all right i'd like to call to order the planning and zoning board meeting today is tuesday september 16th and the time is 503. we do the roll call please gregory snyder here mitch katz didger strong absent christina gamba absent jim charn here judy malica here price patent here all right so today we have the election of officers for the chair the vice chair and the second vice chair um if we could please just go in order of that abc on the agenda for each position feel free to discuss amongst yourself you are always free to nominate yourself or even make the motion to make yourself the position um but uh yeah it's open to board discussion what do you mean alphabetically oh no i just mean like you know don't nominate someone for second vice chair before we've done chair i just want to keep it in order of how it says okay got it you want to carry on i'm just curious to be of it and i'll nominate greg signer's chair i'll be second that and can we get a uh roll call vote please diane greg snyder yes mitch katz yes did you strong is absent christina got about absent jim chard yes judy malica yes price patent yes am i meeting yes and can i nominate people okay so now you can't pass the chair okay so someone else nominate someone else as price patent i'll second that roll call vote vice chair yeah call the roll please gregory snyder yes mitch katz yes did you strong absent christina godbound absent jim chard yes judy malica yes price patent yes i'll nominate jim chart for a second by share i'll second that gregory snyder yes mitch katz yes did you just strong absent christina godbound absent jim chard yes judy malica yes price patent okay we do we have all the old guys in charge does he have to move anywhere yeah i think i just put a special request in that i get this seat because this is my only request i had i asked the clerk if i can keep this seat because this is my old seat so it's a little you know there you go i know that piece of wood in there oh yeah this is uh c3s well you've been on 1900 boards there's probably 40 of them back there somewhere made out of stone yeah in the last 20 years when have you not been on the board is the question what about danny i need to get one i'll write an email right now okay yeah come on we need to have a talk with your boss exactly all right i've done that are there any changes amendments deletions to the agenda not hearing anything do we have a motion to approve the agenda so approved second we have a motion by all right okay there are no minutes at this point uh we need to swear in anybody who's going to speak tonight if you would stand and uh miss miller will sign we'll swear you please raise your right hand by the authority best to meet the notary of the state of florida you swear from the testimony about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you at this point we'd like to have uh any comments from the public on any items that are not on the agenda seeing no one coming forward public comments closed we have no presentations we now have quasi-judicial items and i need the rule i have them right here right here unless diane's done all right here's the other part in case you need yeah all right that's good yeah okay this hearing shall be conducted in accordance with quasi-judicial rules the applicant and the city shall be allowed 15 minutes each to present their case the public shall be allowed to speak for three minutes maximum or a maximum of six minutes if the person represents an organization or group of people who are present but agree not to speak a city 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 a project is a good project or not nor may a decision be based on the numbers 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 okay um would you please read the yeah project into the record good evening both members my name is rafiq ibrahim i'm the principal of current planning i would like to enter file number 2024-228 consideration of a level three site plan application for the construction of four story multi-family residential building consisting of 10 residential condominium units at 202 north east 6 avenue known as the link including architectural elevation and landscape and the applicant is here to present all right thank you before we start is there any ex parte communication miss malika i spoke with the applicant okay drive-by oh and i drove by also they drove around the parking and looked at the tree none since our last meeting yeah i had none for me since the last time this was here all right miss belenke please nice to see you nice to see you as well good evening for the record christina belenke my address is 14 southeast fourth street in bobertone um it's a pleasure to be here to present the link uh to you today um as many of you have mentioned you've driven by the site so you're probably fairly familiar at this point but it is highlighted kind of in the red box on the screen uh it's located on the northwest corner of northeast sixth avenue and northeast second street it's a small parcel it's only 0.36 acres it is within the commercial core and within the cbd and it is currently developed with a cigar bar called the smoke inn it's been that cigar bar for a number of years at this point initially i believe it was a single-family home when it was first constructed but it was converted to commercial use quite some time ago and these are the existing conditions that are there today just to put things into perspective as to what is surrounding the property you do have various townhomes that have been developed within the area along the northbound federal highway pair you also have some newer construction buildings some commercial office space along south or sorry along northeast 6th avenue so there's kind of more four-story type products that have been developed and are continuing to be developed along that corridor and here's a graphic of the proposed project so it would be 10 condominium units it would be a mix of two and three bedroom units with a rooftop pool deck and amenity area a little lounge space space for some entertaining that kind of thing what you will notice is the primary streets are activated so 6th avenue 2nd street you do have what looks like active spaces you have your lobby area obviously the corner of the intersection is highlighted that's a very prominent intersection so we're trying to pay tribute to that and you don't have kind of any breaks for vehicular access along the primary streets as the code requires we are accessing the parking and the vehicular use areas through the alley which again is a code requirement so here you have the ground floor plan the proposed site plan does meet the code requirements and the comprehensive plan requirements in terms of maximum far that's 3.0 we're at 2.92 far we're under the 30 dwelling unit per acre permitted density we do have structured parking within on the ground floor and the mezzanine levels that provide sufficient parking to meet code requirements we have 23 parking spaces for again 10 condominium units so that accounts for the units and guest spaces the service functions are consolidated within the alley which is the intent of those alleyways within the downtown areas and as i mentioned we have kind of that uninterrupted pedestrian activity along the primary streets so as you can see we have kind of open windows and the ability to kind of look inside into those lobby spaces and we don't have any breaks that would interrupt those pedestrian sidewalks we are also providing lobby and stoop frontages with recess entries to meet the frontage type standards in terms of the streetscapes we are required to provide a 15-foot streetscape that's comprised of a four-foot curb zone where you have your plantings your light posts utilities that kind of thing a six-foot wide pedestrian clear zone for your sidewalk and five feet of remaining setback we're actually exceeding those requirements on both street frontages on northeast 2nd street instead of 15 feet we're providing 16 feet 10 inches and we actually have 24 feet 9 inches on the federal highway northeast 6th avenue frontage and then again the staff report goes into detail but we are meeting all of the requirements of the cbd of the cbd of the form-based code in terms of the development requirements the required bicycle parking all of those standards the setbacks the greater setbacks as you go up in floors all of that is being addressed and met through this project we do have landscape plans that comply with the code requirements as well and provides a really attractive streetscape particularly along that northeast 6th avenue frontage we are providing new street trees nice variety of trees shrubs accent plans to really highlight the building and improve the appearance of the property and then in terms of elevations we did have the masonry modern style approved by the city commission the use of the use of the style and i'm going to have our architect come up and speak to uh some of the particular details about the style itself good evening board members and staff i'm peggy fitzgerald from net architects um so uh christina pretty much went through uh the first part of my blurb describing the building so i'm just going to talk about the style a little bit um as she mentioned this board did approve the use of the masonry modern style in may as did the city commission approved the use as well in june so the design um it highlights the solidity of the building with as a prominent mass with carved out terraces and and recesses for fenestration the terraces are employed to create shaded outdoor living spaces for the residents and opportunities for them to also connect more with the neighborhood by being outside these terraces and balconies are utilized on all three um street facing facades let's see if the next one shows as you can see this is second street and the alley which also has those terraces and balconies um and i'm newbie um and as uh was mentioned the uh corner uh the intersection is really accentuated by um an expansive projecting overhang to really accent the entrance of the building and also to sort of anchor the corner and the intersection in the in the cvd um so the the color palette and the open terraces sort of pay homage to delray beach's urban fabric the integration will ensure visual compatibility with buildings in the vicinity as was covered earlier um the the style has been carefully designed to complement and enhance those existing buildings considering their scale and the proportion and the materials also we believe that the good proportions and elegant detailing and this sensitivity will produce a beautiful composition and elevate the architectural expression in the area and just in conclusion uh you know the staff report details how positive findings can be made again in terms of compliance with the comprehensive plan which i touched upon concurrency with respect to traffic water sewer all of that has been met um and with that we would be happy to answer any questions that you may have this evening and i appreciate your time thank you good evening again both members rafiq abraham and fine number 2024-228 the link uh i will not i try not to repeat what the applicant presented for the sake of your time so it's a level three site plan application with a relief within the purview of the planning and zoning board to go through the details like it's on the corner of north east second north east 2nd ave and the 6th ave and north east 2nd street current use is commercial the cigar bar and land use designation is commercial core zoning district is a cbd and central core uh sub-district uh it's an aerial view um again like the applicant mentioned this is an old structure like constructed first as a single family dwelling in 1936 very old as a single family dwelling and then overseeing some changes and more recently like as a cigar bar last june uh 2025 city commission approved the resolution 107-25 authorizing the masonry modern the masonry modern style is requiring the approval the recommendation of approval from the pzv board to the city commission to authorize the style however the design itself is within the authority of there is in front of the board today so the style is approved but the design you can make comments directly towards um location uh across the street i just want to highlight that across the street from north east 6 uh there is a new uh townhouses also designed by the same architect known as the edge of pineapple groves the applicant showed the context so i'll skip through that the proposal is four story 46 000 square feet multi-family 10 dwelling units the first story and the masonry stories are for dedicated for parking second third and fourth are 10 dwelling units two and three bedrooms a rooftop with a pool deck it complies to the code requirements so chapter 2 4 10 sets the uh review criteria so all level two level three site plan application need to meet the chapter 3 performance standard findings need to meet the landscape findings in 4 6 16 and the architectural elevations requirement of 4 6 18 and the we'll go through it quickly so you can also see how the project complies so uh high overall site plan it complies in terms of high streetscape um frontages type and there is no civic space required for this type of size of the development view of the uh different floors in terms of land use map amendment the project is consistent with the land use map and far is below the threshold it meets the the concurrency uh the school scat approval is required prior to site plan certification the these are like different uh policies uh related to the comprehensive plan the staff identified and the project is meeting it it complies with with all ldr requirement except for when it comes to the loading base so there are forces itself for 6 10 requires two loading base and the project do not provide any and the applicant the applicant submitted and a request for the board it's within the board preview the board decision to actually waive the requirement if the justification is accepted from the applicant so what i want to say here is the applicant mentioned that the loading will happen in the alley behind which shown on the screen so two are required provided is your in terms of architecture it's the style is masonry modern but also the the implementation of the style is in front of the board is basically like masonry like with a light color palette um it represents simplicity um same style same design almost was presented to the pzp no more no major changes and also the city commission except for the canopy over the entrance um with the uh uh little like marble uh texture style this is new and the location and landscape plan it complies to the landscape plan landscape architect uh the landscape planner review there and in the compliance and in conclusion uh the whole proposal exhibits defining feature of the masonry modern simplicity of form rational massing uh given the building location is high visible it's like an anchor on this corner like it serves as a landmark as a landmark as well uh style is um again it's masonry modern and it's in enhancing the cohesion and of the context it was uh presented to the dda july 14 and then recommended approval planning and zoning board uh recommended uh approval to the masonry modern style in may 19 and the city commission approved it in june 17 and here are the board actions in front of you and i'm here for any question thank you thank you um at this point are there any members of the public who wish to speak seeing none public comments closed is there any cross-examination or rebuttal from the applicant or from the staff not at this time no no okay all right uh board comments let's start with the question i'm curious why you change from that round facade to that this marble front of the just curious that the architect come out i know that there were some comments from um former board member about the separation but i don't see that i just see a color change yeah so actually um there is a little bit of there was some other minor changes this works right in this area that we refined a little bit because i know there was comments about that division from the first to the upper level so that was incorporated um and i i believe the the change to sort of the darker um palette for the entry was to just make it more visible and really um accentuated on the corner and the intersection is that like a sculpted railing kind of thing or is that a solid piece of above the entrance the black stuff on the support for the entrance and that because it looks like it's are you talking about looks like a railing looks like a railing looks like a railing it's a black thing oh down here so that's actually the an ada ramp no no no above the above it so those are are um pretty much glass railings with a metal on top of them and they're they're solid they're not it's solid glass not ornamental i mean there's no it's not like a carved wrought iron railing no no it's it's like a solid glass panel or polycarbonate panel with a metal rail god bless you above sorry above it no it's fine it looks like a railing to me and um i know that you had some direction on that i'm just curious if that's what you're trying to do i'm not crazy about the color but i'm not going to live there so oh yeah price um i um otherwise i'm fine with it the only comment i'll make and that's just in general is to remind the city every time we get rid of a commercial property at residential instead we are increasing our taxes to our residents because as we eliminate our commercial property base we eliminate our most thriving tax base and then we have to raise taxes like they had to do last night so um that's not a comment on the application no just in general just in general staff like to try to discourage this type of change sure i i'd like to address the building uh as well but i want to start with the landscape plan and it concerns me in a number of ways uh first is removal of existing canopy second is the diameter of the plants being used to replace the oaks and mahogany that are there now justification for removal i don't know the city should address this or the applicant i'd like to know why we're going from trees that are 12 and 14 to 16 inches diameter breast height to two inch calibers i'd like to know why this design basically shows no trees at all and if you drive by if you drive up sixth avenue you see more and more trees being destroyed so so the rendering does not particularly represent the landscaping that will be there if we showed the trees you wouldn't see the building okay so in the landscape plan well um um yeah if you could go to l 1.1 well no 1 1 2.0 that's we have it so a majority on on the in the curb zone here in the curb zone along here along northeast 6th a majority of those trees are the existing trees the reason we left that that whole landscape island we've left as is it is existing there will be some trees added in to infill where there used to be a curb cut and driveway so along federal that whole row of trees will remain and then we will have newer trees um to infill the areas that that didn't have trees before does the blue marker on the trees today mean that they are going to be removed because some of those have blue markers on them just i don't believe that's related to our project this is fto fdot property so that's you know about the trees i was i stood up uh nick netta president ceo of net architects the existing streets gate uh the trees along northeast 6th is governed by florida department of transportation we the city has very little uh input on what you do with the streetscape there we left the existing trees in place specifically for that reason not to bring any fdot communication the the blue markers on the trees what was wasn't done by us it had to be done by fdot doing some type of coordination out there or maybe uh arborists coming out and marking the caliber of the trees but we tried to leave as many of the existing trees along north east 6 to minimize the input from fdot on the project the the one approval we did need was to close the driveway uh on northeast 6 to meet their new regulations yeah and if i if i can add to that um i am not an arborist but my husband is one and i think he may have done this my daughter plays with all of those little blue tags that are on the trees um those are those are just a number of the trees uh so they correspond to the tree survey and uh then the tree mitigation tables um some of them may have fallen off over time some may still be there but that's all those blue markers are um so if we look at kind of the tree mitigation tables and the tree uh disposition that is concluded in the application package um most of the trees that are being removed are in poor condition they show yellowing they showed deteriorating um health essentially uh particularly along northeast second avenue where you have those overhead wires those trees have been kind of hat racked uh by the utility companies along the way so they're just not great canopies to begin with um yes when we put trees in they are at a smaller dbh than what is out there existing currently but they are intended to to grow and in florida they do grow fairly quickly but my point is the trees that you're putting in there like silver button woods are never going to have that size or that biomass it depends where they are yes if they're located closer to the building in kind of those foundation plantings they're not intended to to grow and have that large canopy because you have the buildings there and that's what happens in urban environments where they're placed along the curb zone along the street they have a little bit more room to grow they're intended to cover the sidewalks and provide more shade so how much canopy is there now and how much is there going to be when the project is completed um so the tree disposition table i do believe notes kind of the um i guess it's based on height dbh um and there's 250 feet of trunk height being removed um it's 11 trees being removed we are replacing with 12 trees there there is a mitigation payment because we don't have quite as much canopy coverage at installation as what's being removed but that is all done in accordance with the city's land development regulations uh also in that in this uh same area particularly for the understory there are very few natives and i think as a city we try to encourage uh native plants particularly uh shrubs and ground covers and so forth and that doesn't appear to be reflected in in your plan do you think there is a native requirement in the code um it's 50 native trees required we are providing 56 native trees is that only the trees or does that include the shrubs uh there is also a requirement uh for native shrubs uh the code requires 25 and we are providing 55 native shrubs when you talk about off-site where's off-site trees are being removed off-site where where are they going i don't know that they're being removed off-site i think there are some trees that were identified off-site either across on the property line if you look along the top of that graphic there are some trees identified on the adjacent property that's just to to pick up where that canopy is um and what is kind of overlapping the property line so none of the trees are going to be saved and moved somewhere else that isn't what off-site means in this case no that is not and the trees that are being removed are in poor health and it would not be good candidates for relocation um just one more question i'll get off my hobby horse here i noticed that a lot of the trees were slated for removal because they had a nutrient deficiency isn't that something that can be solved with nutrients um so again not an arborist no just enough to uh be dangerous um if if it's caught early enough it can be but once the health of a tree has been declining for several years uh it's it's not something that can be easily fixed it needs to be caught fairly fairly early and quickly those trees have stood a long time and fought a lot of hurricanes they have yeah but they have been mistreated there's there's just no question about that they have been neglected yeah uh on the on the building itself uh and maybe this is a question uh for record is signage included in this plan no so that comes separate later yes okay uh and particularly along the sixth avenue side is that all residential on the ground floor or is there some mixed use um it is all part of the lobby it's not a residential unit on the ground floor it's it's lobby so it's common space for having coffee or playing pool with them and um rafik you mentioned that it met all the parking requirements the parking yes uh how many spaces are there i think 27 let me just read 23 23 23 and yeah i don't think there is any on street just i might add that confuses me because the requirement that i see in the staff report is for 50 spaces and you're providing 23 and i don't understand how that works i think that must be a typo yeah yeah staff addressed that but i saw that as well and um two and a half parking places per unit is that our regulation two spaces per unit and then there's a guest space requirement that amounts to three spaces yeah this is a typo i would like to correct it yes is that three per unit no so that's where you get the 23. yeah okay um and and uh what about the turning radius in the garage is that something to worry about with everybody owning pickup trucks and so forth um it's all been reviewed by city engineering staff and has confirmed to be acceptable okay for their standards okay and there is a alley dedication i believe it's a two-foot alley dedication all right thank you to me i think it i think it i've looked in i went to the company website looked at some of the projects i've done there's some very impressive projects this one i think falls short of that and this is a very important corner um the and i think we need to put our best foot forward on this this um i think that the black and white marble confuses me i don't know what was there before because i didn't hear this i wasn't on the board before um it's just the um and then when you get to page um first i did want to say i'm glad i didn't see any waivers or variances so that's that's positive usually i was happy to see that too usually when miss miss goes involved um tend to pop up um but if you look at the uh the staff report on page 12 and 13 it makes some some some critical um comments that i think would kind of be easily resolved um you know the the palette there's talk about the palette and there's an absence of contracting things the uh the static roof line lacks visual interest the mass in turns a corner the treatment remains plain lacking the architectural punctuation often associated with signature corners of urban counties there's several other comments that i that i that i totally agree with um i think this is it really is an important it's an important project um and and um and i think i would i would i would like to see these uh these matters discussed with uh staff and but before i go on on on that part i did want to have a couple questions about the roof amenities um they're not allowed in residential neighborhoods right because we stopped that in at spratton they are they are they are allowed uh i mean yes they are allowed they can do whatever they want they can put in fire pits they can put in no um we're talking about the uh swimming pool so the pool i saw two burner two uh burners and would look like maybe a refrigerator or something but there's yeah swimming pool and the amenities of the swimming pool and it's allowed like 25 percent of the roof could be used for this amenity like enclosed okay um so there's nothing yeah so that's good okay so no there's really no restrictions other than you don't want yeah just setbacks for the pool like just there are setbacks from the edge of the building that needs to be met so um back to the building itself i i think um i'd like to see staff and an applicant work a little more closely on addressing some of these some of these issues which which i i agree with um and i would vote to um send it back to for further uh in a reaction and discussion um and if that option does not present itself i'm going to um vote against this yeah we we we've sorry i just yeah it's for discussion if you want to ask a question you can i just want to keep people from jumping in right questions implied there yeah i think i'm willing to hear from the applicant at this yeah if if if the question is are we willing to work with staff we've worked with staff right we've worked with staff for the past year and a half on the design we were requested when we went to city commission to modify the design back and add more interest in the design which we did so we're caught between what we want to do and what this city will allow i have no problem if we do get an approval tonight to going back and working with staff to articulate the building a little bit more but the staff is very critical on modifications to what they deem to be masonry modern which is really not consistent what masonry modern really would be and it limits the creativity of the architect so you you had said you looked at our website we do some pretty we do work all over the country i just happen to live in delroy now so you know what we are allowed to do and what we try to do with this building it you're right it is an important corner and we try to play with as much articulation and integration uh with the street as we can we we wrap the entire building at the ground level with with interaction space with lobby to connect the building at night would would light up the corner i agree that's the first time i saw what we did with the canopy i would definitely change the canopy on the front of the building because that's terrible um so so i would bring that canopy more in line with the architecture as it wraps the the the the building and how how we articulated it but you know as peggy had said we we took a lot of time i mean it is a three street front building um we articulated each of the street fronts with balconies um to to create indoor outdoor living space to again connect to the street because of where the site is located we worked with the landscaping and and with staff to bring in appropriate landscaping and would have thought who are very uh limiting on what on what the landscaping is but if we did get the approval and and i think rafiq can testify we've been very open to come in and sit down and work with staff to um you know and again the canopy comes out because it's it's actually terrible um we would work with staff to to kind of uh bring it bring it more in line with with what staff would would like to see we're very open open to that i i as a resident of dow i want to see the best building that that we can put on that corner and i'm just saying i think it can be better um the the balconies here those are just um just railings so those are usable balconies they're they're all active and usable balconies and how deep are they they're i think three and a half feet three and a half to four feet it looks like it's just because i don't like it when they there's a window they put a fake yeah yeah no they're all actually the the balcony setback you could have five or six feet at at the main part of the of the back they're all usable they're all to create the the street interior uh but i did want to i also wanted to share some of jim's jim's concerns about the trees i understand how it works but you're putting in your removing um 30 foot tall live oaks and which are challenged and and and injured and hurting and stuff but you're replacing it with 16 foot to see that goose up a little bit yeah i mean i i'm not a landscape artist hey i don't know what or how they would have to plan i mean if we could plant bigger trees you could certainly make that you know a condition of of our approval that we come in with okay larger trees for now we we would put the max that that you can put i don't i don't i i i can't i can't even comment on it okay i don't want to design from up here either but um there's like there's there so there's two things that that i think could be worked out thanks just to follow up on on the prices question the base and the trees the the the the the entrance the black and white marble i guarantee you it would be changed but just to where like work it's terrible just one comment please so i know you're saying that you know something will be changed but like the board is looking at this current version of the design and if you know you vote to approve it you're not going to like see it again so i mean i just i believe we can we can work with staff well we can approve it with conditions you can prove it i'm aware but you're not going to see it again correct and i don't know if i would uh like i i tend to think that motions to postpone or continue so that the board can see it again once those changes are made are better especially depending on how complicated those changes are i would like to hear from staff depending on what they think but i'd also want to keep hearing from the rest of the board but just keep that in mind it's just going to be an aesthetic change to remove the the dark element over over the main canopy are we allowed to make some clarification now like i'm asking chair and council yes do you allow us now yeah so uh first of all i would like to for the records i would like to correct the parking counts that is required it's required is 23 and provided is 23 so for the record to correct this second is like just a clarification like the application was first submitted now we include the timeline at the end of the staff ripple so the application was submitted last august so it's just been like a year now and then the applicant requested twice an extension to respond to comments so this is the second clarification third is like i just want to highlight what you mentioned about like how staff are perhaps difficult working with when it comes to architectural style or masonry modern or the implementation of this it's actually the code is very clear and the cbd architectural design guidelines provides clarity step by step about how we assess the masonry modern and then we follow this so if you see like how staff report is structured it's actually following the sequence that is provided in the cbd architecture design guidelines and we understand isn't that being reconsidered the masonry modern is part of the architectural guidelines masonry modern is currently part of the architectural design guidelines and two of the seven styles require further approval the two namely like the masonry modern and the art deco you may continue seeing it unless something happens in a different arena but the masonry modern the art deco you need need pzb recommendation to approve to city commission to approve it prior to proceeding with this style for this project so this project has received a masonry modern approval with the masonry modern approval with that being said like architecture is also something that is perceptive like i'm an architect myself and i design from by practice and by study um we engage with the applicants in many architectural discussions just to improve it and we forward the with the with our analysis and comments to the board for consideration and this is something that the board can definitely require more enhancement and and like specifically like the canopy the color the interpretations the the balconies how it looks like but in terms of style it does represent kind you know like to a fourth degree the masonry modern style but the design itself if i may if i could just pick up a little bit on where i think price is heading and and ask nick because i too have spent a lot of time on your website and and love your your buildings uh are we possibly talking about brighter colors rather than that sort of mauve to offset the white i i don't know if that's where price was heading and one of the reasons i ask that as you know the building to your north one block is very colorful and i don't know if that's the way the neighborhood is going to go uh because there's a lot of empty uh lots there but is that something worth considering i mean we would we would consider increasing the contrast and and modifying the color we we tried to stay with a very neutral palette we didn't want to be bang yeah in in your face you know we can definitely increase uh the contrast here on uh with with the color selections that that we uh finally select yes we we would be open to that thank you you don't have the um guys rebecca the original document they showed us last time you don't have that i pulled it up to see it for myself but um here's the paperwork here's the staff study from the last from the last time so it's on there yeah yeah i pulled up on here my i thought it'd be helpful maybe just to be able to show what we started with pictures it's right here so this is what we started with yeah it's a lot different it's it's a lot different and it came from the board said they and it still it says in here is that articulation from that first floor to second floor to top and all i think we did was make it darker it didn't really do that because really it should have been something more am i correct and i'm not an architect here it should have been something more around the building because yes that front corner you can now tell the difference between the lobby and the second floor the rest of the building it just looks like a slab of concrete yeah definitely like the treatment of the corner like the proportions like the proportions between the different masses like and the how the the projection meets with the uh bulk mass of the building these are all you can definitely comment on it the color definitely but yes i do remember like last time we mentioned about the sides and the projections and the one surface this is like the recess yeah i don't think they did what we asked i'll be honest with you i don't think that really when we approve the mason monitoring we asked for that real delineation for that well at the time it was just a recommendation to use it was recommendation to the commission but our recommendation was that when it comes back to us we'd like to see that true modern masonry of the bottom middle and i would say though as a masonry modern building this is far superior to the others we have in this city okay miss mulligan's your turn so i hate to be the only person that happens to love that entrance but i do i mean maybe i just like marble i think it's more interesting than just the brown that was shown when it was originally depicted um i think the building's pretty i think it's um i'm glad that it's going to be on that corner um you smarter guys might know how to improve it but um i wonder if we can define those conditions i'll take it it's all clear right i mean so i know you're all board veterans and you've all heard this exactly right we don't want to design up here so i mean always feel free to discuss the design but you know point out the you know insufficiencies all i'm saying is i don't want to design up here but i but i do want to see it back again if the board is amenable to request some changes have you more to say um no i don't i don't i don't um have a problem with what i'm seeing okay um i think it's a i think it's an improvement i think the difference between what we saw originally and what we're seeing tonight is a significant improvement and i'm with this malika i i like the building i i think yeah i'm not against uh improving the contrast a little bit i don't think you need a lot of bright colors i mean it's approved to be in masonry modern so it should be in masonry modern it shouldn't be of us at the board to say change it so it doesn't look like masonry modern because we don't like masonry modern because it's already approved to be in that um you know i don't have a big problem with that entrance but i think yeah you could do some a few things to make it better and i i would encourage yes to do that and we'll worry about the wording here in a minute um okay i found out about the parking you're supposed to have an agreement with the schools people before this goes forward is that are you going to that's correct right so before certification like approval can proceed if if it is a decision definitely but before certification the scad form and the approval should be but that's not before us that's before the commission approves it no it's the all right so next step if let's say the board approved like next step this will go into the appealable report right to the city commission and city commission can uphold the board approval now this is all approval certification will come back to us and then we will look if there are any recommendations then we'll stamp the drawings if it's drawings that means that's the certification so it's another step after the approval in the in case if the board for example put some conditions or anything like change this do that so staff can do it if that this was the decision one of the yeah but that's a that's a step certification is a further step after the yes approval so yes yes this is a final approval with only subject to a city commissioner appealing it correct so with that being said i think i agree with mr patten i would i would entertain only a motion to send back the staff to to come back to us because we are we'll work we'll worry about the wording of what we're doing when we right i'm just saying you're talking about the issues right i'm just not willing to approve it tonight okay i know but i'm not talking about that yet would you be willing to approve it with conditions well the problem is we're not going to see it again neither is the commission yeah let's can can i finish mr katz can i finish speaking before you move on to the next topic if you don't mind okay frankly i think that's the only other thing was the loading zone and that you said they're required to have two you do have one is that correct no they have zero so two so how so if they won't have loading it's going to block the alley so if there's if there's loading or unloading um you know typically ups amazon those types of uses will park wherever they want despite having a loading zone or non-loading zone i'm more worried about people moving in right with so the loading zone requirement is based on the square footage of the building and not necessarily the number of residential units here there's only 10 residential units um and they're condo units so they're you know fee simple kind of for sale units it's not something where you have a rental product with high turnover so the actual frequency of people moving in and out is fairly limited with only 10 units and this is something that's been commonly approved with other similar residential projects in the cbd that have alley access okay i just don't understand like okay but i didn't begin to answer my question does unloading loading and unloading going to block the alley it would take up a portion of the alley but the alleys are you know two directional and that's that's that answer sort of answer i wanted okay all right okay what i think we need to do is come up with a motion and i think what mr cat says is i think we can all agree on that i think we want to see this again all right so we would move to continue with direction do we have to give that direction is the question no we yeah but we want we need to do it in a way that says it's it's not continue with direction and then it goes with direction to the commission no no move to direction comes back to continue to direction with direction means that they will take into consideration everything that everyone has said work with staff and then come back here because this is not going to the commission ever unless they appeal and and then the other part of it is how specific what specific direction are we giving to improve the no i was just going to make the note that we need to make sure that whatever direction the board does give should be very clear so that we're not having to sort out and interpret so definitely getting as clear on what you would like to see before they come back would really help with the applicant and staff and determining if they're ready to come back and i know i i might possibly be complicating these things but it's like give your direction without exactly designing the direction so obviously point out the insufficiencies that you've seen yeah i think i think that's the point we we should point out the things that we think need to be improved not how to improve them and it would three conditions go ahead one was that the entrance didn't turn it off yeah somebody trying to sell something um one was uh that uh front entryway that i think has already agreed to the importance of the other design of the other two is to brighten up the color color palette somewhat doesn't mean it has to be a bright color it could be something other than long and three is to at least take a look at that landscape plant and see if there are some trees that could be saved let me yeah let me just add the points made on the bulleted items on page 12. um at least have a discussion on on those items because it does seem like these are not um i don't care about the the um the north facade because it's because something is going to be there something's going to be right next to it anyway but the other five bullet lines that are clearly marked on page 12. okay so we would say architecture elements we'll just say i think we should just say can we just use the staff report as a reference that's fine all right so some smart person make a uh and i just want to make sure there's consensus with the board because i know there's two people who gave the conditions but thank you very much i just want to make sure that the conditions yeah i'm not sure though i mean let's look at all 12 conditions if we all have to agree on the conditions right well it's not really conditions this is not we're not making conditions we're making guidance guidance only yeah conditions is strong because that's an approval that's true um i mean i think that yeah the guidance is obviously i think the majority is not am i correct the majority is not crazy about the marble i know you love the marble like it i don't know where everybody else stands so well just i think just say modify the entrance away yeah modifying the entrance away and and the appropriate term is review or modify the the color palette so when it comes back it shouldn't say these are largely absent in the proposed design weakening the architectural rhythm and limiting opportunities render out your living can i ask for clarity come back in the staff can i ask for clarity especially on that point right right it says mason your modern design often incorporates balconies cantilevers eyebrows and overhangs to animate the form these are largely absent on the proposed designs do you all agree that they're largely absent on this proposed design some of these comments are from like very original reviews of this project and so a lot of these we don't agree with that okay so architectural elements we're good with okay what about materials and details so materials and details well are you asking a question mr no i'm trying to build consensus with the board yeah i think we agree that the architectural elements were met yeah right i think the materials and details the main thing we're talking about there is is the two things the entranceway and the colors okay but the note about the north facade which appears to be a mass that's not part of the pedestrian oriented it's a parking lot right we're we're good with that i'm just trying to get clarity yes we're not worried about the north facade i think it's materials and details unless you can see the tree well that's in the materials and details paragraph the north facade not so what we want is materials and details oh i see and the and the and the uh the entry of the tree removal and the entrance design are those the things that we're talking about any other specifics on page 12 that reading through again well i i just i just ask that that those points be discussed with staff okay i'm not saying that they should be i don't want you to like a change the whole design of the roof line or anything like that but discuss it with i think some of there's some good points in there and we want to give as much clear direction as we can yeah and for something that says that the condition is that the applicant and staff will coordinate on the items mentioned on page 12 of the staff report and in particular the the entranceway and the uh the colors and also review the uh tree removals does that sum it up i thought we removed some of these other detail evaluation points like uh the environmental considerations uh environmental uh irony on the north didn't didn't we say we were going to yeah we're trying to say something in our motion that well the motion is the motion itself is only going to say to defer like yeah we're moving to that's the only thing in the motion is not going to articulate any of this it's just the minutes that we're trying to provide okay so essentially i'm hearing that you are concerned with materials in detail except for on the north facade generally that corner that is with the black marble right okay is that does that amount to a motion i will make a motion i will make a motion to where's the motions go ahead yeah move to continued direction second okay we have motion by mr catch second by miss malica if miller would call the roll please gregory snyder yes mitch katz yes jeter strong is not here christine about is absent jim chart yes judy malica yes price patent yes okay thank you very much for your time and we appreciate the clarity i know the applicant wanted us to kind of do conditions and move it on because we're we're the final approval that's why thank you appreciate it yeah thanks thanks for your patience okay moving on to legislative items thank you oh we didn't give a date certain yes um you didn't have to we don't have to right there was no date the commission has to do that i think we don't but do we want to no let them sort it out and i'll get it back to us yeah let them work it out with staff okay that's three floor is yours at the moment thank you good evening so for the record rebecca dossery and we have a proposed amendment to the ldr to eliminate the parking management advisory board from its role in providing a recommendation for in lieu of parking fee requests so pmab was created in the 90s and it was created to provide advice and make recommendations on parking management policy and um operation of parking facilities but uh in july the commission directed staff to prepare an amendment to eliminate uh the role of pmab so an issue and so this is the amendment it's very simple we're just striking this um here from the advisory role related to uh in lieu of parking fee requests there's a companion amendment to eliminate the role of pmab in a few um functions from the code of ordinances that has to be a separate amendment which doesn't come before the board um so essentially what was happening with pmab was we were having applicants delayed by sometimes a month or two from getting to one of the approving bodies because of waiting on the scheduling of pmab hearings and with pmab providing some of the same reviews that the other boards review it would it was um considered to be an unnecessary delay in the review process for applicants who were just trying to get their applications approved so that is why we're here today there's the required findings about consistency with the comp plan and generally streamlining uh development review processes is something that the comp plan has as an objective so that's where we are at this evening and i can answer any of your questions if you'd like thank you comments i would move to approve this anybody comments yeah yeah i hear those meetings used to get pretty wild but um and i don't think this is going to solve the the continuing griping about parking but i'm all in favor of getting rid of the parking advisory board my question is there was some function to the uh parking advisory board when they met when they met uh and they considered a lot of different things uh including valet system and so forth and so my question is who is going to do that function now so this final valet approvals would go to the city commission so i believe i don't know if dda reviews valet agreements but over time i think some of their functions have evolved because let me see i don't know why i don't have code of ordinance amendment but like so the amendment to the code of ordinances was where it clearly said that they were reviewing parking zones and fee zones and i think the the opinion of commission was that um this extra review stop with this review body wasn't necessarily helpful in that so either a commission or one of the other boards of dda reviews things and we also have the cra that reviews requests so um i think those two bodies would continue to make any recommendations on those and then at valet requests the cra is a limited part of the city though sure ten percent so typically the recommendations that pmab were making were related to anything downtown like we don't get it out in the suburbs for example so it would be either in a dda area or a cra area or something that would go directly to commission yeah like price i sat in some of those meetings and they were not useful uh but i think parking is a big issue and and to just lump it in under what all the other things that the commission has to do and all the other things you might have to do uh is something to at least think about just what before who's going to do in lieu who's going to handle all of the approval on that yeah so the other point that i i think i put this in the staff report i neglected to say this in the presentation so um back last year we adopted uh some objective measures for the consideration of in lieu requests whereas before it was kind of a well do we think there's enough parking and kind of it wasn't very objective so now we have the specific standards related to whether it's preserving an existing structure if it's in historic or if um there's readily available parking within that certain area so it makes it a much easier less subjective decisions when those requests go to commission for the approval so i think that was another reason why this this system that we have now to approve these requests was maybe sufficient we did that so that goes direct to the commission it goes on the regular agenda correct okay first of all i will agree 20 years ago when i first started kind of getting involved 20 years ago um it was definitely useful and needed it was absolutely i mean there was um representing the dda was on it represented from each different boards even i want to say even the chamber had a member of it at one time um it definitely parking has gotten so crazy that it's just it's not really manageable but it's it's gotten i mean it's you know the downtown 20 years ago the downtown today is is night and day um so i agree it's it's it's served its purpose and i agree with getting rid of it as far as where like in-loop parking is a good example why can't in-loop parking be part of that final approval whether the project say it comes to us that in lieu as part of one consideration with the final approval um or then or going to the historic board if it happens to be an historic for there because i think right now the two boards that do the final approval is us on the historic board right so it's certain depending on the level of the site plan whether there's relief associated with it so some of them like a level three you this board would have final approval authority over whereas um the historic would have final approval authority for a lot of requests and then there's some that go to commission like let's say um a level four site plan which would maybe be where there's relief associated with it that would go to commission so it would come to us from recommendation right yeah so when it comes to us recommendation why not just bulk it all in together i can certainly know that what happens is if they have to come back again even if it's a commission you're delaying the project that might help you know i know you've done a lot of great work the last year or two in consolidating steps which i also want to applaud you like i know that this last timeline you know applicants love to say we've been working with staff for two years and now they're plight there i love that you're putting the timeline in the report that shows that they're not quite telling the truth staff turns stuff around very quick these days yeah i don't really have anything to say except that your comment about putting more work onto the commission commission asked for it they did do ask to get rid of the board so yeah do we have a motion please i recommend approval to the city commission on ordinance number 23-25 a city initiated amendment to section 2.4.11 relief subsection f in the parking fee request of the land development to eliminate the role of parking management advisory board in reviewing in lieu of parking fee requests by finding that the amendment and the approval thereof is consistent for the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations second we have a motion by Ms. Mulligan second by Mr. Patton can we do this on just yeah do we need the roll um can we just be consistent for the rest of the meeting we'll take the roll yeah take the roll please he's got somewhere to be gregory snyder yes mitch katz yes teachers john is absent christina gotbound is absent jim chard no judy malica yes price pat yes motion passes one two three four one okay we'll close this out with what is hopefully a feel good amendment we're um we're actually very excited about this amendment but let me get it started okay uh reading into the record file number pz 000165-2025 so this one um we are amending the processes for the review and approval of subdivision flats by amending all these sections that you see on your screen i'm not going to go ahead and read them out but this amendment is before you because um the last legislative session there was the bill that requires administrative approval of all plats which is actually something that staff is very happy about and i think some of the board members you've all mentioned that it seems a little redundant to have to approve a plat when there's already a subdivision plan in place so this is actually i think a process improvement for everyone but there's a few changes in addition to the administrative authority that we're proposing so um i'm not sure why i have this slide here but so currently our subdivision plots are divided into major and minor subdivisions and our major subdivision has the robust definition of anything not a minor subdivision which isn't necessarily helpful so um and then we have the minor subdivision plat was um three or more lots where it needed utilities etc etc so we have adjusted how we're um structuring major versus minor so a major subdivision plat now will be anything regardless of the lot size if it needs to create a new street system or extend utilities um and i'll get into some examples of of why this is um why we're proposing that and again we're just re-amending the definition of plat to make it consistent with the statutory definitions so the current process now for a subdivision plat is um site or master development plan and then you would go major or minor subdivision depending on the route and then if it's a major it would come through you all and then go to city commission the minor subdivision would just be on the consent agenda uh city commission but that's not always the case though so we have situations like with the 3900 sherwood latent point project they were not a planned residential development um so there wasn't a master development plan associated with it and then we have a few odd plots here and there where um there's no site plan before it so to capture this sort of loophole where um we can't we have to approve it administratively but we wouldn't have an avenue to do um design review to make sure that this the proposed layout is functional um we still need an avenue to do that so we're proposing a subdivision plan which was used to establish the configuration of attractive land with the common area landscaping prior to the plat going through for the administrative approval process so um this again this would be the process that you see site plan master development plan or subdivision plan and then it would go um whether it's classed as major or minor it would be approved by the director and um if they're requesting relief this board would have or historic preservation board would have the final approval authority if they're requesting relief then it would come to you all for a recommendation and then go on to the commission for final approval so um i'm now realizing that my flow charts are maybe more confusing than not but again so with this just shows what i just told you um and so these are some examples of how the changes would be applied so again with the site plan or master development plan process that you see now like some examples you've seen of this would be the banyan court development up off of barwick the enclave at sherwood they had the prd um so they had to adopt a master plan and then the one that you saw tonight that would be considered a minor plan and um it would be sorry it would be associated it would be a minor because it's not connecting any utilities or adding streets so the subdivision plan process would be used for say the um 45 94 133rd road south where the property that annexed you didn't see the plat in this case because they came in after this legislative change so we took them through that process where we reviewed the design and made sure it was functional and then an example of one with relief a minor with relief would be um the plat for the cra a few weeks ago where it was just establishing something it was connected to utilities there were no streets there were no concerns about it being functional without the plat so the major and the minor uh subdivision distinction also comes into play um because the major subdivision would have a requirement for utilities um or for i'll get into that in a moment so depending on um what level of functional infrastructure would have to come with the plat so all of these sections that um i outlined on the first slide and then the staff report are making all of these things happen it's giving the director the authority to approve a plat and then it's giving this board and hpb final approval authority for subdivision plans without relief recommending authority for those with it um and then the really important thing that i think a lot of our development community will appreciate is that we are making what seems like a common sense change for major plats which is where there needs to be functional infrastructure in place for the roads and the um and the utilities where if the developer went bus tomorrow but someone had a house and they didn't put in the street like we need to make sure that that's provided for so for a major plat we're saying that the financial guarantee has to be provided prior to plot approval um and a lot of plots again minor plots if it's already got infrastructure we don't need it at the time that the plot is approved it can happen at the time of building permit so um we adjusted the um the timing of this rather than requiring any plat regardless of what infrastructure needs to go in at the time of the plot so um again we are establishing the director as having the approving authority and um we are in this other section about section 248 we're um outlining the sequence the approval sequence for these plots um and we actually outline in section 2410 the um the process for going through the subdivision plan approval for the historic properties we are requiring a coa for any plat of a historic property which would be submitted concurrent with the subdivision plan and it would go through the same process that a site plan goes through and then um a lot of you are likely familiar with the standards for site plan and plat actions which make sure that the circulation works the um and it's really a functional site so those instead of being applied to a plat are applied to the subdivision plan to accomplish the same goal so whether you're coming to your plat through a site plan or through this subdivision plan you're still um being evaluated for whether this is a functional development uh to approve an lvr amendment again the required findings only relate to consistency with the comprehensive plan um streamlining our processes to make this a better review process for everyone while still accomplishing the same goals um and then for the quality of urban form so we are proposing this subdivision plan process to make sure that for those that aren't already implementing a site plan we have that process to make sure that the urban form ends up of a really high quality that we know and love in delray and i'm sorry and i didn't realize that was so unreadable but um these are your options for board action board action and i can answer any questions you may have did you say in the midst of all that that this plan that we saw tonight would not come before us and we considered minor so the plat would not we would classify that as a minor plat because the the the important parts of the review for design um it's already been approved by a board and allowing it to not have to do a subdivision plan we're not requiring something that was already litigated to be re-litigated at another board so it's it really is at this point for something with an approved site plan it's a ministerial action um palm beach county for example they have a process very similar to what we're proposing so if there's no site plan then you would just you have to do the subdivision plan type process so um yeah so the link having already had their design issues worked out at site plan then they wouldn't need to do the subdivision plan because really at this point it's just dividing a plan yeah i agree i mean this is this tallahassee finally did something good you might go yeah i don't want to get us fined or in agreement with this yeah we gotta do it we have to do it i agree with it it looks to me like the senate says you have to approve the flats administratively and we're having a way that we'd still retain some control over what's being done yeah it's what i get out of the whole thing correct i think you nicely summarized my very long-winded presentation but yeah essentially so we are completely on board with administrative approval except in cases where our system already didn't work to provide that level of design review and that's fine um i think we need a motion i recommend approval of the city commission ordinance number 24-25 a city initiated amendment to revise the process for the review and approval of subdivision plots by amending section 2.11 administrator officials section 2.15 the planning and zoning board section 2.19 the historic preservation board section 2.2.2 financial guarantee section 2.2.4 certification of actions taken section 2.4.8 subdivision plat section 2.4.10 site plan applications level one level two level three and master plans master development plan section 2.4.12 certificate certificate of appropriateness section 3.2.3 standards for site plan and or plat actions and appendix a definitions of the land development regulations by finding that the amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations second okay we have a motion by mr katz second by mr chart and call the roll please that was almost as good as lynn i can't do well with her carrie snyder yes mitch katz yes jeter strong is absent christina godbron is absent jim chard yes judy malica yes price patent yes okay that passes five to nothing okay staff comments no other comments just a reminder of our next meeting dates we're finally oh i'm sorry this is not opening fast enough we're finally back to our normal board schedule so october 20th and october 20th is the next meeting third monday again okay great um board attorney comments nothing for me i have a question about uh going back to the the landscape plan when they say oh sorry it's just a general question on a landscape not the landscape plan that was a general question about the process when we say mitigation is does that include in lieu fees yeah yeah so there's there's a few paths for mitigation they could either replace it one to one they could pay into the fund or they could relocate it so that's the three ways so usually mitigation would refer to either paying into the fund or replacing it somewhere else on the site i i didn't see anything in there about what the in lieu payments might be on this did i miss that or so they would only need to mitigate trees that were not considered of i think preservation quality so actually i'm stepping outside of my memory right now i can send you guys an email of the different paths that they would take so if they didn't mention in lieu it was likely that they're not required and it may be because they were replacing it um on a one-to-one basis which is also allowed they did say they were paying into the they she mentioned that they were paying into it right but let's remember that since it's coming back we shouldn't discuss it but i'll be glad to send you an email with the general overview of how the in lieu works and i can look into this yeah it just seems to me that staff should let us know on that yes i know staff did directly look into this i wasn't reviewing this plan so um and unfortunately mr ibrahim had to head to a conference presentation for florida apa but um our landscape planner did review it thoroughly so that it meets the requirements of the ldr and i know mr ibrahim would have been able to answer that if he was here just along that line real quickly next meeting could you report back and tell me how much money is in the in lieu tree fund i can check into that because it's hundreds of thousands of dollars i think yep so it is um i know we've had a few large payments into it recently i don't know the current balance but i can check into that there was a discussion of the city manager one of these budget workshops about the fund being depleted recently because there was less money being able to go to community greening based on the fund not having as much coming into it as before i remember i did watch that discussion at one of these budget workshops and don't pretty sad that i watched some of that just a comment just in sap in general thank you for um the the um provide like i mentioned before providing those date lines something else too there's i want to comment staff on the e everything being online now for backup materials not just us but any project now with the um e permitting you can look and see you know where everything is and just um i know that's been a long time in coming and it is spectacular so compliments to the planning zone department for getting that launch just it's really incredible somebody who's just even gone through a permit thing being able to check on it and scream at my contractor why haven't you responded to them okay no i don't have any comments meetings