This is the planning and zoning meeting of the City of Boca Raton. Today is March 20th, 2025. It is 6 p.m. Will everyone please rise for the pleasure of allegiance? Thank you, Jim, do any amendments to the agenda Seeing none first item will be the minutes the regular meeting of February 8th 2025 I look for a motion in a second so motioned Second any discussion all in favor? No. Next minutes are February 20th, 2025. Look for a motion on a second. So motion. Second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? No. Okay. Next we have Quasad judicial and related public hearings this evening. I will ask the city attorney to explain the procedure. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Chris Fernandez assistant city attorney. The rules of the city council provide that each applicant requesting approval relief or other action from the planning and zoning board this evening Shall disclose at the commencement to the continual public hearing any consideration or payment provided are committed directly or on its behalf for an agreement to support the withhold objection to the requested relief or action. A copy of the quasi-judicial rules governing tonight's public hearing are attached to the agenda and are available from the city clerk. Thank you. Would everyone who is going to speak on any item this evening please rise and be sworn in? Do you swear from any testimony to give it this public hearing will be truthful and accurate? Okay, thanks. Thank you. First item on the agenda is 791, Park of Commerce, Multifamily of a case of a case of a case of a case of a case of a case of a case of a case of a case of a case of a Conditional use approval, pursuant to section 28-978, Code of Ornances, to authorize an approximately 72,400 square foot amateur recreation use in an existing approximately 130,500 10 square foot office building in the light industrial and research park zoning district provided for repeal or provide an effective date. The second is a resolution of the city of Bo Patong considering for the approximately 10.0 acre property, generally located at 791 park of commerce, Bologna. An amendment to an approved site plan, planning and zoning board resolution number 99-03, to authorize a commercial, industrial, multi-family development, CD, including A, conversion of the existing, approximately 130,510 square foot office building, to a mix of uses, including a fast casual restaurant, a little 11,447 square feet of indoor area, and 2,570 square feet of outdoor dining, a 72,428 square foot amateur recreation facility and 46,635 square feet of office space and B, construction of 243 multi-family residential units, including 10% affordable and 5% workforce units with 226 units in an eight-story apartment building with a five-level integrated parking structure and 17 units in five three-story town-home style buildings together with a technical deviation from section 23-190 B Coda Wardences to reduce the maximum length of three parking rows from 280 feet to 250 feet, and considering the abandonment of a portion of a 12 foot waterline easement, providing for repealer and specifically repealing, planning and zoning board resolution number 9312, providing effective date. Thank you. The expartee communications, anyone? Mr. Salon? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a Zoom conversation meeting with Ellie Zacharitis and I visited the site. Mr. Doorberg? I had a telephone conversation with Ellie Zacharitis. I had a telephone conversation with Ellie as well. Mr. Durrath? I had a Zoom with Ellie Zacharitis as well. As did I. Okay With that, I'll ask Heather Hansen to make the city's presentation. Thank you. Good evening for the record. My name is Heather Hansen and I have been sworn. Just to let you know now I'll go over it later, but there are some revisions that need to be made to the site plan resolution title and the project descriptions in the two resolutions, but I'll go over those shortly. The subject property is approximately 10 acres, zone light industrial research park or lurp and located in the Arvita park of commerce at the northeast corner of Congress Avenue and Park of Commerce Boulevard, just down the road from here. There's an existing vehicular access from the park of Commerce Boulevard and a proposed new access from Congress Avenue. The CIMD project will result in a total of 243 rental units with 25 being affordable and 13 being worked for housing units. This is the existing building, which will remain. It's as mentioned, it's 130,510 square feet and I'll discuss the proposed CIMD project in more detail but this is the building that will be reconfigured. So in that building this is are the uses that are proposed it will be an amateur recreation facility. They're calling a sports garden and it includes a lot of there's a variety of sports sports courts and activity areas. It looks really exciting. Some of them I don't know what it means, but maybe the applicant can explain if you're interested. Haddo, arena, I don't know what that is. But there's racquet courts, ninja course, climbing walls, minigolf, interactive trampoline, tag area, assaultault, Soft Play, and a Toddler area and Lockers. All activities will be located interior of the existing office building. There is also a food court right in this area, which will be open to the public and with outdoor dining and bar over here. The second floor will retain the existing office uses which are occupied currently by a call center and an architectural firm. They do need to abandon an easement. I'll point to where they are just to show you so you know where's the light? Why is it not working? Technical difficulties. I did not do that. So there's red. Let me try one more time and then I'll go up. There we go. This right here needs to be relocated and it'll go over here because it's in the way of construction, you know, in pavement. And this right here will also need to be abandoned and it'll be relocated in this location. So this is the overall site plan. There's the existing office building as you can see and then this is where the residential tower. Does anybody else have problem with this recently, there's like a delay or something. And then, and then this is where the residential tower. Does anybody else have any problem with this recently? There's like a delay or something. And then it changes. Interesting. Okay. So in the northwest corner is the parking structure, which will be integrated with the residential tower. Thank you. And that is one of the changes I'll discuss is that, for some I wrote that it was a five level parking structure integrated with the residential tower, but they're both eight levels. It's just that it's shorter in height. So that's consistent with the site plan. Then there's the existing office building. Then town home buildings. These would be two story and would also be rentals and have a mix of affordable and market rate within there. So let's see. Oh, I mentioned state stories right. It's like 80 something feet tall, 17, 17 multifamily town home building type units. And this is to give you a sense of what it would look like. This is the view from Congress Avenue of the residential tower with the parking garage right over here. See, it's not as tall as this, but it has eight levels because the levels are shorter than they are for the residential tower and here's what the corner would look like below that So at at their December 17th meeting the CAB reviewed the project and voted to recommend approval of the application with the following conditions Screening to be added to the north and west sides of the parking garage Screening to be added for all mechanical equipment, an artistic feature to be added to the west side of the parking structure, visible from Congress Avenue, and parking structure lighting to be shielded so that it does not produce glare on Congress Avenue. Condition number three was added to the CIMD site plan resolution, and conditions number one, two and four already CAB site design requirements so they were not needed to be added as conditions. Here's what the typical town homes would look like. The front and the rear. So the analysis we're getting close to the end already. The staff supports the applicant's request for approval. The project meets the eligibility requirements and development standards for CIMDs. The site plan resolution includes a condition of approval requiring that the applicant execute a restrictive government agreement as required by the code to ensure that 10% of the units remain affordable and 5% of workforce for 30 years after a certificate of occupancy is issued. The project will provide an additional 243 rental dwelling units in the city with 25 being affordable 13 workforce. The project is consistent and compatible with adjacent land uses. The project as designed supports goals objectives and policies in the comp plan and the project complies with all applicable code requirements except parking lot aisle length for which a technical deviation has been requested. So here's what I want to get into what needs to change. This is the title excerpt for the title of the site plan resolution. So it should say an eight level integrated parking structure. And then this was just worded, it was confusing. It's actually increasing the maximum length of two parking rows. The third one turns out it doesn't it. From 250 feet to 280 feet, the way it was worded was kind of backwards. So those down below is the resulting title with the amendments. So the Development Services Department recommends approval of the conditional use site plan and easement of abandonment subject to the condition condition sent for set forth including the revisions presented and That's concludes my presentation if you have any questions. Thank you questions for staff as big darn it Mr. Nishal Hold for now, okay, Mr. Doran Blazer I I haven't had time to find it exactly in here, but what does this do to traffic on Congress? We're adding 226 units, 17 residential plus recreational facility. We do have someone that can answer that that's their expertise, but there was a traffic study done, and it was, let me find a section of the staff report. I think it's on page 12. Thank you. Thank you. So. Yes, so compared to the existing, which is all office, this would, like changing a lot of that office use to the recreation facility, that helps a bit and then as far as, you know, peak demand. So it's expected to result in a net increase of 24 150 daily trips, but as far as peak demand, the increase is 96 AM peak trips and 190 peak hour trips in the afternoon. And the Palm Beach County traffic division and reviewed it and they approved it and it meets because it meets their traffic performance standards and that's what it's doing. Okay, so that answers questions. Thank you. Thank you. This. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hanson, you made a reference to some art that's going up on the parking garage on the West Side. Do you have any information about that? Well, they, how it was determined is that the CAB said, okay, we just want something that's artistic that, but was not specific, but then it will go again for them. Maybe Ellie can explain a little bit more of that. I don't know if she's had any other discussions regarding that, but something that would look, yes, very non-specific, but artistic. Okay, thank you. That's all. Okay, Heather, one question. I just want to confirm, as I understand it, a particular thing. I'm not sure if it's a particular thing. I'm not sure if it's a particular thing. I'm not sure if it's a particular thing. I'm not sure if it's a particular thing. I'm not sure if it's a particular thing. I'm. But otherwise, yes, they needed a technical deviation in the past for that. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? With that, I'll open up the public hearing and ask the petitioner to come up and make her presentation. Good afternoon, Ellie Zacharitas, 14 Southeast Forest Street. First and foremost, happy birthday, Heather. And thank you very much for your thorough presentation and spending your birthday with us. I will be very brief since Heather did an excellent job. So obviously we're here before you for a CIMD application and a conditional use for the amateur recreation. This is a site plan that Heather went through. I'll just walk through it rather quickly. Starting from the west and heading east. On the west side, we are proposing that eight story 226 residential unit development that will house 23 affordable units and 12 workforce units, which I'm very excited about. We also have the parking garage that is eight stories and 541 spaces moving to the east. We have the existing 130,000 approximately square foot office building today that is to remain and be repurposed. 11,000 about 500 square feet will be a food hall that we are working with a couple of very well-known chefs on. And then we have almost 73,000 square feet of amateur sporting events and the same. And then we are maintaining approximately 47,000 square feet of office in there as well. Heather went through those. To the east, we have town homes being proposed. Two of them will be affordable and one will be workforce. They are three stories. This to me is probably one of the most exciting parts because we've talked a lot about activating El Rio Trail and we are finally getting some town homes there with people there and activation going on. So we're really looking forward to that. Just a couple miscellaneous items we are proposing a foot sidewalks on both on our east, south, and west perimeters. We have street trees proposed on all sides. We are asking for no variance. Thank you, Chair, Saville, that is correct. We are not asking for any variances. Our only ask is for the existing condition of that parking row, whatever the amount is. It's 280 to not worth, we're figuring that out. But whatever that number is, we're just asking for that small deviation for that existing condition. We are proposing 62 parking spaces above what code requires. Again, no variances, so I don't need to go through this. If we don't have any variances, we clearly meet a height, open space, setbacks, and the like. We've met the set plan criteria. I'm just skipping through all this because Heather did an excellent job. We do meet all the site plan criteria and conditional use criteria and the CIMD requirements and staff agrees and has recommended approval. And then some pretty pictures that most of you have seen. And some pictures that you haven't seen of the town homes that were requested. So I went ahead and added those as well. And that is concludes my presentation. I do have the architect and our traffic engineer here as well. If anybody has any questions for me or them. Don't go away. OK. Questions from Ms. Sakurai? Ms. Tusslearn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you know anything about the artistic element? Yeah, I was hoping you'd forget to ask me, Larry. But so we want to do something really fun. We originally had like a mural concept. Unfortunately, the city of Bocca's code regarding public art, and Mr. Shad may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, you are not allowed to have public art facing a public right of way. So I don't know what we're going to do but we will absolutely work with staff on determining how we improve that facade and your new art and public places coordinator. We can work with them as well. But am I wrong, Mr. Shad, that you can't, I mean we had this issue with investments limited if you recall, Mr. Batmazing wanted to put up a mural, but it faced a public right of way, and so we were unable to do so. I can answer it to Chair Wants. Do you want me to answer a question? Yes, please. Brands should have open services director. So what Ms. Zacharias is referring to is the city code prohibits painted wall signs which by implication prohibits murals. So public art is much broader than murals so it's not exactly accurate to say public art can't face it right away. So if it's not painted if it's a tile of sorts that would be acceptable? Something I would have to look at but I can tell you that painted wall signs are prohibitive by the code. We are more than happy to continue to work with staff on this particular issue and finalize that during building permit. Okay. Slown was that it? I think the tile mosaic would be allowed. I think you're correct Mr. Slown. Yeah. And we will work through that. But is for sure, I'm with Brandon the painted wall sign is a no-no on the building. Okay thank you. Mr. Elizer. Mr. Mitchell. Why are you putting extra parking? Most people come to us and say that we don't, we're gonna go under. You're going over by 60. We are really hoping the existing building that's being repurposed is extremely successful. We are envisioning it to be extremely successful and unfortunately a lot of the uses peak at the same time. So people are going to be going to dinner at this venue while they're extremely successful and unfortunately a lot of the uses peak at the same time. So people are going to be going to dinner at this venue while the residents are already parked at home. So there's not as much overlap, well there's a lot of overlap. There's not enough non concurrent uses going on at the same time. One of the park can be restricted to residents only like the top two floors of the park. We do have a gate for the residential portion. Yes, we do. But there's a lot of uses going on in a 130,510 square foot building. So we just wanted to be, rather be safe than sorry. Thank you. Mr. McDermott? No questions. Thank you. Is there anyone here that can answer the question? I have no idea what that is. I am sorry, I don't. Could you do us a favor? I'll Google it. No. John Google it. Just find out what it is and just send us an email maybe so we can all be a little educated. No problem. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is that it? That's it. You. This is public hearing. Is anybody else from the public wish to speak on this item? John and Jean does not wish to speak this evening. I have Jonathan and Jean fold him. Just a true name and address for the record? Jonathan and Jean, 65-01 Congress Avenue. So a couple of questions. First off, I'd like to start off that I do not oppose this project. Neither does I'm pretty sure anybody here. Just another project in Lurpe that nobody complains about their view. Nobody complains about the intensity or the density. But the one point I want to talk about is maybe this developer would have considered knocking down their older office building if they did have more units breaker to develop. Instead, they're doing a lot of units on a very, very small, concentrated part of the property. And truly, the units are going on 200 and whatever units on three acres of it. Do that count. And again, there's 130,000 square feet of office that's going to remain and town homes that are going to go in the back. So again, I think it's just a charade in terms of the units per acre and the way that they're making properties such as this do things. And I hope that somebody asks whether it be city council or anybody asks Mr. Shad to look at, the units per acre in this part of town and maybe we can consider increasing it. The other point I'd like to point out is, because I do travel up and down this road six days a week multiple times a day Obviously that I do have a concern the same as the CTAB with the parking garage so close to the road Maybe just something to think about and I don't know if you want to call it art and public places or whatever it is But you got a building in New York that looks like a Louis Vuitton suitcase. You go to Las Vegas and they got their buildings covered up in facade as they're doing construction. Maybe something similar to what I frankly think is an ugly parking garage sitting right on Congress Avenue. That can beautify that for the people that live there, the people that work there. I think there are options that could look good, that could look like another building, the building that they probably wish they built as well where the office sits right now if they had more units to be able to do. So just something to think about also transit program, is there a contribution? I know for all PMD, they contributed to the transit program. I didn't see anything in regards to a specific dollar amount. But if projects such as this don't have to contribute. Why do the people that did the projects under PMD continue to have to contribute and contribute the same amount When impacts are continuing to happen from new developments such as this and that's my only question. Thank you. Thank you Anyone else John Donaldson 12734 till Boulevard In my capacity as traffic engineer, I can tell you that it's an augmented reality player game with goggles, team on team, kind of stuff. That's what the Hadois. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go on a trip with you when it opens. Yeah. Okay. Anyone else from the public wishing to speak on these items? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and I'll look for a motion and a second on item 5a1 Which is the conditional use of approval Motion over so seconded any discussion Yeah, mr. Jarron um Mr. Anjane did raise a good question about contributing to the trolley system. Can you speak to that, Mr. Chad? Sure. So how there's looking through the resolution right now to give any specific information on this project. So the CIMD ordinance does not specifically require a transit contribution, whereas the PMD ordinance does. I can't get inside the heads of the council members, but I can tell you in general that I think the reason is that the entire purpose of PMD was mobility. Whereas with the, with these projects, the entire purpose is to create affordable housing units. Requiring additional transit contributions, it could be argued would be against that purpose by putting that additional cost, ongoing cost, under the project. Okay, thank you, Mr. Schaden. Anything else? Okay. Is that, have the police call the roll? Mr. Sloan? Yes. Mr. Dormlazer? Yes. Mr. McDermott? Yes. Mr. Mitchell? Yes. And Chair Saville? Yes. Passified to zero. Okay. Next item to his the look for motion the second on 5A2 regarding the site plan resolution. Motion to approve. So seconded. Any discussion notice? none other please call the roll Mr. Durham laser. Yes, this is McDermott. Yes, Mr. Mitchell. Yes, chair Seville. Yes, I miss just salon. Yes, pass five to zero Thank you on this one. Ellie, remember to stay. You have another item. Okay. Okay. The next item is the 5131 Master Plan Amendment, which is a final action by the Planning and Zoning Board. Heather, please read that one into the record. 5131 Congress Avenue, a resolution of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Book Return considering for the approximately 8.15 acre property, generally located at 51.01 Congress Ave, an amendment to an approved conditional employee service node master plan, resolution number 57-97 as amended. To remove a restriction, the currently limits tracked D, a 1.2 acre portion of the property, to retail bank use, and instead allow any use authorized by the conditional employee service node master plan. Resolution number 57-97 as amended, on track D, providing for repeal or providing an effective date. Thank and next part a communications on this one Mr. Salon. Thank you mr. German I did have a zoom meeting with Ellie Zach Rides the applicants attorney and I visited the site Mr. Doorblazer I had a telephone conversation with Ellie Zach Rides. Okay Same for me. Mr. German. I had a Zoom with Ellie. Same for me. And additionally, I had a conversation with Russell Bornstein, who is the real estate broker handling that property. Okay. With that, I will ask Owen to start your presentation. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, board members. My name is Owen Devden. I'm'm senior planner here with the city of Oakartown I'm here to present the request for amendment to an approved conditional employee service node master plan for the property located at 5101 Congress Avenue. As can we see in on screen the property is located on the corner of West Shimado and Congress Avenue. The outer line which I have labeled here is the VPC center is the overall master plan and then track D which is the bank parcel and who is the applicant on this project is the inner, the inner dash line. Let me see if I can hear. The applicant has requested an amendment to an approval of conditional employee service and all of master plan, resolution number 5797 as amended to remove a restriction that currently limits track the to a retail bank use. And instead allow any use authorized by the conditional employee service known master plan on track D. On screen is the proposed master plan. As you can see the red dash line is the track D Which is here of this arrow would work On screen is a snippet of the original master plan that contained the listed allow juices within the VPC center And the uses are essentially the permitted uses for an employee service node Which is section 28-9H3 of the city's code. This amendment will move the bank label on track D and allow any use of the allowed uses listed on the above and operate at the location provided as they meet if they meet other all other code requirements. Staff had looked at the parking requirements for all the other permitted uses and the term that track D will continue to meet the parking requirements specified in section 28 1655 call of ordinances. I'm staff analysis on the project is the existing building on track D. It's currently vacant. approval will enable the applicant to market the property to a broader range of potential tenants as the permitted by section 28, 9, 8, 3, call of ordinances. The application complies with all the applicable cold requirements. The application is consistent with and compatible with the existing venues on the property, as well as the adjacent commercial and residential developments in the area. This application does not increase the intensity or density on the property. The applicant is not proposing any physical changes to either track D or the overall property, slash master plan. On screen, I'd propose changes to condition number 10 in the resolution since you received the agenda package. In short, on further review, we found the receipt for the $37,500 beautification contribution. The condition has now been amended to $1500, which is consistent with the amount we include for a normal amendment to a plan, a massive plan, and I also passed out copies that were on your desk, which have the updated clean version and also have a black line version that shows the changes from what you received in your package. Staff is recommended approval of this application, including the updates to the resolution that we provided. And if you have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer. Thank you. Questions for staff? Is McDermott? Not very now, thanks. Miss Commitment. No question. Sir Dornblasian. Yeah, that last screen with the, that crossed out the 35,000 made it 1500. Applicant shall remit payment, meaning they have to, but then it says voluntarily. How do you, how do you demand $1500 and then tell them it's voluntary? Well, it's not necessarily a demand. It says voluntary, but then it says shall remit. So I'm kind of curious. Shall remit the voluntary, because they've already volunteered the payment? Normally what happens with this condition is it's a prior to the issues of certificate of use, the language we use, the African should, and then normally in other projects there's a list of all these. But yeah, as Cheshavel said, I'm proud of them. I have the way I read it. I'm like, wait a minute, shall and voluntary. The two words don't go together. If it's, you can ask the applicant if they voluntarily will contribute or not. But in any event that they do, then the language needs to be shall, because once the resolution is passed, then it is mandatory, even though it was in the event they say yes, then it would have been voluntarily proffered at this time. Okay. I'll open the public hearing and it's a petitioner to come up and make her presentation. Ellie Zacharitas, 14 Southeast Forest Street for the record. Again, thank you, Owen. Can we load my PowerPoint, please? Thank you. I will be very brief. In fact, I was not planning on speaking at all until this voluntary contribution came up. So before I respond as to why I am not voluntarily contributing $1,500, I have never stood before you in all of my years and asked you to remove this. But in this particular instance, I don't even know why I'm here. I don't know why any of us are here talking about this application. So this is the approved master plan. I want you to pay attention to the highlighted areas, which I will zoom into, but I want you to see where they are on the approved master plan. So on the right side, you see Track D highlighted. On the left side and I'll again, I'll zoom in in just a minute, you have Track D with the uses, which in our instances a bank. And then underneath, you have a list of all allowed uses in the employee commercial node which this is. So I came in many months ago asking to change from a bank to retail and trying to confirm whether I can just do that via a business tax receipt. And I was told after much back and forth that unfortunately I have to amend the master plan to specifically denote the uses we want on our track. And my response was I'm confused because the master plan already anticipated all of the allowed uses. So this is what Track D says and this is what the allowed uses say. And I was told no and I, until this day do not understand why a master plan would have a list of allowed uses if I cannot utilize any of those uses without a master plan amendment. So very confused. So nonetheless, I'm a good girl and I follow instructions. So, I went ahead and submitted for this master plan amendment. Again, highlighting them will zoom in. So, now, what we resulted in doing is for Track D, we removed any use from Track D because I don't want to do this again. So, now it just says all uses under quote unquote allowed uses are allowed. And then once again listed the allowed uses. So my frustration, it's $1,500. So it is not a lot of money. But on principle alone, I'm having Agita about it. So originally the condition said $37,500, I believe, that was never paid at building permit for the entire eight and a half acres of the master plan. And I said, I'm sorry, but you can't put the onus on this one applicant. This one property owner who only owns 1.2 of the 8.5 who's not even building a building. So then as of this morning, they in fact did find the check from 1997 for the 37.5 and I was like, great, we're done. And then I got another phone call that we're just going to charge you for your linear footage, which is $1,500 and I said, but we already paid it in 1997 when we pulled the building permit, you just confirmed that. And every time I change a use, I have to pay $1,500. That was not the intent of the voluntary median beautification. When you build the building, the city request from the applicant, which I personally have never ever said're not going to pay it on any of my client's applications. And again, it's only $1,500. So for me to stand up here and tell you on principle, we are not agreeing to that. Hopefully you can understand why. Arnie, you're looking at me. Yes. Okay. Mr. Shed. Can the city live without the $1,500? Well, I want to back up. It's still a little bit. Of course we can. I want to back up a little bit and explain why the amendment is needed, which I have explained over the past months. One, the allowed uses are listed there for the entire master plan because they are conditional uses requiring specific city council approval for the master plan itself. The plan, though, designates what uses are allowed on the different tracks. If the label wasn't there, she would be right, but she's not, because it does specify them. It wouldn't specify them if it wasn't a reason. The precedent is dating back from 1997, Master Plan has been amended four times, and two of them were to swap uses on different parts of the property. Should we have to do this? No. We do it because of the code. But what this approval does today is make sure we don't have to do it again. You're welcome. For our track. Just for our track. Look. You want to say we're only this little piece of the master plan of the eight acres fine, but back when this was approved, everybody decided to go together to get an approval. We let them amend this plan because they weren't affecting other properties fine. And now they're going to object to a $1,500 beautification payment? I don't understand it, but okay. With all due respect, after a $37,500 beautification payment that the property owner already contributed to. So you're asking us to pay it again. I'll leave it to the board. Okay. Thank you. Before you go away, any questions from the second right? From Mitchell? Not for me. Mr. Derrick? Not for me. Mr. Dornblason? No. Mr. Salon? No questions. OK. Shall we take a stroke poll on the 1500? Is action required by us or can the applicant work it duke it out with the city? Mr. Shad, do you want to answer that question? I mean, have a think it out. What the resolution says is a decision that the board makes. Okay. So, what does the board think? It's $1,500. I honestly don't care one way or another. I just have a hard time with the voluntary. I'm a lawyer, so I really don't like the word shall and voluntary. For contract drafting, but government interpretation, the contract's interpretation are always the same. I would propose removing the $1,500 as they have paid the $37.5 and that's been proven. Obviously, if that had been proven, I think it would have been a different question. I think they've paid their fair share. Okay. That would be my proposal. So, now it goes on the city attorney. Do we need to amend the approval? You can direct staff to strike the provision. Do we need to vote on an amendment before we vote on the main motion? Or just add it to it? You could make it part of the main motion or you could vote on it before you vote on the main motion. It's up to the maker of the motion. And let's add it to the motion. Everyone agree on that? So, I'm going to move on. So, a motion and a second to approve minus the $1,500. So motioned. Second. Wait, yes. Did you want to report the public comment? Yeah. Do you want to have to say a bit? Yeah. Do you want to say a bit? Okay. Jonathan, I'm a 60501 Congress Avenue. I am in full-fledged support of this. The reality is these bank lots are more and more vacant. You know, there's other bank lots that I'm sure would consider obviously different uses in this immediate area. There's a bank lot for Danburg that was supposed to go there. I know they'd like a restaurant there. There's a bank lot at Chase that's sad open and vacant. It is sad that it had to take this long and to get to this point that this couldn't be approved administratively or something like that, that for a relatively small parcel, it's under 5,000 square feet. And so like I said, the reality is giving them all them all those uses I see with no limitations that are up there whether it be a restaurant of any sort or anything. I think that's a good future you know gives them the flexibility but I'd certainly hope that such a consideration is given for all in the area to achieve the same goal to supply the community with much needed retail that is missing in this part of town with more and more and more projects coming here. So like I said, I full-fledged, wholeheartedly support this. It's sad that it had to get here. I agree with your motion with the 1500. They've already paid. Other properties that I know are trying to do similar have already paid massive amounts as well. So let's, let's, you know, we talk about streamlining development. You know, let's, let's look at something like this and hope that other properties don't need to go through so much to achieve the same thing. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Back to the motion and the second, where were we? Where did it go the wrong? Is there it before that? Is there anybody else that wants to speak about this? Okay. Mr. Carey-Mid? Yes. Mr. Mitchell? Yes. Chair Sotheme? Yes. Mr. Solan? Yes. And Mr. Drumlater? Yes. Yes. Pass five to zero. Ms. Sackarard, I don't want you to feel guilty, but now we have to return all these plants there in the front. Okay, thank you. Okay. The variance. Last item is the 721 LLC variance. This will also be a final action by the Planning and Zoning Board. Jamie, please read this item into the record. 721 LLC variant, 721 North East 34th Street. Resolution of Planning and Zoning Board, the City of Bokertone, considering for the 0.31 acre property generally located at 721 North East 34th Street. of variants from section 22-62-6, code of ordinances, to allow a finger peer to extend into a waterway 19.8 feet in lieu of the allowed extension of no more than 15% of the width of the waterway 18 feet, and two of variants from section 22-62-7, code of ordinances, to allow a finger pair with a west side setback of 13.16 feet, and we'll have to require 19.8 feet setback distance, equal to the distance the pair extends into the waterway, providing for a pillar, providing an effective date. Thank you. Has anyone had any export to you on this? I went to the to the site. Okay Not for me. Nope. None for me either. Okay With that I'll turn it over to Courtney Wood for her presentation Thank you. I'm Courtney Wood zoning officer and I will be presenting this 721 LLC variance The property is located at 7 North East 34th Street in the single family R1D's only district. In the Lake Rogers Isle subdivision, a canal.end and with limited waterfrontage. The applicant purchased the property in August 2023 under an LLC. The new house is currently being constructed and the property is for sale. It should be noted that the listing is claiming there is dock space for a 60 foot long boat. The applicant submitted a permit application for a dock which included a drawing showing approval dimensions for the proposed finger pier. Once the pier had been constructed and was inspected as part of the city's permit process, it was found the dock had not been constructed according to the plans and failed the zoning inspection, the zoning location inspection. The applicant attempted to submit a revision to update the location and length of the peer as it was constructed, but failed the plan review process because the current conditions do not meet the marine code. A variance application was subsequently filed requesting to allow the fingerpeared to remain as constructed. The applicant is requesting a variance from section 22-62-6. Extension into constructed. The applicant is requesting a variance from section 22-62-6 extension into the waterway to allow a finger peer to extend into the waterway 19.8 feet versus the allowed 18 feet or 15% of the width of the waterway which is a difference of 1.8 feet. The applicant is also requesting a variance from section 22-62-7 to allow a side set back for a finger pier of 13.16 feet versus the 19.8 feet required per the distance the pier is extending into the waterway. For outreach, the applicant provided two letters of support from neighbors directly to the west of the property. City staff additionally requested letters of support from additional neighboring properties to the northeast but has not received them. Letters of support from all dead-end canal properties are required for finger- finger peer variances. For staff analysis, the applicant demonstrated that a finger peer design consistent with the required setbacks and extension into the waterway was feasible at the time of building permit application. While special and unique conditions do exist due to the location at a Dead End, the approved permit drawings clearly indicate this finger pier was approval as proposed. The Asbuilt Survey submitted to satisfy a location inspection for zoning revealed a non-compliant finger pier. Failure of the contractor to follow plans is not of all justification for approval of variance requests. the application does not meet the application. The failure of the contractor to follow plans is not of all justification for approval of variance requests. The application does not meet the criteria for approval of the variance request. The applicant would not be deprived of literal interpretation of this chapter nor the rights commonly enjoyed by the owners of other property in the zoning district. While the applicant has supplied letters of support for some neighboring properties, not all have provided letters as requested by staff, including the adjacent neighbor to the northeast of the property. Granting the application could impose undue restraints on surrounding properties and their ability to more vessels in their available space. For those reasons, staff is recommending denial of these variants requests. At the Marine Advisory Board meeting yesterday, March 19th, the Board noticed the site plan drawing used for exhibit B does not appear to accurately depict the finger pier as constructed, which was the main reason for chair fold-ins denial of the application. It made the finger pier look more angled than it actually is. When comparing with areas of the new finger pier, as you can see on the screen, these note or please note, sorry, in light of this, staff has placed exhibit V with AS-Build Survey to show the accurate location of the current finger pier. A majority of the board discussed the possibility of setting a precedent by approving a construction mistake and ultimately agreed with staff's recommendation that the application does not meet the variance criteria and voted to recommend denial of the application 4-1. Staff recommends denial. While the marine structure code provides flexibility and protection for property owners with limited or unique frontages adjacent to Canal Dead Ends, this application is due to a construction error and does not satisfy the criteria to grant a. Therefore staff recommends all this application and I am happy to answer any questions. Questions from Mr. Sallon? Thank you Mr. Chairman. Could we go back to one slide where you have the... Yes. I can see what the Marine Advisory Board was saying about the angle depicted on the site plan drawing versus what was actually constructed. I was curious because of that steep angle I saw the dimension 19 foot 8 inches is taken along the side of the finger pier, and it doesn't reflect the projection into the waterway as it would from a right angle. Are they encode compliance if it is taken at at a right angle for length or do we know? That is all the survey. It doesn't look correct to me. On the right side, the Asbelt Survey, my eyes are bad. I think that says 19.8. It does. It's crooked. It doesn't look accurate. The documentation is, they're absolutely correct. It's a little messed up with these dimensions. Those are important dimensions. Okay. Thank you. Is it don't work? There's no questions. Could you go back? There was a picture that had a father zoom out of photograph. Yes. How on earth would you fit a 60-foot boat in there? Exactly. I mean, not that I can drive boats very well, but I can do math. And the other guy can get any boats in if that's 60 feet, if that jetty is 19 feet, that means it goes out another three times. So I just have concerns with the ability of the Northern and the people across who didn't approve, or I guess I just said Eastern, neighbors who would lose the ability to use their docks as easily. I agree with Greg's comments. I have concerns about the property owner's grasp of math and space. We'll get to discuss this after the petitioner makes a presentation. Okay, anybody else with a question for staff? Nope. Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing and ask the petitioner to come up and make their presentation. Stephen Garbot, 10, 13 North was 31st Avenue, Pompoville Beach. Do you, are you the owner of the property or the property? I am the contractor. OK. These, these corner properties on paper, it's, you know, it's the dimensions that it looks, you know, when you're doing the job and on the paper, sometimes it's a little different, especially in these corner lots. And, yes, it was an era, but the thing up here allows a little easier navigation to get into the dock because the further north we go there is the boat on the sorry sorry There is a picture I was looking for. There is a boat to the north that it will create a very difficult docking into that, into that slip. as the slip down, probably 16 or 17 feet. So the duck is in a position that is not affecting any navigation. It's not disturbing any of the neighbors. It's just giving a little more room for that particular property. I think there's a lot of injustice in the sense of corner lots, which every canal has corner lots. And I don't think it's the same criteria can be given to a lot that's 100 feet to one that's 40 feet. In this particular case, like I said, the dock is not encode, it's a little out, but it's not affecting anything, it's not disturbing and it makes it a little more easier for the owner to put a boat because if we move the dock five feet further to the north, then it narrows it and it's relatively you can't put almost any boat there. Because the neighbors today to the right, there has a pretty big boat there. So we're asking for your leniency for something that will not affect. What's that? Hello, I'm Kayla. You spoke in your full name and your address. Kayla McEldry 13 Northwest 31st Avenue, Pompano Beach. So I just wanted to say for the The letter of The neighbor's letter of support, We did receive from the neighbor on the left, the two neighbors on the left, but we made multiple attempts to do the neighbors on the top left and the neighbor right next on the right. But none of them were home. They never answered and one on the right, right next to the property. They didn't answer the ring bell camera But we then they did give a provider email address so we can send this letter But they never saying back sign so we did make multiple attempts and but neither of them showed the NIO against this project against this variance that we're requesting. So, and those are the two letters from the neighbors on the left side that they're for this, that they do accept and it states how it's out of the code 19.8 feet total. And you see see that's the boat on the left side that they did approve and where we can't the boat can go in from the left side it has to be on the right side and the neighbor on the right side we did make attempts to give him this letter to sign to approve but he never answered back. That was the one that we did email, but they never reached back out. Can you put the boat lift? Yes. On the left side, there is a boat lift there, so there is no space. There is about maybe 15 feet of space in between the boat lift and the end of that dock. So it's relatively useless. So the only use, and also we're considering a marginal dock, but it's so shallow in there at the dead end canals that you can't get a boat in there. The only way to put a boat is on the finger pier. And honestly, like I said, the cost of these properties, and now we're in a boat, we're in a boat-friendly community and not being able to use your water-friendly, you pay so much money for, really asking for your, your, your, your, your, your, your guys leniency. And that's the next door neighbor that their finger pier shows 30 point, I think it's 30. It's a gets out 30.6 long. So that's more than the, the variance, the required code. And that's the neighbor on the left side that did sign the letter of support. But in my conclusion, I would as a contractor, it would be great if the city's not only Boka, get together maybe with some input from the contractors and on these end lots, which like I said, every canal has end lots. Maybe, you know, come up with some new regulations because it's unfair to the people who live in the dead ends having the same criteria as the people who live on the side canals. That's all I got. Thank you. Questions for the petitioner? Mr. Commissioner? Mr. Michel? What would the cost be to cut down the one and a half feet? It would be about Six or seven thousand dollars because we'd have to remove the piles and Replacement yes, wouldn't it be more than that because of the width issue? There's a six foot difference on the side. Right, but that was just speaking to the length variance, not the side variance. Yeah. Mr. Slant. Mr. Donald Lyser. I just want to make sure I understand this 100% correctly. You didn't build what was on a set of drawings. It was arbitrarily changed in the field without going forward and asking for the design professionals of the surveyors to go ahead and make a change on the drawings. It was decided in the field to just make this change. It was a mistake in the field, yes. Okay, thank you. It's a public hearing, any but, Mrs. Lange, what'sangeley. I would like to chime in on what Mr. Dormley just said. You know, it's a location mistake. It's an angle mistake. And it's a length mistake. Is that? Yes, sir. That's a lot of mistakes for something that's very clear on the permit drawings, speaking as a contractor myself. Thank you. Thank you. All right. This is a public hearing, anyone else from the public wish to speak on this item? I have Bruce Ring. My name is Bruce Ring. I live at 3,800 northeast six drive. The next, this is 34th Street, 2 streets over. I live in a similar lot, the same dead end canal. I have three finger peers behind my house. At this situation you're talking about has two finger, this one and one other one. My house and I had the permission of both my neighbors to do it, but we put three finger peers in. So I don't see the hardship. This is going to cause any, both neighbors have agreed the same way I got my finger pair and it just makes the house more usable and the both neighbors want this and maybe a mistake was made but I'd I'm glad to show you the picture of my house. I have three finger peers behind it in the same space, in the same neighborhood. If anybody's interested, I'll show you a photograph. I can send it around. I'm just saying it's I have the same location one street over and we have three of these things in the same space. If you're interested in seeing it I'd be glad to show it to you. So I'm for it. Thank you for your comments. Okay anybody else? Seeing. Yes, sir? Good evening, Board Members. I am Gene Folden, Northeast 30, Boca Raton. I was present at last night's Marine Advisory Board meeting when this variance came up. The board chose to deny the variance based upon two particular reasons. One reason was that they felt that did not meet the special unique conditions as required under 28-127.3. The other reason was that the owner's agent gave conflicting information about permitting the existing dock as opposed to what was presented under their exhibit B. I would also note that the way it is positioned will probably create or certainly create a conflict with the boat left that's on the north side of the waterway and adjacent property and that's my story. Thank you sir. Anyone else? Not I'll close the public hearing and look for a motion and a second for discussion. I motion for discussion. Well, the motion to approve. Yes. Okay. You need a second. I'll second that motion. Okay. Now, discussion. The thing that strikes to me and I apologize. I was just going to say, you know, the biggest thing to me is what the Marine Advisory Board said here. And not knowing anything about boats, it looks to me that somebody just built it a little differently because they wanted to. So that's my, I stand with as a contractor for 26 years. I've built stuff looked at the plans and went oops and what do I do? I tear it out and redo it. You know I can't arbitrate no contractor can arbitrarily decide while they're in the field. They're going to make a modification never take it to the design professionals never take it back to the surveyor and just decide we can do what we want. And then come up, oh I'm so sorry, please allow it. Sorry, I'm of the opinion. Tared out and redo it. I agree. Mr. Mitchell. I was of that mind until I saw that there was a 30 foot one next door. So we're saying he can't have an 18.9. It's a location in the angles. Agreed. but it's also a location in angles as much, but so is an extra 10 feet. So obviously it's more of a center lot in the back than the side lots, which are different. I agree. But I am torn, but because it's also you don't want to, you should need to ask permission, not forgiveness. Yes Yes We're here in the business of trying to figure things out before they're built So that we don't have mistakes that caused problems So I think that's probably my biggest concern Thank you comments Mrs. Long Well in addition to agreeing with mr. Dornblazers's feelings about it, you know, a variance is a very difficult bar, very high bar. You have to answer six different conditions. You have to answer each one of them. And one of them is, you know, special and unique conditions exist, which were not caused by the applicant. And I have to say that, you know, the applicant fails on that special condition because this was brought about by the applicant. And I will not be supporting the very answer request. Any other comments? Not ready for a vote. Jim, please call the roll. Mr. Mitchell? No. Chairs of El? No. Mr. Solan? No. Mr. Durham Blazer? No. A Miss McDermott? No. Fail think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. Hi guys! Yeah. Yeah. That's it. Yeah. Anybody, any board members have anything they want to share? I do. Okay. Hi guys. Yeah. Yeah. That's it. Yeah. Next time we'll bring you a beautiful family up here. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. With that at 7-11, we are adjourned.