Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

I'll call this meeting of the planning and zoning board to order on April 20th 21st, 2026. If we could all stand and join each other for the pledge of allegiance. Okay, good evening. This is roll call. Member Sutton, Vice Chair Elliott, Chair Brown present. Member Kulakowski

present. Member Ross is absent. We have a quorum. Okay, it's public forum. Um, is there anyone present who would like to speak? Hearing no one. Seeing no one, we will close the floor. Has everybody had a chance to review the meeting minutes from October 21st of 2025? that. Does everybody approve of the minutes? Yes.

A second. Okay. Motion is approved. Oh, sorry. All agree say I.

All right. It's approved. All right. New business today. We've got the Turnpike Commerce Park at 1 16360 West Colonial Drive design review evening members of the Good evening members of the planning and zoning board. Um, I know I might be a new face for some of you, so I'll just introduce myself. I'm Taylor Hake. I'm the newest member of the planning team over at Wade Trim, the contracted town planners for the town of Oakland. And I'm happy to present this case to you tonight. Going over the property first, the property is a 13. Approximately 13.8 acre parcel that is both zoned and contains a future land use classification of industrial. It is located within the town's urban corridor design district. And the purpose and intent of tonight's uh case is to review the proposed Turnpike Commerce Park indu industrial flex space project. Next slide, please. So, here's a site location map. The actual site is an amalgamation of several different parcels all come together to form the shape you see there outlined in red. Next slide, please. So, just going into a little bit of background on the site, there was a previous project approved in 2021 for a self- storage facility. That original proposal did contain nine different buildings totaling approximately 164,000 square ft. It should be noted that the t the proposal tonight, the turnpike Commerce Park is completely separate and would replace the previous approval that was granted to this property. Slide please. So looking at what the actually um the scope of the proposal is four

singlestory industrial flex space buildings. Each one of those buildings is proposed to be 40,40 square ft for a total of 160,160 total square feet. Nice round number. And the buildings are proposed to be oriented north souths with the endcaps facing West Colonial Drive and the Florida Turnpike. The access to this property would be that narrow parcel of land that cor connects directly to West Colonial Drive if you remember from the aerial imagery. And as part of this proposal, that portion of the property would be dedicated to the town as right ofway. So here's a visual concept of that. You see the four buildings and that uh access point directly north out to State Road 50. And here are um here are the elevations. So the elevations are actually going to be broken down into two different pages. So starting off, these are the proposed renderings from um the portions of the buildings that would be visible from public rights way. Next slide. And here you'll notice um these would be the ones that don't have that visibility. And you'll notice the main difference if we can go back one slide. You'll notice on that top right image the addition of a second um quote unquote story of Windows. Even though this is these are all one-story buildings. And then you compare that. Next slide, please. And there you can see the main difference between the two different. Next slide, please. And here's a more conceptual um 3D rendering of the proposal. Uh these are of those buildings that do have that additional uh fenestration window space along that um facade or that faux second story.

And here's another more close-up angle of that building. Here's a proposed floor plan. Um you can see the individual bays and and tenant spaces that would be occupied. And these are um you can multiply this by four. It is mirrored over the four buildings that are proposed for the site. And now we'll go into the the variances. So before coming to you, the appearance review board in its capacity does have the did have the ability to make recommendations on dimensional variances to the town's design district requirements. Um they can make special exceptions or um like I said variances there. The purpose was to review the proposals to ensure that even with these variances, the overall intent and purpose of the design districts are still maintained through the proposal. The a the um requested lists of variances were proposed to the appearance review board on their March 3rd meeting. So going over the actual variances themselves, I'll briefly touch on them here, but the applicant group also has their own presentation that will go over these in a little bit more detail, but just running through these quickly. First and foremost, for landscape buffering, the code general standards does require a property such as this that directly abuts a single family zoned property to install a landscape buffer in addition to a wall. Um, as part of their request, they did request to forego the landscape wall due to the proximity of the buildings from that property line. And because only such a narrow portion of that property line would be required to place a wall, it created a an an oddity along that eastern property line. the minimum parking requirement. Looking at the general standards of the town's land development code, if you factor in the square footage and number of employees

for industrial space, this proposal would need about 1,600 parking spaces. Um, as part of their request, they did they did instead elect to utilize the IT standard for industrial flex space, which is the industry standard for this type of use. factors in a number of different studies um peak hour trips, you know, expected weekend weekend trips and creates an acceptable range of um required parking spaces per use type. And that is how we go from 1638 spaces to the 216 proposed based on the standard. In terms of the industrial building floor plate or you can think of the footprint of the building itself. The code by um the code standard only permits 32,000 as a maximum for industrial building types. As part of the proposal, as I mentioned, 40,040 is what they're requesting per building. In terms of building orientation, the general standard of the code is to require the primary facades of all buildings to face public rights of way. As we mentioned the buildings in their orientation are proposed to face north south with the endcaps facing the rights of way. And lastly the gen the standard is 30% building fenistration and this means um the total percentage of openings whether that be doors windows has to be a minimum of 30% for each floor of an industrial building. Next slide please. So the intent and purpose of the or urban corridor design district is to support attached mixeduse development near the town center and permit larger buildings in the most intensive transportation corridor areas. Approval of this proposed turnpike commerce park through staff analysis would enable industrial flex space that does support

that would support job creation near two major the intersection of two major transportation corridors. And through this staff does find that the proposed turnp turn turnpike commerce park excuse me including the re requested deviations does fulfill the purpose and intent of the design district slide. So going through the appearance review board this proposal as I mentioned was brought to the appearance review board in March and through that there were two specific recommendations that were brought or two recommendations that were um that are being brought before you. Number one is that the elevations should be revised to incorporate 30% fenestration which is the minimum as I mentioned for all portions of the proposed buildings that are to be visible from the public rightway. A little bit of context for that. The original proposal that was brought before them did have those endcaps facing the rightway at about 8% fenestration. So a requirement by the ARB was to knock that up to 30% from any of those buildings that could be visible from the ride ofway. And that is how we ended up with the revised revisions you see in the two different elevations. The second was a recommendation that the building floor plate maximum of 32,000 square feet be maintained. Um, based on the meeting, this was not a hard and fast condition, but was passed on as a recommendation for your consideration as the planning and zoning board. Um, as you, as was mentioned, the proposal still does show 40,040 square feet per building. Next slide, please. And as mentioned, staff does find the proposed Turnpike Commerce Park substantially compliant with the town's land development code and the um intent and purpose of the design district and do recommend approval. That concludes staff present. That concludes staff's presentation. We do have the applicant group here who has their own presentation to give, but until then um

staff is available for any questions you may have. Thank you. They have their own, but if you had any questions for staff, I'm good. Thank you. All right, evening everybody. Um, my name is Drew Thpin. I'm with Greenberg Given Properties. Um, appreciate y'all taking some time to allow us to talk with you'all tonight about the Turnpike Commerce Project that we're so excited about. All right. So, I always think it helps knowing who you're talking to. Um, Grimmer Gibbons Properties is a uh, purpose-built Shallow Bay light industrial development company that was born in 2021 when a pair of college roommates decided to forego their orange t-shirts in exchange for some navy blazers. Um, we quickly found a couple of uh, gray hairs to lend us a little

bit of credibility. And voila, we have a uh a partnership that has been focused exclusively on the development of this specific product type. Since 2021, um this would be we're hoping our first project in the greater Orlando area, but since 2021, we have delivered eight projects throughout the Carolas. uh one in Greenville, South Carolina, four in Charlotte, North Carolina, and three in Raleigh. Um we also have two additional in greater Orlando that we're working on, but we prioritized Oakland and this site as our first project to deliver into the greater Orlando area. Couple of highlights of what we're trying to achieve here. So, first and foremost, uh rough cost estimate. We anticipate it'll take us $34 million to deliver this project in its entirety. Um we estimate based on the rental rates that we will achieve and the resulting um tax associated with those tenants that this will generate upwards of $800,000 annually in new tax revenue. Um, a third point that we've started to highlight as we're seeing it become more and more of a focus with towns is we're committed to delivering this in a single phase. Um, I think we've all had that experience of an exciting project being announced and all of a sudden it's 5 10 years of orange construction fencing and loose dirt and dump trucks. And that's either because the developer decided to phase it or because there were issues with financing. Um, we're committed to delivering this in a single phase. It would be right at 12 months from start to finish. And we've already secured the financing for the entirety of the project. So, no concerns about having to

pause midway through because we're trying to cobble together loans or additional equity. And then the last uh item to highlight is that this specific product type, this shallow bay product type that we'll explain a little bit further is a high job creator um that will create jobs that currently almost certainly don't exist here in in Oakland. And so it would be filling um a bit of a gap in a town that you know that commercial engine um doesn't really locate here within Oakland and we want to provide space for those jobs for those businesses to be here in Oakland. So this this product type what is it? Um the the easiest explanation is that this product type is for groups that need the hybrid of office and warehouse. So if you need just office, we're not for you. If you need just warehouse, we're not for you. Um an example is a cabinet supplier, an installer. They need because they're going to have oftent times their clients, their customers come to the space. They're going to need something from the front, as you can see on this picture, that resembles singlestory office. It's got large 8 foot bay windows. It's heavily landscape or industrial product. It's something that their customers would feel comfortable um entering into. And in the front of these projects, they will have office space where they probably have a showroom. They probably have some sales offices, some accountants, some admin. All of those office support roles. Those go in the front of the building, but they also have to have within that same space the warehouse because at the end of the day, they are selling that service. And so they need to have a space for their product, for all the

cabinets, for all the hardware, for all the poles that their installers then pick up and bring out in the community to install that product. So, that's a perfect example of what our product caters to, those types of service-based tenants um that are currently incredibly under supplied throughout Oakland and it is consistent with the commercial area that's planned for this site. Uh this slide tries to answer the age-old question they always get that we always get of who are you going to lease this to? And unfortunately, the honest answer right now is we have no idea. So, we build speculatively, meaning we have no idea who we're going to lease to. We build in advance of having any tenants signed. What we do is we identify sites and markets that have the demographics that we believe support this product type and then we build a product that is the most flexible and utilitarian for as large of a net of tenants as possible and then when the project is delivered we lease to the tenants that at that time need space and you'll see here that that creates a incredibly diverse rent role. We're not the type of product that is focusing on one specific sector and becomes really exposed to, you know, macroeconomic recessionary forces. We are very diverse, which allows this product type to stay well occupied throughout any sort of cycles that may happen economically. um our site. So Taylor went over this. Um we're we're straddled right here between Colonial and and Turnpike. Um the the site plan was was also showed. If you can think about conceptually what

this site plan is, it is for um identical footprints and they're oriented in a way that you've basically got two pairs of buildings that are set up backtoback with shared loading in between them. that is the most um efficient layout from an access and circulation standpoint to our tenants but also from a yield standpoint for the site and for its layout. Um now on the specific variances and Taylor mentioned all these we're going to give a little more information and kind of our justification for for these requests. We try whenever we can to present a project to uh fit within all of the code and ordinance requirements, but invariably there are some instances where where we can't. And so we want to provide an explanation for the variances that we're asking support on. Um the first one is around that brick screen wall that is specified when you have commercial budding residential. we have proposed instead is a 15 foot um opaque landscape buffer. So would accomplish the same screening as that physical brick wall, but it's more consistent with the expectation that this entire area is going to expand out into additional commercial growth. It'll allow for more connectivity when that happens. And it is consistent with what was previously approved. They're essentially asking y'all to um support what was already approved for this.

Can we just go back to the previous slide and Yeah. And and you could highlight where this Yeah, good point. perimeter where you're talking about this. Yeah. So, right here, this this is the eastern edge. This is what we're talking about.

Okay. Thanks. Um so, the next the next variance was requested around the the parking as mentioned. Um, current code uh specifies a a wildly high number of parking spots, over 1500, which just for a bit of context, um, a Walmart Super Center typically doesn't get to a thousand parking spots. I think we've all known and seen that sea of parking. Um, that's not even a thousand parking spots. Um, we're proposing 216, which our justification is kind of around two things. The first is um our analysis internally of that portfolio of projects that we have that all have the same uh kind of ratio of parking and never once on any of our projects have we seen anything close to a parking conflict. I'd be hardressed to find any of our projects fully leased that are even 50% parked. So we've seen that anecdotally at our own projects. But then more objectively is it metric which they go out they analyze hundreds thousands of industrial projects just like they do for apartment or office and for each they come up with that product specific demand criteria and for industrial they come up with right at one per 1,000 square feet. So that gets you to 162. We're almost exactly 33% more than that at the 216 verse 162. Um, the last three variances I'm going to be kind of hopping back and forth because they are all sort of interconnected and we're trying to fit two things together where we're trying to achieve the um yield that we need in

order to hit the economics that make the project viable while also trying to um address and support the town's concerns around um perspective and how this project is going to be received visually. And so all three of these you're going to hear a similar kind of narrative and explanation because they're they kind of circle reference back to each other. But the first one is around the building floor plate. Um as mentioned current maximum for industrial is 32,000 square ft. ours are right at 25% more than that at the 40,040 square foot number that um Taylor mentioned. So the the reason that we think that's justifiable is a couple of things. So first off, this is the only remaining industrial industrial identified um partial that we could find within the town. So, I think it would be prudent to not, you know, sacrifice any available yield in the town's last kind of um olden industrial parcel. Um it's also consistent with the other industrial buildings throughout the town that are also over 32,000 square feet. And then lastly is the fact that because our buildings are oriented north south that additional building floor plate is kind of hidden when you think about the perspective. I'll hop back here. So this when we when we think about perspective we think about primary and secondary axises. So right now, because our long axis is perpendicular to Colonial and to Turnpike, it's going to hide the additional square footage beyond that 32,000 square ft versus if these buildings were parallel to um the streets that they were fronting. When

all of a sudden you are seeing that large mass that we know is not pleasant, it's unbroken. it would be more of a um kind of a negatively visible product project versus this orientation hides that additional depth. So it won't be felt the way that it would if it was um oriented parallel to the streets that it's running. Um which brings me perfectly to um the the orientation um where we are oriented perpendicular to colonial that minimizes as mentioned the visual impact of the buildings. It allows us to meet the codes maximum building width provision which was a variance that the previous proposal needed and it allows us to provide enough two-state storm water detention to meet all of the water quality and lake apopkco requirements that we know are so critical um here in in this area. And then lastly um the building administrations. So, as mentioned, ARB, understandably so, was was focused on hitting that 30% finished requirement for all areas of these buildings that are going to be visible. And so, what we've come up with is um a plan to try and um satisfy that while also acknowledging the fact that a significant amount of these buildings in this project will never be visible. um most obviously and permanently because of the turnpike. So this is a picture of you know that circle looking kind of northeasternly back towards our project.

Um th this is what you see right now. So, you are already driving westbound and if you were to attempt to turn your head to look at these buildings while going 40 miles an hour, you you couldn't even if you wanted to. Um, and so because of that, we came up with um this exhibit which essentially um illustrates what we're proposing. So, the three southern fronts that based off of this kind of orientation that we showed that screenshot from, they would have zero windows. Um, no one will ever be able to see this because of that turnpike sound wall and because of um the growth around it. We also have these areas which so so these three faces where you can see um a portion of uh of these these endcaps we have them at 8% which I'll show an example of what that looks like. And then most importantly, these two fronts that are essentially the front door into our project that are visible because of the presence of this storm water pond, we have beefed them up to hit that 30% requirement. And so just as as a visual example, this is what 8% reflects. So this is what this front, this front, and this front would be. And then this beefed up um endcap is what the 30% would be. And what you'll see is we took these storefront windows, moved them along this end cap as well, gave it its own kind of front looking aesthetic and then also added that second level of windows as well. So this meets the 30%

requirement. And this is what we would have along these two end caps. And then um just just as a helpful comparison, so we've mentioned the previous project um how our project and some of our variances compare. So we're maintaining the same landscaping buffer that was previously approved and requesting y'all to support that. We're actually reducing the square footage that was previously proposed and replacing it, you know, self storage versus shallow bay with a significantly higher job creating product type. Um, we are greatly reducing the the visual impact by reorienting the buildings and only having that 130 foot wide width versus the previously approved variance to get all the way to 240t wide. Um so in in short uh as mentioned 160,000 square feet of high jobcreat creating servicebased shallow bay product. It is consistent with the zoning. We're looking to invest uh right at 34 million into Oakland and we think this project will generate from that investment about $800,000 a year in new tax revenue. And I appreciate the time. Happy to answer any questions.

I'm the new guy. I'll go last. Taking a look at your plan. Uh just got to ask, is there any expectation that a semi-truck is going to deliver in these bays? Uh they will. So um how do you achieve your turn radius?

Yes, it's a good question. So um our access can support um the the turning radiuses for 18 wheelers. We can provide um those those exhibits to you. Um the comparison I make for 18 wheelers because people always ask that question. They see industrial and they think um distribution center. There's going to be 18 wheelers bombing in out of here all the time. That is not how these tenants function. um their 18-wheeler is the guest room for their house. They have to have it because there will be instances where they will get 18-wheelers. There will be instances where the in-laws visit, but for 50 weeks out of the year, it is not occupied in that type of function. So, one of our tenants, uh, a cabinet supplier, for example, what happens is they at some sort of frequency, probably once every two weeks, maybe once a month, they will get an 18-wheeler delivery of that intervals amount of product. They will have to be able to receive it, take it off on the forklifts, put those pallets into their space, and then they break down within their space that material, maybe do some light assembly rework, put it into the piles for each person's house, and then their installers who are not driving 18-wheers because that's not how we get it in neighborhoods.

They're driving box trucks. Exactly. Box trucks, sprinter vans. They're the ones who are coming out and 90 95% of the trips are those types of vehicles, but they do have to have the ability to support loading.

Could I ask a follow-up question to yours about the 18 wheelers? One of one of my big concerns, this property, I like this project a lot, but this property has really awkward access with only the exit traveling eastbound on 50. And I'm trying hard to imagine even if it's only six trucks with all of your tenants, six trucks a day, 18 wheelers making a U-turn at Tub Street, that's that's not going to work. So, there's got to be some kind of accommodation for for bigger vehicles exiting this property to head westbound to get to the turnpike, one of the major arteries, and uh and westbound on 50 as well.

Yeah. So, that's

excuse me, a great a great point. It's something that we analyzed in extreme detail because access and circulation is huge for us. Um, we got asked that question endlessly because to your point, it is a limited movement intersection. So, you can ride in, right out, but you can only left in. You cannot uh left out. Um, and because of that, in in our analysis, if you were an 18-wheeler, you would have to go east. You would not Uturn to go west. You would have to go east. I can't think of the street off the top of my head. It's about mile and a half down. and then you would have to cross over south and then you'd have to hop on to um turnpike to go west. So you would not have the ability to left out or to immediately U-turn. To your point, we've gotten comfortable with that.

Well, yeah, but that puts us that puts your U-turn at the intersection of 50 and Tub Street, which is the major residential artery into our town. And that intersection, I don't think will really support 18-wheelers making U-turn. So that means that they're going to travel down northbound on Tub over to Oakland Avenue, make left turn on Oakland Avenue, go down that artery to try and get back to the turnpike. Seems really awkward. Um, is there any way you all can can get another uh uh approach to that somehow?

My understanding is that um that that median on Colonial would not and it's kind of an impossibility to get a left out. They're not going to allow us to to cross over that. Well, but there but there could be a a right but there could be a right away uh if you think about extending your um your long entryway there. Uh, is there any possibility of having a a turn to the east off of there, getting a right of way through through that property to come out to Fourth Street and then there's already a light at fourth street and then people could could turn

so westbound. We would love and that is the eventual plan for there to be a blowth through that allows you know this whole area to at east and then take a left at that light. Um currently we don't have the ability we don't own that area and haven't gotten reception from the sellers on putting that in. That is the ultimate plan for this area. What is that parcel zone next to the east? It's currently residential. The longterm plan is commercial all the way from Colonial down to the turnpike. That whole width is all residential. I think

this the between tubs and the south portion, the southern portion of that that we were referring to for the variance of the wall. That portion is zoned residential, but as you go north, then it becomes commercial. Okay. What is your expected size of your uh tenants? Are are you looking at like cuz in in in previous work experiences I've seen that like 6,000 square foot is your optimal size for the tenants that you're looking for. Um what what is your expectation? Are you is there a plan of like optimization of like, hey, we're going to we're going to put in X or you just going to shell build the shell and wait for the tenants to come is what I'm asking.

Yeah, it's it's kind of um a hybrid of the two. So, we would go down to 6,000 square feet if a 6,000 ft tenant was interested. Our average um each project varies between about 10 and 12,000 square feet. Um that's that's our average across our portfolio. And the way we would lease this up is you got four buildings. Um we would go in ahead of time and uh speculatively build out the entirety of one building probably with four 10,000 square foot spaces. Just have them ready immediately available for anyone who needs them. um these these tenants, you know, we're not leasing to Amazon where they've got a formal real estate department that's looking at their space needs five 10 years in advance. Um what we often say is that it's an owner or a GM who gets a call from one of two people, his attorney or is an accountant. And they're like, "Hey man, your space is up in three months. You got to have somewhere new." And and they need that ability to move in quickly. So we will have that with um one entire building built out. We will then leave the other three open to whatever tenants come along whether it's 6,000 15,000. We don't see large tenants. So I wouldn't expect it's possible but I wouldn't expect to see a full building user. That's not what we're in the building of. We like multi-tenanted. Um but we could see a building split in two and have 220s. Um, but it'll it'll ultimately land in that 10 to 12,000 square foot average.

Is there a reason the drive aisles don't circulate around? Does it for fire, do you not need circulation all the way around the buildings? So, based on the lengths of these buildings and the location, we would have hydrants bas on the southern side, you'd be able to reach the the buildings in in all directions. They're they're they're short enough in length that you don't need that full circulation for access

and having those deadend corridors where you can't I I mean I appreciate that they're you know the outer build the middle two buildings have you know an island that you can circulate around but the outer two don't have that ability. It's pretty long deadend corridor for lack of a better word hotel industry. Um, and you know, not having the circulation around for a truck that gets, for example, if a transport truck goes the wrong way, it's going to be very difficult to get out of there. Somebody makes a wrong turn, feels like they're kind of trapped. Uh, fire, you know, a lot of different reasons other than to maximize the length of the buildings. I get why you did it, but

um it feels like there should be, especially on those two end buildings, a wraparound so that you can circle around that you're not kind of trapped in there. Yeah, we've we've done that on some projects. Um we So, these would be heavily signed.

So, there'd be signage, you know, directing people on um where to go if they're trucks versus um vehicles. So to avoid what you're talking about about someone, you know, driving down a dead end and now having to do kind of the Austin Powers multiple um turns. We've found that there there is not the the need. It's sort of a nice to have. Um but but we found that uh having a a single stretch for this long of a building is sufficient. Where's your garbage? I mean, I got to imagine that these guys generate a ton of trash. Um, so where are you where are you putting garbage collection for these guys? Yeah, so we put it um

yeah, there's two dumpsters at the end. Yeah, two I don't know if you can two dumpsters doesn't seem adequate for the amount of space that you'reing

and what so what what typically happens we'll provide that up front and then um that the tenants if they need more um they can uh you know hire additional dumpsters and they would just be behind the the building. So, so they're blocked from from visibility and they would just sit adjacent to the rear of the buildings. I think we need a more permanent plan for if there's dumpster expansion that it is put in proper locations and that um your reluctance on the on the openings. I, you know, I appreciate the pictures that you put in here, but all due respect, when you're standing at the turnpike and you're looking at it and you got this overbrush that will probably clear it out when you when you do your construction, the buildings are going to be higher than that wall. And so, you will see what these buildings look like from the back. and you know the elevation, you know, it's in in the uh there's a requirement for a reason. What's the reluctance of putting additional windows at the top?

Uh well, a couple of things. So, um the buildings and I'd actually have to reference I don't know the size of this screening wall. um our buildings might be taller than it, but given your proximity to it, if you think of kind of line of sight, there's no way you'd be able to see the buildings um from turnpike um that you're 5t away from this the angle of a pedestrian, you'd be five feet away from the wall. Yeah. But if you're on the other side of the turnpike, you will from people on the other side of the turnpike. Um potentially um you're going to be taller than the turn the turnpike wall is probably 12 feet. Yeah. Yeah. yours are going to be taller and taller. Yeah, we we were focusing on on on the westbound traffic. Um the the reason for it is

gonna be standing there on westbound traffic. I mean, let's let's be honest. It's the turnpike people are driving. So, right, but it's just the appearance from it that these are going to be taller than that wall and it doesn't seem like a big ad to have the additional openings on the on the walls

to limit the variances that you get. Yeah, I mean it's it's extremely expensive um to put in those windows and I and I guess I don't really know how the the code is um applied, but just because you can see the top of a building doesn't mean you're seeing its 30% finished. So you could have a building that extends above a wall and it might meet the 30% down below. You can't see it at all.

Doesn't matter where they where you put them. I just think that uh you know to limit the variance is that we should try to get as close to the requirements as possible and to me I don't you know all due respect to developer too I get it but cost is not not a reason to really try to avoid some variance. Um we're we're trying to fit the project within the economics like you said that we need. So it's it's not the driving force but if if we can't get the returns then the project can't exist even if we could get it approved. Windows are driving returns that much.

Windows are not inexpensive. industrial is that this is um a very premium version of industrial product and so we already stretch our proforma to the nth degree and with now making some of the areas 30% it's it's straining. So how tall are the buildings?

Uh so their their clear height which is what is kind of the industry term is 24 feet. Um that's to the from the floor to the the lowest portion of the structural system that's two feet and then there's a parapit. I don't know if Hannah it might be in the elevations but I'm at their 28 at their highest. We have them at 30 feet on the elevations. 30 ft. 30 ft. Yeah. Is the is the intention for this to be like a tilt wall construction? Yes, sir. Okay.

Um it is it is tilt wall. Um the pictures uh here. So well I think we can do better than that. But one thing to highlight um not sure from how familiar you are with till but a lot of people are are getting clever with till I'm ve very familiar. Okay. And I'm very familiar with the light industrial space.

Yeah. So, it this is I mean quite honestly it I agree with what Mike is saying that like you can't u it's not going to break the budget. He and I are both in construction. He's been at it a lot longer than I have, but I have at least 22 years. So, uh and I've been in your space before, so I totally understand where you're coming from. Uh, I think the overall feeling is that we're we're not asking you to break the budget. We're just asking you to make our town less ugly. So, it's an I mean, it is industrial. It is a industrial bastion. It's the last one, right? So, I I think what Mike is trying to say is that it's I don't know

or solid wall being our defining driving pass, right? You're talking eight windows. Yeah. You know, to break up an elevation that you can see above the wall. I mean, it's Yeah. Again, respectfully, I don't think you're gonna We could We could come up with a line of sight analysis. So I know how to get the 30% finished above the concrete. 30% get better than zero. Better than zero is optimal. Okay.

The other thing is as soon as you start digging these ponds, all your trees up against that wall, they're going to be gone. So um tree tree roots go about, you know, whatever the canopy size is. You can estimate they're probably a little further out than the canopy size. So those trees, I mean, they're going to be gone as soon as you start uh digging the pond. I've dug a pond myself. I'm not um there is what I don't know if you know, Reagan, I think a 30 foot wide F dot rideway that we can't touch where all those trees and foliage are within. So we're not going to be um you know impacting anything right up against the wall. left out would have heart failure if we were doing that.

Well, it's showing a 12oot landscape buffer. So, just trying to understand.

Okay. Um, so one thing to just to go back on the the tilt wall. Um, um, so on the tilt, I just wanted to highlight, you can't really tell. We could show you some better. um pictures. This is not um stamped or stencled concrete. This is actually brick veneer that is cast into these panels. So, it has a really really like I said, suburban office feel um to it. So, I just wanted to highlight that. The dark gray boxes are signage,

correct? Yeah, just for sign. Yep. My my last one just not to beat the varian the landscape buffer against the residential. Are we comfortable that that's going to stay residential or go? Because if this becomes higherend residential parcel, it's basically that developer. They're going to building is the landscaping is not going to fully landscape be the buffer that it is. So bring that

well what's happening on the other side is the is the other development the other side on the other side of street yeah fourth yeah yeah so so there's going to be mixed use on one side and I don't see a highend residential. I don't see that partial stand there. I know folks would want to leave right now, but I just can't see that long.

So, so we're so we're not we're not um go to your administration picture with the 20% 30% Yeah, that one there. Yeah, on the on the zeros. I think we're not asking for you to put windows at ground level. I think we're just asking for maybe maybe I'm speaking for me. I would be happy with just windows above, not not like you the ground level stuff

specifically. Yeah, but you're you're are are we referring We have to be very clear with what we're talking about. So, are we talking about on the uh turnpike side? Okay, we're in agreement. Yeah. Yeah. On ground level because nobody's going to go back. It's cut off. There's no access. But something up high cutouts in your tilt wall with window would be I think pretty easy for us to accept. So, if we were to add in and I don't know if you can see my cursor, this elevated strip

on the on your south facing side, um, if you guys could manage that, I think that would be a solution for us. Okay. If that's something that y'all would support, um, we can we can support that. Elise, how do we do this? Um, do we need to go line by line through the variances or So, first you need to open it up to the public for public comment. Yeah.

And then when you bring it back, your motions can be very specific as to what you want. You can go line by line through the variances. Yeah. Or you can just address the variances that that need changed from ARB's recommendation. Okay. That's this chair if you can speak into the mic just so we can catch it on the record. Yeah. Especially this part. Okay. Variance number one. What are Let's fine.

Okay. Okay. You all need to turn on your mics, please. Sorry, Ed brought up a good point, so I'm I'm good. Okay. Yeah, I'm good with it, too, because especially if they get the cut through uh eventually down the line and they're getting semi-truckss going through there. No one from a high-end residential is going to want someone was in past their their windows. No. Yeah, I'm okay with that, too. Variance number two, parking. Yeah. Neither do I. No issue for me. Okay.

Building floor plate. only issues on the two outer buildings and not have I think it's a bigger deal. I get I get their position, but I I think it's

I think both of those is the both the trash issue and the um wraparound issue are going to be handled by Orange County because Orange County is going to require them to basically provide enough trash containers and it's going to have to be fully screened with a drain in it um for Orange Countyy's regulation. So, I can just touch on that point too. The concept essentially we're reviewing a preliminary site plan through this process as it moves if this were to move forward to receive final approval. This would essentially be the foundation the template that would still need to go through a final engineering review which as you mentioned would need to obtain approval from the county in return in regard to fire safety circulation access standards. So all of those elements like you mentioned uh in addition to solid waste would need to be addressed once it reaches

okay the final review stage they're they're going to look at the b the proposed tenant layout and then they're going to um require them to those are some of the reason don't touch I guess yeah I'll let them solve in so and then number four be building orientation No either. No issue. Me. All right. Building fistration. This is the one where we want to be very specific and adding fistration to the second level of the

on the south end of the building. Yeah. The turnpike elevation. Can I just clarify that real quick? Which buildings are you saying? All buildings or four buildings. Okay. I'd like to open it up for public forum, please. Please, when you get up there, state your name, your address.

All right. My name is John Gil, 19 West Saddler. Um, I'm also a member of the ARB. Um just the one thing I really want to clear up is when we made the motion for the fenistration particularly that we wanted 30% on all end caps north and south now with the wall just having that I like the way you guys just wanted at the top that's fine that's cool but all four north end caps are all visible like on this picture all these all This bush here in the front, that's gone. It's clear. So, all four end caps are going to be visible. So, when we made the motion, we wanted 30% penetration on all endcaps. Just wanted to bring that up because somehow visible got into the verbiage. That's a long story, but um like y'all to really consider the 30% at least on the north. It makes a good point.

This bush is gone as I drive by. I was trying to think where the bushes actually went back to because I know Yeah, there's been a lot of clearing back. reason because the homeless it is visible now they're behind my neighborhood.

Gentlemen, ladies, my name is Don Huber. U 522 West Second Avenue in Windermir. I'm the property owner. U one two things I want to bring up. One was the concern about the truck traffic and how they there might be a U-turn and we had that concern even with the storage uh storage facility we were proposing. We we came up with the uh well with the consensus from the town and and us that we would go ahead and dedicate the road coming in with the intent that whenever the people came in to the east of us for whatever they were going to do that there would be u a road behind their southern portion and we would tie it in. you would be able to get out the tubs so you would have access to the light. That that was the whole reason we gave the right away. Um even if you look at the look at the house to or look at the the property to the directly to the east along the turnpike, it's um I mean anything they do out there if they plant trees, it's just hor it's it's terrible the way it looks. Um, I can't, you know, I've had discussions with the land owner myself and um to no avail, but anything they do I think is a is uh going to help help the looks of what goes on. And I kind of was a little bit shocked myself when I when I noticed the trees had been taken down along Highway 50 uh in the last couple of weeks. We were discussing that coming over, how they got through Orange County with that. That's that's an interesting conversation. Um, but I I really really think that uh that they have designed a superior

product. U I I think I and I agree with you on the on the the u the windows at the top of the buildings on the along the turnpike side. And I just hope that everyone here will support what they're what they're recommending. Thank you. Thank you. So, do we want to revisit the variance number? Mr. Mr. Chair, at this time, if you could call for final public comment and close close the public hearing.

Does anyone else want to speak? Okay, we'll close public forum. Welcome. Little rusty. We haven't had one of these in a while. Okay, let's revisit variance number five, the second level administration. Thoughts?

You brings up a great point. So, I mean, I think, you know, our we've been trying to unify the, you know, although I'm I have no opposition to this project. I really don't. I I think it looks great. I think you guys have done a great job, but I do think that window I just think solid concrete walls is not the intent of what we want. That's why we have the rule in in wherever it's at in the code or whatever. And I think we should stick to it. And so if it was part of ARB that their wish was to have 30% on that, we should support that requirement and keep that in that be 30% on the on the north side and that we just have the clear story on the on the south side.

Okay. So I'm going to rewind. you we're okay with not having finished on the on the rear if we have it on the front. Stick to the north and south top. Just the top and the south on the south and fully on the front. Okay, got it. I mean, it's on I'm just having to write this down because I'm going to have to put a motion together. So, They've got 30% on two buildings as it is. Correct. 30% on the other. Okay.

Well, especially with the the bushes and the trees being gone down too because if two of them have the 30% and the other two have less than that when you drive by it's going to look good with the square foot given the added square foot building. So, I think compromise. I agree. Do we have anyone? No, we can go let's go variance by variance. I think that's the easiest way. That okay. Are you good with that, Garrett? Yeah.

Motions start. We start. Do we have a motion for variance number one? Yes. I make a motion that we accept variance number one, landscape buffering as requested. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. Motion passes. Make a motion for variance number two for parking that we accept as as proposed. Can I have a second? A second. All in favor? I number three building floor plate

motion to accept building floor plate 40,000 square feet 40,040 ft as proposed be accepted. I second. All in favor? I I motion for variance for building orientation that be accepted as proposed. I'll second. All in favor? I call. Okay. All right. So,

so for var variance number five, building administration, make a motion that we require the developer to have 30% administration on the north side of the buildings facing 50 Colonial and on the south side they include the second the upper story clear uh windows as shown on architectural rendering number two on all four buildings facing the turn. I'll second. All All in favor?

I I motion passes. That's it.

Need to do anything more?

Good. Good. All right. If that's that's it, we're officially adjourned. Thank you. Oh, so sorry. So, sorry. Sorry. That's it for that one. Sorry. I forgot about you, Elise. I'm sorry. Forgot about Thanks, guys.

Thank you. Everybody who's remaining, we're going to be talking about cell phone towers. Soon as it's ready, we'll get going. So, we have a telecommunication tower ordinance just to fix up our current ordinance a little bit. So, I let me walk you through that. Um, we had been approached previously by a couple companies that wanted to were interested in putting additional cell towers um into town and so we wanted to kind of control the narrative just a little bit. Um so ordinance 2026 would update our current code um to align there's additional technology needs as we all know if you've ever been in town center and tried to get cell phone service it's horrible um with more people on the networks and trying to compete for for that um it's become an issue and people working from their home constantly complain that we don't have enough of a signal. Um, in addition to that, public safety. So, sorry.

I'm so sorry. Can I get a point of clarification from the board on the on the previous motions? Sure. I'm so sorry, gentlemen. The previous motions, those were all to uh recommend approval of the project to the town commission with the with subject to those variance approvals. Correct. Subject to those variance requirements. That was the Yes. that can just be reflected. Yeah, that's what Kathy was asking.

Taylor, we were just discussing um the the way in which the motions were made. The way I understood it time was that the board was approving um the individual variances in as uh in the course of recommending the overall project itself to the town commission. uh if if we need to go back and reopen it just for them to make that clarification, we can, but I we did have the other project requirements that needed to be recommended soon. Right. So, theoretically, you're saying it's an overall approval of the project with the conditions. Yep. Okay.

Subject to the variance uh approvals previously just just so we can pour that on. Yes. Very good. Well, um I know our applicants left. I don't think they'll mind us just clarifying that for the record. So, if someone wants to if we can reopen that agenda item just clarify for the record that that final. So, does he need to reopen it or go ahead? Nope. You guys already went through it. I think it's just clarifying that um you all are recommending approval commission approve the project subject to the variance approvals that were made.

Does anyone like to would anyone like to make a motion to approve the project with the noted variance uh requirements for approval? Sure. So, uh, I, uh, make a motion that we approve the project as presented subject to the individual variances and their associated motions that we passed earlier. All in favor? I I I believe that was the intent of the motions you guys previously. I mean, it's just clear. Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you for keeping us out of trouble.

Okay, moving on. Um so so the ordinance will amend our land development code. Um it would provide limited and controlled opportunities to locate towers on town owned land. Um I'll go into some of the restrictions that would still apply. Um which gives us a little more oversight and control over those towers. And then part of that is for safety and security. So to allow additional um signal to reached public safety folks um so that we don't have them you know in town center not being able to get a a clear signal. Um currently what our ordin what our code says is that towers are restricted to industrial zone and require special exception approval under current land development codes. So that's why you see them right now. We have two. There's only one active one over by ABC bus. Um, as you as you just heard from our previous um applicant, you know that there's limited industrial properties left. Um, so that's why now we're looking at making a little change to the code. Um, the code currently limits tower heights to 100 ft and requires a minimum twomile distance comparison, not restriction, um, but comparison between towers. And then um current restrictions may hinder adequate wireless coverage like I said limited industrial sites left to site towers on um and then it's just updating the regulation to make make it make sense for our current needs. So basically I just went over all these um public safety importance flexible sighting benefits and then just amending um the code. So this would limit new infrastructure for town-owned R1A properties only. So what this would do

is say townowned R1A properties would be eligible through special exception to apply for a cell tower. Um the increase in tower height would be to bring it up to industry standards. So currently what we're hearing from the industry is 150 ft is typical. Um you would still have to meet right now the code says you could not be you have to be two times the height um from residential. So that would still apply here. So instead of being 200 feet from residential be 300 ft from residential. um we would actually mandate through this code change that the minimum separation would be decreased from two miles to one and a half miles. So that would no longer be something you'd have to call out. It would actually be a restriction to the code and that would limit um pretty much additional cell towers from coming into town unless they can meet that requirement. So right now the site that we're looking at is behind um the police department behind there's a lift station back there. It would be in that area. That's the site we're actually looking at and it's 1.8 miles from the ABC site. Um we it's not in the code, but it would be in our RFP to only use monopole tower designs. No trees. Um no ones with guywires and those kind of things. So it would only be limited to monopoles. So again the public safety benefit, public safety and enhancements um centralizing tower development on town own property efficient land use reducing visual impact in neighborhoods. It would allow for potential revenue opportunities. Now what that looks like and I know this could be a question. We

don't know exactly how much that would be normally. How that works um is that the company pays you for use of the land. So like a land lease and then they pay you per um company that is up on the poll, right? Up to and normally they only go up to four. So they pay you a percentage for the first one that goes up, a percentage a higher percentage for the second one, so on and so forth to get to four. In addition, we would ask them in the RFP, well, we would tell them in the RFP that we would want to have public safety equipment potentially up on there for the safety and security of the town. So, it would allow us to have additional safety equipment up on the tower as well to get a better signal. Um, so the planning and zoning board reviews land use and policy aspects and provides a recommendation to the town commissioner for final decision. Um, as I said, this will this will not be the last. If we were to come through and say we actually want this specific site to go through this process before we go out for the RFP or in conjunction with RFP, we'd have to bring it back through the special exception process, which would mean we would have to notify all the neighbors, surrounding neighbors. It would be a public hearing process. So they'd have neighbors would have another opportunity to come input on the site itself. So that's basically it. Next steps would be a first public hearing for the ordinance and with town commission on April 28th and the second one and final one on May 12th. And we're recommending obviously approval of the ordinance um and for you guys to transmit a favorable recommendation to the town commission. And if you have any questions, I can try to answer those. Yes, Ed.

Um, this is all right. I mean, we have other R1 properties, but with the proximity to residential, this is the only one we're looking at at this time. Well, okay. So if we were to do another one, it would be out on the west side of town, which would be in too close to the current ones in the industrial areas. So that's why this to me, this is kind of one and done. Mhm. Could we use the water tower as a cell phone type? Yeah. Have you seen that when they do that? I have. Yeah.

Yeah. It's it's it's a little ugly. We're we're not um and that's too close to residential as well. Okay. I thought that was enough of a buffer. I guess not. Yeah. Look, as a frustrated cell phone user in the town, anything we are trying to do to improve, it's one of the biggest things that comes. It seems like everybody that newly moves into Oakland Park, that's the first thing they say is 100%. Yeah. So, I'm shocked to hear that. It's great that the town has taken a proactive approach to trying to make life easier, especially our dependence on those little devices now. Two of them. So do I. So lucky. Yeah. I'm really lucky. Yeah. Unchained.

Is there anyone present who would like to speak on this item? Hearing none. Seeing none, I'm closing public forum. Go ahead.

Garrett, how would you suggest that? Yeah, per perhaps you can um point out any any notes you have here so that the board can make a census recommendation. All right.

So in paragraph 143.1 it says strongly encourage shared use. I think that we shouldn't be encouraging requirement is the requirement actually is stated in 143 seven already. So I think we can there's also consistency.

Okay. I I think these are the kind of I I think those are perhaps different uh they're they're different terms because they are different structures. I think they um

but they're referring to they're all referring to there's a couple in here and you're saying to get rid of the the term for the for the prior object you described and just call it a telecommunications tower first tower call it It's an antenna. Let's call it an antenna. Not

I I can look at it. I think the I think the stat I think the telecommunication tower statute uh or statutes um differentiates between those two. They're different. Yes. Yeah. Yeah.

What what's the sub paragraph? number.

So uh so 413 talks about the proliferation of unnecessary support. What we're really talking about there is we're not restricting Okay. Yeah, that is if that's something you want uh in making the motion to recommend approval to town commission if you want staff to further refine that language for clarity. That would be my motion.

You specifically antenna support structures is what you're saying?

Yeah. Some other says it doesn't say 4137 encourage a reduction number. That's the same item. That's the same Sure. I'll I'll I'll go through and look at it again to make sure that it's not referencing two separate um items and then if it is referencing the same item, we'll go we'll go ahead and make those.

Do any other members have questions or comments? Can I have a motion?

I make motion that we recommend acceptance to these changes to um this document whatever the proper name is ordinance the ordinance uh 26-1 01. Okay. Recommend approval to the town committee. Yes. Recommend acceptance of the of the changes to this. Okay. Does anyone want one second? Sure. Right.

So, we are trying to approve ordinance number 2026-1, the change to the telecommunications tower portion of the town ordinance or are we approving the motion for that or the motion for the changes to the changes? If I may, Chair, it's it's just a the I believe the appropriate motion based on the discussion would be to uh recommend approval of ordinance 2026-01 to the town commission uh subject to the uh the modifications discussed by the board. Okay. If the member wants to amend the motion that I think that would be I think that satisfies all the questions.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, let me amend the motion that we uh propose that the town commission uh we recommend to the town commission that uh these changes be accepted into the town ordinances subject to some clarification of language that was discussed here. Yep. That was discussed at the meeting tonight. All in favor? I motion passes.

Who seconded that? Okay. This meeting is officially adjourned. Thank you very much. Going to go through