I call to order the September 24th Site Plan Review and Appearance Board. Diane, could you please call the roll? Jose Alvarez. Here. Nicholas Coppola. Present. Annette Gray. Yes. Robert Lewis. Present. Cynthia Lloyd is absent. Christina Morrison. Here. Winskeville-Lenois. Here. And technically, we need to have an approval agenda before the election of officers. So could I please, is there a motion to approve the agenda? Move to approve. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Any opposed? Do we need to abstain since we were on with the last one? No, this is approval of the agenda, not the minutes. I'm sorry. Yes. Approved. Yes. And any opposed? Agenda's been approved. So the first item will be the election of officers. We'll begin with the chair. Do I have any nominations for chair? Sir Alvarez. Any additional nominations? Annette Gray. Any additional nominations? Thank you. Should you please call the roll? And you'll just, not a yes or no, but just vote for either Mr. Alvarez or Ms. Gray. Jose Alvarez. Yourself. Who do you want? Do you need to say who you're voting for? Oh, Annette Gray. Nicholas Coppola. Um, Annette Gray. Annette Gray. Can I vote for myself? You can. Of course. Okay, sure. Robert Lewis. Ms. Gray. Pardon? Ms. Gray. Thank you. Cynthia Lloyd is absent. Christina Morrison. Annette. Winskey-Villinois. Annette. Congratulations, chair. Would you prefer to take over the election officers at this time or would you like me to finish? You can complete. Great. So the next election will be for vice chair. Do I have any nominations? Of course. Any additional nominations? Diane, could you please call the roll? Do we need a second on that? I'll second. Jose Alvarez. Myself. Accept. Nicholas Coppola. Yes, Mr. Alvarez. Annette Gray. Yes, Mr. Alvarez. Robert Lewis. Yes, Mr. Alvarez. Cynthia Lloyd is absent. Christina Morrison. Yes. Winskey-Villinois. Yes. And the last election officers will be for second. Vice chair, do I have any nominations? Ms. Morrison. Is there a second? I'll second. Are there any additional nominations? Diane, could you please call the roll? Jose Alvarez. Ms. Morrison. Nicholas Coppola. Ms. Morrison. Annette Gray. Ms. Morrison. Robert Lewis. Ms. Morrison. Cynthia Lloyd is absent. Christina Morrison. Sure. And Winskey-Villinois. Ms. Morrison. Congratulations, Mr. Alvarez and Ms. Morrison. And chair, the meeting is now yours, and we are at item number four, the minutes. Thank you so much. Can I get a motion? First of all, are there any additions, deletions, or changes to the minutes for July 23rd? I approve. Second. I have a first and a second. Can you call the roll, please? Jose Alvarez. Yes. Nicholas Coppola. No, so you do have, no, you have an obligation to vote on items, so, you know, in theory you have the ability to have watched the YouTube video and compare the minutes, but. I did, so I can say. Okay, yes, approve. Annette Gray. Yes. Robert Lewis. Yes. Cynthia Alvarez. Cynthia Lloyd is absent. Christina Morrison. Yes. Winskey-Villinois. Yes. Okay, agenda item number five. Can you please soar in the public? Please raise your right hand by the authority of estimate the notary of the state of Florida. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do decide. Thank you. Okay, agenda item number six, this is for comments from the public comments. Anyone, for anything that's not on tonight's agenda, speakers will be limited to three minutes. That's not on the agenda for tonight. Okay, seeing none. Item seven, there are no presentations tonight, and there are also no agenda items for number eight, and the quasi-judicial hearings that will govern this meeting. This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Delray Beach, quasi-judicial rules. The applicant and the city shall be permitted to present their case. The public shall be allowed to speak for three minutes, each or a maximum of six minutes, if the person represents an organization or a group of people who are present, but agree not to speak. The city commission board members, staff, and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine a witness. The city or the applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not be legally made upon personal views as to whether a project is a good project or not, nor may a decision be based on the numbers of citizens who support or oppose a particular project. The law requires that all decisions must be made on the basis of whether the project meets the requirements of law, the comprehensive plan, and the land development regulations. We have item number 10A. If you could please introduce that item. Good evening board members. Julian Godanek, senior planner with Development Services. At this time, I'd like to enter into the record file number 2024-254. It is a level two site plan application, and at this time, I invite the applicant and their agent to come up and make their presentation. Thank you. My name is Randall Stoft. The firm is Randall Stoft Architects here at 42 North Swinton, Delray Beach, Florida. Just a moment to ask, are there any ex-partate communications that need to be disclosed by the board? No. I want to disclose that Dr. Lewis is my dermatologist, but I don't think it's going to affect my judgment on this. I am. It's up to the attorney. Well, so whether there's a conflict or not is ultimately up to your decision, but I would – will you be receiving any special benefits, depending on how you vote on this item tonight? She tortures me just like she tortures all of her patients. Yeah. There's one. Yeah, there's one here. With Ms. Morrison, yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Is there any more ex-partate? Please, proceed. Great. Thank you. Let me give you a little bit of background on how the building evolved. Delray Dermatology and the Lewises have built this business here in Delray, and you probably all know it's been very successful. So they were fortunate enough to get this piece of property where the old Grangers was, and able – they're, you know, able to expand their business from where they are now, which is actually in the same neighborhood, and do a single-user building. The nice thing we were able to accomplish here is, you know, because most of the buildings being built along the corridor there are all four stories, we were able to accomplish their program in two stories, hiding the parking. Pretty much accomplished everything we needed to do to create a beautiful medical-style building with tropical overtones. I think as you get into the plan, you'll see how we hid the parking and turned the corridor beautifully. It's not much else to say from that standpoint. The facade kind of speaks for itself. It creates a real beautiful, iconic building for their business to continue to thrive here in Delray. I can certainly field any questions on the program, but it's pretty clear that it's all basically for their medical use. Yeah, there were – we'll talk about – there were three waivers we've asked for, which are pretty minor. One is we are two parking spots short of our criteria, but we've created five parking spots along Federal, and in doing that we had to shorten up the island there, the little green island, which is now 16 feet versus 22, which is a required dimension. But we're able to get our required tree and landscaping in that, so I think we'd rather see the parking space there. It really doesn't affect the aesthetics of it. And the other waiver is we don't need a big giant loading dock. They're just delivering Botox and stuff. It's all FedEx and small, so we created a little parking area, so they drop stuff off and run in. The owners are here, Dr. Lewis and her husband, and if there's any questions of them or questions of myself or my project architect, Gary Stoft, I'd be happy to answer it. Hello again, board members. Julie Godanek, Senior Planner. I'm going to do a brief presentation overview from staff's perspective showing how it complies with the LDRs and a few considerations for you to keep in mind as you deliberate. So again, just to introduce the project, it is 802 Southeast 5th Avenue, a Level 2 site plan. Specifically, it's for an approximately 12,000 square foot commercial development with medical office, primarily with a small retail bay as well on the ground floor. The property is at the corner of 8th Street and Southeast 5th Avenue. It is approximately 0.7 acres or a little over 30,000 square feet. It's in the commercial core land use designation, central business district, zoning district with the South Pairs sub-district. The proposed use is, again, commercial, medical office and retail. Prior use was a restaurant that's since been vacant. I want to correct the record on the staff report. There's a scrivener's error that says the proposed land use is multifamily. That's obviously not the case, so I apologize for that error. It shows the location relative to the zoning district. It's, again, in the South Pairs district to the north, south, and east. It's all same zoning district, CBD, along the South Pairs as they extend south towards Linton, and then to the west is the Osceola Park neighborhood. Surrounding properties for some context. Lower scale residential single-family to the west. We have the Bank of America tower to the east across 5th Ave, and then we have an old residential building that's been converted to a commercial use on the north, and then this sort of pseudo-industrial building directly south of the subject property. This is the subject property, again, since been demolished. It's currently a vacant lot, but was previously the Granger's restaurant. Okay, moving into the specifics of the request. It's a two-story medical office building, 900 square feet or so of retail in the southeast corner of the building. Required parking is provided in a ground-floor garage internal to the site. It's completely screened and lined by the uses facing southeast 5th Ave, which is great. That's important to keep in mind. Southeast 5th is designated as a primary street, so it's held to a higher standard. We want higher-quality pedestrian environment along that corridor. So in working with the applicant during the review, we had requested that they remove all vehicle access from 5th Ave, and just implement all the other CBD streetscape requirements, which they've done successfully. Just to highlight that a bit, we have a new shade tree canopy along the streetscape, which is those green circles. In addition to that, there are five new on-street parking spaces that are proposed, which is the yellow rectangle. I'll touch on that again in a second. And then we have a required civic open space located at the corner, which frames the corner nicely and creates this sort of articulation and shift in the mass to help, again, articulate and define the corner. It's approximately 300 square feet, so they're programming it with some benches. It's in some shade, and it helps provide a nice entrance to the main building. On 8th Street, which is not the primary street, has the primary vehicle access. Actually, it's the sole vehicle access, which is that blue rectangle, more shade tree canopy extended, and then the yellow square indicates the dumpster. The way it's been designed and located, it will be required to roll out onto 8th Street where it will be picked up. I just wanted to point that out in case there was questions. Briefly looking at the floor plan, again, it's predominantly medical office, and then you see that retail bay on the first floor, which is the upper image to the left. Looking in the rear, looking quickly at the landscape plan, I just wanted to highlight some things of note. There is a continuous perimeter hedge proposed. It's required adjacent to the residential district, and they actually wrap it around the whole site. Shaded civic space, again, the street tree canopy is a huge plus that we're going to see integrated onto this part of the block, which doesn't really exist on this area of the South Paris CBD, so that's great to see added. And then foundation landscaping interspersed throughout the ground floor to help soften that mass. Landscaping is proposed on the second floor parking deck, which is accessed through a ramp interior to the site. They're required to provide 10% minimum, which they do. This is to help offset some of the negative effects of urban heat islands and provides shade for the upper vehicle parking as the plants mature. So it's important to know this is a level two. Typically level twos are eligible for administrative approval because it's less than 15,000 square feet. The reason why this is before you today is for these three following reasons. There's a landscape waiver that was requested. There's loading determination of adequacy that must be made, and then there's a parking reduction. The applicant referred to them as waivers. I sort of on technicality want to point out they are all three forms of relief, but number two and three, the loading demand analysis and the parking reduction, they're not formal waivers in the sense that they are where the waiver criteria is applied to them. They're just relief that's permitted through specific code sections that are lumped into the site plan approval. So if you find the parking reduction justified and the loading demand justified, then you would approve the site plan. It's not held to the same waiver criteria the way the landscaping waiver is, and I'll get into that in a second, or right now. So the landscape waiver is pretty straightforward. According to 4616H5A3, parallel parking islands are required to be 22 feet in depth or length. That's essentially to mimic the length of what's required for an on-street parking space. So we want the landscape to be the same amount spatially as a parking stall. However, they're proposing 16 feet 4 inches, and really the reason that is requested is because there's no room to the south for them to extend the island because of the placement of the adjacent property's dry vial access and apron, which is the image at the top. So typically, because it's right-of-way, we would permit them to do work in front of an adjacent property, but they physically can't in this regard because they'd be conflicting with the access to the adjacent property. Alternatively, they could add the 6 feet towards the interior of their site, but it would require the removal of a parking space. So weighing those two, staff agrees with the applicant that this is a better scenario, in our opinion, to have a 16-foot island with the 5th parking space rather than a 22-foot island with 4 parking spaces. The code also provides a clause that says existing site conditions will be examined during the plan review process, and flexibility for location of size and islands should be considered, depending on the existing context. These are the criteria that you would want to consider when evaluating this. Just pause briefly for you to read. Excuse me. Another consideration is that no loading zone is provided, whereas one would be required according to the square footage of the use area. This is per LDR section 4610. Excuse me. I'm glad I brought my water. So typically, you know, depending on the use category in the square footage, the code provides a number of loading zones that would be necessary. Again, this is one. 12 by 30 is the required dimension in order for something to count as a loading zone. And it also cannot be placed on site such that it would conflict with another required aspect of the use, such as vehicle circulation, parking, trash pickup, et cetera. It is the case, it's probably true that the majority of the loading and unloading and deliveries that occur will be small freight type vehicles, think Amazon, UPS, USPS, et cetera. Those probably will either park in those new on-street parking spaces that are proposed. If available, the applicant is identifying a sprinter van area in their drive aisle that they could intend to use for smaller scale deliveries. And, you know, it is possible that they might utilize the street as well. However, it's important to keep in mind that larger deliveries, although it might be very infrequent, don't have anywhere to park to be unloaded and loaded except for the Southeast 8th Street right-of-way. So it's just important for you to understand that, again, even if infrequently, there will be times where large vehicles may be parked for some amount of time in 8th Street. There's not high enough vertical clearance for larger vehicles to get into the drive aisle, and there's no alley. So there's just no other alternative place for them to occur, and because the applicant didn't design the site to accommodate loading, it gets pushed onto the street. If you're comfortable with that and okay with that, that's fine. If that's a concern to you, you need to evaluate that as you look at the entire site plan. An attachment that was included was the applicant's loading demand statement and their analysis and justification for how they would mitigate this. So take that into consideration as well as you evaluate. The third request for relief is a parking reduction. Required based off of the use area is 56 spaces. The applicant's providing 54 on-site. However, it's important to note that the five new on-street parking spaces do not count towards required parking. The code does not allow you to count new on-street parking except for residential guest spaces in the CBD. So even though they're technically deficient by two spaces on-site, there's five new spaces that didn't previously exist. The likelihood is that customers and employees of these businesses will use those on-street parking spaces to the point where it should offset at least partially or fully that reduction. Staff doesn't really have any concerns with this request, but again, it's for you to fully consider. Quickly moving on to the architectural design, it's an Anglo-Caribbean proposed style which is consistent with the CBD design guidelines. It incorporates articulation changes in height, subtle and stylistically appropriate ornamentation, including wood accents, and there's a stucco molding, all appropriate for the style. Generally complies with the CBD design guidelines. And so, sorry, this is the 5th Ave frontage facing federal. This, the upper image is the side street elevation. Elevation, you can see the second floor garage deck on the side, and then the bottom is the rear elevation from the residential neighborhood. So those stylistic elements do carry through and wrap around all the facades. Criteria for consideration for architecture in addition to the CBD requirements is LDR 4618. Staff finds that the requirements are generally met. No issues on our end. One thing I do want to point out, actually, while I'm here. While you're deliberating, I want, so I noticed that this rendering that was included from the applicant to us has a brown colored Bermuda shutter, whereas the elevations in the rendering that they showed today have blue. I just want you to be clear in your deliberation which color you are approving, because there's conflicting information on some of the renderings, if you so choose to approve. So requirements for site plan action, Chapter 3, consistency with the land use map, that's clearly met. Concurrency is satisfactorily met as well. The comprehensive plan has policies that this is consistent with. And there is no issue with compliance in terms of the LDRs, except for the relief that we've highlighted that you need to consider. With that, these are your board motions, and I'm happy to answer any questions if there are any. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak directly to this item? Okay, seeing none. Are there any cross-examination from the applicant? I don't have any comments based on the presentation. Again, I can reiterate that we don't really have big trucks coming and delivering things to the medical office. So that has never been an issue for them. So I think how we've proposed the loading is more than adequate. And having the five spaces as opposed to two in the building out front, I think, you know, it actually gives us a little added advantage. And, you know, we could eliminate the one and make that island longer, but I don't think it's going to accomplish anything. We're not giving, we're not adding any trees or anything. We've created a really nice streetscape along there. It's a real nice pedestrian feel. So, you know, we've got a nice plaza at the corner. So, oh, and the color, we changed to blue. The Lewises had preferred the blue. We changed, we had originally shown the brown, but we changed to blue because we did it early on, but we weren't able to change all the renderings or the presentation. So your intention is the blue? Our intention is the blue. Thank you. Okay, okay. Okay. Yeah, that's correct. The elevations show blue. The updated rendering, which the applicant showed in their presentation, showed blue. We never got that updated one. We just were working off the old one. So I just more so wanted to bring it up in case there was confusion on the differences. Staff has no issue one way or the other with the color. Okay. Any cross-examination from staff's standpoint? No, nothing at this time. Thank you. All right, thank you. So with that, we'll move to the board for comments. Sure. First of all, Dr. Lewis, thank you for having your business in Delray Beach and expanding here in Delray Beach also. Thank you. I have a question about the alley staff, Julian. The alley, there's a dogleg that was recently given up by the city? Yes. So there's a portion of the alley that, well, so the portion that's the northern most two-thirds had previously been abandoned. And then there was a remaining portion that wasn't. And so the applicant can elaborate more, but they pursued some form of abandonment that was processed through the city attorney's office, I believe. And it's been recorded. And I believe it's all good to go on that. So it's absorbed into there. It's not shown on the county records yet. That's the only reason I'm asking. Okay. And isn't it usually divided between the two property owners to the east and west of the alley? Yeah. I'll defer to Will. So this was not actually a platted alley. There was no alley present. And at some point, the previous property owners deeded the property to the city with a limitation to only be used for right-of-way purposes. And so there's a statute that applies to that type of transfer where it's an actual ownership with a limitation rather than our typical right-of-way deed. And so they went through the process with our office, did go to city commission, city commission approved it, and the city did execute a deed that transferred that property back to this property owner. So it was only this parcel that provided that portion of alleyway. And it was actually never accessible when it was transferred to the city. It's been an island in the middle surrounded with nobody, the public, or the city could access. Because the alley is active to the north, but just not in this block. Yeah. For whatever reason, this block did not have a platted alley where it was in the other blocks. Correct. Okay. And is, for the applicant, is this retail space to be used for Dr. Lewis, or is that going to be subbed out to another business? I don't think they've decided that yet. Did you hear the question? Oh, yeah. Okay. Just state your name and address. Francesca Lewis. And your address. Address? Yes. 530 Old School Road, Del Rey, 33483. Thank you. So yes, the intention is we're going to be basically occupying the downstairs for the aesthetic and spa portion and retail for skin care. And then the upstairs will be the medical and cosmetic clinic. Gotcha. So you're going to keep it. Okay. Yes. The view from the properties on 4th. What are those black things? That's screening for the garage on the ground floor. The black things are screening and then what is the white? Is that just open? No, that's a stucco wall and then the open is on the rightmost side. There's an opening there, which is not accessible. It's for back out. So there's parking spaces there. Yeah, those are powder coated aluminum louvers. Oh, it's just louvers. They're louvers because you're required to have a certain amount of air flow. And the parking spaces along Federal, is there going to be a walkway from those parking spaces to the entrance to the building? I don't see it on the plan. Actually, let me go to the. I just see. It looks like grass, little dots. No, so the dotted texture is hardscaping. That's all hardscaping. The whole, all that eight foot or so walkway. Yeah, so there's a ten foot pedestrian clear zone required on 5th in the South Bears. Oh, ten foot, yeah. And then the sidewalk is wider than that because it also includes the four foot curb zone. So there should be, there's at least 12 feet on 5th Avenue before the foundation landscaping begins. And then on the side street, it's ten feet, six feet of clear zone and four feet of curb zone. Okay, so when the customer gets out of the car, they, there will be paving there to go to the front of the building. Correct. Perfect. And the first parking space to the south, will that be designated as a compact since it's only 20 feet? No, so the code allows for parallel spaces at the terminus of the road to be 20 feet. So it's the interiors that are 22 and then 20 feet at the ends. Okay. Thank you very much. Good. That's it. That's it. Mr. Billy Noel? I just have a few questions. On the east side of the building, the flat parking spot we have, I do see here that there's existing bus stop. Is that to be relocated? So the bus stop shelter is remaining where it currently is. It's, you can kind of see it noted there. And then the way the bus is currently pick up is they, kind of where the word avenue is, that's where they are staging for pick up. So I don't believe the bus operation will be altered at all from this. So the bus will stop basically aligned with the fifth parking spot? It'll, it'll stop at the pointer. So right, so this is the shelter right here existing today. And right now the bus stops right here. Right. So now if we're going on, this would be the north side where we have the rollout dumpster. So the dump, the garbage truck will park on the side and they'll roll it out to them? Yes. Trash will be picked up. So four yard dumpster can be rolled out. It will be rolled out and picked up here. Um, we discussed with the applicant how best to configure this. The concern, uh, was that one, that there's not vertical clearance for the vehicle to be able to actually navigate in here. So this would have to be rolled out at least partially. And in staff's opinion, having the trash vehicle at least partially pull in and then have to back out creates a significant safety issue because it's a, it's basically a blind back out. It's risk to pedestrians. So our preferred solution was to have the staging right here so that, you know, temporarily for a minute or two, uh, the truck obstructs traffic, but that at least is not putting pedestrians at risk. So that's how we thought through that scenario. So an ideal scenario would have a truck on the east, I mean, north side, and we'll have a bus on the east side. Uh, and I'm just thinking about traffic. If we have two vehicles there at the same time. Well, yeah, I mean, so what is your concern specifically? So now with the loading dock for the, the, the sprinter van, is that a guaranteed thing or is it a, is that just a proposal? So the loading dock with the sprinter van on the interior, uh, does not qualify by code as any form of loading. So it's the applicant's proposed solution for mitigating the fact that they don't have a loading zone, uh, but no loading zone is provided. The code requires that loading is 12 by 30, which they don't have, and it wouldn't be permitted to be located in the drive vial. So it might be an actual loading zone, but it would be an alternative. Um, they're proposing to utilize the internal drive vial to handle small-scale loading and unloading. That's what their proposal is. That's all for me. Thank you. Mr. Copeland? No questions. Thank you. Mr. Alvarez? Um, is there, is there anything that needs to be approved by DOT in terms of the streetscape and the island, or? Uh, so you, because this is, uh, a state road, they, uh, FDOT will have full, uh, purview over this. So the applicant will be required to submit a permit with them. They already have a pre-application approval letter, but that typically just deals with changing curb cuts and access to the property. Uh, so they will need to comply with FDOT's requirements. Typically what we're seeing here should be okay. I, I believe it's consistent with what they're asking. In the off chance or event where there's a conflict, we would just work that out during the permitting to make sure it complies with our code as well as their requirements. And the pedestrian zone on, uh, not, not on fifth, but eighth. Eighth. Is that, is that a smaller requirement for that pedestrian zone? Yes. So it's required at six feet. So the standard requirement everywhere in the CBD is six feet for the clear pedestrian clear zone, except for, uh, in the South Paris district along the fifth and sixth that's required to be 10 feet. Mr. Lewis. No question. The one thing you, when you're talking about small deliveries, you're talking about like, uh, FedEx trucks, UPS trucks will be, they, they will not be on eighth avenue. They'll be in, in interior in the back of the building, correct? Correct. So anything larger than that truck will be partially blocking eighth street when they do have to have those kinds of deliveries. I mean, they theoretically could pull in the, the drive aisle. They just can't get underneath. But, uh, they don't, I don't think they have any big deliveries. It just doesn't happen. Happen. That's all, that's all. Thank you. Okay. So I do have a concern about the loading zone and I wanted to ask my, um, fellow board member, when you were asking about the alleyway, uh, were you asking that towards the question of the potential loading? Is there a potential loading zone in that area? No. Okay. Um, from an alleyway perspective, if that is approved, is that an option for loading? Well, so this segment of what we'll call alleyway was an island. You could not reach it. It was an island. Yes. It had no accessibility at all. And so that was part of, I think, the reason that it was approved this way to be returned to the property owner because literally could not access it. I'm highlighting it here. So this, uh, rectangle right here was the island that Mr. Bennett's referring to. Um, and so this has been reabsorbed into the subject property. Yeah. The, the northern. I'm sorry. Can, just for the record keeping, can we just have one person speak at the same? The, the northern part of the alley is actually, uh, belonging to the property. And you can see here that there, the entire block there is, there is no alley. So it's not that this is just the only portion that's unimproved, that there is no alley along the whole block. And so this was deeded at some point by the property owner to be used as an alley and it never was. So that's why it was reabsorbed. So the answer is it's not an option. Okay. Um, the retail space design in, I understand that the intention at the moment is for, um, owner use of the space. Is it designed in such a way that at any time that could change? Sure. I mean, I'll, I'll let the architect jump in if they see differently, but I don't see any reason why it couldn't be leased out separately. Yeah, it, it, it absolutely. I mean, it could be anything really that's a permitted use in that district. Thank you. Yeah, it's, uh, it's a, it's a, it's a required liner along federal, you know, so, uh, I don't think their intent is to use it. But if they didn't need it, I would think they'd probably lease it out to somebody. There is a service door here that we made sure was added so that, you know, the dumpster could be accessed, uh, accessible by the retail use without, um, you know, having to come through the right of way, which obviously would not be permitted so they can access it through the interior of the garage. Okay. So, uh, if that were to change, would that come back to any of the city boards at any point? Or could it, um, just be a owner decision? In terms of the, uh, occupant? Leasing out the space? No, they would have full rights to lease it as they saw fit. Yes. Okay. So, here's where I'm going with this. While I do understand the expectation of today, um, I'm considering the potential future impact, um, if that space were to be leased, um, to an unknown retailer, that needs more loading and unloading than the current use. And I think we absolutely need to give consideration to that today because that use would not come back to us. And that makes me a little bit uncomfortable with the lack of the loading, um, or the loading relief that's being sought at the moment. Uh, just to clarify, the retail use and the uses at the ground floor, all of, all of what in front of you today requires one loading space. I realize that. So included in this. Okay, that's okay. I'm saying the lack of, right, the lack of, or the proposed relief does not necessarily satisfy, uh, future changes to the property in terms of tenants. Keep in mind, it's not, it's not a whole lot larger than this room. Sir. It's not big. Sir, I'm talking to staff. Yeah, I mean, I, I hear what you're saying. I think if, if you're concerned about loading with a future retailer, that concern would apply today as well because. It does apply today, but that. Understood. So. Significantly gives me pause. That's what I'm saying. Because the retail use is a general category. Any retailer that sells any type of product could go in there regardless of what the intent of the applicant is currently. Um, so I understand what you're saying. Yeah. So those are my concerns at the moment. Okay. Can you put the motions back up unless there's any other discussion from, from the board? Okay. Sorry, I just noticed. Um, there's only one ingress and egress to the property, correct? Vehicle-wise? Mm-hmm. Yes. Okay. So how wide is that? That's less than 24? Uh, I believe it's 24. Uh, it, minimum required is 20 if it's, if it's not lined by, uh, parking spaces. I don't recall off the top of my head what it is. Thank you. Nick just pointed out it is 24. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. That's it. All right. So, we have to take the conditions, the reliefs separately, or? Uh, the, I believe that the landscape waiver requires, uh, well, no, almost, all of it's included, but I specifically called out the landscape waiver in the motion. The others are just lumped into the site plan. I will take a motion to approve the Level 2 Site Plan application requested for 802 Southeast Fifth Avenue, including architectural elevations, landscape plan, and a landscape waiver to construct an approximately 12,000-square-foot commercial development with medical office and retail, finding that the request is consistent with land development regulations and the comprehensive plan, provided that the facade color be blue. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a first and a second. Can you call roll, please? Jose Alvarez? Yes. Yes. Nicholas Coppola? Yes. Annette Gray? No. Robert Lewis? Yes. Cynthia Lloyd is absent. Christina Morrison? Yes. Winske Villanova? Yes. Motion passes. Julian, does this go on to City Commission then, or what? Uh, yes, it'll be added as an appealable, uh, on a future agenda at TBD. Item number 10, are there any staff reports? Thank you. Congratulations. All right. Thank you. Yeah. The item will go into the appealable report, uh, next to the, uh, Commission meeting. I just want to highlight the upcoming board meetings. So, October is just the regular meeting, which is, uh, October 22nd, the fourth Wednesday of October. Now, November and December are different, uh, meetings due to the, um, holiday season. So, November is the 12th, which is actually the second Wednesday of November. And then December is the 10th, which is also the second Wednesday of December. To the board attorney. Nothing this evening, Chair. Any board member comments? Okay. I just, welcome. Yes. Welcome, Nick. I'm really, I'm really new. We'll have Ms. Lloyd, but she didn't show up. It really is. It's a pleasure. I'm familiar with Annette and Christina. I look forward to knowing everybody, but thank you. Excellent. Welcome. I just want to take a moment to introduce someone. I have a intern that's shadowing me. This is Soraya, and he is a, um, IT and cybersecurity student at FAU, and is helping with my nonprofit expansion of our experiential learning center. So, I just want to take a moment and have him see that there's technology as part of government and all of that as well. So, um, just wanted to take that. Thanks for obliging me. Okay. With that, um, meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.