All right. Good evening. We're going to call to order the regular Planning and Zoning Board meeting for Monday, September 28, 2026. Diane, could you please call the roll? Deidre Strawn is absent. Mitch Katz? Here. Roger Cope? Here. Karen Keseliski? Here. Jim Chard? Here. Price Patton? Here. Gregory, oh, Gregory Snyder. No. It's not Gregory Snyder. Mr. Hyman. Here. Thank you. We actually, the posted agenda had approval agenda after the election officers, but we need to approve the agenda first, so we're going to move approval to in front of election officers, and then we're also, we are doing full elections, so not just the chair. It'll be chair, vice chair, and second vice chair. So if I could have a motion to approve the agenda as amended? I would like to make that motion. And second? All right. All in favor? Aye. And Diane, you got that as a motion by Board Member Cope, seconded by Board Member Chardin? Yes. Great. So the first election will be for the position of chair. At this time, if you want to have a discussion first, you're more than welcome to discuss nominations, positions for all three. We will call them one at a time, and we would start with chair, so if you want to discuss, now would be the time or nomination. Mr. Bennett, I'm ready for a nomination. I would like, unless people would like to have discussion. I guess we could have a discussion on the second nomination, but I'd like to nominate Price Patton based on his service in the past, his ability to lead other groups, long-time resident of Delray, and for many, many, many other reasons, so Price Patton would be my nomination for chair. Is there a second? Second. Any additional nominations or discussion? Okay. Diane, could you please call the roll? Deidre Strawn is absent. Mitch Katz? Yes. Roger Cope? Yes. Karen Kizaleski? Yes. Jim Chard? Yes. Price Patton? Yes. Scott Hyman? Yes. Congratulations, Chair Patton. Would you like to take over the election, or would you like me to finish the election? Go ahead. Great. All right. So we'll begin with the next item is the vice chair. Do I have any nominations for vice? I nominate Jim Chard. Is there a second? I'll second that. Are there any additional nominations? Diane, could you please call the roll? Deidre Strawn is absent. Mitch Katz? Yes. Roger Cope? Yes. Karen Kizaleski? Yes. Jim Chard? Yes. Price Patton? Yes. Scott Hyman? Yes. And lastly, any nominations for second vice chair? I nominate Karen. Second. Get me to. Are there any additional nominations? Diane, could you please call the roll? Who did the second on that one? That was Mr. Chard. Thank you. Deidre Strawn is absent. Mitch Katz? Yes. Roger Cope? Yes. Karen Kizaleski? Yes. Jim Chard? Yes. Price Patton? Scott Hyman? Yes. Yes. Congratulations. That concludes the elections. Chair Patton, we are at item number five, which is the approval of the June 15, 2026 minutes. Okay. You've got to move over. I think, right? Vice chair sits here? If you want to move, you can. If you want to stay for tonight, it's... Yeah. Okay. Would you read the question? We're on number five, which is the minutes. Approval of the minutes. Let me see. This is the approval of the minutes of June 15, 2026. I'll second that. In favor? Yeah. Yeah. Chair for the minutes, we can do it. Yeah. Do all in favor for this is fine. Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? She passes unanimously. Swearing into the public, is there anyone tonight wishing to speak on an item either not on the agenda, or actually at this point, they're all quasi-judicial. So I'm going to add a night nod on the agenda, or if you want to speak on one of the items on the agenda, you don't have to wait and speak when the agenda, when the item comes up. Please write and be sworn in by the clerk. Please raise your right hand by the authority of Alameda, the state of Florida. Do you swear to affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Okay. I need to read the quasi-judicial hearing rules. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the city of Delaware Beach quasi-judicial rules. The applicant and the city shall be permitted to present their case. The public shall be allowed three minutes to speak, or each or a maximum of six minutes if the person represents an organization of a group of six or more people who are present but agree not to speak. The city commission board members, staff, and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine a witness. The city or the applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not legally be made upon personal views as to whether the project is a good project or not, nor may decision be made based on the number of citizens who support or oppose a particular project. The law requires that all decisions must be made on the basis of whether the project meets the requirements of law, the comprehensive plan, and the land development regulations. So, we move on to the first quasi-judicial reading. Chair, just to make sure it was clear on the record, comments from the public on non-agenda items. Just make sure that we call that. Okay. There's no comments. Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. Yeah. Any comments for the board on items that are not on the agenda? Okay. Public comment is closed. Now, we move on to item 9A. Rebecca, would you read the matter into the record, please? We actually have Romina Quinn here presenting, so I'll let her take it. Good evening. Romina Quinn, Senior Planner. This file is PZ 825-2026, a request for a land use map amendment, and PZ 825-2026, a rezoning request. The property is located at 116 Southwest 5th Avenue. Thank you. Mr. Costello. First of all, were there any ex parte discussions? Not by me. I did a drive-by and talked with Mr. Costello. Same. I drive by it all the time. I sort of spoke to you, but we didn't really speak any details about it. Thanks. Okay. Proceed. Chair, congratulations, everybody. The board, Jeff Costello, JC Planning Solutions, representing the applicant, the family. This property is at 116 Southwest 16th Avenue in the Southwest neighborhood. To start with a few photos, since you all drove by, and just in case, you whoop, whoa, and just in case, yeah. So these are some property. Across the street, we have a single-family home, a vacant 40-foot-wide lot. To the west, more single-family and duplex to the west, a single-family home to the south, and then a vacant property to the north, which is currently zoned CF and owned by a church. There is a lot of history to this, just briefly, and the staff report has a lot of detail, which I'm not going to cover, but some background. So there was a structure on this property, and it was demolished in 1981, and has remained vacant since. The foundation, I think, is still on the property. Then in 2003, you know, we have a lot of redevelopment plans, and a lot of plans that fell with the West Atlantic and Southwest area. 2003, Southwest Area Neighborhood Plan adopted. 2004, the land use map amendment and rezoning from RM to GC. It was originally zoned to RM, it was rezoned to GC in response to the Southwest Area Neighborhood Plan. And then in 2005, as part of the downtown master plan, unification of the downtown area, it was rezoned from GC to CBD. This is the property, very, you know, just a vacant lot. We do note that it's about a quarter of an acre, but it's over 10,000 square feet. And what we do know is, as we do move forward with development, we'll need to dedicate five feet of right-of-way for Southwest Fifth Avenue, and then two feet of right-of-way for the alley to the rear. Again, the existing land use is commercial core. Proposed is medium-density residential. Zoning is CBD in the West Atlantic Neighborhood Sub-District, and the proposed zoning, RM. And the proposed duplex would be part of the Save Our Homes Workforce Housing Program, which has been working together with the Delray CDC and the housing developer to provide homes, especially for long-term families within Delray Beach. This is just another map of the property in question. Very lower tip right there. And so we have the existing land use, existing zoning, proposed land use, and zoning, which we went through. Required findings with regard to land use map consistency under proposed medium-density land use map designation. RM zoning is the preferred zoning district. Allows single-family, duplex, and multifamily. This being within the Southwest neighborhood, there is the ability, and staff can find incorrect, that the density bonus within the Southwest area overlay allows up to 24 units to the area. Permitted currently is 30 with a maximum of 30 units per the West Atlantic Sub-District, so 12 to 30 as a conditional use. And then with regard to concurrency, the report confirms that adopted level of service standards are met, including schools, water, sewer, drainage, traffic, etc. It's actually a decrease in intensity, as you know, from CBD to the multifamily. Consistency with the comprehensive plan, specifically to neighborhoods, districts, and corridors element, housing element, private property rights element, and the set transformation plan. You've all been involved in these most recent updates with the set transformation plan. With regard to policy NDC 3.4.1, regarding amendments to the land use map, the following findings must be determined. That the requested land use designation is consistent with the goals, objective, policies, and a comprehensive plan development at the highest intensity possible. Under-requested land use site meets the adopted concurrency standards, which we stated, and the requested land use site is compatible to land use designations of the surrounding area and in compliance with the provisions and requirements of the IDRs. As I stated, the MD land use district allows a zoning that facilitates small-scale residential development. It's consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies that come planned, set transformation plan, and all other related plans with regard to this area. Development will meet adopted level of service standards. There are a number of applicable policies of the comprehensive plan. I'm not going to read through all these, but these are all applicable as far as providing for housing and consistency, compatibility, even with regard to encouraging collaboration, with regard to providing workforce housing in the community. Based just briefly on the redevelopment and neighborhood plans, this area, we had West Atlantic Redevelopment Plan, downtown master plan, the Southwest Area Neighborhood Plan, community redevelopment plan, and then the West Atlantic Master Plan. As shown on your screen here, this is from the Southwest Neighborhood Plan, and here's the parcel right here. It's a very southern edge where actually the conceptual was that it could be a parking lot to support any redevelopment at this greens or at this intersection here. This was a little over 20 years ago. I know we tried to stick to the plan, but, you know, these were some aspirational aspects to it, and then as time has gone by, you know, this family has owned the property for many years, and the family does want to proceed in actually developing it as a duplex, which is not currently allowed in the CBD. So, the other option is either changing the LDRs or land use map amendment rezoning, which appear to be the appropriate path in this case. Compliance with the LDRs, the proposal does meet the standards for rezoning actions, complies with A. At the end, the rezoning of the land shall result in allowable land use, is deemed compatible, adjacent, and nearby land uses. To the north is a church property. Zone CF to the east is CBD, but as I stated, a vacant lot, a single-family home. To the west is residential. To the south is residential. With regard to the development standards, the RM, the assistance within the southwest area overlay district, there are provisions here for the setbacks that can easily, that can comply. There's no issues anticipated, and I do have that slide up there. You see that the CBD is much more intense, allows much more intense development than the RM. Standards for rezoning, a statement of reasons, the required findings must be made, valid reasons. So we identified two and three, there has been a change in circumstance, and that the request of zoning is of similar intensity, and it is more appropriate for the property based on these circumstances. Again, there is the existing zoning, very southern tip here, south of this CF zone property, right there, and then proposed. And so that concludes my presentation, and request your recommendation of approval for both ordinances. Thank you. Ms. Quinn. The property is a 0.24-acre parcel located at 116 Southwest 5th Avenue. It currently sits vacant, as it has for the last 40 or so years. The current land use designation is Commercial Core, and the zoning is Central Business District. So this is the proposed land use map amendment from Commercial Core to Medium Density Residential. And this is the proposed rezoning from Central Business District to Medium Density Residential. And the rezoning would also include an amendment to the West Atlantic Neighborhood Sub-District Regulating Plan to remove the subject site, as it would no longer be part of the CBD. So this is some background information on the history of the property. The property has been owned by the same family since 1983, when it was acquired by Ruthie Daniels Russell. At this time, the subject site and all the surrounding parcels were all zoned RM. However, in 2004, the site and all the surrounding properties were rezoned by initiative of the city to general commercial. The justification for the rezoning was that the Southwest Area Redevelopment Plan, which had just been adopted the year prior, called for, quote, redevelopment of properties along 5th Avenue to include neighborhood-oriented retail and office uses, as well as a variety of housing types. Then, in 2005, because of the downtown master plan, the entire GC area around Atlantic was rezoned to CBD. In 2006, the properties to the north of the site that are owned by the Delray Community Missionary Baptist Church were rezoned to community facilities. And lastly, in 2013, the site is inherited by Mary Hardy, and the ownership is transferred to the Daniels Family Living Trust in 2022. So the intention of the applicant is to build a duplex structure for two members of the family in collaboration with the We Are Home Workforce Housing Project. But the current CBD zoning does not permit duplex structures as a primary or conditional use. So the applicant has three options to develop the site. They can maintain the current CBD zoning, where they have to build a minimum of three units with one workforce housing unit. Or they can rezone to RM, where they can build the duplex, the desired duplex, which would be the maximum under the standard density, but there would be no requirement or guarantee that the duplex include workforce housing. They can also use the incentive under RM zoning to build a maximum of five units, including one workforce housing unit. So this is the LUMA analysis. The amendments must follow the procedures outlined in the Florida statutes. And because the land use map is part of the comprehensive plan, the land use map amendment has to be processed as a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment pursuant Florida statutes. And prior to the approval of development applications, findings must be made relating to the land use map, concurrency, consistency, and compliance with the land development regulations. So regarding the land use map, this table shows that RM zoning district is the preferred implementing zoning district for the proposed MD land use. Regarding concurrency, traffic will decrease an average of 652 daily trips for the most intense development allowed by the requested RM zoning. These are some of the required findings for consistency. One of the relevant comprehensive plan policies is 1.1.12, which states that the city should develop and redevelop remaining infill lots in residential neighborhoods using zoning that is identical or most similar to the zoning of adjacent properties or that results in same or less intense development. So as you can see, to the east and south, sorry, the west and south of the property are also zoned RM, but the north is zoned community facilities, and across southwest 5th Avenue, the parcels are zoned CBD. So the existing CC land use does create a balanced density along both sides of southwest avenue, but the 2006 rezoning to community facilities has left the subject property as an isolated CBD parcel in an otherwise residential block, and the 2004 staff report noted that the development potential here is very limited given the depth of the lots being 135 feet, and this constraint was worsened by the CF rezoning. Amending the land use to MD and rezoning to RM would align with the adjacent properties, but it could create an abrupt transition across 5th Avenue if those CBD parcels across the street were to develop to maximum intensity with commercial uses, but this would most likely impact the subject property rather than the other way around. There's also policy NDC 1.1.13, which states that the city should apply the most restrictive residential zoning district that is appropriate to the neighborhood based on existing development patterns and lot sizes, unless another zoning district better supports the implementation of an adopted neighborhood or redevelopment plan. So RM is the most restrictive residential zoning district that's appropriate for the area, but there are quite a few relevant neighborhood redevelopment plans. The staff report includes a breakdown of each one, but I'm only going to go over the most important ones. So there's the 2003 Southwest Neighborhood Plan. This envisioned 5th Avenue as a major downtown commercial corridor, and it brought forward the idea of rezoning these parcels from RM to GC back in 2004. It also included the Frog Alley Master Plan, which provided detailed plans for what this corridor could look like. And as you can see, the property was envisioned as a parking lot for adjacent retail and office uses, but none of these projects have been built. When the city approved the 2004 rezoning, the staff report explicitly used these plans as its basis. It should be noted that this aspirational vision stemmed from Frog Alley's historic significance to the set, but as you can see in the maps here, the commercial corridor was mostly concentrated north of Atlantic Avenue and only extended south to Southwest 1st Street, not all the way to the subject property. Then there's the 2020 and 2026 West Atlantic Master Plan, also known as the SET Plan. These plans build upon that 2003 plan and include the West Atlantic and Southwest overlay districts. The subject site is not currently included in either, but if it was rezoned to RM, it would be included in the Southwest overlay district, and it would then qualify for a revitalization incentive of 24 units per acre. Another primary goal of this plan is residential infill, because vacant lots make up 9.3% of the set. And the plan explicitly notes that these privately owned vacant lots drive, quote, neighborhood instability, illegal dumping, and convey a message of blight. The plan states that turning this inventory into single-family infill housing is highlighted as a major opportunity to mend the neighborhood fabric and grow the local tax base. And regarding Frog Alley specifically, the plan moves away from that commercial vision, especially south of Southwest 1st Street. And as you can see in the CBD map, the primary street designation only extends as far south as Southwest 1st Street. So the board should consider whether the 2003 planning intent for Frog Alley should be reasonably interpreted as still applicable, or whether rezoning back to RM would be more appropriate and reflect the current planning framework. And the property has sat vacant for over 20 years with this commercial designation. And then just some notes on the current planning context. The area is under evaluation for inclusion in the entertainment district, because it's part of the CBD. This could lead to heightened noise and foot traffic, if the adjacent CBD parcels were to develop to maximum intensity. And also, Frog Alley is being examined through an ongoing historic resource survey, but because the lot does not have a structure, it is not considered a contributing resource. This is also not related to the Frog Alley master plan that I showed you earlier. There are also some housing element policies that are relevant. They're all listed in the staff report. They are broadly about increasing workforce housing units, collaborating with nonprofits, and encouraging home ownership and wealth accumulation. So just some notes about this. Again, the RM zoning standard density does not require or guarantee that they deliver workforce housing units. And also that the board consider that the applicants have multi-generational ties to Delray, and enforcing the CBD development standards may create an unintended barrier to home ownership and wealth accumulation. And then lastly is compliance with the LDRs. Any site plan applications are subject to LDR section 4.4.6. So these are the valid reasons for approving a change in zoning. The applicant bases their request on criteria 2 and 3, that there has been a change in circumstance, which makes the current zoning inappropriate, and that the requested zoning is of similar intensity as allowed under the land use map, and that is more appropriate for the property based upon the circumstances particular to the site and neighborhood. So as discussed previously, the city changed the zoning from RM back in 2004 to fulfill the Southwest Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan, but has since mostly abandoned that vision, and the property has sat vacant. The board should look at this history alongside the site's surroundings with lower intensity zoning on three sides to determine if the criteria are satisfied. These are the standards for rezoning. A, again, that the most restrictive residential zoning is applied unless the proposed changes implement an adopted neighborhood or redevelopment plan. So again, the board should consider if the circumstances that initially supported departure from residential zoning still apply. Standard B is not applicable. Standard C is also not applicable. And Standard D, that rezoning of land shall result in allowing land uses deemed compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses. So the board should consider that possible abrupt transition with the CBD parcels across the street if they were to develop to maximum intensity. And then here is, again, a chart to show you the height, setback, lot coverage, and building site design standards for both RM and CBD zoning to show you the decrease in intensity. And lastly, a summary of the board considerations. So for the land use map amendment, the board should consider whether they requested MD land use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. And for the rezoning, whether the circumstances that initially supported the departure from residential zoning and the 2003 planning intent for Frog Alley should reasonably be interpreted as still applicable to the subject property. Whether enforcing the rigid development standards and higher density minimums of the CBD zoning district may inadvertently price the applicants out of developing their land and whether to grant approval despite the compatibility issues that may arise if adjacent and opposing parcels are developed to maximum intensity permitted under CBD zoning and possibly entertainment district regulations. Here are the options for board action for the land use map amendment and the options for board action for the rezoning. Thank you. Do any members of the public wish to comment on this proposed rezoning? Just go to the podium, state your name and zip code, and you'll have three minutes. So, Chair, for quasi-judicial, it is still full address. Oh. Then you have to give your full address. I'm sorry. Okay. Allie Levin, 1825 Lake Drive, Delray. And I work for the Delray Beach CDC, and I am with our clients here, the actual, the Hardy Daniels family, and we have been working together for almost a couple years now trying to get some workforce housing built for the family. And the project that we're working on is conjunction with the Palm Beach County Workforce Housing Program, which offers a lot of amazing incentives like down payment assistance and based on their income, which they've already been qualified for through Palm Beach County, so they already have their certificates. Both brothers will be able to build workforce housing via Palm Beach County, but it will also adhere to the Delray Beach policy as well. And both brothers have been long-time life residents of Delray. They both are also employed in Delray. So Renard Hardy is a barbershop owner, a small business owner, and David Haynes is a USPS worker for the city of Delray. And so we are hoping that we can get forward. We already have a builder lined up. Pulte Homes will be building the duplex. And when we get this approved, we're ready to start building. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone, any other member of the public wish to comment? Okay. Mr. Costello, any rebuttal or cross? Mr. Rebuttal, I just, with regard to the Entertainment District, I mean, that's, obviously, there's, don't have a concern, you know, regarding the proposed ordinance that may come forward. You know, this is at the very southern edge. I know it's what's anticipated, what could the future hold across the street. But I think when you start looking at economics, that'll determine what you have to deal with. And especially, you know, it's isolated location. So there's no real concern with regard. I understand, you know, the staff report and why they bring it up, and it's a good reason. But there's no concern with that. And as we stated, the family, you know, been owned by the family for many years and ready to move forward to provide residency for those family members. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Quinn, any cross or rebuttal? No. Okay. So we go to board comment. Mitch, you want to start? I think it was great. This is a Delray feel-good story that we kind of need once in a while, so. Especially some of the stuff we get. So I am ecstatic to approve this or to see this approved tonight. Jim? I think this is great. I have driven by that parcel many, many years and said, why? Why is it empty? So I'm glad to see something is happening there. And I'm glad to see CDC is represented, because I know you do good work in the community. I do have a couple of questions that are kind of nerdy city planning questions, and I've talked to Mr. Costello about them. One is, this really kind of constitutes spot zoning, which is kind of a no-no in the city planning world. Why didn't the city take the initiative to make this submission and do the parcels to the north of this one? So, which are probably, at some point in time, going to be changed from CF anyway. Why isn't this city initiated to make it a bigger or better project? Well, there's a lot of properties in the city, maybe 30,000 parcels, I think. So we can't necessarily proactively identify all of them. So when the applicant came and made this request, it really seemed to make sense, given how the change would connect it with the RM to the south, and the CF had already broken the connection with the CBD to the north. So, I mean, that was really the genesis of it. Well, I don't expect you to do all 30,000 parcels, but maybe five or six that are surrounding this area. And the reason I'm asking this question is I'm very excited about the fact that residential is moving closer to Atlantic Avenue, because we do pride ourselves on being a live-work-play-walkable city, and to have more residences close to the Atlantic Avenue development is, I think, a healthy thing for this city. And it could be something that the city planning department could utilize to encourage more people like this. With this particular one, if it was city-initiated, it would constitute a downzoning and perhaps an elimination of development rights. So in looking at any request like this, it really would have to be something, I think, initiated by a homeowner so that we were not taking away any development rights. But if there's other property owners that would have the desire to do so, it would certainly be evaluated through the same metric that this was evaluated with. But it would be parcel by parcel then, not a planned approach. I mean, we have not looked at it. Again, to downzone anyone's property is certainly a big no-no and a strong property rights state. So if someone came to us with that request, in that case, it would, again, go through the same analysis. No, I'm not talking about downzoning. There wouldn't be downzoning. That's a problem. From CF? Oh, so to go from CBD to RM would be for certain. But the individual parcel is a CF, right? Well, they still have an intensity that is allowed in CF that you would not realize in the RM. I see what you're saying. If I may just one more, if we could put up the zoning map. So to the one point, I mean, and what's encouraged is that the comp plan identifies a variety of housing types. So there's opportunities that where you're able to assemble, you can provide a more diverse housing mix, where on the smaller partials, you may be more limited to more of a single family or duplex, basically attached single family scenario. But with regard to the spot zoning, it really, the fact that this is adjacent and abuts the RM, you're clean with regard to there is no spot zoning in this particular case. I think that what's the odd thing is how it's isolated and sandwiched between a CF and the RM, and it's one CBD parcel. I think that's where, to the east side, where the existing single family home exists. And then there's a 40-foot lot, which then your development potential is limited there. You know, you could see some change there, but unless there's a major assembly. Okay. Mr. Costello, we're at board comment now, so thanks for making that point. Chair, I actually was going to jump in as well, just for the record, and address the spot zoning. Mr. Costello is basically exactly what I was going to say. It is abutting RM already. If they were, you know, as an example, modifying it to MIC or something that's out of place to do something that's not allowed anywhere else near it, then we might have more concerns. But this is abutting RM, so it's really not a spot zoning issue. It's just that it's one parcel. It's currently CBD and being... All right. I just have one last question, if I can, Chair. I know there are problems with making that multifamily because it's not allowed to have just the duplex, right? Would it be more valuable to the family if it were zoned as multifamily but would allow duplexes? Because then they sort of have their cake and eat it, too. And I know that would require some changes to the LDRs and the land use map and so forth. You mean that the CBD allow a duplex? No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it would be multifamily. They want to rezone it to multifamily. So you're saying you're calling RM as multifamily? Yes. That's what it is. It's the residential multifamily. So as she said, you could do... The only use you could do two on is in RM, and that's what they wanted to do. So I think maybe the only way to give more value would be allowing a duplex in CBD. But I don't think that's any direction we'd ever gotten from the city or through studies. But it possibly could. But I guess the most valuable scenario for the family is the value that they can get from being able to build on it as they desire. So I think... But policy-wise, overall, that would be something we haven't looked into. Yeah. At the end of the day, it's the family's choice. I agree. But it would just seem to me that there might be more up value if it were truly multifamily. And they may, at some time in the future, want to go beyond a duplex. Well, CBD doesn't require them to do mixed use. They would be allowed to do only residential, but they would have to do a minimum of three units, and one of them would have to be workforce housing. Yeah. Well, okay. That's fine. Thanks. And also, just to note, same goes for the properties across the street. They don't necessarily have to develop with commercial uses. They could also, under CBD, develop to be only residential multifamily projects. Just in a few questions. Oh, me. Sure. Yeah, I actually, on that point we were just speaking about, that's actually why I'm sort of for this. I see it as the kind of CBD parcel sticking out, and so this kind of rounds the edges. In my planning experience, the edges or borders of districts are always kind of a little bit loose in terms of where they really should belong, so I think this really helps with that. It also provides a mix of housing and then works towards stabilizing, stabilization of that neighborhood, so for all those reasons, I'm very much for it. Really? Yeah, again, I'm in favor of it also. I think it's great to be able to help a long-term family with their needs. I did have one technical question, and that is, and I don't know if it's Jeff or, sorry, I don't remember your name. Romina. Thank you. So Mr. Costello had indicated in his presentation that there would be a right-of-way dedication, both in the front and the back. Does it affect the setbacks at all, or do the setbacks stay the same after you? So, may I? Yeah, yeah. He directed the question to you. That's fine. Well, to whoever can answer the question. Yes, the setbacks are taken from the ultimate right-of-way line, and I think what's great about the Southwest neighborhood in looking at the vision and taking advantage of alleys is that it allows a reduced setback. So when we were, I say we, back in 2003, we amended the code back then with the rezoning to allow some flexibility to allow the additional, you know, to allow flexibility with density as well. So, yeah, there are reduced setbacks. Not as reduced as the CBD, but there are some reduced setbacks. But you measure from the ultimate right-of-way. You probably wore a wee back then. Scott? Is that it? Roger? I love it. In complete support of it. Five very simple reasons. And I'll go in reverse order. Frog Alley was a huge proponent of trying to figure out how to push Frog Alley along, and your, you know, testimony today, it's gotten nowhere, basically. So it's sort of stalled. And so, but irregardless of whether it's active or will ever become something, this little parcel, I think, doesn't make any difference in terms of what its zoning is. But the Frog Alley component is very, very interesting. It meets a ton of the comp plan requirements. The dedications are something that they're willing to give to the city, which is monumental, in my opinion. I think they should be given reduced setbacks on the front. I think the 25-foot front yard setback should be taken from today's property line, not from the five-foot dedication that they give, but that'll come. The staff will work that out later. And last but not least, it's been sitting there vacant for 45 years. I think it's time to see something put on it. So I can't wait to vote for it. Jeff, good job. Good presentation by both. You know, I echo my colleagues' observations. I've got one question, and I'm sure Mr. Bennett's going to cut me off. They say they're going to put a duplex, but they can do more. Can we condition the approval? Because once we lose them, once we go to RM, this board no longer will have a say on them. No, I don't think the board can condition the rezoning in that way. But, yes, you are correct. The board should, when making their vote, understand that they're allowing the maximum development that's possible with that rezoning, not necessarily what's being presented as a basis for the rezoning today. Okay, and in this instance, I don't even object to the maximum zoning. It's a change in my opinion. So that's just providing more housing. Now they wouldn't have had to rezone it. Yeah. The rezoning is so they can do less. Decreasing the density. Right now, as commercial, they can put a... They clearly want to build a duplex. All right. Okay. We need to have two motions. The first motion would be the land use map amendment. Do I have a motion? Mr. Chair, I'd love to make a motion that we move a recommendation of approval of ordinance number 4426, a request for a land use map amendment from commercial core, which is CC to medium density, which is MD, for the property located at 116 Southwest 5th Avenue, finding that the amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the applicable criteria set forth in the LDRs. Second. Second. Okay. Call the roll. Ms. Miller. Dean Hustron is absent. Mitch Katz? Yes. Roger Cope? Yes. Karen Kizalewski? Yes. Jim Chard? Yes. Bruce Patton? Yes. Scott Hyman? Yes. Okay. Now I would accept a motion for the rezoning change. I'll keep going if I may. I'll move a recommendation of approval of ordinance number 4426, which is a request for rezoning from central business district, CBD, to medium density residential, RM, for the property located at 116 Southwest 5th Avenue, finding that the rezoning and approval thereof is consistent with the comp plan and meets the applicable criteria set forth in the LDRs. Do I have a second? Second. Ms. Miller. Deirdre Sronis-Amson. Mitch Katz? Yes. Roger Cope? Yes. Karen Kizalewski? Yes. Jim Chard? Yes. Price Patton? Yes. Scott Hyman? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Congratulations. We'll have to see some residential coming into that neighborhood. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. Moving on to Atlantic Crossing, we killed, right? 9C? No. Next is 9B, which is the rezonings for 1405, 1455, and 1515 North Congress. I thought that was the answer. Okay. Okay. Who's doing this one? Barbara. Barbara. Would you read the matter into the record, please? Yes. Good evening, everybody. Barbara Pinkston, senior planner with the planning division. This is file number 000741-2026. It is a privately initiated zoning request from the planned commerce center to mixed industrial and commercial for three parcels, totaling 5.11 acres located at 1405, 1445, and 1515 North Congress Avenue, and it is ordinance number 46-26. Thank you. Hi. Good evening. State your name and address for the record, please. My name is Steve Mackey. Address 501 Northwest 7th Street, Delray Beach, Florida. One quick question. Are the applicant limited to three minutes on these or not? Oh, no, no. This is a presentation. This is a presentation. I believe it's 10 or 15. I can double-check, but it's an ex-parte as well. Oh, yeah, an ex-parte. Do you ex-parte now? Yeah. I know the Mackey family. That's a love them dearly. Three generations. That's about it. Nothing specific to the site of the project. Whatever. Drove by the site. Nothing by me. Nothing. I've been by the site many times, and in the past had my name on a political sign in front of all myself. Oh, that's a good spot. You'll have to excuse yourself. Chair, the applicant and city staff both have 15 minutes each. 15. Okay. Okay. Sorry for the interruption. Go ahead. So I'm here today with my father, David Mackey, my sister, Lisa Mackey. We're partners in Mac Industrial. We're a small family real estate development and investment company. We specialize in small bay industrial warehouses. We're active participants in the Delray community, long-time residents, and we are some huge cheerleaders of Delray Beach. Just hitting a button here, so assuming it's the big one. So today we're here to talk about the Delray Park of Commerce. It's 50 acres. It was originally developed in the late 80s. It has this very unique zoning designation called the Planned Commercial Center. There's only two PCC zones in the entire city of Delray Beach. It's this one, and then the other one is at Atlantic Avenue in Congress in the southwest corner, if you guys are familiar with that planned commerce center there. We own the three warehouses, small bay warehouses at the northern tip there. We back up to the sewer plant. Today we are talking about rezoning out of the PCC into the MIC. We'll get into the reasons why next. Just a little history of our ownership and our presence here on the Congress Avenue corridor. The middle building was built. My dad acquired the land from the original developer, the DPOC, in 1990. He built this building in 1995. We've continuously owned it for 36 years. The building to the south of that, the yellow building, my sister, myself, and my dad built that all together in 2004. George Brewer did the architecture on that building. We've continuously owned it for 22 years. In 2012, we were able to buy the northernmost building, which is the old Wholesome Bakery building. And that's one that we're going to be talking about today. We do want to redevelop that into some more small bay warehouse buildings. So why zone to MIC? The current zoning for PCC is cumbersome, confusing, and outdated. Our new tenants have a very difficult time coming in to get their occupancy license. It was originally developed with specific tracks having specific uses, with specific office-to-warehouse ratios. You know, the park has, there's about maybe 15, 20 buildings. The park completely built out now, but the issue is really slotting tenants in and out, and it becomes cumbersome when certain parcels are designated with certain uses, and it just becomes a kind of a cluster. And we've been dealing with this for, you know, 20-plus years. We're like, oh, jeez, tenants are having trouble again getting an occupational license. In that time period, the city's developed the MIC zone. You know, they've developed these more comprehensive, like, zoning districts that don't pin a specific use to a specific parcel, but they just allow, you know, the MIC is a mixed-use industrial, you know, commercial. So it allows all of those things in the certain districts. So, you know, what we would like to do is just remove ourselves from the PCC and just rezone to an MIC. It fits our tenant pool a lot better. It's all of the same uses. It's just we're kind of like we would prefer to kind of shed that old PCC zone from us and just kind of be strictly judged on the MIC. It's easier. It's more straightforward for us to understand. It's easier for our tenants to understand. And it's just all around a better zoning. This all kind of came about recently when we decided it was time to redevelop this property at the north end. The building was built in 1991. It's 6,650 square feet on an acre and a half. It's the old wholesome bread factory. It's been converted to a bunch of office space with a little bit of warehouse. There are these weird, you know, tailgate-level doors. There's a truck well at the north end. And it's been a very difficult building to even find users for. So we're ready to, you know, add some more traditional small bay flex office warehouse stuff to it. And Delray certainly needs a lot more of this small bay stuff. So we wanted to show you all kind of just a rendering of what we're planning on building there. We're currently going to be going through the site plan process simultaneously and, you know, going through all those iterations with staff. But it's a 21,230 square foot building. The units, there's going to be 10 units deliberately designed on the smaller side at 2,123 square feet for small businesses. You're going to have your traditional nice front area for either a showroom or an office, a couple bathrooms, warehouse in the back, overhead doors out back facing the sewer plant. And I just wanted to show you guys what we're going to be doing there. So, you know, to kind of summarize where the zoning request came from is when we came to the city in our pre-app meeting and we're starting to discuss redeveloping this. And, you know, the PCC has always been a pain in the butt for all of us. My family dealing with these buildings, I'm like, well, while we're at it, let's just try to get out of that while we're going through the process here. And so additionally to that, once we complete, hopefully, redeveloping this northern piece, we're going to go to the middle building and do a bunch of, like, facelift stuff to update the front of it, make it look nice, and hopefully eventually get all three of those properties looking similar to each other so they have a little bit of cohesion and a nice little small bay warehouse thing there. So that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Yep. Ms. Pinkson. Okay. The property, well, there are three properties, are all located on North Congress Avenue. 5.11-acre property located on the east side of North Congress Avenue, approximately half a mile north of Lake Ida Road. The current use, there's a mix of commercial office warehouse buildings supporting, oh, buildings in part, so there are catering uses, small restaurants that are attached to catering uses, contractor and trade services. Assembly, fabrication, wholesale, and storage, so there's a good mix of use in these three buildings. The land use is commerce, which is CMR, and the zoning is currently PCC. The applicant is requesting the rezoning from PCC to MIC to improve the marketability of the parcels, as MIC allows a greater variety of use types. The water treatment facility located adjacent to the east property line creates further challenges in attracting potential tenants. So these two maps just show the existing and proposed zoning, so from PCC to MIC. And a little background that you've already heard probably in more detail than I have. So the 1515 parcel consists of 6,650 square feet, was constructed in 1991. It previously was occupied by the Wholesome Bread Factory, currently utilized for warehousing and storage by the Sun Sentinel. The 1445 parcel consists of 16,533 square feet, and it was constructed in 1995, and it's primarily occupied by catering slash restaurant and home improvement type uses. The 1405 parcel consists of 22,948 square feet, and it was constructed in 2004, and principally occupied by home improvement type uses and a fitness center. So this is just a map and a chart that shows the surrounding uses, and you can see to the east the huge City of Boynton water treatment facility, which I know has caused kind of a challenge for the applicant. To the east is the water treatment facility. To the west, across Congress, the Pines of Delray North. To the south is the remaining portion of Delray Park of Commerce. And the water treatment facility actually extends also to the north of this property. So this is one of the required findings. So the requested MIC zoning district is one of the preferred implementing zoning districts of the current CMR land use. So it is consistent with the land use designation. And this is the concurrency table that was submitted as part of the application. So based upon the most intense use that could occur on the site, the trips generated would increase by 176 average daily trips. This will actually be finalized once the site plan comes through. So what we're looking at today is just the rezoning. So even though we saw the beautiful renderings, so this is strictly rezoning. So if the rezoning is approved, then they'll be able to move forward with the actual site plan process. So here are some of the required findings. One of the main objectives, NDC 1.4 industrial land use designations. And some of the policies speak specifically to industrial type uses along the Congress Avenue corridor. Some of the mixed uses in that area as well. And the types of uses that they're trying to accommodate. And one of the intentions also was to provide, you know, work or things of that, or provide these types of spaces for people in the community. And here we're going to talk a little bit more. PCC zoning intends to provide a mix of light industrial, service industrial, research and development, office and limited commercial use in industrial park setting. Again, speaking to the percentages, so each parcel may have 10% of this or 5% of that. So it's a little bit challenging to have tenants come in. The MIC zoning district intends to provide a mix of industrial, commercial and office use in a single zoning district. As far as compliance with land development regulations, any site plan applications are subject to land development regulations. And the form-based code part should be on there. So they will have to go through the site plan review process, as we already discussed. So these are some of the reasons to justify a change in zoning. In this situation, it would be the second two, that there's been a change in circumstance, which makes the current zoning inappropriate, and that the requested zoning is of similar intensity as allowed under the land use map, and that it is more appropriate for the property based upon circumstances particular to the site and or neighborhood. This is a table that just shows at the top portion what the PCC zoning district allows. The middle portion shows what's actually in track case, some of the uses. And then the bottom part, this labeled MIC, shows some of the uses are very much the same, but there are a few additional uses that are allowed in MIC. So this kind of shows that they're very similar. There's not a whole lot of difference in the types of uses that are allowed, but again, it provides more flexibility for the applicant. And another standard, rezoning of land shall not result in allowing land uses deemed compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses both existing and proposed, or that if an incompatibility may occur, that sufficient regulations exist to properly mitigate adverse impacts from the new use. So uses permitted in the MIC zoning district are compatible and are not anticipated to pose negative impacts to surrounding existing and future development. It should be noted that redevelopment of any portion of the subject site would be subject to full site plan review. This would ensure the application of provisions such as setbacks, special buffers, landscaping, et cetera, that are established to mitigate adverse impacts from new and existing uses. So summary of board considerations things for you to think about. Whether there's been a change in circumstances on the site or within the neighborhood that renders the PCC zoning inappropriate. The second, whether the requested zoning is of similar intensity as allowed under the CMR land use designation and is more appropriate for the property based upon circumstances particular to the site and or neighborhood, particularly due to its location adjacent to the water treatment facility. And thirdly, if the proximity of the site to the water treatment facility makes the rezoning to MIC to allow uses more industrial and nature more appropriate than existing PCC zoning. And then we have the options for board action. The first would be to move a recommendation of approval to the city commission. And the second, to deny this request, the privately initiated rezoning. And the third would be to continue with direction. Thank you. Now, are there any members of the public wish to comment on this? Please step to the microphone, and you have three minutes. State your name and address, please. Margo Ross. I live at 1541 Northwest 18th Avenue in Delray, which is right across the street from the property. We're worried. The whole community is worried. You know, I saw the traffic study, 176 daily trips as an increase. We're a senior development. We don't want any more trucks, which we're thinking would be in a light industrial area. So the traffic probably will increase from what was stated, I'm pretty sure. Also, it stated it should be compatible with the neighborhood. The neighborhood is senior housing. It's 55 and up development right across the street, and a little further north in Boynton is another 55 and up development. There's one right adjacent, a little further north than the property. That's mixed, mixed housing. We're just worried about the value of our property and of our condos going down. We're worried that the water treatment plant already has some odors that we smell. Is this going to cause anything further? We don't know. And what about the height? I don't know if that was mentioned. What's the height limits for that zoning area? Could anybody tell me? That's not what we're being discussed tonight. That would come back to us later. Okay, but I'm saying, was that being included in the zoning, the height of this built? When the site plan comes back through? Because this is just rezoning. All right, so this is just, all right, I'm talking about the site plan. Yes. Well, we're worried about the rezoning, that it'll be light industrial, as it's stated, and traffic and resulting in our lower value of our homes. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to comment? You step up to the podium. Three minutes, state your name and address, please. Thank you. Richard Johnson, I live at 2009 Northwest 18th Street, also in the pines of Delray North. I am the vice president of the board. First of all, thank you for allowing us to come here and to address the board. As Ms. Ross said, we're a senior community, 700 units. You know, the average age in our community is, even though it's 55 and over, it's closer to 70 and 75, which most places know. We are, we work very cooperative with the pines of, with the city of Delray Beach. As a matter of fact, right now, we have a project underway where on our side of Congress Avenue, we are going to upgrade and clean the entire sidewalk, the vegetation that's over there, that's actually not even our property, but in order to enhance the appearance of, of everything, because that area of Congress Avenue is actually, is, is, is one of the gateways into the, into Delray Beach, right there, right on the northernmost border. We've even asked for, to have one of those beautiful new signs, the blue and white signs, welcome to Delray Beach, you know, placed right there. We're in, we want, we want to do our part to enhance the city and to enhance what we have. Our concerns, as Ms. Ross said, a lot of it has to do with traffic, a lot of it has to do with noise, a lot of it has to do with, with, with the industrial, you know, component of the, of the, of the, the plant. Our entrance in and out, unfortunately, has been the source of multiple vehicle accidents because of the, the stretch that it is. It's between, it's, it's a long run before you get to Lake Ida Road. A lot of, a lot of traffic, the running of the red lights. A few years ago, we had a fatality in an accident in front of the building, and we're certainly, we're very concerned about, about the, the increase in, in the traffic. We do have a question. I have a question. In reading, and I have to say, a lot of what I read was, was not relatively clear to me, but, um, I have a question. We understand that, um, the building 1515, um, seems like it's going to be raised and they're going to construct a new building. I didn't realize until just now that it was going to go from approximately 6,600 square feet to more than 21,000 square feet, which is a, a significant increase. Um, but the, uh, you know, we're certainly concerned about, about the use of that. Um, we're here, um, we're certainly willing to be cooperative neighbors with everyone that's involved, but we, we do have to be concerned with, with our personal safety. We have to be concerned with, um, how the, how the, the, the community progresses at this point in time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good timing. Good timing. Very good timing. Just somebody else. Yes, please step to the podium. State your name and address. You have three minutes. My name is Dave Mackey. I live, uh, four park place in Boynton beach. I just want to bring the, to the board's attention that the pines of Delray have a seat on the board at Delray park of commerce. I'm the vice president of the association. They have a seat on our board, uh, or in our association. They're invited to all of our meetings and there's been no response from them to our meetings. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I don't think the public's allowed to rebut. I just want to respond to height. You can respond. Yeah. Well, chair, if we want to finish public comment and then the staff can do rebuttal. Okay, good. Any, any other public comment? Seeing none, public comment is closed. Now, um, is there any, uh, to the applicant, any, uh, rebuttal or cross? I just think it's important that everyone understands that the, this, these are currently light industrial buildings. They're being operated that way. Currently, we're not asking to change the operation of these buildings in any way at all. There's not going to be new trucks. There's not going to be anything like that. The building's going to be built, um, a little bit bigger because it is currently underutilized. You know, by right, we're going to have the ability, you know, to build that square footage where we're not oversizing the lot or anything. We're, we're very advanced in the site planning and by right, that is the size of the building that fits with the setbacks and everything according to the zoning. So what's happening here is we're just asking to use the underutilized rest of the land to build a building that's currently already zoned for the exact same stuff and it's going to operate in the exact same way that it currently is out there right now. Okay. Thank you. Rebellion, cross. Okay. I just wanted to clarify the height is the same as it, as it is right now. So 48 feet is the maximum height. So they could do that now and they would be able to do that under MIC if you approve the rezoning. And just again, to clarify that this is not about the actual development. This is just the rezoning on the site. Exactly. Right. So those questions would be related to the actual site plan when that comes through. Okay. Thanks for the clarification to the board. Mr. Koch. Well, I'm in favor of it, plain and simple. And I don't know, maybe I should have under ex parte, but I was the chair of SPRAB in 2004 when the beautiful building number 1405 came through that George Brewer designed. I don't know, Price, if you were on the SPRAB at the time. So I'm trying to harken back to 2005. It was a stunning design that they were imposing back then, proposing back then. And George did a beautiful design of that building, which today still is an extremely beautiful building. And I think probably represents an amazing, you know, high watermark for design in a light industrial park. So, you know, that is a little bit more of a history that I have with the site. I just, I see every reason why to support everything. In terms of the height, they're not going to come in here and ask for a 48-foot high building next month. They've shown us, even though they didn't have to, they've shown us previews of what their design of the north building is going to look like. It's streamlined and low-slung and single-story, high single-story, I'm sure. And it seems to be, in terms of massing, very much appropriate with the other two buildings. I think it's going to be very interesting to seek from them how they're tying all three buildings together. Because right now I see a little disparity. I see disparity between George's beautiful building of 2004 and the new one that they're showing us images of. I don't know if they're going to go back to Brewer's building and make it look more like the new one or vice versa. But we're not looking at that stuff tonight. We're looking at rezoning. And so there's a water treatment plant behind the property. Whatever this application is intended to do, which is to change zoning, it's not going to affect the water treatment plant one iota. That water treatment plant has been there forever. I don't know. Maybe the staff can talk a little bit more about the traffic impact and what the report is that they have on file and just maybe offer a little bit more comment to the room about how you analyze it and whether you see it as a problem or not. Sure. So the traffic report is actually based on the most intense use that could possibly be there. So there's nothing that's saying 100% it's going to be 176 extra trips per day. Okay, that's not necessarily the case, but we won't know that again until the actual site plan comes in and the use goes in, then that will be looked at at that time. That's the max. Max. Yes. What little I know about the park to the south of it, I see it as an underutilized entire element in terms of traffic, in terms of use. And, Jim, you're an expert on Congress Avenue way more than the rest of us, so maybe you can touch on that a little bit. But, I mean, I don't see any reason why not to support this. I think, in fact, I would embrace it and encourage it, and maybe the other PCC piece in town eventually follows suit and seeks the same designation in the future. Thank you. Yes, I'm also in favor, I think, the idea of it doesn't seem to me like there's much of a change in the permitted uses here, that they're already operating under the same uses that will be permitted and that this just simplifies compliance. And if there's a unique or semi-unique zoning description that's applying only to their property and want others, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to do that rather than have them under something that's more standard like the MIC zoning. Sure. I had one technical question, just really quick. I got myself confused. Adult entertainment will not be allowed here through the MIC, or is it allowed? It's listed there, but there's still going to be some other separation requirements, so there are additional things. So it may stay there, but there are going to be other requirements in the code that they would be subject to. Okay. Can I ask a question on that same, right? When we did this change, similar change as the other side of Congress, we actually were able to exclude adult for those properties. Can we exclude that in this? You know what I'm talking about, where we redid all those? Yes. So at the time that some of those other rezonings came through, we added a restriction that would only allow the adult entertainment use north of West Atlantic Avenue because it was already allowed in the MIC zoning district. And we put that restriction because the MIC parcels south of West Atlantic were, they had a different characteristic than the more industrial character north of West Atlantic Avenue. So if you, I can read to you some of the certain requirements or restrictions on the adult entertainment use. We, again, MIC is already, it's a permitted use already or a conditional use already. So the other requirements, I can get those here for you in a second. So it doesn't allow adult entertainment on properties with frontage on an arterial road, so it could never be a use here anyway. That's it. Solves that problem. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I did. I just really quickly wanted, if I may finish. Oh, sorry. I'm also leaning toward it, in favor of it. I don't think, I don't know if you mentioned it much, but I did read the CBRE Congress Avenue report, and it did speak quite a bit about the challenges with the PCC zoning. Correct. So I think that helps provide backup in terms of allowing this to go forward. On behalf of Mr. Katz and myself, I would like to correct the record for the staff. We are proud former board members of the sewage plant, better called the water treatment plant, and that is a joint effort of Delray Beach and Boynton Beach. So let it be known, I guess. Stay correct. I have recently been finding myself sitting outside of 1545 on Saturday mornings sipping coffee and having French pastries. And the whole idea of a small bay facility in Delray, I think, is something that is becoming more and more important as property values go up and as people start to look at the Congress Avenue as an opportunity. The shops that are in there, I think, are fantastic, and we should have more of them. So I look forward to the repurposing of the other property. I do have a couple questions, as you might expect. Does this in any way impact the current tenants? If Mr. Mackey could come to the microphone. No, it doesn't impact them at all. It's all of the uses are really permitted in both. It's just how the uses are really implemented when they're coming and going as new tenants and not new tenants. So the answer is no. I mean, aside from some construction stuff going on, hopefully we're going to try to move tenants around and keep everybody where they are or try to upgrade them to a new building or whatnot, but the zoning change won't be changing my tenant pool at all. Why are these called warehouses in the sense that you sort of have a… This flex office warehouse, it's a very interesting building. People actually refer to it sometimes as the mullet of the building because it's business up front and, like, out the back is the warehouse. So generally it's gone from, like, office warehouses to flex buildings because the buildings can be used for a variety of different things. Out there you'll see that, you know, some of the food tenants, they're not full restaurants. They just have, like, a little counter, and then the majority of their business actually comes from supplying grocery stores and other places. So these buildings are very flexible, and it provides, like, space to a huge tenant base out there, whether they're, you know, whether they're, like, an architect will use it and store some of the stuff in back. A general contractor will use it. But then you'll have little food entrepreneurs. Like, you literally have every type of entrepreneur out there because the space is super flexible, as opposed to a straight retail or a straight office. These tenants just don't have that home or that versatility, really, with the overhead door in the back, some workspace, but then also a little office up front showroom to have a meeting with a client, you know, and not look at all your tools. And the sort of pedestrian walkability from bay to bay to bay is very interesting because you can… And these buildings were originally designed, you know, where if you're building a new home, you could go to, like, one building, and you could get your closets redone. You could get your bathrooms redone. You could get your, you know, your hardwood floors. And, you know, as that, that was kind of more in the early 90s. And then as these buildings have kind of, you know, evolved along with, like, e-commerce, you know, they really have, like, changed with the times where the entrepreneurs are coming out with these… I mean, the different types of businesses that come to us, it just blows my mind every single year. You know, we had somebody storing Bitcoin machines. You know, I mean, it's just the wildest thing. They were, like, servicing them there, and they would put them in the malls. So it's not just your, like, closet space anymore. It's not just your hardwood floor or your contractors. It's really – it provides flexibility for such a huge swath of tenant bases. It's really critical for Delray because they've rezoned a lot of their industrial land to residential stuff through the Live Local Act or whatever, and there's literally – there's, like, no land left in Delray for these small businesses to go to. And they're having to go – you know, a lot of people live here that own their own business, and they're traveling 45 minutes in every single direction. So I think it's really important that we really, like, prioritize the last remaining bits and square feet of this industrial space. And although we keep talking about light industrial, retail and perhaps even restaurants are allowable? Yeah. It's – there's, like, there's small components. It's not – you know, we don't have any – these buildings are not designed to be retail destinations. You know, their businesses are really service businesses. You know, even the little restaurant people that do work there, 80 percent of their revenue comes from supplying and wholesaling other places. So it's not – you know, you're not going to have, like, some phenomenal Michelin restaurant like there. These aren't retail destinations. You know, these are small businesses, service businesses are what they call it as well. You know, so light industrial, service, you know, contractor type of businesses. It's just every small business you could imagine. But it's not 100 percent retail. It's not 100 percent office. And it's not 100 percent industrial. So it's an interesting – it's an interesting building type that serves a lot of people. If I may, there's one other thought, and then I'll turn it to Mr. Katz. That number of 178 additional daily trips – and I'm saying this for the community, by the way – is a very small number compared to the total percentage of trips on Congress Avenue at that point. And I'm guessing, particularly during rush hour, 178 trips is, you know, three minutes or something. Right. So it doesn't trip any – it doesn't kick anything over capacity for the segment of road, so it meets all the standards. Okay. Thank you. My turn. All right. A couple things. First of all, I understand the community's concerns, you know, being neighbors and wanting, you know, that quality of life. I think that – I think that still can be achieved. I think this is kind of another – we've spent over the last two years since I've been on the board a lot of time fixing MROC, you know, because what happens is businesses want to go there. They want to open up there, and they just can't because we have – you know, it's very hard to get the proper tax receipt if it doesn't fit into a certain box. And that's – I see this pretty much as the same, and hopefully that other plaza can get rid of this too. Then that will be one headache completely out of the code, right, and off of having another thing to have to regulate and figure out. So I'm glad that they are – to me it's more of a fix, right, fixing what's there to get the right code for what's already existing there. So they can – you know, again, at the end of the day, we want businesses to be in the building and not be empty. I mean, they've been really creative. The fact that Jim Chard goes west of 95 to get coffee – I mean, the fact that he goes west of 95, period, that's very impressive. And the fact that – I will say, Doug Levine, who's the manager at the plant across the street there, should get an award for being able – for you to be able to have this group of – I would almost call it an incubator of restaurants there, these really creative – you know, the pizza place opened up there. There's a few – like you're at this coffee place. They're kind of like trying to get themselves going to maybe get to that Michelin level somewhere nice later. But it's a really – it's become a really cool plaza of just different type of restaurants, right? But you're not going to get these type of businesses there unless they're allowed. So you've got – we have to get the zoning right so that different types of businesses – and that's been a big problem in the city. A lot of what happens is if they can't get it done, then they just build more housing, right? And then more housing and more housing and it becomes ugly. And we need this industrial – especially the light industrial uses. We need to have, you know, our mechanics. We need to have our, you know, tile stores, you know, whatever it might be. We need to be able to have those without having to drive up to Riviera Beach or West Palm Beach. So I'm definitely in favor of this. I would – I know that it's going to come back to us. I would ask of the applicant, and I know – and I get you – you invited them to meetings. Maybe they haven't come, but you're the one building now. Maybe before now and when site plan comes, a more proactive approach of working with the community and get some cohesion with them I think will be a good gesture on your part to work with them to mitigate. And who knows, you know, like I said, they're part of the board there. So they probably don't even know it is what it sounded like. That they can have a voice in it. So you guys have a great – that is the – you know, there are basically six or eight entry points into the city, and this is one of them, and it is key. And I would like to see the city put a sign up. I didn't know we don't have – I didn't realize we don't have a welcome to Delray sign there. That's a shame. We should have one there. So we'll – Welcome to Boynton, right? We should have been going the other way. I mean, Doug's going to work because what he does is he gets all that smell to go north to Boynton instead of west to you guys. Because there definitely is a smell because every one of those meetings, those neighbors just north come to those water treatment plant meetings that we used to have to attend. But, again, I am definitely in favor of it. I just ask that, you know, and I can't make this requirement that you work with that community to get some cohesion, and they'll probably be your customers, you know, at some point. They're all doing work in their house. They're going to need a towel. They're going to want a pizza. They're going to want all that stuff. Can I make a motion? You haven't spoken. I haven't spoken yet. I just want to say to the residents, I understand your concerns, but these aren't the real numbers yet, and they're going to come back to us with the plans, and if they start asking for variances or waivers, and you'll have a more accurate traffic count. So you get two more bites at the apple when they come back to here and when they come to the city commission. And even without the change in zoning, they could have come with the application and done a lot of this. They're just trying to do it kind of the right way to be able to get the better tenants in. Now, do we have a motion? Yes, a move of recommendation of approval to the city commission ordinance number 46-26, a privately initiated rezoning from PCC to MIC for a 5.11-acre property located at 1405, 1445, and 1515 North Congress Avenue. The motion passes unanimous. Thank you all very much, and good luck. We'll see you at the next step. Good luck, yes, see you at the next step. Well, they wouldn't have to notice it if they come up again, do they, Woody? When they come for a site plan, they'll have to notice it again. If the site plan has waivers or variances, I believe that will require notice. It might not come in front of us. I think if the site plan is just compliant, I don't think there's additional notice requirements beyond it being posted on the agenda. Okie doke. Should we move on to 9D? 9C has been postponed, right? No, Chair, the 9C is still going forward. It's D&E. Oh, D&E, okay. 9C. Oh, will you please read the letter in the record? Yes, so stay for the record. My name is Susie Rodriguez. I'm Senior Planner for Delray Beach. I would like to enter file number PZ-386-2025 into the record. This is for a Level 3 site plan modification for Atlantic Crossing, specifically Building 5 and 4 North. And the applicant is here today to present. Okay, we proceed. My name is Bryce Hall. Address is 2555 Walnut Street, Denver, Colorado, 80205. Members of the Board, good evening, and thank you for your time. As Ms. Rodriguez stated, I'm here representing the applicant, Edwards Intracoastal, for a Level 3 site plan modification to the approved site plan for the Atlantic Crossing development. I'd like to begin by reminding us all of the overall breadth and scope of the entirety of the Atlantic Crossing project. So I have on the screen here a site plan representing that development. As you, I'm sure, know, it is bounded to the west by Federal and to the east by Veterans Park. On the north is 1st and along the south border of the site is Atlantic Avenue. Running down the middle of the site from north to south is 7th, and 7th bifurcates the development to two phases. To the west is Phase 1, which is comprised of Building 1 at the southmost edge, which is a retail and office building. Building 3, which is a mixed-use building comprised of commercial and four rent apartment units. And then to the north of Phase 1, left of 7th Avenue, are buildings 6th South and 6th North, both of which are rental apartment buildings. Phase 2 is on the east side of 7th Avenue. From south to north is Building 2, which again is a retail and office building. Building 4 South is a for-sale condominium building. And buildings 4 North and 5 are also for-sale condominium units. And Building 5 includes townhome units, which face onto 1st Street. That's the site plan, and here's what the site looks like today. Oop, I've gone one too far. Excuse me. As I'm sure you're all aware, Phase 1 is complete. I wish it looked already. Nearly. We're getting there. Phase 1 is complete, and all the buildings are occupied, as you can see on the left. To the right, on the east side of 7th, you'll see that on the south end of the site, Building 2 is under construction. The garage upon which Building 2 and Building 4 South sit is complete, and so that garage is ready for the construction to start of Building 4 South. And then on the very northern edge of the site, you'll see the pit where the garage that Building 4 North and 5 will be surrounding is under construction today. And I don't have to tell you guys, this is a rather sizable project, obviously, consisting of seven different buildings. And when the project was first conceived, as a result of the scale and the number of buildings that this project is including, it was determined that rather than a single architectural style that would be applied to all of the buildings would be deployed, that variations of architectural styles would be appropriate for each of the buildings. And yet, those styles would each be complementary to one another, and in the end would create a comprehensive look for the entirety of the development. So, this was a rendering that was created of Building 1, and we're looking here at the southwest corner of that building at Federal and Atlantic, and you can see it's something of a coastal retail style. And this is what Building 1 looks like today, it's complete. And we're looking at it now from a different angle, that's 7th and Atlantic. Building 3, as we go north in Phase 1, a rendering of that building, this was something of the Alley's Beach style, as you can see here. And the building today looks like this, a living wall in place and Hampton Social occupying that space. This is at the corner of Federal and First, this is the main entry to the lobby for Building 6 north. And again, you can see this is something of a coastal resort style. And that building today, as built, looks like that. Coming to Phase 2, a rendering of Building 2, which is under construction today, and you can see that, among other things, this building incorporates some Art Deco style in the middle there. Building 2 today, looks like that, as you're all aware, under construction. And that brings us to Building 4 south. Now, to remind the board, the original site plan for this project was approved in 2014. And as we began to contemplate the start of Phase 2 in 2022, we took that opportunity to reflect upon the architectural style of the buildings within Phase 2 and propose refinement to those styles as time had passed and taste had changed. So, regarding Building 4 south, in 2022, we submitted a then Class 3 site plan modification regarding the architectural style of that building. The original style, shown here, was something of a classical Mediterranean style. You note the arch at the Port Coast Share, the tile insets, the tower form, and the clay tile roof. And you'll note that in the background, this image of Building 4 south, you'll see Building 4 north. And that's relevant, and we'll come back to that. At that time, in 2022, we proposed, as I mentioned, a refinement to this style, to something that's a bit more contemporary. This is more of a Mediterranean revival style. You'll see that many of the elements remain. You see the arch form at the Port Coast Share. You see the tile use, both at the Port Coast Share and at the residential units. But it's a bit of a departure from the original style. There's no longer the sloped tile roofs. We've gone to the flat roof form here. And you'll note that we've got the cantilevered balcony forms with glass rails and the cantilevered roof forms that are spanning over those balconies. This is that Port Coast Share view from 7th. And this is the view of that same building, the north facade, which is facing on to the roundabout in the park that sits between Building 4 south and 4 north. And again, you'll see the replication of that arched form and the tile inlay at the main residential entry to that building. This refinement of style, as I mentioned, was submitted as a site plan modification in 2022 and was approved a short two years later in 2024. It went very smoothly. And that brings us to the site plan modification I'm here to discuss this evening, which is, among other things, a refinement of the styles of Building 4 north and Building 5. And it's a single building, as you can see demonstrated here on the site plan. But it's designated as 4 north and Building 5 for a very specific reason. And that is that Building 4 north is meant to be of the same architectural style of Building 4 south. And the reason for that is that there's a consistent experience for both the automobile users of the roundabout and the pedestrians that are passing through the site to Veterans Park that the buildings on either side of that space feel of the same style. That's the one departure from the variation of style of buildings that we have throughout this project. And if we're to look, then, at the original design of Building 4 north now, you'll see the original design of the Port Cochere for Building 4 south on the right side of this image. On the left is the original Building 4 north, which, again, you'll see is of that more classical Mediterranean style. You see the same forms and materials as were originally proposed for Building 4 south. And just as we refine the design of Building 4 south, we are to do the same for Building 4 north so that, again, we have that similar architectural style flanking the roundabout and the park between the roundabout and Veterans Park. And so this is the image of that same corner today, looking at the intersection of the roundabout and 7th. And you can see on the left-hand side the southwest corner of Building 4 north, very specifically. And it's a little bit easier to see the style of this building if we look at it from the park side. So here we are now looking west as if we are hovering above Veterans Park. And you see Building 4 north to the right. And you'll note that the same forms and materials that were approved for Building 4 south are represented here in Building 4 north. You see the use of the tile, the cantilevered balconies with the glass rail, the use of wood at the balcony soffits and on the building. And, of course, you'll note at the main entry to the building off of the park, again, that arched form with the tile inlay. And as a reminder, this is the facing elevation of Building 4 south. So you can see that the two are facing one another, a very similar architectural style and use of materials, and that's very intentional. So that, then, is Building 4 north. Building 5 is the northern portion of this same building. And at the time the project was originally conceived, Building 5 was a much different style of building. It's something of a contemporary style. You'll note that the form and the massing and the materials are akin to what is masonry modern today. A very contemporary look to this particular building. And it was suitable for, you know, being adjacent to the original design of Building 4 north. But as we refined the design of Building 4 south and subsequently Building 4 north, it was appropriate for us to contemplate that style as related to this other portion of the building, Building 5. And, therefore, we're proposing a refinement to this style as well. So this, again, the original. And now the proposed elevation. This is the west elevation of Building 5 facing on to 7th. And you'll note that the style and the form and the massing of this building remain consistent with the original style. And that is, again, akin to the masonry modern style. But we've brought into it now some of the same forms and materials that were used in Buildings 4 south and 4 north. So you'll note at the balconies, again, those linear forms with the glass rails and the use of wood in both the columns and in the soffits that are covering those balconies. We'll look now at the north facade of Building 5, fronting on to 1st. These are the townhome units that I mentioned earlier. Again, similar type of massing and style to the original formula. But we're bringing in a few different things here. We've got the glass rails, you'll note there. And you'll also see as we turn the corner to the east-facing facade, fronting on to Veterans Park. Again, the use of materials and forms that we used in Buildings 4 south and 4 north at the balconies, at Berry in particular. And we've taken the color palette from the original formula, which was primarily whites and grays, and added some touches of color. Obviously, you see the aqua and the sand colors here, which are to add interest and are really hearkening back to the coastal lifestyle that we have here in Delray Beach. And so, again, what we've done is refined the approved architectural style, this contemporary look, this masonry modern interpretation, but linked it to Building 4 south and 4 north so that they actually feel cohesive and complementary to one another. And that's the end of my presentation. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Proceed. Can I say something? Building 5 is purely residential, correct? Correct. How many units are in Building 5? Combined between the two, 5 and 4 north are contiguous. So I think of them as a single building, as 41 residential units within that building. Within both? Within 4 north and 5, yes. I couldn't, unless, Dave, you can answer that question. Correct. I'm assuming they're going to be very high-ending units. Yes, they are. Market-rate condominiums, so they'll be... That's a low number for you. Yeah. Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, you're good. Take a first year. So, all right. Atlanta Crossing. It's comprised of the lots highlighted in yellow. So, it's 9.22 acres, mix of a CBD and community facility zoning. The FAR is solely based on the acres within the CBD zoning, which is a ratio of 1.71 for this project. And the proposed density is being reduced. I'll go into that further in the later slides. So, just a brief reminder of the background for Atlanta Crossing. So, they had a conditional use approved in 2012, allowing for building height to increase to 60 feet, with the provision that 20% of the units above 48 feet are workforce housing. And they also had a density increase to 40 dwelling units per acre, or dwelling, yeah, dwelling units per acre, with the provision that 20% of the units above 30 dwelling units per acre are workforce housing. The Class 5 approved in 2014 was for a development with seven structures with a mixed use of retail, restaurants, office, and residential. So, in 2017, the settlement agreement was executed between the city and the owner. This required an east-west right-of-way between building 3 and 6 south, and established that the 2013 land development regulations and comprehensive plan are applicable to all phases of this project. Also, in 2017, a Class 2 site plan modification and waivers were approved to meet that east-west road requirement. In 2024, a request somewhat similar to this request came for building 4 south and building 2. It included the reduction of units from 343 to 328 units, a reduction of the retail square footage, reduction in parking spaces, and a modification for both building facades. Other modifications have been approved, either administratively or by the board, including the most recent waiver for building 4 south to extend the carport. The request today, similar to the one in 2024, will be reducing the unit count further. So, it would be from a total of 328 units to now 317 units. So, that's 52 units to now 41 units in building 5 and 4 north. The workforce housing is based off of density, and so the amount of workforce housing units will also be reduced from 22 units to 20 units. Also, all plans are being updated to reflect the new building configurations and also the addition of the pedestrian walkway, or not addition, modification of the pedestrian walkway. So, as the applicant stated, the blue is what building 5 is. The purple is what that building 4 north is, but for purposes of the project, we're going to refer it as building 5 as the entire structure, because it is looked at as one structure. And then the pink is the northeast parking garage. It is not included in this review. It was reviewed separately and approved in September of 2025, administratively. Also included in this request is the exterior modification. Both buildings are to remain with the styles approved, so the Mediterranean Revival for 4 north and the Masonry Modern for 5. But the design has shifted to both mirror the adjacent building and to adjust for the new unit layout configuration and to better unify the architecture styles together. So, note once again, the analysis is based on the 2013 land development regulations and comprehensive plan per the settlement agreement. So, the level 3 requires partial review of the performance standards. The zoning is still consistent with the land use. As for concurrency, water, sewer drainage are not significantly impacted by the modification. The updated TPS letter states that the project is within the TCEA and is exempt from the traffic performance standards. Phase 2 is required to pay the $28,000 for parks impact fee. Solid waste is still considered sufficient. And the updated SCAD letters has confirmed no negative impacts. Overall, the development modifications, the development and the modifications still meet the standards in LDR Section 323, providing a mix of unit types and 20% of the units above 48 feet and above 38 dwelling units per acre is workforce housing for both low and low to moderate income. The modifications remain consistent with the comprehensive plan. Workforce housing units are proportionately distributed, and the 20 workforce housing units will help to accommodate Delray Beach's socioeconomically diverse population. So, the CBD development standards are met. The original approval had a density of 40 dwelling units per acre, an increase allowed by the conditional use, and it was reduced to 38 in 2024 and is now proposed at 37 dwelling units per acre. They're still above the maximum 30 dwelling units per acre. So, the provisions from the conditional use still stand, and the workforce housing must be provided 20% for the units above the 30 dwelling units per acre, which is 12 units, and 20% for the units above 48 feet, which is 8 units, so for a total of 20 units. The workforce housing unit has been proportioned to meet the requirements in LDR Section 479. And the parking requirements has been reduced, but no modifications are included in this request. So, other standards such as setback, frontages, lighting, landscaping has been reviewed and is in compliance. The landscape plans have been modified to be consistent with the other modifications that have been throughout the whole project site. As previously stated, the density is still above 30 dwelling units per acre, so the standards for the density increase in the conditional use must be met. This includes a variation in design, variation in unit types, and overall a unified architectural character. The board must determine if the modification maintains compliance with the standards required for the density increase, and if it creates an overall unified character. So, the architectural styles are as follows. So, they have the Mediterranean Revival on building 4 North, which is mirroring the approved style on building 4 South. And then they have the Masonry Modern for building 5. Although it's one structure, the building is split into two with the different style choices. The design utilizes similar materials to unify the structure, and the modifications actually strengthen the connection of the two styles. The following criteria shall be considered. The proposed structure must be in good taste in design and should contribute to the image of the city. The exterior design shall not materially depreciate the appearance or value of the area, and the structure is harmonious with the general area. The board must determine if both architectural styles are appropriate to the surroundings, blend with the entire site, including all the other buildings, and the project establishes an overall architectural language and is unified with the use of common elements. These are your board motions, and this concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. Does one member of the public wish to comment? Chair, before we go. Well, I think you should comment then. Do ex parte. Ex parte. Oh, yeah. Ex parte. I'm sorry. Not on this specific item, but I've been with it from the day it was approved. So, none, I guess. Right. None. I drove by the site. I drive by the site every day. None. I was part of the commission when we filed the lawsuit that triggered the settlement, and I approved the 2017 plan, but I do drive by it, but no other expert day. Okay. Sorry about that. Okay. Mr. Hall, do you have any rebuttal or cross? No rebuttal. Thank you. City? Okay. And we're on to the board for discussion. Oh, sorry. No. Yeah, Mitch, you've been with this project longer than anybody, I think. I've been with this project a very, very long time. I will say, first of all, you're the architect now? Is that right? Dave. They should have found you a long time ago. Probably would have helped a lot. If you could help them, apparently there's still issues with the drainage sometimes into the canal. Hopefully we can keep that mitigated as well. But I think, first of all, this change is great. I mean, really. I mean, it's probably, to me, ten times better, especially getting away. I know it's still called modern masonry, but it is such a better adaptation of it than what we normally see. So kudos to you. I think all of us, whether you liked from the beginning the project or not, we all want to see it completed. I want to give kudos to staff. And this change, it looks like, I mean, they only reviewed this, this is a major change in 72 days in staff time. That's pretty impressive. So kudos to staff for diligently getting this through, because I think you know how important it is that it just gets done, right? But it's a huge improvement. I'm really happy with the changes. I'm definitely going to support this change. Hopefully, maybe Mr. Edwards will just take my face off his dartboard eventually. But we're getting there. I know, I'm sure you're going to have some comments, because your community was a big part, and a lot of these changes, and kind of getting to where we are, and that's it. I share a lot of the thoughts that Mitch just talked about. I was particularly interested in the changes to the masonry modern, because we have some unattractive masonry modern buildings. I wondered when you said wood on this. Is this wood wood, or is this hardy board, or being that we're South Florida, wood doesn't have South Florida. I was kind of curious on that, but I'm assuming you found something that's going to live that close to the ocean. Right, so it's a composite. It's a composite. I'm sorry, stitch your name and address. David Goth, Lupton Roche Architects, Architect of Record. Thank you. You need my address, too? Sure. Why not? Just for the record. 430 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio, 43215. Thank you. Yes. So the wood is intentional, but because of the harshness of things, we are using a lot of the newer composite wood elements. They're making incredible advances in this stuff, even wood-look aluminum materials and things of that nature. So it's really, really difficult to see that it's not natural, and that it will actually hold up in the environment. I wanted to ask about the parking. Is any of that available to the public, or is that just for residents? Yes. A significant portion of the overall parking of the project is open to the public. Portions are reserved, though, for the residents only. But you're not talking about the parking under Building 2, right? Under Building 2, a portion of that is available as valet parking. So for the public, yes. Portions of that is also reserved for both the residents of Building 4 South and for the tenants of Building 2. The garage that is surrounded by Buildings 4 North and 5, the majority of that parking is open to the public. The lower level, the basement level of that, is reserved parking for the residents of that building. Okay. Is the road open now? Yes. Yes, it is. The east-west road. The east-west, the road. Yeah. The east-west, the road. Yes. You mean south? And 7th is also open. It's between Buildings 3 and... Correct. Yeah. They're all open. So I did want to take the opportunity to talk about the landscape. Sure. I have to say this is perhaps the most complete landscape plan I've ever seen and detailed. And I... Why don't you talk about landscape? This is the part that Mr. Katz leaves. And I was particularly interested in that the architect had picked up all the conditions of approval having to do with landscaping, particularly 11 and 12. It's my recollection when this was all approved. There was something like 30 conditions of approval. Maybe a couple more. The lower number, yes. And the fact that those are remembered and are put in here, I think, is very significant because there's not a lot of us that have been around that long. That's right. But I did have some questions. Well, one other compliment. The number of existing trees that are remaining is awesome. I don't know if you're moving around or whatever. It doesn't matter. But too often, developers come before us and they want to wipe out all of the vegetation to begin with. That's their starting point. And the fact that you're saving as many as you are is great. However, there is a notable lack of native Florida plants. I noticed the landscape architecture was from Ohio, and they probably don't have too many native Florida plants there. But if there's anything that can be done to rectify that, there are a lot of natives that can substitute for the non-native exotic. And there was one in particular that I noticed, the ficus microcarpa. It's an invasive category one. So it's not really something that should be there. And I just want to ask about the sodded area. Does that mean that's going to be a lovely meadow of wild plants? Or is that going to be St. Augustine grass that is not terribly complementary to the environment? It is turf. However, the amount of turf from the approved site plan to the proposed revision that we're submitting today has actually been reduced. So among the notable revisions to the landscape is a reduction in the amount of turf area to your exact point, an increase to the pervious areas in the site, an increase to the number of plantings themselves. And though you're certainly right in that more natives could possibly be deployed here, there was real attention paid to using natives as a fit within the design as best was possible. Although there are, as you just mentioned, not all of the plant material are natives. Those that didn't quite suit the design certainly are not all native. However, the amount of natives, the amount of trees, both perimeter and shade are all exceeding the standard requirements. But certainly your comment regarding looking into the species is noted. I thank you because I think that given the fact that this is Mediterranean revival and beach design, those are native trees that go to that. So thank you. Thank you. I will just echo Mr. Katz in particular in terms of I like the changes that are being proposed and forth. I also like the changes that are being proposed. I did have one question. So you're reducing the density. Does that mean that the overall square footage is staying the same, correct, so that there's going to be some bigger units within the same footprint? That's correct. Yeah, the overall square footage is nominally the same. There may have been some minor adjustment. But the change in unit count is related to what you described, which is larger units than the original approved design. And to Mr. Katz's point as to my neighbors, the only thing we're terribly concerned with isn't really the design of the buildings, but making sure that 7th Avenue stays permanently closed and that there's a cul-de-sac or something that's built there when it's all done. That's right. Thank you. So, yeah, I'm in favor of this. Roger. I'm generally in favor of everything, but, well, I mean, from an architectural standpoint, when something like this is designed, whatever it was 12 years ago, and then you come up, you know, it gets modified and it evolves and it gets massaged and more interesting ideas become available and funding changes things and new materials become available. So it's only natural, I think, that they come before us with a modification in style. It happens to be on three very significant buildings. The city would call two of them one building. So they're better, I mean, they're better styles. They're more appropriate for 2027, 2028 than they might have been 10 years ago. I'm really, really interested in that. And I wish you had a graphic, and maybe you do, that shows the south façade of Building 4 North and the north façade of Building 4 South. Well said. Which is, to me, probably the G spot of the entire site. I mean, that corridor, the architectural G spot, that corridor has got to, that corridor, that east-west corridor that's going to reach from the heart of your site to the intercoastal in some respects can't be any more important. And so part of the philosophy is to better frame that corridor, you know, with a graph. I don't know, do you have a graphic that you can pop up that might show that? You know, we don't have one that shows them both, as you might like to see them. What Ms. Rodriguez has pulled up on the screen, we're looking here at the south façade of Building 4 North. Right. And then, Susie, if you go to the next, you can see. It's the big, gigantic arch that's tiled, that has this tiled surround. Yep. Is that, what's the significance of that? What's it on, is it on axis from one building to the other? In fact, yes, it is. In fact, maybe if we go back all the way to the site plan. And it matches the driveway, correct? Yeah. That's a good spot. And so I'll use my pointer here if I can. So what you're, the, oh, there we go. So that arched element, it's hard to point at, is right there. Right there? And then it's on building for south, it's there. So you see they're connected by a footpath. Yeah. And they're, you know, right across from one another. And they are the same architectural style. That arch form is designating the main entry to the building. Which is just key. And it's the same arch that's in front of it, so it's all going to tie together. That's correct. Yeah. And that's at the Port Cochere, as you're describing. But it's more of a flattened arch at the Port Cochere. That's correct. Yes. Much more flattened. So, and to landscaping concept or discussion, I don't know where exactly you were talking about, but that green space in between the two buildings has got to be just spectacular. I mean, it's got to be stunning. And I hope you all have had a chance to wander through the completed phase one. One of the things I would say about Mr. Edwards and Edwards Intercoastal as a company is they have very specific attention to the landscape. It's very important to them. It's very important to the community and the success of the project. And the landscape you see in phase one is representative of what you'll see in phase two, which is very lush, trying to take advantage of as many natives as is possible. And so no cost is spared in the landscape design of this project. It's a public, it's a small public park, really. That's correct. In my opinion. That's right. So generally, I'm in favor of everything. The styles are beautiful. The residential people are going to be happy with that style facing north and views to the east and the intercoastal are spectacular. You know, I don't really have anything negative to say about anything. I wish we could get it built as fast as possible. We agree. I have one more question, which is, as you're thinking about looking east toward the intercoastal, is that parking lot still there in between Veterans Park? Yes, Veterans Park parking lot. So there's no movement to get there relocated to the north end of Veterans Park. That would be up to the city. May I do have one more thing? Sure. What about the big, gigantic, free-form art object? It's the only thing that I was going to talk about. That's his favorite element besides the new G-spot. All right. There are two G-spots on the site. You know what? I'll go back to the one that shows the whole site in color. It'll be easier to describe. So there's a big, gigantic art install. That's correct. Please tell me that's still happening. It is. That particular sculpture, just to point it out. Oh, I'm using the wrong button. Excuse me. I think I know where it is. Okay. So right here, it'll span between buildings 3 and 2 on the west side of 7th, over 7th, to buildings 4 south and 2. And that's where that sculpture is planned. So it's going to fly over 7th. It's going to fly over, yeah. Really? The intersection. Okay. And in fact, if you're interested, our client, Edwards Communities, installed a sculpture by the same artist in Columbus, Ohio. And you can look at how it's, the installed condition, what it looks like in place. It's quite dramatic. Yeah, she's from St. Pete, so, I mean. The artist is special. Very special. Yeah. Can you send us out to see it? Just let it carry on. Absolutely, yeah. I'd be happy to do that. What's her name again? Yeah, we could just Google her name. Janet Eichelman. Eichelman. So you can just Google that and see her stuff. Yeah. It's world. I'll add. E-I-C-H-L-E, man. Yeah, I mean, it's world class. World class. No, I mean, I was, you know, when you first came on the scene, I was one of the residents, you know, jumping around with pitchforks. But, you know. And you stopped doing that? Yeah, I stopped. On this much. But, I mean, it's, phase one, I think, is impressive. I still think it's too massive, but that gets it long out of the bag. But the interior spaces are very special. And I was in the Merrill Lynch offices, and, you know, we don't have much to do about interiors, but it's really high-quality, high-quality stuff. So I have no problems with these changes. I will say, if you, this has taken so long that I noticed I was watching for something else, a code enforcement meeting. This project is so long that older buildings are already in front of code for keeping up. And so anything you can do to help your property managers, because you're still building and they're trying to figure out how to manage it, they probably need your help to avoid the magistrate. And then the only other thing I wanted to add is these presentations are the most detailed professional things we get. I mean, it's an impressive project. So thank you. It's an important project to us. Do we have a motion? We haven't done one today. Let the new gig go. Yeah, but you have to give me something to read. It's the last page. Karen gave it to me. Oh, there you go. I will move to approve the level three site plan modification for phase two of Atlantic Crossing, including the reduction in the total number of units for the project from 328 to 317, with the reduction specifically located within building five, modifications to the exterior elevations for both buildings four and five, by finding that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets criteria set forth in the land development regulations. Second. Is there a second? Second. Second. Can we second it? Okay. Call the roll, Ms. Miller. Teacher Stone is absent. Mitch Katz. Yes. Roger Cope. Yes. Karen Kizaleski. Yes. Jim Chard. Yes. Price Patton. Yes. Scott Hyman. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming all the way from Denver. That's right. My pleasure to be here. In Ohio. Thank you. Great presentation. Hope you're staying at the Colony Hotel. Not this time around. You sound like the Ray kind of guys. I love the Colony Hotel. Good. Yeah. Which is an architect. You should like to come. You know, I'll tell you, it just turned 100, and the owners, to do that, they donated $100,000 to various community groups that worked for preservation. That's wonderful. Yeah. It's an institution, to say the least. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks very much. They were one with pitchforks, too, by the way, because they've taken away their ocean view. So, the next two items, do we have to do anything regarding the agenda, too? So, one item, the Easton, was actually removed from the agenda and republished, so there's no action that needs to be taken on that. But, D, we've got to make a motion to post. Yes, I'm going to pass. This, I don't know if it was forwarded to you, if you had a chance to see it, but the applicant did send a letter late this afternoon regarding a postponement. And, clearly, it wasn't out of the blue. I know they were in discussions with staff. This is an SAD, so the rezoning's a little different in that it's very specific on what the ordinance says, and they're still working, I think, on some of the language. So, since it's on the agenda, I do think the board should call the item. We can do ex parte and public comment and then go straight to board discussion about whether to grant a postponement. They've asked for a postponement to a date certain. Well, generally, I don't have a concern if that's what the board would like to do. Because this isn't a rezoning from a standard rezoning to a new standard rezoning, this rezoning will be specifically whatever the ordinance says. And if the ordinance changes enough between what was attached as backup today and noticed and what the new ordinance is, they may still really need to re-notice it. But if the board wants to do a postponement to the next meeting for a date certain as they've requested, we can always ask them or instruct them they need to re-notice anyways because of any potential changes to the ordinance. Okay, so we need to call it, read it into the record and then request it. They make a motion to request a postponement. Okay. So, let's read item 9D into the record. Thank you. Now, the applicant has requested a postponement. Well, Chair, since it's open, I would go ahead and do ex parte just in case. No, any ex parte to report? None whatsoever. None, unless you consider driving by or shopping in that shopping center to be ex parte, but no, none. Only if you drive by with the intention of studying it for this item. Yeah, I drove by. Yeah, I drive by to look at the former dentist's office. I talked to the owner and to the legal representative. Miskell? Is that Bonnie Miskell? Yeah. I have, that's ex parte, but I've watched the original approval meeting from 2012, which I requested if anybody else wants it, you can see it. We've done great improvements on video, so I'll tell you that. I also spoke to Shelley Petrolia, who was the vote on that commission, that meeting, and I do drive by, but I plan, I did, I was going to drive by specifically for this, but I found I was going to respond, so I haven't done it yet. So I will. Oh, I guess I should say that I was on SPRAB when this first was approved and went to the commission. And I think I, I think I might have voted, I spoke in favor of it, but I had some concerns about the parking, but that was it. William, I was unclear in whether or not it's going, weren't there conditions in terms of, you don't need to have it re-published, re-announced? So if the board were to postpone to a date certain, the original notice for today and your public announcement of the specific date that it'll be re-heard acts as the notice. So it doesn't have to specifically be re-noticed by mailers or placards and those types of items. My concern, the board could still do that. I guess this is more a statement for the applicant if they were here, is that my concern would be if the ordinance that was noticed to be heard today changes in some way that is significant enough that it maybe is not the same ordinance, then that may need to be re-noticed even if the board did a postponement to date certain. And that's only, I think, a quirky thing that's happening because SAD is not, you can't pull SAD up in the code and it says this is what's allowed, not allowed, setbacks. The ordinance itself dictates what's allowed, setbacks, development rules. So, yeah, so if the board wanted to entertain a date certain in the hopes that the ordinance is significantly similar enough that it doesn't need to be re-noticed, it could, but we still may end up re-noticing it regardless, but that is their request for a date certain in the letter that has been transmitted to the city. But that all depends on what time they present the ordinance to us, right? Well, that's a whole other issue, too, is whatever changes they need to make or still discussing obviously need to be submitted soon, especially since this meeting was actually a week later. It's the fourth Monday instead of the third Monday, so we've got even less buffer between now and October. So can we condition the date certain with a timeline to present their ordinance to the city? I don't think you can condition it. You could postpone to a date certain and they could work with staff and they could what would you recommend? Well, we're actively working with them on scheduling a meeting to make sure that what they want to move forward is what moves forward. So I think October 19th is very doable. I think from a staff perspective, we don't have an issue with that. Okay, so I need a motion to postpone it. Can I ask a question? Did anyone check the posting? I didn't see a placard out front when I drove by. So they did send pictures of it. A lot of times they'll disappear. So we do what we can. They're supposed to put them in the ground and then photograph them and then send them to her. Which they did. Which they did. It was not there. All the other ones were there. It was not there, but that one was not there. So, okay. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. Please. That the board agrees to postpone to a date certain, which is the next meeting, correct? October the 19th. October the 19th. So we're going to put that into motion, yeah. Okay, second? I'll second. Great. Okay. Call the roll. Teachers, Thomas, Addison, Mitch Katz. Yes. Roger Cohn. Yes. Karen Kizaleski. Yes. Jim Chard. Yes. Price Patton. Yes. Scott Herman. Yes. Okay, so now there being, are there any, no legislative items there, are there? No. No legislative tonight. Any comments from the staff? No comments. Next meeting dates October 19th. Very quick turnaround from this one because this meeting is so late, and then November 16th after that. Is there any, do you have any idea when the two postponed meetings, or the other postponed item will be on the meeting? They're still saying that they'll be, they want to be on October 19th and they're planning on resubmitting tomorrow, so it'll be, so you'll be going, yeah, or tilt. So it's very likely that October 19th. Thank you. I'm sorry. We need to, we need to, we need to vote? No. We already voted. Oh, we voted. Yeah. No, it's on to. And then any board comments? Oh, you have any comments? Nothing. Just welcome to our newest member, and congratulations on our officer appointments. Thank you. Any board comments? Okay. I just want, I used e-services for the first time today to submit a, some application for the Elks Lodge actually to get approval, and it took me literally two minutes, and then it was approved the same day. So kudos to staff. It's for, it's for a temporary license, we have to get, temporary license for alcohol goes to the county and the state, but you have to get permission for zoning to the city first, so it's a first step. They have expedited some of the. I mean, it was like that, but first of all, but the, the first was getting into the system, signing up, and I was really impressed with it, and, you know, I was a little. They didn't blackball you from the system? Barely. But, speaking of that, so we're going to have an Octoberfest that will be open to the public. You're welcome to come. Out in the parking lot? No, inside. Inside. Inside. Oh, wow. Okay. Meeting adjourned. If we do it outside, then we have to go through our roads, right? Yeah, yeah.