Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Heat up here. Here we go. We'll call to order the U February 25th, 2026 planning and zoning board meeting. Bobby, call the role, please.

Rich Deli, Gigi Dbeck, here. Paul Fischer, Robert Hartzo here, David Mingus here, Carla Coleman here, Fred Stacer

here. Okay, we still have a quorum. We have five, but we have a quorum. Um, all right. Next item on the agenda is um our traditional moment of silence. So, if you would at this time um for the next 30 seconds, we'll serve a moment of silence, please. Thank you. Okay. Uh, next item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes of the January 28th meeting. Chair will entertain a motion. Mr.

Chairman, I move approval of the minutes of from January 28, 2006. 2026 26. Yeah. Second. Okay. Any questions on the motion? Okay. Um, I'll be call the role. Carla Coleman, yes. Robert Hartzo, yes. Gigi Dbeck, yes. David Mingus, Fred Stacer,

yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is individuals who want to speak tonight. will need to be sworn in. So, at this time, if you would stand and raise your right hand, and Bobby will swear you in. Thank you very much. Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. All right. First item on the agenda is um parents information and resource center flex unit request PNZ25-0550 owner's parents information and resource center inces 817 North Dixie Highway. This is Dolan. broke the computer.

Oh, okay. I don't know.

Good evening, board. Gan Dolan, Development Services. This is our request by the parent resource information center for 12 flex units. As you know, last month it was postponed by the board until today. So, the request is by the applicant uh covered by Keith on behalf of the property owner. They're requesting 12 flex units to enable an existing office building to be converted to residential apartments. Does this sound really echoey to you? Okay. I'm just going to stand back a little bit.

Okay. Um, the building is referred to as the parent information and resource center and is located at 817 North Dixie Highway, which is south of Northwest 9inth Street, east of North Dixie Highway, north of Northwest 8th Street, and east west of North Dixie Highway, north of Northwest 8th Street, and east of Northwest Second Avenue. Since the site is less than one acre, it is exempt from any affordability requirement. The applicant intends to have all 12 units unrestricted in regard to income and affordability. So there were some challenges with this request when staff you know got into it. Uh chapter 154.61 which you know governs the authorizations of flex units does not specifically prohibit the use of flex for office building conversions to residential use. However, the requirements for flex are designed more for new construction and redevelopment. These same 12 flex units were granted to this building previously in 2003 via resolution 2003-296, but they were not used and expired. The conceptual site plan typically required as a condition of approval for flex units will in this case reflect an existing condition which does not meet modern zoning requirements in some aspects. The site plan, floor plans, and change of use requirements must all be met before building permits can be issued. The cost of conversion given the age of this building are quite extensive. This building was built in 1954. Some of those costs will include an analysis of the basic structural integrity, whether there's asbestous and lead pipes um still in place, installations of kitchens and bathrooms and accommodation for laundry facilities, upgrade of electrical for HVAC and other basic residential

electric service needs and interior and exterior metering and water wastewater utility infrastructure upgrades, firewalls, and other life safety considerations. ations would also have to be uh accommodated during the change of use. Given the cost of the conversion, the actual use of the 12 flex units may not be economically feasible. But that said, there are criteria for a flex unit allocation. consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan and the use of flex units will produce a reasonable development pattern and the criteria for reasonleness shall include compatibility of adjacent land uses and suitability of the parcels for various development patterns. Staff does find this is compatible with the adjacent land uses and these are the three uh comp plan uh policies that address that specifically for uh increasing densities and using flex units. This is the context of the site. It's just uh Sonata is just to the south. So, everybody kind of knows where Sonata is. That's a good land landmark. Um to the north is a small two-story mixeduse building that recently has gotten painted. Looks a lot nicer than it did. Um and then to the rear of the building on the other side of the vacant lot. That's actually a residential rehab facility, which is one of the nicer ones in the city. It's very lovely. So, in context, it's not a bad conversion for this building. So, our our alternative motions and recommendation, uh, it's kind of lengthy, but I'm going to go through it all because there's a lot of conditions of approval. Alternative motion one is to recommend approval of the required 12 flex unit allocation as the board finds the applicate application is consistent with the aforementioned pertinent future land use goals, objectives, and policies with the following conditions. Should compliance with any code requirement result in changes to the site that

necessitates site plan approval, a new development order for a site plan for the property may be required. Number two, the following must be approved or must be provided prior to building permit. A retroactive landscape plan, a site plan with tabular data that demonstrates compliance with all applicable zoning regulations such as lot coverage, pvious, impervious area, minimum unit sizes, etc. An approved Broward County drainage permit, utility plan showing internal and external utility infrastructure and connections approved by the city utility department. A life safety plan. A septed plan. Approval of a change of use permit. All fencing must be brought up to code. All trash management must be code compliant. Plans that show all unnecessary pavement to be removed. complete the right-of-way dedication for the Northwest 8th Court to provide the required 50 foot width which is 25 ft to the center line. Plans that include a sidewalk along Northwest 8th Court plans that meet all code requirements including the DRC comments issued for this flex unit allocation. Number three, if a building permit is not issued within two years of the approved date approval date, the applicant must request an extension of the approval of this flex allocation or it will become null and void. Alternative motion number two would be to table this application for additional information as requested by the board and staff does recommend uh alternative motion number one. So typically when we take this to commission, we'll have a resolution and the conceptual site plan will be attached. Since there's so many conditions, we had them actually add that to the bottom of the site plan so that when the next staff person when they come in for a building permit, they'll see there was a lot of changes that were required and that will inspire them to go make sure they know exactly what the flex

resolution says. So, I can take questions from the board or we can turn it over to the applicant at this time. Okay. Um, anybody have any questions to the board before we the applicant? Okay. Um, Mr. Chair. Yes. Just before we start, I just want to recognize that Rich Deli did show up here at 6:05 p.m. And we'll reflect that in the minutes. Sorry for the delay. Traffic. No problem. I saw you had called and I didn't realize you had called. Then I called back. So yeah, I was driving. Sorry. No problem. No problem. Okay.

Thank you. Good evening. Uh Josyn Aldez, 301 East Atlantic Boulevard. Um as mentioned, tonight we're going to be reviewing parent info and resource center flex unit allocation. Um, so just a little bit of history on the site. The building was originally constructed in 1954 as a residential building with 12 units. Um, due to the widening of Dixie Highway, the original parking was moved to the rear of the building. Um, and the building was converted to offices in the mid to late 2000s. So in the first image, we can see when the parking was right along Dixie Highway and the last two images, we can see the parking moved to the rear, which is the existing condition today. So the site is zoned B3 general business um the property of 888 gross acres with 21 parking spaces and as mentioned the surrounding uses are commercial and residential. Tonight we're requesting um flex unit allocation of up to 12 units um to convert this existing office building back into residential apartments. Um the office residential conversion is compatible with the surrounding uses and the 12 units were the 12 flex units were previously allocated back in 2003 and as mentioned they were never used. Um all the proposed units will meet current code and they will go through the building permitting process. Um and overall this request is consistent with the following policies and the comprehensive plan. Um I do have the owner here with me today to answer any questions. Okay. Um, any questions at this point?

Mr. D, I'll let Mr. D. Thank you. I'm sorry, Mrs. Coleman. You're more than welcome to go first. I I No, no, I go first enough. That's fair. Um, this actually is for staff. Uh, Jean, um, based on the B3 zoning, are they eligible to have any units or is it just because they're looking for the flex because it's a B3? Correct. Yeah. Uh commercial land use is what controls what your entitlements are, not the zoning. But there is no uh residential by right.

Okay. That that was just my question. I just wanted to make sure they were they weren't looking to add additional units. It's just that there is looking to put units on there based on it. Thank you, Mrs. Coleman. Um again, let's start with Jean before I get the questions I have for you, Miss Dolan, if you don't mind. Um did I read the staff report someplace that the current density allows 4.35 units or I just imagine that in my head someplace. No. Uh we wouldn't give 12 units if the density was only because it's 46 units per acre under B3. Okay. Yeah.

I'm sorry. I must be mixing something. But um does this building have any historical uh significance at all? No, it's not on the local

regist there was no no reason we would leave a 1954 building standing. Then I I just am trying to figure out this is a really strange request to come to us on a building this old, this renovated the way it's been renovated. Um it seems to me that the that it would be um more economical to raise and start from scratch. Um but um I just wanted to know if it had any historical does this site plan come back to us or is it so small it does not?

Well, right now they don't have to do another site plan. It's only if we discover something during their building permit review that makes us realize they really have to redo their site plan. So So they don't have to come back to us? Not unless we That's why we put that number one condition because we aren't so sure. We're not really comfortable with the site plan, but we don't really have a trigger right now. Well, I'm not really comfortable with this site plan either, which is why I'm asking these questions, especially if we can't we don't even see other than a 1954 rendition of it what it would look like.

Well, this isn't as built of what's there now. So, this is what's there. It doesn't meet all the standards. And again, when you're doing a retro landscape plan, it's never going to meet today's standards. It's just to retrofit the site. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else?

Yeah. Mr. Hartzo, I guess this question probably for G. Probably should have asked you before you sat down. I'm sorry. Why wouldn't this be a reszoning to residential instead of because they don't need to. You can use flex instead of reszoning. Okay. Yeah. Flex exists that it helps you.

The reason flex exists is because in Broward County, Broward County has land use authority. So when you have to do a land use plan amendment, you have to do it twice. Once through the city, once through the county. It's extremely long process. The county wants to help. So they created this flex process in order to facilitate projects so they wouldn't have to go through the ownerous land use plan amendment process. So it's a tool. It's really is a land use plan amendment. It's just a shortcut to one. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. The underlying I'm sorry. The underlying land use is is commercial, right? Okay. So, that makes that's why the res Okay.

Yeah. Let me let me clarify because I think I confused Rich. So, the entitlements come from the land use and that's what the flex comes from because the county has land use authority. So that we have to give them plex units to get to the 46 units per acre in B3. So it's still the entitlements are still coming from the land use. So yeah, it's only 12 units. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. What are the apartments? Are they onebedroom, twobedroom? How big are they? on the floor plans. They're onebedroom, all onebedroom units, and they just just make the minimum unit size,

which is like 563 square feet, something like that. And they're arguing that this is market rate. Well, it Yeah, the market is only going to pay so much for that unit. Market rate doesn't mean expensive. It's just not controlled. I understand. With affordable, you can if you have a restricted or unrestrict, we really should, we call them restricted or unrestricted. A restricted affordable unit just means it can't float with the market. So, if it becomes a more expensive neighborhood, you're still capped. If it's unrestricted, you're still only going to pay what the market will bear, but it can go up and down with the market. Okay,

Mr. Chair. Yes. Being that they're and from what I understand here, they're going to retrofit buildings that are on the site at this point, right? Like they're do they have to come up to code from an external perspective as well at that point? I presume internally they're going to have to meet code, but they have to come up to code from an external perspective, right? Landscape, um, roof, everything, right? It won't be 100% up to code with the landscaping. That's an um what they call a retroactive landscape plan for an existing building because they just won't physically have the ability just based on a building placement and so forth, but they will get as close to the as code as they can. And yes, all the other features in terms of structural integrity and things would have to be up to code

and the and the elevations and stuff. I mean there this wouldn't normally go through because of the size of it. It wouldn't go to AAC. It's done intern. Everything's done internally. And I realize it's a retrofit. So that throws me off.

Max Williams, principal planner and development services. AAC is triggered when there's a building addition. So if they're proposing to paint the building, the AAC won't consider the colors, but as soon as there's an addition to the building, whatever the whatever that is, the entire property would have to be approved by the AAC. So they're trying to they're going to try to do this where they're not changing the elevations and the outside additions so that they would not have to go to AAC. Is that the concept plan provided for this application does not show an addition to the building. Okay. Okay. All right. Um anybody else?

Mr. Just to be fair, I would like to hear I'd like to hear from the owner as to why they might want to be doing this rather than why they want to be doing this plan. That's okay. Is that fine? Ma'am, just your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Janet Ward. I'm the president and CEO of the Parents Information and Resource Center known as PERK. We are a nonprofit community um social service agency. Um we do children and adults and and daycare and all those kinds of good stuff. And the the address, please. 817 North Dixie Highway Pump. So you want to know why we wanted to um is let me ask al now that you have identified yourself. I knew this was the old resource center. I did not realize that the old resource center was doing renovation. Yes.

Okay. So can you explain to us are you a profit or nonprofit? Nonprofit. Nonprofit. and and what you see for the future of this building and why you want to do why you want the 12 flex unit that will help us understand better what's going on.

Initially we are a community mental health clinic and we are a partial day hospital program under the Medicaid Medicare um we take private insurance and all that. What happened was after COVID um most of our clinicians before all of our clinicians and our service was done on site but after COVID our clinicians do teleaalth services. So we had all this space all of the space available because our clinicians work via teleaalth. So, we said what our board reviewed what we could do with the building and how we could um u at least help some families um with a place to live because some of our our patients need a place to live. They they're working, they're they have employment, but they can't afford where they're living at. So, we thought we let's look at the option for having it as for working families, working moms and their children. So that's what we thought about and so that's why we said let's see what the options are in terms of getting that done, getting the flex unit so we can um provide some housing for some of our families.

Okay, Mr. Chairman, that's all my questions. Anybody else? All right, anybody in the audience uh want to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, I'll post the public hearing portion. Um, any last minute things uh that the board wants to consider or discuss or any other questions at this point?

Um, well, let me just say I think that that puts a very different light on a project than knowing it is at least for me puts a slightly different light on it than someone a building owner trying to convert a 1954 building back into apartments. I still think it's going to be an incredible challenge, but um I do understand how badly that kind of housing is needed, especially especially for um older family members who u uh have have in their home who is almost aging out if you want to put it that way. And I know that this is those kind of limitations are not put on this facility, but I think the ownership of it uh cast a slightly different light on um a very unusual proposal.

Yeah, I tend to agree with Yeah, same. I I do tend to agree as well. Yeah,

I think that it sounds like it's something, you know, that they're trying to find something that they can do for the community, you know, in addition to what their regular services are. And um yeah, it's probably not for this type of uh group, it's not probably feasible for them to be a semi-developer or whatever. And if they can do it, I think I I probably would lean towards uh being open-minded to this. Obviously, if they ever did decide to sell the land, this would go away anyway. If somebody went to touch as soon as they touch it, it changes the all these parameters from the conditions that you've put in there. So, at least that's the way I understand it.

Hi, Max again, Principal Services. In order for them to actually occupy the units with residential, they'll have to get a change of use permit to change their certificate of occupancy from a commercial use to a residential use. At that point, all of these um conditions would be triggered. So, this operator, if if they choose to operate it in this way, would have to bring the site into compliance before it could be occupied with with a residential use. Was that

Yeah, I I think so. And the other thing is is it's not it's there is basically no advantage to them to do this and then try to flip the property to somebody who might be more intense because that it's not going to comply with any of this stuff at that point. They would have to come up and build a new building or something if they started either a new building or a significantly revised building which would trigger a bunch of these conditions assuming that's we put the conditions on. I mean that's slightly different way. Yeah. Go ahead. If they decided to sell this property after they get the flex units, the flex units stay with the property or or do they go away?

The flex units become vested by a building permit and but this approval is valid for two years until such time. So they could get this approval for 12 units, sell the property to somebody who would then have to comply with this flex approval in order to introduce residential to the property within that two-year time window. Is there any other requirement that you would suggest that we you can think of u to tighten it to this use um that you can think of that we could put in the requirements.

Entitlements run with the land. It's not with the owner. Yeah. What I think what I think is the case though is that if some and I think the Mr. Chair, you alluded to this. If someone comes on and they sell the property and someone comes on to do something, they're not going to retrofit four buildings again to try to do something. They're going to do something that's going to trigger AC and site plans and come back to us at that point. You know, they're going to have to tear down because they can't really fit more onto it from what they're currently doing. They're 500 foot apartments at this point already. Which which would then be a new application for flex and a new site plan. Yeah.

But the 12 units would stay with it. The flex would stay with it, but they if they started redesigning some Okay. It would be they still have to go through the whole process assuming that they did anything that's not going to comply with these conditions. Okay. All right. I I think I'm comfortable now. Yeah. Okay. I just have actually one question for the for the applicant. Does this stay within the And I'm sorry. I know we closed public hearing and we we did all the things we're not supposed to No, no, she can we can call we can ask questions. Is this going to stay within the nonprofit or is this going to turn into a privatelyowned uh unit system for you or whomever on the board?

Our bylaw says that we transfer property to another nonprofit. If there was a point where the we were to do anything or change or merge or do anything with another, it's usually we have to do with another nonprofit. So, um, so we're not having we have no intent of selling the the property. We gave up on that idea. We just wanted to help do the housing, whether we did family housing or senior housing, but it was just so because we have all that extra space. We wanted to use it for for something other than just have it sitting there because all our therapist is at home working. Okay. Okay.

I I finally got it. I think but you had to say it six times but but we I think I got it now and I appreciate your you know consistency. Uh are we ready for a motion? I think so. Unless anybody else Anybody else have any other questions? Okay. No. Go ahead, Mr. D.

I'd like to make a motion. Um in consideration of planning and zoning application number 25005, I move that the board commends that the proposed allocation of 12 residential flex units is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan and recommends approval of the flex allocation to the city commission for their consideration with how many conditions is it? Two three conditions subject to the three conditions approved by staffed by staff. I'm sorry. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second it.

Okay. to get it onto the floor. I forgot to ask. Um, your client's fine with the three conditions of staff, right? Okay. For the record. Okay. Um, anybody have any questions on the motion? Seeing none, Bobby, call the role on item number one. Rich Deli, yes. Gigi Dbeck, yes. Robert Hartzell, yes. David Mingus, yes. Coleman, yes. Fred Stacer, yes. Thank you very much. Good luck with your go help some people.

All right. Next item. Um item number two. You're and this is a major administrative adjustment only. It it has been in the past. um both administrative adjustment and a major site plan, but we're only on the major administrative adjustment today. Major administrative adjustment PNZ25-165403. Um address is 1600 South Federal Highway. Mr. Katy presentation, sir.

Good evening and thank you, Mr. Chair chairman and board members. I'm Jonathan Caddyy with Development Services and the subject for discussion is Vera Major Administrative Adjustment. The property is located south of East McNap Road, north of Northeast 65th Street, Port Royale Boulevard, and east of Federal Highway. The site address is 1600 South Federal Highway, PMPO Beach, Florida 33062. The site is bordered by general business zoning designation to the north and west and to the south it is bordered by limited business zoning designation. To the east it is bordered by multifamily residential arm 20 zoning designation. The applicant is requesting a 12.54% reduction in the number of parking spaces required through a major administrative adjustment for the proposed mixeduse development. The request seeks to reduce the minimum required parking spaces from 343 spaces to 300 spaces resulting in a reduction of 43 parking spaces. The adjustment would allow the applicant to propose a total of 300 parking spaces on site and currently AAC is hasn't been submitted yet because they're NDRSC submitt a review for the proposed parking structure. So here's a larger view of the proposed site plan. So the bottom left is the color triangles. So these color triangles identify a designated use of each of the spaces. Here's a better view. So the applicant is proposing 100% of the residents parking. So 142 spaces, 100% of the guest parking, a reduction of 28% of the office parking spaces, and 100% bank parking spaces provided, as well as 100% retail parking spaces.

The parking regulation for the one to twobedroom unit standards is one parking space per thousand square feet in accordance with the city's code standards for the county's affordable housing policy totaling 169 parking spaces for the proposed residential use. The above parking spaces for the commercial component required and provided by the applicant totaling 174 parking spaces with both the residential and commercial totaling uh 343 parking spaces within the submitted plans. The parking count and allocation identified and a total of 108 parking spaces are assigned to the existing office building whereas 151 is required. This reflects a 28.5% reduction from the required parking space for office use and a 12.54% reduction in the overall parking required for the site. This is a view of the proposed parking structure. Uh last time when they came in, this wasn't a part of the proposal, but this is included to meet the parking standards. And this is an aerial view of the proposed parking structure to the right side of the existing office building. It's important to note that the parking structure is currently in review at DRC and hasn't been approved yet. Should the board find that the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence to satisfy the review standards for the major site plan approval, the development services uh department recommends approval of the major uh major administrative adjustment subject to the following comments and conditions. If this applicant is approved, if this application is approved, the applicant shall record the development order and administrative adjustment

document with Brow County. A copy of the recorded approval should be submitted at the time of the building permit. Maintain parking spaces designations for all uses on the lot for all levels of the parking structures, clearly identifying which spaces correspond to each use or which spaces may be shared. maintain the reduction in the number of required parking spaces for only the existing office building in use as shown on the site plan provided as backup for this adjustment. Subject to substantial conformance to the site plan provided as backup for this adjustment. If major modifications in a site plan are required through the review of the site plan and the revisions result in changes to the terms of the approved major administrative adjustment, the item will be required to return to the planning and zoning board uh for review and approval of a revised administrative adjustment. According to state statute 3 366.94, uh it is unlawful for any person to stop, stand, or park a vehicle that is not capable of using electrical recharging station within any parking space specifically designated for charging an electric vehicle. Ensure that the sufficient parking is available excluding spaces designated for EV charging only. Standard conditions of approval and or specifications required prior to building permit zoning compliance permit issuance plans are subject to compliance with all applicable code requirements including but not limited to DRC comments issued for this site plan. This slide is provided for your reference. You may use either of the two options shown when making a motion on this item. As previously stated, staff recommends approval to the major administrative adjustment. Uh this concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions on behalf of staff and the applicant is also intended to present their case for the item.

Okay. Uh anybody have any questions to staff before we move on? All right. Seeing none, West, you have something for us this evening? It's a little small for me. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning and zoning board. My name is Paula West. I am president of Plan West. Address is 10152 Indian Town Road, Unit 159, Jupiter, Florida. Uh with me, I have um Yuri Herren Tonenov who is uh representing ownership. Um Jean Francois Jer who is part of the architecture team. He's the architect. And Carl Peterson from KBP who is the um traffic engineer. And this is again Vera. So again, I'm sure you've probably gotten it clear, but this is strictly for the major administrative adjustment. This is not the site plan because we made that um that change to provide that parking garage on the south end that actually required the DRC to review. So it's in review now. We're supposed to have our meeting next Wednesday. Um the conditions or the the comments that we've gotten are are good. So just wanted to put that into record. So, this is Vera. Uh, I'm going to go through the presentation again. Again, only for the adjustment uh because I know that we have members here that weren't here in the last time. So, I'll just kind of summarize it all over again for you. So, the property is located uh at 1600 South Federal Highway. Um it is at the south end of the city of Pomp Beach's um limit. Um it is located in the Santa Barbara Shores um neighborhood of the city. And I also provided a 1975 aerial for you to to see. It's been developed since then. Prior to that, it looks like the property had a mobile home park. And then that's just showing the uh the boundaries of the city.

So, a little bit of the project. Um so, the property is just about 2.3 acres or so. Uh we're located in a B3 commercial zoning district, also in a commercial land use designation. Um I believe we are the first project to apply for the uh policy 2164 from the county which um gives us a density bonus for using so much commercial and and actually being called a mixeduse project. Um we are actually so that's something I forgot to mention last time is this board would be allocating the flex units not the commission. So that's a little different. Uh we're proposing a mixeduse development of 132 multif family uh units and about 82,000 or so square feet of commercial which includes that existing office building that you saw in that historic aerial. There is some additional uh retail proposed. Uh the site plan will be reviewed as I mentioned next week um for the DRC. We've gone through DRC four times now. So we've been really really reviewed. Um, and of course we hope to come back to this board for site plan approval in April. Um, and we're also doing uh platting for the property. Uh, so as uh Jonathan mentioned, we are requesting a 12 and a half% reduction in parking. Definitely different from the 20 maybe it was 36 36% that we came last time with. Um, this board is able to grant up to 40%. Uh, kind of some background on the adjustment. The code actually has a minor administrative adjustment that allows up to a 20% reduction. That's under the director of development services. Um you all can go above that to a 40%. So we are under that 20% um because staff and development services director thought this was such a substantial um reduction even if it's 20 12 and a half% that this board should actually um approve that and he he is able to do that. So this is the table

that we've provided in our backup. We are providing 300 parking spaces. We are required 343 and that's also using that one per 10,000 square foot uh parking requirement. So again with the minor administrative adjustment different from the major um if we want to ask of the development services director to approve a reduction up to 20%. We are able to refer to 1555102 K which is the um the different strategies that you can apply to ask for that to justify that require that that request in a reduction. So again I'm going to go through them. We are using three in the code. The first one is a reduction because of transit accessibility. So that gives us a 15% reduction in parking if we have a bus or rapid transit stop within 1,000 ft of this um of a property. So the image in front of you shows that we have three, not one, uh bus stops nearby. One is directly in front of the property. And I also added a slide of the Broward C Broward County Transit uh bus stops. Sorry. So, Broward County bus route 62, bus stop number 10 actually is that one that's right in front of the um of the property and that one actually has a direct connection to the Cypress Creek Tri Rail station. So, in addition to providing bus stops nearby, we actually also have a direct connection to the train. The next uh strategy that we're claiming is the one about special facilities for bicycle commuters. So this gives you a a 5% reduction if you provide facilities for people who want to use bikes to as a transportation method. So it provides for uh showers, changing rooms and bike lockers. So I provided a snapshot for of our site plan showing that we are providing those facilities and therefore we fall under that.

And then the last one is kind of a catchall other category. Um so that one gives us a 10% reduction. And what we decided to do with that um that alternative is to show you that we are actually going to be dedicating a full floor. I mentioned this last time. It's 5,000 square feet of co-working space in that existing office building. So that is a space that anyone who lives in the mixeduse project can then use as working from home as I do can actually use the space to to to work out of. So then you really don't need parking. So 5,000 square feet is going to be dedicated for residents only. Um, and we're also using the IT parking for office use and the ULI parking reduction or reduced parking calculation for guest spaces to show you again we're not reducing any of the residential parking whatsoever, but we're just showing you that there's actually a lesser demand for office space and for uh guest parking. And I like I said, I have Carl here from KBP to explain all of the math that went behind the calculations, but that is the table in front of you. Uh for the office space in particular, the the demand actually ended up being 117 parking spaces for the for the office building. And then for the guest parking, regardless of the number of bedrooms, the parking demand is less than one parking space or one at least. So, I also included in my backup, just make sure I didn't miss anything. Yeah. So, in my backup, I included three articles that talk about uh how parking has been impacted by the pandemic. And before I get into that, I just want to point out that the item before us came in front of you to kind of do something extra with space that was left over because the pandemic has changed the way that we've all worked and the way that office space is used. So, I just wanted to put that into the record. and I tried to find articles that have been more uh closer to today, but still the articles

are still those same three ones. So the first one was from January of last year and it was written by Town Park which is a parking management solutions company that focuses on hospitality. So mostly hotels and things like that. Um the article is basically talking about the ripple effects of the pandemic on parking. So the only thing I wanted to point out in this article was the effects on office occupancy rates in major cities are pretty staggering. So I'm just going to summarize those. So Chicago in the central business district in the busiest area uh there was a vacancy rate of 22.4% in the first quarter. In Boston 23% New York 23.6% in Denver 33.8% and in San Francisco 37%. Second article is more about the trends of of parking. So in this article it actually uh the highlights that I wanted to point out was that US workers in 2023 were about 13.8%. That work from home. So 2023 so starting at 2019 that was 5.7% of US workers. 2021 it went up to 17.9%. 2022 15.2%. So it's kind of kind of doing this. 2019 or sorry, yeah, I already said 2019. 2023 as I mentioned was 13.8%. And summarizing, in 2019 there was 9 million people that work from home. In 2023 that went up to 22 million. So it's definitely going up. And then the last article basically answers the question, is work from home here to stay? Excuse me. So, it starts by talking about how Amazon and AT&T are allowing employees to work from home. And then they surveyed executives and of the executives surveyed, 12% who currently have hybrid or fully remote workers reported plans

for some kind of return to office mandate in the year ahead. Uh many of those actually weren't, you know, completely returned to work 100%. It was like some sort of hybrid uh type of schedule. So, more than a quarter of the planned return to work orders were hybrid in nature, requiring on-site work to only one to four days a week. Um, it talks about how the recession would potentially affect that and it really wouldn't. Um, or a recession, not the recession. Uh, employees are satisfied with the benefits that they're seeing from work from home arrangements, which is includes reduced floor space, floor space needs, better productivity, and lower quit rates. Interestingly, uh, in December 2024, another survey was done. Um, it says that 44% of respondents said they would comply with a return to office policy requiring fully work uh, on site. The rest said they would quit or start looking for another job. Um, and then at the end it says, as of 2025, work from home days account for a quarter of all paid work days in the US. So, it's definitely not going anywhere. And as you could see from the last item, So getting into the standards for the adjustment uh with the with the presentation I've given to you we have addressed uh standard A which shows that we achieve the intent of the subject standard to the same or higher degree than code and then C we impose no greater impacts on adjacent lands that would occur through complying with the specific requirements of the code to address B. Sorry. Yeah. So B asks if we're consistent with the comprehensive plan. So these are the policies that I wanted to list and highlight for you. And these policies are specifically for the city really asking for the city to reduce parking standards and that kind of thing. So first policy reduce parking requirements for residential and commercial uses along major corridors. We're on federal

highway where it can be shown that pedestrian and transit amenities are provided. Shared parking is provided. We're doing that. Second one, revise existing off- streetet parking considering shared parking and parking rates by uses. We're doing that. Revise parking codes to include incentives for mass transit uses and other transportation alternatives that don't require parking. We're doing that. And revised parking codes to allow for parking space credit for transportation options that don't require parking. We're doing that. And I just want to put into the record that I believe that these policies are being kind of met by an adjustment like an application of this type. So that's available for the public. Um last standard uh asks if we provide one or more of the follow one or more of the following benefits. So we do provide the restricted workforce andor affordable housing. We are a mixed income mixed uh use project. We are designating 20 moderate income units uh within the building that are going to be deed restricted. Uh we are preserving 28 trees that are existing. We're adding um we're mitigating 33 of them and we're providing 93 native trees where only 17 are required by code. And then the last one uh we are building above base flood. We're 1.4 sorry yeah 1.4 24 ft higher than base flood for the residential portion and the commercial portion is going to be floodp proofed um to to aid NAB NABD which uh we have a finished floor elevation of 6.4.

And that concludes my presentation. And again, I have Carl here if you want to hear the the fun math. Okay. Um let me just put this into the record that you're fine with the five conditions of staff. Yes. All right. Who would like to go? Questions? Anybody else has questions? I do. Yeah, go ahead.

I think that 43 spots is not enough that we that you need to fulfill because I live in a condo. I also work um at home a few days and Miami the remainder of the time. It's very challenging because if you have at least, you know, two people that live in an apartment, most of them need two cars. Whether you work at home or you don't, you still need two cars. So, you're only allowing one car per unit. So, right there is going to be a shortfall. And I can tell you, most people don't take the bus. This is not a transit market. It just isn't. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. And parking in the city right now is a huge challenge. Really is. And I'm challenged by it every single day just in our small building. And we do have one parking space per unit. And it's a problem. And it's a huge challenge. And I just think it continues to be a challenge. And it's quite a bit you're falling short. I think that you could do better with providing more spaces. That's my opinion.

May I respond or should I just wait until the end? Uh yeah, if you want to. Um I can't exactly tell you what article it was I read, but I did read an article that that talks about how younger people are really not relying on on cars as as much now as they were in the past. Um not you said not not a lot of not everybody uses the bus, but some people do. And I actually can add to that that I myself am using Uber more often. So it's not necessarily just bus. Uber is definitely something that people are using especially to get to short distances. And of course seeing that there's connection to the train, more people are using the train as well. So I just wanted to to just kind of add that there. Oh

hi. Um, idea architects 332 tree northeast 163rd Street North Miami Beach. Um, we actually agree with you. It wouldn't be enough to have one parking uh space per apartment. Um, the way we base our calculation the um the parking reduction would be applying to the office the commercial component of the development. So the numbers are the following. um we actually respect the the the the co- requirement for parking for the residential use. So while we propose 132 dwelling units, we're allocating 169 parking for the residential component.

So yeah, go ahead.

Really trying to wrap like this isn't something that I I want to be against. Okay. So, I want to say that right now. Um, but I I'd like to understand if there's a possibility because I know that the building capacity for the commercial use, the last time we talked about it was something around a 100 cars a day, right? I I think that's the lumber we landed on last time. Correct me if I'm wrong. Uh, but would it be possible to do some sort of flex parking situation within the within both of the buildings have during the day a few of the residential spots be available for the office space and in the evenings a few of the office spaces be available for the residential side. you know, maybe allocating some of those spots be kind of A or B usage so that there is potentially more residential parking for people that left for work during the day and come home at night and that there is more availability for people that leave during the day and the spots for the office are available at that point. Just a thought. There is a lot of parking on the site. It's just how it's allocated and the times in which people are going to be there don't always seem to add up to me. And that's where I'm trying to wrap my head around here.

I'm a little confused. I I would rather not touch the residential parking whatsoever. If there was a sharing kind of component, it would probably be between the commercial aspect of things and not the residential, but I I don't really understand what you were saying about sharing the residential parking. Yeah. So if someone let's just say that there or the guest spaces per se then you know the the guest spaces could be allocated for additional usage for the office overage say that the because that's where you're deficient you're deficient in the office space.

So what I'm trying to say is that yeah there's probably not enough residential parking as my colleague up on the board on the day stated and I'm sure we're up to code. You know what I mean? But to me code is not where it's supposed to be. But if we could allocate some sort of capacity to be flexible from the office space side and if we have to from the other side because that's where you're deficient if you get what I'm saying there. I just want to make sure that we are capable of saying that there would be availability to park in times where people would need it more. Does that make sense? Did you get it that time?

Maybe anybody It see I just want to defer to Carl.

Good evening. Carl Peterson, KPPP Consulting offices at 8400 North University Drive in Tamarack. Your question uh goes right back to December when I stood here and testified. Um although the question wasn't at that time specifically about shared parking, it was about the shared parking manual and the the topic that you bring up is exactly that what we in the industry refer to as shared parking where you share the parking supply amongst two or more uses. So, um I I hear exactly what you're saying, especially with respect to the guest parking because typically for residential developments, the guest parking isn't really in high demand during the day. It's more in demand in the evening. Um so that's to your point a nice trade-off. We can use that guest parking during the day as shared between residential and the office and then in the evening it's available for the residential

and then some of the office spaces could be available for residential in the evening as well. Exactly. If there if somebody has more than an usual number of visitors there's obviously an abundance of parking available there that would be otherwise designated to the office space. I could get on board with the project. Well, the the uh allocation if that were some if that were in some sort of writing, I'm sure that I could get on board with the project at that point or an agreement to something. Okay. Sure. Yeah.

I just have a question because so your code actually does talk about shared parking, but then the city would be a party to it. So, how would how would that work? Would it be some sort of an agreement with the city? That's that's outside of my pay grade. Oh, look. Sorry.

Hi, Max Williams, principal planner development services. Um I I agree that the use of the residential to support the commercial should not really be um the focus. Maybe the guest. I can see that during the day guest parking may may not be in very high demand. Um but but certainly that the commercial parking could be used as overflow. I've been to lots of garages where it says between the hours of X to 6 PM it's it's office only and after such time it's guest parking or overflow for residential. Of course they'd have to have some kind of parking registration program or whatever, but that's for their own operations. Um in terms of the shared parking agreements that the city is party to, that's usually when it's involving multiple property owners or a shared lot that's offsite. um if the site plan that's approved includes a shared parking program for the property itself, the city doesn't need to be a party to it, the site plan would just have those conditions of approval. Um and so that is something that that we we the the standards in our code wouldn't apply in this case because we wouldn't need an agreement. Um the site plan would be that agreement. For me, I would want to see a condition added that on their site plan they'd have a shared parking agreement before I would be able to approve this. Is that is that an acceptable condition potentially? Can we add that as a condition?

Yeah, I I guess I just first want to talk a little bit more about the uses and and how that should be designated. Um the the first issue that was raised that there wasn't was insufficient residential parking, not um that the the other way around. And so um I I did want to that they are meeting our code minimums. I think that has been stated. Um but that with the use of the overflow commercial spaces that may satisfy some of your concerns. I don't know that it does. um with the commercial parking that's where they are proposing the minimums and I I think that they have as part of their backup made an attempt to justify that reduction um to a to a point where maybe we're comfortable with a 20% reduction for the commercial uses there also with the commitment of the whole floor of the office to something that's amenity for the residential use that would be subtracted from the resident from the commercial requirements because now it's a residential amenity space. So I just want to say that as well. Um so all of this to me I think supports the concept of with a shared parking program for the site where 100% of the residential is provided and then some overflow in the evening um may be a supportable Yeah. right where where variable hours are are a factor. Yes.

Um could be a situ a provable condition. I'm not sure. Can can we go back through the actual numbers again because I think there was a slide that had Yeah. Yeah. Because I think it's we're talking in generalities and what our code says and Okay. So, so the way that you this is the legend as as you see it because this that is that 300. Oops. Back up one. Go back to I like the other slide. Is that out to 300? Yes, that's the 300. I didn't want to do the math.

Okay. So, the res the residents the the number of apartment units requires 142 spaces. Correct. Okay. And and it's how many units? 20 something. 132. Okay. So 132 requires 142 plus the 27 guest spaces.

Okay. So if if you divided the build the the project up, then you'd have 169 forund you'd have 169 on the residential side. Assuming we were able to do this 169 for the residential side and for 122 units is that and that's the way you guys are like soal proposing right to do that.

Okay. So go ahead. The math the math on that is what about 1.3 or something 1.4 bases. So, right, it the way that our code is set up right now, if it's a one or twobedroom unit, it's it's one space. Oh, you're looking at overall what is the number of spaces per unit, right? Whatever. I'd be glad to do it. This the 1692.

Okay, so we got 1.38 1.39 almost 1.4 Okay. Spaces per front per front door that are dedicated to the residential side. That's not for in town. That doesn't seem that bad. That seems actually pretty good.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask a questions them both? Now, we haven't heard from audience to be heard yet and I still want to do that. But um Miss West, I uh listened very carefully to what you said about work from home uh and occupancy rates. And I can understand hearing your work from home presentation, but you want to make sure you do 100% of the residential parking. And in my own family, I've got child and a spouse who've gone from two cars to one car because one is full-time working at home. uh and they live in a house. Um but I was also listening intently to your presentation on occupancy rates. Can you tell me what the occupancy rate for the commercial at this site is?

Yes. Um we mentioned that last at the last uh meeting. The occupancy rate is actually about 90 something%. So it's mostly occupied. Okay. Yes. But it would be pretty rare for it to be 100% occupied, would it not? Yes. So, um, is there going to be any marking between the bank, retail, and the office saying you can only park here if it's retail or you can only park here if it's bank or you can only or does that all It's on the site plan. Yeah, it's on the site plan already with that little legend.

Okay. Well, I I was trying to look at all of this on an iPad when I was prepping. So, it's okay. Um, okay. I'm just I'm just trying to get from here to there on but I will tell you that this this presentation makes a lot more sense than the last one we saw. Thank you.

Would you mind going back to that other slide one more time? You guys, every time I look up, the slide's gone. Like, am I that slow? Really? Okay. So, the office Okay. Retail's right and the bank's right. So, the where where it's coming off is in the office space. Okay. Do whatever you want to do. Change it again, please. I don't want to look at it anymore. He's done with the slide. Change the slide. change a slide. Mr. Chairman, there's another issue here.

That issue is, you know, this board has been uh pretty specific about not allowing folks to come before us who have not been approved by AAC.

Now, we've got a site plan, much improved site plan. We still haven't heard from audience to be heard. um that hasn't gone and been approved by DRC. That puts them at very much at risk as well as any approval we do tonight at quite a risk because, you know, DRC may say, "I can't get my firet trucks around. I can't get this around or I can't can't build in that spot because there's a utility ve below it." And I would I would feel a lot more comfortable with this if I had DRC comments on this site plan.

Well, let me ask the staff a question then. I and I think it's to your point. What happens if we turn down the site plan after we approved if we approved this major administrative adjustment but then we turned the site plan down and they would have to change something that would change the parking count. Yeah. Then the whole thing would have to come back in front of this board. Um I can't tell you to to answer your question. We have the comments. Um fire did not have any conditions uh of the redesign. zoning had a few comments that we're going to be talking about and I forget what the other discipline was.

Um the three disciplines that are requiring resubmitt is BSO, landscape and zoning. And if the item was to get denied, they would have to come back for major administrative adjustment to PNZ. Guess one of the condition I believe is the third one. I I understand that. But this is just like the the problems we had with things to us before AAC had. Yes, you know, it would have to come back if they but I don't want to put a stamp of approval on something that has not gone through the process in the right order to to try to keep things that have been approved from having to come back and be approved again.

Well, I I can tell you to speak on the owner's behalf, the idea was to to see if this board approved the reduction, then we can move forward with the project. If the reduction of parking is not approved, project dies. Okay. That's why I thought they were probably doing it and now she's put it on the record. So, we did submit. I just want it on the record because really don't like this to come out of order. We we didn't expect the the DRC having to, you know, re-review everything. So, we submitted for this board and we submitted for DRC at the same time. Just hoping to make every everybody happy.

Okay. It's also important to note that the site plan will also be coming to the PNZ board. So, you also have a chance to look at that as well. Yeah. Um, go ahead, Robert. Try to get like understand the nexus between working at home and the parking. Can you kind of tell me where you were coming from for that? Because I think it it was had said it. She was talking about the residential And to me, I was thinking that you meant that people aren't going to use the commercial tower that's already existing. No. Which one is it?

It was to point two things out. It was to to justify that we could we could provide a co-working space for people who work from home if they need it. But it's also to point out that they are not going to need a car to get to work, which is what the the trend is. So that is also kind of adding to the whole reduction in parking. is theory that they're not going to use the car to go to work, but they would still need a car to go shopping or go to the store or go to a restaurant.

I'm sure I'm sure some people will, but like I said, most people, not most people, let me back up. Some people are using Uber, some people are using the bus, some people are using the train. So, this is really to accommodate those mix that mixture of uses and mixture of of uses of modes of transportation. It seems like a policy issue though for P the city of Pompo to decide whether there they want to reduce their requirements within that not for this board to say I I don't I don't agree with that policy. Let's let's grant an exemption. Right.

I I would argue that the city has done that and in allowing for us to to ask for these adjustments, this major adjustment in front of you and a minor adjustment with the development service which I've done. a couple times before. Okay. And the the other question I have and I don't know if I'm satisfied as much as Carl is even satisfied but I haven't written the same question was in your presentation you have well as you can see from the site plan we're the parking will be consistent with the comp plan but they're not traveling concurrently. So without them traveling concurrently we can't at the site plan because we don't know what's approved.

So I don't know and maybe this is a question for staff. Why aren't these you know don't you require these things to to move concurrently if we got to rely on the site plan that we haven't seen?

We don't require it. We certainly encourage it and we made it very clear to the applicant that if they were to move forward in this fashion that it was at at with great risk. Um I think they understand that and that's why they've requested to be back here today. Um of course they have to resolve all of their issues one way or another which is why we've created this the conditions in the way that we have. So that should through the DRC the site plan be required to be modified in a way that it's no longer consistent with the adjustment we've approved tonight, they'll have to come back for another um stab at the adjustment to match whatever the site plan has been modified to show. And I just want to put on record, so a lot of my clients, if they need some sort of relief, let's just say it's a variance, the project really cannot go forward not knowing if you're going to have that variance or not. So they do the best to to put together a conceptual plan to take it to the zoning board of appeals showing them, you know, good faith that you're actually doing something. You have your design professionals and with that then they go in front of the DRC, the PNZ and all this stuff. So this is kind of similar to that. We've done four reviews in DRC now. And I can tell you the BSO comments are for me. They're crime prevention and I can handle them. Zoning, you guys can speak to whether or not you feel comfortable, but I I feel comfortable that we're going to address those comments. And then landscaping is kind of similar to the zoning comments. So, I'm not really concerned with the DRC comments. You guys are going to see the site plan in April. It is our goal to just get the approval from DRC and then immediately submit to this board and to AEC. I have a question. You've brought this 5,000 square feet of whatever we call this space. Um, co-working space, I think you called it. The, um, how is that is that codified somehow or

or you're saying you're going to do it? Does it What What is that something that I mean, who's to say that that you change your mind and and it doesn't happen? We're offering it. You can make it a condition. Okay. It would We'd have to add it. Okay. Geez, I finally asked a good question. Mr. Chair. Yes.

I know the site plan's not here tonight. Uh but I'm just I was trying to review it. What are the sizes of the units in the building again? Like are they two two families? Three families? I think there's like 10 three families I saw. But are the rest of them two twobedroom? I'm sorry, not three family, threebedroom, twobedroom. What What's the breakdown again? We're going to go back to SL this this is the slide. It's not on the parking slide. I know it. I've looked at that. This is not my first memorization. Okay, so it's there's 10 twobedroom units. The rest are what? There you go. Okay. So, they're onebedroom units and 10 twobedroom units. Yeah. 10 threebedroom units, right? I'm sorry. It's

that's what she said. Two bedroom and there's there's 10 that are threebedroom. Okay. Thank you. That's a lot.

Um Okay. Of course it does meet code. Of course, because code is code. But um I would want to see I I you know what I I I tend to agree with my colleagues that I think that we need to see this go before DRC before I could agree to vote on this tonight. Um but even if this comes back if you guys decide to come back I'm sorry if if it does go someplace and comes back before us I would want to see some sort of shared parking agreement for me to be comfortable voting on this in a favorable fashion. Just putting that out there. So, is that Well, I I don't want to get to that yet because we're not g we're not even to a motion close to motion yet, but um yeah. Okay. Anybody else? Or let's we'll go ahead and open it up to public hearing. Okay. Anybody in the audience like to speak? Yes, ma'am. Come on down. We talked a long time. It's your turn. But but we restricted to three minutes. I'm sorry.

Um I'm Sarah Bolato and I live at 1581 Southeast 23rd Avenue right behind this building um that's talked about. If I understand right, they have built or they have on their a building parking facility that they're adding. If they can add that parking, why can't they add another floor to it and add more parking to accommodate everybody? I'm hoping that we're not going to stay in the pandemic stage forever and we are going to get back to work. I know I don't like staying home all the time. I like to get out and do things. Now, I have sat there on Federal Highway and I've watched. We don't have that many compact cars that go down Federal Highway. They're mostly midsize small SUVs and trucks. And I have watched it during the busy times. I've monitored how many of each one that goes. And as far as people taking the bus, I've only seen a small amount of people that are actually using the bus stops. Now, I don't know about you, but I only use Uber when it's necessary. It's not going to be something I'm going to spend money to go and use Uber for. So, I think that that totally is not a relevant thing. And if you have three bedroomedroom apartments, you're going to need two spaces for cars. and you you can't go for the handicap spaces, you can't go for the visitor spaces and the shared thing. What are you going to do? Put it in their contract. You have to share the spaces you have to do for the businesses that are there or coming in. You can't just take it verbally that that's what's going to happen. I think that we need to get back to where America was before,

working, doing our socializing, and not worrying about cutting spaces. We need to add more spaces because we're not in that walking, riding, bike stage of life yet and taking public transit here and there. I don't see it happening in my time. Now, maybe these young kids coming up, but I really don't see it happening. And I think that by doing that, it's going to reduce our property value behind where this building is by the people that do have rental properties and so forth by saying, "Well, we can't now park on certain areas of your grass. You can't park on the street. You can't do so. I don't vote for reducing any parking If anything, we need to add spaces. That's my two cents worth.

Ma'am, did last time you were here, did you were you the one that asked about the wall? I did. I did. Okay. So, I didn't I don't think we ever answered that there will be a wall.

Well, I would say, you know, on the Fort Lauderdale side by Walgreens, they put a wall because they had to elevate the land up a little from where our property was. So on Walgreens side it's three feet. On my side it's six feet. That doesn't prevent people from sitting on the wall, climbing over my wall to get into my street. But in the back we have all of our neighbors have a fence that we've put up and um you know to keep the cars from coming into our lawns. Um

let me make sure I understood what you just said. The the six foot wall is is on our older property side. It's on the which side? My side, which is Pompeo Beach. Fort Lauderdale had to put a three foot wall because they elevated three. So, they're going to So, let me go ahead and finish and re restate this. So, when the site plan comes because that was on there last time, and we didn't tell you this, but there is a requirement of this development to put a six-foot wall between your property and this property. Now, I think there's a going to maintain their roots from their

their trees. They have that Florida holly which has those huge roots that come up, pick up my pavers, pick up my fence, whatever. If they're going to have native trees, what native trees are they going to have? The ones that are like going to go underneath that wall into our property, into our sewer system. So, so that will be part of the site plan, but they don't allow invasive. I mean, we're not allowed to. I don't know. There's a a Florida holly right there now that's got my fence that used I'm sorry. I mean in a new development you're not allowed to plant things. Oh, okay. Yeah, that that's that's what I'm getting at. So, I'm just I'm just checking because Sure. You know.

No. And that's and that's why I was trying to answer the other question because I realized I didn't answer because I remembered you. Yeah. I didn't answer it last time and I'm sorry. Thank you so much. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Um, is there anybody else that wants to speak?

Oh, yes. My name is Robert Spence. I'm at 1551 Southeast 23rd Avenue. Um, I don't know if you guys ever do the morning commute around 7 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on US1. Do we really need more cars? I mean, we don't widen the highways. We just keep stacking them and packing them like sardines, really. And and as far as, you know, people working from home, not everybody works from home, okay? Some people have to go out and commute to their job. Okay? And I don't know what kind of communist bull crap is this uh this like everybody giving up their cars crap. Everybody riding public transportation. Where do we live? That's all I got. Your name and address, please.

My name Yes, ma'am. Isabelle Christina Cortez. Okay. And I live behind, you know exactly where they're going to build. That's my house. What's the address? You know the address? Address. Oh. Uh 1561 Southeast Avenue. Go ahead. I know I'm concerned too about you know what is what they're going to divide my the behind on my house like the fence. What she said

they'll put a wall. Okay. My concern you know about people going parking in behind. So my house is right there and the pool is there. So I don't know how okay are you want to reduce them closer to the microphone please? Yes. Oh, okay. You know like reduce it. Don't put it too big. Would not be well. Well, okay. Okay.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? We'll close the public hearing. Did you want to respond to any of that? Yeah. I just wanted to to respond to the reason the question of why aren't we adding any more layers levels? It's because of cost. Okay, Mr. Chair.

Yes. Just for purpose before the motion goes forward, I wanted to make sure with the applicant we're clear on the conditions. Um there are five that have been provided, but since the board has conversed on this subject, have been added. One I believe is the one related to shared parking. Um and that is going to be a declaration that would be executed by the property owner restricting restricting that parking or discussing that element of which the city would be a beneficiary of that agreement. There is no party status by the city. The other one there was a discussion about I think it was 5,000 square feet.

It was co co-working space. Okay. And and not sure if the board if the chair if you would restate what the condition. Yeah. How and I wasn't sure how that would actually be. I mean, if how how would you how would you enforce that by like a I'm not sure how you would even enforce that. Again, I'm asking because I wasn't sure.

Well, she's saying that the that the property owner would somehow assure us that that you would have 5,000 square feet of co-working space. Um, and how would you envision that? Um the way that we presented it was that we were designating five an entire floor or 5,000 square feet of the existing office building uh solely for residential use as a co-working space. So like a resial what what what keeps you from changing your mind? How is that to be enforced? Condition of this board would have to this is something we're offering. Okay.

Code enforcement has to enforce that. I I have a little problem with that condition because this building's going to be around for a lot of years. And what if the residents don't end up using it and say, "Why can't you convert that into recreational space? Why can't you convert that into whatever is the big thing 20 years from now? Can we Mrs. Coleman? That is part of the parking reduction though that they're providing that space like they're using that as a uh reason that they can reduce some of the parking is that they're providing that.

They're saying that they would would offer it up, but I I don't disagree with what you're saying, Mrs. Coleman, that that yeah, it might be something because if it was recreational space, you would have no more parking because they would come across the street and use it or something. But I also think that that's getting just a little in the weeds. So maybe we don't even touch them. Well, too too far in the weeds for I get that that's a great amenity right now. I I I also don't want to get too far in the weeds in a private builder business plan in the future. That that just is I think a little beyond the scope of what we ought to be doing.

Yeah. Um but no, I think that we can for now can uh we can view that on site plan and in good faith say yes, we approve it because it's got this on the site plan. Now that doesn't keep them from two years from now changing that, but they can't build other units there. So, you know, it's not like it's it's going to be more apartments.

The the only question I would have um um to the applicant maybe the staff is I thought however that this at least as it was being discussed that this particular square footage was somehow connected to a benefit um that they were receiving. I Yeah, I think she's offering it as a benefit meaning are we reducing that square footage from No, it has not been and Max just pointed that out so that actually helps us. Okay. Yeah, but it is considered part of the parking reduction, right? Like you're offering this up as is Wasn't that like number three or

it's up to you guys? We already have to do a deed restriction for the for the moderate income units if you really want to do that. It could be a deed restriction. But I think Mrs. I like Mrs. Coleman's point better though, honestly. If you guys want to do it for the next 10 years, all I'm saying they're not asking for a reduction in the residential parking. It's part of the office though. This is in the This is not in the the office building. This is in the It's in the office building. They're They're reducing the one floor of the office building is what she said. Well, she's They're reduc They're using it for co-working space, and they're saying that the people would come out of the apartment building to use it.

Oh, okay. I see I see what you're saying there, but that that that's part of their business plan. That that I I I agree with you, Mrs. Coleman. I think we should stay out of that. If if we're happy that they're doing it today, then fine doing it today. But I do not want to get in in the habit from this this getting that deeply into a private owner's business plan. Yeah. No, I'm with you. I once you said that I was like yeah that really when we're making concessions because they're making concession I would want like there has to be some like 10 days from now they could turn around and go no you know what we're just going to not do that and we made a concession

I asked her that originally and that wasn't really a concession and I mean it's a concession for us it's a concession for them

but usually usually it's a reduction in units or extra trees or restoration or something along those lines that is is almost external or something that's going to be around for a very long time. I don't know what the community needs for how we work are going to be even a few years from now. And I I just I know of a number of places that started out as co-work spaces Yeah. And didn't work.

No, I totally I don't disagree with you in the idea that I I don't want to tell someone how to run their business by any means, but they're ask part of the 12% reduction or that they're seeking the adjustment. I I I stop saying it reduction. Part of the adjustment that they're receiving is based on them allotting this portion of the commercial units on the commercial building to get that reduction. And what we're tying it to is is say like I don't disagree with either of you in the sense that may not necessarily work. It may not be used. They might want to use it for something else. But if they turn around and they turn it back into a potential commercial rental space where they're now occupying the building more, they don't have the sufficient parking at that point to facilitate that.

I I just want to address that really quick because I think we're having a lot of conversation on the topic. The applicant presented that in their presentation as one of the eligible alternatives that the director can authorize for projects that are going through site planning. I think it was a little confusing that it was provided as justification for this request because I think the way that it was intended to be presented, sorry to speak for you, um was that they could ask for um an other eligible alternative from the director and they've used this kind of obscure uh proposal as an other eligible alternative example that they could use to request an up to 5% reduction 10% reduction in the parking that's required of the project. There were other things that they can ask for like the proximity to transit to get a reduction in the parking and other other things that they could ask for. None of which the director felt comfortable at the time of the initial request because it included in the initial request it included reductions to the residential component. Since then, that has shifted, but their justification has largely remained untouched. Um, and so they're only providing that as an example of types of things authorized by our code. It's not actually a function of this request.

Thank you. I apologize. I misunderstood. And on top of it, I think if you add all those theoretical reductions down, they're way past 12%. They're 30 or 40% or something. One about the bus stops is a 15% by itself. So, it's it by itself. Okay. So, thank you. The um Okay. Are are we done on Do I get any closing statements? No. You want to close? I I want to talk. I hadn't gotten to one thing I want you to to look at that concerns me. Okay. Um the the the appendage that comes out of the west side of the building in the middle, what is that? The elevator tower or something

of the new building or the existing building? No, the existing office building. There's a there's an appendage. It's whatever 30 feet and and then 20 feet wide or something or whatever it is. Okay. Go to Yeah. On this plan, you see the little blue tip that comes out the left side of the building. I don't see my cursor. Yeah. Okay. I was wondering what that was. So, that's the stair. Okay. I should have never said anything. I'm gonna wake up in the middle of the night and see that thing. I know it. I know it. Oh, is that little appendage that you got your Yeah, you got your pointer on. Okay, so that's the stair. That's the stair. Please help me.

Are you guys done? Is this like a subliminal thing for me? What's up? I should have never seen. It is a stairwell and it's existing. Okay, so it's just a stairwell. It's just a stairwell, correct? Yes.

Okay. All right. Here's where I'm going. So, if you park the way that this is laid out, if you park in the very north end of the piece that goes to that the parking spaces are east and west on this new deck, you have the way I see it, you have to walk all the way over to the other deck, all the way to the east end, and then you go down the stair. Is that right? You you have two stairs taking you out of the new uh deck of park. Yeah. Well, one of them is in the southwest corner.

Um one is in the southwest corner and the other one is in the northeast toward the um very east end before the ramp goes down. That is correct. So you've got to walk 200 feet to get to that stair to go inside of the building and then go back into the building. So you're going to walk a whole football field to get into this building if you're parked in the north end. I think you ought to seriously think about trying to tie to that stairwell somehow and have have another means of getting into the building and you could get into it right at that stair tower. Now, the problem's going to probably be elevation because it looks like you're at 16.2.

Do not go back to that other parking thing. Okay, we have to I'm not looking on your presentation. You tell me when you got it done. I'm not looking. I can't believe you got my parking thing. Okay. Okay. This is only the ground floor you're looking at. So, actually the uh the second floor. Um I'm looking at the second floor. I'm on 2011. Okay. So, the parking extends above what is actually the uh the drive-thru for the bank. And this actually has a connection to that existing stairwell that we're talking about.

This the new parking deck has a connection to that stairwell. Will I'm sorry. It will. Yes. Oh, okay. So, you can get into the building from there. That is correct. Oh, okay. That's fine. That was all I wanted. Yeah. Yes. Correct. Okay. So, but I think there's probably an elevation problem, but that's okay. You do it with stairs. You can get it. We can we can easily uh Yeah, because that's that might be the intermediate platform on that at that point or something. I don't know. Whatever. You got it figured out. You're going to do what I do. All I'm saying is on the site plan, I I don't want to see people walking all the way down to the other end of that to get off of that. Correct.

Okay. If they can walk straight into the building, that's that's a much better solution. Okay. All right. Anybody else? So we've added we've added one condition at least and I think the others like you said it's not yeah totally I thank you for the clarification but I'm completely in agreeance with you guys now.

Okay. All right. Well, with that, the chair, did you want to close? I'm sorry. I think I did cut you off, didn't I?

Um, I just wanted to I just wanted to urge you to please pay attention to the the standard B of the adjustment standards that talks about all of these requirements that are supposed to fall in the city to reduce parking, to think of multi-uses, to think of, you know, multiple modes of transportation. We are doing that with our with our submitt. So, I just wanted you to to really look at those. Um, and I think that this this process, this adjustment application is a way for the city to do that with your approval. Of course, there's that minor that doesn't come to to you guys, but we're under that minor threshold in front of you. Um, I also wanted to remind you that the reduction of parking uh for the residential component in our project is already reduced because we're providing mixed income units. So, it's kind of already implied that the demand and parking for mixed income is really not going to be the same as a regular development. And that was it.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right.

Oh, I'm sorry. There was one other thing. I can attest that the submitt that we made uh that the submitt that we made initially, which was the adjustment and the site plan, has not changed except for the fact that we added this building. And like I said, the only comments were zoning, landscape, which which were, you know, things that we're comfortable in addressing, and then fire had absolutely no comments. Engineering had no comments, utilities had no comments. So, I just wanted to point out that nothing has changed since you actually did review the site plan, and it will come back to you in the way that you see it. Staff's condition says that we have to remain in substantial conformance to this plan and to the application that we submitted under the site plan. So, I think that kind of should give you some comfort hopefully.

Okay. And if this assuming this does move forward and we have a major site plan come in front of us, you heard what this um the young lady said about the the trees. So let's make sure that we are very definitive about how those invasive trees are going to be removed. I'm sure they're mediated because Wade would have a heart attack if you left.

So um and I shouldn't have said that. I did. So there he he would he would laugh at me if I said it. So whatever. Anyway, the point is is we do want to answer people's um concerns um when we can for sure. So and it is a requirement of code that we we remove all invasives. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um All right. And with that, the chair will um entertain a motion unless people want to keep talking. Mrs. Coleman, you feel comfortable? I'm just curious about the DRC process.

No, I I want to feel comfortable with it. Uh uh I I am I think this is a much much better uh application. Um and um seeing as how our codes. As much as as we may think that the codes are not reflecting our comprehensive plan is not reflecting reality out there, it is our comprehensive plan and we do uh they meet every requirement on the parking for residential. Um even though this building is not uh the occupancy is higher than what was cited in in cities and such. I don't think that 43 spaces um with is is a huge ask for this. It's 12 and a half%. Um they could ask and probably get uh administratively that requirement um with a minor reduction. Um that's not my issue now. My issue is the process

and I know that we're very close. I am uh I can tell you right now if this same presentation came before me with the site plan and we passed on the site plan, I would be comfortable in voting for u this reduction in parking. But I'm I'm just um I'm not comfortable beginning to set the precedent of allowing projects to come here that have not been fully vetted by DRC. And it's and I know how hard you guys have worked on this. I'm not opposing it, but I am saying that the process is the process. And I don't I don't want to to begin, well, we did it on that one, so do it on this one. And and that's my issue.

I I agree with you. I do. I I think that with the addition of the piece of uh condition from from my perspective, I could see myself voting for this. But I think it's about again following procedure. And if it were to come back again, like you said, with the site plan attached to it and a sec an additional item to our agenda, I could see myself being in favor of this. I hate to ask you to come back a third time. They're going to have to come back a third time if we approved it tonight anyway. Well, I know. I know. But again, you'd have to come back for the site plan.

Oh, meaning a third time because we already came. Yes. Yeah. But but right now, what they're trying to do is get an idea of whether this board would support um uh this level of reduction in parking. Right. And um I don't think it's our attorney would allow us to give them that. So

um if I may um we're sort of in a similar situation we were in last time. Uh the board may remember as as Paula Miss West has mentioned both items were brought to this body December. It included this adjustment and the site plan at the same time. And I too have always had issues about which goes first, chicken or the egg. And so at that time, you may remember uh the applicant agreed to put it off to reconfigure, meet together, and to present something again to this board. Um again, this may be an opportunity for the applicant recognizing the feedback um that you've received so far. um doesn't mean that you don't get what you need, but there will be another opportunity where you will have to reconvene with this board for your site plan and that both of those items can be scheduled on that agenda. Um and this body could punt again postpone its deliberate its its decision on this item and consider both at the same time. Um that may be an option for the applicant without having a hard fast um decision because you would need at least four votes um in order to because you have six individuals tonight. So, it's a majority. So, again, that's something for the applicant to think about um if the board chooses um to offer that or not.

So, let's assume that we did put that off and we we're not going to turn it down. We were just what? Going to table it. We would table it until the the site plan came with it. That's correct. Okay. Um Go ahead. I just, you know, There's nothing compelling. If there was something compelling, but I've heard nothing compelling says we have to do this tonight without the DRC recommendation and meeting the four corners of our regulations. It's just the applicant's will and desire

and I understand their side of it too, which is it's a it's a huge thing. Either they move forward with it designed with this parking or or they're not going to be able to do it financially, which I I can understand that. So, so I don't know. May hopefully you've gotten a strong enough they've gotten a strong enough feeling. I don't Well, it's whatever the board's will is. I guess I should leave it that. Go ahead.

I would agree. I would like to see it come in concurrently, but I can't guarantee that I'm going to be in favor of this this many So if we can whatever we can do to maybe squeeze a few more spaces out, you can do that that doesn't overly burden the client or client costwise. I mean, as it as it sits, I don't like the I don't like approving something that's not, you know, with the site plan because then we're stuck with the parking. Then we look at the site plan, we're like, "Oh man, we already approved the parking." Um, so I I would not vote in favor of it if it went today. Okay. Does anybody want to make a motion?

We would be we would be fine bringing both the site plan and the adjustment back together with the feedback you've already gotten. Yes, sir. And Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion. Please, I make a motion that u we table um LN809 the bureau major adjustment a major administrative adjustment to our next to our they're not ready they're not going to be ready then uh oh to come concurrently to come concurrently with the site plan okay so it's not time is that okay with you council I was going to ask I I heard you say April was your target is that yes but

but if we put April then we stick what happens if it ends up May then we're not right and my concern is if if we want to address Mr. Herzel's conditions and we add more parking, we might have to be kicked back to DRC one more time. So, it's I I would rather make the motion if it's current with the site. I I we can't do that. Well, I'm struggling because I I don't know if our um our rules for the board permit going beyond a certain time period. I know with other boards we have

we might be restricted to 60 days or something like that. Yeah, I I I don't know as we speak. Um, what I'm going to suggest is allow the motion to go forward as you have stated it and um, if there is any concern or any issue legally, I'll bring that matter back before the board at the next meeting. Okay. Do you do you hear what he just said? Yeah. This is important because it it has to do with timing potentially.

Right. So, if if the board should move forward and favorably um postpone this item um to be brought back concurrently with the site plan review, um I've instructed them if there is an issue legally in regards to when that should be brought back, I will advise this board of that next meeting. Um and and we'll also advise you as well. We'll let the motion go forward as it is now. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. I make a motion um that we postpone LN 809 VA major administrative adjustment uh petition to come uh from this meeting from this agenda to come forward with the site plan for project. Are you good with that? Is there a time certain on that or No, no, that's what we were just talking about. That's up to him. Okay. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Does anybody have any questions or comments on the motion? Okay, seeing none, Bobby, call the role on um the postponement of item number two. Carla Coleman, yes. Rich Deli,

yes. Gigi Debec, yes. Robert Hartzo, yes. David Mingus, yes. Fred Stacer, yes. Okay, good. Thank you. Back at sight in time, whatever. Mr. Chair, can I just request like two minutes? Okay. Yeah, we'll take a quick Yeah. Five minute break. Recess. Five minute recess. Yeah.

Um, we're going to recall um item Item number two for a quick administrative uh issue um per per our attorney.

Uh Mr. Chair and to the rest of the board um while we were um moving from one item to the next, I had an opportunity to look at the board's rules of procedure and um it does say that when there's a continuation um requested or motion given that it's a continuation to a fixed date and time. And so, uh, with that understanding, I spoke with the applicant's representative and asked her to come back in, um, and also was able to get a date certain that they they'd like this item to come back in conjunction with the site plan, and I believe that's going to be April.

April. Yes. and that should there become a need because of whatever the circumstances are in the review process, they would notify the board and we can always this board can always again permit that item to be continued again to a date. Sir, April, April 22nd. Did she just amend it?

The motion Yes, Mr. Chairman, may I have my previous uh Miss Coleman, is your microphone on or sorry, not uh Mr. Chairman, I'd like to amend my previous motion on LN 809 uh to uh postpone this project concurrent with the site plan until April 22nd, 2026. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any questions on the motion? Mrs. West, you're fine with the motion. I'm good. Yes. Okay. Agree. Thank you. Um, all right. No questions. Okay. Bobby, call the role on the amended motion. Carla Coleman, yes. Rich Dy,

yes. Gigi Debec, yes. Robert Hartzo, yes. David Mingus, yes. Fred Stacer, yes. Okay. Thank you. God bless. Okay. Thank you. All right. With that, we'll move on to item number three. I bet you they thought we'd never get to them the way we're going. Okay. 324 HOS PNZ22-124032. Uh project locations 324 Northwest 6th Street. You're presenting.

Good evening chair and board members. Uh Saul Lummana, planner with development services. I am here to present the major site plan for 324 house and I'm actually quite pleased to be here before you uh with this application. As you can tell it says PZ22. So this is from it's been four years in the making and uh it has gone undergone multiple DRC and post DRC review meetings and I do want to state that the current owner owner is not the original owner. Um they were actually the ones that took over. they brought Austin Fox and implemented the last changes that finally brought this project to you. Um, so it's been we're I'm really happy to be here right now with this project and get this approval from seek this approval from this board. Uh, a general location, the the subject property is located south of northwest 6th Street and just west of Dixie Highway. Um, this is another view of that location. Um, as you can tell, this location is mostly surrounded by vacant properties. Um, and there's some scatter multif family units uh around. Um, funny enough, everything that I highlighted on this project is all within 700 ft of this project. So to the south at the City Vista Apartments, to the north is the Sonata Apartments that to the sorry to the east is the Sonata Apartments and then to the north is the New Highland Oaks. So you can tell that this area is um multif family in nature and this is actually the northern edge of the downtown Pomper Beach Olay District. Uh so about the site plan uh the proposal is a mixeduse development consisting on 20 residential units. This is in the edge of the subd district is the edge of the uh pompo downtown

overlay district and the underlying zoning district is mixeduse optional. So they have the option to either make this either all residential or mixeduse. Um they obviously chose to do mixed use. So it's 20 units, 16 are permitted by right. Um the option they also have the option to explore additional density um in this district by providing a public art fee. So the applicant is proposing to provide uh a public art fee. The artwork itself is not part of this approval today. Uh that process is approved by the city commission. However, they are required to provide 1% um of the total cost either into uh the fund or provide uh artwork. They are proposing to do an artwork. Um the AAC already saw this artwork and they actually Austin will bring more light into that later today. Um but again, it's not going to be approved by you today. It's going to be approved by the city commission. However, 16 units are permitted by Wright for they're getting through this density bonus. Um, additionally, per the code requirements of the overlay district, uh, applicants must either provide affordable units or contribute to the housing fund. The applicant has committed to provide three affordable units which meets the minimum requirement. And as mentioned earlier, the application was originally filed in 2022. Since that time, there has been multiple code amendments uh particularly related to parking in the northwest area which removed some incentives. Um this project came before the text amendments were adopted by the city. So they would never they they never um fell under the zoning in progress rules. So in in front of you today is a site plan that meets the code of the previous code. However, it should

not be seen as not code code compliant because it does meet the code at the time that it was submitted. Um, due due to the time that has taken for us to get to this point. Um, the only diff the only things that has changed is the amount of parking required. They are providing 25 ft. If this application were to come in today, it would require 30 30 spaces. However, I just want to put that on the record that you should not see it as non-compliant because it does meet the code of the time. I know that's a little redund uh doesn't make any sense, but it is how uh it should be reviewed. Um they're also providing uh ground floor retail and parking is located in the rear and they're also providing some on street parking spaces and the three stories and height totaling 35 ft. Uh the AAC approved this last two weeks ago, three weeks ago, and they had no comments and no additional conditions. They love the project. Uh in front of you is uh the applicable review standards uh as detailed in the staff report. Staff finds that the project meets the review standards provided all conditions of approval are satisfied prior to the building permit. Um here are the staff report u the the staff conditions. I will read them into the record. Condition number one, provide the require affordable housing via a declaration of restricted covenants or inloo fee. Pursuant to section 115.3709K, each residential development is required to set aside a minimum of 15% of its proposed units as affordable housing or contribute inlu fees of $10,927 per unit. In accordance with chapter 1554, the city commission has adopted policy via resolution 23195 to require the use of the county's mixeduse income house density bonus bonus policies 21.6.2 or 21.64 for any projects in the DPOD with seven or more units. Um, as I mentioned before, they are providing the three units required. They're not paying

into the fund. They're providing the three units. Condition number two, the plat must be approved by Brower County Planning Council and recorded with Brower County Records prior to the approval of the building permit. This is already in process. Um plats no longer come to the PNZ. So you you might have not seen it, but it is already in process. Number three, provide the required public art and or fee pursuant to table 155.3079 3079 E3 density bonus option one which requires new construction to provide public art to use one or a combination of the following strategies. A fee equal to 1% of the project's construction cost or a piece of artwork value at 1% of the project construction cost. The applicant has indicated that a piece of artwork will be provided. The artwork must be accessible access accessible to the public and may be displayed in the building's common areas, public open spaces or areas along the street abuing the building. The public art is required to receive a recommendation from the public art committee and approval from the city commission. Um, as I said before, Austin will speak on uh that later on as well. And the last condition is our standard conditions of approval uh A through D. Um, they have the presentation, but I'm also available for questions at the moment.

Okay. Uh, anybody? Yes, Mr. Deli, go ahead. Thank you. Uh, I know that we're not taking the additional parking spaces into consideration. Could you walk me through uh the parking? How many parking spots are permitted inside? How many parking spaces are for the ground floor retail? And then how many park spaces are they adding around? Can you give me a breakdown? uh 20 spaces are required for the residential uh uses and three spaces are required for the proposed uh commercial space. Um right now we don't have designated on the site plan of what it is but 20 units 20 parking spaces should be designated in marked for residential. Uh the rest will be for the um retail spaces and then there's two on street is

yeah those are the the two on street they did designate as guests um and that would uh the code in the overlay district allows on street parking to be used for the uses so it makes sense that those will be for the retail spaces. Okay thank you yes Mr. heart this they confirmed that they wanted to do the RP so then they get the four unit bonus. Yes, I actually saw a presentation uh on that during the AAC and they have a conceptual plan and I believe they already talked about who should do it. Okay. Who's going to do it? Okay. Anybody else? Yes, Mrs. Coleman.

Um can you walk me through how The trash loading in the front is going to work with the on street parking. Uh yes. Uh the right now there's an 8 foot uh sidewalk between the trash room and the on street parking. It's just for staging areas. It should it's not going to be there permanently. Um it is just a designated area. When trash pickup day comes in, they'll have it in and they will wheel it back out. We'll wheel it wheel it wheel it out and then put it back in. It should not be there um non in non-pickup days. Okay.

Thank you. Anybody else? All right. Seeing none, the applicant want to any presentation or you don't have to but whatever you want to do. Good evening. Austin Fox uh 1754 East Commercial Boulevard. It's Fox Architecture. Um to begin the project, as Sal said, it's from 2022. Uh we're not the original architect of design. So, um upon my client purchasing the property, just a brief history. Uh this project was DRC approved at the time and actually in for AAC. Uh upon receiving the project, we saw a lot of opportunities to improve this project. So actually my client and myself we convened along with staff we withdrawal AAC went back to DRC even though we didn't need to and made some improvements which then got us here today. So I just want to preface that before we continue that the owners are are really looking to uh become a catalyst in the area with upcoming development. So uh we'll begin. So as mentioned it's a mixeduse building 20 units. It's 10 per floor and I can answer any questions about the units as we dive deeper and the first floor being res commercial. Location as he explained is just north of the upcoming PMPO downtown area that's going to be coming very soon. The survey which part of the conditions of the plat which actually the plat has progressed. It's in recordation as we speak. Uh Paula who was just here moments ago she's running the plat. So that's the latest and greatest. the site plan. We have the parking in the back. One of the improvements was originally there was no private green space on the bottom right hand corner.

We actually integrated a private uh private green space like a private area for the tenants that are working. They're living there um to really enhance the experience of the tenants. This was not there in the very beginning beginning of the submitt. Here's the unit breakdown. So any questions regarding the units? So one of the things we also is simplified the unit layouts. Before it was 9 and 11. We made it a clean 10 and 10 offering ones, twos, and threes. Before there were no threes, only ones and twos to offer more diversity for the area. Any questions regarding the project of I guess the setbacks, density or the requirements? We can break this into further detail. These are your typical second and third floor plans. Just copy and paste on the upper floors. your roof plan and the elevations meeting the multif family design standards which were presented to AAC. The AAC approved again this design color schemes some renderings for you guys and then the art piece. This has been a focal point. So the art piece is going to be located in the public art plaza near the lobby. Um the owners are implementing this art piece to represent the symbol of fire which basically ties to you know the rebirth of this area. Um we actually went through a couple iterations and this was the final product. So this is not a one-time thing. Um the local artists that they engaged gave us several options. We collectively came with this feeling that this is north of that downtown area. You kind of need a flame to start that catalyst in the area. As you can see from the Google Earth, it's a lot of vacant land and they feel that this could be that vitalizing portion of the area. So this really symbolizes that. And as he said, we'll go to the commission. But that's the decision for this art piece. And that'll be all for that.

Okay. Thank you. Have any questions of the applicant? Yes, Mrs. Coleman. Um, my questions are really on your SET plan. As you note, uh, there's a lot of vacant land here. This is a revitalization project. Yeah. When I read the SET and as you submitted it, It's a regurgitation of the principles of a septed plan. I wouldn't call it a septed plan and I know you'll be those are confidential and I'm not going to try and walk through

but I really did find it lacking and would urge you to take it very seriously in working with um Officer Russo or whomever else you work with on because what you submitted to us is not really a SE 10 plan. Understood. And our and our client my my client agrees that they wish they can. They're open to having those conversations and enhancing as needed because they they want to have a a product that's safe for their tenants and the people that are using it as well. So because normally at this stage we would be asking you

where's the cam where are the cameras where's the camera monitoring who monitors how often are they monitored what's the lighting like uh on a safety factor is there human scale lighting all of those sorts of things. But while your plan says this should happen, it really hasn't it's not delineated or uh so much in the site plan we see before us. So please please take seriously that need to do that.

Understood. And we'll work with Russo on on uh those recommendations. Um the photoometric plan has submitted accounts for the lighting and as for security features they're again fully uh open to being cooperative and getting that done because it benefits both parties. Thank you. Anybody else? Anybody in the audience want to speak on close public hearing um bring it back to the board. There aren't any other questions. The chair will entertain a motion on item number three. Um I actually I just have a question. Uh, sorry. Would that be phrased as that condition to strengthen the SPS plan or

um, no, this is a comment between me between a board member and and I because I think that that the officer who handles the SET plan um, is going to take that it's going to is going to meet that requirement. So the only reason I say that because the DRC his approval from BSO is already agreed and he is not BSO is not part of the review process and building permit. So it would have to be a discussion between BSO and the applicants outside of DRC to come up with an agreement um and then upload that plan to the review. They're not part of the they don't review through e- plan and our building permit, but they review outside of that.

I'm gonna look for some guidance here. Okay. In the in the conditions, yeah, sorry. As part of the conditions, it says provide a copy of the sept plan approved by BSO. So, I'm assuming your the deficiency you've noticed will be provided as a condition um to this application with this development order.

Right. I would just ask that that be that that condition be ref uh revised in a way to say to reflect the comments um provided at the PNZ meeting. Um because typically the way that that comment is or that condition is um applied is that we require they provide the stamped plan from the DRC. Um, and so that's that's just to rephrase the com the condition to be clear that we want a revised version of the SEPTED plan that reflects approved by BSO that reflects the comments of tonight's meeting. Mr. Chairman, is is is that um Yeah. May I?

Okay. Then I would uh have you asked the applicant yet whether he's u uh okay with the existing conditions? No, I don't think I did actually. So, we're going to have to ask him whether right that that was my point. Um, would you be adverse to that condition being added to the list of conditions you've seen before to enhancing the SEPTED plan? Uh, yeah, there's no issue with that, but I would just like to get more clarity exactly what you're looking for so I make sure I hit those points. What we have now attached to your application and your site plan

really isn't a septed plan. It is a list of requirements for a SEPTED plan. So, what we want is a real SEPTA headed plan, but you know, that's that's casual language. I don't want to put that there. I I would like uh I would like to take the motion that was suggested by our attorney and put that in the record. It would revise um item 4D which says provide a copy of the septed plan approved by Broward Sheriff's Office consistent with the comments made by the planning and zoning board on this date. In other words, where are are the cameras? Where are the lights? How are they going to be monitored? How is uh lighting going to be handled uh both in the parking lot and in uh around the building? Are the stairwells going to be lit? Um you know, all of the kinds of requirements that go into a SEPTA plan

need to be delineated as to what you are doing in the SEPTAD plan. Understood. So it's to basically if I'm correct to enhance or further explain what's being done sept plan B because in the SEPTA plan we do delineate where the cameras and lights are. So I'm just I'm just trying to get clarity where like how to properly address it on the plan. Is it a narrative? Is it a plan? And that's why I'm leaning to you guys more for clarity on how to respond. What a more robust narrative. Okay. Because right now you say it delineates where they're going. Well, it says a bike rack has to be near the front door.

Understood. But I don't see a bike rack and I don't see near the front door. I don't I don't You know, you need to put some meat on the bones. Understood. So, I guess the way to for your condition would be um an enhanced narrative explaining these these conditions. You're explain specific conditions. Specific conditions. Um how we address those issues. Right. Okay. That's not an issue. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're so so is that that's the that's that's the next condition. Yes. Okay. We've revised the existing condition. Four conditions still. It's just a revised fourth condition.

Revised 4D. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Who's going to make the motion then? I'll make a motion. Okay. Uh Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. I'm on this side this time. In consideration of planning and zoning application number 2212000032, I move that the board finds competent and substantial evidence that has been presented that satisfies the review criteria and approves the major site plan with four uh subject to the the four conditions provided by staff. Right? Good. Okay. by me. I'll second that.

We have a motion in a second. Um, any questions on the motion? Comments? Being none. Oh, okay. Mr. Hartzell, I think staff's doing in this area and I go down there a lot. I play pickle ball behind what you're doing out there is just fantastic. I mean, just the the newer developments and, you know, using the vacant land and in an efficient manner and this is part of it and I think it's a good project. It looks good.

Oh, I got one other comment in the future because this one is technically up to code for parking. Um, we should really like remember that when we're looking at other projects that go in near it because up to the current code it is deficient. So, we just have to think about that as we're continuing to develop that area. Yes, I think that was the uh when we took away those park incentives, that was the idea. So, this was the last project and there should be no new ones. Was this part of the This was part of the thing that that expired in January. Is that No, that was for res uh retail and restaurant uses.

That means everything. Okay. All right. All right. Any other questions on the motion? All right, seeing none, Bobby call the role. Did uh Miss Coleman, were you read the second motion? Was she seconded? Got the second. Rich Dally, yes. Carla Coleman, yes. Did you dock? Yes. Robert Hartzell? Yes. David Mingus? Yes. Fred Stacer? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Good luck with your project. It is a nice looking project. Okay. I was thinking

with that we're moving uh on to audience to be heard. No audience to be heard tonight. Other business we have reports by staff. Any staff report? No staff report. No staff report. You're done staffing today. Okay. Uh board member discussion. Mr. Deli. This was a fun meeting, guys. I enjoyed seeing you guys. I missed you last month. Dude, you must have a bad life. Boring life. I gotta I gota I gotta meet your kids. They're they're amazing. But I just enjoy doing this kind of stuff. Like giving back to the community and volunteering and being a part of this kind of process is just I really enjoy it. No, I appreciate that. I'm just kidding. Of course.

Oh, you made they made us feel bad talking about you last time. He obviously didn't watch the recording. Oh no. Did you guys do something? I didn't watch the I have to go back and watch the real quick. What did you guys do? Dave Dave, you got anything for us tonight? Okay, Mrs. Coleman. Yes, sir. Mr. Hartzel,

I'll just reiterate what I said. You know, staff did a tremendous job um together. You know, one project's a little difficult. this last one. You know, I really like what you're doing over there and I know it comes out of you guys what by the time they get here, they're they've been through the ringer and the project really looks good. Okay, Mrs. Stub, you're good. Yeah. Surprisingly, I don't have anything tonight either. So, what? Okay. Yeah. What up? Would you like to see the parking slide one more time? I already adjourned. Okay.