Planning and Zoning Board on 2026-05-18 5:01 PM - May 18, 2026

No, it said, I went to the website the other day and it said, I think it said established. I can't remember. I think he'll be back. Six, seven, eight years. Okay. All right. We have the 2015 timing. I can do it. Tell them we're live. We're live. Yeah. Let's go. We're live yesterday. Yeah, I took it. I had so much fun. We're close to the chair. It's on now. Could you call the road please? What did you do? Karen Gizaleski. Mr. Katz. Here. Deidre Strong. Present. Jim Chard. Here. Glad to be back. Bryce Patton. Here. Roger Cope. Here. Gregor Snider is absent. Okay. Is there any changes to the agenda? No changes? Move to approve. Okay. Second. I'll second it. You can't second it. You can't second it. That's right. Roger has to second it. Second. All in favor? Aye. I need to roll to it. There are no minutes. So if anyone from the public wishes to speak, could you rise and stand and be sworn in please? Come back and do it again. Please raise your right hand by the authority of us to be the notary of the state of Florida. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Are there any members of the public who wish to address the board on any item that is not on tonight's agenda? Seeing none, public comment is closed. Quasi-judicial, right? Okay, I have to read into the record 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 that person represents an organization or a group of people who are present but agree not to speak. The city commission, board members, staff, and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine a witness. The city or the applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not legally be made upon personal views as to whether a project is a good project or not, nor may a decision be based on the number of citizens who support or oppose a particular project. The law requires that all discussions must be made on the basis of whether the project meets the requirements of law, the comprehensive plan, and the land development regulations. We are moving on to our first quasi-judicial hearing. Delray Swan, will you please introduce the case to the record? Good evening, board. For the record, Alexis Rosenberg, Senior Planner with Development Services. And I'd like to enter into the record city case file number 283-2025, which is a level three site plan for the 14 referenced properties known as Delray Swan. And I'm here with Jeffrey Costello, who's the agent for the application. How long does he have to present? 20 minutes? 20 minutes? Eight and a half. I can't remember. Chair, the local rules would be 10 minutes. 10 minutes? And I'll double check. Do you want me to do the timer for you as your chair? Yes. So it gets 10 minutes. We need to do ex parte. Oh, yeah. Ex parte. Roger? You know, they say that you don't necessarily drive by a site unless you look for it in a specific manner in which it's being presented tonight. I've driven by the site a million times, but I drove it by one more time today to make sure it's still there. So that, I also have a client that's on one of the out parcels adjacent to it, or immediately adjacent to it. So I'm intimately familiar with that corner, and I had a brief telephone conversation with Mr. Costello, and I think that's it. Good. Mr. Strong? Yes. I drove by the site and had a conversation with Mr. Costello. Here. I think drove by and had a conversation. Mitch? Mr. Costello. I did not drive by this time. Mr. Costello? Mr. Costello and a drive-by. I was sad to see Remus was no longer there, but there we go. Chair, just a correction, under the local rules, quasi-judicial items, the applicant has 15 minutes to make their presentation. 15? Yes. Okay, well, we compromise. So you have 15 minutes. Oh, jeez. Hey, don't worry. Hey, want to give me an exparte real quick? Here, give me the timer, Bammar. I got it set for you. At 15 minutes, sir. Just in time. Okay. He's just about to start his presentation. All we do is give an exparte. Yeah. Okay. Please continue. Good evening, Chair, Board Members. Jeff Costello, JC Planning Solutions, representing the applicant with me tonight, Gary Eliopoulos and Carol Perez. Going to go through the presentation and, you know, stop me when you need to. Here we are. This project is at the southwest corner of 2nd Avenue and 2nd Street, Zone CBD. That's in the railroad corridor. Just a little bit of background. You have a very detailed staff report in your backup. This is existing conditions. The existing structures were demolished recently. This is a couple views of the site. To the east, north and south is zoned CBD. To the west, the zoned RM. In 2023, there was an approved site plan for mixed-use development, five-story, 165 units. It included workforce housing, a multi-story parking garage. The proposal now, and these are just some of the site details that are provided for you. These are the elevations. This is facing east. This was west. Now, the proposal is for 36-unit, three-story townhouse development, three-bed, three-and-a-half-bed, two-car garage, amenity area, private, internal access driveway. We'll get more detail at the other site plan. There have been right-of-way dedications required along 2nd Avenue, 1st Avenue, corner clips, and extensive on-street parking designed for the city street standards along all the streets surrounding, 31 on-street parking spaces. I'm going to turn it over quickly to Gary Olapas. He's going to go through the site plan and the elevations floor plans, and then I'll come back to you. Good evening. For the record, our address at GE Architecture is 1045 East Atlantic Avenue. As Jeff described briefly, you know, there was a previous project that was approved. You know, you're going to see a major change in density, a major change in height. One of the things that we did was where you do see along the top of the screen, you see Building 1, 2, and 3. There you have your traditional stoops as per the LDRs. You have your landscape features, and Jeff did hit upon the on-street parking that we're providing along there. What we did internally was took the garages and had them face each other. So we were actually trying to take that look away from the public eye, and actually everywhere you drive around this site, you'd be seeing the front of the buildings. The more exciting part that we feel about this site is actually the civic public space that we provided all along the east side. What happened was the previous project did have it, and they met the code. But we've actually doubled the square footage in the green space on this project and created a true walk-along of the green area that you'd be able to, for the pedestrians to enjoy. Our amenities building is along the southeast side of the project with a pool and bathrooms in an outdoor kitchen area. Jeff briefly talked about our units. The units are pretty simple. They are all three-story. We have actually three models that they have, which is called the saltwater. We have the Marlow, and we have the oak shores. The difference is really just the bedroom counts. On the ground floor in purple, right there, it's basically what we call flex space. It could be a den, office space. When you get to the upper floor, which would be the middle, we have an open floor plan. That is typical for all our units. Both of these floors have covered porch areas for the residents. When you get to the top floor, in our other units, this is where we change. The purple are representing the bedroom. So in this particular unit, you have three bedrooms on the top floor, and you have your flex space on the ground floor. And then you'll see how the other units change. We also broke up these buildings. So you have two-unit buildings. We have five units, six and seven. That also helps break up the undulation of the elevations. I'll just kind of go through here quick. Here you're seeing on the end units, you've got three bedrooms, and then as you go interior, you get two bedrooms on the top floors. Now, we've reduced the square footages. They all range a couple hundred square feet off from each other, giving the buyer an option. Here's your six-unit building. These buildings, too, what we do, a lot of the elevations when we get to them, we really were trying to get a lot of the symmetry, flipping things, and, again, breaking them up with all kinds of porches and ins and outs, again, the top floor. And then you go to a seven-unit building. Again, all similar plans. Every unit has a two-car garage. As Jeff mentioned, we also have the on-street parking. So the criteria is, I believe, for this site, we would have 78 spaces. We provided a total of 105 for parking. Now, granted, a lot of it is on-street parking, and that was the 31 or 30 spaces that he talked about. And we do have the couple interior by the amenities building. So there are the elevations. So here's kind of an important thing. So when you talk about the previous project, the previous project had its architectural features, which were Flemish gable ends. They went over 60 feet in height or right about there. When you talk about our building, residential structures, the 35-foot is the mean roof height that you can go to a sloping roof. We're at 38, and that's for a single family is 35. So it really does go to show you how we brought the scale and the massing down on this project. Again, you're going to see on all the units, the garages are all faced internally. You're seeing the horizontal lines. That's our lap siding that's going around. We've introduced shutters everywhere. And, again, you're seeing the porches that were breaking up these elevations. We also have these Boston hips, again, trying to create some interest in the architecture going around the site. Most of the facades look like this, but then you'll see how we just break them up again with the various units as we keep adding to them. Again, the back sides, and then you go to the front, and there's our seven-unit building. Again, we really do think this project has a special public civic space that not only do the public get to enjoy it, but actually the residents do. One of the code part is that you've got to have eyes on this park. All our units are actually facing this area, so you will constantly be having people being able to see the park, and you'll have the general public be able to also experience it as they walk through the project. This would be right along Southeast 1st Street, where you do see our landscaping. You see our on-street parking. Another shot looking down that way. Again, we're introducing benches and wastebaskets. We've got dog spaces for their watering and for them to put their bags away. Another shot. This is our amenities building. It's a real simple building. In the green is the men and women's bathroom. In the center part, we actually have a storage for the pool equipment area. And along the covered area, we've got our basically outdoor grill area, and we have our fountain for drinking. Architecture is falling right in line with what we're proposing for the townhouses. In the sense that we do have lap siding. We do have the Boston Hips, and we create a little architectural feature that is facing the street along the south side there on the right. And these are just your side views. Again, also having decorative shutters and windows. We get natural light inside the bathrooms. Another little quick rendering of that. Throughout the site, we do have bike racks for the entrances so that people can be using those. And there's just looking down at the pool. I'm going to turn it back over to Jeff. Jeff, if you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer any. Thank you. Thank you. With regard to the required findings, positive findings can be made with regard to LDR section 3.1.1. Regarding the land use map, the CBD zoning is preferred in the commercial core land use designation. Multifamily dwellings are allowed. CC allows a maximum floor area of 3. We're providing 1.1. And the previous project was at 2.9. The density is at 16.5 dwelling units to the acre where 30 is permitted. The previous allowed was at, so if we were to max out, it would be 70 units. But the previous development was at 165. With regard to concurrency, positive findings can be made. There are no level of service standards with regard to this particular site. There is some information in your backup regarding sewer service. This particular site, it involves relocating. If, well, anyway, through the center of the site, I'll say. There's an existing old sewer main. We're relocating. We're providing all new infrastructure, new sewer main, water mains on the perimeter of the site. Those areas highlighted in red, those are services to the adjacent properties that we're going to accommodate, basically upgrading their services. There's a clay pipe adjacent to the condos to the north. We are replacing that. Yeah, hey, okay. So, yeah, so that sewer main comes along this property line. We're replacing that, providing these connections down here. We've met with the adjacent property owner, and we'll work out any services to this to connect to the sewer. So, right now, we do have a letter that, you know, was provided to utilities from the adjacent property owner, and we'll continue to work with them as we work on final engineering plans. With regard to consistency, the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, specifically the neighborhood districts and corridors element, including the downtown Delray Beach master plan and the Osceola Park neighborhood plan. Standards for site plan actions are listed on the screen. The development proposal meets the applicable standards. The redevelopment proposal adheres to the CBD form-based regulations and meets the purpose and intent of the CBD and fosters compact pedestrian-oriented growth that will support downtown businesses. With regard to the compliance with the LDRs, it complies with the 4.4.13, the CBD regulations, as well as site lighting, loading, site visibility. There is some information on your backup regarding some technical items. We're working with staff to address those. And just comply with code, even as it relates to some minor issues with lighting, as well. With regard to the development itself, again, we're at 16.5 units to the acre permitted. It's 30 units to the acre. 70 units were proposed in 36. The floor area ratio is 1.1, where 3 is allowed. We're proposing 3 stories, where 5 is permitted. With regard to the architectural style, Gary touched on, it's the Anglo-Caribbean. We meet the stoops, frontage-type requirements, civic open space we exceed, parking exceed, and the streetscape standards. With regard to the loading, we did this item we'll discuss with you all, but the request is basically the justification to not provide a loading berth. And typically, if you look at the guidelines in 4.6.10, it does not really address or suggest any loading berths for residential, such as single-family, duplex, townhouses. It does identify apartments, like an apartment complex, but it's silent with regard to other residential development. There's sufficient space within the alley. The alley's 24 feet wide, as you can see. In this one section, it's 20, which you're allowed a typical alley with is 20 feet. I call this an alley, even though it's an internal access road, but it serves as that. So there's adequate space within this area to accommodate the move-in and move-out for these residents. It's short-term, it's a rare occurrence. With regard to the mail kiosk, it's in this area adjacent to the amenity building. And so we feel there's adequate justification to not provide a loading berth. With regard to the landscape findings, positive findings can be made that the proposed landscape plan is compliant with LDR Section 4.6.16. Extensive landscaping, increasing the number of trees. These are quality trees now, and I know that we'll have some conversation about trees, but these are quality and will provide a well, heavily landscaped development. Gary, again, touched on all the architectural elevations. Positive findings can be made with 4.6.18 E.1 through 3, the criteria for board action. And we appreciate your support and approval. Don't you wish. Thank you. Thank you. Before we go to staff, can I say I was not here for ex parte, and I did speak to Mr. Costello. Good evening again, Alexis Rosenberg, for the record. So I will try not to be too repetitive, but just recapping on the request again. So this is for a Level 3 site plan for the construction of 36 townhomes, including a determination of adequacy for the minimum loading berth requirement. Going into the site information, the subject site is comprised of 14 parcels, totaling 2.36 acres prior to any right-of-way dedications. The land use designation is commercial core, and the zoning is central business district within the railroad corridor sub-district. The property is also surrounded by CBD zoning to the north, south, and east, and is across the street from medium-density residential to the west. The site does span just about an entire city block, and the existing use, or I guess I'll say previous uses, were comprised of light industrial, warehouse, and single-family, which has now been demolished. The proposed floor area ratio is 1.1, and the proposed density is 16.5 dwellings units per acre, which is substantially less than the maximum requirement. Going over some of the history, in 2021, the properties were approved for a land use map amendment from medium density to commercial core, and rezoned from medium density to central business district. In 2023, a Level 4 site plan with three waivers were approved to build a 165-unit, five-story mixed-use project, also utilizing the city's workforce housing revitalization incentive. And the site plan, while approved, has not been certified. So now before the board is the request for the Level 3 site plan for the 36-unit townhouse project, which, if approved, is the intended development for this site. So here's an aerial of the subject site and its surrounding uses. We have single-family and multi-family to the west, vacant land to the south, the FEC railway is to the east, and there's mixed-use to the north on that block. And here's another aerial. The top-right photo is a view of the subject property facing the southwest corner, and that bottom photo is the same view with the proposal included. These are a closer-up image of some of the surrounding properties. All the structures are located on the block except for the top-right photo, which includes single-family and multi-family residences to the west. And then, again, these are just going to go through some of the renderings that were included. So we have here is a view of the northwest corner. Then we have a view from southeast 1st Avenue, which is west. This would face the single-family and multi-family residences. Then we have a view of the southeast 2nd Avenue and the FEC railroad. So that's what would be facing that area. And then we have a view of the southwest corner, which is across the street from the vacant property. Now just going over the site plan again. So all of the units except for units 33 and 34, which are located right here, directly front a street. These two units, 33 and 34, do face a portion of the internal private drive aisle, which will be named for addressing purposes. We also have the pool amenities to the south and the public open space, which is provided in the form of an attached green on the west side. However, there are additional areas of green space that are still programmed as a civic open space. Looking at pedestrian connectivity, the required streetscape improvements are provided on all sides of the block. There's also walking paths that run through the civic open space and connect to the public sidewalks and internal crosswalks. And additionally, in pink, there are two 10-foot pedestrian passageways that are provided through the development. And it breaks up the block massing and provides enhanced connectivity to the east and west portions of the block. Just going now into the staff analysis. So level 3 site plans must comply with the performance standards. And all landscape and elevations shall comply with their respective required findings. So I know Mr. Costello touched on the land use map compatibility. So just diving a little bit more into the concurrency, as it relates to concurrency, water and sewer services will be provided through two new sanitary sewer lateral mains. As Mr. Costello mentioned, there are some outstanding review comments from the utilities department that are required to be addressed prior to site plan certification to ensure that the proposed sanitary sewer layout does not pose any detrimental impacts on the neighboring properties. Then going into traffic, the attached transportation performance standards letter from Palm Beach County and the traffic statement provided states that the proposal will generate approximately 124 new daily trips, which is 42 less daily trips than the previous level 4 site plan approval. Just want to also touch on solid waste. In regards to refuse disposal, Units 1 through 32 will be responsible for rolling out the trash bins to the edge of the internal drive aisle. Those are all the units that are facing that main internal drive aisle. Units 33 through 36, which are on the north side of the development, will roll their bins out to a trash collection area circled here in red, which has direct access to that internal drive aisle. Waste management, they did provide a letter confirming that trash pickup services can be provided to the site based on this configuration. Now going a little bit more into consistency with the Always Del Rey Comprehensive Plan. This speaks to quality redevelopment that's compatible with adjacent land uses and fulfills remaining land use needs. The project proposes a density that's under the allowed maximum, which provides an appropriate transition between the single-family and multifamily residences to the west and the FEC railway to the east. However, consider the overall consistency with the comp plan's housing policies when it comes to proposing a project with lower density but no commercial or workforce housing. The comprehensive plan also speaks to advancing complete street principles and encouraging safe and efficient pedestrian connectivity throughout the site, which the project does provide through their streetscape improvements and the stoop frontage types and internal cut-throughs that connect to the public streets or sidewalks. And then moving further into compliance with the land development regulations, again, I'll try not to be too repetitive, but regarding Criterion A, we do have some outstanding technical notes that have been made as required to be addressed prior to site plan certification when it comes to the minimum lighting at the entrances of buildings and then also to ensure that all perimeter lighting is full cut-off luminaires. Also, regarding the encouraging redevelopment that's compatible with surrounding uses and fulfilling remaining land use needs, the project does provide, again, a smooth transition along the Osceola Park neighborhood with its proposed density. However, consideration may be given as to whether three-bedroom unit townhomes is fulfilling a remaining land use need in the downtown. Also, touching on Criterion H, regarding the project's effect on neighboring development, again, there are technical notes on pages 16 and 17 of the staff report, and that addresses any remaining concerns such as lighting and utilities that will need to be addressed prior to certification to prevent any anticipated negative impacts on the surrounding area. Going a little bit more into the CBD requirements, So, as Mr. Costello stated, the CBD requirements are met regarding the stoop frontage types, the improved streetscape, required parking, 78 spaces are required, 105 are provided, 31 of those being on-street parking spaces, and the civic open space is met with the 6,969 square feet provided in the form of an attached green. There's also additional green space that is provided around the site that is also programmed as civic open space, just not included in the required amount. Going to lighting, just to get a little bit more specific, one of the technical comments is just requiring, it's circled in red here, just the lighting measurement to be increased from 0.9 foot candles to 1 foot candle in front of Unit 19, and then again to ensure that all the perimeter lighting is full cut-off lumineers. Going into the off-street loading, so the land development regulations provides guidelines for the number of... Sorry, am I almost out? That was long. I'll go over this really quickly. But yes, so again, the applicant is requesting to provide zero births instead of the required three, and has provided a loading demand statement that's included as an attachment. In green is where the more local FedEx, Amazon drop-offs could be performed next to the mail kiosk, and then a majority of the other loading services would be provided through the internal drive aisle in orange. Then just going into landscape, as mentioned, all the requirements have been met. There's 50% native trees provided, and the native remaining plant material is provided 25%, and the applicant's also paying a mitigation fee of $38,450. And then just going to quickly go through the architectural standards because staff did not have concerns with the architecture. A lot of the details that are being provided are true to the Anglo-Caribbean style that's being proposed, including gabled roofs, second floor balconies, and the neutral color palette with the green accents. These are the board motions, and with that, that concludes my presentation, so I'll be available for questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. At this point, I guess, the public comment, I believe. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to come and speak on this issue? Okay. Seeing no one, public comment's closed. Rebuttal by the applicant or rebuttal by the applicant? No rebuttal. Well, I just want to thank staff for working with us through this process, and I just want to mention a contractor, William Hatcher's here as well, if you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you. And Ms. Rosberg? No, we're all from the city. Nothing. Okay. I think that brings us to board comments. Who would like to start? Sir? Mr. Katz. So, just a question to Gary. You're able to, that's 24 foot, the driveway in between the townhomes. That's 24 foot, correct? Yes. Good. So, you're nice and pretty. That's what the city requires? Yeah, it's only where Jeff talked about you've got one lane coming down, going east-west. Right. That goes down to 20 feet, but there's no cars backing into that. Gotcha. But in between the houses, it's 24 feet? Yes. Good. That was really the only question I had, because I will say that Amazon drivers, they're going to be stopping. They're not going to go to that little thing. They go to the address, and they're going to, but as long as you have that extra, they can get around, so that. Gotcha. Yeah, and with, you know, it seems like deliveries, we do have parking internally. There's only a couple spaces that we did provide there for the amenities building, and the developers talked about, oh, that they would pull up there, but I think you're wrong. They're not going to pull up there. They're going to go. I've never seen them drive where they're supposed to go. No, never. Not once. That's a question, too. In parking, so there are driveways and garages, is that where the parking's going to be? Yeah, so, well, each unit has two garages, I mean two spaces in the garage. Okay. And then we have our on-street park, and no, there was a couple guest spots by the amenities building. One's handicapped, and one's a regular spot that's over there. Clarifying, too, on the, so we have 24-foot drive aisle width, but then between the drive aisle width and the garage, there's about three or four more feet, little driveway apron that leads into the garage. So there'll be, in the rear, there'll be little nodes, landscape nodes within the app, within the internal access truck. Gotcha. That's all I have. Great. Thanks. Mr. Chard. I wonder about the turn radius from the 20 to the 24 for garbage trucks. Yes, so as you can see on the screen, we have had that reviewed by waste management. That is the turn radius, and that works. And we've heard from the emergency fire rescue that they're not going to, really, rarely if they do go into there, because all the buildings are sprinkled, they would service from the adjacent streets. The waste management's letter there, they're comfortable with the design that we've provided. And if you, this here, let me get this. So what we did here, too, it's 20 feet. We widened it here at 24 feet for this section, so they could make that turn. So we were concerned with that, and so we provided additional width, while still maintaining the five-foot perimeter landscape. I was glad you mentioned the planning in the alley. That's one of my favorite things in Delray, on some of these homes on Federal, they have beautiful plantings in the alleys. Jeff, as you know, I was questioning the colors, and I'd like if Gary could address it. I have two concerns. And can we see an elevation where that one will do? My concerns are twofold. One is, and I now see there is color. I couldn't quite tell that in what we had in our comment. But here I'm wondering if that color is too light to even make a distinction, and the fact that the colors appear to be the same on all buildings. And I'm just wondering, from a design point of view, why you might not have distinguished one building from another. It was more the developer's choice. But, I mean, architecturally, I think that when you're driving into this complex, you clearly know it is all one complex. You know, when we start introducing all these colors, sometimes it gets so busy, and somebody's going to be describing, well, what color was it? Well, I couldn't find it. You know, this, it's just basically the address. But I think this is cleaner. It's crisp. And it's definitely Floribene, if you will, with the light color. We've got the accent with the shutters. We've got the dark garage doors and the front doors. So we felt, with the roof tile, because we bring down the lower level, that it broke it up. But that was the reason. We wanted to go more simple and clean. You know, we just felt a little bit of dash on the lap siding would be it, as opposed to trying to break it up. The base that you see everywhere is all stucco, and that's consistent throughout. But that was the reason. What about the shade of the color of the green? To go darker? You mean? Yeah, we can consider that. I don't think that's an issue. So, if I can comment on that, I will tell you, I've gone through now communities that are, like, gone through these color schemes from 20 years ago and now having to do. And I will say, the lighter colors, less sharpening is definitely what's in right now. And then it can change again in 20 years when they paint them again. But I'm seeing that, like, white. I mean, everybody's just white. White, white, white. Well, that's my concern. But this at least, but I think, I see color, and I think it, because I think you need some color there because of where it's at in Osceola Park, you know, because Osceola Park in general has a lot of character to it. You know, you live there. I live there. And I think it does enough to. We're very colorful. I think it's enough to address that and also keep the modern, what people are going to want to pay for it. Yeah, one of the things that gets a little confusing, too, is it's the way the architecture is right now. Some of the units do actually cross, if you will, where you might get, when you take a color, it can get confusing. And that's why we actually went with a cleaner look, because we want you to be able to actually see the individual units versus them blending together. Was there any consideration given to mixed use on the property? Partly due to historically, it's kind of an industrial zone. The sausage factory used to be just across the street there and things like that. I did the sausage factory. I'm very familiar with the sausage factory. It's the only one I ever did, but I did do it. But your proposal for that property was never done. No. No, it wasn't. So, no. I mean, when they came to us, it was strictly residential. The mixed use was not discussed. I think it's because it's the same developer, same client that did the previous project. And I'm not sure if that was just, if he was overwhelmed with it due to the size and everything, because he had everything going on there and just said, I really want to get this simple and clean. I just want to do residential. It is a bit of a hike to shops and amenities and restaurants. I mean, as much as we want Delray to be walkable and stuff like that, in reality, it's, how should I say, it's very hot out there. And you're not going to usually get people to walk too far off the avenue. Yeah. Would it be neat to have a little neighborhood, little grocery store or something like that? But the reality is it's harder with the deliveries and everything. And so you do find that we're not going to get those type of tenants. And I take that from our clients saying it, not me knowing it. All right. Were there any steps taken to mitigate the train noise in terms of the glass or insulation or anything? Well, only the fact that we just have all impact and everything. We were just hoping the train would stop. Hopefully you weren't counting on that. Well, the bright line might be, they might be out of business by tomorrow. No, you know, as far as, I mean, the walls, everything is concrete block. I mean, you know, we're doing our best. But one of the things I think you find is that when you actually live near the tracks, and this is just architecturally speaking, you live there, you get used to it. Okay. If I'm in a hotel and that train goes by, I'm going to be upset. I'm going to complain at the front desk. But you do get used to hearing a train and going by. But these buildings are built very solid as much as we can to code and everything. But no, we didn't go with like double insulated glass. One of the things is that when you go with the double insulated glass, we have what they call mutton patterns everywhere. Well, it gets sandwiched in and the windows actually look fake. So what happens is these will look more architecturally correct with the patterns on the outside. But I don't think that totally answered your question, but it's going to be as soundproof as we can do. Piggyback what he was discussing. So the Civic Open Space, that's why it was designed, the site, to provide somewhat of that transition from the tracks to the buildings themselves, basically setting them back further. So if you think about it, those are almost like the rear yards of the former residents. So shifting it to the west and providing that green, that Civic Open Space, heavily landscaped, to provide even more of that. That does get me to trees. There are a lot of trees that are being proposed to be removed here, some of which are natives and some of which are highly, are in good shape, 70%, 60%. But almost all of them are proposed to be removed. And I realize there's in-lieu fees and all involved, but from the photos that were provided, there were a lot of trees that looked pretty healthy in terms of their shape and size and so forth. And I was just wondering if couldn't some of those be moved on site to the public area, for example, or along the sidewalks so they wouldn't have to walk in the heat? I'm an expert in landscaping, but I also have Carol Perez, who's actually a little better. Hi, Carol. Hi, I'm Carol Perez, 132 North Swinton Avenue, AGT Land. Most of the trees on site were under 50%. There was 63% of the trees were under 50%. And very few were native. Out of the 77 trees on site, there was only 17 that were native trees. So a replacement, we're putting in 92 trees, and 65 of those are native. So we're really improving the canopy and all the native trees that are going to do well. Can I dispute that a little bit? Absolutely, because I went through it thoroughly today. Yes, you can. Mr. Chair says I can. You have a couple of trees here that are native, live oaks, Quercus, Virginiana, that are rated 60%. Yeah, I said we had a 22% native, but out of the 77 trees, 49 of them were less than 50%. So 63% of the trees on site were under 50%, which... And I understand that. I'm not trying to dispute the fact that some of them have to go, but there are some that seem to be certainly fits within what the city wants in terms of native plants, and they are rated 60%, 70%. Okay, so yes, so some of these were rated okay. However, many of them were in, like, parking, some of them were in parking lot islands where you couldn't even relocate them. You couldn't even get them out to relocate, you know, because they've got the curbs around them or asphalt on top of the roots. So we dealt with that, and also the entire site will be graded, and then new infrastructures going in with water, sewer, and all the drainage. So to relocate was really not feasible for all these trees on site. We kept, you know, we have the oak that was on the Remus property we kept, and then we really just went in and re-landscaped with so many native trees. I would say we have a very large project here in Delray that isn't too far from us right now that did remove the trees so they could clear the land and then brought them back a year or two later. So, you know, that is a thought. The other thing is, obviously, the fruit trees are not native, but they do lend a certain tropical flavor to the environment, and I think you're proposing to remove all of them. We did. And there's no wish on the part of the applicant to have some fruit trees in the public space or on property? I think the bigger thing was to have the native trees, and that goes with code. We went over – code is 50%. We went to 65%. So we don't have the fruit trees, but we do have flowering trees. I mean, we could change some out to fruit trees if the client, you know, is agreeable. But for the most part, we stuck with flowering trees and shade trees. You know, that may be a preference for fruit for some folks, but I think typically when you're dealing with the type of development, then you're dealing with maintenance as well. And I know in some cases you may experience road tip issues. That's something you don't always want to put in a new development. If later on the association wants to do it, have at it. But that's not what you typically go in with. I know it's not typical. That's kind of why I was raising the question. And then just one last thing, Jeff. You and I talked about this, and maybe you and Gary and Carol can explain it to me. What qualifies this building for LEED Silver? LEED Silver. It has to be LEED certified. So, as you go through, for instance, even the building code, there's certain, and then when you're dealing with all the other aspects, that there are items that qualify. Even the design of it being a new urbanist ties in with those standards. So, with regard to the LEED certificate, we would be dealing with that with regard to as we get into the permitting stage. And, you know, is there a specific item you're looking for as far as you say what qualifies it? No, I just know the scale in gold and silver and so forth and the points. And so, the code is 7.1, .11, which deals with the green building, and it qualifies as one that the city adopts. So, it could be Florida Green Building Coalition. It could be the LEED. What are the others? There's Florida Green Building. Jeff and Gary, can you just make sure you're all the way up at the podium so they can catch on the microphone? Oh, sorry. Thank you. Go ahead. Yeah, so there's several levels, and as Jeff pointed out, the point system, right? So, the point system can be everything from not only the green space, but what we're providing in the green space. When it comes to the buildings, it's going to be the HVAC system. You know, what sear level are we going with that? You already mentioned the glass. The glass is going to be low E. We get points for that. The roofing system. We're doing isonene in the roof for insulation. We get points for that. We're doing the foil back, and we're doing what they call a core fill 500 within the walls of the exterior. So, all these things will build up the points. What's going to happen is the developer will be actually hiring a separate accredited professional that will actually look at every single thing. This will go through even our lighting, whatever lights we're going with. You know, all your appliances, right? All your appliances will have certain levels that will all build up this point, but it's going to be more with the developer when they go into that level that they'll do it. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Just to add to that real quick, the requirement is established now, and then the technical note was added that the documentation providing, you know, the point system will have to be provided at time of permit, and that's checked before the permit can get approved to make sure that they're approved. That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you. Okay. You want to go? Yeah, sure. You know, I forgot. I actually talked to Carol Perez before the meeting, so added to my ex parte disclosure. I love the green space in the front. I like the scale and the style and the articulation and the massing of the architecture. My one question is sort of for staff and everything, too, is the request to not have any offloading zones when three are required. I mean, once we go down this slope, isn't there going to be another person to provide the loading spots? I don't think, and I'm just wondering, it's on the, it's on the, it's in the LDRs for the reason it makes, it seems obvious, right? It's in the LDRs because people move in and out of these townhomes, and it creates a traffic jam when there are moving vans there for a day at a time, correct? Yes, so I'll let Alexis answer the particulars of this, but I will say that we've been talking internally about whether this actually applies to townhouse-type apology or whether it should just apply to multifamily. So, in general, I think we, as a department, feel like it's too much, possibly, for townhouses. And now I'll let Alexis answer the particulars. Yes, so we've been seeing this more and more with a lot of the projects coming in downtown, and typically, like Mr. Casello mentioned, in the LDR, it establishes the guidelines, and it has the different types of uses. And in this particular area, it says multifamily, or sorry, it says apartments. So, like Ms. Dossary was saying, we were looking at possibly how we're going to interpret that or change the code. But in this particular case, for example, with the previous approval, it was multifamily. It was over 165 units, and there was no internal drive. So there was a bit more concern with that proposal, with the sheer amount of units, the number of move-ins and move-outs that we know would happen, and where would these loading trucks go, because they would be forced to have to either pull into a loading berth that doesn't fully go through the site. In this case, because there is that internal drive, and it is, for most of the part, 24 feet wide, there was a little less concern. And because the move-ins and move-outs might not be as frequent, since it's more of an attached single-family typology, again, it's for board consideration, but there was a little less concern with this particular proposal, especially because if there is, for example, a truck or loading truck that is parked within that internal drive aisle, there's still room for another vehicle to navigate around without backing onto the street, like we've seen in maybe some of the other proposals. Well, I assume that would go for condos as well as townhomes then, right? Oh, what was that? I'm sorry? These are townhomes, right? Correct, and they're going to be fee-simple. Because I think we argued for like an hour about a condo that's providing three-fourths of a pull-in space. Yes, and these are fee-simple townhomes too. No, I support the project. I think it's a good one. Thank you. Can I just ask you something? This is townhomes, but they're not individually platted. Is that correct? They will be, so they're currently in for a PLAT application. They are going to be individually platted. Correct, and the PLAT will be required prior to the application of a permit. I think that makes a difference to the discussion that we're having. Thank you. I just had a couple of zones. Did I turn it off? Okay, thank you. Red seems like a talk to me. So in my discussion with Mr. Costello, I talked a little bit about it because I like that open space concept too. I think it's a really cool amenity for not only the homeowners that will be here, but also the neighborhood. Could you speak to some of the maintenance issues and how that will be addressed for imperfect duty? So it's going to be the responsibility of the homeowners association, and that's how the code is written. It's available to the public, and on the PLAT we've included a dedication language as far as the maintenance responsibility and the availability to the public. I think the code is it's like it closes, it's like daylight hours, but it's going to be the responsibility of the HOA. Landscaping, irrigation, drainage, removal of any trash, that's their responsibility. Thank you. And then I think switching gears a little bit, I think I saw something in the staff report about the CRA. Have I looked at this? Is that true? Yes. So because this is within the CRA boundaries, this is sent in a monthly memo, and we've received no letter of objection. Thank you. So I'm also in support of the project. Mr. Strunk. Yes, sir. I support the project. I don't have a problem with it. My question is for legal, and it's more of a technical question. We heard Mr. Costello indicate that 4.610C puts this outside of the requirement for a loading burst, and staff kind of supplemented that with their response. So my question is for this particular project, do we have to make a determination that 4.610 does not apply here? Because he's asking for, according to the agenda, it's not quite a waiver, but they're asking relief from the loading burst. But if the LDR does not apply here, do we have to make that determination so that we don't have to consider the relief? So 4.610 is a little odd when we look at other regulations, in that the births that are listed in that chart are only a guideline. And so what's still before the board is a determination of adequacy. So this board still has to review the proposed development and determine that the adequacy of the provisions, which are made for loading and unloading, and in making that decision, you look at the guidelines. So in this instance, you know, staff's indicating there's not a perfect box within the guidelines of what you would be looking at, but the board would still be tasked with determining the sufficiency and adequacy of what's being proposed for loading and unloading. Yes. Mr. Coe. You're done? Yeah. I'm madly in love with this project. He's not a project yet, but you're not madly in love with. I wanted to reach out and stop him from speaking first. I wanted to go first. You guys didn't let me. But I can't tell you how happy I am when I saw this project. But just the development of the site, the assemblage of the site and how they loaded the buildings on the site is nothing short of brilliant. And Jeff hit it right on the head. And I'm glad he said that because when I saw that green space and how gigantic it was and how organic it was and how it had all that movement and pulling people from the top of the block down to the bottom of the block. The first thing I thought of, they did that to get those beautiful homes a little bit further off from the noise of the railroad. And I'm glad that he said that because I assumed that. And I've got to tell you, I've been out there a hundred times when the Brightline train goes by, and it is not a problem. I find it to be really exciting when that train, and I'm not speaking about a freight train, but when the Brightline goes by in that five or six seconds or ten seconds, it is stunning. It's a great experience, and I don't know how else to say it. And in some ways, it enhances that area. You know, I'm a huge fan of when the Brightline goes by. And, you know, I could talk hours upon hours on that. Hopefully, for your sake, it doesn't go bankrupt. Well, and the train. You can record it. You know, a couple years ago, the train was only two or three cars long or four cars long. Now it's seven, eight, or nine cars long. It's not going to get shorter. It's going to get longer. The density. I love the density of the proposal as compared to the previous project that was approved on that side, which I found very fragmented and awkward. The green space is just amazing, and I almost include the amenity building and the pool and the surrounds of the pool as an extension of that green area because it's a wonderful spot. And I'm really happy with where they put it on the site. It wasn't the green space they had on the previous project by previous design was not even near where it should have been. I love the Anglo-Caribbean style with the Flemish flair. It's kind of the style that Del Rey is going to forever be known for in a very positive way. And it crosses all the beautiful boundaries with urbanism, I think, and it still exudes that single-family home that, you know, that we all cherish. Love the material palette, including this. I don't know if it's a real cedar shake on the roof or it's an imitation cedar shake, but it doesn't even matter to me. I love that palette, and Jim, you know, I hate to get into discussions about what shade of blue should be, you know, whether it's too dark or too light. I'd say let them figure it out that what they presented is spot on as far as I'm concerned. And I do agree with the concept that the lighter is more clean and more contemporary in a certain respect, and I would always maybe vote toward the lighter shade than the darker shade. The landscaping plant is fantastic. They've done a great job, and the numbers that Carol talked about are just like the parking. They exceed everything. I think it fulfills all the LDIs, and I'm not worried about loading or – I said – and the 22-foot, the conversation between a 22-foot wide drive-by on the 24, they should all be 22 feet, in my opinion. There's very, very little difference in reality, and I think the minor waivers and relief from the code that they're asking for should all be supported. I can't find any fault with this project. Great. Thank you. Love it. Yeah, I just want to say, thank God it's not Masonry modern. I was going to say that, but I didn't want to be that guy. I think what Mr. Cope said about the Anglo-Caribbean is spot on, and I think that's a really important point, that it's really a really gorgeous piece of architecture. Gary had a home run with the architecture. Yeah, I really don't have any faults. I have a couple of questions. All my questions are about these technical notes. Are we supposed to vote on – it looks to me like we're voting on something that's only half finished. And why are – I mean, why are we going to say we like it when you've got two pages of stuff that hasn't been done yet? Right. I mean, either one of you can answer it. Whoever wants to answer it. I can start. So some of the technical notes are more standard – oh, okay. Some of the technical notes are standard technical notes that we usually implement for most of the projects. For example, the energy-efficient – oh, can you hear me properly? No, I just missed the last word. For example, the – Oh, like the LEED certification, usually those are standard technical notes. However, you will see that there are technical notes that you would typically see that are remedied during the review process. Yes. So one of the most recent Florida State statutes require action on an application after 180 days or else it can be automatically approved. So because of that, you might see with some projects coming forward more technical notes that the way we try and control it to make sure that they are still satisfied is that they have to be done prior to what's called site plan certification, which is the step before they can apply for a building permit. So if, for example, a site plan is approved and it is not appealed by city commission, then we issue what's called an approval letter. And we list out, again, pretty much whatever you see on pages 16 and 17 of the report saying, these are the things you have to do prior to certification. These are the things you need to do prior to a permit. These are things you need to do prior to CO. Then the applicant's responsible for coming in with a site plan that matches what was approved and addresses everything that we require prior to certification. Staff will do what's similar to a technical advisory committee review again on the project to make sure those things are met. And if that's the case, then we certify the site plan and we say that you can come in for a permit. So that's been our way of trying to catch all of those, any loose ends, to also accommodate with what the state statutes has required. I think the answer to my question is now I understand the difference between approval and certification. And can I throw something in? This is how a project with these technical elements that still need to be tied up or buttoned up at time of certification is the exact way that these projects should be presented to us. If we expected, conversely, if we expected all this to be ironed out before it came to us, we may not see it for another six or eight months. Yeah. So this is beautiful. This is the way we used to operate. I wish all of the projects had this. Are you ready for a motion? Yeah. I'm trying to say something there. Move approval of a Level 3 Site Plan application with Architectural Elevations Landscape Plan for Delray-Swan, a 36-unit fee simple townhouse development, 118 Southeast 2nd Street, 240, 258, 264, and 280 Southeast 2nd Avenue, and 215, 219, 223, 227, 231, 237, 243, 251, and 253 Southeast 1st Avenue, including relief to the minimum loaning birth requirement by finding that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations. Second. Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Ketch, seconded by Mr. Cope. If you call the roll, please, Ms. Keller. Karen Gieselowski? Yes. Mitch Katz? Yes. Deidre Strong? Yes. Jim Card? Yes. Price Patton? Yes. Roger Cope? Yes. Gregory Snyder? Yes. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ketchelho. So I know you're coming back. I'm going to warn you on your 15 minutes. I might not make it the whole time because I do have to leave early for graduation dinner. I'm trying. I'll be as fast as I can. Good. I pushed it as late as I could. I'm like, just give us a couple hours. Let's move on to item something. I didn't even see your name. 8B. I couldn't find the 8. 8B, if you would read that into the record, please. Yes. So I'll state for the record, my name is Susie Rodriguez, senior planner. I would like to enter file number 2025-213 and 2025-214 into the record. This is for a recommendation to the City Commission for a Level 4 and conditional use. And the applicant is here today to present. Thank you. Ex parte? Sure. I spoke with Mr. Casello. I spoke with Tom Kearney. And I spoke with Joy Howe. Mr. Chard? Same. And myself, the same. They're all making it around. Yeah. I took calls from Jeff from Kelly Barrett. And I made a site visit, too. And I spoke with Jeff, Tom Kearney, drove by. And then I don't know if we counted this email. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And the email. I spoke with Jeff. I went by the site. And the email as well. Jeff, Mr. Kearney, and the email. Thank you. Mr. Costello. All right. I hope you enjoyed the short break. Good evening again. Thank you. This particular project, this is located on the east side of Federal Highway, just north of the Volkswagen dealership. You may be familiar with some of the background on this. You know, the buildings that were on this site, the antiquated buildings, they were demolished back in 2006 for 31, lots 31 through 35. And then in 2022, 30, lot 30 was incorporated, included like pottery. But anyway, the site's been vacant for pretty much 20 years. There were some temporary uses on the property. Most recently, there was a rezoning of this to accommodate these properties, to accommodate a car dealership in 2022. And the commission denied that request. At that time, there was, you know, discussion about compatibility and concerns with the adjacent residential development to the east in the town of Gulfstream and the appropriateness on the east side of Federal. Here are some photos of the property, 4.39 acres, some adjacent properties, as you see here. And then across the street, so to the west side, you have where former LEs used to be. That's now approved as the Tropics, combination townhouse, common condominium development. We have the budget in, and you have the self-storage facility. To the north of the self-storage facility, CubeSmart will be a new car dealership. This is to the east. These are properties that abut the east, the four single-family homes that abut the east property line of this development in the town of Gulfstream. And we've met with the residents to present this particular plan that we feel is very sensitive to the single-family residential development. And this proposal is to accommodate 39 two-story and eight three-story townhouse-type condominium units. The distinction between fee simple and condo, it's a ground-level ownership, but the units themselves are townhouses, the townhouse typology. The amenity area is centrally located to the site. Pointer here, where are we? So we have, on the east side, two-story townhomes. And the code requires an increased setback here. There's a wall on the east property line, heavily landscaped here. We have, these are the two three-story townhomes abutting this commercial property to the south. And then you have two-story, fronting Federal Highway, two-story. And then the amenity building includes a clubhouse, fitness area, and the pool, taut lot, internal to the site. This is a gated entry. We did dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way, which then pinches the site a little bit more. 10 feet of right-of-way for Federal Highway. This includes a right-turn lane into the site. And there's dual access lanes, one for residents, one for guests at the gate. There are waivers that are requested. This is not unusual. Waivers are there for a reason. And because, as you see, this trapezoid-shaped property and how we're trying to address, you know, compatibility issues, there's some flexibility needed for the site. This is similar on the tropics development on the west side. We did the same, very similar waivers. For instance, the drive-out width, 24 to 22 feet. In this particular case, you know, there's the townhouse code section route requiring a four-foot offset. And we feel that with the design of the townhomes, you really achieve the intent of the code with the articulation that's necessary. There is a five-foot landscape strip waiver to three feet, and I'll go into detail later on that, as well as some relief. You need relief to put a decorative fence within the special landscape setback, columns and aluminum fencing with landscaping on either side. And then there is the distance between buildings. We have a code section that's very suburban. There are the townhouse regulations. And if this was in the CBD, we wouldn't even be talking about this waiver. But this is an area that is a redevelopment area that has been envisioned to be more of a neotraditional type of development per the North Federal Highway Redevelopment Plan. So the larger exhibit of the site plan, required findings can be made with regard to LDR section 3.1.1, the land use map consistency. The GC is preferred in the GC land use designation. The regulations allowed a freestanding multifamily development as a conditional use. The density is proposed at 10.7 units per acre, where 12 is the standard difference between 47 and 52 units. Floor area ratio is less than 1. It's 0.79, where 3 at max is allowed. Oh, concurrency. Concurrency. Positive findings can be made with regard to that. I'm not going to go back to the screen. It's outlined in your staff report. The trips are minimal related to a townhouse development, which could be, if you were a commercial development, which would be in the thousands of trips that are generated. This is a little over 300. Consistency with the comprehensive plan. And there's extensive background in the staff report, very detailed. I just want to point out some of these comp plan policies. And just note, the use of general commercial land use studies to accommodate a wide range of non-residential and mixed-use development and limited standalone residential development along major corridors and in certain districts in the city. So this is the appropriate location, and the redevelopment plan also that you see referenced on the screen really encourages additional residential to support businesses in the area. Again, this is still in transition. This is a redevelopment area that's still, and since that plan was adopted in 1998, is still trying to move forward. And just note on the economic prosperity element, those two items up on the screen, talking about the continued support efforts of commercial districts, streets, and neighborhoods to improve their physical attributes by encouraging infill, adaptive reuse, and redevelopment other strategies. Promote development and redevelopment on vacant, underutilized, and or surplus properties, particularly those with the potential to serve as catalysts for economic development. If we want to see commercial, we need to look at the residential component. There's a 2014 market study that was prepared, which called for additional higher densities, residential densities, and greater building heights. Now, the appropriateness may be between Federal and Dixley, not necessarily abutting the single-family residential to the east. But with regard to that, there's a number of specific items related in the redevelopment plan. The goals of the redevelopment plan are to improve the appearance of the area and stimulate the revitalization of the North Federal Highway corridor by encouraging new development. The proposed 47-unit multifamily development will help to stimulate related commercial development along Federal Highway by creating demand for goods and services in the area. And these are just a few items referred to. With regard to compliance with the LDRs, the conditionally use findings, in addition to Chapter 3, which we just went through, positive findings can be made that establishing the conditionally use will not have a significantly detrimental effect, actually not even significantly, it will have no detrimental effect upon the stability of the neighborhood within which it will be located, nor will it hinder development or redevelopment on their by properties. We already went through the adjacent zoning and uses. This is adjacent to blighted and underutilized commercial properties within the Federal Highway corridor, redevelopment, assisted revitalization, and stabilization of the North Federal Highway corridor. The two-story townhouses with increased setbacks adjacent to the single family is a positive with regard to the town of Gulfstream. Those residents, this improved compatibility. The resident density is less than what is permitted. The floor area ratio is less. The buildings are oriented to provide the presence on North Federal Highway consistent with the LDRs, which was envisioned with that more new urbanist field along Federal Highway, and development proposal is consistent with the applicable GC RM zoning district regulations, including the RM performance standards. This is just a little outline that shows, okay, we have the two-story townhomes, we do have three-story townhomes, but then you could do a much greater volume building out of 48 feet of something that's not a freestanding, and in this case, we were doing strictly townhomes. You could do a multi-story condominium, a mixed-use building, but you could go 48 feet. There's nothing particular. With regard to site plan, may I have a few minutes already? Or was that five? Was that five? Yeah. Give me five. I'll hurt. Yeah, you can take at least five more minutes. I'll be here. Okay, so positive findings can be made with regard to the standards for site plan actions. If the development proposal meets the applicable standards, there are no identified areas of concern with regard to impacts on the overall configuration and building design on the surrounding area, fosters compact pedestrian-oriented growth. Again, here we go. Development complies with the applicable development standards listed on the screen, as well as the performance standards of 433BB. Again, because we're here, we're requesting for you, we've got to meet even more stringent requirements and review through the LDRs. Again, here we are. We have the density. We went through that. The floor area ratio. The height, 48 is allowed. The maximum, we have the two stories at 26 1⁄2 feet and the three stories at 38. We exceed the open space requirement. Parking, we exceed. Required is 112, 199 are provided on the site, and the setbacks have been provided. Just to briefly go through some of those items that were listed for relief. Okay, the city engineer and FDOT approved the reduction in the stacking distance. That's not for you this evening. They've addressed that, included, and we included a right turn lane, and so the residents go right through with their technology, as well as the guests, so that's all been addressed prior. With regard to the drive aisle width, 24 to 22 feet, this is typical of what you see, a 22-foot wide street in a residential neighborhood. You briefly discussed this at the previous item. With regard to that reduction, positive findings can be made with regard to LDR section 2411B5. Shall not have an adversely affected neighboring area. These are all internal to the site. Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public services, facilities. Those are all internal to the site. No effect. Shall not create an unsafe situation. It's a standard within the city as far as a 22-foot street width. And it does not result in a grant of special privilege in the same way that would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. This has occurred regularly through various processes. Again, significant manuring area, neotraditional townhome layout, desired urban core and redevelopment area, accommodation for parking within the driveways and throughout the site, and designated guest parking as provided. The four-foot offset, here's some exhibit. The four-foot offsets are provided in the architecture, and these are some offsets. Providing that four-foot articulation, which is what was envisioned and meets the intent of the code. Moving on, those are the waiver findings. We feel it meets the intent of the code, provides relief intended by the LDRs. The four-foot articulations, cantilever balconies, include the design to provide additional relief to the facade. With regard to the internal adjustments, we have internal adjustments, reduction in distance between buildings. They meet fire building codes. This is really an antiquated suburban type of formula, which when I started in 88, we went straight to the townhouse regulations. We didn't even go to this regulation except for apartment complexes. But in any case, I know that's a lot of history. But anyway, we feel the provision of non-residentially zoned properties, especially in these redevelopment areas, that you would really have that reduction or allow that reduction. If this was some CBD, we wouldn't even be talking about this code provision. So it is true, and the redevelopment plan emphasizes traditional neighborhood design principles, which this accomplishes majority compliance with the 12-foot minimum distance. There are only two areas that there's the three-story is 30 to 25 with regard to the townhouse regs. And then adjacent to the amenity building, there is a further reduction there. But these are all sides of the buildings. It's not where they're facing front to front. See, there's the exhibit, shows it there, all internal to the site. It doesn't affect the adjacent properties. Loading delivery, we just had that conversation. As with any residential development, somebody coming in here is going to move in. They have the ability to park their U-Haul in their driveway. These are two-car driveways. To move in, move outs are very temporary. Same with the deliveries. So as far as the loading berth, it really, to me, and in reviewing, we already had that whole discussion. So we appreciate your support in not providing a loading berth for 47-unit townhouse development. The landscape plan is extensive landscaping being provided on this site. There's hardly any on it right now. This is going to be extensive. And then the special landscape setback, I discussed the, as you can see, those columns and the decorative fencing within the front, within the special landscape setback, there's landscaping on each side of those. Again, positive findings can be made with regard to the waivers. In this case here, the landscape waiver, between the two garages where they abut, they're requiring a five-foot landscape ship. We propose three because they do abut. There is that separation distinction between the two units, and between the units, and there will be landscaping provided there, trees, I believe, palms. But it also provided the ability to provide a greater landscape area in the front entrances where you could provide more substantial street trees. Again, positive findings can be made. This is internal to site, and positive findings can be made with 247B. With the architectural elevations, we feel that positive findings can also be made with 4618E1-3. There's so much variation in articulation, roof heights. AC units are totally not visible from the rooftop, and there's just some of the elevations. I'm trying to wrap it up here, and we thank you. Available for any questions. And I have the team members here, Carlos and Johanna, any questions with regard to architecture or landscape? Thank you very much. Try not to be too repetitive. All right, so the request is for a Level 4 site plan with a conditional use to allow freestanding multifamily development in the GC zoning district. The project sits on seven parcels, surrounded by GC zoning to the northwest, south, and then the town of Gulfstream to the east with the single-family residences. The lot is currently vacant, and the proposal aims to build a 47-unit townhouse-type development. 47 units puts the density at 10.7 dwelling units per acre, where a max of 12 is allowed. So brief background, the lots were annexed into the city, 89 and 94. There was the previous request to do a temporary parking lot for vehicle storage and a rezoning request to change from GC to AC. At one point, it was withdrawn, but the rezoning did come back, and it was denied back in 2022. And the lots have remained vacant, aside from being utilized for the construction staging for the Gunther Volkswagen. A few projects have been approved surrounding the property, including the expansion of the Gunther Volkswagen, the Tropics of Del Rey, which is a 34-unit condo and townhouse-type development, and a new dealership for the Hyundai Genesis. The project is surrounded by office, storage, a motel, and the single-family residential use. So these are some of the views of the adjacent uses. And then pursuant to LDR Section 449D10, freestanding multifamily housing is only permissible in GC if a conditional use is approved. The proposal is subject to the RM district requirements, including the performance standards, except for setback and height, which remains for the GC standards. Planning and Zoning Board must make a recommendation to the City Commission based on the following findings for a conditional use. It shall not have significantly detrimental effect on the neighborhood and shall not hinder any development of the nearby properties. Within the GC zoning district on federal, there are a few existing and approved multifamily residences. The board should consider the following. Does the proposed residential development reinforce the existing neighborhood character? Does the proposed residential development align with arterial corridor vision? And is the basic purpose and intent of the GC zoning district being met? Also, too, something to consider, too, is the displacement of a commercial use for the benefit of additional residential units a net positive for the stability of the neighborhood? Or would the neighborhood instead remain more stable with the persistence of commercial uses on the subject property? The request consists of the following. It's 47 units with a townhouse typology. Six of the structures are two-story and two to the south are three-stories. There is a centrally located clubhouse, and the parking is provided within the private garages, the driveways, and reserved spaces that are scattered throughout the site. There are five waivers. So there's the four-foot minimum offset for the townhouses, the decorative fencing and the special landscape setback, the reduction of the drive aisle width from 24 to 22, the 100-foot set stacking, which was approved by the city engineer, and then relief from the five-foot minimum landscape buffer to three feet. There's also an internal adjustment for the distance between the residential buildings to allow 25 feet and the 12-foot, four-inch separation between the clubhouse. There's also the loading determination, which is it's required to have the two, and they're proposing no. The applicant has also requested no. For concurrency, water, sewer, and drainage is accommodated on the site. The development will generate 324 daily trips. During permitting, the park impact fee of $23,500 must be paid. The development will generate 24 tons of solid waste. And waste management has expressed concerns with entering, stating that the visitor lane is too narrow and they will have to enter through the residence gate. Also, lastly, Palm Beach County School District stated that there will be no negative impact for their schools. For consistency with the comp plan, I pulled a few policies that are applicable to this development for board consideration. This includes accommodating residential housing opportunities, specifically a limited amount of standalone residential development along a major corridor. The development is also within the North Federal Highway Redevelopment Plan, which doesn't provide specific guidance for multifamily use, but ultimately supports redevelopment and a healthy mix of residential and commercial uses. Other policies to consider is the encouragement of providing a variety of housing types and a mixed income housing developments. So the following are standards that are applicable for the site plan action that the board should consider. The design doesn't appear to create any visibility obstruction. However, the photometric plans don't fully demonstrate compliance and staff cannot provide a full analysis. There are no shared connections with the adjacent properties only having access via federal. The density is in compliance, but the requested relief remain relevant to the review of the intensity, which I can go further later. There is no proposed housing priority. It's just the three-bedroom type. And the proposed development can serve as a transition to the adjacent single family. But again, it's just pending the photometrics for the compliance. Proposed height is in compliance. However, in the last middle, the rooftop equipment was added, and staff needs additional info, including the equipment and screening height, material of the screening, and area percentage just to ensure compliance. The lighting standards are not accounted for in the entire site. Some areas are shown to exceed the maximum illumination standards allowed, and the fixtures aren't indicated to be full cutoff. Again, staff can't provide a full analysis until we have complete plans. Overall, parking is in compliance with 112 spaces required and 199 provided. However, due to the inconsistencies on the narrative in the site plan, staff is unsure if the on-street spaces will be removed on federal. But if they are removed, they must be accounted for in the required calculations. And due to the high number that they're providing, staff doesn't have concerns with meeting the requirement. The plans just need to be consistent. In regards to the traffic calming, staff has expressed concerns with having the sidewalk at level with the drive aisle with no buffer in between. So, the applicant has proposed some traffic calming elements to slow down vehicles and ensure pedestrian safety. These elements aren't consistently shown on the plans. Also, the entry and exit is limited to one point. The board should consider the following. Is the single access point and proposed traffic calming measures sufficient to provide safe internal circulation? And then if there should be additional landscape buffering required for the sidewalk. Total, there are nine structures, including the clubhouse. The applicant has requested relief to reduce the required building separation. In regards to the performance standards, the board should consider if the proposed layout is providing adequate building separation for light, air, and usable open space, while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding area. The proposed design incorporates movement and shifts across the facade. However, the design limits the articulation to only facades facing North Federal or the internal driveways, while other facades lack similar design elements. The applicant is requesting relief from the required front four-foot offset for the townhouse. And again, the project is only proposing three-bedroom-type units, and the board should consider the following in regards to this performance standard. Does the absence of one- to two-bedroom units affect the project's ability to comply with this performance standard? And does the large unit size contribute to the requested relief, or is it the result of the site design constraints? The application was presented for board consideration subject to the requested relief, the outstanding LDR compliance items, and any condition imposed by the approving body. For landscape, the project is deemed in compliance except for the specified relief request. The proposal includes the removal of 27 trees and seven palms, and the relocation of two trees, and then proposing over 160 new trees and palms. Okay. As for the architectural elevations, the following are your criteria for board action. It must be in conformity with good taste and design, won't materially depreciate the area, and is harmonious with the general area. The development is stated to be contemporary modern architectural style. There are strong facade articulation along federal and internal driveways. The side and rear don't carry that same level of articulation, material treatment, or facade depth. And in general, the design is considered unified, but is also considered repetitive. The board should consider the following. Does the architectural treatment contribute to the image of the city? Does the side and rear elevations provide sufficient design quality? Is the repetitive townhouse rhythm adequately mitigated? And is the project harmonious with the evolving character of North Federal Highway and the adjacent residential edge? For the waivers, the first request is to Section 433-04A. The code requires that no more than two townhomes may be constructed without providing a front setback, a four-foot offset front to rear. This prevents long rows of repetitive design, reduces overall mass, and articulates each unit. The proposal requests to not offset the units, but instead provide another form of articulation. The structures along North Federal articulate both the front and rear for the other structures. The facades facing, and for the other structures, the facades facing the driveways also have that articulation. But the facades to the side and rear do not provide the same level of articulation. And it should be considered if the proposed four-foot articulation within each unit adequately meets the intent of the offset requirement, and if the lack of rear and side articulation weakens the request. Okay. So second waiver is for LDR Section 434-H6B to allow a fence in the required 10-foot special landscape setback along Federal. Just if the fence, or to consider if the fence is appropriate for fronting Federal. Waiver 3 is for LDR Section 469-D6D to reduce the required drive aisle width from 24 feet to 22 feet. The intent of this width is to ensure safe two-way circulation as well as adequate maneuvering space to back out of a parking. There is a portion of the drive aisle where parking is located on both sides of the drive aisle where there are some concerns. And a fire has expressed some concerns if there's a fire truck that they might block circulation for emergency purposes. The board should consider if there may be conflicts between parked vehicles, backing movements, service vehicles, and emergency access. The fourth waiver is to reduce the stacking distance, which was approved by the city engineer. Waiver 5 is to LDR Section 4616-H3D to reduce the required landscape buffer between driveways from 5 foot to 3 foot. The board should consider if the overall landscape design sufficiently offsets this request. The internal adjustment is for LDR Section 462-B, which uses a calculation of the height and the width to determine adequate spacing between residential buildings. This separation is to provide optimum light, air, and open space. The required distance ranges from 32 to 38 feet. And the proposal requests to reduce the 25 feet between buildings A, B, C, and D, and 12 to 4 inches, 12 feet and 4 inches between building E and the rec center. This request doesn't impact perimeter setbacks. So the board should consider the following. Does proposed building separation provide adequate light, air, privacy, and open space between buildings? And would the site benefit from fewer units or a revised layout with greater separation between structures? And then finally for the loading, as we've discussed, this requires two off-street loadings. They're providing none. So consideration, will the deliveries, resident move-ins, outs, service vehicles, waste collection be appropriately accommodated? So overall relief analysis, the development is near the max allowable standard density. The board should consider the following. Does the requested relief, when viewed collectively, support a better site design? And does the number and type of relief requests indicate that the proposed density and layout are placing pressure on the applicable development standards? The board should also consider policy 117, recognizing that LDR standards related to compatibility, transition, setbacks, height, and open space may limit the density achievable on a specific project or specific site. I'll also just quickly read for the waivers, the findings. It shall not adversely affect the neighboring area, shall not significantly diminish the provisions of public facilities, shall not create unsafe situations, and shall not be granting a special privilege. This concludes my presentation, and these are your board actions. Thank you. At this time, public comment is open. If there's anyone here who wishes to speak, please step to the podium. Hi, for the record, my name is Gary Leopolis. My address is 1021 Northwest 5th Avenue. I'm only, I didn't know about this project tonight. I'm speaking only because I did speak against the previous project that came before the city commission, which was a dealership. And it's more about the history. Jeff hits upon it about the North Federal Highway master plan that was done. There was a vision. And one of the visions was not to have dealerships. And so that's why, you know, I spoke against the last one. The other item, though, was the thought was, okay, how are we going to slow down traffic? How are you going to get that, again, walkability? People from North Federal will walk all the way downtown. It was a great vision. I don't know if that's ever going to happen. But Jeff hit upon it. I do believe that maybe this vision should be looked at again. I think this is totally appropriate. I think it's respectful to Gulfstream. Hacienda neighborhood in the late 90s or even in the 90s was, this is the neighborhood that is east of Federal, north of George Bush, was hurting. I mean, there wasn't a lot going on. Now, obviously, there's a lot going on. And now you're starting to realize that side of the corridor is residential. Maybe the thought is we should be thinking about the west side of Federal and Dixie and doing the mixed use. You can have all your services occurring off of Dixie. You're not going to be seen along the Federal Highway, and you can get that mixed use that everybody wants. We do need the residents to support this, meaning live, work, play. So with that, I'd just like you to really consider approving this project. I think it's a great one. I think it's a great layout. Thank you. Thank you. It's Chester Snavely. I'm the president of the HOA in Plaza Soleil, which is the neighboring property adjacent to this property to the east in Gulfstream. We've worked for well over a year with the applicant on the design, on the overall design of this project. And we are in enthusiastically total support of this project after what we went through with the dealership exercise. The applicant worked with us on the design of the buildings, the placement of the buildings, the height of the buildings, the trash disposal, traffic within the site, and most importantly, screening of the site to Plaza Soleil. After what we're witnessing in Boynton Beach right now with the Live Local project, we were terrified about something like that coming to this four-plus acre site. So all items related to this development that we were sensitive to in the past have been addressed by the applicant. And again, we enthusiastically support this. Thank you. Andres. Hi. Ingrid Kenmerer, 760 Southeast Fifth Avenue. We appreciate you taking the opportunity to look at this project tonight and talk about walking. I've never walked to the Salem from there, but I could. And I do love the French bakeries and the coffee shops that are right there at George Bush. So we have a lot of services. We have commercial up to our eyeballs, and we really would like something more compatible. We have Walmart across the street, and we can prove it with all the shopping centers that litter Federal Highway. And we have office buildings that are behind Dunkin' Donuts that have never been filled. So there is plenty of services, service commercial areas that are in that area. This project gives us an opportunity to do something that's compatible. Not everybody in the area can afford a single-family home. This is a beautiful project that would give opportunity to more multifamily entry-level or mid-level or the townhouse user. It's great. We think that the developer has done a great job to look at the landscaping to save what trees can be there. The ones that a lot of them that are there are very old and can't be saved. They're doing a lot of work to enhance the Federal Highway streetscape, the sidewalks, and I think it'll be really pretty. And we look forward to you supporting it this evening. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no one, public comment is closed. At this point, does the applicant or the staff have any cross-examination of any of the witnesses or rebuttals? Go ahead, Mr. I just wanted to respond to a couple items with regard to, not rebuttal, but as far as the lighting, we have been working with staff. We did receive the comments. The lighting plan, photometric plan has been revised to comply with the grid. He made an error. When we revised it the last time to not modify that illumination, it's been revised. We're ready to resubmit if we get the go-ahead to go to address everything before City Commission is our goal. And so our team has already been working on the revision. With regard to the trash, waste management provided a letter in September of 2025. Since then, we did modify the entrance to even to increase the drive-out widths. But they said internally they had no issues servicing. They just need to be waved through the gate so they can pick up the trash. No big deal. That happens a lot in a lot of developments. The AC units have been screened. As far as single access point, there isn't the ability to really have cross-access to the adjacent properties. This is like the first in. This is the primary access. No multiple points of access for this development. For a 47-unit development, you want to have it more restricted. With regard to the concerns on the traffic homing on the internal to the site, we provided stop signs. The maximum speed limit is 15 mile an hour. There are stop signs throughout. And midpoint of the north-south driveways where the crosswalks are stop signs. The sidewalks, the concern they mentioned, we were addressing a staff request to provide sidewalks on both sides and trying to be – and working with them to accommodate. If – you look, in a size – this size of development, a sidewalk on one side would get you where you need to be. But we were doing that. And so we provided that. Again, there's no concerns with speeds through here. It would be limited. Three-bedroom units. One can use it as an office. I know I do at my house using one of the bedrooms as an office. It provides that flexibility. But a fire did state that they were just concerned with somebody parking in front of a hydrant. So you have your condominium regulations where you can and cannot park. The restriction would be you cannot park within the street, which is typical. And, look, fire has that issue wherever. If somebody parks in front of a hydrant, that could be an issue, even in my neighborhood or your neighborhoods. And so that's really what I wanted to address. If there's anything that Carlos would like to respond to on the architecture – no? Okay. So that's all. Thank you. That's what it is. No. All right. In that case, board comments. Who wants to start this? Roger wanted to start the last time. Well, go ahead. Okay. Kudos to the applicant and the project team for reaching out to the community and working with them. That's a major commitment. And it's good to know that the Basso Soleil neighborhood is behind it or is endorsing it. And one of the – a lot of the similar issues here that there may have been with the previous project, 22-foot-wide drive aisles. In this case, I think a single-point access on this project makes a lot of sense. I don't have any problem with it. I don't have any problem with any of the elements that may be under critique. None of them, in my opinion, weaken the degree of support for the overall request. It's been sitting there so daggum long. I think it's time for something like this to be developed. It sure beats the heck out of what may have been proposed there previously. I'm in full support of it. Thank you. Ron, I'm in support of it. I don't have any problems with it. So let's keep – I just have a couple questions and then some other thoughts that I wanted to share. I know a lot of commercial and office in particular has changed so significantly in recent years. So the emphasis to keep commercial and office uses is very difficult. I typically believe we should try to maintain what we've said we need in terms of commercial, industrial, and everything else just so we have those employment centers. But I think in this situation, that part of the corridor really is evolving, is changing. There are so many different types of uses in here that a project like this can help be a service, a transition among all of them, even though it is taking away from some of the commercial uses. I did have a question for staff in terms of the front fence waiver on federal. Has that been done before? I want to make sure we're not setting any kind of precedences by putting that fence in the right of way. Not that I know of from the top of my head. And one thing I'll add to that as well, because the idea or concept of precedence comes up frequently with waivers and variances, et cetera. So, of course, every application stands on its own. And property is one of the most unique things under the law. And so everyone will be different on who its neighbor is, what its shape is, its size is, and all those different things. So whenever it comes up, I try to alleviate any board members' concerns that you're not setting a precedence in that if you grant it for this property on this applicant for this type of development, that necessarily even the neighbor would be entitled to that because it's going to be different property, different size, different development. Yeah, I think it helps promote the new urbanist kind of concept with this. So it makes some sense to give the proposed neighborhood some security going forward. I had some concerns with the massing and the articulation, but since, you know, especially on the rear-end side. But if, you know, the Gulfstream folks are happy with it, I'm happy with it. I'll coattail on the fence design. I wanted to ask a little bit more information about it, but I thought it was too, not terribly important. I'm either, Jeff, there's two different fence designs that I can find in the architectural package. I'm not sure which one of them is being proposed for the fence in question and the dedication along federal. So it was a black aluminum fence six feet high. That's it? With the white columns. With columns every so often? Yes, every... How many feet are the columns? Oh, white columns supporting the black aluminum fence. Okay. Oh, okay, like that. All right. Yeah. Yeah, so it's... It's similar to what, if you look at St. George's townhomes near George Bush, see how close that fence? It's the same scenario. Okay, sorry. And it provides a privacy. And the six feet is why? The privacy, yeah. I think that... And then on each side of that, you'll have landscaping. So really, the fencing is going to get obscured by the landscaping. If you take a closer look at that, you'll see it's on each side. Because I think we need to be concerned about the Delray residents and what they see as well. So it's going to be a beautiful, well-landscaped, decorative fence, similar to St. George's. I think that's a six-foot-high decorative. In fact, that just has a hedge, I think, on the outside. This is going to have more vertical elements as well. You can't get off that easily. Are you down here? I shared Karen's concerns about the density and the massing. And I had a question, and staff, the 36-unit townhome required three offload things. This one is bigger than it required two. Are we going to get rid of all that offload stuff? Because it's all going nowhere now. It's based off of square footage, not unit count. So the smaller unit had a third more square footage? No, it's the actual overall project square footage. Oh, side of the project. Yeah. So not the footprint of the buildings. Yeah, this project had a smaller square footage than the other one. I've never been able to figure that out. Okay. Okay. Which I think is, again, another reason why maybe it supports not applying it for townhouses is just because of how the regulation was written for something different than this is. Okay. And then the – I told Jeff I'm not a huge fan of waivers. But the townhouses in the Swan have a 25-foot or so distance between townhouses, but they require a waiver to have a 25-foot. What's the distinction there? So that project is in the CBD, and that code section is the board? It's a different zoning. The board of 462 specifically says not applicable for CBD zoning. This is in GC. I thought they were both in CBD, is it or not? No, this one's in GC. GC. Oh, that's right. That's right, GC. Okay. Oh, and, you know, I guess just like a broken record, at some point I'd like to see some, if not low-income housing, some workforce housing in these projects because we're – I don't think policemen and firemen are going to be able to afford any one of these townhouses on their salaries. It would be nice if we could get some set up. That's it. So, you know, this is not an area that allows a density bonus. It's not applicable in this area. Right. So even if they want it, it's so – and it's less than – but just keep that in mind if you look at the redevelopment plan for North Federal to allow that density bonus. Yeah, I'm just – I'm just appealing to the greater good of the builders. That's right. Could we clarify whether or not this is sub-district four or so of the CBD? I thought it extended that far north. No, this isn't within the CBD. This is in GC zoning district. Where does that sub-district end then? Where the CBD ends to. I think I have a – I mean the sub-district on Federal. The sub-district is within the CBD – in the CBD zoning district, so it doesn't extend further from the CBD. Let me see if I have a zoning map. No, I'm just trying to get the boundary of it. What's the northern boundary of it? Right there. So you see like CBD, the little bit of purple right there. That's where CBD ends right there, and then all this is GC and AC. Okay. All right, then that makes sense, the answer to the previous question. Could someone point out to me where the sidewalks are in the property? That's the yellow? Okay, so people are not going to have to walk on the street or the drive aisle. You're saying the sidewalk's not raised? So they are. It's basically the same as walking on the street. There is no – it doesn't – it's a sidewalk with no sidewalk curb. Correct. It does not have a curb. It's sort of – if you were to walk on George Bush Boulevard east of northeast 2nd Avenue, you'll see when they redid that street, the sidewalk's flush with the street. Beautiful. And so it's – in this case, we had all these driveways. Instead of trying to – you know, the serpentine type of thing. So – and really, if you think about it, there's a 22-foot aisle width, and then I think the sidewalk's at least four feet wide on each side. So you have, you know, 30 feet. And what about outside the property along federal highways? So we're going to – There's a bike lane there now, right? Yes. And we're – with the right turn lane, we're providing the buffer zone, which is now a new standard, the two-foot buffer zone. And then we're also increasing the sidewalk width, I believe, out in front of the project. Right now, you see there's that three-foot utility strip. We've got to modify the sidewalk for the right turn lane, so it's going to be – it's going to be wide. I think it's only four feet wide right now. Yeah. So it's going to be – it's going to be increased to meet the standard. Jeff, also, you mentioned the marketing study that you funded, right, through the CRA in 2014 or so? Yes. What did that envision for this area from a marketability view? Well, at the time, it identified the challenges with regard to providing the retail and office and the support that was needed for those particular types of businesses where increases in density were more residential in the immediate area. And so that's what it envisioned. Now, I think the idea there was, look, there may be some folks that get priced out of Atlantic. Would this be the appropriate corridor? This is a very auto-oriented corridor. It's a highway. It's a federal highway. So it's a challenging concept, and so it takes a lot to work. I mean, but that's what was envisioned at that time. They didn't specifically say boutique. I think it was a matter of trying to get the density to the point where it would have uses that would serve the adjacent residents. But you need that concentration to have those businesses established. So the vision that was pointed in that study, which I think also talked about bringing some of the activity and vibe of Atlantic Avenue and turning it north and going on federal. It, as far as an alternative to that, I don't believe it was envisioned as, it was like downtown Delray Beach. But to provide the opportunity to have those types of uses to support, almost like a neighborhood commercial type of use. That's my recollection as well. So does this project, in Abigail's presentation here, of healthy mix of residential and commercial, is it Abigail? Susie. Okay, sorry. A healthy mix of residential and commercial, does, in your mind, this satisfy that? Yes, this is getting you to the point where, and I think we've seen between Federal and Dixie, there is, I think you're seeing the fact that east of Federal has been more concentrated towards some residential. There are areas between Federal and Dixie where you have that opportunity with the access to provide that more of that commercial orient and circulation between those, because you have the dual roads and double access points. To me, as we look at this particular area, we know what has not occurred in decades along North Federal, and we know that these properties have been vacant for over 20 years, and that prior to that, they were antiquated uses that were not, and I know that some of those uses on that property were identified as the blight to get rid of in the North Federal Highway Redevelopment Plan. I think at that time, in the mid-2000s, you know, the housing market changed. Whatever was proposed there didn't move forward, and we get temporary parking lots in the interim. So this will provide an insertion of investment and to help revitalize that area. Well, I certainly think this is much, much better than another automobile dealership or repair shop, and for that reason alone, I would support it. But I am afraid that it doesn't exactly encourage commercial, specifically retail along that area and walkability. There are things popping up there, and I'm not sure if this encourages it or not. Certainly the French bakery is a good example of what's happening with the 10 or so food trucks all along Federal, and there is the opportunity for something to happen there. But as long as the one thing, I only want to say one thing about trees, removing 27 out of 29 seems to me to be overly active. And when we saw a picture of 29 trees, many of them looked very, very healthy. I did not go out there and measure them or anything, but it did look, it just seems to me like some of those trees could be moved on the site. Hannah Mead from 1952 Madison Street in Hollywood. I'm the landscape architect on the project. So, yeah, I love trees too, so I'm very much passionate to try and maintain as many as we can. Did you get the arborist report? Yes. Yeah, so you looked at that. So a lot of them were palms, and a lot of the trees, because of that area, they hadn't been taken care of. So they were either damaged by hurricanes or just generally not very healthy. So we initially were going to get rid of 29 out of 29 trees, I'm sorry. But staff encouraged us to try and keep a few, so we went back and looked. And there's two possible candidates. Neither of them are ideal for relocation. So we are relocating two trees, two oaks. So that's kind of the best we can do. For the 27 other new ones, there is a predominance of palms as opposed to shade trees? Within the site? Within the site. We have met the, we're over on the requirement of trees. So we have a lot of native trees, we have a lot of canopy trees, we have got increased size. There are a lot of palms, but they're just additional. So we have higher palms. I mean, you don't have a requirement for palms, but we do have a lot, yes. Okay. But we do meet the actual requirement of trees. And there's a lot of natives. We have more natives than most, more than the requirements. Okay. Because I love natives too, so I'm with you on that. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Sure. Mr. Katz. First of all, I'll start off by saying I agree with Ms. Howell, who called me, about did they get that wrong on the always-delivery comprehensive plan, whether or not it should have been commercial or not. So I have no problem with that converting to homes, if that's what's going to make that corridor, you know, if that's what maybe could have been there or should have been there, who knows. Because that process is not easy and it's not going to be perfect. So I have no problem with that at all. My couple concerns are is the 22-foot driveways. I mentioned that to Mr. Costello. I think I mentioned it to Mayor Carney as well. This is my second community with 22-foot driveways I'm living in now. And when I walk around, you know, you walk the dog, you talk to neighbors, and the one thing I hear more than anything else in question is, who was the dumb, you know what, who allowed them to put these narrow roads in? You know, while people are trying to maneuver, I mean, literally, I probably, if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that, walking through Bexley Park, walking through the colony, even walking through some other neighborhoods as well with these narrow roads, you know, that's the biggest concern. Because what happens is, inevitably, people, whether you can or not, will park on the street. You know, you're going to move around. You hear about the garbage trucks. I mean, we had somebody constantly parking right in front of my house because the garbage truck comes into my community. They make a right, and, you know, 6 o'clock in the morning, they're right in front of my house. And they would park on the street, you know, on both sides. And, well, you know, the garbage can does. They actually, they've got some really loud horns, if you've never heard. And they will wake you up the entire neighborhood at 6 a.m. to move those cars so they can get through. And I know they're not going to allow parking. Our original docs 25 years ago didn't allow parking either. But then as families, you know, all started having kids and multiple generations, you know, they just, okay, we can't, we just can't enforce it at some point. We had to make it where it's one side of the street you can park on this month, and then the other side, and you go to the other side. But I think that these narrow, that's why I was very happy with the last project, that they did a wider street. I know there was the curve a little bit of problem. This whole thing, too, with the visitor lane, if it's too narrow for a garbage truck, First of all, I, Mr. Costello, you said the garbage truck is going to be able to go through the guest, the owner's lane. How are they going to do that? They're going to have to have a pass, or? Because they're not going to be able to wave through. There's not going to be, you don't have a guard there. There's nobody to wave them in. So the design that you see now was different in September of 2025. But with regard to it, they could still, there, there's an ability for two vehicles to go by. So that's 20 feet wide where you have the call box. Right, but you're going to have a call box with a, you're going to have one lane for visitors, right? You're going to have one lane for owners. The garbage guy is telling you, I can't make it through that visitor side. How is he going to get through the owner's side unless he lives there with a parking pass, you know, with a, an RF reader that, on his truck that lets him in? So, like I said before, in September of 2025, the design of the entrance was different. It was really one giant curve. Okay. Okay. This has the separation of the two lanes. Okay. And so, the vehicle can go to the call box and then they, they, they put in their whatever code and then they go in. Because of garbage, they have their own code. They go in. They go in. So, so I think their, their initial concerns was, was how we modified that. If you want, I'll go back to them and get another letter. And, and because internally they had no issues picking up or, or maneuvering on site. So, I mean, I'll do it. Because I will say, if you have, if they have a problem with that visitor gate, you're going to have problems with delivery trucks, with, you know, and they, other, there's lots of vehicles all day that show up to those, those visitor boxes. Yeah. And so, the way it's designed, it, there's vehicles complex. So, you've changed it since that letter came out from the waste management. So, it's not applicable now? Well, I'll, like you said, I'll go get another letter if you want. And I think, I think that'd be important because that, because again, it's not just the garbage truck. If it's, that, you know, the other delivery trucks are the same size, then you're going to have the stacking issues, which we're giving a waiver for, for Federal Highway. So, if trucks are stuck there and they can't get through it, they're waiting for a car to come through so they can, you know, go through the owner's side. And I see the same issues here because call boxes go down. That, that is another issue too I have with the sacking. What's really helping me is that you have the right turn lane with the sacking. So, that really helps. With backup, are they able to turn left off of Federal? No. They can't. It's a right turn only. In fact, depending, if we go forward before, before the dealership, we, we would be responsible to build the left turn lane to prevent vehicles from cutting through. Right. So, that's, that's a whole, so it's a right in, right out, and, and it's the D.O.T. supported, or their letter supports with this design. I, um, okay. Like I said, I was, I definitely had concerns with the stacking. The right turn lane helps me in that area because the cars need to go somewhere. They're going to get backed up. People up, I mean, you get people trying to work these stupid boxes. I see them all the time. We actually had a guy who lived in our community, went through the exit gate, and crashed right into it because he was too old now to figure out the call box. You want to, you have a question you want to go ahead? I do. And somebody correct me. He's, Jeff, you're not asking for any relief in, in drive widths at the entry gate. Maybe a little relief with the stacking. The, the. So, but I'm trying to get down. There was a reduction in stacking, and that was approved by the city engineer in Florida and F.D.O.T. So, man, she, so he's already, he's meeting the code and all the widths that you're saying trucks can't deal with. No, but we're. He was referring to the, the, um, so if you look at the width now, it's 24 feet wide. Yeah. Between that island where the call box is. Yes. And the edge, it wasn't designed like that before. And so when the letter was sent in September of 2025, that design was that there wasn't 24 feet on one side entering. Now there is. So if you want an updated letter, we'll get it, but it, it meets it. Okay. I don't need a letter. I trust you. Listen, you're the ones that deal with it, but. It says 24 feet. It's just when you're. If you took that, if you took that 24 and then the five feet, you, you've got a 41 foot wide street coming in. And if you, at the, at the, are they, are they, are the, are the lanes not delineated with barriers to keep residents and visitors? Painstripe. Okay. Painstripe. All right. Because that's the most, there's, so there's no curving in between visitor and guest. Okay. A little island. Yeah. So there's no, it's just striping and it's only. So people could just. It's only 47 units. And in my development of Lake Ida, the Delray lakes, it's, it's has less stacking has dual, very similar to this. That's all the questions I have already there. I was waiting for everybody to get finished. Yeah. When I looked at this originally, I had a couple of concerns. It seemed like a lot of massing in that property, which I think upon review, it appears really to be not as much as, not as, doesn't appear like the huge mass that I thought it was, that I thought it was going to. And the other concern I have is, you know, waivers are there to be waivers, but then you get this waiver and that waiver and another waiver and another waiver and you start going, what's going on here? Why can't we just build something that meets the rules? Because, but I can't find one of these waivers that I object to individually. I mean, the landscape buffers and the 22 feet and the fence that, that particular fence in the, in the right away or not in the right away, but in the setback looks reasonable. And I think, I think I echo more or less what Mr. Katz said, but talking to Mr. Carney, talking to Ms. Howell and thinking about it, I think we need to rethink, we, Delray needs to rethink what we want to do with North Federal. And, and, and I think this is a step in the right direction and, and I kind of get the chicken and the egg thing. You want to have the retail, but there's no point in having retail if there's nobody there to use it. So do you build the retail and then hope that you get residential or can you build some residential and hope that that encourages the retail? And I think that's makes this an appropriate development for that quarter. But I do think the, the overall plan, I think this, that we need to look at, relook at what North Federals should be in, in detail, but having said all that, um, you're looking for a motion. I'm looking for a motion. My concerns are alleviated. Move to recommend to the city commission approval of a conditional use and level four site plan application request for 2419 North Federal Highway, including a landscape plan, architectural elevations, four waivers, and an internal adjustment and a loading determination to construct a 47 unit multiple family townhouse type condominium development with a mix of two and three story buildings. At the subject property addressed as 2419, 2507, 2515, 2519, 2601, 2605, and 2613 North Federal Highway, finding that the request is consistent with the land development regulations and the comprehensive plan. Second. I have a motion by Mr. Char, second by Mr. Strawn, and Ms. Miller, would you please call the roll? Karen Kieseleski. Yes. Mitch Katz. Yes. Deidre Strong. Yes. Jim Chard. Yes. Bryce Patton. Yes. Roger Cope. Yes. Gregory Snyder. Yes. That passes unanimously as well. Thank you so much. Thank you. Until, um, you might want to respond to Mr. Perlman that you will have hammers, so he's going to have to deal with the noise. I'm off this letter. I'm off for the project, but they can't make any noise. Oh, yeah. Good luck with that. All right. I'm going to be sneaking out in a few minutes, so I might not get to the end. I've got, I got freebie on the way to freebie to my graduation dinner. Are you going to leave your, your vote? Yeah. Do you want to give me your vote? I'm probably already a yes on this. It's, we asked for this, so. The board member must be present to vote. Ah, yeah. Sorry. No proxies. Please. Please go ahead. Hello. Um, good evening again. Uh, Alexis Rosenberg, Senior Planner Development Services for the record, and I will be entering in project file number 592-2026 into the record, uh, which is a city-initiated request to amend and update the land development regulations to establish pet grooming as a principal use instead of a conditional use. Um, and to establish pet hotels, shelters, training, and daytime boarding as a principal use instead of a conditional use in the mixed industrial commercial district, industrial district, and light industrial district. So, currently, pet grooming is a conditional use in these following zoning districts, uh, most of which are commercial and industrial-based zoning. Some of them, um, are mixed use, so do allow some residential uses as well. And then just diving a little bit into the history of how pet grooming came to require a conditional use, um, October 19th, 2021, the city adopted Ordinance 17-21. Um, which updated the regulations for domestic animal services. Um, this was due to the rise of a lot of day and night boarding services and other outdoor use areas, uh, the city was seeing with the pet service, uh, uses coming forward. So, the standards that were adopted are outlined in LDR Section 4.3.3 W, which is labeled Domestic Animal Services. And these standards, uh, and regulations address required parking, hours of operation, specific distance requirements from residential uses, if there's an outdoor use component. Um, and there were also some definitions that were established with this ordinance, um, including Domestic Animal Services, which include veterinary clinics, pet service facilities, pet hotels, and animal shelters. And then separately, pet services, which pet services is a branch of Domestic Animal Services, and that includes grooming, bathing, uh, training, and daytime boarding. Uh, a thing to note is that prior to the adoption of this ordinance, pet grooming was, uh, permitted as a principal use, but in an abundance of caution, it was grouped in with the definition of pet services. And all of that pet services and domestic animal services were all, uh, uh, grouped in to require a conditional use process. So, then going down the line, um, as some time went by, the city realized that there were certain uses within these definitions that were not as intense as the others. And so, one of the first, uh, businesses that the city saw coming forward a lot were veterinary clinics that did not necessarily require or deem it appropriate to go through a conditional use process. So, July 8th, 2025, the city adopted ordinance 11-25, which allowed veterinary clinics to go through the process as a principal use instead of a conditional use. And then following that, there were other uses, and for example, the pet grooming, which is in front of you tonight. And that was also seen as a use that was not as impactful as some of the other uses within the definition of domestic animal services. It didn't necessarily warrant a conditional use review. So, on November 18th, 2025, the city commission directed staff to take a look at amending the land development regulations to make pet grooming a principal use instead of a conditional use. And then just going into some data, um, since the passing of ordinance 17-21, four standalone pet grooming businesses have come in and have been approved through the conditional use process. Um, there's currently 11 standalone pet grooming businesses in the city and three domestic animal service uses, for example, like a veterinary clinic, that also offer pet grooming services. Yes. Um, just going into the difference in process of a principal use versus a conditional use. So, principal use, uh, uses, so, for example, um, veterinary clinics that are now allowed through a principal use, while it goes through a staff-level review, um, through the process called a zoning certificate of use, which is still administratively reviewed by staff, these uses are still subject to the requirements in the land development regulations. So, LDR section 4.3.3 W that I had mentioned before, um, that outlines parking standards, um, additional setbacks, or, um, I'm sorry, requirements, restrictions from residential areas, those still all apply. It just doesn't go to a board. Um, however, if there is any outdoor component, then it automatically gets bumped to a conditional use review. Um, now looking at the conditional use process, so this has to go through staff review. Then it comes to the planning and zoning board for a recommendation to city commission. It also requires, uh, mailers to all property owners within 500 feet. So, when it comes to certain uses, like the pet grooming, um, the city had noticed that there were a lot of requirements in 4.3.3 W that all the, the pet grooming always followed. Um, and so this process was a little excessive, uh, moving on. So, just trying to break down the ordinance a little bit more. So, the pet services definition, which again, it includes grooming, bathing, training, and daytime boarding. The definition is staying the same. However, we're just extracting pet grooming, um, which includes bathing. When it comes to allowing them in each of the currently listed zoning districts it's listed as a conditional use in. And just changing that to allowing it as a principal use. So, training and daytime boarding, while part of the pet services definition, will remain a conditional use, uh, in the districts that it's currently allowed in. Um, and then just here is a table that breaks down the proposal a little bit further. So, highlighted is where the requested change is. So, again, pet grooming specifically was, is proposed to go from a conditional use to a principal use. In, one, two, three, four, five zoning districts. And the three industrial districts, instead of changing it from a conditional use to a principal use. We're proposing to change it to an accessory use. Just because, uh, there are many more intense type pet service uses that are already allowed in that district. Um, that we felt it was more appropriate to allow it as an accessory use. Instead, it's very unlikely that you would see the pet grooming more as a standalone use sometimes in these districts. In addition to that, um, we decided to also bring forward a change that would allow pet hotels, animal shelters, training, and daytime boarding. From a conditional use to a principal use in the three bottom industrial districts. Uh, just to preface, if there is any outside area component associated with any of these uses in the industrial districts. It would still bump it to require a conditional use. So, this would only make it, um, a principal use if there was no outside use or no, um, yeah, no outside use component. Or anything else that would trigger it to require a conditional use review. Right now, the way it's worded in the code is, um, for example, pet hotels and animal shelters, I think, with outside use area is required to go through a conditional use process. So, it's, it was more of trying to make, streamline the process. And, again, if there's outside use associated, it would still require a conditional use review. Um, and that's pretty much what this slide says. Uh, just going over, again, um, which sections we can cite that requires a conditional use review. If there's any, um, outside activities associated with these uses. And then, um, overall compatibility with the comprehensive plan. So, the comprehensive plan talks about, uh, cultivating a more business-friendly environment. Also, um, encouraging, uh, concentrations of commercial services. So, we feel that this request would help streamline the process for pet grooming, which is not, uh, nearly as intensive as some of the other uses it's categorized with. And if recommended for approval or, um, this, we anticipate this going to city commission for first reading in June. And then, potentially, second reading in June or July. And so, these are the board actions. Uh, the, there's an attachment of the draft ordinance in the backup. And I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Uh, we're now open for public comment. Seeing no public present. That's closed. Board discussion. Anybody have anything? Mr. Strong? No? I'm just glad you went and looked at all the districts. And, um, I appreciate that the conditional use is still required for outdoor uses. No, I'm a couple quickies. Um, we also have railroad district, right? Isn't that, that's our own road. That, what, that's MROC? Oh, um, are you talking about the railroad sub-district? The, the zoning along the railroad tracks. So, a, there is, uh, mixed MROC, mixed residential office and commercial, is along one of the railroad districts. And then, we have central business district. Railroad sub-district is another zoning district. In the downtown along, um, the railroad area. So, we have the MROC is included in here to change pet grooming to principal. And then, in the central business district, we are still, we're proposing the same thing. But, pet hotels, animal shelters, training and boarding would stay conditional use. So, in, in short, a, a district, which is the railroad district, which could, uh, and I think already does, have, uh, pet grooming and pet boarding is covered in this. That's what you just said. Yes. And, I believe there are some areas along the railroad that are also zoned MIC, um, which is also up here. So, I believe we looked at all of those. Yeah, MIC, um, yes. MROC, yeah. Okay, good. Um, the, the other thing is, is my understanding is the major complaints is the noise and the barking. And, uh, I, I guess during the day, it's one thing, during the night, it's a whole different. And so, I'm wondering when it says daytime boarding, when does that end? Is that six o'clock, seven o'clock? Yes. From my memory, because I know in the LDR section 4.33 W, there are restricted hours of operation. And, I believe it is till 7 p.m., it's 6 or 7 p.m., we can, um, but those are the restricted hours of operation for any domestic animal service, unless they're going to be proposed as a pet hotel, which would include overnight boarding. Okay. The, the one that I, I am aware of that there's been a lot of controversy about, uh, is on Federal Highway backing into the single family residential in Osceola Park. And that, that is close enough that it is a disturbance to at least some of the neighbors. Yes. So, typically, um, so for pet grooming, for example, if there's a pet grooming service coming in, one of the criteria that is required in 4.33 W is that there needs to be solid core doors and solid core walls. So, it tries to ensure proper insulation to try and minimize the barking from going past the building. If there's any outdoor use area associated, then there's a distance requirement from a residential, I believe it's a residential zone district. Um, so, and then that bumps it to a conditional use as well. But, typically, when we've been seeing the pet grooming uses come in, we check for the solid core doors and walls. Um, we require that on the floor plan, and that's how we try and address the noise. And the distance from the facility or the, the area that has the barking dog to the residential is how many? 50 feet? 100 feet? I believe it's 500 feet. 300? 300 feet? I think I remember approving that. And that is if there's an outdoor use component or an overnight component. Or even if, or, yeah, even if it's a, um, so the, let me pull this up here. While she's doing that, if I may, I remember that. Yeah. But, didn't we require them to do something extra with the door because of the, uh... Yeah, they, well, they, yeah, they had to have solid, they did. There was a discussion about the doors in particular. But, I mean, at some point, it becomes a code issue. Correct. If they're making too much noise, if they're not supposed to be made. And I think we found that we swung far too far, because this is all in response to Beach Dog, honestly, um, that you referred to in Osceola Park. So, rather than treating that as a code case, we maybe went too far, uh, for something. Because if it's, we've never had an issue with, um, grooming services being a nuisance. The issue with them was that they actually had daytime boarding and none of those protections, like the solid core doors or the distance separation. And they had the outdoor use. So, for a pet grooming place that's operating as it should, that's why we wanted to swing it back to really what made more sense for operators. Um, and again, so they, in answer to the question about hours of operation, um, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. except for veterinary clinics. So, even if you're, um, a boarding place, um, that's gotta be, unless, if you're overnight boarding, you would have to cease your, um, operations to the public by 8 o'clock. But, um, right, that's why if it's conditional use for boarding and overnight or any of those services rather than just grooming. And, um, also to answer the question what the distance requirement is, um, so properties with any type of outdoor use area, um, have to be, at least 300 feet from a residentially zoned property. And even then, even if it's closer, um, for the more intense uses like boarding, that's why it has the conditional use process associated with it. So, on a case-by-case basis, um, you can determine if it's a nuisance. Do we have to vote on this, or is it, we're just presented to it? We need, we need a motion. Yes, it would be a recommendation to city commission. From somewhere. I'm about in. I think a lawyer should do it. Recommend approval. Recommend approval to the city commission of ordinance number 1126, the city initiated request to amend and update section 4.4.9, general commercial district, section 4.4.11, neighborhood commercial, section 4.4.12, plan commercial, section 4.4.13, CBD, section 4.4.19, mixed industrial commercial, second, section 4.4.20, industrial district, section 4.4.26, light industrial district, and section 4.4.29, mixed residential office and commercial district of the LDR to establish pet grooming as a principal use instead of the conditional use, and to establish pet hold, hotel, shelter, training, and daytime boarding as a principal use instead of the conditional use in the MIC industrial and light industrial zoning districts. Second. I have a motion by Ms. Kisielski, second by Mr. Chard. We have to, I call the roll, please. Karen Kisielski. Yes. Mitch Katz is absent. Deirdre Strong. Yes. Jim Chard. Yes. Price Patton. Yes. Roger Cope. Yes. Jerry Snyder. Yes. That's a sixth and nothing. All right. Thank you. That's good. Where are we? Staff comments. Thank you very much. You're welcome. That's good. Okay. Thank you. Board attorney comments. What did we do? We're all prepared. Nothing, Chair. Thank you very much. Hope you enjoy your Memorial Day weekend. Thank you. Okay. Board comments. I'm starting with you. I really don't have anything to say other than, and I don't think we can do anything about it, but these really big pages or files tend to crash the computer, and if you really want to bore down into the details, like on a tree disposition plan or landscape plan, it just explodes, and I don't know what to do about that. I don't know either, but we can explore some options now that we're finding out it's difficult for you all to navigate it. We'll see if there's anything we can do to compress the files, but as you know, like when they're that large, sometimes our options are limited, but we'll absolutely look into it. Oh, that'd be good. Do I? Bryce. Nothing. Karen. Take it. Roger. Just good luck on the baby. Have a good one. Yeah. So cool. Congratulations. Yep. No, I think I've said everything I have to say today. At this point, we're adjourned. Thanks, everybody.