Planning and Zoning Board on 2026-10-19 5:01 PM - Oct 19, 2026

good evening everybody i'd like to call you to order the uh the planning and zoning board meeting of monday october the 19th 2026 city of delray beach uh let's first call roll deeter strong is absent roger cope here mitch katz karen keseleski here jim chard here scott hyman is absent price patten here um any changes to the agenda possibly the applicant for item 8c parks at delray has requested a postponement so it would be at the discretion of the board if you choose to grant that or keep them on the agenda tonight so if you wanted to discuss that now yeah which one is the parks at delray it's item 8c b i'm sorry 8c and just to clarify chair it would need to remain on the agenda but the board could move it to be the first item if it would just be a postponement i'm not sure there's any members of the public that are here that would want to speak on it i'll move it to the first item so there's parts of parts of delray that we can discuss okay we have a second second okay do we need a roll or just a voice vote all in favor is fine for an agenda okay all in favor aye aye okay passes five nothing um now let's see there's no minutes there's no minutes to approve is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak either on an agenda that items on the agenda or not on the agenda please uh stand up and be sworn in just bonnie you're lonely i guess we're going to be here not as long as we thought okay now i'm going to read the quad cause quasi-judicial uh hearing rules the hearing shall be excuse me oh that was feedback the 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 three minutes each or maximum of six minutes if the person represents an organization or a group of people who are present but agree not to speak the city commission board member staff and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine a witness the city of the applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony the decision to approve a denying application or appeal may not legally be made upon the personal views as to whether a project is a good project or not nor may decision be made on the number of citizens who support or oppose a particular project the law requires that all decisions must be made on the basis of whether the project meets the requirements of law the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations now is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on an item that is not on the agenda public comment is closed now we have the first is the parks was the parks delray what's first now it's the parks of delray okay will the applicant come forward state your name and address and you have 15 minutes i believe hi good evening um for the record christina balenke of miscal backman i'm sorry i forgot i forgot of uh uh if there any any contact with the applicants on this matter ex parte well you don't come back to me because i got a few i'm going to make sure i wrote it down none none i drove through and frequent the site i did a drive by and spoke with uh christina belenka i did a drive by and talked to christina and uh bonnie mescal um i did a drive by actually 20 minutes ago i wish i would have known we were postponing this it's gonna save me rushing over there um i met with miss balinski i talked to a few neighbors in that area um talked to um janet meeks carson meeks um anna sloan anna sloan um i think possibly a couple others but i can't remember um i just spoke to my wife about this too heather cat so i mentioned her name um and then the drive-by that's it i'm sorry that's all right christina balenke for the record from miscal backman my address is 5550 glaze road in boca raton um and i appreciate your time this evening uh we are requesting to postpone uh this item to the next planning and zoning board meeting just to afford us a little bit more time to work through some of uh the comments noted in the staff report as well as some discussion items that have been raised uh as follow-up conversations postponed before to this meeting that was there was another something of delray um do we need a motion on that i've got no objection i would i'd like to ask that if it is that it is re-noticed because i think people should know yeah i know if we do a date certain they don't have to re-notice it right correct so the board i have a question too about the notice that was one of the conversations i had because i got the phone call from ava who's got the notice and the question was was the notice was very um obscure and really explained nothing so i mean the the staff report is it's very clear it's only one sentence why is that one sentence that is saying what's happening not in the notice so chair i would recommend just because we do need to do public comment as well since the item is actually being called to to go ahead and do the go through those steps and then board discussion you have i'm sorry what was that you want to yeah so so since the item is on the agenda and it's officially been called we do have to open up public comment if okay there's anybody from the public so my suggestion is before we start addressing board concerns or questions go ahead and make sure we get every step done and then get to board discussion in that way we we know we don't miss anything and then we get to the discussion we can postpone yes okay is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this matter if so step to the podium and you have three minutes seeing no one and we go to the board for discussion i uh rebecca do you know i have more information about the notice and how what goes into it and how it's prepared so the notice stated precisely what the ordinance will do it said it was requesting to amend the development standards allowed uses sequencing plan and master development plan it's always a judgment call as to whether too much or not enough information so we did clearly state though in the notice what was being amended by the request so okay okay does anyone anyone want to discuss or we just want to set a date well then my question is so that when i got a call what does this mean because that doesn't again it doesn't all it says is that they're changing the zoning the staff report is very simple it just says changing from residential to commercial right no there's one sentence that's quoted in that the nuance of the staff report i don't know is appropriate for a mail notice um we could get more specific to say how be allowed uses sequencing plan and master development or plan or change changing um we typically keep it a little more vague and then refer people to reach out to the city for more information exactly so it's this is a interesting zoning district in that it's it's nuanced and it requires a lot of explanation but we could look at it if if they will be required to re-notice we could look at giving perhaps more information i'll just make a motion to remove it to the next meeting november and notice be given i'll leave it up to you on the notice how you do it is there a second second okay roll call deeter strong is absent roger coke yes mitch katz yes karen gazeleski yes jim chard yes scott hyman is absent price patent yes and that date would be november the 16th 2026. thank you very much for your time i appreciate it oh yeah there's a thanksgiving and unless you want to meet thanksgiving i know it's getting late this year it's kind of nice or not nice okay then the next item on the agenda is eastern at atlantic are there any members from the public who wish to speak on this one oh ex parte yeah but which one is that eastern at atlantic um yeah sure um heather katz i did a drive-by um because she was with me so i know we talked about it since she was in the car um who else um ingrid lee uh oh and carson and janet meeks as well yeah i just have an office right i just drove through i did i met with the applicant as well i forgot gentleman's name and bonnie miskell you're sure you're done yes sorry i just don't want to get in trouble for not forgetting anything i i did a i did a drive-by and exchanged brief emails with jack weir and those are all on the server server yeah i live in the southwest area so i go up and down congress all the time but i did do a drive-through and i spoke to mr ware as well as uh city staff on this item that was his name mr ware a brief conversation with mike uh cavelli very brief so do we need we have a motion and a second on postponing it no this one's going forward oh that's right yeah sorry okay so file mr cavelli step up and you need to read it into the record right thank you thank you his first meeting is here give him a break my second still takes a while good evening board members alexia howell senior planner for the record i'd like to enter uh east and atlantic at 2025-191 and 2025-192 and the applicant mike cavelli is here to or the agent's here mike cavelli to present okay mike cavelli 1209 south swinton um this is going to be really fast going through the slides because there's a lot of information we only get 10 minutes but we'll we'll here we go um what's what's before you is a level three uh site plan and master plan um this is located west of congress avenue in the congress park office plaza this is a vacant parcel in the middle of the site that is being developed we are within a thousand feet of the tri-rail station which has some different regulation requirements this also in sub area three of the derry beach congress avenue strategies that was envisioned to as transit oriented pedestrian friendly uh mixed use um but there were some concerns and one of them says it's likely to see horizontal but not vertical mixed use on larger sites this is a horizontal mixed use we're bringing residential into the um into the office park and there they had some other things in terms of increasing density bringing mrock into the area but they also note that there are some challenges with retail in and office in in the area history i'm not going to go through all these the bottom line is there were multiple land use and zoning changes initiated by the city we in 2007 it ultimately ended up as cmu and mrock in terms of the master plan um you see the three buildings that are existing from from the development plan that was approved in the 90s and the yellow buildings are the apartment apartment building and the townhouse that's being uh included on the frontage in terms of findings there's the chapter three which i'll go into later because it also applies with the site plan and then the other part item is that substantial depreciation of the property values doesn't occur so very quickly you know here's a 1984 shopping center that was built to the north a 1963 commercial building across the street a 1957 warehouse building across the street the county buildings uh in 1970 and then in 2013 there was the apartment building that was built which was approximately 740 feet by 425 feet and on the right you can see the proportion of that building compared to what we're proposing again here's the you see the vacant area in the middle where the primary building is going and just a quick run through what the site looks like this is the north entrance this is just south of the entrance where the townhouse site is on one side and the apartment site is on the other congress avenue is on the right this is the vacant parcel that's going to be the apartment complex looking to the south the shopping center that the parking garage will face the northwest building that's existing the southwest building that's existing and the southeast building that is existing and as you can see all the architecture is very different for each building we're doing some picnic overlook areas as part of the pedestrian plan this is the southwest one and then this is the northeast north northwest one main entrance at the south is going to remain as is and then this is congress avenue frontage notice the sidewalks up against the curb with a railing that is going to be moved from the edge of the street into a buffer as you can see here on the right hand side of the drawing where there's a 30-foot buffer with the with the sidewalk being put in and sidewalks are extensively added throughout the site notice that the the primary vehicular traffic will run around the outside loop and the pedestrian traffic will stay in it towards the middle with some controlled connections for that area to to come in and out we've increased the connectivity um including a bridge across the the lake so that this could be a perfect live work situation where people who live and and have easy access to any of the office buildings um also their connectivity for the the um bus stop at the north and tri-rail to the south and east lots of outdoor amenities are being included in the project as well as internal amenities for the tenants in terms of the master development plan the staff report goes through all of these items and from the staff report saying these items support the compatibility and harmony finding of ldr 2.4.10 before the site plan we comply with all of the ldr requirements we're in excess of open space we're a little over half of what the permitted density is we have adequate parking and bike parking we're under the maximum building height there are no waivers or variances this is probably one of the few mrock projects that doesn't have a waiver so as far as the landscape plan we've tried to provide shade in parking lots and on and along walkways from the staff report the plan meets or exceeds principal quantitative landscape requirements so the the landscape plan is in excess of what is required there's a tree disposition plan you see the white area in the upper right hand part of the plan that's the area where disturbance of trees will occur most of those trees are within parking lot islands and we started out with 222 trees we have saved 104 but we brought back 211 trees on 123 palms so we almost doubled the number of trees that are on the site with a very high percentage of native species section three for both the master plan and the site plan has these four items that are required to be reviewed the land use is mrock zoning is the implementing zoning for cmu from the staff report zoning is consistent with cmu land use designation concurrency all these items are already in place because the site is existing and and all this is going on we do have an approved letter from police traffic and we do have a school letter that was approved that has to be modified because we changed the unit mix since it was to a lower lower density and added the townhouses so that will be updated consistency with the goals objectives and policies the staff report has multiple multiple multiple pages in terms of the comp plan and positive findings can be made in terms of ldrs we comply or meet and exceed all of those requirements that positive findings can be made for that with regards to performance standards all of these items were evaluated very thoroughly in the staff report and from the staff report staff finds the development substantially complies with ldr section 4.3.3 bb in terms of density we are within a thousand feet so we can be 100 percent uh residential because of location of tri-rail we can go up to four units to the acre and 50 if we do workforce we are nowhere near the bonus requirement however we are volunteering 38 workforce units within the project we will be doing equivalent of lead silver for the buildings and then in terms of architecture this is the townhouse frontage on congress avenue the landscaping is fairly indicative of the landscape plan um oops i gotta go back oops went the wrong way how do you go here sorry here we go notice on the right hand side of this you can see the apartment building in the background so you can see how this building helps to to block the the view of that and then this is the rear of it where the garages are loaded these are the standards that were evaluated with regards to townhouses uh positive findings have been made for for these items here's a sight line of the um from the center of congress avenue looking from the townhouses through the office building and you'll see the townhouse helps the mask the mass of the apartment buildings and here is the townhouse on the right and the apartment building on the left where you can see the the relationship between the townhouse and that building this is the east side facing congress avenue the main entry with the drop-off into the building at the northeast part of the building this is the the parking garage that faces the rear of the shopping center this is the southwest part of it and you can see in in the foreground some of the recreational areas that are in that area the pedestrian bridge that is going to be used to increase the connectivity and the walk around the lake and the pool deck with a barbecue pavilion that is in the overlook on the lake these are the items in terms of the architecture where positive findings can be made and if you have any questions i'll be happy to answer them thank you miss halib now i got a record to beat okay um i'm gonna make this really simple and really quick i'll try to at least my best so um as explained this is the easton at atlantic at 190 200 220 congress park drive just um off of congress south of atlantic it compromises about 16 acres with existing three office buildings as you can see from the aerial and the proposal is to construct a multi-family residential in the highlighted yellow areas with six townhomes fronting congress avenue avenue um here we have the existing uh site and the surrounding context i'll briefly go with the plaza to the north at the existing buildings of the office it's typically two to three stories the plaza to the north is one story and we have the alta congress to the south which is four story high and so the proposal is to construct a 354 52 apartment uh eight-story multi-family building with six townhomes and two separate buildings at three stories along congress avenue with um and then a level garage with 672 parking spaces there's also amenities and open space like a passive park dog park a tot lot and a boardwalk so decision the decision before the board today um kind of overview is the level three site plan the master development plan as well as the architectural elevations the landscape and parking uh requirements and here's just a project uh snapshot of all the the numeric numerical uh evaluations of it so going really quick through the timeline so a lot of has happened over the time um but basically this was established in the early 80s um with the construction of the office buildings um and then in 2006 to 2007 a regulatory shift happened where essentially the city said the congress avenue should no longer be the traditional suburban office park um and uh created the mrock uh zoning with the cmu land use designation to allow a broader mix of uses into a master plan development and so then that 2016 that vision became more specific through that next great street study which posed the question now that mixed use development is allowed which what should congress avenue actually become that answer was not simply to add apartments but it was to envision a employment supportive mixed use walkable and a multi-mobile corridor with housing diversity placemaking and public spaces and transit connections in 2020 that vision entered the chat per se through the comprehensive plan by adopting policy ndc 237 to implement that vision of the congress avenue and then in 2022 the mrock regulation was further amended and then in 2023 the cbre street sense evaluate how well the existing conditions and regulatory framework are actually producing that vision the study identified the corridor wide office and retail vacancies the limited space for growing industrial businesses and increasing pressure for standalone residential development the study found that the original cmu vision has not been fully realized and identified the need to balance continued support for employment productive commercial uses and uh the adopted adopted objective for a more walkable mixed use environment and so here we have um how this all the framework of it the cmu land use creates the vision with the mrock creating the regulatory mechanism to create that vision to alive and then the congress avenue kind of explaining and supporting that context and so the board should consider how well the proposed residential component integrates with the existing office campus and whether the overall development maintains a balance of uses and how the proposed site design pedestrian connections and circulation contribute to the long-term transformation of congress avenue and basically the the consistencies of the land use it's compatible and it's permitted so one thing to highlight is the concurrency overall it meets water sewer drainage solid waste and parks the only two things i want to highlight today is the education the public schools um the school district did come back with a negative 11 for the orchard elementary school students meaning that um they were at full capacity and with this development a negative 11 students would be produced or additional 11 students would be produced and so um although the required school impact fees would mitigate through the public uh through the building permit would mitigate a portion of that impact the district determined that these fees would not fully address the capacity deficiency and has recommended an additional voluntary contribution of thirty one thousand one hundred and nineteen uh dollars subject to a uh a two-party agreement with the city and the developer and that could be a condition of approval um in the transportation side um it's found to meet the tps of the county however uh they did evaluate that a potential traffic signal will be acquired at the entrance of the north uh congress avenue so staff has um as you can see from the staff report as in the slide staff has identified multiple policies eight comprehensive elements uh 62 policies 15 objectives and two goals uh basically evaluated them and corresponded those evaluations with uh chapter or ldr section 3.2.3 and evaluated the project through these uh regulatory policies and here's the uh ldr compliance uh overall the the project complies with the numerical evaluations of the ldrs here is a um a development map uh highlighting all the uh projects that are either uh under construction under review or under approval along the congress avenue with a total of two thousand nine hundred and eighty three units and a little bit less than half a million of commercial square footage um and the subject property is included into this calculation so here is a snapshot of the uh connections uh between the the site of the office and the multi-family and you can see the lake view just to take a look at more of the amenities um here's the pool with the fitness the clubhouse and the co-working space we have a dog park as well and a the tot lot and then the passive park along the townhomes so for the board you should take a look at the the balance of uses there's 84 percent of residential with a 16 percent of office take a look at the context of the typical two-story and one-story in the four-story building the board shall consider the scale and compatibility of the addition the added eight-story residential and the three-story six townhomes here are elevations um i provided the townhome garage side as well as the elevation of the multi-family to kind of highlight the relationship between the two here are some architectural elevation proposed colors materials and glass and we just have the typical masery modern review and the staff report highlights all those items i'm just going to go really quick through it and the board shall consider the findings one two and three to create good taste good design and harmony within the area and then we also have the landscape disposition plan highlighting just that there's going to be 69 trees removed with a total of 229 trees provided so it goes above and beyond to provide more trees here we have a landscape plan and then the board considerations because of time we can look at that later but here are the board actions forwarding today and that's it thank you um at this point are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this project state your name and address nice standing on the side just name and zip sorry name and actually chair for quasi-judicial full address is required oh okay name and address sorry oh so all the hate mail can come to me right um christina morrison 1000 lowry drive in beautiful downtown delray beach 33483 so do this project this is a great idea to activate this business park just need just please consider a few little changes first of all it backs up to the golf course so that with it's divided by the canal maybe a bridge over so they're connected so people can go to lunch at our beautiful new clubhouse um i don't know if it's going to be a rental building or a condo building but they are anticipating having children so how are you going to handle that big lake with children and and safety and things like that um the 38 workforce units could one townhome possibly be included in that workforce mix that would be really nice um and just want to applaud the developer they came in at lower density no waivers no no nonsense so please approve this project with just a few tweaks thank you i've seen no one else lined up public comment is over is there any rebuttal from the applicant of the city any cross i'm sorry the city rebuttal across good okay so i'm moving into board discussion since uh jim sat on the great street program i wanted to ask him to start first i was delighted to see some of my words up there 12 or 15 years ago um i want to talk about the uh the height and the mass uh the eight stories do we have any other buildings on congress avenue anywhere in the four miles that are eight stories high i i don't know of them if there are thinking is mara del rey which is previously known as aura i don't know if that's that's that's five it's sorry it's it's not it's like at least on congress it's three uh three stories it's not higher than five stories at aura and then alexin is the old oh the alexin is which is six halton it's the new live local project down on the old industrial property on the south corridor yeah number six right the reason i bring it uh is is this sets a precedent um to have something uh that high i think the only thing that's higher in del rey is bar terrace which is 12 stories and then that was down zoned um so we're and correct me rebecca if i'm wrong but this is really be setting a precedent for what's going on on congress avenue eight stories is allowed by right so i don't know if it's setting a precedent or just allowing the district to maximize what has been afforded to it in a transit corridor transit supportive corridor is that uh under mrock or is that just tod in mrock okay well i'll leave it to roger to comment on the uh the architecture apparently it's allowed no i mean the architecture not the height um something to your comments if you don't mind um i you know this will be seen from the neighborhoods across the golf course as well as um i-95 which is you know a very represent it will be representative of the city so i in terms of the massing and the elevations i just wanted to add that in your discussion um i did have a question of the i know in some of our other projects on congress avenue the fire department has weighed in uh was there any conversation with them in terms of services or proximity or anything like that we've had um the fire department take a look at this multiple times overall they've have access to the site there was a concurrency evaluation we in our one of our meetings if you look into the staff report at the end of it like there is attack history like technical advisory committee history i think in the first or second meeting when we had a turn page uh meeting with the applicant we invited fire for an extended discussion so they have been there through tech and also through uh multiple meetings with the apple well i do know at parks of del rey they requested uh the fire department requested a million dollar uh fee basically to expand the fire department i'm sorry i don't know about that i'm just wondering if that was maybe an oversight that we didn't get their input not an oversight our fire reviewers are very thorough they've looked through this throughout the entire process so if a fee wasn't required then it wasn't required uh the way that impacts are evaluated are if a particular project would tip it over and so if it was evaluated on a previous project that may have triggered the improvement that wouldn't be triggered by this because additional facilities aren't needed yet okay okay is this subject to the new impact fees that were imposed yes so we put a note that the impact the impact fees is collected at the building permit stage so we made a note in the staff report that the impact fees right now including staff report are subject to the new fees okay um there is no other than the office buildings that are already there there's no retail at all in this development that's correct uh there's an eight-story garage right but there's still a lot of surface parking why why would we have a lot of surface parking if you have an eight-story garage there and and and instead make that open space or park space so the parking requirement they are required to provide 950 uh spaces and the this this the structure the garage structure has 672 i guess like from the uh uh calculations i think they cannot go farther than uh the 85 feet high and it's a design choice so maybe the applicant can also weigh in to this question but you have to remember are there are three office buildings that are currently operating and right now those office buildings utilize that surface parking with the exception of the building in the south east corner has a 50 unit parking garage underneath it 51 units something like that so in terms of you know how do you you do this um we're essentially not really trying to disturb the parking uh for the two buildings on the west because obviously during the construction phase people have to have some place to park when they go to work so um that parking will remain and we'll be improving landscaping and everything in that parking lot but that will remain and likewise on the east side there's a parking lot that runs right in that area that also is the is the parking we did a parking utilization study for each of those buildings to see how many parking spaces they absolutely had to have in terms of what they utilize at capacity and we're making sure that at least those spaces are available in the proximity of the building because it isn't just parking spaces it's proximity as well and you know where in if you were to build a parking garage um let's say on the west side of the building of the property um you would have people you know doing a different pattern in terms of where they go how they walk with what they do but the most important thing is is the phasing of the construction this is going to be really critical in terms of keeping all those businesses open and having places to park during that period of time there's some vacancy there now yes yeah so and that's why what we did was we did that utilization so we know we at least have enough surface spark spaces for those buildings to utilize and is there buffering on that east side parking lot uh on congress avenue we're putting a 30-foot buffer in okay along congress yes with a berm okay um last but not least because i know uh my associate here to the left would be very concerned if i didn't bring up trees and plants um i went through all 200 pages or so of photos and trees and analyses and i noticed a couple things and you know maybe you can help me on this uh one was that a lot of the trees that are being removed are natives a lot of them are uh live oaks and in in others um i know that it is called parks of delray or uh wrong wrong project congress park congress park i'm sorry i'm close um and when you drive through there it is kind of like a park uh and a lot of those trees i'm guessing are maybe 50 years old maybe a little bit more uh and when you look at the the size and the spread that uh some of them are 40 by 40 feet and then i i also looked at the reasons why they should be taken down and i just like maybe you address that a little bit uh this whole idea of a co-dominant lead and also the idea of uh trees bumping up against each other uh what are they called compound canopy yeah if you looked at the plan first of all with regards to native um we're supposed to do 25 percent uh native trees it's 50 isn't it or 50 and i i don't remember the numbers if you pull my presentation up that it's it's on there but um we're in excess of not only native trees but native shrubs as well um so we've really tried to lean heavy on native trees but you also have to remember you have to plant the right tree in the right place so in some areas you just can't plant an oak tree but you can plant other things like the hoon holly and yeah and things like that so that's what we really tried to do um with regards to trees in the in the um in in the um parking parking areas you see it all over the place in older centers where you have the old five-foot islands and it's got an 18-inch diameter tree in it well the roots are so constrained on on those trees that we found and we did a lot of work with tree movers all over the city um and and i did parks at delray and we did did move a lot of trees there and we found that the old parking lot trees didn't have a uniform root pattern and there's nothing to hold the tree up it would be more like a long pattern it wouldn't be a spread pattern and so the the root system is just even though it's a more mature tree just isn't the survivability but when i hear that argument i think of atlantic avenue and atlantic avenue has maybe two feet around each of those oak trees and to my knowledge none of those oaks have fallen down or been taken down i'm not saying that i'm saying that that that if you have a proper root system at the time you transplant it size isn't so critical but you have to have the proper root system and our plan is is that when we actually get the permit we're gonna we're gonna do a transplanting evaluation because obviously if we can move more of those trees we'll we'll be able to save money in terms of and and have a better a better look but for right now for the plan that we have we've far exceeded the requirements we've done the evaluation uh with the arborist we're following those recommendations and and you know we're we're more than almost doubling the number of trees on site but you also have to remember that a lot of this is new construction and some areas don't allow you the space to to put those trees in um even even with uh you know some of some of the other things we're trying to save the trees in place because that's the best way to do it in terms of some of the the buffers but it's a it's a very complex process in terms of the trees in old parking rocks i would say that comparing the trees that are there now to the trees that are going to be planted is a little bit unfair because you know when you have a tree that's 40 by 40 and you're bringing in a a new tree that's got a diameter of breast height at three inches that's a big difference we we are doing larger trees because we wanted to uh make up the the inches um in terms of the mitigation inches so we're instead of planting a two inch tree planting a five inch tree or an eight inch tree so in areas where we can do that we have up the caliper of the trees that we are planting and i could i could show you that in in the uh plant data thank you sir um i have a question for steph can you bring up first of all that your slide with the map when showing all the numbers of 2009 million 333 units that's it my question is and you might not know the answer to this about the public school concurrency issue when they are evaluating that that number they gave out to you that negative are they basing that on everything there or everything that is currently occupied i think to the best of our understanding it's based on so every project has to submit the school concurrency availability determination so they base it on what is approved and they keep it updated regularly so they base it on so when they when they they looked at that there currently is an additional 2500 basically before that was that that's already been evaluated so they're saying had this not been built it didn't that's that's correct okay we had a meeting with the school district like rebecca the same team and also our assistant director for another project and they are actually basing it everything on the screen it's taking into account that's good enough um it still concerns me a little bit that there is a negative um but um that also could be help with zoning potentially i'm surprised that's not zoned for banyan and zoned for orchid where it's at it was orchid view that you said is currently where it would be zoned for that was in their uh analysis yes i mean one thing i'd like to say before something like this move forward is working with them potentially on rezoning because you have a orchid view would be over but banyan creek is currently at like 30 percent below you know so that could help mitigate some of that as well um the commerce task force so i think a lot of this came in came up in our conversations about wanting mixed use right is that clear is that a easy analysis maybe mr jargon answers since he sat on it that they wanted to see mixed use come to this quarter and this is being considered a mixed use project is that correct anybody okay it's certainly correct all right what the task force wanted so my my concern is i think i wasn't on the task force but i was on the commission when we charged the task force to do this and then we got the task force report back was the task force was saying let's take some of these areas and get rid of some of the dilapidated like buildings and build true mixed use projects right i don't remember ever when that was presented to us they said let's just fill in the old you know leave all the old buildings and just put a bunch of white buildings in between of modern masonry to just add more housing but not actually had add more mixed uses to me a true mixed use project is a mixed use so in other words they come into a plaza and said it was it was unoccupied okay we're going to nobody's using them for offices we're going to tear them down and we're going to put in like they've done in other areas or they take those buildings that are unoccupied and they refabricate them to add you know offices retail on the bottom actual mixes not just to me what we're doing is we're just we're saying we have right now and you've described it perfectly mr chard was it looks like a park in there it's beautiful in there i mean my guess is people that because when i did meet with the applicant he told me this and i'm hearing mixed things about that tonight on the occupancy he told me that it is very well occupied that i know the health services is one but those offices are being used right now and i'm guessing those people are enjoying being able to go out and have a lunch outside or take a walk exercise things like that you know any table yeah you know we're basically saying we're going to get rid of this beautiful green space and put in these big huge apartment buildings which maybe is something we want but to me there's got to be some trade-off there maybe not as much mass maybe not you know eight stories something that's not an eyesore from those communities that my other colleague just mentioned that are west if i could just add a quick clarification i know mr chard you asked if there were any other eight story buildings approved so on that corridor also delray central was approved as 80 feet and eight stories high so this would be the second on on the congress avenue corridor to reach that height right and also i will tell you that's another thing too where again instead of just doing a true mixed use it's considered a mixed use because they squeezed an eight-story building in between two office buildings here we're squeezing you know an eight-story building where there's you know in between three office buildings i just don't see the trade-off i'm really concerned that this is this is just a way to maximize land that a developer owns without a large enough benefit back to the residents in the area i just want to clarify because the land development regulations don't discuss your findings or evaluation quite the way that you're phrasing it so i just want to make sure that when the board's discussing and making this decision you know really you have a list of findings that have been articulated a detriment to the neighboring community well it could be but we don't we i wouldn't recommend referring to that as a trade-off that has implications of maybe a quid pro quo or you need to give us something or for use to give you something what we have is the land development regulations that set out specific findings the board can determine those findings have or have not been met but it get maybe we get this conversation sometimes too with waivers like why would you grant a waiver if you're not doing something there's no waiver it's just right exactly but that's an example so i would just i would encourage the discussion to be about meeting findings or not meeting findings and not necessarily what sacrifices or trade-offs or things you know might be occurring our regulations don't really specify the type of uses that make it constitute a mix of uses to make it constitute as a mixed use it's very broad commercial and residential so it would um but to me if you're going to invoke so a task force right somebody spent a year working on i think you should invoke the spirit of that task force not just one sentence and they're saying you want mixed use if that makes sense um that's all the questions i have for now yeah i had some some of the similar questions um but i'm gonna start with the elevations as i mentioned um uh they're a little a fan i'll put it that way i think they could have showed a little bit more um um differentiation along the long lengths of the elevations um like i said um this is going to be seen from from many different ways um so i think that could have been could could have been enhanced even though i understand it meets the minimum requirements so i'm just going to put that out there as well as the height um i think the height and mass in there is a look is is going to be a shock on on that quarter i know when congress grove went in at four stories for the tri-rail state at the tri-rail station that was somewhat of a shock um so this will be another one um doesn't mean it's not what the city wants like it you know very well is and tied in the changes for congress and tod i just want to make sure we do it um the best way possible um then the other concern we've talked a little bit about parking um and mr cavelli hit on on some of my questions having to do with a very suburban corporate park and inserting a um a very urban residential use new use into it i want to make sure that um or i have some questions and maybe somebody can answer this in terms of how the existing businesses will be supported and promoted in with this change if if any i mean this is under unified control the um preserving the um surface parking and proximity i think is a great step um and i'm going forward um but is there if the applicant could at least address how the the existing non-residential will be remain remain part of this yes uh bonnie miskell here on behalf of the applicant 5550 glades road boca raton so um your city actually was a leader you were a visionary when it came to integrating residential and a non-residential place and where this is was non-residential um but your city looked at it and by the way mike and i may be the only people in the room that have were were here when office depot left and the mrock was originally adopted i hate to say that i'm feeling older by the minute but um one of the things that this city had the opportunity had an opportunity it had a rail station that was open and active and could serve to help reduce the cars on the road i mean that was really the focus back then it well there were two one was replacing office depot what do you do you have this very large site office depot went to boca raton now you've got a vacant piece of land with empty buildings one of which was full of asbestos apparently so there were those two challenges and that's what led the discussion way back then the city created a set of regulations the mrock which was novel it boca didn't have them boynton didn't have them you guys were first and you brought in this concept that was supposed to serve a couple of things introduce something that provided diversity to the area by allowing the residential when you allow residential and you have everything else but that what you're doing is reversing traffic when the office is coming in the residential is going out so your roads don't seem as crowded because they're going in opposite directions that worked in boca after they followed your lead they did the same thing with the arvita park of commerce which is now called a bark at park at broken sound they tested the theory they added 2500 units and those units did exactly what is happening here residential freestanding residential was integrated and mixed with office buildings for the most part and in some cases industrial buildings and they weren't integrated horizontally they were integrated vertically they were integrate integrated horizontally so did it work well it sure did because they did a traffic study before the 2500 were built they did a traffic study after they found that their traffic had not increased by one trip now how does that happen because the traffic is going in different directions but they also had a rail station and they watched what you did and they said you know it makes sense for us to locate these units near the rail rail station and so what they were really trying to do was get cars off the road you had the vision to offer more to create a mixed use community interestingly enough though your code doesn't define mixed use it just says two or more uses integrated so we are two uses the property immediately to the south of us one of the first mrock buildings that was approved after the regulations that's only one it's a freestanding residential so the code unfortunately nothing is perfect but to answer your question what boca realized is that when you bring these residential units into an office park what you do is you create employment opportunities that were not otherwise there you can you can bring in someone that may not want a car may not be able to afford a car but now they can work in a community where they can truly bike or walk to the office here we're not just creating the proximity so that it's convenient to attract a new type of labor person but we're also creating the pedestrian network to make it easy convenient and to get them out of the cars so you're serving multiple purposes so most importantly that's what you'll get here you'll get a community that didn't have residential and that forced everybody to drive there unless they lived to the south which has been fully occupied for years it now has created an opportunity for people to move closer to their office buildings and to work right next door and as a matter of fact i actually have a neighbor whose son did just that in the city of boca raton 900 broken sound a building freestanding residential located next to an office building he lives literally about 200 yards from where he works that's one of the greatest things you can do for an office building is make it easier to attract labor to work there yeah i appreciate that thank you i i really do appreciate that i think my question was though that customers coming to these office buildings right now are coming because are in some sense because of a suburban environment the ease of parking the ease of access and that and so i'm um i just want to make sure that that's retained long term so for those um existing office complexes promote the non-residential and so i was just understanding if wondering to understand what kind of the maintenance program the long-term program would be i know that's not before us tonight except for the master plan does have some concepts of being able to keep the unified ownership and things like that so yes and as mike explained we were very sensitive to not infringing upon how the office buildings are working today whether they're bringing clients in or whether they have workers that are coming in we you know in no way impacted parking and we no way impacted the areas around the buildings to continue to have that pastoral feel that tree green space area and we tried to expand upon it by creating the bridge connection and creating other bike paths and pedestrian paths around the entire perimeter for people that may want to walk when they take their lunch break thank you so and i i love the concept that you're describing live here right work right next door not necessarily need a car but you need more than people do more than just work and live right there's the work live play right there's that going out to dinner there is going to the gym there is all those other services to me that's where the mix a true mixed use comes in where the bottom floor of these mixed use projects are giving them those other things those offices are readapted to offer some of those other things so they truly can live and work there without potentially an automobile or potentially without having to use the automobiles sitting in the garage my you know my son's in downtown austin right now he barely uses the car anymore because he can walk to the jam he can walk to get something neat he can you know he uses the little scooters now everywhere um to me those are to me that's true mixed use i just that's what i like i get you're saying the code says but there's also the spirit of the code as well the spirit of that concept i don't think what you describe is what i'd love to see i just don't see this achieving that goal if it makes sense and and and by the way you know mrock does allow for a mix of uses so you can do commercial you can do office you can do residential and and ideally it would be wonderful in a perfect world which we are so far from but in a perfect world you would have a more you know a mix a a a multi more than two per uh two use mix however in this instance at this location this city i don't know how many years ago but about 20 years ago decided that their priority was to put residential in to use the tri rail to make that tri rail station more active and they knew that if you allowed those parcels that are within a thousand feet from tri rail if you allow them to be heavier on the residential then you will get more people using the train which you know what the current capacity of the train is i have no idea it's it's very good it's actually like i think it's like nine eighty ninety percent utilization is crazy number i think we're doing that there's three thousand two thousand eight hundred apartments before even this one approved so i think the city has already achieved that goal and how does this help that goal well because then the city has many goals i mean you have a whole book this thing on goals policies and objectives it has many many goals in this instance you're never going to serve all those goals in fact i wish i've never had a project in 35 years that addressed every single goal policy and objective broken sound now they're not well they're doing what we're proposing no but they have the other things they have the they have the gyms they have the other stuff they they don't okay they they don't uh the park at broken sound is primarily residential and one other user um it is not a mix of three um it is very difficult for that the difference between the park at broken sound and this is the park at broken sound is much larger it's 500 acres plus or minus so in all of those 500 you can get more mixes but in this case the city's priority was to get the residential more heavily located by tri-rail because that makes it easier for people to go to work outside of delray and not use a car and then to come into delray and not use a car but but i appreciate what you're saying and you know and i know you're going to laugh when i'm about to say this but i said a long time ago when i was getting another project approved that the rooftops generate the demand for that commercial and apparently we're just later on you might but but we're not you know we're we're not there yet now by the way that's not to say that when we you know should this get approved we build these units that doesn't mean that the office building won't say hey i have 1500 square feet here that i'd like to convert convert to commercial we give them the opportunity to do that because that commercial is not just nine to five it gets to serve this building as well so that's another benefit that i didn't mention for the office we give the office owners more flexibility to bring in these uses that serve both their communities which is the office square footage but also this neighboring community so thank you uh roger well maybe in that same vein uh are there are there going to be and this is a question for both of you staff and the applicant are there going to are there any remaining out parcels within this park that are left to develop or none this is so this is okay all right if i may yes you may there is the design center across the street like that provides like a lot of those uses so why do we want to compete with that i can answer that you know i mean let's let's talk to developers well well but before i know but what i'm saying is let's leave this board discussion yeah okay all right so i love the project and on many different levels and during export i didn't i didn't drive over there for the within the past week or two to view the property because i've been over there i've had multiple clients that wanted to build over there because they absolutely love the intimacy of that park uh the location of it it's a spectacular location but it's extremely underutilized it is it is unfinished it it's almost like it got off the ground 20 years ago it had a great initial beginning and then and then it it you know things that developed around it and it kind of stagnated and i i get the my sense of of it it as it is exists today is it's it's been stagnant for a long long time uh it's a very difficult uh and very organic uh shaped site to deal with and i think that their solution is extremely sympathetic to the traffic flow the everything that's already existing there the the you know they're in the heart of of the overall park i love the dynamic layout of their main building and the apartment and the garage i think they're perfectly situated i adore the little town homes along congress i wish i wish they were going all the way down that road instead of just those six uh i i the architecture of both i think is very attractive um fits stylistically into everything that we ask other other projects to uh to emulate i think the three buildings that are already in there are going to absolutely love this you know they i mean one of you made the comment that you know that that the occupants of those buildings now are in a park-like setting and they're loving life and they go outside and have lunch and it's not the case at all man that it's it's too quiet in there it's it's almost like an abandoned park that got uh you know 10 along the way and then fell apart so i think this is a fantastic uh development uh they can go eight stories the code allows them to go eight stories let them go eight stories um i love the the the lakefront the waterfront amenities i love the bridge across the waterfront uh i'll let them figure out whether or not they want to have a second a third bridge or over to the golf course i doubt that that will really fly but but i mean to address christina's comment um there's already one there it's already one there over to the golf course oh i didn't know that so so maybe they can enhance that perhaps don't know but uh i think this is an ideal setup then and i think you know from a macro we're looking at the entire corridor of congress avenue i i think sometimes you got to put the focus on the site itself and and bring it in and focus on what's at hand uh i you know let them figure out the the educational component and and whether or not they want to strike a check for thirty one thousand dollars and make that go away i don't know but i love the project kids i i hope to god kids are running all over the place that's that's what that's what you want isn't it yeah i think so yeah okay um i you know this this project kind of had me at the um at the beginning when they said no waivers no variances um you know and it's it's i know i appreciate the comments from several of my colleagues about what they'd like to see there and the ideal mix of commercial and residential and um but that's not what we're here to judge we're here to judge the project as it's presented um i also think that when this building gets built and the apartment gets built or the condo um you'll see some changes in the uses of the of the building surrounding them because they're going to have a whole they're going to have a whole captive clientele um and they may be adapting there may be restaurants going in there there may be clothing stores going in there because they say this is a great place to sell clothes um um so that um and the height you know the height i mean the parapet the parapets always bug me but how how is it a is it a clear parapet or is it a i'm asking asking staff is it clear is it it's just to cover the the the ac equipment on the roof right so it's a solid parapet so that does make it look like it's an 85 foot tall building but um they can that that's again that's that's that's allowable um let's see oh the um the trees i when i when i when i drove through there as as uh as jim said there are some gorgeous live oak trees in there but they're they're in these tiny little concrete surrounded on three sides and the roots are just gnarled up and and they look like they're hurting um and in some report and i think it was this report i read in the landscape part that there was a request to put the trees in a um a 60 square foot space as opposed to a 130 square foot space is that was that this one that's the other one that's the one that was postponed well let me ask the uh the applicant real quick when you when you replant the trees because that parking had some really tight curb curb curb spots um are you going to allow for more space are you still going to try and keep the the parking as no the the the code by virtue of the the the dimensional requirements pretty much make those those islands that are out there at least twice the size and um the ones that you you have to build compared to the ones that are there now they're the islands we do are going to be much more conducive and then you provide a tree growing there you provide a tree every 13 spaces and all that stuff and 15 it puts some well actually i think we're we're less than that because we didn't do like bunching up the spaces to okay thank you yeah i don't if there is a bridge to the golf course i don't think the golf i wouldn't want people walking on the fairway when i'm hitting no i mean yeah i mean that there's that request or discussion is probably unrealistic because the canal is lake worth drainage district so they would have to and then there'd also be a connection to city property which would also require some type of agreement or hold harmless so um you know there'd be several governmental entities they'd have to work with to to even consider that if we can't salvage a tree hanging over the waterway we're not going to get a bridge um the uh the suggestion about a workforce unit in the townhomes is that amenable to the applicant it's a bit problematic primarily because um our our goal is to have the townhomes be fee simple so those are actually ownership units yeah right to do that as fee simple the economics just okay really don't work um but we are volunteering the 38 equal type units okay littler but i can push my side um so my client has a partner and this is that's the partner's piece of the deal but we will certainly ask the partner uh we can't commit because the partner's not here but we certainly don't have an objection as long as the partner is okay with it we are we can work with staff to be flexible and then the workforce units in the uh apartment building itself or condor whatever are those are those low medium low are they lower medium or high moderate moderate they're all moderate yes thank you oh the and you determine the amount of the tree disposition funded at uh uh permit time yes correct at the building permit okay because i thought it was something like 900 caliber inches yeah there is an amount it should bring in some some money for the city okay well i've i've had my say is there may i say one more thing yeah sure there are yeah go ahead please go there there is no fund we're we're putting all the inches back and then some so we're not having to pay into the fund we're putting putting it in trees there are two trees uh identified by the arborist uh to be relocated i think you will work towards this absolutely so if you say like if you cannot relocate it or you mentioned that you will revise this at the time building permit so that okay this is pertaining to that's two out of two hundred yeah no that's that's two that weren't included um but but the goal was to not pay into the fund and actually put physical trees yeah uh mr cavelli uh you brought up the issue of the design district uh just across the street and i think that proves the case that some of us up here we're talking about uh particularly mitch that uh a person was able to go in there and convert all of these small spaces to really thriving businesses of every kind and and basically they're they're totally filled up much more dynamic than across the street with the with those office buildings and it would just seem to me if there were some way to get that kind of uh and i'm going back to karen's question was that kind of dynamism that kind of flexibility i mean those are a lot of startup businesses women-owned businesses little restaurants little coffee shops uh and if that kind of energy could cross the street into this uh and somehow tie the residential and commercial together uh i think that would be a great solution to the multi-use question ask what the rents are on the east side of the street well of course i mean it's really and and we experienced this on uh parks of delray we had a public signed up and they couldn't make the economics work because the rents on the congress avenue just aren't there right now to support a brand new center that you're paying 350 dollars 400 a square foot to build so when you take and repurpose a built existing building obviously your your base fee is far less and your rents can be a lot more affordable it'll come it's part of the congress avenue corridor development you know when we did the original mrock the the goal of mrock was to bring people into the area because you need people to support those businesses and so this is part of that process and it'll come but economics late plays a very big part in in what those uses are and how are they sustainable well we're not talking about publics we're talking about small but but that center had a whole bunch of spaces that were going to be restaurants and and you know coffee shops and sandwich shops and all that and the rents just weren't there they couldn't afford to build okay thank you thank you do um any more board comments questions okay do i have a motion i'll make a motion mr chair okay oh i would like to move to approval of a level three site plan and associated masters development plan for the easton at atlantic including architectural elevations landscape plan and a landscape plan to construct an eight-story 352 unit multi-family building six three-story townhouse units and an eight-level parking garage for the 16.26 acre congress park property located at 190 200 and 220 congress park drive finding that the request is consistent with the ldrs and the comprehensive plan is there a second just for the fun of it i'll second it can you call the vote please you just drawn is absent roger cope yes mitch katz unfortunately no karen gizaleski yes jim chard no scott hayman is absent price patent yes the motion carries three to two changing of the yard okay when everyone gets back it'll start on delray place i'm not quoting her for later today i'm quoting her for next month since we moved that item that is a quote she said at the original hearing that i will be quoting again what are you talking about she said about her her quote about rooftops equal retail because that was when they were building parks at delray she said they couldn't promise the retail until the roofs were built hey is everybody ready okay could you read into the record the uh the item what is it 8d delray place special activities district yes good evening my name is rebecca dossery principal planner for the city and i'm reading into the record file number pz 000715-2026 and we have a representation for the applicant here to present ex parte oh right keep forgetting ex parte i'll start i drove there um barely was able to get there but i was able to after waiting 20 minutes for all the cars to try to get out of the way i was able to get there um so i did ex parte uh my wife was with me so she we definitely talked about it mitch what time of the day did you drive there sorry what time of the day would that it was on a saturday at noon the same time that i also talked to the fire chief about it and i asked him to send the fire inspector to be there at noon just give see if the fire department agrees with my assessment or not and hopefully we have that answer tonight at some point um what else i talked to shelley petrolia about it as well um we have correspondence from her as well um spoke i think that's about it jim i had breakfast there yesterday uh and i talked to mr uh carosella okay i i drove in there and um i talked to shelley petroli and her letter to the board is on the on the record and the applicant has it i believe um yeah i drove by had breakfast there this morning and then um miss petrolias email petrolias email as well and i have long history with the development of the site from sprab from 10 15 years ago i'd like to say ex parte i spoke in favor of the original development on the night that it was presented by a different a different attorney but now you put pressure on me it was uh mr uh what was his name jeff uh was it michael oh no michael's partner at the time jeffrey yeah it was jeffrey lynn presented miss miss coach want to make sure you have a copy of the email that was left on the dais i do thank you very much yes we did receive it i was on spread with roger too is that i mean it was like 10 years this is this is a different application this is a partial rezoning but yes it's different please good evening bonnie miskell um here on behalf of the applicant my address is 5550 glades road beaucratone florida and i have been sworn um i was not here then so as noted um but i'm jumping in and hopefully uh i i won't i won't embarrass myself but you'll let me know okay so we'll get going here we have a short presentation as well i think you all since you've had lunch there very recently you know where this site is it's the southeast corner of linton and south federal highway approximately just under 10 acres and this was uh approved um several years ago 15 16 17 years ago um and uh they've done very well i think um they did a very nice job so uh this is partly a cleanup item because there was some ambiguities and you know i wish anthea was here but i'm sure you'll do a wonderful job um the uh and and shame on us or it wasn't me but um the plans had some inconsistencies on them um one of which was an arrow that pointed to a grassy area that was not grass then it was not grass shown on the phasing plan it just was inconsistent and so we are here partly for that and we are here for a few other cleanup items but i'll get into the crux of it so in the original ordinance there were permitted uses um the change to request clarification on the allowance for those but we're not really changing that um shared parking matrix matrix no change it was previously approved we're complying with it we intend to continue to comply with it um the we are here to memorialize that we completed the parking utilization study that was required uh well over a decade ago that's been completed we're in compliance with that um there's no change to the implementation of parking mitigation strategies not changing that years ago the square footage for the restaurants was bumped up we're not changing that we're not trying to increase that that's we're maintaining the status quo there uh site plan modification allowance for admin um administrative approval no change there allowance for modifying the site plan administratively with staff approval provided no increase in project size building area building height um allowing up to 10 percent building area increase administratively or with board approval at the discretion of the director that's a slight modification no change i don't even know what trade dress means i'm embarrassed to say but we have no change to that and um established that we are not changing any of the restrictions and limitations as we all know um i was on i was behind this item on the agenda but i ultimately left but there was lots of feedback lots of participation from the neighborhood lots of that feedback got incorporated into the ordinance and we are not proposing to change any of that we want to continue to comply with what was committed to then and have been complying with and then um incorporated the approved site plan attached the ordinance as exhibit b we're updating it this is the crux of the request we are trying to fix the inconsistencies on the multiple sets of plans that were incorporated into the project way back when um where it said grassy area and there was the dentist's office um that building we we are requesting to stay where it is and we'll explain to you how that impacts the over approval but um again the phasing plan showed that building through three phases so we want to fix that in consistency and make sure all of our plans match and not make that mistake again so the subject area the crux of this request where the dentist's office um was is shown in red um blown up and uh there is an arrow that you can see and i i don't know if it says it there but that caused part of the problem because it said grassy area so there was a little bit of a conflict there so we fixed the plan so that it doesn't do that um this building was there this building is now occupied by the at&t we are not proposing to add one square foot beyond what was previously there that square footage um is more than covered with the existing parking and we exceed the open space requirement for the sad so the that open that area does not need to go back to grass because we were under open space we actually exceed open space as it was built and as it is designed um one other thing that i well i may come i'll come back to it okay so this is what was built and by the way we got permits for this um this was what was built and this is what is there today the difference what you'll see today is a sign that says at&t and whatever interior build out that they did interestingly enough um medical office is a very high generator for a couple of things one traffic two parking as we all might expect because we all go to the doctor or the dentist and there are multiple rooms available in there and also they have pretty significant staff working within the office the at&t and many retail uses do not generate that level of demand the way that it is being occupied today is a reduction in parking demand and it's a reduction in trips so it actually has some positive positive consequences to you know what is there and i mean the at&t building okay so a picture for you you can see the left side is what it was when the dentist office was occupied and the right side is what it is today and we are not changing the frontage other than the sign we are not changing the square footage we are doing uh really truthfully a conversion of the use of this space so we went through all of the requirements that we must go through whether it's chapter three or beyond and in many cases it's not applicable because we're not creating any new impacts the impacts are actually a little less because of the change of use we have a use today that is less demand for the of the reasons i described so but these are i have to go through these they're this these are things you must check off the box land use map are we consistent with it of course we're consistent the use that is in the space today is consistent with the underlying land use the use that was in it before was consistent with the underlying land use we are not affecting consistency with the comprehensive plan map concurrency that deals with a lot of things water sewer roads etc etc um you know infrastructure type demands and capacity and analyses we have actually slightly a reduction here less parking demand less trips on the road so we can check that box we do not have a concurrency problem there is no more demand for this use for water and sewer either consistency in general it has to be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan the tier and land use designation and the city code we can check all of that off this is a use that is otherwise allowed in the sad and it is considered an acceptable commercial use and these types of uses whether it's t-mobile at&t etc are all over cities like delray and and its neighbors and then compliance with the ldrs so with an sad you set up your among other things your development standards and that is something that we had to review against which we did and we checked off all the boxes 410 spaces are being provided where 408 were required we have 25.4 open space where 25 was required so we can check that box off we need all the minimum requirements for the sad standards and anything that would otherwise be applicable by code we also need to look at the rezoning standards because technis technically even though this is a cleanup item and and we are changing the use from what was a dentist office to an at&t space or retail space we have to look at because it was an sad there was a master plan we have to amend the master plan and that's why we're here today so we have to check all of these off as well the first two are not applicable if this isn't commercial west of interstate 95 so b isn't applicable um this doesn't do any have anything to do with the neighborhood stabilization requirements so that's not applicable avoidance of strip commercial development we're not adding one square foot so we're not creating any new commercial development concerns combat compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses the at&t was previously next door we just moved it over one space so the use itself and the conversion of the use from the dentist office to at&t and allowing the building to stay to stay the way it was has zero impact as far as compatibility is concerned with nearby land uses and then lastly i'm not even sure it's applicable but this we're not filling or doing infill here it's an existing structure so and then site plan um performance standards i won't go through each and every one of those i can speak to each of you uh if you have questions regarding them but we've gone through all the site plan performance standards and we comply this building isn't changing other than the sign on the wall the colors are the same the space is the same um so and we don't have an open space requirement so we don't need a grassy area in order to meet that we've exceeded the minimum requirements and and that's really it um yeah i would like to and i can do that after the members from the public speak if you'd like me to speak about the email that you received i can do that during the rebuttal yeah i'll be fine okay thank you thank you very much for your attention i appreciate your time thank you okay good evening so um we all know where this is federal highway the corner of linton we all eat there we all shop there so um i wanted to start out by talking about the purpose of an sad because sads are a quirky zoning district we have that um they're designed for large scale or mixed use developments where conventional zoning or development standards may not be appropriate and as part of this approval the uses the master plan different parking ratios were all approved as part of that initial approval um so the process is that um planning zoning board would hear the zoning request when the sad is established city commission hears the ordinance at first reading a site plan is approved and then it goes to city commission for second reading and unless a particular ordinance adopts a threshold where it could be considered an administrative change we have several in recent years that have done that then it's considered a rezoning no matter what the modification is it's considered a rezoning so the history of this is in 2013 the site plan was approved by sprab and the rezoning was approved by the commission in july of that year then later in 2016 there was a site plan amendment which was approved with some modifications because the dental office had not been demolished yet so the applicant has characterized their application as cleanup of some things that weren't clear but there actually is an active code violation on the property because um at and t was moved into the space even though it was required to be demolished after the dentist uh relocated so that's what brings us here today not a cleanup item but just um a requested deviation from the prior approvals so this um i'm not expecting everyone to read it but just to show again in context of the whole plaza this is the site plan that was certified from june of 2013 and again um that was identified as something that was supposed to be um not having a building there um and i had another slide which i'm i think it's later yes so um i'm gonna jump ahead here so again that that area here was slated to be grass and again in the phasing plan it was to remain unless or until the dentist relocated so that brings us back to the current request here so it's amending the approved site plan to allow this 1500 square foot building to remain um and then as miss miss schooler referred to we completely reordered the amendment because the the initial adopting ordinance was written in a way that was non-standard for establishing an sad so the version that you see in your packet today um does all of the same things essentially with a few changes that i'm going to get to um but it's just in substantially different form because it's um makes it easier for everyone to understand the rules that are applied rather than changing in one ordinance and leaving other things in effect so um the permitted uses are being amended just to reflect that the parking utilization study required by their initial approval was completed and they are allowed to have 31 000 and change square feet of restaurant rather than the 20 in the initial um and it eliminates the parking mitigation requirements because they did it and we don't need to put it in there and then at the request of the applicant they're wanting to establish a 10 percent threshold for future amendments to be considered a site plan amendment and not a rezoning so again the current proposal is to retain the existing suite 908 which is occupied by at&t and this is just summarizing what i said a moment ago about the restaurant square footage change because the parking utilization study was completed showing that they have adequate parking they were allowed to increase that square footage and again right now any change is considered a rezoning if it's increasing the project size building area or height this change is that they could increase the total building area by less than 10 percent and still go either for administrative approval or to a board depending on what the exact changes are and again just this reference to the parking utilization study is eliminated um and this is just for context here um ms miskell mentioned this but there are 410 parking spaces required by the shared parking table that was adopted with the initial um regulations so they are still meeting parking if they keep the building they have two extra per the numbers and then the criteria for approving zoning zoning is that or there's three different valid reasons for it they're requesting this under the second and third criteria about the change in circumstance and that it's of a similar intensity so the request to keep the um the building does represent a minor increase in intensity from the approval it was required that the building be eliminated when the development was approved so that's why it's before the board because at the time it was felt that that was a very important way to minimize any negative impacts on the neighborhood so the surrounding development again to the north is a combination uh or essentially harbors edge and another commercial development a shopping center to the south is the tropic isles neighborhood east there's an open space natural area and again across across federal highway there's more restaurant and retail so the required findings are that the application has to be consistent with the land use map and again the uses in the sad are consistent with the underlying transitional land use it meets all the intensity standards and then there's no negative impact anticipated with regards to concurrency it's a minimal building size and it's been functioning there for um 13 years um and then the consistency with the comprehensive plan and the um compliance with the ldr are discussed as well in the next slides so again transitional land use is supposed to be for um services or uses that meet a wide variety of community needs um is supposed to serve as a transition between lower um intensity development or residential development and commercial uses uh in a lower intensity um land use category and it's supposed to provide a mix of uses and potential development patterns which this development does provide that mix of uses that serve the community surrounding and all of delray it sounds like based on feedback so um there are five standards for rezoning there are um three that apply that i think would be for the board consideration um that the rezoning results in compatible uses with the surrounding development it's a similar intensity based on the coastal high hazard designation and that the zoning that results in strip commercial development would be avoided um the initial approvals limited the length of the commercial buildings in part because it was felt that was a very significant massing or bulk that would impact the neighborhoods behind it um so that may be a consideration for the board but um the summary of the things that i think the board should consider based on the um comprehensive plan and the intent of the zoning district is that does the elimination of suite 908 allow for more significant open space and buffering or is it still a valid concern that it had has a negative impact on the surrounding area and then the other consideration would be if um the board thinks that it's acceptable to allow site plan modifications below certain threshold or if it should come back for for um that type of development um and also i mean from an ecological perspective to put 85 tons of construction debris if the building was demolished any of these um we do have a trade-off it's a trade-off so these are what we would ask the board to consider and uh we will be happy to answer any questions okay thank you um is there anyone from the public who would wish to comment please step up to the lectern to state your name and address and you'll have three minutes i don't know were you sworn in sir sir were you sworn in earlier i'm sorry thank you diane please raise your right hand by the authority of estimate the knowledge of the state of florida is where from the testimony about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing of the truth yes please step up and state your name and address for the record please andrew ross 943 mccleary street delray beach thank you you'll have three minutes i happened to be the dentist that was in that space and um i i attended every commission meeting regarding rezoning of that spot and the deal was i was the only person in the entire complex that had a lease that went beyond 2012 and uh that's basically the story and the city promised that that area would be you know demolished when i left and i've been gone now for a year and a half and it has not been demolished and i'm just hoping that the city does what it says it was going to do that's basically it thank you doctor thank you sir what's that now is there any uh rebuttal or cross i might rebut that i don't know that um if the dentist felt comfortable staying in that bay for 13 years then it would beg the question of whether it's that important to remove it now so i think that could be for board consideration i'm sorry what did you say if the dentist felt comfortable staying in that space for as long as he did it would beg the question of really the requirement of the space being eliminated is necessary thank you i just want to raise one point and thank you dr ross for coming hope you're well um you uh that's an interesting um requirement to start with in my 35 years of doing what i do for a living i've never had a condition imposed that was tenant specific use specific is is quite legal tenant specific is not and i don't really think that the city's condition was intended to be tenants specific because i they have a they have great lawyers and their lawyers would say that that's not quite right you can do something use wise can't do it tenant wise um but but i think i do i have heard that dr ross was a very well respected dentist and that i i believe that some of the leadership was attempting to accommodate um both the development of the overall site which was grossly needed and also supporting a good business in the city so i suspect that has something to do with whatever the condition was i've never heard a city um create a law that is tenant specific that being said uh i i have to agree with staff if if there were no impacts for a use that technically is more intense than the use that is there now for 13 years or more then there are no negative impacts here that would cause the board to be concerned about allowing that building to stay um it's beautiful it matches the rest of the center um it's it's you know you know it's interesting we talk about we need commercial and i don't disagree we just had that conversation on the last item um we need a variety of commercial we need we need dentists we need doctors we need bookstores we need all the things that we want to enjoy using and to force a building that has bothered no one to be torn down there's no public benefit in that you know what is the public benefit to simply because the dentist left we should tear it down that just to me i can't even imagine how i would try to describe what that public benefit would be that being said thank you very much for your time and attention i always enjoy coming to the city i hope i do anyway i think i forgot did anyone else wish to comment on this in the public i'm sorry i just want to make a few comments um first of all when this project came name again i'm still christina morrison i still live at a thousand lowry street and downtown delray beach three three four eight three um when this center was brought forward to be approved the neighborhood was livid there were so many comments that have proved to be true the neighborhood comments was that it would be a traffic juggernaut it is a traffic juggernaut that that intersection is a mess it it's just when you try to turn into trader joe's on that first driveway it's backed up into the intersection it's it's a mess um there would be u-turns to try to get to the set when you get to the south lane to u-turn on federal highway to go south happens every day three or four times a day at least when i'm when i'm in that intersection we the neighbor said that that there would be traffic crossing three lanes of active traffic to get to the left turn lane happens all the time it's a mess the intersection is a problem this this this center has caused a lot of problems in that neighborhood and that intersection unfortunately what they're asking for tonight will not solve any of these problems so i can't see any objection to what he's asking for but these problems still do exist with that traffic pattern and that the first driveway there going off of off of linton thank you thank you are there any more in public comments public comments closed chair we should just give the city and the applicant the opportunity for crossing rebuttal against there sort of started doing crossing rebuttal let's do it officially no rebuttal no rebuttal no press thank you to the board mitch i was not on i was not on the commission but i mentioned i did speak that night and i was here for that meeting and i remembered things that were said at the meeting so i actually asked for the tape of the meeting so i could go back and watch to see if what i remembered is correct because it was not an easy boat and there was a lot of concerns especially by the mayor and uh commissioner patrolli on that evening and a lot to do with parking a lot to do with with this office as well and then there was so there was a requirement for a parking study to be done after the the i know there was a day because they thought it was going to fill up faster that there would be parkings there a few years later but kind of once it's full we're going to look at the parking and it kept mr linn reiterate a lot that you know if there are parking issues in there we're going to look at mitigation opportunities whether it be off-site parking for employees was brought up potential of valet was brought up there was a lot of mitigation that was brought up that night and then there was a parking study done when it was like 20 occupied and that's what we're relying on i don't know what the percentage is i'm forget i'm not quoting a percentage a parking study was done 10 years ago to compare that plaza from 10 years ago to today i think is um is not good it's not it would be malpractice in my opinion like if you were a dentist and you compared that mouth 10 years later the number of cavities there's a lot more cavities in the in the in that plaza now because of the traffic which is a good thing it's a great plaza again i go there i take my daughter a little lemon we shop at trader joe's we we go to some of the restaurants we're using we approve chewy that's up here i'm i'm a regular customer at that chewy there um the um great bets there by the way um but i when i watched this that was the parking issue so i went and said you know what is there an issue there but i knew the rest of the plaza was an issue i mean there is if people are willing to walk there even for trader joe's you can usually find a spot right there's no i don't i've never gone to trader joe's and left without getting a parking so i think that part of it while it's full it's it's it's okay i think that corner after especially watching it on saturday is a hazard what happens is there first of all there's tons of people parking illegally they're parallel parking they're parking um in in um emergency lanes they're parking in and um like i guess like the garage lane you might say um because there's just not enough parking there and i think if that building was gone as and again that was promised that was made for the dentist that they would be temporarily and a matter of fact my understanding is it's easily it was made purposely built knowing that it was going to have to remove so it could be easily removed but it was definitely not going to stay there and i'm not saying that if you and i know that the site plan doesn't say that it's going to be replaced by parking it's going to replace by green space but if you eliminate the space you also eliminate an x number of cars and to say that there's not a lot of people in that at&t store you weren't haven't been there on a saturday because that day when i went there i literally i had to park literally not in park if my wife in a car stepped out of the car for a second just to look there was no parking um and there was you know 10 15 customers in the store plus there's employees um so there's you know that's probably 20 spots right there because you know most people are going by themselves to buy a cell phone maybe with a family but it's not like a restaurant where you get one car you get four or five people going to a restaurant um so that's my um my concerns first of all i did ask the staff or i asked the chief did we get any response or anything on the fire issue that i brought up yes they went to the site and they didn't identify any concerns um traffic of course in delray is always a problem but nothing pertaining to the so a truck can maneuver if that is full and over parked in other words illegal cars there they can maneuver a truck i couldn't maneuver my model y but they can maneuver a fire truck there if that is a problem then i think that would be something management would have to speak to as a code enforcement issue rather than whether or not the because people may be parking there because they're lazy we don't know but um that would be a management question not necessarily i think the use question okay the other thing i might highlight or state you know that is is hearsay in essence i know this is quasi judicial so we're not like an official courtroom um but if the fire chief is not here that's why i didn't ask them to center representative they didn't that's i understand yeah i said i needed to hear that yeah from him i specifically put it in writing and i put it in verbally that i wanted to hear from the fire department on that so we don't have that answer tonight officially again that's hearsay but um and if and i if he told you that it's fine then i trust i i accept that hearsay because i trust our staff um as far as it comes to hearsay i don't think they would make that up um question is about the parking percentages and the numbers so right now the current approval was 20 000 square feet that's in the exhibit right from the original is that correct and now the current the current what you're asking for is at 36 000 feet for restaurant space right so yes and no um the original approval said 23 000 square feet 20 percent until the parking utilization study said there wasn't a parking problem and then when that was completed they were allowed to increase the 36 147 so at the time that the study was completed the leasing was 95.3 percent occupied lease so it was based on a fairly full plaza um i don't know how exactly the client or the tenants have changed but it was at 95.3 capacity when they did the study so it's not the applicant or staff changing the square footage it was in the approval already because if you were say you were to say this was not an sad right and you were to build a say there was open space on there and they built a 12 000 it says just to be conservative a 12 000 square foot restaurant how much parking would that out parcel require for 12 000 square feet i don't recall the um ratio off the top of my head but we have the specific calculations that are allowed for shopping centers that account usage at times of day and things like that so what they were requesting was consistent with that shared parking calculation that was built into the ordinance and approved by commission okay again i'm going to go back to that meeting this was a big conversation was they had they could not calculate out parcels because they're not out parcels it's part of an sad they were part of the project and that was why there was a limit on the number of square footage for restaurants because if you make it some unlimited number from 23 000 you know from 20 to whatever percentage it is now it's going to have a huge impact on the parking and again i can't trust i get you're saying it was 95 percent i've been through that plaza 10 years ago it didn't and it was not i mean there was a lot of empty stores for years up until recently that have moved in there that have you know maybe they were stores in there that nobody went to but there's certainly right now you have stores in there that people are shopping um but i don't remember a lot of empty stores 10 years i mean i don't remember the full stores i remember a lot of empty space it was easy parking 10 years ago especially trader joe's as long as you're willing to walk because of the empty spots there was plenty over there well i will say that the analysis was performed by a licensed engineer and we didn't review it internally we had an external firm do the analysis of the study to make sure that it met the stink test and all professional standards so um at that time i mean i wasn't working for the city but the data that we have in the report does show that they analyzed it at 95 occupancy to allow them to uh increase that threshold a couple other questions but i'm gonna come back if i can can i i gotta find the question the number i'm looking for um this is a no-brainer for me i'm not even sure why i couldn't be handled administratively um i live about six blocks from there uh i visit it often and i have never had a problem getting a parking place now it is busy but you know busy is good and the fact that you have to maybe wait for a minute or two for a car to get out of the way um or it's really crowded at the front door of trader joe's there's lots of other places to park so uh i i think this is great i have a question of staff um it has to do with the 10 percent increase um i just don't i want to know how or that could even be done um up to 10 percent it's over 10 000 square feet and there's just with the what everything's there and the open space requirement so why is why even include this so i mean we'll have to ask the applicant why they were interested in that particular 10 threshold i think it's because if something like this came up again where they wanted to keep a 1500 square foot building they wouldn't have to come back and treat it as a rezoning but i would note that um they are at the maximum or if they were to decrease their open space um if they were to increase the square footage of a building it would likely trigger the waiver to the open space which is something that wouldn't come before the board anyway and it would escalate it so while they're adding it i'm not sure how it would necessarily help them but miss miskell i can give you an example and it really is for flexibility purposes it may be impossible to do it depending upon the uses i i explained how the medical office use has a higher demand for parking purposes and so adding 10 percent we could never do a use like that because we would exceed our capacity as far as parking is concerned however we could go from a more intense use to a less intense use on a mezzanine as an example and we could still meet the parking and we wouldn't have a problem if we're doing it within a mezzanine because we would still meet the minimum open space so it is possible that we could do it there are scenarios that we could do a less intense use and we which would not impact your open space and would not impact your your parking however it's not as if we could find a piece of dirt there and add a new building because we very it would be very unlikely that we could do that scenario but we could do something as far as changing the uses from more intense to less intense or adding a mezzanine within a building and not adding so much as one gross square feet of external ground space okay okay so so to make sure i understand that you're saying you want to go two-story somewhere no i'm not sure what you mean by a mezzanine no but no mezzanine you're you're actually staying within your you know in some instances depending on how high your floor to ceiling is you might want a mezzanine for example for even storage purposes or computer equipment spaces um you know again flexibility the the parameters of the sad would control so we would be required to meet them open space parking etc okay so the 10 percent that was only on square footage it's only yes because uses doesn't don't matter in some sense i mean you can change out uses well as long as it's not restaurant you could you could but in order for us to take advantage of the 10 percent additional square footage we would most likely have to go for parking purposes we'd have to go to a less intense parking rate i would think and so on the master plan though it does dictate which are could be used as retail or restaurant versus only retail so there is some limitation but um it's not a complete free-for-all and how you could change out the uses and we're not asking to change that at all to change those limitations when you jim when you said it's a no-brainer you you you mean it's very supportable to leave everything as is is that what you're saying yeah so i thought you said all right um i don't disagree with that because i i i may i may ask this question how many parking spots are associated with that dentist office as it's being used as an at&t shop how many spots are required for that square footage so keyboard here so the shared parking matrix establishes the parking requirements per square foot of use so to go from so medical office requires five per thousand whereas i can't read my table i think it's 2.94 yeah 2.94 was established as a commercial retail rate so three stalls three that's for the at&t per thousand what's the square footage of at&t right it's a 1500 square foot bay so but again when you're looking at the the flexing between the hours um of use it's semi-flexible in how it works plaza wide as long as you're within that overall so it's somewhere around four or five stalls let's say five up to five yeah and was it wasn't the overall project two stalls in surplus already it it 408 versus 410 so the overall site is three parking stall shy i mean i'm looking at it from a number standpoint and and the medical office was five per thousand so if they had the same 1500 they would have needed eight spaces to serve them so it's a decrease in density it's a decrease in parking there there may be three stalls shy in an entire plaza of 10 acres and 20 000 square feet man i i mean what are we doing why are we beating this up can i um the plaza we all watch you know there there were two high-rise buildings there bank of america was there before all this became developed and and you know it mitch it didn't it didn't you know it didn't occupy very quickly at the beginning but it it did consistently and over time and you know we the city was so proud to have a trader joe's there you know and and it's probably one of the smallest trader joe's in the country i would imagine but there's a lot of cool things happening on the site in general and the space that we're talking about is at the extreme end of this horizontal wing this wing this very narrow specialty type wing that's going down to the excuse my french to the ass end of the site with no exit there huh there's no egress there but that's not the issue tonight the egress out of that end is not why we're here we're here parking and safety and and whether we want to penalize this guy by demolishing 1500 square feet of space that's not going to that's not going to get another egress at the end of it i think there's some opportunity for this gigantic green space that's down there to be so i mean with a little imagination and creativity with the city can it can not be compromised in terms of pure green space but maybe it becomes staff parking you know overflow parking of some sort i don't know but i think there's a completely lost opportunity down there with that green space uh and it's very odd that it's all concentrated down there and not maybe dispersed a little bit more evenly throughout the entire site but there it is so it's sitting there unused uh there's maybe another exit could come out of that area if it were overflow parking i think there are way i think there are way better solutions yeah then exiting that close to the bridge is a big deal you can't do that so i think there are other solutions for for more pressing issues i don't think this is one of them i've as maybe jim said you know i've gone to trader joe's a thousand times i've successfully parked a thousand times you know did i have to wait a couple minutes every now and then don't go at peak hours you know go go go at off hours so i i don't see how demolishing 1500 square feet of space solves much of anything i just like my question is rebecca you mentioned uh the doctor was there for 13 years if when again i watched that meeting it was a hard fought meeting to get to the votes especially um the mayor but even al jacat at the time was was hesitant again i watched this meeting and all of it had to do with parking and this was a promise that was made whether the dentist stayed there for five years afterwards or 100 years afterwards if the deal was and it's in the site that it's gone right that it's going to be demolished by us saying now because we just want to keep it without re-looking at the project i mean how do we hold anybody accountable in the future so i think that um again because this is a rezoning it comes down to um the criteria for whether there's a change in circumstance or whether it's more appropriate for the property and then the other findings uh i think related to specifically the standards for rezoning so um and because it's a rezoning the board can change the approval and that's that's why they're here so if you determine it's appropriate to you have the framework within the required findings so um so basically so what you do is you get the board at the time we're going to make these promises and then we'll get a new board 10 years later and we can renege on those promises that's the way that's what i see it is i watched the meeting again i went back i was there but i went back and watched the meeting and i don't believe in my heart that that passes without the promise of this building not being there in the future as well as looking at other park if there was a parking issue there that other parking mitigations and i think it would help me tonight if there was more proactive other parking mitigations in place but to me it's it it did not fit fruition so i think you'll have your road so you're just probably not going to mind board discussion um sorry uh everyone done are you giving trouble getting my hands around is is this is this a punitive thing that the board injected 13 years ago to punish the uh the property owner or because i i hear i hear sometimes it's it's it's a tenant related decision and then it's then i hear it's because the building was too long and it and it was just too massive so we needed to do it and the other question the flip side of that is if it does show that where the dentist office is is is green space now why why did they see they needed more green space when it when when they without the green space there they still had 25 percent of the required 20 green space yes so i think um based on what i've read from the hearings it wasn't a punitive thing there was genuine community concern especially because there was another building proposed to the east of that 908 suite that's under discussion now so i think some of the earlier site plans actually eliminated a whole building there which again brought it into compliance with 25 open space and then there were still some outstanding concerns about that building so um it was an existing building that they kind of reshelled to match the rest of the building and so in an effort to support the dentist that was there there the idea was that he could stay but they still thought it was better if it was not there at all so i think it was just um and i you've heard it was a very contentious discussion at the time apparently about how intensive this plaza could be so um and i think at the time it was considered that it would be better if it was gone in the future because it i mean it's not going to change your inability to get into trader jack this building's here or not you know it's just um but you know but but a lot of me sides with mitch i mean the the the uh the sad signed off on this change the applicant presumably so the owner presumably signed off on this change otherwise we wouldn't have an sad um but i'm just wondering if that's just what i'm wondering if there's like there are you know like like ldr solid fact-based reasons for doing it this way as opposed to um what what seems like like now 13 years later that's kind of a vindictive um move valid reasons for retaining or for the original for following through with the original agreement 13 years ago and and okay i'll i'll ask you the question i mean i think based on so you have as the board and the commission when it gets to them um because the denial tonight but you would actually stop it here and they would have to appeal to move forward um this is one of the applications where it's not a recommendation of denial it's it would actually there's one other question if we if we deny it then it's and it's back in the hands of the people who created it it stops dead so i think they're the panel that created it in the first place yeah so i think within the findings that are in the ldr again in section 245 and 322 gives you the tools based on new data or new information that you say you know they did get it wrong that first time where you could say wow we really think that they got it right and the building should go so that um the ldr gives you the power to analyze what's before you to see so that's a legitimate yeah response you can they we got it wrong or we got it right well chair i might rephrase it um as best i can to say that it was a it was a condition of the approval right that this would be removed and so everyone agreed to it the the ruling body at that time made a decision that it met the ldrs and the comp plan with the removal once it's once it's vacant um the applicants just here today saying that we think that we do meet the ldrs and can in the comp plan if we if in essence added the building back onto the site plan so i don't i don't think i would hesitate to say there was anything punitive it was probably just a condition that that board felt needed to be met in order to approve the project pursuant to the ldrs and the comp plan during a very contentious meeting they set the condition right and um and this is going just to clarify to you this is going to commission no matter what so if this board recommends approval no matter what if this board recommends approval the next step is city commission if we recommend denial then the the applicant appeals well they have the option to appeal yes if they do or not is up to them but yes if they did appeal that it would be an appeal of the recommendation of denial if that were set aside um by commission then commission would also proceed with the hearing as if a recommendation approval had been obtained so mr mr thank you very much um actually i had conversation i was unable to get a copy of the video but um i've had conversations with with people that had different interests that were in the room um but but actually what provided the most clarity to me was the the parking utilization study um i think we all have to remember at the time there was a general um sense of discomfort that there was too much there and not enough parking you know parking was a very big issue and the there was a reasonable condition that was suggested that was a fair one was to prove to us that we didn't get this wrong and that we got it right and you come back when it is um over i think it was 89 had to be the minimum you may correct me if i'm wrong on that one um it has to be over 89 percent occupied and show us how we did and the good news is that if they didn't do very well then then there is no chance that building would ever be able to stay so i think that all of this was kind of looked at in its totality from what i'm hearing from people you know we need some relief valves here and that would be one of them but but in this and i'll hand this in for the record this was the util parking utilization study and they did it in february at 1 pm which apparently is the peak hour that they found um in the in season and it was on a saturday i believe but the traffic engineer um said that it was at 95.3 percent um capacity and he also said that during that same time the very peak hour there were 35 spaces that were empty so it was done so i think you know the fear of the unknown was part of it um the fear of the worst is coming was another part of it but also there were triggers that the commission then imposed on that the developer the applicant to prove that they deserve what they have and um this study did in fact prove it and i'm happy to submit that for the record and i have extra copies if you'd like them and it was also provided as your agenda backup as well yes i i can respond to that i will say again i watched it it was never about the the parking study requirement was about mitigation efforts not about had nothing to do with that den of whether or not it was never said or contemplated that that building would stay so that was not a okay we do a parking study it's not parked you can leave this building up that was never part of the discussion and it's probably i'm sure you have the minutes of the meeting that it's it's not in the minutes nor is it in the transcript or the actual meeting that watched but the the concept on the parking issue was about we're going to allow it but we we want them to do parking studies to mitigate the effects like i said the mentions of there were mentions of off-site parking for employees there was mentions of um valet issues there was there was other ways they were you know mr lynn said they'd be creative to help solve those problems but none of that mr lynn never said oh well you know if we have no parking problem we're going to keep this extra space too except the condition did say that he could stay there as long as he didn't vacate that was because and that was done again like you said as a courtesy to this that was again he was a um well-liked dentist is also a neighbor to the same people that were there complaining he lives mccleary street right behind there and that was okay if you you know that gonna help us get along by helping him out to get him to retirement and that's the way i read it watching the mood meeting and being there okay is there any more thank you any more discussion okay do i have a motion i'll make a motion of course okay recommend approval of ordinance 47-26 privately initiated rezoning of the delray place special activities district to amend the approved site plan to allow an existing 1562 square foot building to remain to amend permitted uses to reflect the maximum restaurant square footage allowed by the parking utilization study to amend parking mitigation requirements modified as a result of the parking utilization study and to establish a 10 percent threshold for future changes to the site plan to be considered a site plan amendment and not a rezoning finding that the rezoning and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the ldrs thank you is there a second i'll second it okay any uh any discussion i would just like to add for the record that i too am concerned with that that 10 percent um uh application um if they're if they're coming here they're coming for p and z 13 years later to try and straighten something out i i i think we should they should take care of the the 10 percent should be in an equally uh similar form so so it we can move that forward that comment forward with the with the presentation to commission or if you wanted to make a recommendation that that not be included that's also within your purview but um no i'm just i'm i just really want to pass the buck to the commission frankly we will note that in the they created they created this monster the ordinance leaves it at the discretion of the director as to whether that it it follows that way so that's okay okay okay any more discussion let's call the roll please didger strong is absent roger cope yes rich cats first time in two years there'll be two no's in a row i'm sorry karen kisileski yes jim chard yes sondheim is absent price patent no motion carries three of two so the first time in two years we've had three two votes you get track of these we've had a lot of unanimous votes in the last two years a lot of you know short meetings maybe when the fire when the commissioners ask the fire chief to um weigh in he will go okay excuse us we were getting hungry getting off yeah we're getting hungry um okay um introduce the uh the next item please okay item 9a we are looking to amend the ldr to extend the parking exemption that's available to businesses within the west atlantic sub-district of the central business district and i'm reading into the record file number pz 900-2026 so um we're looking for the recommendation to accept extend the exemption which is available to existing commercial buildings within the west atlantic sub-district or a portion of it which we'll get to in a moment and existing commercial buildings with an outside use area to exempt them from providing additional on-site parking this is set to expire in 2026 december of this year and we're looking to extend it to december 31st of 2031 and then to extend the eastern boundary of the exemption area from northwest 4th avenue to northwest 3rd avenue so um this is uh where the exemption is available now um the black line that you see on the map and this was an addition initially adopted in 2017 um as a city initiated amendment it was extended in 2020 as a privately initiated amendment and then we as the city extended it again in 2024 so there are two businesses that have utilized this incentive um tropical smokehouse and ziri which are both really solid restaurant additions to the west atlantic avenue so they've both used this to be able to have outdoor use areas without having to provide the parking the idea is that if you're not able to provide the parking off-site you could do in lieu but within the west atlantic area which is an area we've particularly tried to attract investment to have this incentive helps attract businesses there to build up the commercial activity along the corridor and then the other the other main street which is northwest fifth avenue so we are looking to expand it to this area that you see in red and the reason for that is because it currently um is available in um the western block of atlantic grove but not the eastern and we've had businesses in the eastern block that have been interested in taking advantage of but hadn't been yet and there wasn't really a logical reason that we could see for why it stopped at that street um currently and then the extension is for five years it was three and other asks um it just is a little bit onerous to bring it back every three years it goes by way faster than you think it would and this way it gives a little more time to maybe evaluate if the neighborhood is still able to accommodate these uses with all the on-street parking that exists because there's quite a lot of it in the west atlantic that's very underutilized so we have a lot of policies in the comp plan about using creative tools to handle parking um and accommodating all these different economic incentives so um we think the comprehensive plan provides that uh it was reviewed by historic preservation board because in that um the atlantic grove developments are reviewed by the historic preservation board so anything um even though only a portion of the site is it's reviewed as a unified site and then um we um communicated the change to dda and then we're anticipating november and december commission to get this through before it expires so if you have any questions i'll be glad to answer them roger any questions any questions is there any downside to any of this doesn't seem to be i'll chime in then what i have a little downside okay well roger i'm finishing i mean i've been i'm in favor of doing as many things as we can and to incentivize people to use everything over there including every cute place and everything else so i would be in favor of it yeah i do with roger i'm going to use the same phrase this is a no-brainer we should do it um i think 90 of it first i'm no-brainer and extending it i just think the number of years um i was on again i was on the board when we passed that original one in 2017 we did it for a short time um because we want the the problem is we don't want to create some of the parking we kept saying we don't want to create we want to incentivize we want to get it going but we also don't want to regret some of the regrets we have on the east side right at the end so we want to you know give it time and half we wanted to be forced to look at every so often i know you're saying that three years will come fast but there is a lot going on in the next three years hopefully should have been happened 10 years ago but it didn't but that sixth seventh and eighth block you've got the grocery store there's potentially the next two years a lot going on to me i think because of what the cra has going on right now i think we better look at it in three years instead of five years that's my only recommendation but i think extending it is a no-brainer like you said just the number of years i have a question now argue good point um so in the since this has been a present there's only two two restaurants that have taken advantage of it correct this is your tie and um the barbecue price right but those three blocks those three blocks rfps have fell through and projects have fell apart over those last ten years no no no i i that made a huge impact on that block i agree and to the into the three-year uh issue um i think when um uh sunday village comes fully online i think they're going to start a progression west march westward yeah which has always been the help and i didn't even mention that and if the and if the um the docks thing ever gets anywhere that'll um that'll that'll start a progression so i think one important consideration for this ordinance and i don't think i have this language on this slide necessarily but um it's only eligible for commercial buildings that existed as of november of 2017 so let's say if anything comes in with the cra development uh in the 6 7 and 800 block they wouldn't be eligible for this it would just be oh it's a more of a tool to encourage uh existing structures existing structures to oh then i've got no problem with the five years yeah i mean so so infill wouldn't be affecting infill wouldn't affect it no well there's other buildings there that are it would affect i mean there's definitely yeah but who i want to encourage them to yeah okay do we need to we need to make a motion to approve it right does anyone want to make a motion well what are we do we have a consensus on the time frame i'm at three years but i don't know if anybody else i think i'm the only one i'm good with five i think karen should make motion four can we go four three years three months and 20 days i was going to say too i was actually being generous with three to be honest with you okay i recommend approval of oops i got the wrong one okay here oh i don't i didn't put that one out sorry recommend approval to the city commission of ordinance number 4326 amending the land development regulation section 4.4 part 13 i2 minimum number of off street parking spaces to extend the parking exemption for existing commercial buildings that undergo a change of use and for existing commercial buildings with the outdoor use areas from providing additional on-site parking or the properties within the west atlantic neighborhood sub-district through december 31st 2031 and to extend the eastern boundary of the exemption area from northwest fourth ab to northwest third ab by by finding that the amendment approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations i'll second for discussion so i can discuss thank you very much yes just i want in the minutes that i'm going to vote yes but i would like the commission to know that i would like them to consider that three years and just that it's in the minutes that's it but i'm still going to vote yes we can note that remember and miss thank you this is just a recommendation would you like a text message no no just in the minutes diane call the roll please dina strong is absent roger cope yes mitch katz yes karen kizaleski yes jim chart yes scott hyman is absent price patent yes motion carries unanimously there you go see that's what we're normally we're on air now we're at um mr bennett do you have any any words or advice or anything nothing from legal today thanks anything from city stand nothing from staff board anything i do please go ahead um especially in light of a one vote tonight but i would like to recommend that we we ask the commission to look at potentially a moratorium on congress avenue apartments um i think you know what's happened is i think a lot of yes came to just because it met code so i just like to see them look i don't know if they can but at least you know just that we tell them that they should be looking at congress they should be looking that map was just created this month of all those apartments at 3 026 units that are not well 90 of them are not built yet you know i'd love to know what what does 3 000 apartments mean in human beings right what is that what is the land planner's number what does that equate to two point is it what what is it five or six thousand people yeah at least i think it's probably more than that right so what does that equate to maybe how does that affect you know our schools our roads our parks and all that stuff before we just keep saying yes until you know we can't support it with the other stuff because i think that again this this whole thing with the right now when markets are hot you know they want to get things approved you know and he told me when i talked to him like he doesn't it's a long-term play like he doesn't even think it's going to get built right away which is fine but um the parks one no the one we passed tonight so not the parks no no the easton so um so who knows things could change in that plaza with retail and what i that dream of what i want that true mixed use you know could come but i think the commission should be looking at like that future of we did that study 10 years it was over 10 years ago maybe it's looked at again or something and then we did the 2023 study with cbre and we recently had the presentation by urban three on the 13th so if you haven't had a chance to listen to it it was really good analysis on how the city should look at residential only or mixed use and how we can use data as a framework for decision making so i matter of fact that's that's where that that presentation is what spurs this a lot too because when he talked about land so he was like like that project was past tonight that land that we just turned into apartments was the worst use we could have done with that forget about the rest of the park with that little piece of land within it based on that presentation by urban three it should be if it was mixed use it would that land would have been a true mixed use project stuck in there it would have been the highest value according to that i'm not sure if his analysis would necessarily say that because it is mixed use i think we're thinking of an active mix of uses but i think yeah i mean certainly the point having a mix of commercial and residential is a much bigger tax benefit to the city and anthea is trying to condense it into a pdf which i asked her to share with with all the board members because there's a lot of i misheard a couple things about the the value of historic properties versus non-historic properties it's a huge document so we'll work on getting it she was just she was just talking about a strip along atlantic avenue historic versus non-historic so you're going to share that with us yes i haven't seen it but you should watch i also recommend everyone watch the watch the meeting it's it's it's the workshop starts at 3 30 i think it's the last time the commission met and um there's a there's a 20-minute discussion about some something and then this guy starts and he just flies through it but it's it's just it's fascinating and and and mitch is right he says a single a single family is the worst form of development for cities and regarding taxes because especially with amendment three coming up 20 years i've been watching city best presentation i've ever seen and that was the last workshop yes thursday 13th on the 13th yeah it started at three yeah started at 3 30 but you go go to like use youtube it's a lot easier to fast forward and stuff really and they got and the other thing another thing to know is that all the commissioners seem gobsmacked by it i mean they were it's hard to see them in unison they were all in unison yeah may i make a point sure i'm sorry different from mitch's um we we've seen lots and lots of plans come before us and they all seemed in they seem in my mind at least to disrespect the requirements of uh of having native plants of having shade trees of not having uh urban hot spots and i'm just wondering is there a process that we can discuss that and suggest to anthea a paper that she would request of the city manager to to study that so and i i would want a consensus of the board i'm not saying it's it's jim chart yeah so in my recollection all of the developments that are proposed are at least compliant with the minimum standards for native species uh we are in the process of trying to rewrite our landscape code i think the code is essentially a very good landscape code that requires really lush and varied landscape uh materials we have been discussing whether the percentage is right um our landscape planner is not here but he had a lot of considerations regarding requiring a higher mix possibly at the sacrifice of the species biodiversity and things like that so it is something that we're looking at internally but um well i think we've taken some good steps but i think we need to do some tightening up and when my good friend mr cavelli said did equate a 50 year old tree with a two year old tree uh that that's a challenge and i think what you mentioned is also very important that if you uh read a book like nature's best hope they point out the fact that exotic plants non-native plants do not support the environment they do not support the bees the bug the butterflies the birds and so we end up having a desert uh in terms of wildlife i mean uh we can all remember when we had fireflies around our houses and and uh many many more bees than we have now so i think this board could help move that forward yeah i i i agree i think i hear you a lot and we we joke about the the tree stuff because again they're falling in the code of this 50 my question is is 50 enough you know every time because you've questioned that a lot and then the answer to developers well we we meet in the code right so if you're going to look at the landscape code i think a good discussion with this board and others should be that is that 50 threshold what we need or do we want more um just really quick i forgot to thank rafiq and alexia for that uh extensive uh uh easton presentation and that yeah it was great the staff report was ideal i really like that framework i'll tag team on that i think were they given 10 minutes or 15 minutes for a presentation mr cabelli said 10. he said i thought they said 10. and i timed him and he took 11. did you really yes i think they've got 15. i believe it is i think it's 15 minutes or a lot well he thought they had 10. okay so well but not good they're rushing through two years worth of work or yeah they're they're rushing through an intense project and they glossed over the architecture you guys they that's the least thing that they focused on they were i'm fairly certain it is and i can help you with that as well chair if i well it seems to me that maybe there should be a sliding scale if it's a you know it seems to me they should well the the board always has discretion to grant more time so mr cavelli needed more time or wanted more time he could have asked for it at the beginning he could have waited until his time was up and then asked i mean it's and that's the board's discretion so as long as there's a consensus of the board to provide the additional time when that happens my recommendation is typically for the board to ask the applicant how much time they need so that there is at least a new deadline right not of some kind but yeah the board has complete discretion to to allow them to to present up to the board's desire i would like to add to what roger said that mr cavelli and others can possibly do it in 10 minutes i'm not sure we can absorb it at the rate that they went tonight well they did there was so much more that they could have offered on the architecture and and so you know to be fair to us we should have been commenting more on the architecture i think you know not just the height you know that so so i think that's a good step in the right direction to to ask him on this spot but it's even it's still even unfair to them if at one point in time i re i thought we had an unlimited time years and years and years ago and then we maybe i think i thought at one time we had 20 minutes it's impossible to do it in 20 minutes on a project like this so i don't know what the answer is in terms of the time but it's not fair to anybody in the room to blow through the project that quickly it with that intense of a project staff can do a better job of making sure that they know they have 15 minutes that may help to some degree we can certainly do that he thought he had 10 and and i you know i would have given him a half an hour at least we're making decisions here that are going to last 50 years but why should we so why do we need to rush through it right exactly that's yeah i'm going to say maybe they won't do they won't have to you need a journey never give up