass. Andrew always finds

I mean, that road is a mess

Well, to begin part of the approvals for traffic is that of the project of the master plan. There's significant amount of traffic improvements that will be required that the developer will be constructing and funding. They'll be adding multiple turn lanes along Stribling and 441. They'll be adding a light at Life Church and rearranging that intersection so that there's crosses

Other light on 441?

Yes. And then a roundabout on Stribling or a light, but most likely a roundabout on Stribling.

Another roundabout on Stribling.

Correct. Right in front of Castelina.

And Kelly, the A light

on Stripling?

A light or roundabout, but most likely a roundabout. They haven't finalized

that Because yet. They do for Castellina. They do need it for the

Yeah. They need some right of way from Castellina. So they just need the POA to get approved. So they're in discussion on that.

And Kelly, next to the Taqueria, that large piece of land with the two story building on it, have they is that part of what we're going to be discussing next time? Or are they building on

that yet?

So that's the Marketplace. Yeah.

The Marketplace.

They will be requesting a building higher than 35 feet. So it will be going through the same process where they will have to go to PZAB, then ARB, and then to counsel for their

final How much center? Are they gonna tear down?

Because I I I think it may be, like, 56. I I don't know. I don't know about that

one. Because currently, there's a two story building on there, but they're gonna tear that down.

We have

three stories, that building.

It's either four or five. It's definitely not gonna be 86.

Oh, okay. That building

is 86.

Oh, yeah. That's right.

Mhmm. Got a fire in this.

Yes. A crosswind dressage. Okay.

Thank you so time for Wellington.

Yes. I'll be staying home in Versailles for

a while.

And there'll be some other items on the agenda as well. But we're tuned for February.

Gonna stop pushing for a light in front of Versailles for the past few years.

I mean, I just can't

believe there's another light gonna happen on 04:41. It's like all you do is just, you know, go, stop, go, stop.

And you know what's you know what's crazy, John? Now when you stop at a light, a lot of

times you

have to wait for a second light

before you can actually Any comments from the board?

Yeah. Because we're still on the air.

Okay. Any comments from the board?

Nope. Nope. None.

Okay. Motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Okay. Meetings adjourned.

Thank you, Kelly.

Thank you. Thank you.

Liability issues, outdated electrical