Planning and Zoning Board on 2026-02-23 5:01 PM - Feb 23, 2026

February 23rd meeting of the Delray Beach Planning Zoning Board is called to order. Ms. Miller, would you call a roll, please? Strong. Here. Ginger Mellico. Here. Mitch Katz. Here. Magical. Here. Gregory Snider. Here. Next thing is to approve the agenda. I think we have an amendment to the agenda. Yes, we need an amendment to the agenda to remove item 8A. The applicant had continued to this date from the December hearing, but they wanted to withdraw from this agenda. And when they're ready to go forward, a new mail notice will be sent out. Okay. So we'll have move B to A and C to B. So it's not a date certain, right? No, there will be a notice when they are prepared to go forward. Make a motion to remove that item from the agenda and approve the agenda as amended. Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Non-opposed message passes. There's only one another at this time, Mr. Chard's here. Okay. Where'd I go? Okay. At this time, we want to swear in anyone who wants to speak in tonight's meeting. So if you're planning on speaking, please stand and be sworn in by Ms. Miller. Or if you think you might speak. Your right-hand authority, best to you, the notary of the state of Florida. You swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, all the truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Where are they at? Okay. Oh, we didn't approve the minutes. No, we approved the agenda. We need to approve the December 15th minutes. I move to approve the, which ones are they? December 15th. December 15th minutes. December 15th. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? No opposed? Passes. Okay. At this point, the floor is open for comments for the public on any item that's not on the agenda. If you want to speak about something that's not on the agenda, now's your time. Seeing no one come forward, public comment is closed. Item 7A, presentations, the annual infrastructure improvement hearing. Ms. Dossery. Okay. Good evening, everyone. Rebecca Dossery with Development Services. So this item here is the opening of the annual infrastructure improvement hearing process. You all are familiar with several times a year, this comes before you. So this hearing tonight is just to open the comment period for public comments. And then in April, all of the comments that will be submitted will be brought back to the board with a representative from Public Works here to go over those requests. So again, this is just to receive input from the public for any improvements over $25,000 that would be considered capital projects. We sent the emails out to the email list for city subscribers for the PZB list and the HOA lists. And we are going to be continuing to gather comments through the April 20th meeting. At that point, we'll provide the board a summary for you all to give feedback on. Again, this is the current budget for reference on the types of things that are included in the capital improvements program. It's on the city's website. Our comprehensive plan outlines three different categories for improvements, whether they're considered critical, mandatory, or just desirable. And they are slotted into the capital improvements budget based on those kinds of criteria. So again, we're looking for input on anything up to $25,000. And comments can be sent to PZMail at MyDelrayBeach.com. And we look forward to hearing what the public has to say about the infrastructure needs they see in the city. And that concludes everything I have to say on this topic. Okay. I'll tell you what. If anyone on the board would like to speak, you have any ideas or things you want to input into the program, now's your chance. Can I ask a simple question? Yes. And the three different categories of the severity, if you will? Mm-hmm. Critical, mandatory? Like I see severe flooding under mandatory. Is the middle category? Severe neighborhood flooding? It would, I know we have a, I believe it's a capital improvement program to repair the third phase of the seawall along marine way in the, along the intercoastal. What would, do you, do we know where that program would kind of fit within this framework? I would imagine it's at least a mandatory. Yeah. So I should have probably had public works come this evening, but we, I can ask them to bring an update on that. When they come in April, they will be here to answer questions on that. So, that was actually approved in last year's budget, well, this year's, for this year's budget. So that was, that's, that was the number one priority they brought up last year during the presentation, and that should be underway. Part of the same presentation last year. Well, yeah, in April, when they, when she presented, that was her top priority to get funded for this year. And then, so when it, when the budget got funded in September for 26, that should be underway, the design of that, knock on wood. Yeah, the capital improvement's a five-year plan. So, the stuff probably shows already in this year, but it needs to make sure it gets in there. That got up to this, this was now the enacting project, yeah. But we'll make sure that they know you're looking for the update on that one specifically. Yeah, thank you. I would appreciate it. That's it. Well, Mr. Strong, any capital improvement projects? Ms. Mollica. No, I love reading through it, though. It's been a lot of the same things, but you're seeing them getting closer and closer. Yeah, that's true. Mr. Chard. I've got a couple questions. We call this capital improvements, but it's not funded out of capital raising, right? It's funded out of property taxes. So, capital improvements could be funded by either federal or state grants or the different funds within the city. So, in October, we'll go over the different funds that they're being funded out of in detail. But there's the general fund, there's the stormwater fund, there's the utility fund, and all of these different funds, depending on what the project is, is where these come from. As much as possible, the city tries to get outside funding through different entities to help fund the projects. But, and we have several projects in the capital improvements budget that are funded through, like, the bonds, the parks bond, and then the public safety bond. Okay, that's what I wanted to get to. There is some time when we go out to the capital markets to raise money for capital improvements. I mean, I believe yes, but in this context, the capital budgets is anything that's considered, like, physical, rather than, like, salaries for staff or ongoing maintenance. It's things that are the physical infrastructure of the city, so capital in that regards. But that may be a strategy the city uses. I think that the capital, their capital improvements, their capital projects, means they're big projects. It doesn't mean, it's not talking about where the money comes from. It's not like in the corporate world. No, but the word capital doesn't refer to where the money comes from. For example, Barwick Road is on here. That's being funded by the MPA. It's being funded by federal grants. And the GoBond and the golf course bond. Well, those I understand. Yeah, okay. I had a couple of thoughts. One is, seawall was brought up. Thank you, Roger. We have beach refurbishment on there. Why shouldn't we have coral restoration also on there? Just something I'm concerned about. Yeah, I don't know the answer to that, but that may be something that is in the budget. I feel like I've heard reference to it before, but we'll make sure that we get that answered for you by the public works team. Secondly, we have, let's say, 100 abandoned parcels in the city. My friend to the left probably remembers the exact number, but I think it's probably around 150 or so. It's a bunch. And we once had an initiative to get rid of those, to sell them off or to give them to the next-door neighbors or whatever. And a number of people said, why don't we make those parklets, small parklets or little nature preserves? And if that were the case, that would be a capital improvement plan that would fall into a capital improvement plan to some degree, if there's irrigation or planting or something. Number three, you do have smart traffic signals down here. Number three is to treat trees as infrastructure. They're very similar to infrastructure in that they last, hopefully forever, certainly for longer than a sewer pipe. And they bring benefits to the city over time as capital improvements do. So why can't that be? For example, right now, we're not funding community greening to plant trees this year. Why would that not be – I know we have an in-lieu tree fund, but why would that not be a capital improvement project? So typically where you would see trees coming in on the capital projects would be on street improvements where we design our streets using the complete streets policies. And so from most of these, if not all of them, and public works will be able to answer that in more detail. But typically there's a sidewalk and a landscape component where there are trees planted as well, which are contributing to the infrastructure of the roadway as well as the green infrastructure with the trees. So for any extra details on that, I'll see what else they can provide. And quite often when we do that work on sidewalks, we put no trees in. So that's another place. But many cities now are looking at trees as infrastructure, therefore capital improvements. And I'm just proposing that we want to think about that. My last one is we have replacement cycles for vehicles in this city. I believe we probably have well over 100 vehicles, maybe up to 200 when it's called police and fire and maintenance and so forth. But if we stretched out the replacement cycle of those, so we're not replacing them whatever it is, five years or seven years, it was more like 10 or 12 years, wouldn't that be a capital improvement project? Purchases of vehicles are included in the capital improvements project, but related to the timing and the spacing of the replacements, I don't have the details on that. So I will pose that question to public works for answer at the April 20th meeting. Great. Thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry. I was resting. I leave. Am I up next? Am I up next? How do they say it in Congress? I recognize the honorable gentleman to my left. Mitch, can I ask something? You sure can. Was there, you mentioned the reef renourishment? I mentioned the reef renourishment and the reef restoration. Was there reef restoration in prior years, or are you asked? Hmm? We, in last year's budget, had $40,000 in the budget for reef restoration. Okay. And this year we were going to have something in the neighborhood of $100,000, and it was excluded. So it's been eliminated. Yes. For this year, at least. So I'm just saying that should be recognized as a CIP project. Yeah. I agree. I think that should go into the... Comments. That should go into the record as something we think should be included. Absolutely. We'll add that. Yep. And there are some arguments against that, but we haven't gotten to that point yet. But it makes sense. Yeah, exactly. That's my point. We're just throwing things out. Sure. The Barwick Road Bike Pad Phase 2, which was budgeted this year for the design and preliminary study and then to be constructed in 2029. I would just ask maybe to add more outreach meetings to the communities. There's a lot of skepticism. Yeah, skepticism. That's the word I'm looking for online due to the phase one and just a lot of, you know, community, every commission meeting input on that. But, so I think, you know, personally, I think when that's done, it's not going to be as, they're not going to feel as bad as they do currently. But, you know, there's a lot of questions that came up. Why is the lighting this way? Because, you know, there wasn't really a lot of community outreach. So, especially on that north side, so that the phase one, most of the communities were not residents. It's mostly unincorporated areas that abud Lake Ida. But, once you go north, you're going to have mostly in-city residents there. So, that would be good, like Sable Lakes and Barwick Ranches, Bexley Park, that you can really do some good outreach and potentially get some good input from those neighbors. And then, also, just a thank you to Public Works because I brought up Lake Ida Road, which we do not maintain. That was supposed to be budgeted last year, and they told me, and it is finally being done, and it's about halfway done right now. So, it's a little bit of traffic congestion, but it's coming out really nice, and no more massages as you drive along Lake Ida Road from the bumpiness. So, thank you. Mr. Pat. A couple quick questions. The special project fund category, there's like a $258,000 allocation for the closure of Northeast 7th Avenue, just north of where the Atlantic Crossing is, as part of the settlement agreement. I thought that there was a settlement agreement regarding traffic calming in the Marina Historic District. And I've heard that it's been pulled out of it, it's not there. Just a question, I'd like to find out if there's any money in the capital budget for the Marina Historic District, because that was arm in arm with the closure. Sure. I will add that to the list for Public Works to be able to answer at the next meeting. So, the building reconfiguration in the Development Services Department, is that included in the interior redesign, or is it structural additions? Because a lot of the interior redesign, I'm wondering why it's $10.1 million. What's the figure? $10 million. Yeah, I saw that too. I was trying to look in the back to see if Anthea is still here, right? Well, I don't know what the status is on that. I think we have been trying to work with an architect for a while on that. It'd be cheaper to build a new city hall than build a... Right. We're inside that. As you know, construction costs fall. I don't have an exact update on that. These are just questions I'd like to ask for. Yes, I will get an answer to that. And it just, in Tropic Isle, it sounds like Tropic Isle is sinking. The whole neighborhood is... And we're pouring another, like, $51 million into it. I'm just wondering if there's, you know... I don't know why. It just doesn't seem like we're pouring a lot of money into the neighborhood. The roads are all sinking and the infrastructure is all getting destroyed. How are we going to prevent it from happening again in 20 years? Or is it going to happen again in 20 years? That is a great question that all coastal communities are grappling with. But I can pose that question to Public Works. And then, finally, the $27 million improvement on the golf course, which is underway. I think this is probably a moot point, but there's been talk about trying to save that Chinese banyan tree that's along the canal. Lake Worth drainage district wants us to take it out. If we moved it, could money to move the tree, which would probably be about $100,000, could that come out of that bond initiative? Or would the bond underwriter not allow it? I don't know the answer to that question, but we can get that answered for the next meeting. That's a great idea. But I'll just send those to... I'll just email you with us. Thank you. I'm done. Okay. And I actually don't have any this year, so thank you very much. And for all of you and members of the public listening, if you think of anything else, you can email it to that address, pzmail at mydarabeach.com, and we'll make sure that we have responses lined up by April 20th. There is one Capital Agreement project that goes in every year, and I didn't see it in the list, and that's crosswalk in front of the Crest Theater. A lot of people come from the parking lot, cross the street in the middle of the block there, and that was proposed to be a crosswalk. I can't find it at all. I do know they have some intersection improvements planned, so that may be why it's not on there, but I will pose that question as well. Maybe it could be broken out so it gets more attention. Get something else for me? No. Oh, okay. Do we open this to public comment? No, it's open to the public to e-mail things or call it in or whatever they need to do to make their suggestions known, and that's what we want. This is to get the word out for people to do it. Okay? All right. Then, having finished that, we'll move on to quasi-judicial items, and I will read the quasi-judicial rules. This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Delray Beach quasi-judicial rules. The applicant and the City shall be permitted to present their case. The public shall be allowed to speak for three minutes each or a maximum of six minutes if the person represents an organization or group of people who are present but agree not to speak. The board members and 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. So, we'll move on to the new 8B, which is now 8A. If you would read that into the... The applicant is here to present, and I would like to enter this into the public record. All right. File number PZ207-2025. Thank you. All right. The applicant's ready, please. Oh, yeah. Is there any ex parte, Roger? No, sir. Speak to a resident. I drive by it every day. I have none. None. I looked at it on Google Maps. Yeah. Did that count? It's like a drive-by, right? Really? Kind of. All right. Please. Okay. Thank you, Planning and Zoning Board, for having me here today. My name is Claudia. I'm the property manager for Seagate Manor Condominium. Okay. And this is our building. Next slide, please. Oh. Today, we have several of my residents here in support of the request for the variants of the cabana. This is our cabana here. It's not up yet. So the reason why we request this variants for the cabana is because the cabana, it fosters camaraderie within our 55-plus community. We have, this is a 55-and-older community, of course, and it allows the residents to get together, you know, have lunch, have dinner, have some drinks, and have a good time with each other. We currently have no shade in our pool deck area, and this allows residents and guests with skin conditions to enjoy the pool area as well, considering the fact that we have no shade. It adds value to the property. We have limited green space, so there is a deck here that we can have the cabana on so it doesn't compromise the green space. Our building was erected in 1969, which was prior to the current lot and setback requirements set forth, and it does not encroach on the adjacent properties because we are on a peninsula, and it does have removable fabric during inclement weather. So if there's a tropical storm warning or watch, we will be taking that fabric down. And that is it. Very nice. Thank you. That's the only thing we're missing. Thank you. Thank you very much. Claudia, I'll answer them. Please. All righty. I would like to enter this into public record. PZ 207-2025. This is agenda item 8B for the Seagate Manor Condominium. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Item 8B is a variance request for the Seagate Manor Condominium located at 400 C. Sage Drive. The subject site address is 400 C. Sage. The subject property is approximately 1.98 acres and is zoned medium density residential. It is bordered primarily by the intracoastal waterway with water to the northwest and partially to the south, with residential medium zoning to the east and south. The property was developed with an existing multifamily condominium complex originally constructed in 1969. The site contains an 11-story residential building and an existing pool deck amenity area located towards the southwest portion of the property. Because the development predates the current land development regulations, the existing layout occupies much of the interior usable open area. The applicant proposes installation of a 12-foot by 16-foot pre-engineered aluminum cabana with a removable fabric roof. The structure is proposed on an existing impervious pool deck surface and does not expand the building footprint or impact required landscaping or open space calculations. Additionally, the cabana is designed as a removable accessory structure rather than a permanent enclosed building addition. The required rear setback in the residential medium district is 25 feet. The proposed cabana would be located approximately 16 inches from the rear property line. The proposed location of the cabana encroaches into the rear setback and is seeking relief from LDR Section 4.3.4H setbacks of the standards set within LDR Section 4.3.4K development standards matrix. When adopting Table 4.3.4.4H, the City recognized that certain building elements, when reasonable in scale and impact, may be permitted within the required setbacks. For example, a pergola may be permitted to encroach up to 5 feet within the required setbacks. The 2024 amendment clarified which elements may encroach into setbacks, preventing incremental overdevelopment and preserving open space relationships. While certain pergolas may encroach up to 5 feet, this structure exceeds the allowable height and includes structural supports which triggers the need for this variance. However, similar to those permitted elements, this cabana functions as an accessory amenity structure and is lower in intensity than a principal structure. In another case of lower intensity accessory structures being allowed within setbacks, under LDR provisions, screen enclosures may have a zero rear foot setback if separated by at least 50 feet of common open area. This property benefits from substantial common open area due to its waterfront location, where there is approximately 357 feet of open area to the west and 226 feet of open area towards the south. While this cabana is somewhat more substantial structure than a screen enclosure, the significant separation provided by the intracoastal waterway mitigates potential visual and spatial impacts. To grant a variance, the board must make six findings under LDR section 2.4.11a.5. These are the options for board action. This concludes the presentation for item 8B. Thank you. At this point, is there any public comment on this? Anyone who would like to speak, come forward? Seeing no one, public comments closed. Does the staff or the applicant have any rebuttal or cross-examination? Claudia, do you have anything else? Rebuttal or anything? Okay. All right. Board comments. We'll go this way. Sure. It's an easy one. I have no problem with it. I want to compliment staff, though. I see they submitted this on 122, and it's already here in front of the board. Something simple like this. So great job in getting that right through and to us so they can enjoy this cabana. Sure. I don't really have any significant questions. Why are there trees around it? I know a big band needs to do that. Why wouldn't you just put up big umbrellas that you could move around that you could also take down in case of a storm? Because the cabana in that particular location, it allows for a larger space of shade. It's a 12 by 16 shade. And then getting a portable umbrella, it wouldn't allow for that much shade, so more residents can join under the shade. You could get two of them. I could. You've got to move them around. Well, you'd want to. That would be part of the... Right. But they're 55 and older. It's a 55 and older community. They have staff. We're on the peninsula and the sun is literally like, it does this and then we would have to move the umbrellas consistently. And that is just a fixated structure that can protect us against the sun throughout the whole day. I just want to play their peanut conmage on them. Did you bring them into control? And how are the footings secured? They are bolted to the wooden deck. Wooden deck. Yes. The material is called N-deck. Okay. Do we have any idea of what wind force that can stand up to? I know you're taking the cloth off, but... Yes. I believe it is rated for 75 mile per hour wind. Okay. Is that right? Okay. No question. I mean, you can't see it from anywhere. My only question is why isn't it bigger? It doesn't look like I can get too many people under there. But that's your choice. Thank you. No questions. I'm in favor of this variance. Mr. Strachan. No questions. Mr. Cope. That's exactly what I was going to say, Price. This thing should be 10 times the size. Thank you, Mr. Cope. Thank you. Totally serious. It's an amenity that you have to have for the pool. Thank you. I'm in complete favor of the setback reduction and all the six criteria that it has to meet. I'm fascinated that it's next to the Shuffleboard Court. The Shuffleboard Court probably gets used every day by teams and people. And we need way more shuffleboard courts in the city than, you know. We need a shuffleboard team. Every property should have a shuffleboard court. But I love the project. It could have been a tiki hut, but it's not. So it's a little tiny structure. It could have been much bigger, you know, absolutely in support of your application. Thank you. And the request for the setback. Thank you. It's an unusual circumstance. The rear, in this case, is along the water's edge. So, you know, how can it negatively affect anybody back there? It can't. It's positively affecting everybody. Thank you. Yeah, I think it's great. My only question was about the anchoring of the thing, and that's already been answered. I guess you have as big a one as you can fit in that little space. But anyway, I think I'm in favor. Can we get a motion? Move approval of variance requests for 400 C-stage drive from LDR section 4.3.4 H4. Building elements of the site improvements allowed in setbacks identified in table 4.34 A to allow the installation of a semi-permanent cabana in the rear setback, whereas 25 feet is required by finding that the request is consistent with the findings set forth in LDR section 2.4.1 A-5 E through A through F. Second. We have a motion by Mr. Katz, second by Mr. Chard. Can we call the roll, please? Dietrich John. Yes. Jim Chard. Yes. Price Patton. Yes. Judy Malika. Yes. Mitch Katz. Yes. Roger Cope. Yes. Gregory Snyder. Yes. So that passes 7-0. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Get later. Roger will be back. I'll play a little shuffleboard. Poor girl, I'm so nervous. They're too friendly. There's something wrong here. All right. The next thing is, can we have the next item entered into the record, please? Good evening, board members. Rafiqa Brahim, principal of current planning. I would like to enter item 8C, which is now 8B, to the agenda. Property 1065, Southwest 15th Avenue, file number 2025-204, consideration of a Level 1 site plan application with landscape plan and associated landscape waiver and a variance to modify a portion of the existing parking area to accommodate additional parking. And at this time, I would like to invite the applicant to present. Thank you. Please. Good evening, members of the Planning and Zoning Board. My name is Paula West. I am a land planner for the project. My company is Plan West. Address is 10152 Indiantown Road, Unit 159, Jupiter, Florida. I also have Nicole Carosella-Owen, who is the property manager with me, and Shane Munson, who is the civil engineer for the project. So this is the... Yeah, excuse me a second. We need to do ex parte. None. I visited the site. None. I spoke to Ms. Morrison, and I went all through the site. And they can use some parts. Mr. Strun? No, I just drive by pretty frequently. None whatsoever. Do you have any ex parte on this? I spoke to Christina Morrison. Okay. Thank you. Please go ahead. Thank you. So this is the Park 10 project. We are currently going through a site plan, level one site plan amendment. It's a minor modification to the parking area, which triggered a landscape waiver and the variance for the modification that we're doing. So the property is at 11065 Southwest 15th Avenue. The scope of work area is right where the red is highlighted. So the property is actually those two parcels combined. But the area that we're focusing on is just south of Building D and then north of... So I'm between Buildings D and G. So just a little bit of context. We are abutting I-95 over to the west side. To the northwest is a substation. It's industrial zoned. To the south, we have mostly industrial uses. To the east, we have industrial. Outside storage is over to the northeast. And then to the north, we have some multifamily uses. And to the west, we have light industrial. And we are currently in industrial zoning district. So this diagram shows you the breakdown of the waiver and the variance request. In red is the waiver. So we're going from... And I really wish I could read it. But we're going from a five-foot required landscape width over to, I think, 0.7 feet to the narrowest portion. So that's the landscape strip that we're reducing. And then in blue is the request to reduce the open space reduction from 25%, which is what code is required, to 12.9%. And just to point out, so we have three different columns on our table. There's the required 25, which is per code. Currently, there's actually approved in record 18.8% of open space. And we're just going down to 12.9%. And this actually wanted... I just wanted to show what was on record. So to kind of use a basis, we requested... We did a public records request to see what was on file. The site plan that you're seeing right now, that's what's on file as approved. And it's only for buildings B and D. Obviously, the business park has expanded and combined different parcels. But as an approved record, this was all that was on file. So under the approved set of plans, we also found that the pervious... That's that pervious, the green highlighted. So the pervious area that was approved at the time was that 18.8%. At the time, there was an approval of 139 parking spaces. What we're providing is... So in the narrative, it does talk about 36, but it's actually 16. It's 36 new, but it is 16 based on what was approved and what we're providing as new. So we're going from what was approved as 139 to 155 with those additional 16 parking spaces. And this, I just wanted to show the scope of work on the top. And then on the bottom is what was approved. As you can see, the property line... And I wanted to modify my PowerPoint, but if you can kind of see where the property lines are... And I don't think I can highlight it. Can I highlight it with this? I can, with the little circle? Okay, perfect. So the property line goes this way over to the right. The current property line, actually, yeah. And then it goes up here and then it goes over that way. So that's how it was back then in 1978. Currently, like I said, the business park is a combination of two, maybe even three parcels. But as you can see, at some point from between 1978 and now, there was a change in the landscape row of parking on the south end. It was approved to have five parking spaces in that landscaped area just to the south of Building D. That never happened, but it was approved there. So what we're doing is we're actually putting parking spaces there where they were approved. And then on the row of parking that was approved, which is kind of odd that it's showing on the north side, it's actually currently on the south side, not on the north side. So these are just some pictures. So the top picture shows you that area. So there's a massive landscaped area just south of that Building D. There are no trees there currently. There's one palm tree that you can kind of see here. And then the strip of parking, the row of parking, which right now has no parking. People are parking there unapproved, but there's no designated parking area. That's what we're actually improving today. And then at the bottom is just a couple of images. And then there's that palm tree, the one and only palm tree in that landscaped area south of Building D. I'll try to cover the standards as quickly as I possibly can. First standard talks about special conditions that are peculiar to our property. This is a, the scope of work area that we're working on is interior to the site. It is not visible from the exterior. It's not visible from any adjacent neighboring areas. The modification is happening to an existing property with an existing condition. So it's very difficult to make improvements if we're not building from raw land or just building from brand new. Interestingly enough, the city actually rezoned this property in 1990 with a citywide rezoning from LI, light industrial, to general industrial. So what that means is that the new businesses that are, not new businesses, the businesses that are operating out of there are now more intensive. They're not your light office type of uses. They're more, you know, there are businesses that have fleet vehicles, trucks, semis, that kind of thing. So it does kind of present a challenge to this property, something that we didn't do ourselves. The site remains the same function, same uses, same circulation. Everything's still the same. We're not building a new building. Several of the warehouse, as I mentioned, warehouse businesses do have fleet vehicles which need more parking. And then, of course, as I mentioned, the parking requirements are met. We're actually exceeding them. Second standard talks about the literal interpretation of the regulations would deprive us as applicants. So requiring full code for an outdated site would create nonconformities. What that means is that if we are required to provide the full landscape strip at 5 feet, that would make your dry vials less than the 24 feet. So that's a nonconformity. It would affect the circulation. Adding more green space would create unsafe conditions, potentially. It would reduce the parking. So all of these things would create nonconformities to a site that's already existing. If there isn't enough parking available, business will suffer. The business park will suffer. Businesses possibly can shut down. The business park, as I showed you with the green space, has been approved with noncompliant green space percentages from 1978. The proposed modification does not diminish any public facilities. It doesn't impact utilities. We're actually improving the drainage, and I do have the civil engineer here to talk about that. And then the additional parking will service the uses within the complex that need as the business park has evolved. So the next standard talks about the special conditions not being the fault of the owner. Again, as I mentioned, the rezoning was not something that the owner had anything to do with. It was already noncompliant at the time of approval from the public records. All the businesses in the business park have been approved. They've been vetted. There's no new businesses that are coming in. There's no businesses that are expanding that are essentially driving this hardship. And then, of course, I mentioned the zoning change. To the right, I have a snippet of an article that I think they have in their backup, I hope, but we submitted. And what that article basically just shows is that from 1982 to today, the sizes of semis have increased. And especially now, we're ordering everything. But the sizes from 1982 of semis and trailers and the cabs have increased, which then drives the sizes of your parking demand and your circulation. Next standard talks about the variance not giving a special privilege to the applicant that's denied to everybody else. We're only asking for 16 parking spaces. The approval is completely interior. It's not affecting anybody outside of the, literally, the inside of the business park. And then several areas throughout the complex. And so just this image, I just wanted to show the image. Because while we can't really prove it, the overall business park does have a lot of green space. I'm not necessarily saying that we have the 25%, but because it's combined throughout the years, and you can actually see to the west of building D and to the north of building, I think that's B, the top two buildings, there's a lot of green space there and also to the west of the southwest building. Next standard talks about the reasons, the minimum variance. So in order to avoid code violations and parking of vehicles in unauthorized areas, this is the minimum that we need. It's only 16 spaces, and we are only slightly reducing the pervious percentage by 5.9%. We are providing more than the required parking. We're not requesting a variance to the parking requirements at all. And then I mentioned the fleet vehicles that will need this. And then the last one talks about being in harmony with the intent of the code. So I included the intent of the I-1 district. That does say that the I-1 district provides, sorry, I said I-1, that's Pompano, I- district. The industrial district provides for industrial land uses and their regulations so as to provide reasonable protection for the environment and the public with respect to the impacts of such uses. So just to summarize, this request helps avoid code violations and parking of vehicles in unapproved areas, which unfortunately I see that I duplicated at the bottom. We are removing, so removing the hedge, so that's part of the waiver for landscaping. So we are reducing the width of the landscape strip, and with that comes the fact that we can't plant any hedges in that narrow spot. So removing the hedge actually opens up that parking area in the middle. With Nicole here, there has been several vagrancy and trespassing issues at the property that they have called the police department to come and help out with. That opens it up so that there's more visibility there. The landscape strip is still being provided between the parking rows. The location, again, is completely interior to the site. The modification improves the drainage of the area, and we're reducing nonconformities in the drive aisle widths and circulation. That concludes my presentation. And like I said, I have the property manager and the civil engineer here. Thank you. That's very rare. Good evening, game board members. I will try not to repeat, so that will go straight forward. File number 2025-204, you're acting on the level one site plan today. With both the landscape waver and the variance. So as the applicant explained, so it is both sides. So the address is 1065 Southwest 15th Ave, which is the property in the cyan. And then the green property is 1045. This is the overall the park 10, and this is important. I will explain more into the middle part, which is with the white dash. This is the affected area, which I included the area of it, which is 16, 166, and 500 square feet. It's industrial, surrounded by industrial, except for the southeastern corner, which is actually not adjacent, but that's the closest MIC. And directly adjacent to the right, you have seen this side before, which is all county paving. And the history is important. So I included two aerial images here, because the history will make us understand, really, the request, the variance request of the open space. So in February 20th, February 1984, this is an aerial image, and this is now like 40 years from February, February 18, 1984. This is how it is, sorry, excuse me, originally developed. And we want to understand more into the original development, so we'll look back into how it was platted. So the park 10 was actually the L-shape, which is the top north area of it. And then later on, with years, they started to add to the plat, so addition one, addition two, and addition three. And the plat map of 1983 is included in the middle, and the site plan that the applicant showed is to the right of the screen. And the site was developed in pieces, and this was a site plan that I included the area of it, the affected area. So it was developed as a site plan as part of the, sorry, addition two, addition one, sorry, of the park 10. 1980s, it was developed as multi-building industrial campus designed for truck access, designed for 40 long, like 40 years ago, demand. Zoned industrial, formerly light industrial, the legacy layout limits the reconfiguration of the site. And here's the affected area with the calculations provided by the applicant and the open space as it was developed at that time, 40 years ago. So there are two requests associated with this application, a variance to LDR section 434K, relief from the open space requirement from 25% to 60%. 16%, and the waiver is to section LDR section 4616, H3K, relief from the required five-foot landscape buffer between the off-street parking. We'll jump into it, and this is an existing image from the site of the affected area. And this is where the landscape waver, 0.5 from one side and 0.7, and the applicant indicated that this is entirely inside the site, surrounded by different buildings from the warehouses, and there's a waiver reduction request. In order for the board to approve the waiver, you need to arrive at positive finding that it shall not adversely affect the neighborhood or significantly diminish the provision of public facilities, nor create unsafe situation, nor result in granting of special privilege. And the variance is to the open space requirement from 25% into 16% reduction 9% to LDR section 434K. And the variance standards are the staff report provided detailed analysis of the variance standards, page 4, 5, and 6. The applicant just explained the justification, I don't want to be repetitive. So, in general, like in order for the board to approve the variance, you need to arrive at positive findings. And the landscape, in total, the applicant is proposing to remove four trees in red dotted circles. Just wanted to mention that the tree disposition attachment indicated or highlighted tree number A to be removed, but that's not, that's an error, so it's just remaining, so it's just an highlight error in the table. And the landscape architect will provide the updated one for certification if you choose to approve this. And this is the added trees, and this will conclude my presentation today and leave it to the board discussion. Thank you. Okay. At this point, if anybody from the public wants to comment on this, please come forward. Okay. Seeing no one. Public comments closed. Does the applicant or the staff have any rebuttal? No rebuttal. Okay. All right. Mr. Cope. I don't have any objections at all. I support it all. So, it's the land planning and parking scenario that's driving everything. So, the little tapered island in the back of the property that's not going to negatively affect anybody doesn't bother me. And, you know, they've given competent and substantial evidence that it doesn't. The landscaping is so changed. It's so minimal. I'm in support of all of it. Great. Thank you. Mr. Strong. Thank you. Because I had some questions that weren't quite answered in the staff report. No offense to the staff. But you answered a lot of – well, you answered all of my questions in your presentation. One of the things that was a red flag to me – and, again, you answered the question. But when I read the staff report regarding the cabana, when we looked at the LDRs and what would require A through F, staff seemed to have kind of given us the answer. But in this one, all of the – in each of the subparts, staff was saying that we had to make that determination. So that was a red flag for me because I wasn't sure if staff were saying that they couldn't – that you all didn't meet those qualifications as they had in the previous item that we had with the cabana. But, again, you answered a lot of the questions I had. And I think, as you noted in your presentation, the fact that it's all interior and it doesn't really affect the outside – any of the outside visibility of the property and the outside landscape, it works for me. And I think the parking is definitely needed. People are already quarking there, but actually having the permission there and the drawn-out lines, I think, makes it a little bit more safer than what it is right now. So I'm all for it. Thank you. I have no questions. Thank you. Me neither. A site one – a level one site plan required a landscape plan, and if so, was – I don't see one that was submitted as part of the application. The level one site plan application is not within the purview of the Planning and Zoning Board, but because there is a variance request – so you're seeing this application today because of the variance. So Planning and Zoning Board is acting on the variance, and since the variance is associated with the level one site plan application, which does not require the finding of the 4.6.16, that's correct. But there is a waiver, the landscape island, that's actually also within the purview of the Planning and Zoning Board. So this is the reason you're seeing this application, the variance. So I think you said that a site plan is not required in this instance? No, it is required. I mean, I'm sorry. Thank you. A landscape plan. A landscape finding – so level one site plan application does not require findings for landscape section 4.6.16 or architecture 4.6.18. Okay. So do we know or can we know how many trees are removed, how large those trees are? We know. What's the advice to replacing them? Yes, there is a tree disposition plan attached to the attachment, and the last slide shows what they propose. So they are proposing to remove four trees, and all the colored ones are actually proposed to be planted, and there is a balance that will be towards the tree fund at the time of building permit. You said about tree number 8? Tree number 8 is this one. It was not – sorry, let me – does it – sorry. The light? Yeah. Tree number 8 is this one. Okay. So that was highlighted in the tree disposition plan as to be removed, but it's not correct. That's remaining. Good. Can I jump in your time a little bit? Please. Can somebody explain to me what I'm looking at here? The questions are – I think I'm interested in the same thing Mr. Char is interested in. Can you tell me what's being removed and what's being planted? Yes. So if – they're very light, but if you see the red dots, do you see the red dots kind of on the – Three red dots, yeah. The three red dots, and then – I'm sorry. There's one other one somewhere else. Oh, I see it up on the other side, yes. Those are the ones that are coming out because we can't plant them with the new proposed plan. So that's coming out. Yes. The one – obviously the number 8 one is soon to stay, and what kind of tree is that? Oh, I wish I had the tree disposition plan in front of me. So we did – with the level 1 site plan, we submitted a landscape plan, tree disposition, irrigation. Okay. Yes. We just don't have it. So the gray circles are – Do you know those are relocations? Sorry. I'm going to consult with my engineer. Grays are new. I guess. They're yellow on – Well, yeah. This thing, they're yellow, but those are new trees of full – I don't know, shade trees of some. I don't know what – you don't know what trees they are. Yeah. Black olive. Yeah, please. Can I – Black olive tree. Oh, thank you. What did he say? Black olives. Oh, black – those are new black olives. And what are the green ones? I don't think that's correct. The existing red ones are black olives, and the new trees will not be black olives. Okay. Thank you. That's way better. That's a way better answer. Yeah. Good. The black olives are not what's wanted. Right. They're wreaking havoc right now, so that's part of the reason why we're taking them off. No, I'm serious. No, I – and he agrees, and they're taking them out. I don't think we have the planting plan, but the gray, purple, and green are new plants. Okay. I think that's an adequate answer for me as far as it goes. But what are they, and how big are they? Well, we do have an approved landscape plan. I'm sorry I didn't bring the landscape plan, but I couldn't tell you what exactly they are. Wait. I thought we approved the landscape plan, too. We don't because it's a level one. It's the staff. The staff approved the landscape plan. We do not have to approve it. We're only given the variance. The staff has approved the landscape plan. So can staff tell us what the trees are? The ones that are coming down, Jim, or the new ones? Both. Black olives are coming out. We know black olives are coming down. Huh? The size of that. Okay, that's a true decision. That's a true decision. Although I think we're quibbling. Well, observation, I don't know. The red number nine seems like it's within that island, and maybe it's coming out because it's not in good shape, or maybe it's not going to survive the curb being moved that much closer to it. I would probably approve this plan, but I don't know what it says. I don't know what the trees are. I don't think we're not approving the trees. No, we're not approving it. Black, black, olive. Okay. Oh, okay. That's a point. So tree number nine, the one in the island, is a foxtail palm. The one? Foxtail palm. It's a foxtail palm, and it is in good condition, but unfortunately it's kind of in the way. Easily, easily. We should ask him. Do we know what the purple ones are? I might ask the staff to clarify that, just because the motions in the staff report state that you're approving the level one site plan and landscape plan. So that is before you, not just the waiver and variance. Site plan and including the landscape plan is before us. It's the level one site plan application including the landscape plan. Okay. So now it is under premiere, which we don't know what it is. Would the applicant be entertained moving the foxtail? Yes. Number nine? To my yard? Huh? To my yard. No. To your yard. But I mean, it would cost almost just as much to move it than to destroy it. I mean, move it four feet or something. Good question. So the trees with the abbreviation, the green trees with the abbreviation that starts out B-U-S-I, those are gumbo limboes. Is that right? That's great. The C-O-E-S is the purple ones or silver buttonwoods. Silver buttonwoods. And the gray or green buttonwoods. The yellow or the green buttonwoods? Green. The green? The gray ones? I thought those were gumbo limbo. No, the green ones are gumbo limboes. The gray ones are the green buttonwoods. Which is yellow. We see yellow. Oh, really? Yeah, on a different. Any idea what the size of these are? Are they taller than you? I think a minimum planting size. Gumbo limbo are 16 feet tall. The silver buttonwood are 12 and the green buttonwood are 16 feet. It's huge. That could be your minimum planting size, if I'm not mistaken. I'm going to vote for this, but I am less than pleased at the presentation. It's not a 78-year-old Chinese canyon. Thank you, Roger. Thank you, guys. Okay. Mr. Katz. Yes. First of all, you had me at additional parking. Oh, good. Seems like we get the opposite of that word, additional, too often. So, and I know today's, too, we have a very limited industrial area of the town, so we need to try to preserve that so they don't try to convert it to housing, because if they can't get tenants, that's what they're going to do. So, anything to help support that, to make your business work, I am absolutely in favor of, so I will be in full support of this. Yeah, and I have to say pretty much the same thing about supporting industry. And my final comment on the landscaping thing is, more trees are going in and coming out. Yeah. Yeah, how does that even work? They even need a variance for that, right? Yeah. It's going to get better. More trees are coming in. Okay, so, could we get a motion, please? Move approval of a level one site plan application, including landscape plan, to construct 36 new parking spaces, along with a variance to the required 25% non-vehicular open space and a waiver to the required five-foot perimeter landscape ship located at 1065 Southwest 15th Avenue, by finding that the request is consistent with the LDR and the comprehensive plan. Second. We have a motion by Mr. Katz, seconded by Mr. Strong. Can you call the roll, please, Ms. Miller? Deirdre Stone? Yes. Jim Charnes? Yes. Price Patton? Yes. Judy Malica? Yes. Mitch Katz? Yes. Roger Cope? Yes. Gregory Snyder? Yes. That passes. Thank you. God bless. Thank you very much. Thank you, and good luck. Okay. We got one more. Deirdre. Deirdre, thank you. You made the second, right? Yes. Yeah. He made the, yes. I'm going too fast for it. Take minutes. Okay. Item D, which is now item C, 8C. Good evening, Board of Members. Alexia Howell, Senior Planner. For the record, I'd like to enter file number 2025-082 for our Level 4 Site Plan Architectural Elevation Landscape Plan with one waiver, one relief, and a determination of adequacy at 398 North East 6th Avenue. And the applicant is here tonight, Bradley Miller, to present the presentation today. Thank you. Okay. Great. Thank you. And ex parte? Zero. None. I've visited the site. None. Site visit? None. None. Thank you. Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair, board members. Bradley Miller of Urban Design Studio. I am the land planner on the project, and we also did the landscape plan in-house. And I've got Ella Lee DeVega with me, who is with REG Architecture, as well as Kyle Duncan, who's our civil engineer with Simmons and White. So this is a site that all of us know of, the site across the street from Walgreens. At the southwest corner here of southbound Federal Highway, 6th Avenue, and 4th Street. And up in the top right there is what the existing conditions is. When I read through the excellent staff report, I thought, I was surprised, I think, 1946 that that building's been around. So it's a long time. So what we're proposing here tonight is a level 4 site plan for new development on that corner. We do have a waiver. There's two things, but it's all kind of combined into one waiver, which I will go over. And so your role here tonight is a recommendation on to the city commission because of the waivers, interestingly. So I switched this. This used to be my first slide. And then I switched it, and I said, I need to show the before and the after. It was quite a difference. And the CBD district, which this is in, emphasizes the corners of buildings and locations and accenting those and extenuating them. And I think REG did a beautiful job of doing this with this new structure. This is Art Deco style, which we had to take to city commission beforehand. And we did get their approval to continue with that architecture. So this is looking at the entry corner in the lobby. Sixth is going to the left-hand side of the screen and fourth to the right. The site plan here is laid out. We've got access is coming off of the alley into our parking lot. We've got 1,169 square feet of commercial retail space on the ground level. The lobby is right there at the immediate corner. Then there's some storage areas that also have some, I'm going to call it torture the architecture stuff. That's why LLE is here. There's some faux windows on that north side as well. The little insert that I have with the colors is showing the pedestrian zone that's part of the CBD requirements. We have a curb zone that comes right off of it. And then pedestrian, which is all pedestrian area, which we have. And then our landscaping strip that goes along the face of the building. It does look like this shifted a little bit, but that's the intent. Ground floor level, the blue is the lobby, so you enter into that front lobby as a resident. The retail space that's in red has its own entrance that's into the building, so you're not, again, blocking pedestrian circulation. The purple are the storage areas for residents, and then we have some bike storage, which I've highlighted there in yellow. Within that, we've got, there's, I think I need to go back. With the parking, we have 20 parking spaces. Again, access is coming off the alley. There's 12 of those spaces that are tandem spaces. Those will be designated for residents in the building, and then there will be two also for one additional resident unit, and then the rest are for the commercial and guest spaces. We worked hard with staff. Contrary to the submitted in January and here in February application, I think we may be submitted in January of 24. But this has been a very critical project with it being a very prominent corner in the city, and we recognize that. And Alexia and staff have been great to work with, to get through. With this, I went through some things too quickly, went through the slide too quickly. We are widening the alley by two feet, and then we have a pull-off area here for loading and unloading, and I'll touch on that here in a minute as well. But it's 0.3 acres of a site. Loading and unloading is going to – if there's a tractor-trailer type of vehicle that's going to bring things, and we had to accommodate that, there would not be a project. It's just that simple. The site's just too small to accommodate any vehicle of that size to be able to come on to site and circulate through it. So we are accommodating for the smaller, more daily type of deliveries with this pull-off area along the alley. And then you've got the Ubers, the DoorDash, Amazon, that type of delivery will accommodate that. Will it handle a full-size truck in that space? No. But with the widening of the alley, we'll end up with – that's five feet. And then we have the two plus the alley. We've got about 23 feet there across. So for the time that the Amazon truck is there, which we all know these days that doesn't last long, there's still a flow around that truck. So like I said, I'm going to handle it now instead of later. Street scape, we've got – I took a very quick look at the landscape plan from the last application. We do have shade trees along the street scape, which are live oaks. I didn't get to the ones that are along the bottom, but I think the line was we're putting more in than we are taking out. I think there were two trees that we mitigated for. There was a third one that's invasive, and please, Mr. Schard, don't ask me this species because I don't know. Just the Latin name's fine. But the Latin name with the pronunciation the right way. And with that, we've accommodated that by adding more material on site, which is a squeeze in a tight site. So I went through the ground floor here with the layout, and then going to the upper floors, the second and third floors, there's three units, blue, yellow, purple, if you will. Everybody has at least a balcony, if not more. There's stairs, elevator, that gives them access. And then the fourth floor is two units that are three-bedroom units, and then they have a larger terrace. So that terrace and the blue line, remember that as I go into the waiver slide. We're talking about that corner right there here in just a moment. Up on the roof deck, we've got an amenity deck there for the residents that's self-explanatory. It's a swimming pool and landscape pergola area for the residents to use. Architecturally, again, Art Deco style, which I'm not great at with the flowery language that the architects typically have, but it factors in the features, the glass block I know is something that's prominent in that. We've got the terraces and the curved lines that go around. That carries around to the sides of the building. This is the north side of the building and the streetscape along there with some eyebrows and the railing for the balconies. This is the east side of the building, more of the same. You can kind of catch a glimpse of the roof amenity there. And then these are just some other architectural features that were part of our slides that we presented to the city commission that approved the Art Deco style. The things in addition to the site plan that we – this is – and correct me if I'm wrong, Alexia, but I think this part is in your control tonight, the purview for this feature. Is that right? No? Okay. Like I said, no, it's not. But we would like your recommendation to do it. But this is a tower feature that is, again, part of the Art Deco style. The setback criteria, once you go above the third floor – and she'll correct me if I say this the wrong way. Even this afternoon we were going back and forth on it – is once you go above the third floor, you have to be at 20 feet. And this feature is within that 20 feet. And then where the doors, where the glass is, right here, and that corner, that curve encroaches by two feet, two feet, one inch, into the 20-foot setback. Where this comes from, as part of the requirement of the application, is we have to dedicate the corner clip for the road, which push the setbacks in – and our setbacks are then measured from that corner clip. So for this feature, all of that, as you go around the corner, even the blue area is going to still be a paved area. It's just area that we can't have landscaping or anything within there, any improvements that block the visibility. So this is – the waiver that we're asking for is going from 17 – from 20 feet that's required, which is shown there with the red dashed line, to 17 feet 11 inches to continue that architectural style of the curve and also to allow for the tower feature that's above it. That tower feature is not only architectural feature, but it also separates the two terrace areas from the two units. So it's – you know, the other choice is you throw up a boring wall. This is a decorative wall to make that separation. So I really do want to compliment Alexia for the staff report. I thought it was excellent. We had a lot of back and forth of how can we do it. It's a small site. We think it's a beautiful building, and it's going to be a nice improvement to the CBD being right there on the edge of the CBD and at a very prominent intersection in Delray Beach. So we're asking for your support moving forward. We have to take it to the City Commission because of the waiver. And as I said, I will stop there and leave the pretty picture on the screen. And Al-Ali is here for any architectural questions, and Kyle is here for any engineering questions. And if there's landscape, I'll try to stumble through them. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Miller. Ms. Al? Board members, again. Let me get my bearings here. This is going to work. Yes. Okay. All right, so the address is located at 398 Northeast 6th Avenue, and it's located within the CBD Central Core sub-district. The property is 0.3 acres, and there's an existing one-story commercial use on site. The site occupies a prominent corner at the intersection of Northeast 4th Street and Northeast 6th Avenue, creating a dual frontage. Northeast 6th Avenue is identified as a primary street on the regulatory plan of the CBD, meaning it's intended to create and shape the character of the downtown to create a walkable, active streetscape. And Northeast 4th Street is a secondary street with less restrictions. Abutting to the west is the alley, which is an important asset to the CBD, performing many functions. The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development with 8-unit residential and retail at the ground floor. The maximum dwelling unit allowed is 30 units per acre. The applicant is proposing 8 units, which totals at 27 dwelling units per acre. So here's a street view of the existing commercial building constructed in 1946. As you can see, it's at the corner, and it's located within the CRA sub-area number 2 and the DDA district. So upon the proposal of this application, the proposed Art Deco was considered at the City Commission and granted approval on June 16 of 2025. And so here we have the proposal. It's a four-story mixed-use development with the Art Deco style, including 1,160 square feet of retail at the ground floor with 20 parking spaces. Just above on the second and fourth story are the eight units with a mixture of two to three-bedroom mix. And at the rooftop, we have the pool, lounge area, and restrooms. Included with the Level 4 application is three requests for relief. The first is the setback waiver to allow the encroachment above the third story. We have the second relief, which is to the tower element. And then we have a third form of relief, but I'm going to call it a determination of adequacy for loading on site. And so here is a contextual analysis just for purposes. The adjacent properties are pictured here. We have just adjacent to the north of the subject property is the Walgreens with the parking. To the northeast is a auto repair. To the south and the west is a single-family typology utilized for business right now. And we also have a street view of the alley viewing to the north. So here's the site plan overview. The building footprint is outlined in red. And directly below the building are the 20 service parking spaces with access from the alley. So the configuration and placement of the structure is strategically designed to frame that corner of the site to accentuate the prominence of that intersection. And to enforce the strong presence, but also just activate that pedestrian experience and reinforce a stronger location at this area. This is further reinforced by the active frontages, which includes the prominent lobby entrance at the corner with a retail frontage along northeast 6th Avenue. This is further reinforced with a 15-foot streetscape design, including a 4-foot curb zone, at least an 8-foot sidewalk with a 6-foot pedestrian clear zone, and continuous street trees creating a canopy shade surrounding the development. The proposal also includes bike, bicycle spaces, two on the exterior, and then five spaces interior of the lobby for the residential, for the residents. The management of waste is contained within the structure in the trash enclosure identified in those gray boxes. There is a trash chute for the residents, and then there's also two dumpsters, one for the residents, one for the commercial, as well as recyclables. The management of the trash will either be rolled out to the alley to be serviced and picked up, or the garbage truck will access from the alley and front load and service the dumpsters from where the trash room is. As part of the request, there's also a 2-foot dedication required along the alley with a 10-foot by 10-foot corner clip, as you can add as highlighted in yellow, and there's also a 20-by-20 corner clip at the intersection of northeast 4th and 6th Avenue. As part of the proposal, loading is also required on site, and it's shown and highlighted in blue right there for you. And here's a quick overview of the 2nd and 3rd floor. So really quick, any new development that comes in has to be analyzed into the performance standards of Chapter 3. So that consists of land use, concurrency, compliance with the LDRs, and consistencies with a comprehensive plan. So I'm going to go over that really quick because overall there are no issues with meeting those performance standards, but I will go over that really quick. So overall, the land use and concurrency are met. In terms of the comprehensive plan, there are no issues. The project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. And in terms of the LDRs, overall the project meets all the LDR requirements except for the three waiver requests, or sorry, the three relief requests. And I will get into that right now and kind of more focus on those requests today. So here we have the first one, which is a determination of adequacy. So the approving body is required to determine whether the proposed loading accommodations are adequate to serve the anticipated demand of the development. So with that being said, in 4-6-10 developments are required to provide loading, and it's based on use and the scale of the use. So the scale is determined by the use for an apartment building. For retail, it's between 5,000 to 20,000 square feet is one berth. 20,000 to 100,000 is two berths, and so on and so forth. For retail, it's 3,000 to 10,000 is one berth. So giving the square footage of the retail and the entire gross floor area is 20,000 square feet, or I'm sorry, more than 20,000 square feet, which requires two berths. The applicant has provided a loading demand statement that kind of identifies the reason why the guidelines are not met. And so the reason is that the site is constrained, as well as if you were to divide the square footage from the retail to the overall gross floor area, there could be some lesser strict guidelines of requiring two loading berths, and therefore just one loading berths. And based on the analysis, there could be some review of the scale of the eight units that could be possible to just require one loading space. However, one is still required, and they are providing zero loading spaces. They did compromise by at least providing a loading pad that's 14 by 5 feet off the alley, as you can see indicated in red. And that is their proposal is to accommodate some type of loading on site, but not meet the dimensional requirements. And so not only do we look at the use and the scale, but we'll also look at the frequency of deliveries and what type of deliveries are coming in. And so with the retail and the eight-unit multifamily, typically you're going to find, you know, move-in trucks coming in, right, but also smaller delivery, small boxes for Amazon or mail. And so when we look at the frequency and the demand on that, we also have to look at the surrounding areas and make sure that not only are the dimensional requirements met, but the location does not impede on surrounding areas. So here I have an aerial map with some images of the alley looking directly north. As you can see, the pattern of the alley is really dominating vehicle use and parking and trash pickup. As you can see, the image to the right, there's a dumpster there. You have parking directly to the left, and then the image just adjacent to that, you have a white car parked right there. You have another black car. So it's really utilized for back-of-the-house parking, utilizing the alley really efficiently as the CBD intention is. And so, again, the board has discretion to determine if this is adequate for loading. And here are some views. This is an existing photo of the subject site, and this is the approximate location where that loading would be located. We have also an aerial view of where it intersects with Northeast 4th Ave and the alley. There is an adjacent property to the west. There's existing parking spaces right there. So you'd have to consider would that be impeding into their circulation route, or is the accommodated space of 5 feet by 14 enough and sufficient to allow circulation to continue. And then there's a little 3D rendering schematic that you can see at the top right corner to kind of visualize how that would come together. So now we're into the relief for the tower element above the third floor. Again, that requires at least a 20-foot setback. However, the board has authority to grant that relief above the third story if this tower element is consistent with the architectural character of the building. And here are some images. We have the fourth floor plan highlighted, and it's enlarged and highlighted in red is where that tower element is. And the 20-foot setback is highlighted in blue, so it's completely in that setback. And then just the image of the rendering, you can see the tower element again. And here we go into the waiver for the, which is what's triggering to go to city commission. I think that, yes. And so here, again, because of the Art Deco style being utilized and creating a prominent, strong focal point at that corner, the story above the third story is creating this minimal constraint to meet that setback requirement because addition is, in addition to the Art Deco style, there's a 20 by 20 corner clip. So that requires that part of the building to be inset more. But however, staff has analyzed it, and it's really minimal and really technical, and it's still meeting the intent of the code. And I guess you can look at it sacrificing the Art Deco style to have that prominent round corner, or you can request a relief. And here are the waiver findings. Prior to granting the waiver, the board shall make findings that the granting of the waiver shall not affect the neighboring area, diminish provision of public facilities, not create an unsafe situation, is not granting of a special privilege, as well as it doesn't basically reduce that pedestrian-friendly atmosphere that we're trying to create in the CBD, which it's not because it's all above the ground floor, so it's not affecting the streetscape. And into the architectural style, which kind of bleeds into the relief requests as well, here are some features of the Art Deco style. There are some glass block being provided. You have those eyebrows and the tower feature with some motifs added to and complement the Art Deco style. Here are some renderings on all sides. And here are some elevations of the first and middle, and then what you see today after. I just wanted to highlight this. This is the north elevation, so it would be facing northeast 4th Street. As you can see, the first and middle, you have that very prominent nautical look of the Art Deco style. However, it's really missing that active frontage at the front with the windows. There was like a railing as well to get up to the lobby, just really breaking from the facade of the building to interact with the street. There was a lack of ornamental features as well. So with the banding, it could have been more prominent. So with working with the architect and staff, we really wanted to show you the difference in the architectural elevation for the north and just the improvement that has been taking over place. And again, here's the east elevation. The tower feature is more prominent. The glass retail frontage, the storefront frontage, as you can see, it was way too much in the beginning, but it was broken up in a way that has a defined retail frontage. It was really creating a place where you can identify where that retail frontage is. And again, it removed that railing ramp that was in front, so we can create that interactive to the streetscape. And the west and south elevation, I won't get too much into it, but we did hone in on that south elevation, which is the bottom right corner. They added this beautiful motif, not a motif, yeah, I guess, yeah, motif feature just to really dress up that south elevation. So as you drive up from Federal, you see this beautiful facade on the south elevation. And again, here's just a really quick representation of how well this was executed to show the base, middle, top. It really shows the balance and harmony and symmetry of the execution of the Art Deco style. And then the board has criterias 2, 4, 6, 18, that the proposal is in conformity with good taste, quality, and harmony with the surrounding area. And our favorite part is the landscape plan because we all know now that the removal of trees are less than the actual trees being provided on site. So it's a plus. So basically the removal of two trees and one invasive is mitigated by four silver button woods, and the removal of 12 palms are mitigated by a tree in Luffy. But overall, there are 15 trees being placed on site. So 12 are added from the three that are removed. And this is going to be continued at the City Commission on March 9th, TBD. And here are your board options to approve with conditions or deny or continue the direction. Okay. Thank you very much. At this point, any one of the public who wishes to speak should come forward. Well, seeing no one, public comments closed, surprisingly. Does the applicant or the staff have any rebuttal? Okay. Board comments. Where should we start? Where should we start, Roger? Jump in, please. Well, I mean, it's incredibly handsome opportunity, buildings, design, and site, very high-profile site. And like maybe at least two people have said before, I want to compliment the staff report and Alexia on her hard work and the depth of the analysis on the project is really extraordinary. I'll jump right to the waiver on the corner. Listen, we're requesting a corner clip from this guy. Then we're going to clock him with a right-hand hook because his building doesn't meet the new setback from the clip that he just gave the city. That doesn't float with me at all. But I get it. He ought to be given some credit for giving the clip in the first place, but apparently he's not. So I'm in 100% favor of the arched element that is a balcony on all three levels above falling barely two feet, one inches into that. That's incredibly minor, but we're crossing our T's and dotting our I's. And so I'm 100% in favor of that. And if they find that the finial is also within that zone or sticks out into a tiny bit, I would be in favor of that being part of the waiver, if that makes sense to everybody. In terms of the other relief that they're requesting, the... Loading done? The wood of something of adequacy? Loading zone. Right, right, right. I can't even read my own writing. But the loading zone, the fact that they have a loading zone is like a huge plus. They don't have one. That's the point. No, but they're providing one. But so a five foot by 14 foot, and guess what? It's off of another two foot dedication that they just gave the city to widen the alley. So you could make the argument that it's seven feet by 14 feet. But so it's a loading zone, right? They are giving one. Is that correct? So they are not providing one per the dimensional requirements of 4-6-10. What was that red zone that you were showing? So the red zone is the 5 by 14. The dimensional requirements require a 12 by 30. So they are deficient in meeting the loading zone requirement. In size, but they are giving one. They're supposed to have two. It's half the size of roughly of what it should be. But so what I'm saying is the fact that they have it in the mix is a plus. It's eight unit development. So the loading that's going to happen for those eight units would theoretically occur there. And 1,600, 1,700 square feet of retail space on the ground floor. There's not a lot of loading going on here. But the fact that it's there, I think, is a plus. The architecture is spectacular. REG is one of the most recognized architectural firms anywhere in Florida. It's the southeast. And so this is a beautifully designed building. I'm going to say it's the best example of an Art Deco project that I've ever seen come across any of our applications. Or those that are built that are out there, this thing is going to blow them all away. It's got all of the beautiful elements that Art Deco is supposed to have. But I'm obviously in favor of the project. I might want to make a few more comments after I hear from you guys. But I think these are two really minor elements on a magnificent site. And I'm in favor of both of them. I think you're going to have some problems with that alleyway. You have eight residential units. And I believe they're like three bedrooms on several of the floors, the second and third floor. They're all three bedrooms, right? No, half and half. Okay. But three and what? Two. Two. Okay. Unless you all are very strategic in coordinating people moving in and out and scheduling those moving trucks, you know, I can really see this being a problem. So for a three-bedroom apartment, you're going to need one of the larger-sized U-Haul trucks. What is that? One of those big trucks. Oh, yeah. And that's in addition to, you know, as you showed in the picture, people are already parking back there. Then you have garbage pickups. You got a lot going on in that alley. Right. There's a lot going on in the alley now, and it's not even a residential unit. It's retail now, right? Yeah. Yeah. So now you're adding residential to the mix, including more retail than what's already there. I just, I don't see this project accommodating that type of traffic. And I know you got the additional two-foot dedication in the alley, but I still, that's a lot. That's a lot. It's going to be a lot. You have Amazon. You got the DoorDash. It's a lot going on on any given day. There's got to be something more here to kind of accommodate the amount of traffic that this new structure is going to bring. I don't have a problem with the structure, the corner clip. I don't have a problem with that. It's just that parking in the alleyway that is problematic for me. But I'd like to hear what my other colleagues have to say about that. I'd like to have the parking explained to me at all. Like, how does this tandem work? Is it you and your spouse tandeming, or is it like you and your neighbor? Because the math didn't add up to me. So there, yeah, I think I stated it wrong as well. So we have, basically, the tandem spaces are, let's say you have a single-car garage and you're in a single-family home, and you park in the driveway behind the garage. Yeah, I've dealt with that. So your car's in the garage, your husband's car's behind, and you go, honey, you've got to go move your car. So show me with the point or the tandems, please. So there's some six of them, right? Did we just leave that? That's right. So that's six units with my honey. So where do the other? So these two would be for one unit. Right. These would be for another unit. Third unit, fourth, fifth, sixth, and then there's two here and two here for seven and eight. So where's the retail? The retail then is, actually, it's very minimal. I think there's only two spaces required for the retail. And then we have the handicapped stall. So they're all there. It's just that because of the tandem space and, again, it's a lot size thing to be able to. No, I understand your size restricted with the parking lot, but that looks. Yeah. So that's how it's becoming more prominent. I'm seeing it more and more as, especially in the downtown-ish types of developments that it's happening. So that's how the parking would function. Yes, sir. Right. It's allowed in single-family. Yeah, I mean, I had that in my house. Well, I had to build an extra driveway, but I had that exact thing with the tandem thing. But I just wanted – I didn't realize that there were enough over there because he said there were several retail spots, but now that only leaves two retail spots. Yeah, I did, and I apologize for leading you astray there. It's actually four on the south side that would be applied to the residential units. Okay. Yeah, there's eight on the south, eight total parking spaces on the south side. Right, correct. So we have – so there's three left for the retail plus the handicapped stuff. Plus one handicapped. Okay. And I agree with Mr. Strawn about the loading and unloading, which we've always – I mean, on this very board, we were always saying, oh, you know what, it'll just be a quick stop as they move. But in traffic in Delray Beach, I'm constantly having to sit behind an Amazon truck until the guy gets back in – or go around and risk my life. But it's happening all over town. We have to be cognizant that they have places to go. I think that the one loading zone is probably adequate for an Amazon truck, perhaps, or delivery. But I don't know what the retail is going to be, what kind of deliveries, and certainly the moving trucks would be a concern. That's all I got. Now it's getting serious. How much – let's say there's a UPS truck in the loading zone. How much space is left in the alley? How wide is that space? So the UPS truck is what, seven feet wide? So existing, the alley is 16 feet, and they're providing a two-foot dedication, which will be 18 feet alley. Plus supply. Yeah, and then a UPS truck, you know, let's say eight, nine, and they're providing a – the car can get around there, right? So the car can get around there easily, even though the truck can probably get around there. And, you know, if you go north on the alley, there's a UPS store on the alley that continues – it's constantly blocked by a UPS truck. It just pulls an engine. So you don't even – I like to drive around in alleys, you know, because you miss all the traffic. But you just know you can't go there in the afternoon because there's going to be a UPS truck blocking the entire alley. So I think this is a – the applicant made an accommodation to try and drive something, and it would suffice in most instances, I think. And then if it doesn't, if there's a bigger vehicle, you do what I do when the UPS truck is blocking the entire alley. You drive around it. The – after the request for the variance on the setback, you could still have a curve, and you could still have the tower if you made the third story smaller. I mean, they don't want to make the third story smaller. So it's a – I think it's a minor – it's a minor variance, only it's a couple of feet. And I think that that tower is probably one of the most hard and decoy features of this building. But, I mean, you see – you just look at that tower, and you just think, good, Miami Beach. So is there going to be any writing on that tower? Does it have the address on it or something? I know we're not dealing with signage now, but it's just an element. Not intended. Yeah, the signage would be by the front door, more visible. Is there going to be a different color? It's got blue on it. It says blue on it, doesn't it? Yeah, it's accent colors, like the rest of the building. Accent – it's in the accent blues that – Okay. Then, again, the rooftop amenities, I think that's – you know, it's another place you can put them. I'm sounding like a broken record. I think when you put a CMU five-foot parapet on the rooftop, it just makes the whole building look more massive. I don't know if we can force people to make those parapets clear. It did that at the hotel in the southeast 5th and at the courtyard. Those are clear parapets, and they're safe. And it makes the building look five feet short. But, again, I guess that's up to the applicant choice. But I wish someone would come. But otherwise, it's important. It's certainly an improvement over what's there now. And there's going to be some parking and driving problems, but I don't think they're doing some of the newspapers. Thank you for not making it masonry modern. Masonry modern is, I think, desecrating particularly Federal Highway, so thank you for that. I do notice in the today pictures there are two power poles right there near the corner, and they don't show up in any of the renderings. Does that mean you're going underground with those? Yes. You guys have all the right answers. What retail is there now? And retail looks like it struggles over the years. What are you doing to make that a successful retail enterprise? Great question. But I think the building itself and the newness of the building and how the streetscape is going to be improved will bring it on. We're taking away back-out parking that's today you put your life in your hands backing out onto 4th Street and the 6th Avenue boat. So there's a lot. It just changes the whole perspective of that corner. People could have said that about Pineapple Grove Way or, as I remember it, when my office first started, Northeast 2nd Avenue. But we do have examples there on 5th and 6th, like at the Caspian and the Aloft and so forth, that they do have real problems with retail in this day and age. Yeah. And it's – honestly, that would be a question I would need to take back to my client on the approach to it. But it's – one thing is I think it's a reduction of retail space, but it's still a nice size of retail space to attract a tenant to come in there. And sometimes the sizes or just the size itself can be – it's too much space. I can't fill it up. I can't pay the rent type of thing. So this is a little more manageable. So there are things you can do. It's a little more manageable, yeah. Jim, is it really retail right now? Is it retail right now? It's a – It's retail. Not too long ago, wasn't it like a Taekwondo? Yeah, it's like yoga. That was the previous owner? Yeah. All right. I agree with everything that's been said about the corner clip and the incursions. I think that feature at the top is sort of the cherry on top of the cake or whatever. That really does make it look like – what are we talking about? Art Deco. Art Deco. Thank you. So you also mentioned some faux windows, I believe, on the north side. You can actually see on the exhibit on the screen. So we just didn't do a blank wall. Well, these are actually the street side wall of those storage areas for the residents. So it's something that you don't want to open up with open glass. Are they glass? Yeah. So it's opaque glass that's in there. It's still kind of ugly. Faux was too far. Opaque glass. Roger? That's an old Art Deco trick is to use the opaque – I'm just kidding. We touched it. You know, you could – maybe it's – Some murals? Murals. Well, like glass block maybe, but – We have some murals there too. What's that? We have some murals there as well. You have a mural on the building? Yeah. Maybe we should hear about that. Yeah. Yeah. Please. So in emphasis – in trying to – Keep your name. I'm sorry. Alalie De La Vega with REG Architects. In order to – after many conversations with the staff, we came across this idea for this bar relief, which starts on the opposite corner and then continues throughout the building. And it's representative of the local flora and fauna of them. So it's the leaves of the palm trees, the local plant material. So that's reflected on the opposite corner and adjacent to those windows as well. Opposite corner. Where's the opposite corner? The interior corner. She's there. Oh? No. That one. The bottom right. Which is the – Oh, okay. South elevation. So as you're driving – South. So this is the south elevation. So it's these? Yes. So as you're driving along the street, that's a very prominent corner. Okay. And that same decorative element is interspersed along the streetscape as well. And that's a bar relief, but also in color? Yes. Okay. That's a proposal that would come back before us? Is that part of tonight, or is that something that would come back before us? That's included. The mural. Included. We don't come back. The mural's – there's a mural that's included tonight? No, it's not necessarily a mural. It's that bar relief detail. It's a bar relief. Right. Stucco relief. Stucco relief. It's the surface of the building. Yeah. Right. Okay. And to your point, it is a finial. It's – yes. Okay. Still your floor. Well, you'd be disappointed if I didn't ask about trees, right? Well, you'd be disappointed if I didn't ask about trees, right? I would be. I guess – I like the trees. I'm thinking that the landscaping of the understory is – it could be more native. It could be more colorful. It could be more creative compared to what you've got in here. And I think also – I guess I need to ask that. We've talked about one-for-one replacements, which doesn't mean anything. You may have a tiny tree with a one-inch diameter and then another tree with a one-foot diameter. So a one-for-one replacement doesn't work. And when you come up with these ratios of how much is native – I know I asked this question last month – how much is native versus how much is non-native? How do you get a measurement of that so that you're – 50% is really 50%? I mean, I actually don't know the answer to that question. I just know invasive is not good. So we're here with one invasive and they removed it. But I'll refer that to the landscape planner who is not here today. It might be a good idea to have him up here once in a while. He was up here last week. I believe he's explained it at a previous meeting. So I don't know if you want to try to venture into that territory, Rafiq. But it's really up to the applicant to do that. What we can say is that it does meet the code requirements for invasives and natives – or, sorry, for natives and for mitigation. And that's the most detailed we could venture at this point. But I think in a recent meeting he has explained this. I think you've got to sign off on that. I just – I'm not sure. The trees that are being removed are less than or smaller than or have less mass than those that are coming in. And I realize that trees have to grow over time. But we just see, time after time, very large trees being taken out, replaced by very small trees, particularly on a one-for-one basis. So I'm going to support it. I think it's a great plan. Thank you. And I just had those few comments on the landscape. Great. I have a question for staff. So this – right now, they're going 54 feet and four stories. Do we require anybody in the CBD to have to go to 54 feet and four stories? Or could say they do a smaller building that's three stories and not 54 feet that would require less parking? Do we allow that? It's 60 feet. Right. Sorry, 60 feet. No, that's good. With a terrapin. But what I'm saying, my question is, I get that it's a very tough corner to build. But does that mean we have – they're not required to build as much mass on that corner as they possibly physically can. There's no requirements to the city, right? So in order to avoid having to get these waivers, like, for example, the – which, to be honest with you, I don't have a problem with the first two waivers. But this parking – not parking, but loading waiver, I really have a problem with in today's day and age. Not just thinking about this project, but if you look at this corner, every other parcel there potentially is going to be redeveloped. And they're all going to face these problems. And if we allow it now, then you allow it there, and now you're going to have another situation with no loading, two moving trucks moving in at the same time. And that's where if you had three stories and you had less, then you would need less parking. You'd have more room, potentially, to be able to meet that obligation. Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. So they can definitely build less. Right. And there are, you know, the comprehensive plan. And the staff report also provided a detailed analysis of the comprehensive plan policies applicable to this, and also the comprehensive plan, and also Rebecca can echo this. It depends on, like, the board. If you see that this is proper and the design is supported and you like the project and it's at your discretion, but they definitely don't have to build to the maximum density that they can have. We hear a saying a lot about, you know, trying to stick 20 pounds of something into a 15-pound sack. And I think that's, again, what they're doing here because it's a very – it's a – how many acres? It's not even an acre, right? It's a third. What? A third of an acre, right? Most people want to put a home barely on a third of an acre. We're going to put – how many units? Eight. Eight units, retail space, storage space, and then try to park it and have people, you know, these – the movers going in and out. Mr. Strong brought up a good point. You've got three-bedroom apartments there. Have you seen what trucks come in with a three-bedroom apartment? People are moving from up north. You can't say, well, you know, you just moved from New York with your semi-trailer. Sorry, you can't – you're going to have to now go to a storage facility. Unload all your furniture and find some smaller trucks so you can move in here. That doesn't work. They're going to block the alleyway for hours, and those people that are accommodating the other businesses, or, again, 10 years from now, there's the other multi-use big project that's across the street. But if they do three, and then the next guy comes in and says, you know what? Maybe that makes sense. We do three stories to accommodate, to match that. And now we have more sensible development. So, again, I have no problem – if they had met the requirements in the third, I wouldn't care so much about the parapet. You know, I think – I love – first of all, I love the design of the look. And I think it could be just as pretty in three stories as four stories because that same feature in three stories could be achieved. And then you wouldn't even need that waiver. You actually – the only waiver you would need is the stupid one, I'll call it, in my opinion, that corner clip on the third level, right, which doesn't make any sense to me. But you would – that's the only waiver you'd be asking for had you not gone that. I think you have support to move forward. You're just not going to have mine because I don't think we need to stuff every inch of every inch to make a project work. That's it. Okay. Mr. Chair, can I respond to a couple? Oh, please do. Thank you. Two things. The loading being the most. And, Mr. Katz, I appreciate your comments. First of all, we haven't maximized it. If you calculate out the density, it's actually nine units that we could ask for. We're below the FAR. So it came down to design. I can't talk about the economics of it, but Del Rey's not cheap. Construction prices aren't cheap. And that is what it is. I know. You know that. I know. I just can't – So with the loading zone, I think, you know, reality is we're going to have a move-in of eight residents. This is a for-sale ownership situation, which I think I would go out on a limb to say it's a longer term of someone living there or having the up north and the down south unit as opposed to rental. So I think once people are in there, so you have eight times of a larger truck possibly coming. And then I want a new lazy boy chair. Those places don't always accommodate the small truck, but I think what we can do with our owner is have that in our documents, the ownership documents of somehow trying to control the size of the vehicle. So, you know, the city furniture truck that Alexi and I talked over ad nauseum, you know, it's – They're big. They're big. And I think it's happening in the downtown. You know, it does. You know, in – I shouldn't say transparency, but in actuality, I live in downtown St. Petersburg. Much more dense, much more intense, and it's interesting how I've really learned. I've been there now for a year seeing how the intensity like that can function and it works. I think, you know, garbage trucks are going through the alley now. Moving trucks, if there's a move in and one of the residential are going through the alley now. We're adding two more feet along our property plus the five. There's things we could have done. We could have said we can make that wider, but it would affect the landscape, and I know Mr. Shard wouldn't let me through that. So the other thing that we can do is we can lengthen it north to south. The little square above the blue there is a transformer. I've talked about this with Kyle beforehand, and that's something that we could relocate down into that southern area south of the driveway, which would give some extra space. If it's a width thing, I think Mr. Patton brought it up. We end up with 23 feet of paved space. The people across the road that are backing out into 16 feet now now have all kinds of room to back out of there when there's not another truck there. I feel like it is accommodating it in a very tight situation. There was back to the calculation of is it one or is it two. That was something that we raised the question because retail space under 2,000 square feet by code doesn't require it. So if that retail was there by itself, we wouldn't have to have a loading space. So but the overall square footage of the building goes over a threshold. So it's, as Alexia put into the staff report, it's an ambiguity in the code that we brought up through this. We think the one works. Our client has another program that's called Fetch, which is, it's like a mail service where they, there is a mail room part of the lobby for letters, the small stuff. If anything bigger than that, that's coming through the postal service would go to the service and they would deliver it straight to the residence door. So that's a good thing. It's a bad thing. It means that they're still coming and they need that, that spot. I get that. And you've got, believe me, my wife knows Amazon very well. And, and, you know, it's, it's, that's a reality too. We're all using it. So, um, I think it's, it's the, the growth of the city and, and how is it accommodated? Should it be shared amongst property owners? There's all kinds of tangents that we can, we could go through. Uh, we tried to address it as best we can, um, without impacting on the landscape was, was where, you know, right now, uh, I think the building probably sits pretty close to where the edges of our proposed building. And it's paved right up to it. So we tried to give it some attention on, on that perspective as well. I, I, I get what you're saying. But again, even if you only went down to one spot, that's 12 by 30 feet, which they're asking. Say, so let's, let's pretend that you only waver is one spot. That's 12 by 30. In my correct, you're only giving us five by 14, right? So my question is what, what, and I tried looking up just the size of an Amaton shark. And I'm pretty sure most of those, I'd say probably all of them are larger than 14 feet. So I don't think this pad personally is going to accommodate much of anything. Um, so again, I think you have a support. You just, I can't say, I, I think in general in projects, when we only are dealing with a small space and I get your, I, your, your economics are your economics. My thought, my worry as a planning zoning board member is not your economics. It's about the future of the city, the planning of the city. And I think poor planning is trying to stuff every inch and, and making it uncomfortable for people to be able to get around. So I, I just can't support it. Would you like me to make a motion? No, I wouldn't. I don't like to speak. Oh, I haven't. I'm sorry. I butted in too. You make a, you make a lot of valid points about this loading thing. My concern is Mr. Kast's concern is the loading. I don't have a problem with that. Five by 14 thing. And when you're talking about Amazon vans and those kinds of things, but when you get something big, big trucks are going to want to deliver something to that property. And what are you going to do? Where are they going to go? What's your answer? Where, what, how are you going to accommodate a moving van? A, on, on property, you can't. Okay. So what are people going to do? How are they going to move in? Off the alley, like I offered, we could, we can expand on the length of that space and actually take it down really to, to touch into the driveway. Put up a picture of the alley. You have the view looking or some of those views of the alley. I went there and there's not room. There's, there's just, but the people park on the west side of the alley that are nosed in opposite there that do have to back out. There's not a lot of room. So, I mean, like I said, I think an Amazon van, something, even somewhat larger than that, is, it's acceptable. And we face this same question over and over and over and over again here in Delray and people building and there's no place to put a loading zone. But, but, but I just want to, I just don't understand how you're going to accommodate, how you're going to accommodate a move in, other than, I guess, just block the alley. Actually, I think with, with the five feet, I mean, even a semi-tractor trailer is going down I-95, which are somewhere between 11 and 12 feet wide. So, if we've got 23 feet there in total, it's the length of it that, that becomes the issue. They may end up, if that, if the pink is expanded to the south and to the north as far as we can take it, then we've got another 20, 20 feet of, of driveway, a driveway coming into the, the building. So, it might be, might impede the access to, to the site while they're there. You know, that's a little more self-inflicted scenario. That makes sense what you're saying. Plus, it gives them some maneuverability to get to the garage. There's no way to have any access inside the garage. Actually, I think, well, I, I don't think a, a large truck's going to be able to make that, that turn. Okay. And then, I agree. To get, to get out would be even worse. Yeah. Uh, or if they back in, that would be a nightmare. Yeah. No, they're not going to get in there. I just want to point in clarity. Um, the Amazon truck is, most of them I see around are these Ford Transit 250 cargo vans. Yeah. Ford 250s. They're 22 feet. They won't make it. But 22 feet long. Yeah, but, you know, right, this is only giving him 15 feet. No, but he's going to expand the length. We're talking about expanding the length. Okay, but you've got to go more than 22 feet, because that's the, that's what you see, those blue vans are all 22 feet, because I was curious how big they are, because I'm pretty sure they're bigger than 15, and they are. Well, there, there's 14 there, and it's probably 10 to get down to the driveway, so there's 24. And then, and then, as you said, you can, they can self-inflicted punishment and use your driveway as well. I see a puzzled look there, by the way, Mr. Roger. Well, I mean, I'll jump in, and it's a very valid criticism, but, I mean, if I'm a person delivering to this site, and I know the site, and I, and depending on the item, and many other circumstances, I'm going to back in to the drive. The building is an L-shaped building, with its entire southwest totally open. So, I'm going to try to, if, if, if for some reason, I can't go where the loading zone is off the alley, maybe there's something else being delivered, or I just simply don't fit, and I know I'm going in and out quick, I'm going to back in where, where, where his cross-hatched area is, and I'm going to unload that thing as fast as I can, because I'm, I'm closer to the elevator, and then I, I'm getting out of my truck, or I'm getting back into the truck, and I'm taking off, and, and, you know, and, you know, you can't, you, you, I think. You look at the landscaping, you, you look at the parking. We had other options, the other options of, of give us two less parking spaces, which you hear all the time, give us reduced landscaping, which you already heard tonight, and you hear that all the time. It's, it was one of those pick your, pick your evil. We've, we frankly went with the aesthetics and, and feel that the, the timing of the, the, the deliveries, there are going to be the daily deliveries, and we think with this, with it extended, would, would accommodate that. I mean, even if two show up at one time, and if we can get 24, 25 feet out of it, they, they can make that happen. Mr. Chair, may I make a motion? Because I know Mr. Motion is not going to make a motion. Can I, can I, can I just finish saying, and then I'll, we'll get on to, no. Um, yeah, I, I think if you, as long as your motion includes lengthening. We'll make the condition. Yeah. Um, before I close, I do want to say how much I like the building, and I think, it just happens that I like our deco, but beyond that, it's really a nice building. It's a beautiful design. It's beautiful. And I, and I think it's going to really enhance the corner. And I think the best we can do is solve the loading with the, uh, extension of the length. And so, yeah, Mr. Patton, please make a motion. I'd like to move to recommend to the city commission approval of a level four site plan application, including architectural elevations and a landscape plan to construct a 20,399 square foot mixed use building, including an associated waiver to the maximum minimum 20 foot required front setback depth above the third story relief to the lower element about the third story and a determination of adequacy for reduction of required off street loading for the development located at 398 Northeast 6th Avenue. Finding that the request request is consistent with a comprehensive plan and meets the criteria of land use development regulation subject to the condition that the length of the off street loading, uh, be maximized as, as much as possible by either moving the, um, the transformer to the north and, and so to the north and south. Second. Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Patton. Second by Mr. Chard. Could we have the roll call please, Ms. Miller? Deidre Stone? Yes. Jim Chard? Yes. Price Patton? Yes. Judy Mullica? Yes. Mitch Katz? No. Sorry. Roger Cope? Yes. Gregory Snyder? Yes. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. L. I just, I like them. I love the building. I just think it would look beautiful. Beautiful. I have three stories. Yeah. Can we, um, at this point, we'll take, uh, about five minutes break. Please. Please. Welcome. I'd like to read into the record agenda item 9A. It's an amendment to the land development regulations as it relates to transient residential use. And it's file number PZ302-2025. Okay. And you're the initiator, so please go ahead. Okay. The request is to provide a recommendation. Sorry, I have to get used to driving this, too. A recommendation to the City Commission on Ordinance Number 21-26, a city-initiated amendment to the land development regulations to eliminate provisions related to transient residential uses that are in conflict with Florida statutes by amending Section 4.3.3, Special Requirements for Specific Uses, Section 4.4.6, Medium Density Residential District, and Appendix A definitions. Um, on July 7th, sorry, 2009, the City adopted Ordinance Number 29-09, regulating transient residential uses or TRUs to address proliferation and potential negative impacts on the character of single-family communities, and to classify a dwelling or unit having turnover in occupancy of more than six times in any one year as a TRU, to prohibit TRUs in single-family and planned residential zoning districts, and to allow TRUs in the medium-density residential district. On June 2nd, 2011, Florida Statute 509.0327B became effective and provided that a local law, ordinance, or regulation enacted after June 1st, 2011 could not restrict the use of vacation rentals, prohibit vacation rentals, or regulate vacation rentals based solely upon their classification use or occupancy. On February 21st, 2012, and November 6th, 2012, the City adopted Ordinances 03-12 and 40-12, which further restricted the use of TRUs. These restrictions included limiting turnover and occupancy to no more than three times each year and are in conflict with state statutes. As a result, any language regarding TRUs adopted prior to June 2nd, 2011 can be retained and enforced. However, any provisions adopted after that date that regulate turnover in a TRU are preempted by the state. And the proposed amendments, Section 4.3.3, ZZZ, Transient and Residential Uses, the language is amended to reflect that a dwelling unit or any part thereof that has a turnover and occupancy of more than six times in any one year is considered a TRU instead of three. This is consistent with the regulations originally approved under Ordinance No. 2909. Exceptions and Exemptions. Deletes references to the rate of turnover in single-family residential and planned residential development districts for TRUs that were allowed to continue operating for 12 months after the effective date of Ordinance No. 03-12. And under Waiver for Undue Economic Hardship, amends the application review and appeal process for requesting a waiver for undue economic hardship to eliminate inconsistencies with current procedures. And under Section 4.4.6, Medium Density Residential District, it added principal TRUs under principal use and structures that are permitted. And the appendix was also amended. And you can see some of the language that was changed. Some of it's just, some it's not substantive, but the rest actually goes back to reflect getting rid of the three and going back to the six for the turnover rate in any year. So here we have some of the goals, objectives, and policies of the comp plan that are related to this item. And then we have the findings as well. And the options for the board would be to recommend approval to the City Commission, recommend approval to the City Commission as amended, or recommend denial to the City Commission. And that ends my presentation. Thank you. I was going to say, is there any public comment? Seeing none, public comment's closed. Mitch? Can you come back? I wanted to read one thing. Okay. Who wants to say something? Not me. I have a question. We have no choice. This is what we have to do. Yeah, I think it is. Yeah. I mean, it's a state law, right? Right. So we're taking the definition back to where it was when it was first adopted back in 2009, correct? In essence, yes. So this is not a strict readoption of Ordinance 2909, but there were certain amendments that came after that cutoff date in 2011. Right. That affected those three categories. We're talking about classification, use, and occupancy. So we're removing those amendments that were made after the preemption was adopted. My question is, even if you remove those preemptions, the statute says anything that was prior to June 2nd, 2011, right? But what we're doing now is post-June 2011. So how does that remedy? Right. So, but the amendment is, in essence, readopting, not readopting because that would make it today. Right. But it's just repealing those changes that were made after the preemption is, in essence, what's happening. So the regulations are reverting back to what they were at the time prior to the preemption. But wouldn't the cleanest way be to just repeal those two ordinances and leave the original 2009 ordinance? So I think the only potential issue with that is, again, this isn't readopting exactly or it's not amending the code to be exactly what ordinance 2909 was because there were other amendments in the post-2011 ordinances that we could still enforce and could still be effective. So we might have unintended consequences if we were to just repeal the entirety of those other ordinances because there were other changes in them that we could adopt and that we can't enforce. I got you. Okay. Cool. So, Mr. Bennett, in Lehman's terms, you can rent times a year in single-family residential neighborhoods, or can you only rent three? No, it's six because it was three, but that change to three was made after the preemption. So, but we're, our limitation of six was adopted prior to the preemption, so we're allowed to retain and enforce that. We're allowed to rent to six. Yes. Yeah. And this whole, the genesis of this whole thing was Karen and their rehab places on residential. Well, that I don't have the institutional knowledge for, but community residences are actually not considered transient residential uses. They are treated separately. So, really, even if that was a potential genesis for this original adoption, at this point, they're treated as two separate uses. It's vacation rentals and Airbnbs. Yeah, that's what I know. That's what it is. But not sober houses. We're increasing the transiency. We're doubling the transiency. Well, technically, we probably are preempted from enforcing the three because it was adopted after. So, we're not really increasing it from three to six. We had a number that we weren't legally allowed to enforce, and now we're making sure that the regulations that were in place. Okay. Foreign statute is six or whatever. William, how is this monitored? We have it here in the regulations, but who's out there counting three or six? That's a practical sign. Obviously, Code Enforcement Division is in charge of enforcing the code. We need substantive or competent evidence to present that it has that amount of turnover. That obviously can be difficult or impractical depending on the situations, but you can present whatever may be available, whether it's online postings, whether it's photographs taken by community or testimony by a neighbor that testifies how often it's changing. But, yes, we would need some type of evidence to be presented at a code enforcement hearing. So, before you go, can I just go ahead? Yeah. That was my question is what do I do about the ones in my neighborhood that I know are there? Because we're getting an increasing number at Airbnbs in the neighborhood. I mean, by an increasing number, I'm talking about four out of 140 or something, but there used to be zero. All right. But I guess the answer is your answer. Yeah, contact code enforcement and logic complaint. And get somebody to approve it. Okay. I've seen people report it to code enforcement and code enforcement said there's nothing you can do about it. Code enforcement sometimes are, I won't say difficult to deal with, so wrong am I saying it, but it's difficult to present things in a way that they can't deal with it. Right. That's my way. Let's collect that video evidence. And, candidly, if you were to make a complaint prior to this amendment that's before you today, the code says, you know, if the code has provisions in it they can't enforce, so that might have created some potential issues as well, which we're, you know, fixing through this ordinance. Okay. Sorry. Mitch. Section 2B5 is what we put in, I believe, that allows, but allows, it has that linear footage, that staying. That was added, I think, around 2016, right? That staying, that's all good. Is that for 2B5? Is that for, well, it's for people, housing for 4 to 10 individuals can, there's only one allowed every 660 linear feet. Oh, that's community resident. Correct. Yes, that was all the, of ordinance 2517 that adopted all the regulations. And that allowed to stay, and then we're not messing with that. Right. No. Correct. Right. I'm going to make sure. Right. By definition, it clearly states a community residence is not a transient residential use. Right, and they're separate, they're, it's not effective. Right. Because that's, that was an important thing that we did in 2017 that has to be maintained. And that's based on a lot of federal and state law and stuff, too. Would you like a motion? Somebody, please. Okay. I recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance No. 21-26, a city initiated amendment to LDR, Section 4.3.3, specific requirements for specific uses. LDR 4.4.6, medium density residential district, and LDR Appendix A definitions, by finding that the amendment and the approval thereof is consistent with a comprehensive plan and meets criteria set forth in land development regulations. I'll second it. Okay. We have a motion by, it's Malika seconded by Mr. Cope. And call the roll, please, Ms. Miller. Deidre Strong. Yes. Jim Chard. Yes. Bryce Patton. Yes. Judy Malika. Yes. Mitch Katz. Yes. Roger Cope. Yes. Gregory Snyder. Yes. That passed. Right. Moving on to the exciting stuff. Yeah. Concrete's always exciting. Huh? Concrete is always exciting, isn't it? Hey. No. Is this going to also be city initiated? Yes. Okay. In that case, please proceed. For the record, my name is Rebecca Dossery. And for item 9A, I'm entering into the record file number PZ000230-2026. So this request is a city initiated amendment to the mixed industrial and commercial zoning district, the industrial zone district, and section 464, all related to adopting regulations in NYC related to the concrete products manufacturing use. So the genesis of this request is an unapproved gunite yard located at 135 North Congress Avenue. About four of you were on the board at the time that this came to you. So this board approved the determination of similarity of use, but then commission appealed the decision, and they were given a denial. But staff were, however, directed to develop regulations to govern the use and provide a path for this operator for approval or to obtain approval. So the property is zoned MIC, mixed industrial and commercial, and so the mixed industrial and commercial part is relevant to the regulations that staff have drafted for this. So as part of the background, again, this property is currently under code enforcement because the use is not allowed in MIC zoning, and there was extensive site work done, these pictures show you how the site has changed since the operations began there. And I think one thing that is helpful about them operating without approval is that we can see why staff is proposing some of the regulations that we are proposing because it is kind of a stark presence on the site, so the regulations that staff are proposing are intended to make this more consistent and compatible with the characteristics of the MIC zoning district. So MIC zoning until I think it was in the past six months was allowed only north of Atlantic Avenue for new zoning requests. There was a privately initiated request that wanted to revert to MIC in the MROC zoning south of Atlantic Avenue. So now there's two properties that have since rezoned to MIC, and then we have some older existing zoning in southeast Delray. So again, it's supposed to accommodate a compatible mix of industrial and commercial uses, and it's supposed to provide a transition between lower-intensity and the higher-intensity industrial districts. There's limited residential allowed in the north MIC properties. There's an existing development that took advantage of that, and then it allows for limited retail. So normally we don't provide a summary of the considerations at the beginning of the presentation. We wait to summarize to the end, but we thought that it would be important to just, again, go over why some of the things are proposed by staff that were proposed. So just keeping in your mind the question of how much leeway we should give to the concrete products manufacturing use and if the regulations proposed are sufficient to mitigate any uses, we do have the direction from the commission to add it as a use, but the regulations we have proposed are consistent with how historically this zoning district and corridor have been treated. So again, the first is to add concrete products and manufacturing distribution and a whole list of concrete-related products as a use. So we currently have a limited version of this in the industrial zoning district, so it was somewhat confusing if you refer to the similarity of use to say, well, is gunite the same or is it not? Is it manufacturing? Is it distributing? What exactly is this? So this definition that we're proposing for MIC encompasses the varied nature of concrete products manufacturing and distribution, and we are proposing a distance separation requirement 1,000 feet from any other concrete products manufacturing and to properties north of Atlantic Avenue. So we have a much more residential-type character south of Atlantic Avenue along the corridor, and so we were preemptively saying that we didn't think it was appropriate in that location to have the heavier industrial-type use. So again, why the locational restrictions? Again, we have that residential character, like I said, and then we had not interpreted the character of the district to be heavier industrial. So if we didn't have a larger distance separation requirement, it's possible that this could become a concrete corridor. It's possible that the governing body would like the corridor to become that, but until we receive that direction, we were proposing a distance separation that would limit the proliferation of the use while allowing this particular business to operate there. And I'm going to go into some of the history of the other concrete products locations in the city, but this map before you shows the distance from two that are relatively close. So as you can see, the 1,000-foot buffer would require a waiver for the operator in question, but it would provide a greater measure of separation that may be more consistent with the district. So we've also proposed quite a few development standards. If there's a property with Congress Avenue or West Atlantic frontage, we are saying there should be a special landscape setback, never less than 30 feet. So if it was greater, they would have to provide a greater setback, but we think 30 feet is the minimum that should be provided to buffer this use. We have limits on the height of outdoor storage materials, and then for these areas, we have different setbacks for areas that have material storage adjacent to the property lines. And for the required landscape buffer, we're proposing a combination of a hedge, a wall, and a berm, and then a row of trees on either side of the wall offset 25 feet. So again, why these proposed development standards? We really wanted to emphasize, because of the mixed character of the district, bigger, more robust buffers acknowledge that there are different types of operations within MIC, and so we felt that these were a good way to prevent any kind of negative impacts on surrounding properties. And again, limits on how you can conduct outside storage as well. So a lot of this is based on the strategies in the CBRE report that was conducted in 2023. So this area is identified as sub-area 2 in the report, and for that area, it did support the enhancement of industrial and existing home improvement light industrial character businesses. It didn't recommend leaning into the concrete use. So we were looking at how we can be mindful of these characteristics that the plan calls for in the future. So the current concrete products manufacturing and distribution uses in the city, you can see them on the map in front of you. One of them is in an industrial zoning where it's currently allowed, and then the other two operators, CEMEX and SUPERMIX, they're legal non-conforming properties that have been there since 1969 and 1971 in zoning districts that allowed them. When this was in 1990 in the citywide rezoning, the MIC zoning district was established, and that zoning district, which was applied to these two properties, did not include concrete products manufacturing as a use that was carried forward. So that code anticipated that this wasn't really a direction that the city intended to necessarily go in expanding the concrete industry within the city. So approval of this amendment wouldn't clear the code violation for the 135 North Congress property, but it would give them the opportunity to remedy it. It would be a series of applications, conditional use, level 2 site plan, and building permits for all site improvements, because currently no one at building has inspected to make sure that the tower won't be blown away in a hurricane. So that's all a really important part, that now they have a path to be able to do all of this. Again, if the distance separation was adopted, they would have to get a waiver as part of the conditional use. But that, we felt, again, was important to overall protect the character of the MIC district. And, again, we are just requiring proof of DEP compliance. These uses all are required to have a concrete product. The name of the permit is a concrete, a permit for concrete uses for air protection, air quality protection. And then we are requiring screening by landscaping of all this. And then a building needs to be located on the street with a higher classification to serve as, again, a buffer for any noise or dust. And we also established a maximum lot area of two acres, because we didn't think that the agglomeration of properties to expand this into a really robust industry was a direction that the city wanted to go. And finally, we are editing the language in industrial district, just to be consistent with what we're proposing at MIC, which we think is the more inclusive term, or more inclusive list of the use. So, again, we, in our comp plan, we support the maintenance of industrial uses, and it discourages any zoning actions that would make it harder to do these things or to have industrial uses. And we have policies about making a business-ready environment with industry clusters being supported. Concrete had not been an industry cluster that the city had intentionally sought to expand. So, that was, again, the reason behind proposing development standards for this use in MIC. So, to summarize again, is it appropriate to allow the proliferation of this use in the mixed industrial commercial office district? And how much should the expansion be encouraged? And if the regulations are sufficient to prevent any potential negative impacts. So, these would be some considerations we would ask the board to keep in mind as they're, as you all are evaluating what we are proposing for the amendment. And that concludes my presentation. Would you repeat that? All right. Now, the floor is open for public comment. I think you have public comment. I think. I think Mr. Schiller here has a presentation. So, I'm going to pull it up here for him. Thank you so much, Rebecca. Thank you. I did. Thank you so much. Your original agenda, you'd be here in three more hours. I only have three minutes. So, I want to keep this very quick. Neil Schiller, Government Law Group, 137 Northwest First Avenue. I'm here tonight representing Calabash Gunnight, who was the applicant for the determination of similarity to use, for those of you that remember. We ask that you recommend approval of the ordinance to City Commission. I'm going to go through this very fast. We concur with staff's presentation, except one thing, the separation. So, if you look at the separation between my client's property and the Supermix concrete plant, we are located 451.25 feet, according to the property appraiser's tool, from CEMEX. And while I understand staff's concern about the proliferation of concrete-ready mix plants, it makes very little sense to me to create an ordinance that I have to go get a waiver from, especially when the commission clearly has stated they don't like waivers and variances, and they've asked applicants to avoid waivers and variances. I just want to reiterate the most important point of this amendment. This is a conditional use, which means it has to go before a public body, which means that if there is such separation of 451 feet, then this board and the City Commission, I believe the City Commission, will have the opportunity to create additional, oh my God, I just blanked, additional conditions of approval to ensure that the use is appropriate where it's going to be located. I have to tell you, from a gunite perspective, there will not be another gunite business located in the city because there are just not that many, and the one that we are actively trying to pursue is, it's all self-performing. My company, my client is a pool manufacturer. They use this gunite and this distribution for their pools, and they're prolific throughout South Florida. I understand that this is an ordinance, and so we can't necessarily account for all those considerations, which is why, again, I think it's so important that this is a conditional use. This is just a conceptual site plan and how it would work. Buffering, absolutely. We want to make Congress Avenue a beautiful street as well. This is conceptual operation plan, and we do think that the additional location criteria in terms of a maximum two acres and all of those other wonderful criteria your staff has come up with will decrease the proliferation or the potential proliferation. So we would ask that you potentially amend the language to allow for a 400-foot separation so I don't have to come back through a waiver process. If there's any interest, I don't know, maybe bumping this up to a site plan level four, so this has to go before commission if this is a proposed use or a level three. We're open to anything. I just don't want to, my whole point is I don't want to go back and get through a waiver. So thank you so much. If I could provide a quick clarification. So the waiver would be processed with the conditional use request, so there wouldn't be an extra hearing involved. I understand that this isn't particularly convenient for this particular operator, but again, we were trying to evaluate for the whole corridor, not just one particular beneficiary of the amendment. So, but again, the waiver would go with the conditional use. Thank you. Okay. I'll start. I do like, first of all, that we're putting the requirements of that setback so that, because right now it is, it's an eyesore. I mean, it absolutely, it is. So it needs to have whatever that, can you put up the other, the last slide? That's what, I just want to make sure these, these conditions are going to require, make sure that he comes back with something like this, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. Because that's going to help mitigate what's there now. I don't have a problem with, with, first of all, I'd rather have industrial there, something industrial there than what Live Local Act could allow if we don't, because if he can't survive there, he's going to sell it, right? So the other alternatives I'm not crazy about. I also don't know, the thousand foot, I get it. I don't see where else they're going to be putting concrete. I mean, if anything, we're going away from concrete plants. I mean, they're, the hard drives is down, is one less, is gone, which was a huge concrete plant that's going to be residential now. I'd be okay with, with reducing that to 400 feet, you know, if you want something in there. But I do get the applicant's concern. We've, the commission has said over and over again, and every campaign they run on, right, is we don't want to approve waivers, and now we're going to force to put that in them in order to get this. And this is, they, this board already approved it, right, originally, and then they sent it back to us saying, you know, come up with an ordinance to make it work so it's not spot zoning. So that's why I think the 400 was, right, essentially. So I, again, I'm for it, but I'd like to offer an amendment to 400 feet instead of 1,000 so that they can potentially, because this is what we're dealing with, and they don't have to go through that waiver as well as the site. That's all I have. I'll pass. I agree with Mitch. Okay. This is Monica. I totally agree with Mitch. Wow. It's a first for everything. The second time. Mr. Cohen. Me? Yeah. My only comment would be splitting hairs. I mean, Mr. Schilder, what's the distance that your site is, 451 and change? Yeah, it was measured. Granted, this is a measurement with the property appraisers. It's not a survey or anything like that. If you want to, I mean, I would. I saw I wouldn't do 450. I'm giving a 50. You want to do 425? I would go 450. Let's go 450. Yeah, but what if it's a foot off it? Yeah, what if it's a foot off it? Yeah, what if it's a foot off it? It's got to do it. 425. 425. That's fine. I agree 100% on Mitch, except for the 400. I'll accept that change. Whatever. Okay. You want to say something? I was confused about the number of concrete plants we do have right now, and it's Rebecca's statement that... And where are they? Yeah. They're on the report. Where is it? Yeah, me too. They're for it. It's funny. I barely see C-Mix, and I drive that every day. It's 95 at Atlantic Avenue. There we go. That's C-Mix, right? Yeah, that's C-Mix, which is shockingly how good a job they do hiding that. That's a dumb part of that. It is. I'm telling you. It's right out the west. Supermix is Marty Fladell. Yeah, Supermix is ugly. That's an eyesore. Wait, no. I like the map better. The reason I switched to this, and I'll go back to the other one. Okay, so that one is way down south and southwest, and the other three are within that. The other three are within that radius, so when you go back to the radius map, this shows... Oh, the yellow one. Yeah, all county we approved recently. Yes, and it was in the district that allowed it. Yeah, right there. Yeah, you do. You'll see it. So, okay, so we got the three that are there, and then the other one is in all county. And the one that was north of Atlantic and at Congress? That's a... That purple one is on... That horizontal road is Marty Fladell Drive. Yeah, the purple one is Supermix. Supermix, yeah. The thing above it is the Frederico's demolition. That's... That's what I'm wondering, yeah. Yeah. So, basically, there's two within 1,000 feet, but the purple one and the blue one are within 1,000 feet of each other. They are. Even though you don't have a circle there. If they're already approved, they'd be grandfathered. Yeah, but that's my question is about the grandfather. So, the problem with the gunite... The new, I wouldn't be grandfathered. The Calabash gunite is it's still not approved, right? That would create... So, we're asking... We're trying to get it approved, and the council agreed with me that this is the way to do it, not the way you tried to do it before. Right. Essentially, yeah. Yeah, but... Yeah, so the other uses are vested. If they were to expand it or if they were to cease operations and another one didn't start within 180 days, then they would lose that vesting. But, yes, correct. I've got to say, I like the 1,000 feet, but I think it presents too big of an obstacle to common sense. I think reduce it... Wasn't that part of its purpose? No, I mean, in this particular case, huh? To create an obstacle to common sense. I just think... I just... Personally, I've heard this... I was here for the presentation earlier. Or in the past, I should say. About a year ago. And I... And... No, some of you weren't. Not on the board. Just three of us. Yeah. And I wasn't... I support the gun factory, and I always did. I think it's a very reasonable thing to have in that location, in the city. And, like I said, I like the 1,000 feet, but I think it's probably appropriate to modify it, as you said, in order to make this process go forward. Thank you. And I don't think that a bunch of people, and I don't think that a bunch of people are going to come in at 400 feet north and try and put in another concrete flat. Well, there's a lot of good... Those are newer retail there. I mean, there's like... There's newer buildings north. Yeah, yeah. There's one right next door that they won't be able to build. Right. There's not a lot of empty lots there that they could put in the concrete. Yeah, I don't think it's an adequate... Personally, I think it's an adequate buffer. And I think it expedites trying to do what the city needs. Go, Mitch. Ready? I move recommendation approval of Ordinance Number 17-24, a city-initiated amendment to Section 4.4.19, Mixed Industrial and Commercial M.I.C. District of the Land Development Regulations to establish gunite and other concrete products, manufacturing, distribution as a conditional use, and to adopt regulations governing the use into Section 4.4.20, Industrial District 2, to make the identified types of concrete products consistent with LDR Section 4.4.19 by finding that the amendment and approval, therefore, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, meets the Comprehensive Set-Fourth and Land Development Regulations with the one change that, instead of 1,000 feet, it will be 425 feet separation. Sorry, wait, what did we say? 425, yeah. That's it. I was playing with it. I make sure I remember the number right. Motion by Mr. Katz, second by Mr. Strong. And Ms. Miller, if you'd call the roll again, please. Deitra Strong. Yes. Jim Chard. Yes. Price Patton. Yes. Judy Malika. Yes. Mitch Katz. Yes. Roger Cope. Yes. Gregory Snyder. Yes. Thank you so much. And thank you, Seth. And thank you, and also you're welcome. Apparently we're going to see you again. You'll see me again. You guys are like a bad penny. You're never going to get rid of me. I would like to see these guys operate legally. They stopped producing pennies. They're going to get rid of them completely. Be careful. I know. Thank you, everybody. A little bit, but I've sold enough of it before this night. All right. Staff comments. I think just your two upcoming meetings. The next one is March 16th, which is much closer than usual because we had to move back a week for this meeting. And then April 20th. March 16th. 16th. 1-6. The day before St. Patrick's Day. April 20th. April 20th. 2-0. Got to wear green. Okay. And not be hungover from the parade. Oh, dear. Board attorney comments, Mr. Bennett. Nothing, Chair. Thank you. Okay. Board comments. Any? No? No. Mr. Bennett. No, I'm good. I've got two brief ones. And not surprisingly, they're about trees. Is that the? I'm not a one-trick pony, but tonight I'm. Is that the gumbo? No, it's not the gumbo. It's not for here. But we keep saying this one-for-one replacement. And it's meaningless because if you are taking down a tree that's 75 years old and you're putting one in that's five years old, it's not a one-for-one replacement in any sense other than the number. It's not a one-for-one replacement in terms of environment, in terms of clean air, in terms of cooling effect. And I think we just have to have better metrics to understand what we're doing to our environment when we do that. The other thing that I kept hearing tonight, particularly on the one on Southwest Nth, is you're not going to see it. Well, it's in the back. Trees aren't eye candy. They are a part of the environment. And just saying, because you can't see back there, it doesn't make any difference if you kill them. And I think that we really have to look at it not from their just, their beauty or their appearance or their shading of the street, but what they contribute to our life and our lifestyle. Yes. If I can add to that. If you're going to, if we're going to. All right, you go. Then I'll say something. Something to me to decide. You go first. With regard to in-look bees, do they talk about the circumference of this? That's what my comment is. I thought that it wasn't a one for one. I thought it was a DBH. It should be, but we didn't hear that tonight. So I went through this in my community. And this is why I have a problem with it as well, the way we do do it. It's not based on width. It's based on the height of the tree. So if you have a thousand foot royal palm tree, right, that provides no shade, nothing to the environment, that is how they're measuring your cost. And that is more expensive to get rid of a beautiful oak tree that's only 30 feet tall. So it just, the way we're measuring it has to be looked at. So I do have the regulations up here. Where trees with a 50% or greater are required to do equivalent caliper inches of trees. If it's less than 50%, that's when you go to the tree one-to-one basis. And there's no calculation for size. The 50% is assuming it's dead or diseased and not healthy. And then for palms, it's the same thing. It would be comparable size and species if it's 50% rating or greater. And less than 50%, it's the palm-to-palm basis. So it's about the rating. So they've got to go to arborist to say it's dying. Well, that's easier to think. You can already do that. You can already do that. Are you saying, there's a lot to unpack there, but one thing is, are you saying if the tree is diseased, it doesn't need to be replaced? It does, but just on a tree-by-tree basis, if it's the 50% rating or higher, that's where it has to be caliper for caliper. So if you have a, I don't know my trees, well, if you have a 20 dBH tree, you have to put in equivalent of 20 dBH. Of the same kind of tree, not replacing a deciduous tree, a canopy tree with palms. No. I thought there was a thing that three palms were equal to a tree. There is, but does that make any sense? Not a lot. There's only certain circumstances where you would be allowed to do the palm instead of trees. So our landscape planner is the expert on this portion of the code, and I don't know it as well as I should. So I hesitate to give you too many more answers beyond that. But what we could do is prepare some materials and send it over to the board. And then if at that point you would like further clarification, we can look into what we would need to do to discuss further. But we could start with sending out the information on the program, or the requirement of the LDR not a program. It's required. So we could start with that if that is agreeable. There's also a lot of fudging on what is and isn't a native. Like, red-coat cocoa plum is not a native, and yet it's always presented in the landscape plant. Those son of a gun. Well, they're trying to earn their money. Of course. But that's all. Go ahead. I do have one thing. You may go, and then you may go. Okay. Am I, not on that, I just am on my time, or, are you done with your time? Okay. Yeah, he is. All right. We'll go through. Well, I think Roger had it. Go ahead. Roger first. Are you on the landscaping? If you want to, yeah. Yeah, because I'm, mine's on landscaping, so. This is separate. Did you have something? Yes. No. Yeah. Is that okay, man? Yes. That's why I said, let me go first, and I've got peanut stuck here. Well, Jim, you referenced the Southwest 10th project, and maybe because it's in the back of the property, it didn't matter that much, but I don't think that was my intent at all. I mean, I may have said that, but at the end of that specific item, he's getting rid of the four, what he said, were black olives, which is a terrible tree to have on any property, but we've got them all over the city, and he came back with all the species that he identified, the gumbo limbos and the palms and the silver inwards. So I thought those were fabulous replacement species that were just way nicer than any black olive. Yeah, I was trying to make an objective point, that just because it's out of sight doesn't mean it isn't contributing to the environment. Right. And so we, but we also talked about his numbers, his sheer numbers, you know, he's got rid of four, and he added whatever he added, eight or nine or ten. So I didn't see anything negative in those two aspects of analyzing his project. I'm at the reduction in the landscape island itself. If, I thought, because it was where it was, was more approvable because it was in the back than if it were in the front, then more obvious or more likely to be seen by a public right away. Okay. Mr. Katt. So if Jim is the landscape guy, I'm going to be the 15-pound sack guy. And this comes to, the only way we're going to get developers to get better projects that fit within our LDRs is being willing to say no eventually. Because they, they, they're going to continue to push the envelope and push the envelope as long as we allow them to push the envelope. So we have to decide, and it's up to us as, you know, planning members and the city commission eventually is, is what do we want? Do we want six stories? Do we want seven stories? Do we want to allow these stuffing every inch of the city? So that, that's, I just wanted to say that in general, I think we, we as a community got to figure out, do we want to force developers to fix their numbers so that they can meet our code? Or are we just going to continue to make, you know, give them those exceptions? That's all I have. We did. We gave my, which they also, that was, that was that, the third, yeah, they, the, it was decorative. It was decorative, but they went to succeed. We did not give them height. No, that, that, there was three things. Yeah, but they all had to do with setback. Yeah, they were allowed to go that way. They didn't have to do it. They were. But they wouldn't have even needed that. There are no variances to expand the footprint within the setback. But they expanded the footprint because they. Well, they were above the third floor. Without having the, the, if you, you wouldn't need as much, if you have less footprint, then you need less parking. You can now accommodate the other things. Yes, of course. Anyway, I, I agree with Mitch, but the zoning allows it, and. . . Except we had to give the waivers. We had to give the waivers. That's what I mean. I mean, we had to allow them to not meet the, the, the regulations. It wasn't in order to do four stories. Well, that's true. Well, yeah, but you can't achieve the four stories because you can, eventually you say, can I, if I need to have the parking, I'm going to have to build smaller. Yeah, and what he's saying is, because it's four stories, it has more space and more residents, so they need more parking and they need more space on the ground. Also, because it's four stories, in the sale transaction, they can demand more for the property, and so that just. . . Well, that's what I mean. That's, that's what it's driving. The economics is driving. I get it. Again, I'm happy to at least. . . Purely economic. Because everyone. . . And I, I agree with that. I was happy with the retail. I'm beautiful with it. I just wish they would have taken that gorgeous building and made it three stories. But it is what it is, so that's it. At least he had the parking. He could have came to us and said, we know he want to park here, yeah. You're right, they could have said that. The Art Deco Project downtown behind Dock's got 50% of their parking in low. Is that right? Oh, the. . . Yeah. I mean. . . That project that might or might not get started. The one that's. . . It'll never get low. The one that's never going to start that supposedly has a construction line. The old Dunkin' Donuts is what you're going to call it. Yeah, yeah. Down there. The whole. . . Supposedly has a construction line. Supposedly just close on the construction line. Okay, supposedly. We'll see when we see. . . I want to see some. . . When I see. . . Hey, bro, I want to see some shovels in the ground, as they say. Okay. Is that it? We're done. Go home. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.