welcome everybody i would like to call the february 4th 2025 city of plantation planning and zoning board meeting to order city clerk would you please call the roll miss gelfand mr stall here miss denby burger here mr foreman here miss peacock here mr goldstein here mr de la grange all right first order of business is the approval of the meeting minutes from january 14th 2025 does anybody have any edits additions deletions comments i have a motion do i have a second okay mr stall first miss gelfand with the second please call the roll miss gelfand mr stall yes miss denby burger yes mr foreman yes miss peacock yes mr goldstein yes mr de la grange thank you all right uh next order business this is quasi-judicial pm24-0121 consideration of request for a practical difficulty waiver for the ellsworth residence property is located 6801 northwest fifth court and zoned rs3d residential single family mr attorney yes sir before we begin with the matter i will read the quasi-judicial proceedings um i will swear in the witnesses at the conclusion of my remarks if you have a plan to speak today or may speak please stand at the conclusion of my remarks and be sworn in if you do speak you have to state your name and whether or not you have been administered the oath you have the ability to present your information as the property owner and representative that are here you have also the responsibility to know that you may be cross examined and you may cross-examine some of the city's witnesses if the board has questions they may ask you those questions and you need to answer those questions pursuant to your oath the city will make the first presentation then the property owner will have the ability to make a presentation if they choose at the conclusion of that the board chair will open the meeting to the public for a public comment at that conclusion the board will render the decision based on the evidence and testimony presented here today so if you have the if you're here for pm 24 0 1 2 1 please stand and be sworn in you swear from the testimony it will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth you may be seated thank you mr chairman all right staff if you will and just for clarification for everybody who was not paying attention uh this is continued from the previous month's meeting good evening board members city attorney city clerk and arrested for planner two this application like you said was presented already at the january 14 2025 planning and son and board meeting the board heard their request for a relief of the required front setback from 30 feet to allow a structure a garage 50 feet 15 feet from the front of the property the application was discussed the board deferred the item and direct staff to research address addresses with two garages two driveways and the typical development of the neighborhood this is the location of the property is located at the southwest corner of northwest fifth court and northwest 68 avenue the subject side is zoned rs3d single family residential zoning district like i explained the meeting before the subject flood was originally applied in 1959 as the plantation garden section 5 block 11 where property including corner lots were developed in front and fifth and sixth court the home was built with the required front setback of 30 feet along 68 avenue however the design of the house was oriented to to face fifth court in this case is the corner this corner street side yard the existing properties currently undergoing mayor renovations this is the existing house this is a um addition under construction currently and this is the request for an additional uh two car garage the applicant is requesting a front setback of 15 feet where 30 feet is the requirement that is a 50 reduction of the code requirement you can see the proposed east and south elevations if the request is approved the residents will have two two car garages staff thinks that the introduction of a second driveway especially the one leading to an additional garage can reduce the amount of green space in the front yard and take away from the blocks overall greening the applicant mr corey elsewhere and his designer mr oscar gonzalez presented pictures of six homes that were described uh with two driveways on the corner lots one is um and they had two garages the board directed staff to research the addresses only three of the six addresses were provided by the applicant this is the specific area defined by the staff also in sonnet rs3d same sonnet regulation as setbacks and other other development patterns on the next three slides um we are presenting the properties provided by the applicant the lots in this area typically have one garage and staff didn't observe a second garage in any of the addresses provided there have not been any variances or waivers granted for a garage to encroach into the required front setback within the last five years in 2020 one waiver was approved to allow a garage to encroach into the required also side setback by 1.9 feet means that 15 percent reduction of the core requirement in 2022 one waiver um was approved to allow a garage to encroach into the required also side setback by 1.12 feet 55 50 percent reduction also an administrative uh waiver and this request was for a carper to be 0.50 feet to be 0.50 feet from the internal side property line approved by city council in 2021 the request does not meet uh four of the five criteria staff again doesn't find any special conditions and circumstances there are any zoning provisions that discuss having two garages but from the city's perspective each garage will need to meet dimensional requirements similarly there aren't any zoning issues without having more than one driveway as long as the drivers meet dimensional requirements too we maintain the recommendation of denial and um in the event uh the planning and zoning board approves the request staff have recommendations thank you i will turn over the applicant to answer any questions does anyone on the dais have any questions for staff at this time yes um do you have the six photos from last time because i'm looking here it's saying that so none of them actually had both the driveway and the garage i only have three of the six photos the first were presented by the applicant and so you're saying now the six photos you found three of them so three you were not able to locate three properties the addresses were not provided by the applicant only three addresses thank you uh applicant would you like to make your presentation oscar ramirez architect designer yes we've been sorted so uh this is an aerial of the photo of the house as it currently is and as she said the house is currently under construction for the addition that was previously approved so as she stated in her staff report originally the uh the lot and the home were designed where the fronts were to be on fifth court uh so with that being said you know with the original home of the design sorry with the original design of the home and uh front door facing fifth court technically 68th court or sorry 68th avenue is the side yard of the of the home uh and so we're currently you know our waiver is also asking for consideration that the side of the house be treated as the side of the house uh just because there's an additional garage doesn't mean that there would be less green space than there currently is because you know there are fences and whatnot so in response to the summary statement where they stated that we didn't meet the 18 feet of the driveway i did submit a plan um showing that we would move the driveway south so that it would be offset from the center which would give us the 18 foot minimum required driveway um in order to meet that requirement and it also reduces the amount of the waiver that we're requesting so it wouldn't be a 15 foot setback but it would now be a 15 foot eight and a quarter inch setback that would be allowed there um another thing is if this house would be if the side yard which is 68th avenue were to be considered the side yard and not the front uh we would be going from a 20 foot setback to a 15 foot 8 and a quarter inch setback so just for consideration because it is technically the site of his home uh that's what the new elevation would look like if it had uh with the driveway shift so then just stating if the side yard setback would be or if the house would have if 68th avenue would be considered the side yard then it would have a 20 foot required setback and the only portion of the home uh of this new addition that would be within the 15 feet would be the northmost portion the southern portion of the garage would actually be at the 20 it would be at a setback of 21 foot 10 inches and none of this is impeding on the 25 feet uh site triangle that's required so it wouldn't be dangerous or anything to existing uh traffic and on comers so again this is how it's being treated uh where the side is actually the front but we're requesting as well that the front door and the front yard be his front so it would be we would be going from a front yard of 15 feet of sorry 30 feet to 15 feet and eight and a quarter inches uh these were my responses to the practical difficulty waivers um part of the hardship that my client faces is that 68th avenue is being considered his front yard when it's not um there is no there's no current driveway on there there's no access from the street to that uh to his house on that side uh we will be maintaining the character of the neighborhood uh like she said there is no uh there is no zoning code or provisions that uh that deny two garages there also is none that denies two driveways as you've seen one of the photos shown where there was a three driveways in one home in conclusion you know we're requesting that 68th avenue for your consideration be treated as a side yard with a 20 foot setback and then our variance would technically only be for four foot three and three quarter inch creating a side setback of 15 feet eight and a quarter inches so we had requested a public records request and these are all the variances for homes that were approved in plantation and as you can see even some of them that were stated for staff denial uh were also approved uh there is a variance that she stated where the setback was reduced from 12 foot five inch sorry 12 foot six inches to just six inches uh there is another so it's just greater than 15 percent there's also another one that was uh had staff denial where it was approved from 10 feet to three feet greater than 15 percent uh and that's for a pergola the one above that went from 10 feet to five feet so there are variances that they have been approved with greater than 15 percent reduction and greater than 50 percent reduction at that okay um any questions from the dais max yeah i've got one quick question which is the side of the house with the front door as you as you showed right the setback for the front side versus the the side setback are different numbers if we were to treat the front door like a front yard do you meet that front setback requirement of 30 feet uh no they the front garage is currently at 25 feet so if we were to treat that as if it were the front setback then you would be applying for two waivers essentially i don't think so as the garage is existing and we're not modifying it it's existing so let me reword my question because then you wouldn't meet the existing code for either setback you'd be five feet short in the front setback if we were to treat the side with the front door like a front yard and you would also not be meeting the 20 foot setback of the side i don't think that's how zoning works it's exactly no i know that you grandfathered in i understand that yeah i'm just saying that we didn't treat the front setback like a front setback before which allowed you to decrease it by five feet uh it didn't allow me to decrease it it was already existing not you guys the property the property yeah the property was built that way correct yeah i just want to make sure i was wrapping my head around the dimensions of the of the home yeah thank you thank you can you tell me um i did drive by there i met your neighbor across the street um 68th avenue i couldn't see i couldn't figure out where your front door was i couldn't figure out where your house was because there's no house numbers and i did ask the lady across the street and she goes oh yeah she says she uh but the question i have is where would the entrance to this nude garage be would it be next to the the garage that's there now or would it be on 68th avenue it would be on uh currently this design is showing it on 68th avenue so so it's a dot so the garage door would be we would be coming in from 68th going west towards the garage okay and the front door uh is is currently right here uh but there is an existing side door to the house so once we'd enter we'd still be able to access the house without having to go outside of it okay thank you any other questions so now i'm going to play this game leave that slide up um for the examples that you put up with regards to the variances and everything else many of those dealt with and then the ones that had the larger percentages that you talked about dealt with pergolas and placement in the back of the house not affecting really a street view but rather whether or not there was going to be some grace given to a setback pushing up against a lake or against a back fence so it's kind of an apples and oranges comparison here because the big question as i see it is whether or not uh the design as is there it appreciably impacts the setback and that therefore sets some kind of precedent that your neighbor is going to come back and say hey i want to do the same thing which starts to change the character of the neighborhood which is where i imagine the staff denial comes from uh as we're looking at this as you said you move the driveway south a little bit so that that very northern side of the driveway is exactly 18 feet and one half inch is that correct correct all right so the structure of the garage as we talked about last time no way to move it south is what you're telling me because if you're treating it as a hey we want to push into a side setback and minimize a side setback that triangle that is shaded on there is the part that is infringing upon the 20 foot setback so you have a decision to make as to how far in essence you could move that driveway to give us a 20 foot setback if in fact we wanted to accomplish it my wild ass guess by looking at it is roughly six feet so if you were to push out a little bit south would that be able to conform to a side setback or are we going to run into a problem that you presented with me last time which was hey that's a huge engineering design you're taking a 30 000 edition and turning it into a 200 000 edition and so really the question i have is is there a creative way for us to view that as a side setback i don't see it yet is the problem because we're still as max said now we have two sides to the house i get that it is when it was originally built back in the 50s it was built in a really weird way and and and oriented in such a way that it put the front of the house on the wrong side i get it but as is i don't see this not setting precedent and that's really the question i need answered is how does this not set precedent within that community well uh a lot of the homes that are on 68th avenue their setbacks uh on 68th avenue are at 20 feet not 30 feet so essentially this home is the outlier because it is going to be on the house uh the house that's just north of it uh their side setback or their setback for their uppermost corner is at 20 feet okay and if if that is the case again that would be something that that staff would have to verify it for us because you showed us six homes and only gave them three addresses to look at so when we had that slide of six homes did you not have the addresses for the other three homes so that they could do their due diligence uh we did have the addresses for the other six homes but the zoning changes the zoning changes over 70th and i was unaware three addresses can you just do it fair just so it could be heard in the record yes so the the zoning changes once you cross over 70 then i was unaware of that so i provided them with the three addresses that were on 68th and one street over from my house so so these three are the comparables to your house in our neighborhood and i was under the impression that that other side was our neighborhood also but apparently it's not so okay um also one of the homes that were presented uh which was the blue house i think the one with the blue garage door that one is on 68th avenue and does have a 20 foot setback okay now those go out those driveways that we saw because as staff verified there are not two garages at each one of those places some of them go into car ports separate question i have for staff what in a second is going to be whether or not those were all permitted because i don't think they were so does that mean now that we discovered them you violate them or how does that one work think about that one let me know um and the reason why i ask that is because multiple driveways not permitted or not prohibited multiple garages not prohibited but because they're not expressly authorized again the question is how are we not setting a precedent here i'm not saying you're not setting a precedent but there's nothing in code that i guess prohibits it so my thought would be that i don't know maybe it's not a bad thing it's okay and the idea of creating a third car garage emptying onto fifth court just expanding in essence doing that same smaller pad but having a three car instead of a two car i get why we talked about it last time but is that a possibility then you're not talking about infringing over 50 percent into a setback so a smaller amount so i could take uh one of the options i guess what's discussed was taking this door and then putting it on the south side so that i mean essentially we'd be creating a wider driveway here but there would be no second driveway there um but in order to do that it would still need to be as wide as it is currently maybe not as deep so then you would be uh you would have a setback closer to the 20 feet does that still having a two car garage or just making it into a third car garage that's as deep is that what you're saying still having a two-car garage but not as deep so uh let's say this north wall moves down because you know the cars would essentially stop here uh the setback for that would end somewhere around there which would get this closer to about 18 closer to the 20 and again it's just for this just for this triangular portion of it so less than five percent of the building itself and is that something you'd be able to wanted to draw up the plans for to take a look at because at this point in time i can't find a way to get over the precedence that this sets with regards to going into that setback and so just and we have some people who are here who have are going to comment so we have public comments that are coming forward and i want you all to have an opportunity to talk about it and figure it out yeah um so if you're willing and if nobody else has any questions i'd be willing to take comments from the public and then we can come back and figure out what's going to be happening here so to answer your question yes i could work out a design where is uh where this door is now moved to the south side and we can configure another way to work in the setback if the setback was 20 feet all right if you could do that i think that would give everybody a little more breathing room but at this point i want to just hear from because we have to answer the question in front of us which is this plan so if there are no more questions or if there are i'll take questions from the dais and then go to the public i just want to say we can reserve comment to you after we hear from the public when we have more questions okay we can do that too i just had a quick question because i i know one of the other things you were talking about was changing the side yard and the front yard setbacks and switching them and so then my question would be if you do that looking at this plan here is it that the addition that you have meeting the 20 foot setback so that becomes a 30 foot setback but you know what i'm saying if we switched that to be your front yard in the well at this point it wouldn't be really because it was it was a thing that was brought up as a another item that they wanted to consider yeah um but then and you said you're already building that so i'd assume that that portion's already it's been approved and gone through permitting already okay so just uh just have so i i see the pad on the east side of the house and if they do the setback would you enter the garage on 68th or on fifth court as it's shown here uh but if we if you did make a third one car garage next to it you would enter right on fifth court correct thank you all right um so yeah why don't we go with uh public comments and then we'll bring it back and wrap it up um anybody in the audience who would like to speak to this item yes no no okay do we have anybody online who wants to speak to this okay so now we're back sorry guys that was a much shorter break than i expected um i guess this is for staff if this orientation changes to have what amounts to a three-car driveway facing fifth i assume that's a brand new set of documents that you all need to review and and comment on how does how does that impact us hearing this issue i guess is the question thank you mr chair for the record dan holmes planning zoning economic development director that's correct this it would totally change the documents and we we would have to review that once again to see if there are any setback issues associated with whatever they submit about how long would that take if you had to well i always say people you know once we get it it wouldn't take us long to uh review it it's also dependent upon how quickly the applicant can get us documents as as well okay um any other questions for anybody from the dais just a comment i wanted to say um i appreciate i know it takes a lot of time and you're here and you know we're a volunteer board and you guys you know came back a month later and appreciation to the staff for checking it out um and also i know there's a comment last time made that we're not voting based on your profession as a firefighter or whatnot but i do want to clarify that won't affect the vote but i do think the city should encourage people who work and serve in our community especially with everything going on in the world that we do appreciate you living in the community in which you serve so i just want to make sure that that's clear for the record it won't affect our vote but i do believe that that's something that we should strive for as a city um i i like the compromise of the three car garage of changing it to three cars and and i know it's not exactly what you wanted but i think that can kind of give you more garage space also keep the look of the neighborhood and not set precedent because precedent and case law is my love language and we really don't want to do that so that would be my opinion would be if we can work within the bounds and i know and usually when people go to court just in general when both people leave unhappy that's usually a good resolution so if we came to a compromise um i think that would be the best resolution to keep that the neighborhood looking the same as well as giving you more room that is what you needed so thank you and thank you for your service now a question i guess two would you like to pull this one work on those plans or to our attorney do we vote on this one up or down and then send it back to the applicant if it's not approved well they have the option i guess now i'll lean on michael and dan a little bit i'm looking at the code there's just to make sure there's no issue if they refile um it'll be a different variant so i know you can't file the same variants if they need a variant so they may not need one i don't know but um but yeah so yes i mean the variance would be now you know as the compromise stated to be designing to the 20 foot line right if that's what i understood from you well he can't tell you what to do though no but i'm i'm just trying to to ballpark potential solutions and as as it is right now you have a 50 plus variance on a setback and that worries me as being precedent setting setting if there's a way for us to for staff to view this differently that helps us understood but i can't i can't tell you one way or the other and so for this particular issue the question is do we vote on the question in front of us pm240121 or do they pull it and resubmit a different set of plans it's their option um whether or not they want to withdraw the current application to reconsider and come back at a later time if they need to or if they want to come back with the same plan and ask for a vote or they can ask for a vote right now on what's been submitted can they orally modify yeah well they can't orally modify plans but they can request that they go back and and review it consistent with whatever they want to do something if they want to change anything they can do that but they can't modify any of the documents that's been submitted so if they only modify it and we vote on that on modification then they present the plans they wouldn't have to come back no okay no they can't do that they can so we can't ask for a 20-foot variant instead of the no because they haven't the staff hasn't evaluated whatever your plan is they have to see that we need a plan yeah and so there are two ways to get to a physical plan either you pull this one redraw new ones resubmit we vote on it it gets voted no then you're forced to resubmit because you can't build this one so that's really like the the two options which is why i'm i'm asking which one would you prefer hold on max has a question um if we do say no and they want to reapply is there a delay where they're not allowed to apply for a certain amount of time because we said no to the application or can they just resubmit you know the next day based upon the discussion here they would be submitting a new plan there would be no delay on submitting a new plan if they want to try to come back with that same plan as a different issue but this would be a completely new plan that they're that's what i was submitting yeah just want to make sure that yes because it's the it's the same property i just want to make sure correct so hypothetically i guess this is a question for you danny if hypothetically that new set of plans were in by the end of next week could we hear it in march probably not that's because we might be able to uh manage that but but well yeah that's my question whether or not the appropriate notice would be in place but right because there see to come back here we didn't have to go through full notice all that so it's it's as we did we right it's there so this will be at earliest april may like well well april would definitely be a possibility april and and i'm just trying to give you all as much information as you can to make whatever decision y'all want to make is there any way that we could get it on march like we were able to get it so quickly this time just because i feel bad that we're inconveniencing everyone the the problem i see and i'll refer to the to the city attorney as well is that we're now talking about a completely different variance i mean when we left the meeting last month to this month it was basically you know that nothing had really changed in the in the plans themselves uh you know i agree this is a significant change and we're talking about a different variance gentleman i hate to do this to you but it seems to be kind of in your pausing your court right now how you want to play it would we have to redo and resubmit for all the all the fees as well to i would hope not well that that that's part of the question that you have to answer because if they modify an existing file then probably not but if they get voted down tonight then yes because it'll be a whole new application and then then has something else well the one major issue i would say because now we're dealing with notice as well because we're going to have to notice this so the city's not going to incur the cost to notice it i can probably look at ways that we can um you know um you know lower fees with regard to resubmittal of the plan for plan review for staffs level but they'll have to pay for the public notice that's that's part of the code okay oh yeah and and whatever whatever cost we incur that you know uh they would have to uh to shoulder that cost again just giving all these pieces of information to the applicant so if we were to table this item do we have to provide a specific date or can we table it indefinitely like upon them completing the resubmittal okay let me go back because i think if we're not going with what's here today we're actually denying this variance and we're creating a new application uh with new drawings or what have you so tabling i'm not yeah the application on the floor is this if they if what's being suggested which they may or may not do so we don't know if it's like slight changes that's one thing versus major reconfigurations and redoing their whole thing that's a new application essentially so it's a little bit different than what happened last time where it was getting additional information from the surrounding neighborhood verifying certain information so it will be essentially a new new information so um what my comment was just to be clear the withdrawal would just not give them a no vote tonight on this particular plan um but if they're coming back with a new plan then it'll be a new plan and a new application you don't have modifications that's not like that if we vote on it not for something this big yeah and you have to i understand what you're saying but you have to consider the whole entire neighborhood as well so it's not just the applicant that you're considering when you when you're doing this free of modifications for a week no just kidding no i'm teasing gentlemen like i said it's it buzz in your court on this i mean first i kind of just want to speak on the the whole precedent thing uh being that there are setbacks that have been approved from 12 foot five 12 and six to you know almost half a foot so that in itself set a precedent for setbacks being uh setback variances being approved at greater than 50 percent so that i kind of just want to wanted to point that out um we wouldn't be the first to be requesting a setback at greater than 50 percent and and having it approved i i'd have to take issue with that each variance is on its own merits we don't really look at the fact that we gave this neighbor each property is a unique circumstance which we have to take a look at so each variance is unique in and of itself so we can't say well your neighbor got it why didn't i get it well there are different circumstances involving both and we have to look at it on a case-by-case basis so we don't look at you know like the public records requests i mean there's so many issues we're trying to equate what was approved with with this application is you know yeah applicant you can continue sorry my my response to that would be that then even if you did approve this that isn't setting a precedent because you could deny the next 10 you know deny the next 20 at that point it's it's all all true we could go we could go round around on this one so what i'm going to ask right now is kind of at the heart of this do you want us to vote on this one or do you want us to not uh yeah i'd like you guys to vote on it okay in that case then are there any other questions from the days do i have a motion all right okay before we make a motion whether or not we approve this or deny it it's still got to go to council correct no we're following in other words it dies here if it gets defeated all right since you asked for it i'll make a motion uh i'm going to do it in the affirmative so it's a motion to approve subject to staff comments do i have a second all right there's no second so that means motion dies as it that i made correct correct you could remake the motion and ask for a second so there could be a actual vote yes or no on the motion so to be clear here all i'm asking from the dais is to vote one way or the other on the motion so that the applicants understand what to do moving forward so i will once again make a motion to approve subject to staff comments do i have a second i will make a second for the purposes of voting okay so we have a motion and a second please call the roll miss gelfand it's it's whether to approve subject to staff comments which is what we always do so it's either a yes or no you're voting for the variance vicky if you say yes just so you know okay mr stall i'm confused on myself well why are you confused we're voting appointed for the staff comments right no correct you're voting to approve this item it will be subject to comments rob has made the motion so that it can be brought to the floor so you can decide whether or not you agree with what they're trying to build the comments won't change what they're trying to build it will just add a few comments to to how they build it but it will approve what they presented with with some comments that you read in in the record so if you vote yes they will have the two garages i just nope you're stuck no she can all right so vicky was a yes jay was a no she can change a vote before it closes all right lawyer just said you could change your vote vicky okay so you're going on the record as no okay ms denby burger i'm very sorry and i hope you come back with modifications but as this i have to vote now mr corman no ms peacock no mr goldstein no mr delagrange no all right so now you all have your answer so my advice is if you could figure out a way to modify that in manners that we talked about resubmit work with staff figure out what their objections are bring it back at that point we'll hear this again any questions thank you uh so next item on the agenda is other business parking and zoning workshop and that's staff good evening board members city attorney city clerk michael alpert assistant director council had a conducted a parking workshop on march 6 2024 planning and zoning planning and zoning board members and members of other four other boards participated in this workshop council recognized and emphasized the importance of updating our parking code a temporary moratorium was imposed on june 12 2024 for the area around the broward mall and extended through march 8th of 2025 to look at zoning uses at at the workshop it was discussed whether we should reduce parking requirements citywide or in areas that are prone for redevelopment including the midtown district sir i'm sorry is there any way for you to keep it down thanks the gateway district and areas known as transit oriented development districts whether the requirements would be reduced or eliminated as is happening in places around the country or having established minimums and maximum requirements tonight we are conducting a workshop encompassing both parking and zoning issues we will not be voting on an ordinance tonight but rather discussing the main concepts and getting your direction and feedback we will bring forward a final draft ordinance in the future for a public hearing backup exhibits include draft text tables and graphics most of the revisions deal with corrections and reformatting the language we will provide an overview tonight of the major themes and policy changes in order to have a dynamic in-depth discussion in our comprehensive plan there is a designation for three villages for the midtown area the area that's known as the central midtown village which is south of broward boulevard north of southwest 6th street east of pine island road and also extending a little bit east of university drive to the canal so basically the broward mall and the property surrounding the broward mall so at the very top of the side it says zoning and progress map so we're currently in that zoning and progress period meaning that applicants could not move forward with development plans at this time in this area during this temporary moratorium so this is the area that we focused on there are four times as many parking spaces as cars in in america so you see a lot of parking lots that are not full like they used to be this is a map showing parking waivers that were approved recently i know it's hard to read some of this this was shown in the the workshop for those of you had attended previously but generally those parking waivers reductions were granted to properties in the central part of the city around midtown and the latest one was plantation city center which is 8601 west broward boulevard and that was a 33 percent variance sunrise sunrise sunrise i did okay sunrise boulevard requiring more parking reduces open space and areas for shade trees it increases the heat island effect worsens proper site drainage hampers economic development increases cost of development impedes affordable housing and affects urban design and site amenities it also increases traffic congestion air pollution carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption especially when it's free to customers this is a diagram aerial view of the broward mall i had shown this slide in a workshop last year it says 64.6 percent impervious but that's just the parking and drive piles if you add the actual building area of the broward mall and all the other hardscapes sidewalks and so forth that's another almost 26 percent so the broward mall portion of this property which is north of federated roadway and and as well as east of it you can see it's a lot of parking very little green area very little landscaping we also took a look at two of the out parcels the barns and noble store and the extended stay america hotel and both of those are roughly 43 30 percent landscape 57 percent impervious area the broward mall portion is over 90 percent impervious if this were to be developed today it would need a major waiver our pervious and impervious requirements so this is shown because this is one of the worst case examples i think we have in the city so of the exhibits that i showed you the draft let's call it the draft parking ordinance which is all of article 8 eight and portions of articles 2 and 11 2 is definitions 11 is other standards it does the following reduces the minimum amount of parking and institutes a maximum amount for certain uses within midtown eliminates the minimum amount of parking and institutes the maximum amount for certain uses within the gateway overlay district and eliminates the minimum amount of parking maximize and institutes the maximum amount for certain uses within the transit-oriented corridor areas within the city, which would be located along arterial roadways, and I have a map that will diagram that. These are all areas that have current and future transit potential and the most significant economic development and redevelopment activity. And below are just some of the graphics that some are already in the exhibits, some will be incorporated into the ordinance in the future. Just to continue, maintains the requirements generally for the rest of the city outside of the defined priority redevelopment areas, including existing single and multifamily residential subdivisions, commercial centers, office buildings, and so forth. Amends certain drive-through, vehicular stocking, and loading requirements, addresses reserved parking policies, and removes the requirement for electric vehicle charging stations, which is preempted to the state of Florida in terms of regulation. Wanted to show you a few of the proposed tables. So this would be the first one. And you can see it's showing these are some of the residential types. It's showing what the requirement would be proposed for the gateway region, the minimum, the maximum, the midtown district, any parcel that's designated a TOD, and then all areas, other areas of the city. So you can see, for example, single-family residential, the requirement is four parking spaces per lot. And that's not changing. Accessory dwelling units, we adopted last year. The position that we all took was that if you're having one bedroom for an accessory dwelling unit, you don't need to add an additional parking space. However, if you had two or more, then we would ask for another one additional parking space. If you have a home-based business, you're not supposed to technically have customers come to your house with a home-based business, but this is something that the state allowed. So there wouldn't be any additional parking requirement. You were supposed to be able to accommodate that one customer on your driveway. Mobile homes, not changing. For duplex townhomes, garden apartments, a lot of the city outside of Midtown and Gateway and so forth, has multi-family of different types. There would be a little bit of reduction there in those redevelopment areas as compared to the rest of the city. And then high-rise and mid-rise apartments. I have another table that explains that we would consider reductions in those, especially in those redevelopment areas, to something that is more realistic. And it depends on the number of bedrooms and the type. Efficiency, micro-unit studio, one, two, three bedroom. Just to show you a sample, because there's a large amount of tables in your backup. This is some of the commercial uses and what that would look like in some of those. In those particular cases, the animal care services, business support services, those are generally uses that you would need a car for predominantly. So there wouldn't be much change. But as you go further down in the tables, you would see things that would be significant reduction, especially in the TOD Gateway and Midtown areas. So this is a map showing priority redevelopment areas that I had mentioned before. So you look at, you see Midtown in the middle, excuse me, this area right here. This is the Gateway area. And these other areas generally are commercially zoned areas or industrial zoned areas that are along arterial roadways, such as Sunrise Boulevard, Broward Boulevard, Peters Road, and so forth. This ordinance proposes to focus on the areas that are east of Pine Island Road for these reductions. The areas west of Pine Island Road generally are single and multifamily subdivisions with some commercial properties in there. But they're not generally the areas where you see a lot of redevelopment. For the zoning part of the ordinance, which is all of Article 6 and portions of Articles 2, definitions, 10, landscaping, and 11, which I mentioned before, some other development standards, this ordinance does the following. Reformats the various sections describing the various zoning districts. A lot of it's text, so there's some tables incorporated to make it more user friendly, for example. Relocates the Gateway districts from the Commercial District section to the Mixed Use District section alongside the Midtown District. So, for example, the district known as Hybrid Commercial, BHC, is a predominant, one of the predominant districts within the 441 gateway corridor. It's currently shown in 2785. It's moving to 2786 with mixed use because it currently allows residential and other types and encourages actually those types of uses. And then it adds a new zoning category named transit-oriented development with its own table of permitted conditional accessory and prohibited uses. And it provides for incentives for increased density and height based on certain thresholds to achieve a desired connectivity, design, form, and massing. And here's a sample of that table, which would apply to that TOD district, as well as the area around the Boward Mall that I mentioned before, the central Midtown Village. So, for example, you'll see it lists certain uses as permitted and some as conditional, some as accessory, some as prohibited. Just in the animal care uses, the pet kennels and pet shops would not be permitted in these areas, but a veterinary hospital would be. Some more examples of that table, and this one focuses obviously on residential portions of that. Just to continue, provides for reduced setbacks by up to 25 percent for redevelopment and infill development projects that incorporate a minimum of 50 percent workforce housing within these priority redevelopment areas. It eliminates most references to parking and driveways within Article 6 and 11 and incorporates them into the amended Article 8. Eventually, all the driveway regulations will also be placed here. Provides for more flexibility in landscape design for the redevelopment of priority redevelopment areas, including an incentive to establish a rooftop garden, for example. Relocates the ADU regulations from the specific use regulations of 27 Section 27-105 to Section 27-296 alongside other residential accessory uses, because 105 contains them primarily for non-residential uses. We already have a section that's designated for residential accessory uses, such as driveways, fences, sheds, and so forth. And just another sampling of graphics that we're working on. And there's an example of a rooftop garden. And here is a map of our B7Q districts in the city. I believe there's about 14 or so properties that have this designation. They were each approved by separate ordinance with a separate set of uses. These are areas that actually are on artillery roadways, so these potentially could become TOD zoning districts. And I also have here a page from our comprehensive plan. Some of the goals, objectives, and policies from the future land use element. And I know it's hard to read, but it does mention transit-oriented development. It mentions higher density. It mentions multiple story buildings, compact building design principles, and so forth. So this has been in our comprehensive plan for quite some time. So that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to entertain any questions and concerns you may have. Thank you. Thank you, sir. From the dais, are there any specific questions, comments, concerns? Well, I mean, do you have any specific questions that you need answered or want answered, or you want to have the discussion subject to what everybody's going to say? Because I am going to give public comment on this one. Normally at workshops, that doesn't happen. However, this will be the only chance to get your concerns on the record. As such, when those conversations happen, you'll be given three minutes and only three minutes. Sorry, there won't be any extensions on that. I apologize. I do have one question relates to exhibit F. It was in the industrial portion. It had to do with principal or accessory structure height. It's one of those ones that's highlighted, Michael, which I know you are working on, but gave the height as 140 feet for the principal structure, which is much different from the 75 that was listed. Yes. I actually highlighted that on purpose because staff is still reviewing this, attorneys reviewing this. I think that was a typo. Okay, cool. The highlight was, I think it's supposed to be 40. I mean, that would make much more sense for an industrial. That's why I just wanted that particular one clarified. Correct. That is all I have. If there are no questions actually from the dais, we'll go ahead and open for public comments. I do want to share that we did receive two emails, Danny and I, from some people, and I have copies for the record. I believe the clerk already has those as well. So if you wanted to take a time to look, read these or. Sure. If you'll hand them up, we'll pass them on. Max, question? Yeah. Yeah. One quick question just for clarification. So as I understand it, the residential portions, especially for the TOD districts, because we're asking for developers to utilize the ratios from county policy 216.4, they wouldn't be required to get any land use plan amendment, any of that. But if we keep the commercial uses the same, or if we change the commercial uses, then we would need to apply for a land use plan amendment or no. The ones allowed under the code. If for the commercial uses, generally, unless there's a plat restriction on how much you can have, which you can always amend through the county, that would generally be meeting, you know, the other requirements setback and so and parking and so forth. Right. So, so none of this ordinance would require a land use plan amendment. It is another option, but generally, no. Thank you. Sorry, Michael, somewhat related. If somebody wants to use TOD though, they have, it does have to be rezoned TOD from whatever it is. Correct. Yes. So it would have to be like a B7Q to? Correct. TOD. Okay. Um, in that case then, we'll take public comment. And, uh, I guess staff, if you're, stand by for any questions may be answered. And I do not have any list of individuals. So do me a favor, folks, be orderly about it. Matthew, you look like you're just ready to lead the charge. So go to it. Matthew McIntosh, uh, 601 Northwest 82nd Avenue, apartment 531, uh, Plantation, Florida. I live dis north of Broadmo. It's also a disappointment when I have to drive in and go through like an acre parking to get inside where I want to be. So anything to reduce the amount of parking would be greatly appreciated. That's all I had to say. And again, for everyone, name and address for the record. Hi, good evening. My name is Barbara Boy. I live at 5941 Southwest 17th Street in Plantation. Um, thanks for this workshop and the opportunity to offer comments. Um, I would just want to, I do want to support city staff because proposing these types of parking reductions can be so challenging. And I think they're doing it in such, um, such a way that's really accommodating. This is where we're proposing redevelopment opportunities. And this is where we want to start with our parking reductions and opportunities, additional density, and the rezoning opportunities. And I think there's a variety of, I made a list of, um, like planning principles that are really addressed through this, um, promoting prioritizing residents over cars. As the previous speaker just said, having to go through an acre of parking just to get where you want to go, uh, really can present a challenge with heat islands and, um, resiliency planning, promoting other modes of transportation aside from, uh, single occupancy vehicles, uh, transit opportunities. And, you know, as I mentioned before, creating opportunities to reduce pavement and supportive resiliency planning, um, perhaps additional onsite water storage, additional green spaces onsite and reducing heat islands. So I just want to, um, come in staff for really, um, you know, giving you the opportunity to, to discuss this. And I think it's a really positive, um, growth opportunity for the city. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Council. Jowen, 944 Northwest 92nd Terrace. All right. So, um, I am coming here to speak a bit as the chair of the sustainability and advisory board, resiliency advisory board for the city, but I do not speak on behalf of that board. Simply coming with that impression that that is a position that I, I chair here and that I represent and have a background in. So I approach it with that sense. With that perspective, sustainability and development, especially this type of development, go really well hand in hand. In fact, when you talk about carbon footprints and reducing urban heating and things like that, this is some of the most impactful ways of going about that reducing parking, promoting density with smart development and good green space and things like that. Now, in addition, things like green roofs, which were referenced on there, uh, and native plantings can not only provide a wildlife, uh, haven in the area that you'd assume as the densest, busiest city part, uh, it also can absorb noise. So it creates a quieter environment and it absorbs heat and it as well, as which reference makes it more efficient for drainage. Uh, you will have less flooding in a place that's designed well with a lot of green space. Um, in addition, you're going to have that transit connectedness. It is hard to be connected to a transit option and we can't expect people to use it if they do have to walk a mile through Florida heat and along a big road or something like that. So areas that are denser and more connected with walkability and paths and shade are going to favor things like the primo plan that are coming from Broward that will be able to facilitate people getting to those places and to and from places, which contributes to the lack of need of parking. Uh, as far as the little more technical on the structure of the policy, there are, there is an aspect of it for incentives for additional floors and currently it's being limited at three floors for bonus. I would suggest making that additionally more additive to at least allow higher than the nine current stories. Uh, we do have plantation one that goes up to 12 and to be honest, once you're over about eight or nine in an area of density, it, it, as long as it's designed well, it doesn't make much of a difference. Additionally, I didn't see anything and I may have missed it about bikes, bicycle racks, bicycle storage, providing incentives for the developers to provide those things, secure places for people to store their bicycles so that they don't have to worry about leaving them outside and locking them. Uh, that can be another incentive as well, bus stop infrastructure. Thank you very much. Joe, I've got a question for you. Um, because you're the second person with one of the emails that Michael just handed us dealt with that, uh, three story. Is there an, is there a limit that you would be comfortable with? I, I, I get where you're going, where you're coming from on this, but is there a, is there a practical end to that short of 50 stories? Right, right. Of course. Personally, I would say to stick, I mean, at, at least for now in our consideration, I think that going to the limit of plantation one at about 12 is reasonable. Uh, from my perspective, I mean, obviously I'm not the planner, but in my opinion, 12, we already have it and the city hasn't imploded. Uh, so allowing them at least, I think that gives them three more, uh, incentive bonuses and really we should be encouraging them to do more of those incentive bonuses because it creates a better building, more attractive thing for residents to come here. Thanks. Thank you. I am the chair of the affordable housing advisory committee, and I'm here to support this just for the record address. Yes. 9150 Northwest 14th street, Jack around the lakes. I walk and ride my bike everywhere. I know like Max, we're an anomaly and I still worry about getting hit by a car. But as I travel around on my bike on foot, I realized that we have a huge amount of parking lots that are absolutely empty. I'll give you an example. The five star ALF. That's actually a facility that I visit as part of something I do as the, um, Ombudsman for the state of Florida Department of Elder Affairs. Those parking lots are empty. Um, the parking lot, obviously at the Broward Mall, all you look at these buildings, the parking lots are empty. There's still buildings that are empty too. So we need to be looking at that for affordable housing. Anything that is an incentive for affordable housing, for walkability, will increase, will improve our quality of life. And as you know, we have a crisis with affordable housing in Broward County. So anything that you can do, every step counts. And this is a great start. So I commend staff and I commend you for looking at this. And I hope that we move forward with this. Thank you so much. Hey guys, it's been a minute. Um, I'm back. Sarah Clark, 10451 West Broward Boulevard. Um, I'm going to say all the things that I usually say. Um, I don't have my cardboard cut out of Donald Shoup right now, but if I did, he would be standing here with me. Um, if you don't know who Donald Shoup is, he is a transportation economist who spent his entire career studying parking. Um, he decided that, you know, while other transportation economists are studying the, like, five percent of time that cars spend moving, he was going to study the 95 percent of time that they spend standing still. Um, and what he found is that parking lots are really bad for the economy. They're kind of bad for people, they're bad for the environment, they're bad for everything. Um, and they, they feed no one, they house no one, they entertain no one, they make money for no one, and they just, they take up our valuable land. And land is a very valuable resource, especially in Broward County. We can't expand any further west. We're out of land. We have to do better with the land that we have. Um, so as far as land use goes, as far as sustainability goes, uh, anything that, that takes away that necessity for parking is going to be a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. Um, also I want to remind you guys that the parking lots do not vanish overnight. They will still be there for the foreseeable future until that time that it's redeveloped. Um, I also understand that staff has been working on this for quite a while because they want to make sure to be accommodating all the different uses that are going to be, um, taking place in those areas. So it, it should be a very, a good, compromising plan, if that makes sense. Thank you. Anyone else? Paul Calvarese, 940 Southwest 52nd Avenue. I'm here in two capacities wearing multiple hats. I'm glad to see the average age has lowered on this dais. So a couple of points. More than what? Than when I was on it. So I'm going to take some time back if you don't mind. Okay. So I'm a transportation planner. I specialize in policy. And when we look at our parking, that's a policy. Our parking code was not handed down on tablets. These were decisions that were made. They were made decades ago. And just look at your own personal lives, except for maybe two of you. Do you make the same decisions today, I'm sorry, three, that you don't, do you make the same decisions today that you made one, two, three decades ago? No, because things change. And we've had a lot of good speakers that have made really good points. Sustainability is great, but our land is more valuable. That's the most benefit that you're, that we're going to see this from Plantation, is the land. We can't create new land. Additionally, the, I have to praise staff because they've been very surgical about this. It hasn't been throughout this, it hasn't been a blanket out the city. It's been very specific on where these parking changes should go. I love that we're talking about TOD, but if you think about it, the name is kind of a misnomer. If the TODs don't live or die by transit, it really lives or dies by the connectivity. It doesn't matter if you have a bus that comes outside of a building, if there's a fence or gate around it and you have to go walk a mile out of your way. And what staff does is they look at that connectivity and by reducing the parking, you provide more opportunities for that. I think transit's great, but at the end of the day, we still should not have to rely on vehicles to do our basic needs. Some other facts, and if you just, just think about this, and I know he said that there's four parks, I've heard there's six parking spots per car in America. So if you think about that, where are you legally, where are, what, where do you have a legal right to sleep tonight? Nowhere. Americans do not have any legal right of where they can sleep. Maybe you rent a house, that's fine, but you're not legally obliged to rent a place or own a place. Your car has six spaces to sleep tonight by law. Your car has more rights than you do. Okay, and also look at it, and I'm pandering to our pilot here, if we designed our airplanes like we did our parking lots, which are designed for Black Friday, every flight would be a 747. Imagine how inefficient that is. But that's what we have our parking lots set to. So I just want to, I just want to conclude with this is a step in the right direction. It modernizes the city in the right places for the right time. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? All right. Having heard all that, any comments or issues from the dais? I have some comments, so, and I'll be brief. Since this came up last time, I've actually, I'm changing my tune a little bit. So one of the things, previously I had a hybrid car, and commuting to Miami, you'd be able to use the express lane with a hybrid car. Parking by the courthouse in Fort Lauderdale is terrible. I've said that a million times. They actually made special hybrid, not necessarily EV, because those require plugs, but actual hybrid parking. And I purchased a hybrid vehicle for this premium parking, because you have no idea how bad parking is there. So I would be very open to hybrid parking as well as EV parking. Another additional parking, especially since we have a lot of pediatrician offices. We have stores that will sell baby items and for new mothers and new fathers. I've been in parking lots where they have special designated spots for expect, expectant parents and people with young children. And I would highly recommend that, especially around places where expectant mothers, fathers and young families will need to park. So I think that would be ideal. I also would like, if we're going to be doing high parking garages with several levels, I don't know if you've checked out by the Sawgrass, the parking lot that they have by the luxury stores actually has one of the best systems I've ever seen. So rather than scrambling every floor, it tells you what spots are available on each floor. And I think maybe that's something we could, we should consider if we're going to go above three floors. So that way you're not, you know, scrambling to the top or the bottom, you'll know exactly where the spots are. I also... They have some of those on some of the beach parking as well. Yes. It's a great system. It causes, it saves people time and everything. The other thing I would say is, and this is also from checking out Burton's and our new area down there, which is really nice. Why is valet parking usually the first spots? I think the first spot should be for handicap, for people who aren't able to walk. I think the valet parking should be towards the back and that would be a recommendation. But those are all improvements I think that could add to it and people would be willing to give up spots. If I knew that there was spots for expected parents, especially by pediatrician's office, I think that would be ideal and that would be welcoming to families in our community. Thank you. Just to note that when staff was discussing parking, reserve parking is definitely an issue. You see it around the city where sometimes businesses take it upon themselves and the landlord lets them to reserve more parking than they need for a customer and then that takes away from others. So we've had some interesting discussions about how to change the policies and it's not all there yet in your exhibit, but hopefully by the time you see this at a public hearing we'll have some more about reserve parking and including the things that you just mentioned. So thank you. Max? Yeah, so I'm just going to make my comments and the direction that I would like staff to go in moving forward here. I love 99 percent of everything that's here. I love the parking. I love the TOD. I concur with some of the public comments, which are that limiting it to nine stories if we max out the incentives, I think that's a little too low, especially considering that our existing Midtown code allows 12 stories. So it's not just that we have the 12 stories, it's that we still do technically allow 12 stories in Midtown and Gateway. And I don't think that we should be having our TOD, which is, you know, to reduce traffic, to improve affordability. I don't think we should limit that to lower than our normal market rate developments that are already allowed in Midtown. Uh, I would like to see that go through with more incentives based policy. I do think that's a good path forward. Uh, so going up to six maximum, at least for now, uh, incentive bonus floors, I think that's, that's the way to go. And we could have some more incentives. So like Joe was saying, uh, incentivizing bike parking or incentivizing the developer to work with Broward County Transit to, you know, upgrade nearby transit infrastructure. And, and I want to, I want to make one more comment, you know, for, for the entire day is to see, which is that the Primo plan is happening. Uh, we are getting plantation because we're in the middle of the county. We're pretty overrepresented by Broward County Transit's Primo plan. So we have three premium transit corridors. We have BRT on university on 441 that has already started their whole PD and E process and on Sunrise Boulevard in the future. And if the county is going to put that investment, that $300 million or how much it costs to make that BRT on 441 in the next two, three years, you know, we, as a city, we're the people who control how many people are actually going to ride that thing. You know, we're the ones who decide how many people live or work or shop there. Uh, so that, that's what we have to do. That's our responsibility. I think as a city to compliment the county's investments. Um, and I think that's an incentive that we should have here. And my, my last comment is that, um, the affordability incentives. I just want to make sure that staff can study if it's economically feasible or not. At the percentages that we're, we're prescribing here. And I'll give one example. So we did approve a project, I think last year that was sick. It was either six or eight stories. I can't remember the height by the bank of America on Sunrise Boulevard that the developer. So he promised 20% workforce housing, I believe. And from what I'm hearing, it, it doesn't pencil right now at 20% affordable. Like he can't build the building and it's better to have a smaller requirement, but get the affordable housing built because 15% of a project is better than zero units because the project never gets built. So moving forward, I think staff should look at, you know, the actual cost of what we're, what we're describing as an incentive and giving an appropriate number of bonus floors to actually make it pencil out because we should be encouraging more affordable units at every opportunity. To that, I have a question because you mentioned something about the EV parking, uh, uh, and preemption by the state. She, so what you're telling me is we can no longer mandate EV parking, correct? Correct. Can you offer it as an incentive to get the extra floors and withhold the extra floors if they don't? And we will. And this is like, this is, this is one of these unknown questions. If you've got something to add for it, be feel free. My, my question is more of, as we qualify certain things as incentives to build higher, whether that be bonus affordable, bonus EV parking, bonus rooftop gardens, whatever. The, my understanding, which Max alludes to, is that there aren't lending institutions that are going to be given to certain developers to hit certain targets. So if we say, hey, you can get six floors, but you have to put in X number of electronic charging stations or you have to put a, a farm on the roof. Right. Is that going to be what prevents these people from actually getting their financing, which is what that developer is running into right now is financing. And there are certain realities on the ground. So it's more just, uh, what, what roadblocks are we going to throw to ourselves? Calling something an incentive versus not. And Bob, if you got anything to add to that, I'd be willing to hear it just because subject matter expert, but if you got something, Michael, to that end with regard to making it an incentive, um, I know we had to remove it because of the state preemption. I will discuss that with the attorneys, but I, if we can do it, we would add that EV parking. Yeah. I guess it just comes down to definition. What is an incentive? And then what is the reward that you're giving to induce that incentive? Right. And do we run the risk of incentivizing ourselves out of people who want to put certain projects in there? Paul, you look like you had something to add. Okay. So I'm going to wear my other hat. Paul Cabresi, Intergovernmental Manager, Broward MPO. My advice to this board is to not codify anything EV. Why is that? Um, just with the current state of politics, it's become a third rail and I'd recommend not codifying anything new that's EV. Third rail for whom? For anyone that has an EV policy. I'll give you a, for instance, the Broward MPO was recently awarded in, at the beginning of January, the Broward MPO was awarded a $18 million grant for EV charging stations throughout Broward County. A week ago, that grant was put on hold indefinitely. So about that, when we're talking to EV, we're talking charging stations, electric vehicles. What about considering, like I said, hybrid or even carpool where you have to get a designation from the state? So I, you get an actual, even the carpool has a designation and sticker and it's not electric vehicles. So it wouldn't require charging stations. So that's a possibility. My recommendation, this is just, just a recommendation of the board. You can do whatever you want with it is to not codify any EV policies. And I get where you're going with that. The, first of all, we don't codify anything. We're just advisory in this nature, which is why we're asking the questions. You know that. But it's more, the bigger question in my mind is what direction is the world moving? And if, unless you're telling me that electric vehicles are going to go away, then I don't know that we should completely step away from them. I think we can put it in there as one of many possible inducements, if, which went to what I was talking about. So I'm not talking about mandating it, which we had before number of EVs or EV capable per, but I still believe that when it comes to development, as you said, there's no more land in South Florida. We are stuck between an ocean and a swamp. So the only land available is land that is going to be redeveloped. And so as we think about how we want to redevelop certain things, do we want to leave the door open for developers to put something in that might help in the future? Some people might say, hey, I hate green roofs because, you know, if you don't get the right person to put it in, that water permeable on the very, or these impermeable coating on the very bottom degrades the roof structure. And now you're talking about having to remove everything just to replace the roof at a much shorter interval. So there are people who are going to say, I don't want to do that on a tall building because of what's going to happen. And so that really was at the root of my question is, how can we balance everything out so that we have this new code going forward as Danny's about to roll his eyes at me? We don't yet have a comp plan. So without that comp plan, we don't actually have what our next 10, 15 year vision for the city is. And so as I look at this, I like the idea of minimizing the, or minimizing or removing the parking minimums. And frankly, there's one column that was in there that was at two that I'd like to see at zero as well that's outside of Midtown. But that's because if you think about what we're trying to accomplish, we have to answer the question, what are we trying to accomplish? And if it is the most effective and appealing redevelopment of our city, then I think we do that. And I just think whether it be designating certain spots as hybrid only, but you need to have the sticker. I drive a Prius. I would never went to the state because I don't want to go to the DMV to get that sticker. It's a pain in the ass. Excuse my language. You can do it by mail. Well, even so. But for me, that might not be a priority, but it might be an inducement to somebody else. But if you're no longer allowed to go in the HOV lanes with it, or the state decides to change their rules because of whatever, sort of what you're talking about, that it doesn't benefit us to codify it a certain way, but it might to codify it a different way. So that's all I want to think about it. But I get where you're coming from. It's just, I see where you're going. There's probably a creative way to achieve the same goal without explicitly saying it. Yeah. And that's sort of what I would think. And maybe you could take it to the county level in that regard too, because I don't think we should give up, but I think we can find solutions. So that's all. I understand. Anybody else? Let's not say we don't have a... No, he didn't mean what I was saying. I've got the executive director of the Broward County here, the planning council, who's responsible that we have to have a comp plan. No, no, no, we... He and I know what I'm saying when I say that. It's not like I know you. We are in the process of updating our comp plan. Yes. Okay. Sorry. Didn't mean to get you in trouble. Correct that. Danny's awesome, but we have the same barber. All right. I'm going to give you whatever time you had left, because it was a short one. Yeah. It was a quick comment. I just want to add, since there was so much to talk about parking for a TOD workshop, the key for TOD would be to incentivize people not like either needing less cars or no car at all. Like ideally, like if we're talking about a village, it's a village is somewhere that's walkable. There's no cars. You're just walking and going to the corner bakery. It's a village is like what I imagine is like a small urban settlement before industrialization, before like you needed a vehicle of any sort to get anywhere. So when you say village and it's actually a modern society, it just seems funny to me. Well, that term actually still exists as somebody who taught geography. Village hamlets are designations based upon scale. And so you could have a village within a broader urban environment. But what we're talking about here, it's actually not a TOD workshop. It's a parking and zoning workshop. And TOD was just part of it. So I just wanted that one clear. Yeah. Yeah. One last thing, I feel it conditioning, adding more housing, like with incentives, it's almost like saying that more housing is a negative. And we're only going to allow this negative to happen if we do something that we view as positive. But given the nature of the housing market in Brown County, the housing itself, even if there was no developer didn't do any of these incentives is a positive in itself. So it kind of leads into the question, should, should it be even like barrier for like, uh, like nine floors or 12 floors be hidden by any of these like incentives, if the housing itself isn't good. So just something to consider it there. I yield my time. Great. Anything else? Any other business before planning and zoning? Nope. And anybody online? Nope. In that case then, meeting is adjourned at 734. Thank you.