All right, we'll call to order the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board meeting of March 25, 2026. So we can call roll.
Annette Gray is absent. Christina Morrison? Here. Cynthia Lloyd? Here. Wenski-Villanois?
Here.
Rhett Talbot?
Here.
Nicholas Coppola?
Here.
Jose Alvarez?
Here. All right, if we can get a motion to approve the agenda.
So moved.
Second.
Okay, Annette Gray is absent. Christina Morrison?
Yes.
Cynthia Lloyd? Yes. Wenski-Villanois?
Yes.
Rhett Talbot? Yes. Nicholas Coppola? Yes. Jose Alvarez?
Yes. All right, get a motion to approve the minutes of January 28, 2026.
I'll move to approve the minutes of, you have a correction? So moved. Second. I'll second. Thank you. Oh, you're right.
Annette Gray is absent. Christina Morrison? Yes. Cynthia Lloyd? Yes. Wenski-Villanois? Yes. Rhett Talbot? Yes. Nicholas Coppola? Yes. Jose Alvarez? Yes.
All right. If we can get a swear in of the public, please.
By the authority vested in me as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Please be seated.
Go over the, well, any comments from the public not pertaining to the items on today's agenda. Seeing none, go into the quasi-judicial hearing items. Go ahead and read the rules. This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Del Rey 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 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 board members, staff, and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine witness, the city, or the applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not legally be made upon personal views as to whether a project is a good project or not, nor may a decision may be based 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 the law, the comprehensive plan, and the land development regulations. All right. So we'll move to our only item for today's evening, 8A, which is 540 West Atlantic Avenue, Dunkin' Donuts. Has there been any ex parte on behalf of the board?
No. Yes. I spent about 20 minutes walking the property and I had communication with staff. Okay.
Yes. My apologies. I did have a conversation with staff.
So we will now allow the city to enter the project file into the record.
Good evening, board members. Alexi Howell for the record. I'd like to enter file number 2024-152 for a level two site plan modification and the applicant, Michael Ventura, the architect, is here today to present.
Okay. My name is Mike Ventura. I'm the architect of record and I'll be brief. I know this has been going on for a while, so I'll go through these slides as quick as I can. This is a subject property. This is obviously on the Southwest 6th Avenue and Atlantic Avenue. That is the survey. This is what the property looks like facing Atlantic. This is the rear of the property, west side. This is the east. That is the west. Oh, that's the west. I'm sorry. So the idea here was originally, just to give you a brief history, the franchisees were going to, they took over the property. We were going to basically put Duncan Colors on it and take over and start operating like the business that was there before. But when we started looking at the property, the trusses were all termite ridden, completely rotten, and it wasn't worth investing more money to do finishes on the inside without redoing the roof. So when we decided the roof was going to have to come off, the concept was to square off the building and try to make it as close as possible to a Duncan within the parameters. So these are some of our neighbors to our west, east, south, that everybody's, I'm sure, familiar with. This is the new site plan. Basically, what brought us here was, again, when we were going to just basically take over the existing business building, the lot was, is as it was, it was as it looks like today. And when we tried to do it as minimal as possible without too much causing waves, things started evolving with obviously zoning and requirements and going back and forth. And I'll go back to that. So in, let me see here, there's a, I want to show you, we came on, oh, this is, this is missing some, some slides. Oh, here. So on February 10th, we presented to this, this presentation was presented to the downtown advisory board. We had a, I think a unanimous, you know, a positive outcome with that. And the next step was we were still going back and forth with zoning with some zoning issues of requirements required for glazing and textures and colors and stuff like that that we still had to fix. You know, we were still working on, but for the most part we were, you know, we thought we were close, but then the site came into play and then the site also threw another curve ball, which created a lot of, you know, additional work and, and back and forth. And so eventually that's where we are today. So today, this is the, the evolving of, from the, the, the downtown advisory board to today. There's, we are still some shy of some zoning requirements in regards to glazing on Atlantic and on sixth Avenue. And, um, and we've been going back and forth with Alexa and trying to get, see where we are because any more glazing it's, I mean, for example, the, the, the area and the, on the Avenue that has a red line is kind of hard to see, but that would be a, basically a false window because that would be back a house, but they would give the glazing, you know, quoting, um, quota. It would, would make us meet our quota for the glazing. So that's where we're at, you know, basically, I think pretty much down to the, the wire with the, the zoning and, and requirements as far as, if I'm not mistaken, um, some of the small details that we got to clean up, I guess, and decide which way we're going to go. So for the most part, that is, you know, and this is the interior. I don't know if that really matters for this hearing, but, um, I figured I'd show it anyway. So in case we had to come back to it, these are the street elevations from the side views that we, we also presented. This is a landscape. We have the landscape, Austin here from Thomas Insight, uh, studios that's going to, you know, answer any landscape issues that we may have or questions. And this is just a couple of elevations that they, um, they presented for this project. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to take them.
All right. Thank you. Okay. Good evening, board members. Um, I'm going to go through this really quickly. Um, and the, everything was detailed in the staff report. Um, but this is a, uh, level two site plan modification for, uh, a renovation of an existing building for Dunkin' Donuts at 540 West Atlantic. Um, so this is a subject property location is just west of, um, Swinton on Atlantic, uh, the corner of Southwest 6th Avenue and West Atlantic, just south of the fire station and the police department. Um, so this is, um, in the CBD central business district within the West Atlantic, uh, subdistrict with a overlay of the West Atlantic. It is, uh, primarily surrounded by CBD except for the North with a CF zoning district. Um, and again, the existing use is, um, the building is existing and there was previously a restaurant, um, but it's currently vacant. And so the proposal is to add a restaurant, um, really quick with the surrounding areas. Um, again, to the North is the fire station to, uh, directly to the East is, um, the new tropical barbecue house. And, um, to the South is a, I think 18 multifamily unit. And then to the West is vacant. So a little background, uh, the original building was constructed in 1984 as a one story and, um, evolved, uh, as a continuation of multiple restaurants. So we have the dates below. It started in May of a restaurant and April it was DD's conch, uh, bar. And then today, uh, in 2018 is where the bear shack came in and, um, it's currently vacant. And so these are the existing conditions, um, the Northwest, just, uh, these are actually taken today. So we have actual existing conditions for you guys today. We have the South elevation, uh, which is the rear of the building, the Northeast elevation, um, which is the, it is not the Northeast. Is it? Yes, it is. And then the East elevation with the Rika palms. So as the applicant, um, stated, the, um, the owner wanted to come in to renovate the building and do some minor modifications to the elevations, um, and then submit a building permit later for the, um, the, um, resurfacing of the parking lot. But with, uh, with our, um, LDRs and our requirements, um, you would have to come in for a level one site plan modification. So, um, we, he was advised to submit those two modifications for the elevations and the resurfacing of the parking lot together in this level two site plan modification with, which includes the addition of a walking cooler. Um, and so, um, as you can see, the existing conditions, um, are heavily deteriorated. There's a lot of potholes, um, there are no dedicated parking spaces, the vegetation has really died off around the buffering area and, um, is very unstable and unsafe. Um, and so, hence why the, the site is really heavily improved, um, as you can see in the site plan later on. Um, here we have, uh, three distinct pictures of the existing black olives that are on the perimeter that are visible from the right of way. Um, I just took those today. So they're very, uh, lush and landscaping, but there could be some maintenance issues that could be taken care of to, you know, beautify the area. And here again are some existing conditions of the building. Um, so these are just quick snapshots, just kind of showing how the roof and the, uh, exterior are really deteriorating. Um, the middle picture is the, um, enclosure towards the rear, um, that kind of screens the AC air conditioning units and things like that. Um, and so here we have the request for the level two site plan modification to add a 168 square foot walking cooler, modify the building elevations and to improve the site. Um, so as part of the review, um, the application was reviewed with performance to chapter three, which includes land use, uh, concurrency, compatibility, consistency with the comprehensive plan and the LDRs. Um, and so overall it all meets, there are no issues. And so I'll just skip right through that. Um, here are the site plan requirements. Um, we looked at height setbacks, um, even streetscape storefront front frontage requirements, civic open space parking and, um, bicycle, uh, bicycle parking as well. So overall, um, I'll just give a quick, um, overview. So as the application was coming in for review, it does have to come into compliance with parking dimensions, driveway aisles, landscape islands. Um, you know, we did ask them to provide a dumpster enclosure since this is a restaurant and didn't have one. So all these, um, improvements, the applicant has provided and has met code. There are no deficiencies in, um, in meeting the LDRs except the existing nonconformities, which is on site, which is the setback at the corner, which is indicated with the eight foot and then the 12 foot, which are actually just the eight foot requires a minimum of 10 foot setback. Um, and then there's the other nonconformity about the glazing that the applicant highlighted. But overall, all the, um, the site meets all the LDR requirements, even for parking, there are nine spaces provided. Um, no civic open space is required on site. Um, no streetscape was triggered for this review. So we didn't look at streetscape. Um, the height is meeting. There are, they're providing bicycle parking that was not there before. Um, and again, the dumpster enclosure is provided on site, um, and they're providing, um, a safe route to the building from the ADA space, which was not provided before. Um, and as part of the review, as well as that on the South side of the property, along the property line, there are existing utility lines. Um, and so part of the review, we did request a, um, a utility easement. Uh, and so, um, the applicant has provided that easement and we are going to ask for a 10.5 foot, uh, utility easement along that area, which also includes existing conditions of trees and a fence. So here we have the landscape plan. So all the tree, most of the trees are, that are existing are staying on site, except for one, uh, mahogany on the South end is being removed. Um, and it is being made, mitigated by one silver button wood. Um, I've highlighted some of the, um, the existing black olive trees in green. Um, and then the, the rest of the proposals are heavily, you know, lush landscaping all around that's being improved. Um, so overall the landscape plan is consistent with LDRs. Um, and there are no significant issues, um, except all the wonderful improvements that are being provided. Um, so here we are going to the architectural elevations. Um, the board, um, has these criterias to review the elevations, that it's in conformity, in good taste, and in harmony with the surrounding area. And so the proposal consists of, um, removing the roof, um, and to, uh, some of the windows and the doors. Um, currently the opening percentage is 54%, uh, within the CBD, um, there's a requirement to have at least 80% openings along the street. So right now they're at 54. And here's another elevation just showing, again, these are the modifications, removing of these windows to put impact windows, the removal of the, the roof, um, and then the enclosure towards the rear is being removed for the walk-in cooler. And here's the proposal. Um, so it started with submittal one, which had a measuring modern, uh, architectural style. It is one of the seven approved styles. However, um, it would require city commission approval. And so, uh, we advise the applicant if you did not want to go to city commission for the measuring style approval, you could choose one of the other five, um, or four that are not, uh, part of the list that requires city commission approval, which is art deco and maiserie modern. Um, so they went with the Florida vernacular, um, which was beautifully executed. They have the prominent tower feature with the metal roofing, um, that is overhanging. Um, and then the opening requirement did increase to 56%. So it is bringing it up into, or decreasing the nonconformity. Um, so that's always, um, well received. And so here we are with the west elevation again, submittal one, and then to today's product, um, number seven. And here we have the east elevation, which is towards tropical and then the south elevation. So here today we have the border options, um, move to approve, approve with conditions to deny or continue with direction.
Thank you. Is there anybody from the public? I'd like to. Any, okay. Yeah. Any, any comments from the public to speak? Any rebuttal to the city's presentation? Symentra?
Question for the city. Yeah. Um, Alyssa, you mentioned streetscape wasn't triggered. What can you expand on that, please?
Yes, gladly. Um, so in the CBD section 4413 EB1, um, it requires streetscape designs to be the 15 foot. However, um, it's only applicable to new construction or, um, relocations or additions that are 20% or equal to the original, or to the, um, gross floor area of the existing building. So the, this, this, this did not trigger that, uh, 20% requirement. Okay.
Okay. So we'll, we'll move on to, um, board comments. Uh, if you want to, we can start with Mr. Talbot.
Um, okay. Um, first, um, I express my gratitude to the applicant for going through such a long process and it's a really, uh, good looking building. And I think any comments that, um, I'm going to make, I want you to understand that I'm view this property as a really key component to the city as you enter it, because you're going to be the first property that we come into contact with after a long vacant stretch. Um, and I think your architectural renderings are great. Unfortunately, you're saddled. In my opinion, you're saddled with a landscape plan and trees on site, which if we had our best desires might not be there. And in particular, um, I know some of these will get mitigated through, through pruning and, and repair, um, particularly, uh, the black olives. So I'm going to start my comments on the, on the black olives. Um, so we've got one, two, three, four, five black olives, six black olives on site. Um, one of those black olives number, um, black olive number seven, um, looks like it was a kind of a secondary intention. It just grew up. It wasn't placed there. I would be willing to bet if we went back and looked at the site plan from 1984, they planted um, uh, black olive two, six, eight, and probably one and number seven has kind of just grown up. Uh, I'm going to recommend, I think that black olive doesn't need to be there. Um, and that's, that's one of my comments. Um, I'm also, because of the, because of the size and the canopy of those black olives. Um, I think there are other, uh, vegetation on the property that are going to have a hard time surviving, um, in particular, the existing foxtail palm that kind of is under the shade. And it's, it's, I was out there, it's a very small diminutive tree. Um, I think landscape could do something with that. Either move it on site, um, would be a possibility. Um, the existing mahogany, uh, number 10, uh, it's aesthetically to me, it, it's just in a bad location because it's going to be, uh, crowded over again by that, that big black olive number eight. And I know we're getting rid of that existing mahogany number 11. Um, I would sure like to see if that existing mahogany could be moved possibly into the traffic triangle, um, as a, as a location to, to give it an opportunity to thrive. Um, uh, another comment I have is I, I'm, I just think there's too many black olives on the site. Um, I'm not in favor of black olive number one, because I think that, um, even if you cleaned it up, it's in such close proximity to the, um, live oak, which is a, a wonderful native tree. Um, I think it's, it can create problems for that, that live oak. Um, so I'd like to see something done in terms of, uh, replacing, uh, that black olive number one, um, my last comment is about the, um, uh, Setketia palm, um, that's at the northeast corner. Um, I'd really like to see us push for more inclusion of native species. Um, a foxtail there, I think would be better. Um, I think that's all I've got for right now. I may come up with some other stuff. Those are my comments. I'm not sure how we're going to work that into, um, approvals, but we can, hopefully that'll start the discussion. Thank you.
So to go along with that, and, and by the way, I echo the thank you. I think, uh, it means a lot that you took that time and, uh, it's, um, my only comment with regard to the trees is, um, I just want to throw it out there, not necessarily whether we can accomplish it or not, but I think there's a problem citywide with replacing canopy trees with palms, and they're actually not the same coverage and benefit. So I just, I agree. It's not that I disagree with anything. I just think it's an important point that we put out because many times with development or redoing, a lot of times it's, there's a movement to palms for a variety of reasons, but they genuinely don't provide the same as, as the canopy trees. So just a thought.
Thank you. Ms. Morrison.
Okay. Well, thank you very much. We need a Dunkin' Donuts downtown, and I'm glad you're bringing it back. Thank you. And the neighborhood's great. Police, fire, you know, all of us peons that work out there are really going to appreciate this. So thank you. Um, I just want to remind the board that this is an existing site on an existing piece of land that's been there since in the 80s, um, and it does have beautiful shade trees, which our city needs shade trees. So that said, um, my concern is the east side, uh, I'm sorry, the south side of the building in past when Bears was there, it was always a mess where that lattice area was. It was, that's where the trash was. It was always dirty. It smelled, you know, awesome. So, um, that's where the cooler's going to go. Is that correct? So that'll be gone. That situation would be corrected. Okay, great. Um, the fence on the, again, on the south side facing, that divides the apartments from this site. Is that fence belong to this property or to the apartments? Do we know that?
Yes. Um, on the survey indicated the fence to be on the subject property.
Um, because that fence is really important. That, that landlord tries so hard to keep those apartments nice, and it's been a battle, you know, when Bears was there and, and in past uses. So, um, the preservation of that fence is really important to keep that property, divide it from the commercial use, um, adjacent. Um, is there going to be after a seating on the front like Bear Attach? Is that foreseen?
Uh, not, uh, maybe the applicant wants to answer that.
Yeah, we have a, the center to see what it looks like.
Can you come up to the front and introduce yourself, please?
Mike Patel. I'm a franchisee of Dunkin' Donuts. We have multiple, we have all the locations in Delray Beach when it comes to Dunkin'. Uh, we haven't, um, like this particular site itself, like when we first went in there, uh, the rent was great, and that's the reason why we moved in there. But then when we realized that there was like a lot of work to do on this property to bring it up to par, um, you know, my profitability went from like 20% to like 3% with the amount of money we're going to be, uh, putting into this place. Because our, our original cost idea was maybe spending like $500,000, $600,000, but then I think it bloomed up into more than what it's supposed to be. So, um, we're going to try to make it as best as we can, you know, uh, because that's what we're known for. I'm still working on another property in Delray too to, you know, beautify it. But, uh, our, our passion is Dunkin' Donuts and we want to make sure that it works really well. Um, I, I know there was a couple of comments on the trees. I, you know, I, I love the greenery, but when you have too much of the canopy trees, it kind of makes a big mess with all the leaves and everything. That's the thing we fought for at the other store that we had too. That was right across the street. So, I mean, I, I like palm trees better because it's just, you know, nice little without too much maintenance on them. So, uh, anything that can, you know, help us will be great. But we, we are going to look for outdoor seating. If we have area, we have to first see how it, uh, progresses. And, you know, if it does well, then, uh, you know, we'll ask for the city if we can add like really nice outdoor decor. But until now, we don't know how it's going to be. So I can't foresee outdoor seating until, uh, we realize what's going to happen in that area.
Okay.
To staff, um, the situation with the eight foot setback on the, um, east, uh, the north, northwest corner, I believe it is, and the glazing, don't they get any points for using, saving an existing building and, or do you have to really get that out?
Yes. That's an existing non-conformity that is allowed to exist. So this is not a problem. We just identified it as one of the points that is, um, an unconforming, uh, regulation, but it is allowed to continue because they are not rebuilding. It's just, like, their scope does not, did not trigger a full compliance to the code. Great.
So the non-conformity is going to be allowed to continue because it's a good thing? That's correct. Perfect. Um, and the glazing, um, it, um, I'm sorry, there was one other thing. The setback. Is that okay? You're not going to go over that? Yeah.
The, the, the structure is existing already.
Okay.
Because they've been at this for a couple of years now. It would be nice to get them, let them go.
Just to clarify, it's not increasing the non-conformity to the setback because it's existing. So, yes.
And you're accepting the existing. Correct. Perfect. Thank you. That's all.
Okay. Yes, definitely. Happy to see you, Duncan. And, um, I have no questions, but I will, you know, out of respect for the experience with the landscaping, I will be open to a conversation to kind of make that, um, better if need be. Um, but that's all.
Um, I'm okay with everything. I don't think, given the, the existing conditions and the, um, great architectural work, I think it's, it more than suits, um, everything else. So, I'm okay with everything.
Thank you very much. Um, so I'll, I'll put in my, my two cents on the landscape, given that I'm, I'm, I'm, uh, the landscape architect here on the board. Um, so I, I certainly appreciate your sentiment with the, with the black olives. You know, those are definitely nut trees that nowadays you would, you would recommend for, for parking lots, right? They're messy. They drop a lot. Um, but I do think at the same time, we have to recognize their, their current size and, and, you know, the, the canopy value that, that they bring to the city. Right. So, you know, to, to switch them out for something else, it would just take, in my opinion, it would take a lot of years to kind of bring something to meet the size that, that would match something to what's there now. Um, so, you know, I would, you know, even though it's something that we typically don't plant near parking lots anymore in that days, it was, it was very common in the eighties and nineties, uh, you know, there's been a lot of lessons learned with all, you know, those types of trees in, in parking lots. Um, but I would, I would opt to, to keep them just based on the, on the size that, that you have.
Uh, can I just clarify? So the only tree that I've, the large canopy is black olive. Number one, black olive. Number seven is a little understory tree that's getting choked out by the canopy of the others. So I'd at least like to give the applicant the opportunity to get that out of there. So he doesn't have to worry about the maintenance of that. Uh, what they, what's labeled here as a 14 foot black olive. My, again, back to that black olive, number one at the entrance, I just think we could do better by, you know, I, again, I appreciate the idea that it's going to take time for something to grow up, but we've already got, there's already such substantial canopy on that property. Plus you have that, um, the live Oak that streets that's on the streetscape. I just feel like the presence of my personal opinion is the presence of that black olive. Number one at the entrance is unnecessary because of the presence of the live Oak and the presence of those three other, you know, really big trees, which hopefully when pruned and maintained are, are, are, are going to look a heck of a lot better. So those were my two black olive, um, and issues.
Understood. Um, yeah, I mean, I, and I guess to Mr. Bennett, it, there wouldn't be anything that would allow us to, to recommend changing the existing conditions or I, I'm not, I'm not sure.
So the landscape plan is before you. So even if they're existing, it is still part of your purview. Um, the board's job is to evaluate the plan and determine if the plan's compliant with the LDR. Um, so if the board could make that determination that some of these trees or the current trees are on landscape plan, do not meet the code or, um, we start getting to what it should be. That's when we get into that design from the deus idea that you hear us say sometimes where we can't necessarily tell the applicant what would be, we think a better plan. And remember too, you're speaking as a board on this application, not as individuals. So it would be a board decision. Um, but I believe the landscape plan, if, if the applicant proceeds for without any modifications and this is approved, the landscape plan should be generally a level one or a level two site plan modification. So if they did want to remove one tree, if it, it was excessive underneath the LDRs, they could do that, um, potentially after the meeting through an administrative process rather than having to come back to the board as well.
Understood.
What's your, as a landscape architect, what's your feeling about that mahogany and its location? And could that be moved to a better location? Cause they're, they're, they're losing one mahogany that's already below 50% DBH. And that one is just aesthetically, it's kind of in a no man's land cause it's, it's going to be sitting and I'm looking at this from an aesthetic perspective. That's what I'm, I'm trying to envision. What can we, how can we guide the applicant to a plan that may actually be better long run that will require less, be more aesthetically pleasing and more, um, easier to maintain maybe even. Hey, I'm Austin Scott. I'm a landscape architect.
I figured I should talk about those two mahogany is just because there is an existing sewer that runs under them. So I don't think relocation is really a viable option where we can kind of let it be as it is. And if it causes an issue longterm with the sewer, we'd have to remove it. Um, but I think if we tried to relocate it, it would be too dangerous. So we didn't want to get involved in that.
That's good. And if I may add like a keyword we just used here was the aesthetic. To go to your direction, that's not our responsibility, which would be designed from the dais as long as they meet the LDRs. Is that correct?
Or what we believe? I mean, the aesthetics in different parts of the LDR are within your purview. So I wouldn't just say generally aesthetics aren't, but from a landscape perspective, and I'm sure Mr. Glover knows the landscape code far better than I do. If there's anything he has to add on that, on that issue. But yes, this would be, you know, placement, number, screening, those types of things are generally what the LDRs address.
Understood. The other question, maybe for you and the code for this particular zone, it escapes my mind, but is there a percentage of native requirement for the understory? I know in some properties it's like a 25% requirement. I can't recall in the CBD.
I know for on the beachfront homes there is. Yeah.
Hey, how are you guys doing? My name is David Blair. I'm the senior landscape planner. Yes, there is a requirement for native species when it comes down to trees, but like we were saying, we want to re-illustrate that this is an existing property. So pertaining to the code, which is 4.619, which is our tree preservation code, the code speaks about, for the first step in my review, is to preserve all trees on site. Okay, so when they took that option of preserving trees on site, that kind of overrode the requirement for the native species. As far as you're looking at the perimeter buffer to the east with tree number seven that's under there, the code requires trees to be every 30 on center. So that is a 90-foot, square-foot property line there. So it requires three trees to be there. So removing that tree would trigger a non-compliance within the code. Like the landscape architect talked about is, there's a 10.5-foot easement on the south side, which utilities was really adamant about not putting any trees in there, not touching anything. They even had a, we even had a battle with what type of species to plant for our scrubs against the hedge, because they didn't want anything that would be invasive to match with that utility line. And so this property had to give the whole full 10.5 feet, because usually it'll be five on each side. So they went above and beyond to preserve this. Hearing all the comments, yes, black olive trees are not great trees. Some people look at them as nuisance trees. Other cities have different plans to remove black olive trees. We do not currently have any standards for that. In my opinion, I think the biggest issue is a maintenance issue. So I think something that maybe the board could talk about or suggest would be maybe adding a note to the plan as far as pruning these trees, doing a 25% maximum amount of crown reduction. That way you can eliminate over the overhand of some of the existing trees. And I think that will provide enough aesthetic pleasing of what you guys sound like, what you're looking for.
Well, yeah, that was all my questions. So thank you. Thanks. So do we want to entertain a motion? Sure.
I move approval of a Level 2 site plan, architectural elevations, and a landscape plan to modify the existing facade and construct a 168-square-foot walk-in cooler addition with associated site improvements at 540 West Atlantic Avenue, finding that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria in the land development regulations subject to the condition that the owner provide necessary and ongoing pruning of the trees on the site.
Second. Second.
We're all excited to vote. You pick, Rochelle.
Nick A is absent. Christina Morrison? Yes. Cynthia Lloyd? Yes. Wenske Villanois?
Yes.
Rhett Talbot?
Yes.
Nicholas Coppola? Yes. Jose Alvarez?
Yes.
Thank you very much, board members.
Passes.
Thank you.
I didn't realize how much of a happy I just changed it.
All right. We'll move on to any reports or comments from staff.
No comments. Just a reminder of the upcoming meetings. April 22nd, May 27th, June 24th. Always the fourth Wednesday of the month. And thank you. Appreciate it.
Thank you very much. Any comments for Mr. Matt? No, thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any comments from the board?
I just have to ask Rafika a question. Rafika, are we still taking comments for the capital improvement plan?
I can actually check with Rebecca and then come back to you. Just I can answer to you tomorrow by email. That's fine. That's fine.
That's fine. Yeah.
I appreciate it. Yeah.
Submit to?
There is an email usually, and I can share with you as well.
Thank you.
Thank you. That's it.
All right. Thank you very much. And with that, we adjourn. Thank you. Have a good day, everybody. Thank you. You all sound like you. Thank you.
Bye. You're a pleasure.
We're all great. Didn't get it.