Welcome, everybody. I'd like to call to order the Planning and Zoning Meeting for the City of Plantation for September 12, 2003. Please call the roll. Ms. Gelfand? Here. Mr. Stahl? Here. Ms. Demby-Berger? Here. Mr. Corman? Here. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Plass? Here. Mr. Goldstein? Here. Thank you. All right. First order of business is the approval of meeting minutes for August 15, 2023. Did anybody have any additions or corrections to the minutes? Do I have a motion? Motion to accept. Second. We have Jenny seconded it, so please call the roll. Ms. Gelfand? Yes. Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Demby-Berger? Yes. Mr. Corman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Plass? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Thank you. All right. We're going to go slightly out of order here and do the quasi-judicial first. Will the attorney please read the... Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this statement, opening statement, is for the members of the public. The planning and zoning board are here as volunteers. They are the true public servants of the city, serving here to hear the application. It's one application tonight for a practical difficulty waiver. It's a quasi-judicial item, and it's going to need at least four members of this board to affirmatively approve it in order for that item to be approved. Each witness for the city and for the applicant will need to be sworn in at the conclusion of my remarks. The city will take the first point of view and express the application. The applicant will have every opportunity to present any evidence or testimony you have, and at the conclusion of the testimony and evidence, the board will deliberate and make a decision here tonight, and that decision will be rendered into writing. The board has many options as to how they can handle matters, and they will go through that process after the conclusion of the testimony. So if you're here for this matter, please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in. You swear to affirm the testimony will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, staff, if you would. Okay, so this property is located at 1610 Southwest 55th Avenue. It's located in an RS3G zoning district. It is a typical lot, except for maybe a slope in the back, which we'll show you pictures in a minute. As stated in the staff report, there was a, oh, also to show that it is within a single-family zoning district surrounded by single-family residences. There was previously a shed, you see there in orange, right there, on the property and had been, as you can see in the staff report, for some time. It was removed in 2022 with a code case. The applicant would like to reinstall the shed in the exact same spot, as we show. Okay, so he's requesting a practical difficulty waiver from Section 27-72C, which requires a 10-foot setback. He's asking for zero. Okay, here's the aerial views. You can kind of see right in here is where the shed would go. And here's the front of the property where you can see the shed will not be seen from public view. And these are applicant-provided photos showing the approximate location of where the shed is going to go. And the next slide will show the slope that goes down from the back of his house to the canal. You can kind of see here, which kind of makes it difficult to put a flat shed on a slope. Okay, we have received no comments except for one letter of approval to the neighbor to the south, and we are recommending approval. So do you guys have any questions? Any questions from the days? Okay. Any comments or questions from the applicants? Mr. and Mrs. Abbott? Anything? Okay. Anybody in the audience have any comments? All right. Discussion. For the record, there were no affected parties signed up for this, correct? There was none. Thank you. Thank you for the reminder. In that case, then, comments are closed. Do I have a motion? Motion to offset. All right. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll. Ms. Gelfand? Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Demby-Burger? Yes. Mr. Corman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Plass? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Thank you. Congratulations, folks. Thank you. Moving on. Public hearing, PP23-0032, consideration of a request for waiver site plan, elevation, and landscape plan approval for Plantation Point, Lot M, properties located at 8,000 West Sunrise Boulevard, in parentheses, 7,800 West Sunrise Boulevard, Lot M, and zoned ILP2P, Large Light Industrial. Staff? Good evening. For the record, Sean LeMay with the City of Plantation, Division of Planning and Zoning. The staff report is numbered PP23-0032 and is dated September 12, 2023. At this time, I would like to incorporate this report as part of the record. The property is generally located in the north-central area of the city and is part of the 77.5-acre mixed-use development known as Plantation Point. The agent is Barbara Hall, and she is here this evening. The subject site is located at 7,300 West Sunrise Boulevard. It is approximately 5.02 acres in area. It is zoned I-L2P, Large Light Industrial District. It is vacant and considered an interior parcel. The land use is industrial and permits office use. The property is bound by parcels zoned I-L2P to the north and west. And to the west across the pond, sorry, to the east across the pond, we have residentially zoned parcels, RS-4G, which is right here. And then to the south, we have parcels that are zoned residential, RS-5H. As shown on the aerial, the surrounding area is fully developed and urbanized with light industrial, commercial, office, and residential uses. The site is bound by the office uses to the north, which is Motorola and Chewy. To the west, we have the National Benefits Office right here. And south, we have single-family residential, which is the Marcano Estates. And to the east, we have Mirror Lake Estates. You can please note that on the aerial, there are no public notification boundaries, as the proposed use is permitted by the zoning code. The applicant requests the following. Site plan, elevation, and landscape plan approval to construct a 86,630-square-foot, three-story building as an interior parcel within the plantation point development. The site plan proposes an easterly located building located facing the pond with provided parking to the west. These plans have been included with the staff report for your review. The engineer for the project is here to discuss this plan. The elevations show the proposed building along with material types and colors. The building design promotes a contemporary and streamlined design that reflects the architectural style trends of today's office buildings. It is primarily constructed of glass. Having the same architect, the office building, as proposed, complements the level of articulation and design found in the 1700 North University Office Building. We have some renderings here, which indicates the proposed architecture is designed to provide visual interest and avoid large, unarticulated surfaces. The architectural style complements the office uses. We also have the sample board here as well. The architect for this project is also with us tonight and can answer any questions you may have. Also requested is the landscape plan. These plans indicate buffer locations, landscape pedestrian zones, tree, sod, and shrub locations. The landscape architect for the project is also with us this evening. We also have a floor plan depicting the office and lab locations. We have a site circulation plan showing the bike-pedestrian walkway connections and connectivity along with bus stops. The applicant provided a pedestrian network in blue. Next is a parking table summary. Parking is based on 56,670 square foot office space and a 30,000 square foot lab use. This requires 287 parking spaces with 336 parking spaces provided. Also included are 34 EV charging stations. No parking waiver is required to support the use. We also have a trip generation summary table. The applicant submitted a comprehensive traffic study that included trip generation, traffic circulation, queuing analysis, and the room here also has some expertise in traffic engineering. And the last item, the applicant is requesting two zoning waivers and two landscape waivers from Chapter 27 of the City Code. And you can refer to Exhibit E in your staff report. First, the two zoning waivers. One is from the required 50-foot offset every 8 inches on the architectural design. And then the second waiver is the requirement from a 6-foot-high buffer wall from the surrounding residential uses to the south. And now on to landscape waivers. The waiver locations are identified on the slide and include waivers for landscape pedestrian zones and the pedestrian width and landscape island widths as well. The applicant had a community meeting on August 22 at the cafeteria building located within the Plantation Point campus. The applicant indicated that three people attended the meeting. Furthermore, the City of Plantation posts signage on properties for site plan approval and sends out notices to surrounding property owners when planning and zoning actions are requested. This provides an opportunity for citizen participation in the zoning process. The planning and zoning staff has received two email objections from citizens objecting to this application. Additionally, there are no violations on the property. Staff analysis. Staff has evaluated the proposed site plan, elevation, and landscape plan, and waivers with justification in the context of the applicant's written narrative in the letter of intent, proposals, and impacts on the surrounding development pattern and zoning designations. Staff, after conducting a complete review and analysis of the proposed case, now must ensure that request, in fact, qualifies for approval by compliance with the comprehensive plan and the regulations of the Plantation Zoning Code. Staff has conducted three levels of analysis to address the request. The first issue is compatibility. Staff believes the mass and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with existing nearby development. The development of the site will be compatible with existing commercial, office, light industrial, and zoning designations. The second level of analysis addresses compliance with the comprehensive plan. With regards to the plan, the proposed office building has found to be consistent with the industrial land use designation on the adopted future land use map. And the last part of our analysis addresses consistency with the zoning code. The development as condition has found to be consistent with the following requirements of the zoning code. Number one, it meets Section 2750, which is the site development plan's efficiency requirements. Section 27-41, Notice for Zoning Measures. And the last issue, it meets the practical difficulty waiver standards found in 27-52G2. In conclusion, staff, based on the findings and conclusions found in the staff report, staff recommends approval subject to conditions noted in Section VB of this report for site plan elevation, landscape plans, and waivers by the various reviewing agencies. All right. Thank you. Do we have any questions from the dais on this one? Vicki? I noticed that the building is facing west, and it's glass, and it's beautiful. Two questions. One, is there going to be, do you have solar panels up on the roof, which would alleviate air conditioning and heating? I was looking at the photograph of the building. Yeah, right there. Were there, it looks like the top of those solar panels? No. The applicant says they are not solar panels. And also, the exiting onto Marcano Boulevard, that is, I mean, I drive through Marcano all the time to get to a friend's home. And I know if there's going to be another 300 cars, what's that going to do to the traffic exiting from Marcano onto University Drive? Okay. We'll have an engineer answer that question. Thank you. Okay. So, my name is Sebastian with Kimley Horn. Nice to meet you all. Could we have your last name for the record? Oh, yeah. Vitorino. No, sorry. Thank you. You're representing the applicant? Sorry, say that again? Are you representing the applicant? Yeah, in this, um, with the engineer. Okay. I just wanted to make sure you put that on the record. Okay. So, the question was how the traffic would impact Marcano. I guess in this instance, the exit is not directly on Marcano. It's still on the campus. So, in this case, the exit would be face on, facing west towards University, not necessarily on Marcano. Well, if they exit onto Marcano because they wanted to go onto University, let's say going south, they would have to exit onto Marcano, wait for that light, which is a very long light for the people on Marcano, and then turn left to go south. So, unfortunately, our traffic engineer couldn't be here today? Do you want to answer that? We have one. I want a city engineer. I just want to, good evening, Samira Shalant, city engineer. I just want to point out, um, there was a, or there is a traffic study that have been submitted. The occupancy of, um, Motorola building, gonna move from Motorola building to LUT M. So, the net change in traffic within the campus is gonna stay as is. So, there is, even though there is a new building that's being built on this campus, there is no change in traffic or traffic patterns or additional, uh, trips added to the campus. The net change is equal. It's just swapping of buildings. That's what's happening over here. I just want to point out this. So, from Marcano on to University, it will be the same short light for people on Marcano and the long light on University. So, uh, yeah. Go ahead. Uh, well, there's one also on Sunrise Boulevard that used to be called, um, it's not Motorola Way anymore. It's the name of the other company. Now, remember, part of the campus, uh, we just, um, um, approved or planning and zoning recommended approval of the other, LUT D and Chick-fil-A. Right. There is a comprehensive plan for the traffic surrounding the area, not just for plantation point, but also the, across the street development, which can tackle some of these traffic patterns and traffic issues. If you recall from the previous site plan approval, there will be some modifications to the signalization and some improvements on University Drive, University Drive and Sunrise, University Drives and Marcano. We didn't include the conclusion over here because of the fact that the net change in traffic in this particular case is, um, equal. You know, there is no net change. So, but the campus as all is still obligated to fulfill these traffic mitigation strategies as discussed in previous site plan approvals. Okay. Thank you. No problem. Any others? Max? Yeah. Uh, Mr. LeMay, could we go back to that slide that showed the, uh, the sidewalks, please? All right. Thank you. So, from, from my, like, quick view glance, on University, you've got two bus stops that are right there, and I'm not sure about Sunrise, if you have a bus stop on that side. But, uh, the pedestrian walk, it's a, it's not a far walk, and the main complaint that you guys are going to get is, is traffic, and how do you mitigate that? Ideally, we'd get some people, at least, coming from buses. So, of the trees, how many of them are going to be covering that sidewalk that goes from the, from University, from those bus stops to this new building? The trees. Because we want to make that, that walk a comfortable walk to encourage people to walk from the bus to their office. Right. So, so there's an existing sidewalk going from University east, is that, is that green with the, with the arch there? Yeah. And that would remain so. Then there is a crosswalk going from Lot A, which is just north of Lot M, down onto the subject property now. So, I guess there is already access there for pedestrians coming from the University Drive bus stops. No, no, I understand that there's existing access. I'm asking if it, if it's a well-maintained sidewalk, if it's shaded, if it's protected from certain elements, you know, to make it a comfortable walk. Not just walking in, you know, 100 degree weather that we get here. Hi there. John Harrigan from EcoPlan, the landscape architect for the project. If you're talking about, um, connect, uh, sidewalk. Can you, can you hold for a sec? Sure. If we're talking about the sidewalk connection from here, across to here and down. So, there is a series of existing trees all along this, all along this path. Um, right in here, I think we have a few existing trees right at the corner. And when we implement the, the retail project, there will be more trees there. So, there is, there is an existing landscape all along that corridor. And on the southern side, I see that the green line doesn't really connect to this new building. Will it be connected, or? Yes. As, as part of, as our retail project. Oh. There is. That was the wrong way. Am I going the wrong way? Yep. Here. How did you point? With this one right here. All right. Thank you. So, as part of, of this retail project here, there was some improvements done to what we call the Ring Road, which is just this road right here, and a new sidewalk is being, there was an existing sidewalk there, but we're redoing the sidewalk with the, to match the new grades along this road here. So, not only will it be landscape, but it will also be a new connection. Yeah, and that sidewalk on Marcano Boulevard, is it going to connect to this office building? No. No. Okay, so they're going to have to go north and walk on the sidewalk on that ring road to get to the office building. Right. Okay. To that point, can I ask why there has been no consideration? Because the bus stop is located in the southeast corner right there. So, somebody gets off the bus to walk to that new building. There is no direct way, according to you, to get there except to go north and around. So, you're doing three sides of a rectangle as opposed to going directly west, and, in essence, building an extension from the spot that Mr. Goldstein was just talking about. Basically, right above that box where it says existing four-foot sidewalk width. Is there no way to cut a line into, in essence, the parking lot and make a pedestrian access on the edge of that parking lot so that you can access that building from the southern side? Because that's closest to the bus stop. Right. Okay, so you mean around this area here? Yes. Yeah, so we could look into that. Unfortunately, there is a significant grade difference here of about three, four feet. So, we could look into possibly adding some type of switchback ramp or access there, but it's not something that we were considering before since there was already access provided. So, it's an ADA compliance issue is what you're saying? Not necessarily. Yeah. Drainage issue, you said? There is some limitation on Marcano Boulevard right-of-way, plus there is a buffer within the right-of-way. If I understood your question, you're asking inside the property, correct? Correct. Like, is there any way to take that green line and make a 90-degree turn, in essence, to the parking lot, and then provide pedestrian? We will be, I will look at the plans again, but to their point, because of my knowledge of that berm and buffer on Marcano Boulevard, it may be challenging for drainage to go back into the grades because of the ADA compliance. The sidewalk need to be on a certain level. I will be more than happy to look at the plan and work with the applicant on that. Yeah, or even as we look at it, on the southeast corner, if you look where that sign says South driveway, there's a road that heads south, makes a gradual 90-degree turn, and that would be the drive access into there, I can imagine you could, unless there's something I don't know about that berm on university, somehow get a pedestrian access from that closest. We will look into it and work with the applicant. Thanks. And on that same note, I don't know if you've spoken to Broward County Transit at all, but is there a possibility of working with them to upgrade that bus stop? Because right now it's just a bench with a sign, so maybe adding some sort of shelter. Actually, Broward County have already a plan. We're working with them on improvements for the bus shelter along University Drive. So we will provide the applicant with the information, and hopefully they can provide it in their report to city council in the future, something else. Okay, thank you. And my last question is, about that pond, is it accessible from the inside, like, by a pedestrian? Can you walk around that pond? Surely. So there is an existing pedestrian crossing here and an existing ramp here, too, which can be connected to the path around the lake. And also the basketball court, the proposed basketball court, is also attached to the proposed sidewalk. So either people parking in this area to go on the path or people walking along the existing path here, crossing the road and going on it. Okay. And I remember in my reading that there was some comment about benches and shade trees around the pond. Are they included? So to my knowledge, there's no benches around the pond, but there are a lot of trees. Okay. My request would be to add at least some benches so that people can just sit and, you know, be on the water, maybe reading a book, whatever. Okay. And that's it for me. I have some questions. Actually, with that question with the pond, is it currently a walking path? Like, if we're going to have this pond, which I think we already have, but we're going to be improving it, is there sort of a walking path in addition to benches to make it so walking or riding your bike to make it like a nature green space in this property? Yeah. We are proposing a five-foot sidewalk around the lake. Is a five-foot sidewalk enough for biking and walking? No. I don't think the intent was for it to be a trail. It was just meant to be a, you know, walk around the lake. I mean, we could take a look at possibly widening it, but in some areas it would be difficult. My name is Bob Horne. I'm with Torburn Partners. I'm the applicant, and we have a path. I think it's wood chips that we've had as an amenity to our business campus, you know, since we built the campus and moved the pond to that location. It's not our intent to pave that path that I'm aware of. It's going to continue to be a wood chip path. It's not intended for bike traffic. We're really not encouraging that. We're encouraging pedestrian, you know, people walking around the pond, but it's not intended for bike traffic at all. Now, have you thought of, besides the gravel, actually, like, putting cement and making it a true walking path? No, we haven't. Is that something you would consider? No, I don't think so. I think it's really worked. It's a maintenance issue, and really, we've gotten feedback from our tenants who are serving with this path. That's our primary goal, and they have indicated that that's how they want the path, and we're really trying to make this amenity to the campus. It's available to the public, and the public does use it, but we're not trying to encourage bike usage or other things. I'm just saying, if we're, you know, we have this green space and we could improve upon it, we might as well, but that's your call as the owner. My other question is that said that there were two objections, and I see one email. I'm assuming it's because it's two residents in the same email. I cast of thousands here. Hi, my name is Barbara Hall. I'm an attorney with Greenberg-Trorig, and I represent the applicant. Can we go back to the graphic with the pond? Okay, just to explain to you where the objections are. So, immediately south of the building. Can we go on the aerial? That didn't work. That's fine. How do I get done? Hold on. It doesn't work. Yeah, that works. I believe this is the. That works, yeah. Okay. Right there. That's right. So, the truth is that the properties to the south, a number of them are very happy because now they have a pond view, and they used to have a parking lot view. There's just one family, and that's the westernmost lot on that north side. See, which is, I'm sorry. It's right here, Barbara. Do you want to point to it? Yeah, right here. There. Right. Okay. So, right there. That gentleman still has a parking lot view, and so he was concerned about his visibility to the building. I might mention that this building is required to have a 25-foot setback. It's setback 132 feet from the property line, but we are going to address his concerns. In fact, John Harrigan, who spoke before, has a meeting with him on Thursday to meet with him to talk about a specialized landscape plan for the area between his backyard and our property because that's what it's going to take for him not to have visibility of the building. And we've agreed to work with him on that. So his is one objection. The other objection, correct. Now, that home is over 700 feet from the building, and it looks across the pond. Her email at first seemed to be concerned that we were building on the pond. I sent an email back explaining we were not building on the pond and that we would be more than 700 feet from her property. I haven't heard back, and I don't know if anybody's here today to talk about that, but we can also look at some landscaping on the east side of the pond to make sure we address that concern as well. So both of the objections are from people who currently either have a parking lot view or a pond view now anyways. Correct. So it's not substantially changing. It's not, you know, it wasn't a residential area that you knocked down and are putting a building. Correct. Okay. Correct. So all of what I'm going to say has to do with the traffic impact study, which I think was quite reasonable. So there was a comment made earlier about Marcano, North Marcano, and the traffic signal operation there. And I think just in general, it's quite possible for the city to reach out to Broward County traffic and or the DOT to find out the plans for retiming of traffic signals. I know the DOT and the county have had an interest, I think, along with the MPO in looking at safety and mobility along University Drive, including this. So that's just sort of FYI. You probably already know that. The traffic numbers that you're showing here, 20, 25 traffic at the north driveway and the south driveway, those are both stop sign controlled. And just, you know, what I noted is that you have left turn movements in the peak anyway that I think in one instance is around 90 vehicles in the peak hours what's projected, and then there's maybe 70 or 80 at one of the other locations. You know, this is something that, you know, at some point DOT may be asked to do a safety study at these two driveways. I don't believe this would be something that would have been done in conjunction with this development. But when traffic volumes begin to reach that level, particularly left turns on a roadway with the volumes the University Drive has, you might well see a change in traffic control. I don't think that's been contemplated as part of this project. So this is, I guess, more informational. But this is something just to keep an eye on. You know, DOT might hear from the city. It might hear from residents. It might actually hear from the Motorola developers themselves saying there may at some point in the future be a safety concern. at both of those intersections. Was there any attempt made as part of this traffic study to look at crash history at any of the three North-South and North-Marcano, North-South Driveway and North-Marcano intersections, or is that outside the scope of this? Not specifically with this particular study, but the city partnered with the MPO, and we did a safety study and came up with strategies, traffic strategies along the corridor, specifically because we have private development coming in and we're proposing some improvements. In the near future, we will be meeting with FDUT to start the process of implementation of these improvements. We will be, there will be funds associated with these improvements. The developer is a partner in this equation. They will pay their fair share of the improvement, and we're trying to manage this effort as we speak. Thank you very much. That's all I had. I just have two questions, and with that picture right there, I assume the parking area that's just to the west of the building, there's that first landscape island that's right in there, seems to be a little bit wider than what's going to be in the other ones. My question is, are those planned to be palm trees or, like, solid shade trees that could be root vaulted and provide, eventually, more canopy to ameliorate the heat on that parking lot? Thank you. Yes. So you were talking about this island here? Correct. Okay. So that's actually, there's a grade change? Yep. Where we transition down to this section of the parking area, which is essentially an existing grade right now? Yep. This area in here has a lot of existing trees to remain? Um, so, uh, those are shade trees. I don't believe there are any palm trees that we're keeping in that area. Right. I'm talking about the new landscape area that has the, hypothetically speaking, 15 trees that are listed right there. Are those going to be shade, like, canopy trees, or what's the plan for those? We have, I believe it's shade trees in the islands, and in the middle are, uh, relocated, uh, sable palms. Okay. Uh, anyway, to actually put shade trees in that island instead of the sable palms? Yeah. If you could do that, I think it'd be better for everybody involved, especially as they grow larger and ameliorate the heat. Um, the second question I have is, it listed 34 EV-capable spots. Um, that's just going to be conduit. Where are those going to be located, and is there any reason they're not any actual EVs listed? So, per the code requirement, 10% have to be EV-ready in the future. But, over 250 spots, I believe, it needs to be 2%. So, the requirement of installed EV spots would land at 7. Seven spots. Right. We'll be providing 8 spots. Okay. So, there will be 8, and plus the 34-capable? Or, the 8 is included in the 34? That's right. Okay. Cool. Thank you. That's all I need to know. All right. Any comments from Chamber? Anyone online? Anybody else on the desk? I have a quick question for staff, which is that if I want, because the staff comments doesn't include, like, negotiation for them to pay for, like, bus stop improvements, or a new sidewalk, or any of that stuff. So, if I make a motion to recommend approval with staff comments, do I need to include that stuff in my motion? No. But, go ahead. Again, because the net change in traffic for this particular site plan did not result into positive that require traffic mitigation. We didn't include the staff comment all the series of mitigation strategies. But, campus-wide, the Plantation Point campus is, what's the word, partner with the city in these traffic mitigation. So, as a result of this particular site plan, there is no mitigation, but as a result of Plantation Point campus, there is mitigation. Okay. So, then I'll move to recommend approval subject to staff comments. Second. We have an approval and a second. Please call the roll. All right. Ms. Gelfand? Yes. Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Demby-Burger? Yes. Mr. Korman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Palas? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Congratulations. Moving forward, I'm going to read these two separately, but it's my understanding that their desire is to be pushed to the next meeting. So, we're talking PD22-0002, consideration of a request to approve a land use plan amendment. Loop up for Water's Edge. The property is located at 1600 Southwest 80 Terrace and zoned OPP, Office Park Plantation. Can we handle these together, or should they be done separately? You can handle them together. They're being requested for different. Number three is PP22-0039, consideration of a request to approve rezoning for Water's Edge. The property is located at 1600 Southwest 80 Terrace and zoned OPP, Office Park Plantation. The applicant has requested that this be extended to the October 3rd meeting, 2023. Do I have to motion that, or can we just accept it? Just make a motion just so it's clear on the record, but it will be fine. So, I'll make a motion to table items two and three for the October 3rd, 2023 meeting. I'll second. Mr. Stahl, please call the roll. Ms. Gelfand? Yes. Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Dembe-Burger? Yes. Mr. Korman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Plass? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Thank you. All right. The next two items, I need to make a generous disclosure on this one. One of the representatives in the room is a former student of mine. We have met and discussed what he does as a business, but that has no impact on how I'm going to be voting on this project. Did I give him an A? We'll find out. All right. Number four, PP22-0004, consideration of a request to approve a land use plan amendment for the residences at Plantation Square. The property is located at 8190 West Sunrise Boulevard and Zone B2P Central Business. Staff? That is correct. Okay. Lisa Zilk, City of Plantation Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Department. The two projects, as you were stated, are affecting the same parcels, so we'll put them on the same PowerPoint. So the location is basically at the southwest corner of Sunrise and University minus the gas station, and it's affecting the Plantation Square Shopping Center and the Bank of America building to the west. So here you go. You can see here's the Bank of America building that's existing. It's approximately 18,000 square feet. You've got approximately 67,000 square foot shopping center right here. I think in our staff report we said two parcels. There's actually four, but three of them are at the shopping center. Okay. So you can see the newly built Lena Apartment Complex right here. There is a one-story medical office building here. You've got Jaguarina Plaza over here with Publix. I think there's a beauty store here. And here is the project we were just discussing, Plantation Point. Okay. The ownership is MMG Plantation 2, and the size of both are all four of the parcels is 12.93 gross acres. That includes out to the middle of the road on three roadways, Sunrise, 17th Court, and University Drive. Okay. Let me catch up. So the applicant is requesting a landing plan amendment and a rezoning of both of the properties. The LUPA is to change from commercial to commercial, regular, and residential with 22 dwelling units per acre. And that would be on the entire parcel, like these together. Ann is also requesting the same acreage to go from B2P to B7Q, which is Planned Commercial District. The applicant intends to develop a small bank parcel on the Bank of America building and a 284-unit multifamily building, as well on the Bank of America building. And keeping the shopping center as it is. I think right now they're also proposing to do some other type of improvements to the shopping center. But that is separate from this application tonight. Okay. The current land use and the current zoning do not permit the residential use. So the size of the Bank of America parcel will not accommodate the residential density on its own. So that's why they are incorporating the shopping center to the east. Okay. So they are the proposed land use and the proposed zoning both permit or permit residential. The B7Q permits it as a conditional use, which if approved tonight, they'll come back to you guys with a site plan and a conditional use approval. Okay. Here's the aerial showing the 12.93 acres. And you can kind of see, you know, where here's the shopping center. Here is the bank parcel with this parking and a lot of trees. I'm not sure what's going on with our land use map. Sorry about that, guys. Here's the current land use map of that area kind of showing where the boundaries of the property will be, or is. And here's the proposed dashed line with the irregular residential right here and how it will be depicted on our land use map. Okay. And here is our zoning map. As you can see, both parcels right now are B2P with B7Q to the south and B7Q to the west, B2P to the north, and B2P to the east. Okay. So the conceptual site plan is next. Oops, sorry. Here, we've kind of, the applicant provided a conceptual site plan showing the existing shopping center here. This is approximately going to be 5.4 net acres and 7.4 gross acres once you count all the roadways in that acreage. The bank parcel is approximately 1.9-ish. And I was scaling it, so I may be a little off. 1.9 gross acreage here or 1.8 net for the proposed bank parcel. And here's the residential parcel right here, which is approximately, I can't read that print. It's going to be about 3.5 gross and 3.4 net. And, again, the total combined area of this would be 12.93 acres. So if the, oh, I did want to say that the applicant did hold a community meeting on March 7th with 11 participants, not including themselves. There was a lot of discussion, and we did summarize that in the staff report. But if you'd like me to go over those summaries, I will do so. If the Lupa is approved tonight, it would permit for them to move forward with the 284-unit apartment complex with the bank building out parcel. Here we have some other locations of adjacent, or not adjacent, but just residential in the area. You've got the proposed residents at Plantation Square, Park Village, the Lena Apartments. You have the Harbor Tower Apartments, the Lake Point of Jacaranda Apartments here. You've got the Villas of Plantation Townhomes, the Mercano Estate Single Family Homes, Omega Villa Condominiums, and both of these areas. And then Apple Creek Townhomes up here. Okay, so the, sorry, we've got the proposed use and the proposed land use and the proposed rezoning is compatible with the adjacent land uses and the adjacent zonings and the adjacent existing development. The developer will need to address the impacts on the sanitary sewer infrastructure, and they seem to be dedicated to address any type of pedestrian or bicycle or roadway infrastructure improvements. Okay, in the event that the Planning and Zoning Board recommends approval, staff does recommend that they incorporate some type of an affordable housing component. They address engineering's comments in detail, which involves drainage and improvements that were included with the MMTP involving crosswalks and that type of thing, and to also incorporate infrastructure improvements for the sewer, pedestrian, and bicycle. Okay, do you guys have any questions for us? From the dash? Oh, I have a few. Yeah. You were showing 305 units at Lena? Yes. Which is next, where the Holiday Inn was? Yes. Where it partially is? Yes. Do you know if any of those, or does the developer know if any of those are even rented yet, or anything like that? Right now, they're not complete, but what's the impact going to be on 17th Court, which is just a little two-lane road that goes between University Drive and Lauderdale West Drive? What's the impact going to be there, and then the people who live in Lauderdale West, are the people going to be driving through on Lauderdale West Drive? We have a traffic signal on Lauderdale West Drive and Sunrise Boulevard. I believe that, let's see if we get to the aerial. I believe that the city engineer, or their engineer, would be able to help address those comments. Which one do you want it on? Any of them. So today, the item in front of you is land use amendment and rezoning, so we did not discuss traffic strategies in this particular application, because usually we discuss traffic mitigation part of the site plan. However, the applicant had submitted a comprehensive traffic study. It's currently under review, part of the site plan. In the traffic study, just to answer some of the questions that you're asking, we're working with the applicant on traffic calming measure on 17th Court, traffic calming measures on Lauderdale West, some improvements on University Drive and Sunrise Boulevard, and some other improvements. So, similar to the item before and the discussion before, they're going to be another, this developer is going to be another partner with the city on the traffic mitigation strategy for that area, as a comprehensive traffic management plan. Can you, can they have an idea of how many stories these apartment buildings will be? Just before you answer that, I just want to add one thing, also, they are adding or improving the sidewalk along 17th Court, part of the site plan, and you will see all that improvement, part of the site plan. It wasn't discussed in this particular application. Thank you. You're asking about the number of stories for the apartment complex? Yeah. I do not know for sure, but I'm sure the applicant can answer that question for you. Are they here? Yes, they are. They have several people here. Anybody? Good evening, everyone. My name is Luis Nudel. I'm with the owner, MMG Plantation 2. To answer your question, the proposed residential development will be six stories. And I'm just, I'm just confused as to why, and, and you're, you're, in this whole package, this includes Plantation Square? You're talking about, I mean, when we're looking at everything, Plantation Square, and your development is all owned by the same, it's all the same developer, is that correct? That's correct, yeah. Okay, then I have no questions right now. Just a couple of questions. These relate to, we'll call it the conceptual site plan here. So, hang on. No, you did not misunderstand that. They are, have another application in which is what we call a minor site plan modification. And what they're actually proposing is elevation changes and also some, a little bit of a breezeway right here with some type of connection we're trying to work with right here to 17th Court. Right. To some extent, the, the, the, the, this is probably kind of, the intersections there are somewhat offset. I don't know what the traffic volumes have been probably not that high, but this, this is a condition inside out. And then the last comment I would make is you've got angle parking in what's kind of like an alley between the residential and the plantation square. So, you've got to be going northbound to use the parking. And again, I guess as you further refine this, the potential for conflict with the parking aisle and the driveway connection, the northbound right terminal, and the driveway connection to Sunrise. Right here. Yeah. It may be somewhat of an issue as well, but you did say that there's going to be more refinement of the traffic impact study in that. Yes. And I will just reiterate, this conceptual site plan was not reviewed in detail. We will get to that level of detail when they officially submit. But those are good comments, and thank you. Okay. If I may, procedurally on that same point, so what are we voting on today? Because you're saying more of this, the details will come out once we have, so what is the vote for today? The vote for today is to change, oh, go ahead. I was just going to say, it's, you're, you're looking at the existing land use and voting on whether or not it is consistent with the policies that we have in policy 1.16. blah, blah, 11, I think, and making sure that it's consistent with those policies in our code and in our comp plan. Is that change consistent to what the city of plantation wants to do when they're, as they're moving forward? Same with the, with the, the rezoning application. They are proposing to rezone the property from technically one commercial zoning district to another commercial zoning district. But the commercial zoning district that they want to move it to does permit residential zoning, residential uses within it as a conditional use. So that's, that's what you're voting on, is that, that type of use. So we're running on this, but the details, if let's say they don't comport at that point, would you then recommend at the second stage, okay, we can recommend not to go forward at this point. If you're unable to, so they're saying, we, we want to have walkways and we want to have sewage code, but I want to lose weight and I want to save money. But that doesn't mean I'm going to in a way that's, you know, I need to. So these are the things. You will. I would say, I think an analogy in that case would be that everybody else is encouraging you to do so. And we're going to decide to allow you whether or not to, to go in that direction. Like the first issue at hand is a land use plan amendment to just amend the city's land use plan to allow a project like this to exist in that location. Once we've decided that we should allow a project or not to allow a project to exist in that location would be whether we decide if yes, then we have to rezone it to actually permit that use. And then, or not, but generally speaking, one doesn't occur without the other, I don't believe. So if, if the land use plan amendment is not approved, the zoning is moved as is any one of these plans. But in order for them to put something in front of us, they had to at least give us some idea. But yeah, sidewalk locations could change, driveway aisles could change all of that. But they're kind of like Mark said, it's, it's, they're starting to plan it out, but nothing, nothing's set in stone yet, because they'd have to come to us for this site plan. So we can always change our mind later on if it's not what we feel is appropriate. Yes. If you, if they get to, if you get to the point tonight where you guys want to approve the, the land use and the rezoning, you don't have to approve the site plan. That being said, you can, you know, work with the applicant at that point. If, if they're coming back with something that you're, you want them to tweak a little more or do something different, maybe not as dense, they can work on, on that at a later time. Yes. And we're also advisory in this capacity too. So only thing we're doing is giving our charges on the dais, on the city council, an opinion one way or the other. Okay. So they're, they're the ones that have the heavy lifting on this. Yeah. And they listen to you guys. They do. Yeah. Thank you. I'm sorry. So go ahead. Okay. As far as the, the traffic calming situation goes, the city has already installed two traffic calming speed humps on Lord, on Lord Dale West drive. Unfortunately, they're half a mile apart. It does nothing to slow down traffic. I happen to live in Lord Dale West. And as far as I'm concerned, the notification should have gone out to at least the board of Lord Dale West. It's a 1400 home community. And they should have been notified of this hearing. Um, our concern is the traffic on 17th coming in on 17th, people are going to make a left turn down Lord of Dale West drive to get to Cleary to avoid university drive. Um, it's just, we should have been notified. Um, so I'm going to answer the first portion of the question and I will let planning and zoning answer the second one. Uh, when it comes to traffic calming on Lord of Dale West, the city started what we call phase one, installing two speed cushions, or actually there is three, uh, of them. There is two on Lord Dale West and there is one on 17th. Um, this was phase one. We're waiting for, uh, Midtown, uh, 24 on Cleary and, uh, Pine Island to, uh, occupy so we can do a follow-up study. Also, we're waiting for this development to see the future and the pattern of traffic. We don't want to create speed cushion town on Lord of Dale West, knowing that emergency services, knowing that it's a senior community. So we took, uh, phasing approach on Lord of Dale West. That's the reason we put them apart as just phase one, but this is going to be a project in progress. We're working, the city have a traffic calming policy that we follow. In addition, the developers are mitigating the traffic as their site land get approved. So I hope I answered, uh, your question. You know, I, I can appreciate that, but I just would wish, wish that because of the size of the community, and it's going to be affected, and it's going to be affected by the apartments that are already up on the 17th opposite Denny's, and it's going to be affected by this, at least to inform our board about it, so they could be at these hearings. Jay, that's why I had pushed for extending the notification boundaries. I know, I knew you did. Yeah, you did. So the council adopted me. Let's get here. Here's the notification boundary. It looks like we just missed it. So, um. That's a 350 foot? 7. Yeah, you totally, totally missed Lord of Dale West, right? 750. So what we can do is, is we can extend that for the, I mean, it does have to go to city council. Okay. And we will extend it for that and make sure that they get notified as well. Okay. So, um, would you guys be okay with a thousand, a thousand foot radius? Oh, yeah. I think a thousand feet is great because it, it, it does hit a large percentage of the people who will be directly affected by it. Okay. And just to follow on, so, um, when, when we're talking about traffic concerns on Northwest 17th Court, and it was noted that, that, that, that intersection would have been called the North driveway for the previous, um, you know, applicant. So I think that as this moves forward, it'll be really important to coordinate a traffic, it's sort of a combined traffic impact assessment there. Northwest 17th Court's channelized the university drive, so you can't make an eastbound left. So you're looking at, you know, potentially, potentially a traffic control modification at that intersection. I'm not sure what that would be, but right now you'd be looking at right turns followed by U-turns somewhere to the south. So this is something that would be worked through with the department, you know, Department of Transportation in the city to come up with a, more of a network approach to how you're going to control traffic, not only at that intersection, but you may really be looking at making some geometric improvements on 17th Court itself, you know, to perhaps a, a dedicated right turn lane or a left turn lane or something like that, depending on what happens to the channelized intersection. Bill, thank you. The only thing I have to say about 17th Court, I'm sorry, go ahead, Max. Well, 17th Court is a two-lane road. That's all it is, a two-lane street. It's not a long street. When you're coming from the south, going north on University, and you want to go west on 17th, you could sit there for a good three or four minutes because waiting for the traffic light at Sunrise Boulevard to get into the shopping center, you'd have to make a U-turn at Sunrise. There's 305 apartments at this Lena. They want to build 285, so 500 more cars on a two-lane road is going to create a huge traffic problem. And I drive into that shopping center at least twice a week, and I know, because I come in from Sunrise Boulevard from the west, and I'm going east. You can't go into the shopping center until you hit the next traffic light, which is by the public's shopping center. So that's going to be a huge problem with more cars than we could have imagined, and, of course, those that ride bicycles and walk. Thank you. Max? All right. So I just have really a quick comment for as the site plan gets refined, which is that because I think that the developer says a lot of the right things about, you know, mixed use being the direction the city is moving forward in, about connecting to transit, walkability, cycling, all that stuff. But then you have an out-parcel commercial building with a drive-through. It's in the future. I would really recommend, number one, not having the drive-through at all because, and, of course, that's going to require an additional, I think it's a conditional use request for a drive-through whenever it does go to city council. But a drive-through is kind of an anti-pedestrian machine. So that's my first comment. And the second is that in order to be like a true mixed-use development, the mixed uses have to be kind of in the same building. And this is a residential building and then a commercial building, you know, separate from it. So I don't know why the bank is an out-parcel instead of being a connected development. But in the future, as you're working on the site plan, just, you know, please don't have a drive-through is the main, my main request. Thank you. I would add to that. I mean, I guess the bank is already there and the drive-through is already established. I mean, every bank needs a drive-through. So I think that may be an issue. I guess my request with the site plan is I don't like that you have to drive through the bank parking lot to get to your house. I think there should be a separate entry to the apartment complex that's not driving through a commercial bank lot. I can just foresee someone trying to get their ATM card, put their money away, and someone's on their way home. And I can just foresee a lot of accidents that way. And I don't think that's preferential for this development. Thank you. Any other questions from the days? So staff mentions they asked for how to address affordable and attainable housing. So I was just wondering what conversations have happened, and has the Delaware committed or suggested any sort of solution? What's wrong? You okay? Name and address for the record. Hi. John Voigt, attorney with Dumas, along with Bill Estrom, on this project. Our office address, 1177 Southeast 3rd Avenue, Fort Lauderdale. The developer has committed to affordable housing, even though when we were at the community meeting, just to the left off there, the medical building, those people said they didn't want us to do affordable housing. I think they were thinking of it like the old time, what a project would look like, as opposed to workforce housing. But I believe that 25 units we have committed, and if the number needs for a percentage to be higher than that, the number of units proposed is 269. This approval would allow 282, but 269 is what's actually being proposed. And as the chair mentioned, this idea is to get something here so then you can discuss all that and have it before you, whether to then be voted up or down. We never get to that discussion if we don't get past this. So it's – but that is definitely a portion of it, and it is intended to be a rental community. The shopping center is getting really a major upgrade, and that notch in there is being – that's just a breezeway. That's going to be actually removing some of that to be able to bring people through. And obviously, these are moving – this is like the old puzzle in the box. You have to move things around to make it work. I think, you know, you show how times change. You think this entire parcel on the left was the bank parking lot, and now not that many people go to the bank. They probably still don't need that much parking for the bank themselves other than it's what's required. And I believe it's why it's separate, as the bank wants it that way. They currently – they owned it. They sold it off with – we want it like this. We still want to be on Sunrise Boulevard, visible, that type of thing. But I can see what you're saying. It would make sense to have it in the corner of the building, certainly. It would free up more space, too. But I don't think Bank of America – but that's still a discussion point. Right now, I don't think they would agree to that. But that's me thinking, and it doesn't mean anything, you know. So the – but, I mean, we didn't – we can give you a presentation if you want, or we can just go into some more of this. I know that he's got some boards he would like to show you and some other slides, you know. It certainly gives you more of an idea of the conceptual site plan, the elevations, the overall area. As it was mentioned, you know, it's in the report under the engineering on page 15, the several things they've already committed to do toward lighted crosswalks and all this, and University and Sunrise as part of the overall. The affordable housing fits in with the multimodal Broward County plan. Obviously, you've got to have the connectivity. And, I mean, certainly now you go up and down University Drive, and it – it's – those bus benches are disgraces. You know, you sit there roasting in the afternoon sun if you were waiting for something, and I don't think you would stay dry if it rains. So those – obviously, you've got to do better than that. And I think part of this is a step toward doing it. It's, you know, the Park Village residents, you know, we had a good conversation with them on different things that would be done toward 17th Street – or Court, I'm sorry, Northwest 17th Court. I mean, it was a very constructive meeting, and just commenting on the thing about the distance of notification, I personally think it would be better to notify more people because you always have people show up and say, I wasn't notified or I didn't hear, and you'd rather get that out early on. It's not like nobody's going to show up and know that something like this came before the council. So it's – but there was a good turnout there. Like I said, we got the people from the doctor's office. We had a property manager. I thought we had someone from Waterdale West. I don't – apparently not, but I thought we did. But I know they were talking about improving the park over there. It was one of the things they would like to see done. And it was – like I said, it was a – it was a pleasant meeting. If you have a pleasant meeting where you're disagreeing but working on things, you know. It was not crazy, that type of thing. Question about affordable housing. So we came up with, I believe, and I have to ask, a suggested amount percentage that we wanted for future buildings. I remember there was a minimum. Would your client be willing to agree to at least the minimum percentage of affordable housing? Yes, that's what I was saying. They've committed to 25, and if that's not the minimum percentage, they would go up to the minimum percentage. And do we know – do you remember what the minimum percentage was? There's a county number if you're going to use flex units to – Yeah, I'll let – I think he's all – So I presume this has – this needs a county land use change as well? Excuse me? The county land use map has to change? So this – if we approve and if the city council approves, then it's going to have to go to the county. And I'll let Senator Rich be you up. Yes, and that's why we start this early because it's like a double process. It says to go there and go to the Broward County Planning Council, then come back, and that's why you have all that time to work on the site plan. Sure, and I would say that you should go in with at least 10 percent. That's a minimum. I just want to address that. You're probably referring back to the comprehensive plan workshop that we had. That was just a workshop where we were kind of talking about it. Nothing has been officially adopted by the city, or we haven't really come up with a cost-feasible way to assist the developer on the state statute in applying that. I mean, we do have options. As you said, once it goes to Broward County, we could utilize Broward County's bonus density as one of the options to allow the developer to do. The city has not adopted the bonus density that Broward County recommends as of yet is something that we're looking at as a part of the adoption of our new comprehensive plan. But, yeah, we're kind of trying to get to that point. But we are happy. I think he's correct. The county, as it goes to the land use process, they're encouraging the same thing. So going with some minimal percentage is actually a good thing for the developer. Thank you. Did the developer want to do a presentation or provide any information that hasn't been asked by questions in this regard? I would say either your slides or your boards. Yeah, we have both. We have things we would love to show you, both in boards and presentation, some additional pictures. As Mr. Korman mentioned earlier, we've had the pleasure of sitting down a couple of times to discuss this project. And through the iterations of these discussions, we have modified the plans in response to our discussions, discussions that I've had with council members, planning and zoning staff, and residents of the city of Plantation. So we hear what you're saying, and we hear how, you know, thank you. We hear the comments that you're mentioning, and, you know, we're excited to show you the modifications that we've made to this plan, even though we're not officially presenting our site plan today. I would recommend you not show site plan things, because those are irrelevant. Yeah, if there's anything you all would like to ask with regards to, I guess, providing reasons why, I mean, for you all, it would be why the land use plan should change for the city of Plantation. That would be helpful. As far as what is going to exist on the plot of land if that plan occurred, if that change occurs, is for another meeting. As the, as in the report, the response is, the entire area, including the shopping center, is part of the land use. So the idea is to retain the commercial, both the bank and the shopping center, not to diminish that, to obviously build an entirely new bank and to greatly modernize the shopping center, and to add a residential component which helps drive the shopping center in that way. So you, and with the connectivity of the walkability to both the bank and the shopping center, it should do well for both of them, combined with where the, the multimodal for Broward County wants to do this on Sunrise Boulevard. This is a reasonable location to add in the higher density residential at the corner of Sunrise and University, where there's commercial to service them, and there are already facilities. Yes, it does add traffic. There's no question about that. The goal, though, is to try to reduce that by taking more advantage of other means of transportation. The, it, if you go through the staff's responses here, it's in the very first one. They're addressing the affordable housing or the workforce housing. We can certainly provide that here, and I think, and we're not talking about a 30-story tower in Miami Beach of thousands of units. We're talking about a portion of this, 10 percent or something like that, which doesn't diminish the project at all. It's, and, excuse me, the. . . John, the report's already up the record. Right. Did you have anything else, like, additional that the staff didn't bring up? Because I want to make sure you are clear. They've read the report. They, they got that. Right. No, I understand. Okay. I'm just commenting on that, highlighting some of. . . Okay. You know, it's not. . . Obviously, everything was submitted to the staff. We don't have secrets we're keeping from the staff, and the reports on both are very thorough. So, they're saying we'd reiterate what's in those reports. We're saying we're happy to show you site plan information. People want it, because it's just conceptual. It's not anything beyond that. And, because there was a question for us to ask of how many stories. Right now, it's with six stories, with a parking garage included. And the bank is one story, and the shopping center remains unchanged. It's going to have, I believe, a higher facade, so it may look higher, but it's not really. Do you have anything you'd like to add? No. I'm wondering if anyone has any additional questions. Any from the dais? All right. Any from the audience? Matthew. Hi. Matthew McIntosh, 601 Northwest 82nd Avenue. I do appreciate the kind of, some of the more developments that's coming up. There's definitely a housing crisis. I hear about it all the time. So, I'm very happy to see that there's at least some progress being made for adding more housing. I live about, like, five minutes away from there. I go to that plan of fitness on, well, I try to do it at least three times a week. But, so, I can understand concerns about the traffic. But, I do want to point out the Broward Pre-Murve Plan. If you look at the map, it's actually going, it's supposed to be serviced by the bus rapid transit on Broward Boulevard, which would be helping allow the traffic mitigation. And that's also part of the route of where there could be a possible light rail expansion. This is something that's already been agreed and voted upon by Broward County after a lot of their own public comment. I know Plantation has been debriefed on it. I know the board has been debriefed on it. But, just something to keep in mind is there is a Broward Pre-Murve Plan that is supposed to take cars off the road by providing opportunity for other forms of public transportation. And, not every bank needs a drive-thru. I used to live in downtown Fort Lauderdale. There's a Wells Fargo with no drive-thru. So, to one of the board members' points, you know, future developments make it truly mixed use. You know, have the buildings together, have less walking, don't have a drive-thru. Thank you. Any other questions from the room? Any online? I move to recommend approval subject to staff comments. We got two applications. Yeah, the first one is going to be, or do we have to do one? No, we have to do one separate. Yeah, you got to do the looper first. So, I'll move to recommend approval of item, I think it's four is the first one? Yeah, four. Yes. Subject to staff comments. I'll second. So, first and second, please read the roll. Ms. Gelfand? Mr. Stahl? No. Ms. Demby-Burger? Yes. Mr. Coleman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Plass? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Thank you. And a motion to recommend approval of item number five subject to staff comments. I will second. Please read the roll. Ms. Gelfand? Mr. Stahl? No. Ms. Demby-Burger? Yes. Mr. Coleman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Plass? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Thank you. All right. Congratulations. We look forward to seeing the plans. Thank you. Other business? I see none. Does staff have anything for us to know about before we close this out? All right. Meeting is adjourned.