Architectural Review Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. I'm going to call the let's see, October 15, meeting of the Planning, Zoning and Adjustment Board to order. I do not have any remarks right now, except for it's good to see well, I guess I do, because it's good to see everybody back. We've had a few canceled meetings because we haven't had items on the agenda. So it's nice to see everybody.

If you can stand and join me with the Pledge of Allegiance, that would be great. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All righty. The next item on the agenda is the election for the chair and the vice chair, which we do annually. I'll entertain any motions.

I'll make a motion. Make a motion for Mr. Draghouse for chair.

I'll second.

All right. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed? Right. And a motion congratulations. A motion for vice should I do the motion for vice chair? Should you take that now?

No, you keep it. Ahead.

All right. And entertain a motion for vice chair.

I'll make a motion for Jeff to be Vice Chair.

I will second that. Now that I'm not the Chair anymore, I can second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. You ready, buddy?

Mean, you didn't do anything You were bored. This. But I'm happy to take the gavel here

and Gavel.

We're on with it. Thank you. And thank you very much, Mr. Roberts. I appreciate the vote of confidence in everybody. Okay. So why don't we go ahead and start with the approval of the minutes? Everybody have a chance to take a look at them? Yes. Any additions, deletions, modifications of any sort?

Just a point of clarification. Should we pass should we have a motion to pass them separately? Because there's two

sets

No, there. You can approve them Okay. Together.

I'll make a motion to pass the minutes from the April 16 meeting and the May 21 meeting of the PCAB. Second.

Second.

Okay. Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion passes unanimously. Any additions, deletions or reordering of the agenda?

No, sir.

Okay. So let's see. We'll just fast forward to our new order of businesses, which is Resolution No. R20-twenty 20 five-sixty nine, the Lotus II Master Plan Amendment. Do we have to swear in speakers for this?

We do. This is So quasi if you intend to be heard tonight, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay. And ex party disclosures, please. So do you want to start?

We don't need to put Johnny on the spot for the first one.

Why don't

we start on this side for this? Okay. Yes, Tatiana?

I spoke with the agents for applicant, and I can be fair and impartial.

JULIE I spoke with staff, and I also spoke with the agent of the applicant, and I can be fair and impartial.

JULIE I, too, spoke with staff just about the prior approval, and also the recommendation. And I also spoke with the applicant, and I can be fair and impartial.

I spoke with Councilman McGovern, and I had a brief discussion with Mayor Napolione. I can be fair and impartial.

I spoke with the applicant yesterday. I can be fair and impartial.

JAMES I spoke with the applicant. I can also be fair and impartial.

JAMES I spoke with the applicant. And I can be fair and impartial.

JAMES Great. Diligent. So do we want to start, staff, with your presentation on?

So Damian's going to give a brief introduction to the presentation. And then the applicant will actually present first. And then staff will present after. And then we will all be available to answer questions. And it's up to you if you want to ask questions after their presentation or after ours.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Newell. Thanks.

Leven, Damian Newell, Planet Zone Division. This project is the Lotus Wellington II Master Plan Amendment. Again, Resolution Number R2025-sixty9. The applicant is here with a presentation, which they will present first. The request is to modify the Lotus master plan as it relates to the commercial pods.

The site is 52 acre mixed use project with a MUPD zoning. And the project is located approximately a mile north of the Forest Hill and State Road 7 intersection on the West side.

Is that a queue?

Good evening. It's great to see everyone. Brian Terry with Inside Studio. It's been a while. I've seen some new faces as well on the Board. So again, I'm here with Rich Kasser and Thomas Schonieski from our office. Appreciate the opportunity. We spoke with a few of you and certainly, I think, gave you kind of a brief presentation as to what this proposal is about. So I'm going walk you through a little bit more detail here this evening. So I'll give you kind of overview of the overall proposal and the plans and what's changing technically with the master plan.

And then Rich Kassler will speak a bit to sort of the purpose and the reasons why we are kind of we're here in front of you this evening and what the goal is for the ultimate lease out and build out of the space. As Mr. Newell just mentioned, this is the LOTUS II piece, the piece that's in the yellow right. It was approved and developed under two separate approvals, although designed to integrate and act as one. And so the LOTUS I proposal has nothing to do with this evening.

We're not changing anything on that plan, only the Phase II. And we're really talking about again, this was the approved overall plan that showed at the time what was the pop stroke in the daycare. I did fail to actually have a cut when we did discuss with each of you guys proposal, we didn't really talk about the daycare. It is something I'll bring you up to speed with here through this presentation. The pod A piece is where Pop Stroke was intended to be.

And again, this is the kind of the graphic of what that master plan looked like as it came to through this this board as well as to village council when it was ultimately approved. And the PAD A, this was the indooroutdoor entertainment use. That is the conditional use approval. And then and where, again, like where Pop Stroke was going to be. And so that's the majority of the discussion here this evening, is Pop Stroke is no longer going to be a tenant on this property, and so looking at opportunities to replace that use.

Pod B is where the daycare was approved and is well built, as I'm sure it just got painted, as I saw when I drove past it today. So the only difference there is there is an increase of capacity of 20 kids that's part of this overall approval that's associated with the daycare. POD C, which is a residential well under construction by Lennar, no changes to that. Obviously, the conservation area that you see is D. E, no changes.

And then the E, these green spaces and public open space parks that are really kind of wedged in between the residential and commercial, those aren't changing either. So here is a very recent aerial when did you say this was? Monday. Monday? Shot of the construction activities, specific to LOTUS two. So you can kind of see it in greater context. Obviously, very hard to understand the scope and the depth of the property when you just see it on a plan or you drive past it on State Road 7. So you can see how far along it is. A lot of, know, utilities in place, site grading in place. You can see basically, you know, forming for foundations.

There's a lot happening across the property. I want to kind of bring your attention to this portion right here, which is important as part of again, this plan, as I show to you, is now kind of hamstrung just a bit by some of the existing conditions that are there due to utility connections and things that were built and designed around pop stroke. So I just wanted to show you that because that is where the main utility water and sewer lines connect through this parcel of land that we're talking about. So again, the master plan, this is the very dummy down version of a site plan. It doesn't show any of the buildings, but this is the master plan that this board and the council approves.

As you know, the site plan is an administrative approval through staff. But modifying that pod A, again, so we're proposing the original application was basically we're going to have to abandon or remove the indooroutdoor entertainment use, replace that with what is proposed as an 8,000 square foot restaurant and 8,500 square feet of another kind of in line building that would have retail and restaurant opportunities within it. So again and then obviously the additional 20 children of increased capacity within the day care. This is what the POP Stroke plan looked like. This is the approved site plan for POP Stroke.

You know, after the master plan approval, we then went forward with the full site plan approval. Again, every intention, everything was designed around Pop Stroke, even the location of Deco Drive where this main entrance is, was a function of where Pop Stroke and the land that they necessitated to be on that property. And so this parking lot configuration, again, and that utility line that runs through the middle of this parking row was all designed, permitted, ready to go under the expectation that this was going to happen. Unfortunately, they dropped or canceled their lease. They had made basically a shift in in their market strategy.

As you know, they built the Delray location that was east. They built the West Palm location next to the airport. They recognized that they felt their future path was stronger to be in tourist locations, in Eastern locations, and not particularly suburban neighborhoods or communities. And and similar to, like, tradition West or tradition of St. Lucie, they walked away from this property as they walked away from two or three others throughout Broward and Miami or my or Dade.

So we've now looked at modifying the plan. This is the overall proposed plan so you can kind of see the two projects in context and how they integrate and relate. And again, kind of focusing in on nothing else has changed except for this frontage component right here. So when I zoom into that, you can kinda see what this proposed plan begins to look like. We had really lively and good conversations with those EV we spoke with.

We've also spoken with a few of the village council members. And we're getting a lot of direction and conversation as people are starting to see this plan and understand it. We've actually integrated a few of the ideas that we've heard through that process. But again, what we have here is the 8,500 square foot restaurant building, which again, I'll let Rich speak to that tenant or that leaseholder for this outparcel. And then this secondary building, what we call 1A, the 1A Building is another 8,000 square foot building that would have multiple tenants within it, as we spoke about.

So again, no change to Deco Drive that comes in. The daycare is the same structurally, architecturally. It doesn't look anything different than what's built. It's just there's additional capacity being requested. You know, frankly, this is a reduction in intensity from the pop stroke. And so there was a little bit of an opportunity. The building is actually designed day care is built for, I think, 288 child capacity. So they're not even there you go. They're not maxing the capacity out based on on how that would be permitted. So we're going from two ten to two thirty on the day care.

And then, as I mentioned, this is a reduction even through the TPS. We had to bring study. Obviously, had to propose new uses, new intensities. We had to compare it against the existing traffic. Palm Beach County has identified it and certainly identified it as a reduction in trips.

You know, I think the expectation we all would understand is that these uses being proposed are probably a little bit more local and are going to attract a little bit more of a local community. I think the uniqueness of LOTUS in the fact that it really is a mixed use development with residential integrated in the design of the overall project is unique, and it attracts certain types of retailers and restaurants interested in that location. Whereas the pop stroke certainly had to draw from a much broader basis to be successful on a nightly basis. And I think that's reflected in, obviously, the traffic numbers there. So with that, I am going to pass the torch to Rich Kasser.

Unless you have any questions for me.

Why don't we let your colleague speak, and then if we have questions, either one of you can stand and address whatever topic is.

All right. Thank you, Brian. My name is Rich Kasser, and I've spoken to each of you in various capacities, some sooner, some further away, or longer ago. But Brian did a great job explaining kind of the overall site, and I just want to give a little bit of color and light on the the real estate side of it. So obviously, in, you know, the timeline that you can see here, December 2023, our master plan and conditional use applications were approved by village council.

And then in January '24, the site plan was approved. Fast forward to September '24, Pop Stroke officially sent us their termination letter. So we spent the next six or so months really looking for a entertainment user. We did not want to abandon the indooroutdoor entertainment use. We felt that it was a strong use and and we liked Popstroke.

We liked the overall impression that Popstroke gave to the site. We liked the contribution that they made to it, and we we really liked the enthusiasm surrounding it. So it was not it wasn't a great great day when we when we or a great series of days when we had heard that news. And part of the the new property uses that we looked for were, again, in the entertainment space. We looked at indoor out or indoor pickleball, indoor padel, bowling alleys, movie theaters.

There you go. Indoor miniature golf. We also tried to keep some of the miniature golf component. And then we looked at an indoor arcade and gaming proprietor. The comments that we got varied. They ranged from the site not being able to accommodate building, the building type that they needed. That was really the main comment in pickleball. That it was, they needed something. Again, we were constrained with the way that the utilities were planned and the way that they needed to be installed. So we were really constrained to pushing things forward on the road.

And then some of the indoor pickleball facilities, we spoke to three of them, they didn't have interest in the site or they they just it wasn't the area wasn't in their expansion plans. Indoor Padel, again it would there's no interest in the site because it was almost too large for that type of use. Bowling alley, no interest in the site. The movie theater, there were too many movie theaters in a close proximity. And then indoor miniature golf, again, there was one user that we spoke to that wanted us to build them a 40,000 square foot building.

And with the way that the site had to be configured and the kind of constraints that we were under, it just wouldn't wouldn't work. And then another one, they just didn't have any interest in the site. They were already east and they wanted to stay east. And then the indoor arcade and gaming, there was no interest in the site. They would rather have focused on the mall. So that was kind of where we were at with the entertainment users. And we said, well, you know, what do we do? How do we how do we move forward? And so we just started calling some of the tenants, or prospective tenants, that had reached out to us on Lotus One. And we said, hey, we have this opportunity up north.

What would you think about looking at it? And they took a look at it, and we were able to actually get a pretty good deal with a national restaurant chain. Very high end and upscale healthy fresh food. They're the pad leased, that 8,500 square foot restaurant. And that would be a big get for the village and a big grabber. There you go. So that's it. So that would be a big, like I said, a big get for the village. We know that Pop Stroke was very cool and it had some big names attached to it. So it was a source of pride for a lot of people.

We feel that this restaurant being positioned in the market where they are, it will also be another source of pride for for us and the village as well. And then we we said, one restaurant can't carry the whole site. So what else do we do? And we tossed around a couple uses. We didn't want to go with another restaurant building.

We didn't want to create a restaurant row because then that would be too intense and too much for the site. We also had to take into consideration the 100 single family homes and 72 townhomes that are directly west of us. And what they would want their and really along their entryway, and that type of commercial use. And also looking at some of the feedback that we got when we had pop stroke from some of our surrounding neighbors and existing communities. There were concerns about pop strokes light and noise and hours of operation.

So we kind of pivoted and came to the best use would be a multi tenant building. Now in that building, it would allow for us to have different users in there. It wouldn't just be one user. So we just put it out to the market just through a couple brokers, and we were able to get some some deal terms going with a national fast casual restaurant and a premium upscale national retailer. And then that would leave us with two or three spaces.

And so we're marketing the third space right now to, or we will be marketing it, to experiential users. We've had some interest from some cooking schools to come in and make your own type businesses. And we feel that that would allow us to kind of carry on in the same spirit. It wouldn't exactly be an entertainment use, but it would carry on in the same spirit of some type of interactivity and not just another clothing store or another retail store. And so this shows the site plan in greater detail, and then that is the rendering down there.

It's just conceptual, but it is the rendering of Building 1 A. And it will follow the same architecture and design language of all of the other Lotus buildings. So we'll use the same stone, we'll use the same features, the same Lotus Blue. If you've ever been on one of my site tours, you've you've heard me talk about lotus blue. It's our signature color.

And the same awning types, the same paints and glass. So it would really be really feel like it would be at home in Lotus. It wouldn't be just another outlier in another building. And then, of course, the the signature restaurant in the corner, they would build their own building, but they're also going to incorporate just like Lazy Dog and Cooper's Hawk on phase one, they've incorporated certain colors and and certain materials of our design language in their building. So that restaurant would do the same.

And then this is the proposed site plan. And as you can see, that little blue square in the middle, Brian and I have taken a lot of your feedback that we've received and and have worked to create, and are still working to create actually, some type of pedestrian promenade and really a boulevard type entryway in the center of the site. So it doesn't feel like two buildings surrounded by a parking lot. It will have some really interesting paver work. Again, if you've been on-site and you've seen the blue glass pavers that are there, or I know some of you may have been on ARB when we when we presented those.

Very, very cool. Again, custom blend, one of one, and really, really pop. So those would be again incorporated through here to draw that same consistency through the design language up here. And then we'd really have some fun with the landscaping and some site features, maybe create a butterfly garden or something in the in, you know, that people could walk through. Again, because this is the main entryway from the residential pedestrian entryway, but it also leads to our Sunrise Park, which is a public park up to the north, and then down south to our plaza parks on the south corner there.

And then those further lead into the Greenway. And then on the frontage again, you know, it would be, we'd really get creative with the landscaping. And as we're adding landscaping to phase one, we would work on the elevations in the landscaping up here so that it wouldn't just be, you wouldn't just have a direct view of a commercial building, that you would really actually get to see some undulation of landscaping and mixed materials and colors and textures and movement through plants.

And that's it. Okay. So would we like to start with questions for the applicant? Do we want to hear before from we dive into questions? What's everybody's preference?

I have a preference. Okay. I've got questions.

Why don't we go ahead and start with questions of the applicant and then go from there. So who would like to start?

Do you have any questions, Satya? I'm gonna go down the road.

Satya, any questions?

Not at this time. Okay.

Where are we with the restaurant that you referred to and the retailer as far as leases or?

So the restaurant is is further along in the leasing process. I have some calls with them one Thursday, one Friday to go over a couple things. Tomorrow is just to go over their lease area, and then Friday is to go over some of the red lines in the lease draft itself. We expect it to be signed in the next thirty days.

Okay. So that's the restaurant?

That's the restaurant, yes. And then the retailers are a little bit further behind. We're still working out the LOI terms on those. The fast casual restaurant, they've approved it at their real estate committee meeting at their at the corporate level. And then now we just need to hammer out some of the timelines. And then the retailer itself, we're still working through some of the details on the deal terms. But they're they're committed and and they're very interested.

And what is it can you tell me what the range of timelines would be for those, as far as, you know, how long that they're willing to agree to?

Oh, in lease terms? Ten year minimums.

Okay.

So the initial terms are ten years.

Okay. Thank you. That's all I have right now.

I have a question on that. So you're at so LOI has already been executed by the restaurant Yes. Okay. And you're negotiating the PSA? Yes. Okay. That will be specific for specific concept once it's will they commit to a concept at the lease term stage? Is that what's planned or in the LOI?

Yeah. The brand is already known. I just can't publicly disclose who

it is

until it's leased.

Understood. For the conditions for them to accept and this is only germane really, because we had the other, you know, the issue with the cancellation on the pop stroke. I mean, is that the conditions necessary for you guys to be able to, for them to take possession of the land, because it's a ground lease? Is it pretty quick? Is that what's understood?

Yeah. Yeah. It's parking lot and lighting and utility stubbed. The main utility lines are already there. The site the rough grading of the site has already been completed. If you drive by, we are it's kind of the full storage area right now.

Mhmm.

But that can easily be moved. And, you know, it would be probably four or five months for us to get to a pad delivery to the minimum conditions.

Okay.

Anything else?

No. Go ahead. Okay.

I have questions. I can defer to you all and go last. I have no questions.

No? Is there a backup plan if this restaurant doesn't sign with you guys? Is there a plan b, somebody else in the wings that you might be able to approach for for the the restaurant or even the the national retailer?

Yeah. Yeah. So the we have a couple plan Bs. Obviously, these are the the the plan As that we're moving forward with. We do have some we always have some plan Bs and we always keep back up interest from, again, always for big spaces like this, credit tenants. We feel that they're the best just addition to the site. And yeah, there is strong interest in this location, especially now that it's come on. So we do have a list of companies and restaurants and retailers that we can go to.

So if the restaurant, for example, in the next thirty days you don't get a signed contract or signed lease or what have you, are you going to approach them? And then how quickly would a plan be be able to sign up and move forward with you guys?

I mean, we already have the basically the the civil plans are already designed. The site plan is already designed. So we're a pending master plan amendment and approval, and we're we're ready to go. So it would just be and that would be a pad lease on that building. So they would just need to be able to fit their building within the that corner.

It's a pretty generously sized corner, so I'm sure that anyone could could make it work. But yeah, would be we we our brokers that are working on this, again, it's never been officially listed. So our brokers that are just working on it through word-of-mouth and through connections that they have, they keep in touch. I make sure that they keep in touch with the backups and keep in touch with other commune, you know, other in within the broker community that they're working with. So let them know, hey, it's not signed yet, so if you're interested, you know, let us know and we can still work on it. And, you know, we have, again, are national restaurant chains that are interested in that site.

Can you bring up that other picture, just so that we can see both yeah, right, okay.

This one or this one?

That's fine. Yeah, this one is good. I do have one more question. So just to clarify, this 8,000 square foot retail restaurant retail space, that's where the national retail

Yeah, that's the multi tenant building.

The multi tenant building. So you're going to be building

Yes.

Shell essentially. Yes. And they're going to Okay.

Yeah. It would be the same type of structure as we the same type of real estate structure as we've done on phase one with our four buildings, three, four, six, and seven, at the square at Lotus Wellington.

And so how many square feet would that brand be taking up? What would be remaining, either or?

So the, the, that brand right now is working with 4,200 square feet. And they are located elsewhere in Palm Beach County. And they are looking to relocate to the village, but they really only want to be in Lotus. So it's, they like the Wellington area, but they really like the LOTUS project.

Good. Let's get them signed.

Okay. So questions for you guys. Let me start with the termination letter that apparently Popstroke issued to you guys, you said, six months ago? September '24. Okay. So where is that letter? It's in our files. It's not in our files. Has it been provided to staff yet? No. It's not on the record here. So what we're being asked to do as the advisory board is take your word for it. That Popstroke has terminated the lease because they've had a strategy change. As opposed to perhaps expressing frustrations over how this project's unfolding or any other number of reasons. I would start with, I'd like to see that letter.

I would strongly recommend you provide that to the council so that they can see that indeed what you're representing to the public is accurate. Because as this project is evolving, your word is starting to reduce in value to me. Because this is not the first time that you've come before me, whether it's on the council or this board, and asked for some sort of change to this project because there were unanticipated, unfortunate events. Starting with the assisted living facility in phase one, and now of course, Popstroke, which you represented to us and to the community, was locked in and ready to go if we approved your project. So this is the epitome of developer 101, where you bring a project that has all kinds of bells and whistles and looks wonderful to the community, the council commits themself publicly to supporting your project, deals with all the fallout that the public will have over development because nobody really likes development unless there are things for the community to have.

And then you come back before us and say, well, sorry they broke the lease. So instead of having an entertainment facility, which was a big feature of this project, we're gonna build an 8,000 square foot restaurant, we're not gonna tell you which one it is. And we're gonna do an 8,000 square foot in line building, which to me sounds like developer speak for we don't know what it is and we don't wanna commit to anything publicly. So it starts with, let's see the evidence behind what you're claiming, so we can start verifying the accuracy of what you're representing to us. That's number one.

Number two is you're telling us that you can't find a suitable alternative. You told us that for pickleball, the site can't accommodate. What does that mean exactly? What is it about this site that a pickleball company, for example, says they can't accommodate?

The

pickleball buildings, if you've seen an indoor pickleball building, it's typically a warehouse. It has to be very tall. It has to have open space. And usually they're prefab structures. They're not concrete block.

They're usually in old big box stores that are repurposed for that, that have two story ceilings. They're in industrial buildings that are repurposed for that use. Sometimes they're in, again, just prefab warehouse buildings. So to be able to put an indoor pickleball facility that met those needs, as well as keeping the cross access and keeping the parking. It wasn't something that, you know, was feasible on either end.

And quite frankly, we didn't feel that as a landlord, a big steel building was something that was visually appealing to you, especially on State Road 7. Alright.

So it wasn't that there was no interest, you guys decided it wasn't good for your project?

Well, that was one of the tenants. Another one of the the prospects that we reached out to had no interest in it. One one prospect.

So you reached out to one, they said no. And you're telling us here today that the site can't accommodate pickleball, period.

Oh, they There was no interest in it from one of the one of the prospects. The other one, we couldn't get the building again to work for both sides. And then the other one, just again, financially it just wasn't something that was viable.

So the other problem I have here is why today, why now? Because what you've come to this board with, and hopefully you'll have more detail for the council, is we wanna go ahead and put a restaurant here, but we can't declare publicly which one it is and we don't have a deal yet. So why would you not come to us and then the council once you had a locked in deal that we could perhaps put a little bit more faith into than just a concept?

Well, good. For the the signature restaurant, we do have a locked in deal. It's just a matter of the brass tacks of the lease language. We don't foresee it going off the rails or going sideways. We've been working with them for quite some time on it. The other restaurant user at the north end of Building 1A is, again, we're still at LOI phase, but they've gone through their real estate committee meeting. They've gotten it approved at the corporate level. They're in their office in New York. And so they're, you know, they're moving forward. The retailer is the one that's just the furthest behind of all of them.

So if you have a locked in deal, then I don't understand what the downside is in revealing the name of the restaurant.

So I'm under confidentiality until the lease is signed. I have an NDA signed with the signature restaurant. And I'll tell you who the who we're working with for the one a building. It's just salad.

Okay. So again, I guess that goes back just to my preference that I would prefer that if you're asking the council to make a change to the master plan, that you have a little bit more detail, including being able to reveal what the restaurant is. I would just think that's a that's a bare minimum. It's up to them if they want to make the change, but you owe them that, and you owe the community that level of detail, I would think. And our our and I didn't

mean to cut you off. Our our goal is that by the time we come to village council, that we will have a lease signed, and we will either have a letter of recommendation or have one of the representatives from that restaurant with us to voice their support. And I'm not

sure you answered the question, so let me just re ask it. Why are you coming to us today? Why has this application been filed without those necessary details? What is the rush?

There's not necessarily a rush. We anticipated having the lease signed by the time we got here. It just has, again, dealing with attorneys and dealing with, you know, large corporations that own thousands of restaurants like this one does. These things do take time. But we are working to respond in kind to all of their lease redlines and get things done expeditiously.

Two questions maybe you may be able to answer. Otherwise, I'll wait for staff. But there's a change in here which says that no building permits for the site will be issued till December 31. It was 2026. It's been changed to 2029. What is the reasoning for that?

That is the TPS letter for the traffic. And it's no building permits shall issue after that because of the amendment that they did to the use, that's an updated letter.

Right. Because that, to me, sounds like they have three more years to do something. Right? They have three more years to construct this, which means it could be sitting there as a vacant lot for two and a half more years.

Yeah. Again, the fact that they are coming in for the new uses, that will trigger the additional time.

Okay. And then last question. Paragraph 29 talks about the fact that they were going to pay $632,000 and change due to the school capacity issues. Now they're asking or someone is bringing to the let me just finish the question, bringing to the board the prospect of reducing that to 255,000. So what is the reason for that?

When the project initially was approved, the letter that we that we had from the school district indicated that it was 600,000 based on the the the initial submittal to the school district. They had a higher capacity or higher residential units, And that was the reason. Since then, because the units went down to 172, the impact has changed and the contribution has changed.

Okay. Those are all the questions I have at the moment. Anybody else have any further?

Yeah. Just had a follow-up question on the because I do understand, obviously, that we prefer to try to deal in to make sure we understand what the vision is that we're trying to be asked to support. So I'm just curious, I understand I'm in finance, I understand the existence of NDAs. Does the current NDA does it preclude you from naming who the tenant would be upon signing of the PSA? Like, they control the disclosure? Or is that at the time of the lease signing, is that actually going to are you going be allowed to disclose it at that time?

I'll be allowed

to disclose it at that time, and it would be to official government entities and to requests. Okay.

That's helpful.

Any other questions for that?

No. I have a question for you.

For me? Yeah. I don't know if I can answer it. I'll try.

Well, you know, I did think about the time, you know, September 24. And I was surprised that our counsel did not know if we had that information, that letter. So I'm just wondering, do you feel that we should have that termination letter before we actually just to clarify where we are, before we recommend approval. You know what I mean? I don't know if that's

JULIE That might be a better question for Ms. Cohen.

JULIE Yeah.

You're recommending body. So I think that you could recommend make a recommendation to counsel one way or the other and also suggest that counsel require disclosure of that letter so that they can review it and take into account the matters that Mr. Drehaus has raised.

Actually,

other question that I just wanted to think through on this site that I think might be appropriate for you to discuss or for us to at least be aware of. I'm assuming that as I know that you've sold the single family and the townhouses behind it, I'm assuming that there are certain like, is there some kind of condition of approval that the single family home developer now is has from you for whatever you're going to put on the pod A site as well? Are you? No. No. So you're able to put whatever you could put that's feasible or passable by this board without them having any Yeah. Remedy to you?

It would have to fit within the MUPD approved uses or conditional uses. But there's no conditions placed on what can go on this pod.

Interesting. Okay.

Including you could kept it vacant. You could have created green space here. Right? There's nothing stopping you from doing that other than money.

That's one way of looking at it. But it also presents a very good opportunity to, for everyone, to bring national retailers and restaurants to the site and to the village. Okay.

I have a question. Has anybody done a study on how many other available restaurant and retail parcels there are in Wellington just along the State Road 7 corridor?

That is not for us to a feasibility study of competing properties is not something that we that a developer typically does. That's something more that a tenant side would do.

But you want your property to be successful for the uses that you're proposing, don't you?

I do.

Okay. And do you ever look at market conditions of the uses that you're proposing for a property?

Of course.

Okay. Did you do that in this case?

We looked at what was around. We didn't do an official market study, and, you know, but we we have an eye on what's around and what the competing properties are. And, you know, from the feedback that we've got is that the tenants that we are attracting here have seen those and really want to be right here. This is the place where they want to be.

Have they expressed to you why they would choose your location over the other available locations?

It hasn't been a question that I've asked. Why why us? As opposed to someone else. That's not something usually landlord or seller asks. We just kind of work with the tenants that want to be there and move forward.

I

don't know if staff can answer anything along those lines. As a village, do we have any information about other vacant parcels with similar uses to the ones that are being proposed here that are in the same State Road 7 corridor?

I I can tell you anecdotally, we've approved a few restaurants that well, we've had restaurants that closed that now became dentists or became something else. So the fact that we're going get another restaurant here, I think, is spectacular. I don't need another dentist on State Road 7. I So

I personally, I guess the the restaurant, so I know what it is. And I can tell you, I think that this restaurant here is gonna be extremely successful because there's only one other restaurant of that caliber in the village, in my opinion. So I think the restaurant's a grand slam. The other mixed use parcel as far as what's going in there, that that would be something I'd question as far as the viability of those different places. But the restaurant, I think is the anchor of this particular pod, think that one's pretty safe as far as what I know about that restaurant.

Okay. Why don't unless we have any other questions we have, That'd why don't we hear from staff? Be great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Just a little background over the project. This project, the annexation and the land use and zoning changes were in 2022. The initial master plan conditional use approvals were in 2023. And more recently, June, the board and the council did approve a change in the condition for the residential pod, which dealt with the timing of of conditional use seals and the private rec amenities and school bus shelter, when those would be required to be on-site.

Again, just a quick overview. The indoor entertainment. The project was originally approved with. Also they have a thousand square feet of general office within the residential pod and the daycare use. And a total of 172 residential units.

They do have the open space rec area that is connected to the Lotus one project that is continues around the the lake there. Again, the current request is to remove the entertainment use and the to increase the daycare use, which is a conditional use that was a part of the overall master plan resolution. This is the current site plan as we've seen before. Just showing the uses locations within the site. The commercial along State Road 7 with the residential in the back.

The master plan amendment will remove the conditional use for the day the entertainment use. The the applicant is requesting to include the combined restaurant and retail and freestanding restaurant building. They also increase in the number of students within the daycare. And also as listed in the draft resolution, we have some amended conditions of approval. Most of the conditions have to do with the use changes, but we did include some amendments based on some cleanups that we've noticed.

And they are shown as on the line of strike through in the resolution. The master plan itself will be amended just to show the changes in pod A, mainly. Pod B would not be changed. That's where the daycare is. There would be no change there because the number of children is not listed on the master plan itself.

So there would be no changes needed. As it relates to the uses, it's been, it is staff recommendation to approve the freestanding restaurant. However, as it relates to the other multi use building, staff is not recommending that approval at this time. We did provide a condition as an example to, for the applicant to provide additional uses as it relates to some form of entertainment for the council to approve. So as we mentioned, the removal of the entertainment, the increase in the daycare capacity, those are all part of the master plan and the conditional use approval that were originally approved under the resolution in 2023.

We do recommend the approval of the freestanding restaurant, but not the combined retail restaurant. The entertainment portion of it is something that is in our comp plan as encouraging for this to be along the State Road 7 corridor. So that is something that we still want to see what options are available there. And we we have requested the applicant to provide more details for that type use and the feasibility of that. The council meeting is tentatively scheduled for November 12.

And PCAB will be a recommending body. So based on your vote tonight, we'll be presenting that to the council. And as mentioned, the amended conditions of approval are provided in the resolution. The applicant has indicated that they may have some minor changes to those conditions. Just to provide some additional clarification. And they will be providing that prior to council, the council date for staff to review. That does conclude staff's presentation. And at this time I'd like to enter this fall into the record. And we're available to answer your questions.

Okay. Questions for staff. Thank you, Mr. Newell.

I have a question, or clarification, I guess. So you're recommending to not allow the 8,500 square foot because you want to make sure there's an entertainment component to that? Within that pod, yes. Within that pod,

yes.

That was the it was the 8,000.

The 8,000.

The 8,000

multi Right, okay.

The 8,500 square feet is the freestanding restaurant. The other the other building which is 8,000 square feet, that is the multi use building which would have a combination of retail and restaurant.

Gotcha. So you don't want to simply change the maybe the amendment to say include entertainment if you're ready for motion that way. You wanted to actually include the entertainment portion.

Correct. The condition currently has the use type as entertainment and for them to provide an option by the time for counsel's approval.

Just a question for me on what documents are actually considered official? Because the in here, we mentioned so per the recommendation, as I see it, they substitute we substitute out the indooroutdoor entertainment option for the 8,500 square foot freestanding restaurant. But we say but obviously, the applicant was also seeking the 8,000 multi tenant the square foot multi tenant. However, on their let's see, the master plan, the revised master plan document, it shows the retail restaurant space at 16,500 square feet, which should be consistent of their desired multi tenant building plus the freestanding restaurant. Does their master plan exhibit B, does that enter into the record?

Is that considered a part of the record as well for the sake of so basically showing what the ceiling is effectively on the

The master plan would be amended depending on the final approval by counsel. So if counsel does approve their requests, then that master plan will be the final document. That would be part of the record.

Including their exhibit B, their master plan,

the correct

document that states out what the maximum plan square footage is on the site from To pod A, correct?

Clarify, everything for the record is everything that's the package. So anything you see here is part of the record.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions? I have one I guess I'll jump Yeah, in go ahead. Mr. Newell, paragraph 57. I wanted to ask about that. It includes very specific language as to how they are supposed to conduct themselves during the construction of this project. Why was that included here?

That is part of some of the requirements that we are including in projects as they come forward based on some prior construction activities that happened on the Lotus site as it dealt with timing of construction and dusts and the impacts that it had to the adjacent properties. So when those items when we have new applications come in, we are including those as part of the project.

Okay. In other words, this particular applicant has had issues complying with our ordinances, particularly start and stop times, and also dust issues? Correct. Can we talk a little bit about that? I mean, I understand it, we've had to put cameras up to make sure that they're abiding by the regulations. Is that true? Yes. Do you guys say to that? Why do we have to put cameras up to monitor whether or not you guys are following our ordinances?

We had there were a couple instances of from a timing perspective of people being out there, contractors and subcontractors being out there staging and getting ready to start ahead of the seven a. M. Start time. As soon as we heard about it, they were reprimanded. And again, we didn't really have any repeat offenders. It was always a new subcontractor. Again, knew the rules. They knew when they had to be out there. We had a lot of eyes from the neighboring property on it. We had cameras up as well.

And it wasn't it wasn't our decision to have the cameras put up. But when we we did our best to abide by all of the the rules as as we could.

Do we agree? Has there been one or two isolated events? Or have we had a continued problem with this particular applicant? I bet the people of Black Diamond would disagree with that representation.

I mean, the information that we've been provided on a monthly basis is the status as to what agreements they have come up with to rectify their circumstances with the Black Diamond homeowners. And so that report is provided to us. And I think that, to Damian's point, these conditions are what we are now providing on any new construction type projects that are close to existing residential products so that we can avoid those situations in the future.

And if they violate this, what happens?

Would be a code enforcement on the property.

Do we have any pending code enforcements? No.

It could be a stop work order as well, if if it was something that that we were able to stop at that moment.

All right. I asked if we had any pending. Have we had any filed against them? You're shaking your head no, Mr. Stillings. Is that the official answer?

Correct. Tim Stillings. No, we have not. Part of this stemmed from, I think, an unfortunate two or three days where during the clearing of the property where there was significant, you know, removing the trees and moving dirt, we had three dry days of 30 to 40 mile an hour winds, which unfortunately, the contractor was not taking care to water the pile sufficiently enough, and that created some of the issues with some of the adjacent properties of Black Diamond. But since that occurrence, we have not had any repeat incidents.

In fact, we were also sending our inspectors out daily to ensure that they weren't starting before a certain period of time and that they were actively having water trucks on the site as necessary. And at that time had also indicated that, based upon certain weather conditions, would take action accordingly to either stop the work or to address any issues that they saw dust blowing around.

So I mean, would seem to me like this is a good opportunity if the council is going to entertain this site plan amendment to really put some teeth into this. Is there any greater remedy that can be provided than just initiating a code enforcement action?

Well, at this point I think you're talking about, as Mr. Castro said, you're talking about a site that just has a dirt pile on it now, and once they grade that, you're talking about general construction. So you're really not talking about any and it's significantly a good distance away from any residential properties. And so I don't know that the development of this particular portion of the site is going to create an issue that we've seen with the past activity. Even with the construction activity Lennar is undertaking, once they're done with the main infrastructure, which they're in the process of developing now, it'll be home building, which is hammers and drywall and fairly I won't say inconsequential, but load disruption as it relates to construction.

So I don't see any need to get into any more punitive measures as it relates to this particular project. I know with other projects, as Damian mentioned, we're ensuring that not only the developer is on notice, that these requirements are in place, But we've also had code amendments addressing the time, the start times as well. MR. Okay.

I'll save that discussion for another time, maybe. But thank you, Mr. Stoehling. MR. Sure. Any other questions for staff?

MR. Yeah. I have one more. Just to clarify, so the resolution as written is not exactly what the staff is supporting?

The resolution as written is not what the applicant is requesting as it relates to the uses. The resolution is specifically indicating the freestanding restaurant at 8,500 square feet,

and that's it. It does not allow for the multi tenant building. So if we approve this as recommended by staff, they'll get the restaurant and then just a giant parking lot?

If the council approves it, yes. There would just be the restaurant until the time that they provide to the council another option for the entertainment use, which is what our recommendation is. Or if the Board does make another recommendation to council, we'll provide that as the recommendation within the resolution.

So I am curious about the use element. I'm sorry. So the applicant's current request is for the 8,000 square foot multi tenant building that would theoretically have retail, it sounds like a quick service restaurant, right? And then some potential entertainment thing on the inside, I guess, in the sandwich piece in the middle. And in this, where we have what is the status of because we granted the condition I understand that indoorout to entertainment is a conditional use approval, right?

And so that still sits on the site. Does if if is it by requirement that they must still have an entertainment component on the site based on what you're what we're approving here? Because it says entertainment, indoor, outdoor. I was just curious if it's if that's would it have to be convertible to something if it wasn't if they didn't provide an entertainment use, if it was convertible to we had to go back for I'm curious about the status of the use.

Right. So the way it is, the the entertainment use will itself, to have it, would be under the approval. What that use is will still require council's approval. So the final determination of that entertainment use, if this this this recommendation moves forward, that would be something that the council will have the final vote on. But we do not know that information at this time.

Okay.

So it wouldn't necessarily preclude. I mean, they could advocate for the fact that retail and a restaurant would be an entertainment venue or something, right? And they'd have to just lobby for that in front of the council for the Okay. All right.

I want to ask that question. I want to ask a question. Sorry. I thought it was going to be a different way than what you said, but actually it's not. Regarding yeah, the resolution is written to consider the entire 52.44 acres.

And within those acres, there's the is that right? Is that Resolution R2025? But the presentation was about, the two buildings, the 8,500 building, which counsel is recommending approval for. But that's not distinguished within this resolution, the two separate plans or buildings within the total acreage. So I was thinking I mean, was going to take a stab at trying to come up with a recommend approval.

I was going to have to leave out some things and put in some other things. Do you understand what I mean?

The only thing that they're seeking to change are those two pods. And so in the resolution, you'll see the red line changes that would account for the changes to those pods. So they're not seeking to change anything else within the 59 acre site. 52? Or 52 acre site.

Lori, would that because I would read I mean, are certainly things that are related specifically to pod A. But I would think that some of the other paragraphs related to site development and swale improvements Right.

There are some general conditions that are slightly modified. But what they're really seeking is the change to those two pods. They're not asking, you know, the residential piece or any other the greenway pieces or any other piece to be modified.

But to be solution

that you have is has the existing conditions as they sit today. Anything that's redlined is what's changing from the existing in place condition, which does include the entire site, but they're only requesting that specific pod.

Understood. So the so the rest of the items there have basically been, like, way that we can read it Anything black

and white is in place and is staying in place unless the recommendation is from this board to change it, and then counsel would either accept it or not accept it. But anything in black and white is staying, and anything in the underlying and strike through is what's being proposed to be changed.

My assumption, though, is that the other amendments that are being made to the resolution that don't specifically deal with pod A or the increase in unit count in pod B, that they were basically staff clarifications effect? Like, is that an easier way to think about? Okay.

And they would have been related to you might still have the conditions about the swale that would still apply regardless of what use is there. You might still have landscape buffer conditions that's still going to apply regardless of what use is there.

Just a quick question because traffic sometimes comes into obviously can be a sticky subject. I'm just curious about the change to the from the to clarify the five eighty feet as opposed to the maximum extent as approved by FDOT. Is that because we received clarification on the maximum? Is that

Correct. It's clarification instead of referencing the section, or it's more to provide a detail with a specific measurement.

Mr. Okay. Noel, let me just go back to another question I had before about the date on the permits. Why did we extend it three years? What is the meaning behind or the purpose or the intent behind three years as opposed to two or one?

I'll jump in and try to answer that. That's a county traffic letter condition. All that simply says is that after 2029, they can't pull any building permits unless they renew their county traffic approval, because it's basically reserving those trips until they complete development. With respect to the master plan and the site plan, we have our own expiration periods, but they have already basically the site is under construction, so they're essentially vested for the master plan, barring any future amendments. What was our expiration? For a master plan it's three years, and for a

site plan it's two. So three years going back from when? Don't From know

the approval of the latest site plan they would have two years to initiate construction, basically, which they have done.

Okay. And just remind me, Mr. Sillings, mean the purpose of that is so that it doesn't sit there or they decide, you know what, we're gonna work on this six months from now, we're gonna go work on some other projects, right? I mean we want to motivate them to finish the project, Correct? I mean, that's the purpose behind it.

Correct. But as I said, that only requires the initiation of construction, you know, to a certain point. And they have already achieved that threshold. So again, that condition is just tied to their trip reservation. And so to that end, if they don't build, they would then have to go back to the county to get that reapproved to pull the building permit.

Okay. Just a reminder, you need a public hearing.

Yeah, I was just about ready to do that. I wanted to make sure that we got all our questions.

I have one question, actually, for the applicant before we do that. I was just curious, in terms of the time frame for the next the tentative meeting with counsel, which is November 12, do you think that that's a reasonable outside date for you to be able to have a finalization on the lease agreement?

From where I sit today, yes. If it is not finalized by then, then I'll seek a special dispensation to be able to name who it is and give some details about, you know, the work in process. Obviously, this is a very it's a very important piece of the of the project, and they're a flagship tenant of ours. And trust me, I I wish I could name who they are. You know, bursting at the seams to let everyone know who it is, because I'm really excited about it.

They're excited about it too. So if we don't have the lease done by then, which I believe we should, it's job one of mine, after this, this is job one of mine, then we'll be able to name who it is.

Okay. If you wouldn't mind, Chair, if I make one additional comment about the condition number five. And a lot of discussion. It is a bit confusing, frankly. We had this conversation with staff yesterday talking about the specific language of that.

And I think that one thing I could offer and I think that would be helpful for all of us is really, you know, to Mr. Darrell's point, the goal is to get this project developed and finished. Carving out individual buildings and saying we don't want to talk about that building, you'll come back at some later date, that only delays and further slows down the potential full development of the site. I would suggest that we heard very clearly, I think, here tonight. We've heard it from staff.

You know, the desire for this community continue for for for our team to continue seeking some type of entertainment user within that space. And instead of us just basically removing that use, that conditional use, why don't we modify the condition to just include the 8,000 square foot building with the indooroutdoor entertainment use, retail and restaurant? That way it's not excluded. It's something that certainly can be included within the building, Would not require further coming back and amending the master plan again, asking for additional approvals, and provide that flexibility. And certainly, as was mentioned, by the time we get to council we'll have a very clear, hopeful presentation to the counsel so they can make a very, you know, educated decision on whether this is approvable or not.

Thank you, Mr. Cherry.

So at this point I'd like to entertain a motion to open for public comment.

I'll move to open public comment.

I'll second.

A motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Hearing none. We are open for public comment. Any comment cards or anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? I'll make

a motion to close public comments.

I will second.

Okay. Hearing the motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, public comment is closed.

I would just like to have the thoughts from staff. I know that's a little bit of a pivot and potentially doesn't give you enough time to reflect on it. But does would the idea of maintaining an entertainment component a required entertainment component on the site, would that change your opinion? Do you anticipate that that would change what you have before us in terms of your supported resolution?

If the amendment is to include the multi use building to have entertainment, that would be something that we would recommend.

Do you mind pulling up your recommendations again so we can look at that?

I think it's page nineteen of one hundred seventy four. I think right this.

No. There was another. There was another

This is the recommendation that we're talking about.

Yeah, but there was another graphic after this, I thought.

Like the, you want to see the footprint?

Nope. There was another

You mean it was like a bullet?

Yeah, yes, exactly. Isn't this

staff presentation, I think,

This is it. This is the summary. That's the word, the summary. Okay, summary.

And I think while you're reviewing that, you know, being able to preserve entertain, indooroutdoor entertainment, commercial and restaurantretail, and the multi, multi uses of that building to include an option for the entertainment, you know, we would, as the applicant, we would support that. And, you know, going back to something that Mr. Meyer said about backup tenants, you know, it can definitely be if if if that's what we need to be exploring, we can definitely, you know, keep exploring some entertainment users in that space, you know, in that 8,000 square foot building or available square footage within that building to to be able to see what we can get. And as as mister Terry said, by time we get to council, we we should be able to get a a better idea from a more micro level perspective of that building and what users are interested in it and what we can potentially can or can't potentially put there.

Just to clarify what you're suggesting though, is that you want to add the indooroutdoor entertainment component, but still keep in the, what you called, in line use where you can put retail or restaurant space in there, right? So we're really not, we're not gaining anything. Right. Community's not gaining anything by that proposal.

I'm okay with the recommendation for the 8,500 on the restaurant, but I do feel to ask us to I agree with the original, as I understood it, not approving the 8,000 square foot mixed use. And frankly, I think counsel would want to see that termination letter if, in fact, we wouldn't be here today if Pop Stroke hadn't terminated. And also, wanted to ask, you met, you gave them some sort of or they had a meeting in June, I think you mentioned. Did you provide an update on the rest of the project at that point and say, hey, by the way, last September, you know, POP stroke terminated. I'm just wondering, and I'm also wondering if that answer is no, because that's not what the meeting was about, then did counsel ask, you know, how is everything going?

I can answer that. Any Yeah, just for clarification, the amendment that was brought forward by Lennar to modify the conditions of approval were not done by the LOTUS Group.

Okay.

And had nothing in Oh, in June.

In June.

Correct. That was done by

a So completely what you separate sense for them to I understand. Okay, yeah. But I was just thinking, like, I just sort of feel like the counsel should know if

So I'll just I guess I'll give some of my thoughts on just on the record in terms of where I'm thinking about it. I mean, am excited about the idea of what I believe will be delivered from the 8,500 square foot site. And I think that if it is delivered if what I'm imagining is delivered, that it would give some grace in terms of our understanding of entertainment options on the site. But I do think that given the change on the just given the change in this position that we're put in, just because of the change with the pop stroke, I think there is some sensitivity towards having some idea of understanding what that what entertainment is, or at least some further lockdown in terms of what the carat that we would be getting by the 8,500 square foot restaurant would be in order for us to agree to make other changes on the site. That's where my gut is.

I mean, for example, the suggestion of requiring an entertainment option to still indooroutdoor entertainment option to still be on the table with the in line building. I mean, I don't want some, you know, one of those old folks arcade things that sits there in the middle. Know, that wouldn't really be attractive to me, nor would I say like an outdoor piercing parlor or something, right? That wouldn't be something that I would necessarily love to see on the site. Absolutely.

So I think that the I think that the optionality, given the fluidity of your ability to disclose right now, that it preserves it does preserve some for us to be able to better defend, because people get emotionally attached to ideas that get expressed, right? And so people were amped about the pop stroke. To help all of us be able to understand what we are getting for giving up something else, that does certainly sit better with residents, I believe.

So let me follow-up on that. Because I think that's a really important point you're making that I want to emphasize to some extent. You said emotionally attached to a concept. What everyone needs to appreciate, and the reason why I'm so animated about this, is because when a public servant, the counsel in this case, commits themselves to supporting a project, they do so because there are certain representations that are made by the developer to allow that project to be appealing. There's community benefit.

Everyone is gonna enjoy this particular thing and so we're gonna go ahead and support it. And then they turn around later when there's a different governing body in place and a different panel that didn't consider those things and say things like, well, they broke the lease or we misjudged the market. And they completely watered down the initial intent of the project. And the whole reason why that first governing body supported the project. And particularly when you have an applicant like this who does this repeatedly.

This is not the first instance that these gentlemen have been before me and said, there's been a change in circumstance. And so I hold you guys to the strictest standards when it comes to what representations you make to me, what I commit myself to support, and then what later I'm going to do to make sure you live up to your word. And so that's why I'm so, quite frankly angry about this. Because it's not the first time. And so I mean, this is food for thought for all of you.

But there's only so much that we can do as an advisory board. We send recommendations up to the council, they take those into consideration and then they vote. But the value in what we do is that we have an opportunity to not only send recommendations, but send messages. Not only to the council, but to this applicant. That hey, when you make a representation to us and you tell us that you're gonna build something, you're either gonna do it or I'm sorry, it's gonna be green space.

And I asked you guys, I said, look, what stops you from just making this green space? And you were honest. You said, look, mean, it does come down to finances at the end of the day. And I appreciate that you need to make money off of your projects. But we don't have to approve this just because they're asking us And I guarantee you guys, if we sent a strong message to the council recommending against this, and holding them to their original representation, and then the council follows that and holds their feet to the fire, these guys will be back with a pickleball company that's interested. Maybe they'll find an indoor golf company that will ultimately want to do this, because they know either they build what they told us they're going to, or they build nothing.

So

there's value in that, not only with this applicant, but every other developer who wants to do business in Wellington. We cannot water down projects over time. And that's why I'm still here, is to make sure these guys are following through on agreements I made with them.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Michael, so are you, or just anyone, So are you implying that we would have to recommend not approving the entire both pieces, the 8,500 plus the 8,000? Because if, in fact, we tell them to go back to the drawing board and bring us back an entertainment, something equivalent of pop stroke, that we would need all of that square footage for such

So, mean, we fit the restaurant?

I just want make sure that's what So you're

remember, there's two things that we're really voting There's the issue of the day care facility, right, which is in the other pod. You know, if they want to increase from two ten to two thirty, to me that doesn't there's no substantial change in the overall project from that slight alteration. What I'm focusing on is the other aspect, in which I'm suggesting we send a strong message up to the council to say, these guys have made no kind of compelling case to justify a change. They've made no case to say that this is in any way going to be better for the community. If anything, what they've done is exactly the kind of thing I hate, which is we're not gonna give you what we originally promised, but we're gonna soak this property with other stuff to make as much money off of it as possible. And who cares what the future holds because we're gonna sell it and get Is there

a between? Yes.

And what

I mean by

that is the restaurant, but then an entertainment component that takes place of the mixed use or mixed clientele space, like, for example, bowling alley or an indoor golf?

So I appreciate I've thought about this, and I do appreciate your perspective, Michael, on this. My where just again, full disclosure, where I see this. I mean, I saw the application, yes, what I love to me, pop stroke is kind of a unicorn, because it sort of preserves this open it's trendy, it preserves this open concept. I don't know if I really want that much. I mean, you think about entertainment users, right?

And you think of Padel or Pickleball. I don't really those are warehouses. I don't really want a warehouse on 441, right? I mean, there's to be just to be candid. And there's very few entertainment I don't want a go kart track on the corner of Foi. Those things are not things that I find to be community enhancing. Candidly, what I expect you to deliver from the restaurant concept could be community enhancing, right? And that might be a positive entertainment option. The challenge is right now, we're in this place where we can't really disclose that currently. And so it's hard for us to be able to get behind something like that and support it without having something that's committed.

And in this case, I think that the risk, the project is much farther down the line than it was when you had the original user that was here. And it is also a pad lease, so it's pretty easy for you it should be pretty easy for you to be able to turn that over to them. So I think that the execution risk is a lot lower. And do think that from an entertainment option, when I think about what I'm gonna do for entertainment with my wife or my kids, restaurants are on the list, right? That is an entertainment use, I think.

So it's not outside the scope. I commend you for trying to find something that's attractive to us also. That would just be my sense is that I don't necessarily think that I want to hold somebody to an indooroutdoor entertainment if it's not pop stroke, right?

That may be so. But let's remember why we're in the position that we're in. It's because they've decided they've strategically decided to come to this board in a position where they cannot commit publicly to whatever restaurant that's gonna be. Oh, I They they do that at their detriment. So if let's say they came here and they presented us a contract and they said we can announce publicly and here's the owner, we're gonna, you know, build this wonderful restaurant that's Michelin rated and it's gonna be fantastic. It's easier for us then at that point to say, okay, Michael, maybe you need to tone it down a little bit and consider the benefit to the community. But they haven't even given us that benefit. Yeah. We don't even know what the restaurant is. So they may make representations to you behind closed doors, Mr.

Myers, that we're bringing in this restaurant, it's gonna be awesome and it's your favorite restaurant. But we take the risk that thirty or sixty days or ninety days or six months from now they come back to us and say, that restaurant breached the lease and I'm so sorry, but now it's gonna be well, I don't want to disparage, but a less appealing restaurant. So they've made that decision.

So here's my thought, and I'm willing to have people table this or strike it down, right? But I'm going to try to craft my thought on because I am in agreement with you. I'm going to try to craft my way of trying to come up with some kind of resolution that I feel like could be supportable, given the lack of details that we have at this moment. My thought would be to approve the resolution as presented, with a provided that the applicant was in a position to disclose the tenant on the freestanding restaurant site.

Can I give you my thoughts on this? Yeah. Okay.

how do we have to do that? You can strike me down if

you I I didn't actually make the

don't know if everyone had an opportunity to comment, and so it certainly wasn't my intent to silence anyone. So if anyone has any further comments before there's a motion, please, now's the time.

I didn't make a motion, by the way, just to

say. Okay, you were getting close.

I was getting close, yeah. So

I agree with what Mr. Drehos has said. I've lived in Wellington for twenty years. I know we all know this village and love it very much. And we've seen the changes. And part of our job, as the job of counsel, is to think of the future of Wellington. This parcel, pod A of Lotus II, is three and a half acres. That's a lot of acreage. That's a lot of possibilities. What is really being presented to us is that this developer got to a certain point, they've done the groundwork, and now they lost a lease for whatever reasons.

You know, it happens. But now they want to invest as little as possible in order to make their project go forward. They took the risk on that lease. They sold the project to counsel and to this community based off of that entertainment venue, based off of something that would be a gathering place for the community, that would be a draw for Wellington, which is something that we need here in Wellington. That's what we're trying to do.

We're trying to encourage development that is multi use, that gathers people, that the community wants to be a part of. I want to continue living in Wellington and aging here. I want my kids to grow up and come back and live here. And we need properties and projects that encourage these types of uses. So if we, at this point, recommend even just a little bit by giving them the restaurant parcel, we're just letting them lock it in even further. Oh, they have the infrastructure in place. Let us not disturb it and ask for something better. Let's at least give them an 8,500 square foot standalone restaurant. Well, now we've locked it in even more. Yeah, it could be the most fantastic restaurant in the world.

I'd love a better restaurant in Wellington. Absolutely. But I don't think that's right for this parcel, because more was promised, more is expected. Our comp plan goals tell us that we want these types of facilities. And so I don't see a reason at this point to recommend changing that conditional use. I think we should keep them locked in, keep looking, keep trying to search for something better. You don't have to build concrete warehouses to do Padel or pickleball. There are better ways to construct buildings. That might be the cheapest way to do it, but there are better ways. It might involve additional investment.

And I understand that there are business economics involved in that. But I don't think we're at a point where we can just say, let's give up that use, let's give up that dream of having a community gathering space, and just start giving them a little bit at a time. Because I think, as Mr. Drehos says, that's what happens, that's what developers do, because they want to move their projects along. They are a business. They need to be able to move forward and close the projects and make their deals and move on and make some money. That's understandable. But as a community, this is a property that we are going to have for the rest of the life future of Wellington. And so for that reason, I agree with Mr. Drakos, and I don't think we should recommend approval DAY: of

any of the master plan amendment relating to pod A. The other conditions, I'm fine with.

I was going to say I'm on opposite side of that. From my perspective, what would make Wellington great is not grass open space, green space. We've got plenty of that that's by design and is very nice. I don't think we can just take this. And if we're not going to get the pop stroke, truthfully, I'll just take it or leave it.

I mean, a nice quality restaurant is the best thing that I'm going to use. Anything else just seems just useless for me. So if they're going to come in with a quality restaurant, I think that's our best alternative. I think we should support them.

GREGORY And I will say that on the pop stroke front, it was not an easy thing for us to lose them. We were not happy about it. We did a lot to try to retain them. We tried to make certain financial concessions to keep them. We tried to figure out different details and lease terms and other things. And frankly, were actually going to purchase their pod. So it was it was not an easy day and and series of days when when those conversations were had. I live in Delray and I'll give you my I don't mean to take up too much time, but I'll give you my spiel. I'm a golfer. I play golf four times a week.

I love golf. I live in Delray. I live ten minutes from pop stroke. It's been open almost two years. I've been once. And so is everyone else. It's all tourists that come, or corporate events, or you know, people having outings. But from a pop stroke at $40 a person for mini golf and bar tabs of, for me and a buddy, a $100 for three drinks each. That's that's not it's it's it's not necessarily a community gathering space.

I've been once.

Yeah. I mean, look, I I don't wanna have a back and forth. No. I know. I know. At this point, we're we're deliberating. I would have liked to have played what you just said to you a year ago or two years ago or whenever it was that you guys brought this initially to us and said Pop Stroke was gonna be a community gathering point and that it's such a great concept and everyone's gonna love it. And now today that you don't have the contract in place, you're trying to tell us that there is no value to it. So again, you're writing chapter two of Dilipur 101, which is, you know, change what you originally represented when you were trying to sell something. So let's just finish up deliberations so that we go

can So on to one, before we finalize things, I would say that if the idea is, if there is some grander entertainment, indooroutdoor entertainment requirement, or desire on this site, I would say that my perspective is, when I saw this, is that if you put an 8,500 square foot pad for a restaurant on there that's going to have if it's a restaurant that I think it would be, that would have pretty intense parking demands during peak times, that you would limit a large portion of the site otherwise to from being developed, given the fact that we have two access points that are going through it. So I do think that it would constrain the optionality of the site going forward. My big question would be, is it worth it to score? I mean, we have kind of one higher end restaurant in the village. And the question would be, is it worth that for a flyer on it?

And I think that's where my head of

consideration I mean, I would just caution you against being seduced by the idea that we're going have a high end restaurant because they're representing that to Well, us today.

100% agree. That's exactly why my thought on what I was thinking about for when I was sort of wordsmithing on the fly, my idea would be that I wouldn't recommend that my only recommendation to counsel would be to consider approval in the event that we actually had disclosure on the tenant.

Any further thoughts? So I can't make a motion, so I'm going to rely upon somebody else, too.

All right. So I mean, just to clarify, we're everyone's take on this, we're either going to deny everything, in which case you say, I don't want the restaurant, we're going to hold your feet to the fire for entertainment.

Except for the daycare. The Except daycare. Okay.

And the construction conditions, right. Deny only anything relating to changes in use for Part A.

For the major considerations, everything else I'll call minor, We're either going to not support, in which case we hold their feet to the fire and say stick to your original proposal. Or we can say we support the staff recommendation, which is for the freestanding restaurant but not the retail building. Or we can support I think Mr. Terry had a last ditch kind of effort to say, put something in there so that we don't have to come back again for the retail outfit. And it leaves a little bit of wiggle room for counsel to make that final decision, but it keeps the ball moving forward.

The only thing Mr. Terry's proposal does is appeases us in the sense that they're telling us, well, we're still going to keep that entertainment option viable. But they still would be allowed to do any other alternative use like retail or restaurant under the language of that proposal. So I see that as

I thought can we ask clarification on that? Because one thing I thought that would still include the condition for the conditional use requirement for it to have entertainment indooroutdoor entertainment on the site.

My understanding was that what he was saying is we will include the indooroutdoor entertainment option in the event that we ultimately do that so that we don't have to come back and change this again.

Can we get clarification?

Yeah, absolutely. No, he's 100% correct. That was my suggestion. By making sure that the indoor outdoor use was still within the approved list of uses for that 8,000 square foot building or within Pod A, it provides for that flexibility. Again, what we're talking about is providing counsel with the opportunity to make a decision on what those ultimate mixture of uses make most sense for this property and for the project to move forward.

Understand. However, there would be no requirement anymore for that to serve as indooroutdoor entertainment. Is what you're suggesting?

I would suggest, yes, to include it in the list of potential uses, Only but not

for that 8,000 square foot building. Correct.

So let pose an idea. Right. And again, it's not a motion because I can't make one unless I pass the gobble, which I might end up doing. But here's what potentially covers everybody's interest, is if we sent some sort of a recommendation to the council as follows: The applicant has failed to make a compelling case to change the site the master plan from indoor outdoor entertainment to restaurant slash

Retail.

Retail slash indooroutdoor entertainment. And just leave it at that. And then they can digest the comments that have been said here tonight. And then they can ultimately decide, you know what? Drehaus was upset about the fact that we didn't have the letter, so we better include that to the council. And there were some other comments in here about how Mr. Meyer liked this particular restaurant. Maybe we better commit them publicly so that when we present this to the council, we'll have that available. Don't We have to be so specific and JULIET

Recommend or

what we're recommending. We have done our service to the community by relaying our thoughts and providing them to this applicant. And then ultimately, you know, passing along a recommendation of the council. But it doesn't necessarily need to be anything more than, we don't believe they've made a compelling case, so we're going to deny it. It's not a denial with prejudice, in other words.

Yes. No, I agree. And we're only a recommending body anyways, right? We're not the ultimate arbiter. So I do understand that perspective.

You could approve staff's recommendation and also recommend that when it goes to counsel, they present the letter that

the House

has requested, and that they that counsel not approve it without disclosure of the tenant.

And I would advise against that, because staff's recommendation was to approve the was it, the 8,500 square foot freestanding restaurant. So actually what we would be doing is ratifying that in a sense. So JACKSON Well, we would

be recommend we would tend to be ratifying I if they disclose.

Think what Ms. Yakis and I both said was we don't even agree with that concept.

I think you have some differing views on that Okay. With

So we're going to my guess is

I that you might want to ask Michael a question. Would you feel better about that restaurant if you liked that restaurant, personally?

Or if you would have This is just me, personally.

No, I I just am trying to understand you personally.

Yeah. So I I would say that they would really need to sell that on me. Yeah. That doesn't mean this board. That just means me.

Right.

But the fact that they haven't done that makes this easy for me tonight.

Right.

I can easily say, you know what? Yeah. I've heard nothing here today that convinced me to change my mind.

Yeah. I'm

a student of time. There is going be a Cooper's Hawk on Lotus One already. Right. So that's going be a new restaurant that's going to be exciting for Wellington already.

Right.

So to me, having another new restaurant right next door, they have to drive to separately because it doesn't even seem that connected, it's not a draw.

Yeah, for example, let's say they came to us and Doesn't they said internally circulate, but Let's say they came to us and they said, We have struck a deal

with Cipriani's.

No, no. I'm thinking of the Chamberlain's restaurant that used to be where it was like an indoor basketball court and you can Oh, yeah, yeah, Will Chamberlain's. Like that would sort of cover some concepts, right? It's a restaurant, but also it has indoor outdoor entertainment. It's different. It's something that maybe people would like. Would be something And we would be I'm not saying specifically that. I'm just trying to give you an idea of how they could have made this a little easier on themselves, quite frankly. Right. If they'd given us a little bit more detail. Okay. So we definitely need a motion at

this point. You're not wrong. I think you should pass the gavel and make a motion.

No, no. He doesn't have to I don't want the gavel to done.

Well, just think he's going

to make a Robert. The gavel would done.

Can I'm make give it a

I make a motion, and this is gonna be very specific, to recommend approval of Resolution R202569 with amending the paragraph five pertaining to pod A commercial uses, and striking that, not allowing any changes to the conditional uses currently on the master plan for pod A.

It's also in pod it's also in paragraph seven.

Thank you. And paragraph seven, any conditions pertaining to changes to uses in pod A, striking those and removing those, leaving only conditions pertaining to the daycare and site development construction.

Okay. So there's been a motion. Motion. Is there a second?

I wish you could say that again.

You want to try to repeat it again?

Yes. I make a motion to approve resolution number R202569, amending and removing any of the red lines that have to do with making changes to the conditional uses for pod A.

Okay. So there's been a motion. Do we all understand the motion? Do we need any clarity on it? I I Okay. Am I allowed to second a motion or

You can.

I am? Then I'm gonna go ahead and second the motion. All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Aye. that's

Someone three to four. The motion fails.

Else has to make a motion.

I'll go ahead and take a stab at this. I'll make a motion. Basically, Ms. Cohen, this is what you were suggesting that we'll approve as recommended by staff and then recommend that when they come to counsel, they have the restaurant named as well. I think that was the only other

The letter. The letter from Propulsion. Yes.

Okay. Is there a motion? Or is there a second?

Let's review that motion one more time. I just want to As proposed with pending the disclosure of the tenant for the 8,500 square foot pad lease, okay, we're not removing the entertainment conditional use on there either? So like, because that still exists in your in the staff recommendation, right?

That's right. Yeah.

Okay. All right. That's cool? Okay. I can second that.

Okay. There's a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Opposed?

Opposed.

Okay. That's what? Five? 5 to

two? To two.

Five Five to two. The motion passes. Okay. Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

What do we have next?

The next item is bicycle parking standards, zoning text amendment. And Christian will be here to present for you.

Just give me one minute.

Christian, you win the Patience Award tonight. That's good.

Alright. Good evening, board members. My name is Christian Santa Gonzalez. I'm a senior planner with the village of Wellington. Before you today is ordinance number twenty twenty five dash 24, a zoning tax amendment for bicycle parking standards. At this time, I would like to enter the file into the record. So this is a Wellington initiated zoning tax amendment. The request is to amend Article seven of Wellington's Land Development Regulations by amending Section 7.5.1 related to bicycle parking. So a brief background. Bicycling has become a popular recreational activity.

It is an increasing mode of transportation. And because of the popularity and increasing use, the need for safe, secure, and accessible bicycle parking must keep pace. Now the purpose of the amendment is to enhance bicycle parking and facilities to ensure that a rider's bike is safe and accessible at the start and end of their journey. Another purpose is to provide bike commuters showers and changing facilities to encourage and promote cycling year round. So this amendment basically started from a bicycle rack assessment report that staff conducted.

The report found that several racks are located in low visibility areas, or they were installed at hard to reach areas. Some of these racks are partially visible from the entrance to a commercial center. It's quite difficult to know where they were. And a total of 8% of the racks are in need of repair or replacement. Now some common pitfalls to bicycle parking standards.

There's simply not enough parking options. I'll continue on that at a later time. But there's also not enough aisle space to take out your bicycle from a parking space. There is also insufficient lighting, especially for outdoor commercial uses, and also poor access. Some bicyclists are either if it's indoor, they cannot they don't know where the parking area is.

And I'll be free to expand on that at a later time. So what makes a good bike rack? At a minimum, a good bike rack will allow both the frame and at least one of the wheels to be secured with a U shaped bicycle lock. So the rack should make at least two points of contact with the bike and so that it leans against the rack correctly. And the illustration to the right illustrates the space efficiency when a bike parking is designed correctly.

So the zoning text amendments, just a brief overview. The standards are applicable to all new developments and building additions that increases the gross floor area by 50% or greater. The amendment enhances the existing bicycle racks requirements with the intent to expand convenient and safe bicycle parking options for all types of bicyclists. Now the amendment incorporates recommendations from the Association for Pedestrians and Bicycle Professionals. Now some of these specific recommendations are guidance for short and long term parking rack options, the installation and placement of bike racks, and spacing and setbacks to incorporate safe, accessible, and convenient bicycle parking.

So type one bicycle parking, or also known as short term parking. This meets the needs of bicyclists visiting businesses or common public places within a two hour period. Imagine a cyclist going to a cafe or a public library for a brief period of time. Short term parking also requires specific types of racks styles due to their advantages. And these two require bike racks are the inverted U and the post and ring.

And the reason for this is that it maximizes the convenience by keeping bikes orderly and effectively saving space. So with that, the amendment allows alternative rack design options as long as it meets certain criteria requirements. The applicant must obtain approval from the Architecture Review Board, of course, for this alternative rack design. And this option allows business owners to express their brand or logo characteristics and uniqueness. The type two parking, also known as long term parking, meets the needs for employees, residents, and public transit users.

Long term parking is a high level provides a high level of security. And some examples of type two bike or bike lockers that can provide be provided at residential buildings, commercial centers, and parking garages. Other type two long term parking options are outdoor enclosed shelters and also indoor bicycle rooms. Some additional regulations within the amendment. Is a 10% of the total bicycle parking spaces shall require electrical outlets.

This is particularly for type two long term parking. As you all know, electric mode of transportation has really taken off. Just about every five bicyclists that I see out there, especially in West Palm Beach, are all electric. So that's one requirement. Another one is if more than 10 bicycle parking spaces are required, a minimum of 10% of the spaces shall accommodate cargo style bicycles.

This is for type one. This is in addition. We call it cargo style bicycle, but it's also for inclusivity. You may have a recumbent bike for the matter of a special disabled person that would accommodate because it's a three by eight parking space. Another regulation would be if more than 20 or more bicycle spaces are required, a minimum of 5% of the spaces must accommodate the cargo style bicycle for type two.

All right. So the amendment ensures showers and lockers are provided as a change in facility for bike commuters. The amendment requires all new development or building additions to construct or install a certain number of showers and lockers as outlined in table 7.5-two of the LDR. So this slide illustrates an example of how type two parking spaces and changing facilities could look like within a small building footprint. Now the analysis.

So the amendment furthers Goal MB-two as the requirement expands short term and long term bicycle racks for many styles of bicycles, specifically certain cargo, adaptive, and bicycles with trailers. The amendment furthers objective MB 3.1 as the proposed enhancement of bicycle rack types, location, and improved facilities provides a safe and convenient mobility system throughout Wellington. Further, the proposed changes benefit commuters, students, and recreational riders by raising their confidence that a safe and convenient bicycle parking exists at the start and end of their trip within the multimodal network. Oh, I'm sorry. One more.

So the amendment furthers objective CSR 1.2 as the establishment of bicycle parking standards and facilities reduces gas emissions. Since the dependence on automobiles is reduced, when a person decides to ride a bicycle as an alternative mode of transportation for short trips. Now these short trips could obviously be visiting your local gym, shopping for groceries, or even running your errands around around town. So the findings of the findings of fact have been provided in the staff report that support approval of this ordinance number twenty twenty five dash 24, a zoning tax amendment to amend section seven point five point one of Wellington's LDR to modify the regulations related to bicycle parking standards. That concludes my presentation.

I thank you for your time, and staff and I are available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Obviously, this is something that will benefit the community. And so I don't think there's going be a lot of animated disputes over it. But any questions for staff?

Yeah. I have some questions. So these bicycle parking and other standards would apply to all new development in Wellington?

Correct. New all new development. You would have Table 7.5-two will require certain minimum numbers for all new development, but it also includes for any building additions that are that will constitute, say, 50% or more increase of the gross floor area of an existing structure.

Is it just for commercial properties?

No. It could also be this is for residential as well. Mostly not it's for, like, apartment complexes, in other words. But it's not just specifically for commercial. Multi family? family, yes.

Not single family? No.

Okay.

Can you tell DAY: me more about the showers and lockers requirement?

Yeah. So I mean, do mean? Like, as far as the reason why behind we're requiring Yes.

Well, I think I understand the why, but really questioning And the whole how.

Where? Where is this needed?

Well, that's the beauty of it, because if it's a new development, it could be designed to accommodate the showers and lockers. And especially when it comes to building conditions, if adding on 50% of gross floor area, you should be able to at least hire a consultant or even other various vendors to design that space. So it is capable. It's not something like

MS. Trying to imagine, like, I'm going to bike to Publix and take a shower when I get there. I don't understand when this would come into play. If I'm going into a multifamily building, I already have somewhere to live and take a shower there, why would you ask for this?

JULIET I mean,

do I

get to take a shower before I go to a movie theater? Well, I mean,

I'm I think

that's JULIET my specific uses. It's not just for, oh, god, like, for everything. No.

I'm just trying

These to would be for employees. Be employees.

Building something big enough, it would be redevelopment, right?

No. It's more, it's not

No, understand. I'm just trying to think where in Wellington do we actually have?

Anywhere. Anywhere you

go. Are you Yeah, you'd have

to have a certain number Or

what Ms. Kramer said. Right? It's for the employees. Typically, so even if it is a condo or an apartment building where everyone has their own apartment with shower facilities, this new hypothetical building would still have to put in a shower facility for the employees that work there.

Correct. So it's for well, I'm sorry. Just for a correction, for residential development for multi families, the showers and lockers are not provided or don't have to be provided. It's just for type two, type ones of bicycle parking spaces.

All right. So if we look at recent new developments, all right, so the stuff we approved last year at WEF and all that, just how many if this was in place when they came through, how many lockers or how many Like types. Do you have an estimate for what the impact would have been for that, for everything they're doing?

So if you turn to page one fifteen of one seventy four of your packet Yeah. You will find a table. Now let's see let's say for that specific use, I'm not sure what the specifics I know there was an auditorium or I'm sorry, an arena involved. But you would do the calculation based on what the use is within that specific development. And then you would do the calculations, and it would provide you with the minimum amount that needs to be provided.

So for downtown area, where they're going to have a hotel and several other parcels or several other structures, do they get credit for being one development or each one would have to address this? Each use would have

to address it, depending on the gross floor area of the particular use. So they come in and they're building x amount of hotel, x amount of offices. Would take all that calculation from based on the master plan calculations, and we would go off that calculation meeting the minimums from the table.

So hypothetically, if somebody came in with an arbitrarily 8,500 square foot hotel and maybe a I mean a restaurant, let's say an 8,000 square foot tenant area,

just rough numbers. No showers. They would need probably, I don't know, four spaces for the restaurant or lounge and then four and then, like, don't know, like, maybe eight spaces total, I guess.

Right? So you would have to meet the type one, the type two, and if showers and lockers facilities are required, then yes. Then you would do that. But for a restaurant, you don't require the showers and lockers. But for an office building, you do.

Where did you come up with this?

Where? This was actually modeled off the city of Delray Beach amendment that they passed several years ago. So this particular amendment that you see before you is a model is based off of that model. And we did add some electric capabilities, the electrical outlets component. So we did add on several things. But there is there are other exemplary models out

there So for this. The day care would yes, day care would trip it.

They And need so would every school building.

Yes. Which is kind of a whole another Well, they technically have Some of them. I guess. Yeah.

Not the elementary

Not public ones.

This is Yeah, I mean

Yeah, I just

This is gross over regulation. I mean, I'm just gonna call it what

it is, my opinion. Cost prohibitive.

It's over regulation.

I can jump in and help Christian a little bit here. So, we have been trying for now several years to get a bicycle friendly designation from the American League of Bicycles. I don't know if you mentioned that.

Here we go.

And we already had requirements for bike racks. This is just going to the next of accommodating individuals who choose to bicycle as their mode of transportation, and requiring businesses and developments that meet a certain threshold. And you'll see there are greater than 20,000 square feet. So these are pretty substantial developments, that's when those showers and lockers would kick in. So a good example, this building has showers and lockers.

Sure. Makes sense. And we do have several employees who bicycle here. And so they have the opportunity. And when you're bicycling, particularly in South Florida, or anywhere for that matter, it's important to be able to, or to have the option to not wear the clothes you're going to wear to work while you're bicycling. So you can get there, change. If you want to shower, you can, but you at least have the option. Right. And so that's really all this is. And this would come into play at the development approval. This isn't going to apply retroactively.

No, no, didn't.

Yeah, and it's

obviously taking great liberty Oh, with sure.

I'm just My only concern is that, I mean, it does seem like the So like, showers and lockers, that part, I feel like there could be issues, potentially, like unintended issues that could result from having increased public showers, you know, in places potentially?

Well, these aren't public showers. These are for the employees. It's not can't walk well, up you can't walk up the street. A customer bicycling there won't be able to use the lockers and showers. It's only for the employees of the business within those buildings.

So then this is tailored for commercial uses that have employees.

Correct.

But that's not how it's written.

It is. Are no only the racks are required for residential development, for multifamily residential development. There are no shower locker requirements for those are only for nonresidential development.

If I can jump in here, as I work as an architect, we put showers in just about every employee lounges and showers in just about every building we do, especially now. And they're not huge. It's one shower, it's an accessible bathroom, You know, five feet by three feet, it's just something in, like, one locker.

I think we were thinking, like, public, I don't know, showers, some That's big not

development like a

customers. This is employee only.

The graphic that you have, I would recommend maybe amending that prior to counseling because that makes it look like you're just putting a

Yeah. For

everyone's shower. Yeah. It's adjacent to the bike locker.

Yeah, that big

shower room. Truck stop along the highway of the bikers. Come to Wellington, take a shower, bring your bicycle. Yes.

And go along.

Yeah, mean, I thought I'd hit the nail on the wall when I said provide staging facility for bicycle commuters.

The shower room.

Yeah. No, I gotcha.

Not this slide. This

slide. The other one. Go back.

This one here? This one. Yeah, putting them together.

Oh, okay. Yeah.

So, all right.

At showers and

some Any other questions?

questions. I have a question. Yeah. So I understand why you would want to have electrical outlet requirements, but I'm just concerned about the infrastructure cost of adding that. Because it seems like where we normally see bike racks don't really have electrical connections built in.

That's a great question. But obviously, with the design of new development, they could accommodate it. And it's only 10% of the total that are required to have the bicycle electricity component to it. So will it include additional infrastructure improvement? I'm not sure. I'm not an electrician, but I'm sure it will involve a little bit of

a higher component of electric. It's much easier to put things like that in When you're retrofitting. Developing the site before the concrete's poured versus trying to retrofit would be quite expensive.

It's quite similar to like an EV component of a car.

Yeah. And most of the sites are already running electrical to light poles and to other electrical components within the parking areas and sidewalks, etcetera. So as was mentioned, you're just simply extending another line. So it will be an added cost, but it's not going to be extravagant.

Not on addition and anything that's an expansion you think would be able to

The retrofit and expansion, yeah. Because again, we're talking about a significant expansion of 50 or more. And so, yeah, that's typically going to come with additional parking and other added infrastructure that is going to be well in excess of what that would cost.

So I think I mean, I've noticed the popularization of electric bicycles, right? So I understand the idea of I I don't know what the typical electric bike, because I have one, I don't know what the typical person does if they bring it inside with them or what. But I am a little bit like so at least with the charging stations for your cars, I think that people like pay for don't they know? They just they're free? have to pay. Some of them. Some of them.

They're not

free anymore.

Some are free.

That's what I thought. They're not usually like you usually have to put a card in there. But my concern is like

The ones here are not charged. Free. Okay. You have to sign up for an app. ChargePoint. Okay. But you're Okay.

So here's thing, right? This sounds indelicate maybe, but like, what happens, like, what if a homeless person just sits there and squats down and plugs in their phone and camps out in front of your business, you know,

for to think it's charge to be controlled. Well,

I may add, for that electricity component, it's only for secured type twos long term. It's not for type one. So it's not including exterior. It's only included Interior. interior within bike rooms or a secured

Makes more sense.

Sheltered location.

Makes makes

more for employees