Oct 14, 2021 Planning and Zoning

[00:00:08]

>> WELCOME, EVERYBODY. WE WILL BEGIN THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. EVERYBODY PLEASE RISE FORTH THE

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIACE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

BEFORE I DO THE ROLL CALL, I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME OUR FELLOW BOARD MEMBER, NATHANIEL. WELCOME BACK! [APPLAUSE]

[4. Approval of Minutes]

>> NATHANIEL MADE THE MOTION. SECONDED BY NEIL.

CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE MEETING FOR COMMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC.

IF THERE ARE ANY ON ANY NON-AGENDA ITEMS THIS EVENING, CAN I SEE BY A RAISE OF HANDS IF THERE IS ANYBODY HERE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT AN AGENDA.

SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE IT. THERE WAS A PHONE CALL MADE TO THE CITY TODAY. A VOICEMAIL WAS LEFT.

[6. Comments by the Chair]

[7. Approval of the Agenda]

[Items 8A - 8E]

ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA ITEMS THIS EVENING?

>> NO CHANGE, MR. CHAIR. >> OKAY.

WE WILL START OUR PUBLIC HEARING.

BEFORE I DO THAT, I JUST WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT THE APPLICANT'S LAW FIRM DONE IN THE PAST FOR MY COMPANY.

I DON'T HAVE A CONFLICT. IT WAS IN THE PAST.

AND I DID SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH THE CITY

ATTORNEY. >> THANK YOU CHAIR.

BASED ON THE FACTS PRESENTED TO ME, WE LOOK AT THE ISSUE AT THAT TIME THE BOAT IS BEING TAKEN.

IT'S MY ANALYSIS THAT THERE IS NO PROHIBITIVE VOTING CONFLICT.

IN THE (INDISCERNIBLE) ON ETHICS AGREED.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS IME I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.I WILL READ ALL ITEMS, E RECORD.

I HAD AN EYEGLASS ISSUE. I'M GOING TO CHANGE GLASSES.

MIGHT LOOK A LITTLE FUNNY BUT I HAVE TO CHANGE INTO MY SUNGLASSES TO READ PROPERLY. PUBLIC HEARING A ORDINANCE 2021 ? 012, PARKLAND ROYALE PHASE 2 ZONING CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION THAT THE CITY REZONE APPROXIMATELY 76.85 GROSS ACRES PLOCATED AT THE WEST END AND SOUTH END OF LOCKS AND (INDISCERNIBLE) FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY TO THE CITY OF PARKLAND RS THREE -- PROVIDING FOR MAXIMUM OF 210 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.

2.73 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. ASE NUMBER RSE 20 E- 001.

PROVIDING FOR (INDISCERNIBLE). ITEM B ORDINANCE 2021 ? 011 AMENDING ORDINANCE 2015 ? 015. THE CITY OF PARKLAND FLORIDA AMENDING ON THE APPROXIMATELY ONE GROSS ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH OF LOXAHATCHEE ROAD. (INDISCERNIBLE) OF BISHOP PIT ROAD. PROVIDING FOR THE RELEASE OF

[00:05:10]

THE AGE 55 AND OLDER DEED RESTRICTION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS --. ITEM D RESOLUTION 2021 ? 072 AND APPROVAL FOR PARKLAND ROYALE PASE 2. APPROVING A PLAT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY TLH SABRA 2 AND (INDISCERNIBLE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 76.85 GROSS ACRES TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE MAXIMUM OF 210 FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.

THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE WEST END AND SOUTH SIDE OF LOXAHATCHEE ROAD AND BISHOP PIT ROAD.

TO BE TAKEN AT ONE TIME. IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> THE PLANNING AND ZONE DEPARTMENT WILL BE PRESENTING ALL THE APPLICATIONS TOGETHER. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS ADVISING VOTES ARE BEING TAKEN SEPARATELY ON

EACH ITEM. >> UNDERSTOOD.

THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION. IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT MENTIONS WITHOUT APPROVAL OF ALL EIGHT VARIANCES REQUESTED, THE SITE PLAN AS PRESENTED CANNOT BE APPROVED.

SO SOULD WE BE HEARING THE VARIANCES FIRST? BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T GET APPROVED, THEN THE SITE PLAN -- DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD. WHAT'S THE PLAY ON THAT?

>> I TOO WOULD DIRECT THAT INQUIRY TO THE CITY ATTORNEY

FOR DIRECTION. >> SO ALL THE ITEMS ARE BEING PRESENTED TO YOU BY BOTH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE AT ONE TIME WITH ONE CONSOLIDATED PRESENTATION.

BUT THEY DO NEED INDIVIDUAL VOTES.

BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU JUST FOLLOW THE ORDER THAT'S

LAID OUT ON THE AGENDA. >> THANK YOU.

WE WILL DO THAT. CAITLIN?

WELCOME. >> GOOD EVENING KAITLYN FORBES FOR THE RECORD. AS THE CHAIR INDICATED, WE WILL BE PRESENTING ALL ITEMS TOGETHER WITH SEPARATE VOTES TO FOLLOW. WE WILL DO A SUMMARY PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY THE APPLICANT'S MORE IN-DEPTH PRESENTATION OF THE APPLICATIONS INCLUSIVE OF THE SITE PLAN. TONIGHT, THE BOARD WILL BE CONSIDERING A NUMBER OF REQUESTS FROM THE APPLICANT, TL H SABRA. IT INCLUDES A ZONING REQUEST AND APPROVAL OF A VARIANCES, A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL. YOU CAN SEE THE SUMMARY HERE ON THE SLY. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING THAT THE CURRENT AGE RESTRICTION BE ELIMINATED FROM THEPROPERTY , WHICH ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARIES.

THE APPLICANT ALSO OWNS A PARCEL KNOWN AS GATOR ACRES, BUT AT THIS TIME THAT PARCEL OF LAND IS NOT WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARIES. IT IS CURRENTLY UNDERGOING THE

[00:10:01]

BROWARD COUNTY (INDISCERNIBLE) AS LONG AS IT REMAINS INTO THE COUNTY.HE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE REQUESTS SHOULD BE APPROVED.

THEREFORE THE APPLICANT WILL BE SPEAKING IN A FEW MINUTES TO PRESENT ITS CASE. FIRST I WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME IMPORTANT INFORMATION THAT MAY BE HELPFUL TO BOTH THE BOARD AND THE PUBLIC. THIS MAP SHOWS YOU VARIOUS PARK SOULS IN THE WEDGE INCLUDING THE SUBJECT PARCELS.

ON THE FAR EAST TO THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE MY CURSOR.

AND WE WILL ZOOM IN ON THIS. THIS WILL BE WHERE THE RECYCLING PARCEL IS. AND YOU CAN SEE THE SABRA PARCEL WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THESE APPLICATIONS TONIGHT.

ALL OF THESE ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKLAND.

WEST OF THESE IS THE GATOR ACRES PARCEL.

AGAIN NOT LOCATED IN THE CITY AT THIS TIME BUT UNDERGOING ANNEXATION. THIS MAP SHOWS YOU THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT OUT IN THE WEDGE.

IT SHOWS YOU THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.

WE WILL GET INTO THE ZONING DESIGNATIONS AS WELL.

PWE WILL COME BACK TO THIS IN A FEW MOMENTS.

FIRST I'LL EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LAND USE AND ZONING AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP. SO WE HAVE A FOUNDATION OF THAT UNDERSTANDING GOING INTO THE REZONING APPLICATIONS.

FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163 A FLORIDA STATE STATUTES. THE STATE REQUIRES EVERY CITY TO DESIGNATE THE FUTURE TYPE AND INTENSITY.

ONCE THE CITY HAS DONE THIS, IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY BRIAR COUNTY. THE CITY'S MAP HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY'S MAP.

HERE'S THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

YOU CAN SEE THE DESIGNATIONS OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY AND THE SUBJECT PARCELS. IN MANY PROPERTIES IN THE WEDGE ARE DESIGNATED AS TWO UNITS PER ACRE NOT AGE RESTRICTED.

YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THE FOUR SEASONS DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST IS THE EXIT MADE IT AS THREE UNITS PER ACRE AS AN AGE RESTRICTED COMMUNITY. SABRA AND NSID HAVE DESIGNATED THREE UNITS (INDISCERNIBLE). THE RELEASE OF THAT AGE RESTRICTION IS AN APPLICATION TONIGHT.

THE RECYCLING PARCEL, WHICH HAS THE NOTE ONE THERE TO THE EAST, WAS ALSO APPROVED AT THREE UNITS PER ACRE AND AGE RESTRICTED. BUT THAT HAS NOT BEEN RECERTIFIED AT THIS TIME. FOUR SEASONS RECEIVED ITS APPROVA FOR THREE UNITS PER ACRE AGE RESTRICTED IN 2013.

SABRA, ONE OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS RECEIVED ITS THREE UNITS PER ACRE AGE RESTRICTION IN 2015.

NSID RECEIVE THEIR APPROVAL IN 2020.

THESE ARE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WHICH ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE ZONING DESIGNATIONS. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, FLORIDA STATE STATUTES REQUIRE ALL CITIES GIVE PROPER LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. IT ALSO STATES THAT CITIES CREATE ZONING MAPS. IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT THE ZONING DESIGNATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATION. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT SITE FOR A MOMENT. FOR THE SUBJECT SITE, HAS LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THREE ACRES ON THE SITE.HAT BEING THE SABRA AND THE CITY PARCELS. THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR THE ZONING TO REFLECT THAT LAND USE.

IT IS REQUESTED FOR OUR S3 FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE UNITS PER ACRE. -- STAFF HAS MADE THE TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE REZONING REQUEST BECAUSE THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATION.

THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSION CAN REVIEW THE CRITERIA WITHIN THE CODE. AND AS A MATTER OF A POLICY DECISION ARRIVE AT A DIFFERENT FINDING.

THE ZONING APPLICATION ITSELF IS DIFFERENT, SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE VARIANCE REQUESTS.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DIFFERENT VARIANCES.

AND A VARIANCE IS NOT A CHANGE TO THE ZONING CODE REGULATIONS, BUT IT DEVIATION FROM THE REGULATIONS.

IT'S NOT A CHANGE, IT'S A DEVIATION.

THERE IS A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE THERE AS A MATTER OF TECHNICALITY. THE CODE CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSION -- SORRY THE VARIANCE CRITERIA IS WITHIN THE CODE. AND LIKE THE REZONING CRITERIA, THESE ARE POLICY DETERMINATIONS.

[00:15:29]

SO NOW I WILL ADDRESS THE GATOR ACRES PARCEL WHICH IS LOCATED IN BROWARD COUNTY AND NOT PART OF THE CITY.

THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON GATOR ACRES'S HOME BEACH COUNTY ONE UNIT PER 10 ACRES. THE APPLICANT APPROACHES CITY ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BEGINNING IN THE FALL OF 2016 ASKING THE CITY ANNEXED GATOR ACRES. INITIALLY THE APPLICANT REQUESTS OF THE ANNEXATION AND REPRESSIVE FIVE UNITS PER ACRE.

IN THE ENSUING YEARS, THE DENSITY FLUCTUATED AND EVENTUALLY REDUCED TO FOUR UNITS PER ACRE.

AND AGAIN OVER THE YEARS, THE CITY HAS DECLINED THESE REQUESTS.ECAUSE THE CITY WOULD NOT ENTERTAIN THE APPLICANT'S ANNEXATION REQUEST BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED LAND USE CONTROL AT THIS TIME.

IT REQUESTED 25 UNITS AND ACRE TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP APARTMENTS THAT WOULD INCLUDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENTS. IN THE CITY VIGOROUSLY OPPOSE THIS REQUEST. BUT TO REVIEWING BOARDS COMPROMISED. (INDISCERNIBLE).

THE APPLICANT ASKED THE COUNTY TO HOLD FINAL APPROVAL IN ADVANCE WHILE THIS APPLICANT APPROACHED THE CITY, REPORTEDLY FOR THE LAST TIME, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL THAT INCLUDED ANNEXATION OVER GATOR ACRES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL THREE PARCELS. ALL THREE UNITS PER ACRE NOT AGE RESTRICTED WITH THE VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED.

SO THESE ARE THE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE BEFORE THE PLANNING AND BOARD THIS EVENING. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. AND IF IT IS THE WILL OF THE BOARD, WE CAN TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE A

SUPPLEMENTAL PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU, CAITLIN.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CAITLIN, CAN YOU SUMMARIZE FOR ME WHY THE STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING THEAPPROVAL OF

VARIANCES ? >> SURE.

GENERALLY WE DIDN'T FEEL THEY MET THE OVERARCHING CRITERIA.

THE CRITERIA FOR REVIEW. YOU CAN SEE THE FIVE CRITERIA.

AND STAFF DIDN'T FIND THAT THEY MET ANY OF THAT CRITERIA.

>> CAITLIN, IN THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENTS, PARKLAND BAY AND

THE SURROUNDING ONES -- >> SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE,

PLEASE. >> WERE THERE SIMILAR VARIANCES THAT WERE REQUESTED AND APPROVED OR DENIED?

>> THE OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE WEDGE ARE (INDISCERNIBLE).

THE APPLICATION BEFORE US TONIGHT IS OUR S3.

THERE ARE SLIGHT DID DIFFERENT ZONING STANDARDS.

THEY ATTEMPTED THE PRD'S TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY.

ND BECAUSE OF THE FLEXIBILITIES IN THAT DISTRICT THERE WERE NOT VARIANCES GRANTED TO THOSE COMMUNITIES.

>> THANK YOU. (INDISCERNIBLE).

WE WILL NOW ASK THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.

WELCOME. >> GOOD EVENING.

MICHAEL MOSCOWITZ, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

BEFORE I COMMENCED MY PRESENTATION, LET ME FIRST THANK THIS BOARD, CHAIR AND THE ENTIRE BOARD FOR ALLOWING ME THIS ACCOMMODATION. TO SIT DOWN AND MAKE THE PRESENTATION. I HAVE SOME ONGOING HEALTH ISSUES WHICH DON'T ALLOW ME TO STAND.SO I WANT TO EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE FOR THAT ACCOMMODATION.

I ALSO WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THE BOARD.

I NOTE THIS WAS SCHEDULED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND THERE WAS A MISTAKE ON OUR PART. WITH RESPECT TO NOTICE.

SO I CERTAINLY WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE TO THIS BOARD AND THE STAFF IN THAT REGARD.

HAVING SAID THAT, ASKING RESPECT TO NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES -- I WON'T GET INTO THAT OTHER TO SAY THAT'S AN

[00:20:08]

SO I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT AREA.

FOR PURPOSES OF THE VARIANCES THIS EVENING.

WITH ME THIS EVENING WILL BE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO WILL MAKE LENGTHY PRESENTATIONS. I HAVE JEFF EVANS, WHO WAS STANDING AT THE PODIUM. WHO IS OUR LAND PLANNER.E HAVE WENDY TOOMER WHO WAS OUR DESIGN LANDSCAPER AND ARCHITECT. I HAVE BILBO BARROW, THE CIVIL ENGINEER. WE HAVE SUSANO'ROURKE, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER. I WILL MAKE PRESENTATIONS.

AND OBVIOUSLY, BE AVAILABLE TO THIS BOARD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AS THEY ENTER THEIR PRESENTATION, I WILL GIVE A SHORT SUMMARY .

AND AT THE END OF EVERYTHING, IF NEEDED, IF I COULD HAVE A COUPLE OF MINUES FOR REBUTTAL THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

SO THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE LAND IN QUESTION.

GATOR ACRES BEING THAT DOTTED PARCEL AT THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER. THIS IS THE MOST NORTHWEST CORNER OF BROWARD COUNTY. OBVIOUSLY, THE CITY ALSO.

YOU CAN ONLY REACH THIS PROPERTY BY DRIVING DOWN LOX ROAD. YOU CAN'T PASS BY IT.

YOU CAN ONLY GO TO IT, TURN AROUND, AND LEAVE FROM IT.

SO IT'S NOT A PARCEL OF PROPERTY OR A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS FRONT AND CENTER IN THE CITY SUCH AS BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, HOLMBERG AND UNIVERSITY.THE TOTAL ACREAGE OF THE THREE PARCELS OF PROPERTY -- THE PRE-ÁDELETEWORDÁ THREE PARCELS SABRA, GATOR ACRES AND NSID ARE APPROXIMATELY 75 ACRES.

THE SABRA SID WERE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO.

GATOR ACRES WAS FIVE ACRES OF PROPERTY.

IT'S A LITTLE LESS NOW. IT'S 4.77 OR 4.75 ACRES OF PROPERTY BECAUSE OF A TOWER WHICH WE WILL TALK ABOUT IN A FEW MINUTES. AND TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY, RIGHT OVER THE CANAL, YOU HAVE VACANT PROPERTY.

THAT'S THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PROPERTY.

TO THE WEST OF THIS PROPERTY, YOU HAVE BASICALLY THE SAWGRASS. THE EVERGLADES, ETC. TO THE DIRECT EAST OF OUR PROPERTY IS AN INDUSTRIAL SITE.

17 ACRES OWNED BY BORIS KATZ. I BELIEVE HE HAS SOME SORT OF MULCHING FACILITY ON THE PROPERTY.

SO THE ONLY NEIGHBORING SITES IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT IS THE FOUR SEASONS, WHICH IS TO THE EAST OF THE BORIS KATZ PROPERTY AND PARKLAND BAY, WHICH IS SOUTH OF OUR PROPERTY.

THOSE ARE REALLY THE ONLY TRUE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THAT EXIST. NOW WHAT HAPPENED -- IN ESSENCE, WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY IS WE DON'T HAVE THE MOST DESIRABLE LOCATION. IN TERMS OF PROPERTY AND THE LIKE. MY CLIENT IS HERE.

HE MIGHT NOT APPRECIATE ME SAYING THAT BUT I'M JUST BEING HONEST. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH. TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE UNDESIRABLE, WE ARE DEALING WITH THE SITUATION WHERE TOWERS WERE CONSTRUCTED. SO BROWARD COUNTY, AS PART OF ITS 911 SYSTEM, DECIDED IT NEEDED TO PUT UP A SERIES OF TOWERS WITHIN BROWARD COUNTY. AND SHOWS AS ONE OF THE LOCATIONS THE MOST NORTHWEST SECTION OF GATOR ACRES, WHICH IS THAT YELLOW SITE THAT YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS 350 FOOT TOWER. WE SIGNED OVER THAT QUARTER ACRE MORE OR LESS TO BROWARD COUNTY SO THEY COULD CONSTRUT THE TOWER. THE CITY AND US WERE ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE ISSUE. WE TRIED TO PREVENT THAT.

BECAUSE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE CANAL, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE CANAL IS ALREADY AN EXISTING TOWER.

WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN USED. WE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE TWO PTOWERS IN SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY. HOWEVER, BROWARD COUNTY CHOSE NOT TO ACCEPT THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE.

THUS, WE HAVE A TWO TOWER SITUATION.

WE HAVE A PICTURE OF THE TWO TOWERS?

[00:25:13]

>> WE WILL DO TWO IN A ROW. THERE'S A SINGLE TOWER AND A

DOUBLE TOWER. >> WE CAN DO THAT.

SO THIS IS THE TOWER THAT IS CONSTRUCTED ON GATOR ACRES.

AND I'M SURE, YOU CAN IMAGINE, BEING LONG-TERM RESIDENTS OF PARKLAND, UNLIKE A LAKE OR A GOLF COURSE OR TENNIS COURTS -- OR FOREST AREA, THIS IS NOT US:ATTRACTIVE SALES AMENITY WHEN BUILDING A DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. IN TERMS OF THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT YOU ARE BUILDING. WHEN IT'S SITUATED ON YOUR PROPERTY IN WHICH YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE HOMES VERY CLOSE TO IT.

IS THIS APPROXIMATELY 350 FOOT TOWER.

SHOW THE OTHER TOWER IF YOU WOULD.

THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE TWO TOWERS LOOKING DOWN LOX ROAD.

YOU CAN SEE THE TWO TOWERS. OBVIOUSLY, BOTH OF THESE RESIDENTS OF OUR COMMUNITIES WILL SEE ON A DAILY BASIS.

I WILL GO INTO THE PROJECT HISTORY SOMEWHAT.

I KNOW THAT STAFF HAS DONE THAT.

LET ME TELL YOU WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT.

THIS PROJECT -- YOU KNOW, NORMALLY, WHEN YOU REVIEW PROJECTS, YOU VIEW THEM ON A PROJECT BASIS.

AND YOUR CRITERIA ON A PROJECT BASIS.

THIS ONE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF WHAT OCCURRED. STAFF IS CORRECT.

THAT IS THAT YOU BRING UP THE ITEMS --

>> ABOUT WHAT? >> BACK IN 2016, SABRA WAS CERTIFIED FOR (INDISCERNIBLE). IN 2017, PARKLAND DENIED THE ANNEXATION PETITION FOR GATOR ACRES.

LET ME EXPLAIN. THE STAFF IS CORRECT THAT WE STARTED THIS PROCESS BACK IN 2016.

IN TRYING TO BRING GATOR ACRES INTO THE CITY.

WE BELIEVED BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION THAT IT SHOULD BE A HIGHER DENSITY PROJECT. AND WE ASKED STAFF INITIALLY FOR FIVE UNITS TO THE ACRE. LATER IT WAS REDUCED TO FOUR UNITS BREAKER. WE WENT THROUGH APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS OF DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE CITY.

WE ACTUALLY APPEARED BEFORE -- MORE THAN ONE OR TWO CITY COMMISSIONS DISCUSSING IT IN AN ATTEMPT TO SEE IF WE COULD GET THAT APPROVED.ND WE DID NOT ACHIEVE SUCCESS IN THAT REGARD.

2017, WE SUBMITTED TO THE BROWARD COUNTY, AN APPLICATION TO BUILD A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT ON GATOR ACRES, 25 UNITS TO THE ACRE. IT WAS GOING TO BE A FIVE-STORY DEVELOPER. I'LL SHOW YOU A PICTURE OF IT SHORTLY. AND OUR POSITION WAS WE COULDN'T RESOLVE IT WITH THE CITY.

AND WE UNDERSTOOD THAT. WE SAID TO THE CITY, WE ARE GOING TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO DEVELOP GATOR ACRES IN UNINCORPORATED BROWARD COUNTY. OBVIOUSLY, THE CITY DISAGREED WITH OUR POSITION. WE WERE ON OPPOSITE SIDES WITH RESPECT TO THAT ISSUE. 2018, YOU WILL SEE WE FINALIZE THE STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING THE CELL TOWER WHICH I HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED. 2019, THIS IS A FACT YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF, STAFF MENTIONED THE KATZ PROPERTY.

AT WHAT TIME THE KATZ PROPERTY AND SABRA WERE JOINED AT THE HIP WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS SEPARATED IN 2019.

APPLICATIONS SINCE THEN.N 2019, THE PRD APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED. SABER AND NSID WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPING IT AS AN AGE RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT.

2020. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT WHICH WE WILL GO THROUGH AT LENGTH.

2020 WE HAD A HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COUNCIL.

WITH RESPECT TO THE GATOR ACRES MENUS APPLICATION FOR 25 UNITS TO THE ACRE. WHAT HAPPENED WAS WE MADE A LENGTHY PRESENTATION, INCLUDING A PROPOSED RENDERING.

WHICH AGAIN, I WILL SHOW YOU SHORTLY.

AND ULTIMATELY, AND WE OFFERED 20 PERCENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND ULTIMATELY, THE CONSENSUS OF THE BROWARD COUNTY PLANNING AND COUNSEL ON THAT DAY WAS THAT THEY WOULD CONSIDER A

[00:30:07]

YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT ALL FIVE CITY COMMISSIONERS APPEARED AT THAT COUNCIL MEETING ALONG WITH STAFF TO OPPOSE THE REQUEST, DESPITE THEIR OPPOSITION, THE BROWARD COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL HAD THEIR COMMENTS AS I EXPRESSED, WHERE THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT.

BUT AT A REDUCED NUMBER FROM OUR REQUEST.

SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WE WERE CALLED BY THE CITY.

THAT'S WHY I MENTION THIS HISTORY.

THIS IS NOT JUST THE PROJECT, PER SE, THAT COMES BEFORE YOU.

SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WE WERE CONTACTED BY THE CITY, BOTH ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE AND STAFFS TO EXPRESS THE FACT THAT THE CITY NOW SEES THE REALITY TO THIS POTENTIAL PROJECT THAT WOULD OCCUR ON GATOR ACRES. AND THE CITY WOULD PREFER THAT IT NOT OCCUR. AND THEY ASKED US TO RECONSIDER OUR POSITION AND TO COME BACK AND HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON WHAT WE PWANTED. AND WE SAID WE WOULD DO THAT.

BUT PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED CERTAIN THINGS IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS PROJECT A POTENTIAL SUCCESS.

AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IT, THAT'S FINE.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT. AND WE WILL GO BACK TO THE COUNTY. BUT PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT WE WILL BE ASKING THINGS:FOR THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT.

DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF WHAT THE CITY IS USED TO DOING.

WE STARTED OFF AGAIN. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE WANTED FOUR UNITS TO THE ACRE. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY, AGAIN, WE REDUCED THAT TO THREE UNITS PER ACRE. THAT WAS THE MINIMUM THAT WE WOULD ACCEPT. OBVIOUSLY THE DENSITY IS LESS THAN THAT. BUT THE ZONING DESIGNATION WOULD BE THREE UNITS TO THE ACRE.

AND WHAT WE AGREED TO DO DURING THE COURSE OF THIS PROCESS IS WE SUSPENDED THE BROWARD COUNTY REVIEW OF THE GATOR ACRES APPLICATION. WE DIDN'T WITHDRAW IT.

WE SUSPENDED IT. WE KEPT POSTPONING IT.

IN THIS PROCESS LED TO AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED BY YOUR CITY COMMISSION APPROXIMATELY A MONTH AGO. MAYBE A LITTLE MORE THAN A MONTH AGO. WHICH CONTAINS MANY CONCESSIONS ON OUR PART, WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT.

IN MAY 2021, WE SUBMITTED WHAT IS OUR CURRENT PROPOSAL.

>> (INDISCERNIBLE). >> LET'S GO ON AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WAS THE REQUEST -- LET ME SEE IF I CAN ACTUALLY STAND UP A SECOND. IT'S AMAZING HOW THE EASY THINGS IN LIFE BECOME DIFFICULT! OKAY. I DIDN'T HAVE TO STAND.

ALL THAT TROUBLE FOR NOTHING! I'M IN A SIT DOWN AGAIN, IF THAT'S OKAY? TWO THINGS: THIS IS A PICTORIAL OF WHAT TYPE MULTIFAMILY APPLICATION WE SUBMITTED TO THE PROJECT WAS. AS I SAID, IT WAS A FIVE-STORY PROJECT, 25 UNITS TO BE ACRE. 18 PERCENT WORKFORCE HOUSING.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAD SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY.NEXT? THIS IS THE ARTIST RENDERING THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY.HIS WAS THEIR APPLICATION.

THIS WAS 25 UNITS PER ACRE, FIVE STORIES, WITH 18 PERCENT WORKFORCE HOUSING. THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT THEY HAD WORKED ON. TAKE A LOOK AT THE NEXT LIGHT.

AND AGAIN, THEY WERE POSITIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT. ONLY THEY WANTED A REDUCTION

[00:35:01]

AND THEY WANTED A FOUR-STORY PROJECT INSTEAD OF A FIVE-STORY PROJECT. WE DID SUBMIT THOSE MODIFIED RENDERINGS. IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS WAS THE REVISED RENDERING THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY.

WHICH WAS FOUR STORIES, 100 UNITS, 18 UNITS WERE WORKFORCE HOUSING. I MENTION THIS BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WOULD BE PENDING IF WE WENT BACK TO THE COUNTY.AND YOU CAN SEE, UNFORTUNATELY, THE 300+ FOOT TOWER THAT LOOMS OVER EVERYTHING IN THE BACKGROUND. SO WE HOPE NOT TO BACK TO THE COUNTY BUT THIS IS WHAT WOULD BE PENDING.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY.

SINCE MAY 2020, WE HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH THE CITY TO DISCUSS THE ALTERNATIVES FOR GATOR ACRES AND WHAT COULD BE DEVELOPED. WE COORDINATED WITH THE CITY TO PRODUCE THE CURRENT SITE PLAN THAT IS BEFORE YOU.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WAS NEGOTIATED WITHIN THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT AS PART OF WHAT THE CITY REQUESTED FROM US. THAT WAS PART OF THE NEGOTIATIONS THAT WE AGREED TO. ONE IS WE AGREED TO A PARK DEDICATION OF 2.86 ACRES. IN THE SITE PLAN, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE MOST NORTHWEST 2.86 ACRES OF GATOR ACRES WOULD BE A PARK SITE. THAT WE WOULD DEDICATE TO THE CITY. WE AGREED NOT ONLY TO DEDICATE THIS LAND, WE AGREED TO DO THE ENGINEERING SERVICES TO THE PARK. THE DEMOLITION -- CLEARING, LEVELING AND GRADING OF THE PARK SITE.

WE AGREED TO PROVIDE AN ACCESS ROAD TO THE PARK.

WE AGREED O PAY FOR THE WETLANDS CREDITS TO THE PARK.

THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY SEVEN LOTS WE GIVE UP WITH RESPECT TO THE PARK. AND WE ALSO AGREED, AT THE CITY'S REQUEST, TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL $100,000 TO A BISHOP PIT ROAD IMPROVEMENT, WHICH REALLY BENEFITS THE CATS PROPERTY. WE AGREED TO PAY $100,000 FOR IT. SO THE TOTAL COST OF WHAT WE AGREED TO IN THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT IN TERMS OF DIRECT COST TO THE APPLICANT DESK RUNNING TO THE CITY IS $2.58 MILLION. SO I MENTION THIS BECAUSE THESE WERE ALL NEGOTIATED ITEMS. YOU KNOW -- OBVIOUSLY, AS IT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DEAL WITH A PROJECT OF THIS NATURE, IF WE ARE ASKING FOR SOMETHING, WE HAVE TO GIVE THANKS.

NOTHING UNCOMMON ABOUT THAT. AND I WANTED YOU TO SEE THAT WE ARE PROVIDING REAL THINGS TO THE CITY -- THE PARK WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS REQUESTED. IT WAS IMPORTANT TO CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE CITY. CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION. THEY FELT THAT IS A TERRIFIC LOCATION TO HAVE A PARK. RIGHT ON THE PRAECIPE OF THE SAWGRASS. SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED.ROGRAMSFOR CHILDREN AND THE LIKE.

IT ACTUALLY IS A VERY GOOD IDEA.

SO WE AGREED TO PROVIDE THAT. WE ALSO ABANDONED THE MULTI-FAMILY -- WE WOULD ABANDON THE MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT, WHICH IS CERTAINLY A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD. AND WE WOULD ABANDON THAT.

AND WE WOULD DISMISS THE EXISTING LAWSUIT AGAINST BROWARD COUNTY FOR THE DAMAGES OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE TOWERS.

SO THERE ARE THINGS THAT WOULD -- THAT WE ARE GIVING AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION. WHEN YOU COMPARE THE OPTIONS THAT EXIST, THE PLAN THAT INCLUDES GATOR ACRES IS 210 UNITS IN TOTAL. THE DENSITY IS A MAXIMUM OF THREE DWELLINGS PER ACRE. IT WOULD NOT BE AGE RESTRICTED.

IT'S 2.86 PARK DESIGNATED TO THE CITY.

THE PLAN NOT INCLUDING GATOR ACRES, IF WE DECIDED THAT WE COULD NOT MAKE A GO OF THIS? THEN WE WOULD DEVELOP SOMBRA AND NSID WITHIN THE CITY AS AGE RESTRICTED HOUSING.

GATOR ACRES, WE WOULD GO BACK 20 UNITS PER ACRE WERE THINGS

[00:40:05]

WHATEVER UNITS WE GOT -- WE COULD SIT HERE AND DEBATE -- STAFF HAD COME UP WITH A COMPROMISE OF 15 UNITS PER ACRE AS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION. SO WHETHER IT'S 15 UNITS PER ACRE, 20 UNITS PER ACRE, SOME NUMBER OR THEREABOUTS IS WHERE IT WOULD OCCUR. THERE WOULD BE 18 PERCENT WORKFORCE HOUSING. THAT'S A COMMITMENT WE HAD MADE TO THE COUNTY. THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE PROCESS. THIS IS -- THAT IS WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE BUILD THIS PROJECT NOT INCLUDING GATOR ACRES, IF GATOR ACRES WAS WITHIN THE COUNTY.

THE PROJECT WILL BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS.

WE WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN CONSISTENT WITH YOUR CODE, WHICH IS WHAT WE WOULD DO. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS. THE ZONING SITE PLAN APPROVAL ETC. BUT THAT'S OBVIOUSLY WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.F COURSE, IF WE BUILT IT WITH GATOR ACRES, WITHIN THE CITY -- LET'S PUT THAT BOARD UP. THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

THAT'S THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY, WHICH SHOWS THE PARK AND WHAT THINGS LOOK LIKE.

HOW THE PROJECT WOULD LAY OUT AND THE LIKE.

WE BELIEVE, SO THAT IT'S UNDERSTOOD WHY WE ARE HERE THIS EVENING -- WHY WE WILL BE BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS -- WE BELIEVE IT'S A BETTER PROJECT FOR US AND A BETTER PROJECT FOR THE CITY.

WE BELIEVE THIS IS A WIN-WIN FOR BOTH OF US.

AND IT'S A BETTER IDEA ESPECIALLY WITH THE CITY PARK.

IT'S A BETTER IDEA FOR THE CITY.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE WORKED AS HARD AS WE HAVE.

TO TRY TO ADVOCATE AND PROPOSE THIS PROJECT.

IS IT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF VARIANCES THAT YOU MAY HAVE PREVIOUSLY DONE IN PAST APPROVALS WITH RESPECT TO PROJECTS LOOKING AT THEM STRAIGHTFORWARD? YES, THAT IS TRUE. ON THE OTHER HAND, GIVEN THE FULL CONTEXT OF WHAT'S GOING ON -- WHAT COULD BE HERE -- THIS IS A BETTER APPROACH FOR THIS CITY.

LET THE PROPERTY BE IN THE CITY.

B PART OF THE CITY. IT COULD BE BUILT UNDER THE CITY SPACES. LET'S NOT DEAL WITH THE MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT. WE CERTAINLY WANT THIS PROJECT.

WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE RESERVED OURSELVES IN THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. AS YOUR CITY ATTORNEY CAN EXPLAIN. THE ABILITY AND THE RIGHT IF THIS DOES NOT APPROVE TO GO BACK TO WHERE WE PREVIOUSLY WERE. AND WE CERTAINLY WOULD PICK IT UP. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A BETTER LOOKING PROJECT. A BETTER CONCEPT.

AGE RESTRICTED PROJECTS IS NOT WHAT PARKLAND IS ALL ABOUT.

WE ARE ALL ABOUT FAMILIES. WE ARE ALL ABOUT KIDS.

WE ARE ALL ABOUT SCHOOLS AND THE LIKE.

WE BELIEVE THIS IS THE BETTER IDEA.HE CITY, OF COURSE, THAT IS YOUR DECISION TO MAKE. THE CITY COMMISSIONERS DECISION TO MAKE. AND I THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO MAKE MY PRESENTATION. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. EVANS.

>> THANK YOU. >> WOULD BE OKAY IF I TOOK MY

MASK OFF? >> OF COURSE.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JEFF EVANS.

EMMA LAND USE PLANNER WITH OFFICES IN BOCA RATON.

I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT FOR THE BETTER PART OF SIX YEARS IN VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF IT.

SO IT'S NICE TO BE HERE BEFORE YOU GUYS.

AND WHAT WE HOPE WILL BE THE FINAL SET OF REVIEWS OF THIS.

BEFORE WE GET GOING TOO FAR, -- >> I APOLOGIZE.

SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.

>> SORRY. I'D LIKE TO THANK THE STAFF.

BEEN DIFFICULT TO GET TO THIS POINT.

SO I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR ALL THE EFFORT SO FAR.

WITH THAT, SOME OF THE THINGS WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS EVENING. SOME OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE ANNEXATION AND THE REZONING SITE PLAN APPROVAL. WHICH WE LOOK AT THE SAME WAY.

THE EIGHT VARIANCES THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, AS WELL AS THE PLAT. I LIKE TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUALLY AND DISCUSS THEM.

AS FAR AS THE ANNEXATION GOES, THE CITY COMMISSION VOTED ON

[00:45:09]

WE ESTIMATE IT POPPING OUT THE OTHER END AND BEING A PART OF CITY OF PARKLAND SOME TIME OF SEPTEMBER 2023.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THERE IS NO ACTION TONIGHT.

YOU GUYS DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IT.

THE NEXT ITEM IS THE REZONING AND THE SITE PLAN.

THEY ESSENTIALLY GO TOGETHER. I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL THE DETAILS. BUT AGAIN, AS STAFF HAS SAID, THE PROPERTY NOW CARRIES PALM BEACH COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION OF ONE UNIT PER 10 ACRES, CARRYING OVER FROM PRIOR ANNEXATION INTO THE COUNTY. WHAT WE ARE DOING IS JUST BRINGING IT TO BALANCE WITH THE EXISTING LAND USE AND DESIGNATIONS. ONCE GATOR ACRES IS AN EXTENDED LAND USE GOES THROUGH, IT TOO WILL BE REZONED.

WE HAD TO APPLY FOR REZONING INTO A COUNTY DESIGNATION.

AND THEN ONCE IT GETS ANNEXED TO THE CITY, IT HAS TO GET REZONED TO THE CITY. AGAIN, MOVING PARTS AND LOTS TO DO. BUT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH OUR S3, THREE UNITS PER ACRE. OUR REQUEST IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT LESS THAN THAT -- 3.7 UNITS PER ACRE.

ATTACHED THE REZONING IS THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THAT IN MORE DETAIL.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEEDED TO APPROACH WHEN WE FIRST STARTED WORKING ON THE CURRENT SITE PLAN WAS -- FIRST OF ALL, YOU CHOOSE TO GO FORWARD AS IN OUR S3 STREET ZONING OR GO FORWARD AS A TRT. THIS IS PHASE 2, SO LOGICALLY THERE IS A PHASE 1. AND WE HAD DONE THAT ONE SEVERAL YEARS AG . THAT'S NOW FOUR SEASONS.

OUR INTENT WAS TO CREATE PHASE 2. SOMETHING THAT LOOKED VERY CONSISTENT AND FAMILIAR TO THE PHASE 1 AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT TO PARKLAND BAY. OUR INTENT WAS TO BUILD A COMMUNITY OF THAT SORT. HOWEVER IN THE INTERIM, THERE WAS A PRD CODE PAST. A REVISION TO THE PRD CODE.

IT WAS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT REVISION.

TO THE EXTENT THAT WE FELT THAT THERE WAS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY PURSUANT TO THE PRD CODE FOR US TO DEVELOP A COMMUNITY THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. AS WELL AS SOMETHING WE FELT WAS A VIABLE AND WORTHWHILE PROJECT TO DO.

I'LL GET BACK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, TO SPEAK ON A LARGER SCALE, THE IDEA OF TYPICAL ZONING DASH ASSIC, POSTWAR, A LARGE LOT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. WITH NO AMENITIES NECESSARILY.

THAT'S THE STANDARD. AS TIME PROGRESSED, WE CAME FORWARD WITH THIS CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT.

DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES COLOR DIFFERENT THINGS.

TRT HERE IN PARKLAND AND PUD IN OTHER PLACES.

BUT WHAT THE ADVANTAGES TO DOING PLANNED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT IS THAT -- YOU CAN PROVIDE MUCH MORE OPEN SPACE.

MUCH MORE GREEN SPACE. YOU HAVE RECREATIONAL AMENITIES. TYPICALLY A CLUBHOUSE FOR SPORTS. AND YOU HAVE A UNIFIED DESIGN IN TERMS OF SIGNAGE AND ARCHITECTURE.

THE TRADE-OFF FOR THAT IS THAT YOU GET TO REDUCE YOUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THE LOT STANDARDS AND THE SETBACKS, IF YOU WILL. WE TOUCHED ON THIS BRIEFLY.

YOU GUYS WERE ASKING STAFF ABOUT HOW THAT WORKS.

YOU COME THROUGH THE PRD OR PUD, THAT'S DEVELOPING A MASTER PLAN THAT HAS A DEVELOPMENT TABLE WITH MODIFIED SETBACKS.

STARTING WITH OUR S3, ANYWAY -- YOU HAVE MODIFIED SETBACKS THAT YOU AGREE TO WITH STAFF.THE RS THREE DOESN'T REALLY HAVE

[00:50:02]

AND WE THOUGHT MAYBE WE COULD COME UP WITH A HYBRID PLAN? AS WE MENTIONED, THE PRD REGULATIONS WERE AMENDED IN MAY 2019. WE TOOK SEVERAL GOOD FAITH ATTEMPTS AT IT. WE JUST COULD NOT COME UP TO THE COMMUNITY DESIGN THAT WE FELT WAS BOTH VIABLE AND WOULD BE COMPLEMENTARY. AND TO DO IT PROPERLY, THERE WERE SOMEWHERE AROUND 12 OR 13 VARIANCES THAT WE FELT WERE NECESSARY TO MAKE IT WORK. IN EXCESS OF WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR NOW. HOWEVER, IF WE WENT WITH THE RS THREE, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE DOING, AND ASK FOR VARIANCES -- AND I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHATICALLY STATE THAT THESE VARIANCES DEAL STRICTLY WITH THE LOTS.

LOT SIZE, SETBACKS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANY VARIANCES THAT DEAL WITH REDUCING LANDSCAPING, REDUCING BUFFERS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THE WHOLE THRUST OF WHAT WE ARE DOING IS TO CREATE A DEVELOPMENT TABLE SIMILAR TO DEVELOPMENT TABLES ADJACENT TO US. PARKLAND BAY AND FOUR SEASONS.

WHAT WE DID IS WE USE THE PRD CODE AS A MODEL FOR SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS. SUCH AS GREEN SPACE, RECREATIONAL AMENITIES, FACILITIES -- ALL THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. WE BELIEVE THE SITE PLAN MIRRORS THE CODE FOR THOSE DEVELOPMENTS.

BUT THE ONE FACTOR THAT BRINGS IT TOGETHER SINCE WE CAN'T DO IT IN THE PRD AND MODIFY THE SETBACKS -- WE ARE DOING THE VARIANCE TABLE. AFTER WE WERE DONE WORKING ON THE DEVELOPMENT TABLE, WE WERE LOOKING AT THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT TABLES FOR THE ADJACENT COMMUNITIES.

I THINK THE BOARD WILL BE INTERESTED -- BEFORE WE GET TO HOW IT COMPARES TO THE OTHER COMMUNITIES, LET'S JUST WALK TO THE VARIANCES. AND WE WILL WALK THROUGH THE CRITERIA BY WHICH THE VARIANCES ARE JUDGED AND WE WILL PRESENT OUR REASONS FOR WHY WE THINK IT'S A VALID REQUEST.

WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED WITH THE VARIANCES ARE THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR.AND AGAIN, NO VARIANCES TO THE LANDSCAPING OR BUFFERS. LOT DIMENSIONS -- MINIMUM LOT AREA. WE ARE REQUESTING A 6360 AS BEING THE SMALLEST LOT WE WILL HAVE.

WHICH REPRESENTS A 3400 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE.

THE LOT WITH WOULD BE 53 FEET. WE DO HAVE LOTS THAT ARE LARGER THAN THAT AS WELL. THAT REPRESENTS THE 27 FOOT VARIANCE. AND MINIMUM LOT COVERAGE.

WE ARE PROPOSING A 60 PERCENT MINIMUM LOT COVERAGE WHICH WOULD BE A 25 PERCENT VARIANCE FROM THE STANDARD RS THREE ZONING STANDARDS. BUILDING SETBACKS.

OUR S3 IS 25. WE ARE ASKING 15 FOR THE HOUSE.

SIMILARLY, THE SIDE YARDS VARIANCE AMOUNT IS SIX FEET THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR. THERE IS AN ENGINEERING PART OF THESE SIDE YARD SETBACK DISCUSSIONS THAT MR. BARBARA WILL BE DISCUSSING WITH THE BOARD LATER.

ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES IS TO ADDRESS SOME ENGINEERING ISSUES AS FAR AS DRAINAGE. IN THE 6 AND A HALF FEET IS SOMETHING THAT CAME FROM THE DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY ENGINEER. WE WILL DISCUSS HOW WE GOT TO THAT AND WHAT ADVANTAGES THERE ARE TO IT.

AS FAR AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, POOLS, DECKS AND OUTDOOR KITCHENS -- SEVEN FEET WAS REQUIRED.

SAME FOR THE DECK. AND THIS WOULD BE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, OUTDOOR KITCHENS, PLAYHOUSES AND THINGS OF THAT SORT. AND THEN, (INDISCERNIBLE).

THERE ARE FIVE CRITERIA BY WHICH THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER REQUESTED VARIANCES. I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH EACH OF

[00:55:05]

THIS PROPERTY IS ONE BIG SPECIAL (LAUGHING) CIRCUMSTANCE, UNFORTUNATELY. WE HAVE A 300 FOOT COMMUNICATION TOWER ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AND ANOTHER ONE 200 YARDS NORTH OF THAT. WE HAVE A CODE AMENDMENT THAT HAPPENED BETWEEN OUR TWO PHASES THAT REALLY PREVENTED US FROM COMING FORWARD WITH A CONSISTENT MASTER PLAN AS PURSUANT TO THE CODE. THE PROPERTY IS A VERY UNUSUAL SHAPE. MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS.

IT'S ADJACENT TO A WILDLIFE PRESERVE.

THE PROPERTY IS VERY UNIQUE. IT'S A UNICORN.

IT'S THE ONLY SUCH PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF PARKLAND.

SO I THINK WE EASILY MEET THE CRITERIA OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THE SECOND CRITERIA.

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CAUSE THE HARDSHIP ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY. IT (INDISCERNIBLE) COMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON OUR PROPERTY IS CERTAINLY HARDSHIP THAT WE HAVE HAD TO DESIGN AROUND AND FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH. AGAIN, THE CODE AMENDMENT.

WE FEEL PREVENTED US FROM BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS IT ADEQUATELY.

MOVING ONTO THE NEXT ONE. VARIANCE CRITERIA NUMBER 3 IS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS -- AND THIS IS IMPORTANT PART -- THAT'S ENJOYED BY THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE DISTRICT. AND IT GOES ON THAT ECONOMICS SHOULD NOT PLAY A ROLE IN THE DECISION.

WHAT YOU WILL SEE IS WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE. WE ARE ASKING TO HAVE EQUAL SETBACKS AND THE DEVELOPMENT TABLE WE ARE DISCUSSING.E WANT SOMETHING CONSISTENT WITH OUR NEIGHBORS.

AND WE WILL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND.BUT AGAIN, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE DISTRIC.

AND I THINK WE MEET THAT CRITERIA EASILY.

NUMBER 3 -- THAT'S THE POINT I JUST MADE (LAUGHING).

NUMBER 4, THE HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-CREATED OR SELF-IMPOSED.

AND IT'S NOT FROM IGNORANCE OF THE CODE.

AGAIN, A 300 FOOT TOWER WAS BROUGHT TO US.

WE HAD NO CHOICE TO STOP THE HARDSHIP WAS NOT SELF-CREATED.

AND AS FAR AS THE PRD CODE, AGAIN, THAT IS SOMETHING WE DID NOT ANTICIPATE. AND IT REALLY SIDETRAKED OUR ABILITY TO DEVELOP A CONSISTENT COMMUNITY FOR THE NEIGHBORS.

THE LAST CRITERIA IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT MAKES THE PROPERTY BE AT HARMONY AND WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO NEIGHBORS AND DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE.

LET'S WALK THROUGH THOSE PHRASES IF WE CAN.

FIRST, REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

APPLICANT IS ONLY REQUESTING THE SIMILAR RIGHTS AS THE NEIGHBORS. WE ARE ASKING FOR LESS DENSITY THAN WHAT THE PLAN WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE.

SO I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE USE OF PROPERTY.

THE VARIANCE BEING IN HARMONY -- THE WHOLE POINT OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS SO WE CAN BE CONSISTENT.

SO WE CAN BE HARMONIOUS. PARTICULARLY WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. AND FINALLY, WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC WELFARE. UNLESS THOSE DEVELOPMENTS POSE A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE, WE WILL NOT BE PROPOSING ANY KIND OF THREAT OR ANY PROBLEMS. WE ARE ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND AGAIN, THE INTENT OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION TO PROPOSE A DESIGN CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

ASKING FOR ANYTHING MORE. WE FEEL THAT THE HARDSHIPS IMPOSED UPON US WERE NOT SELF-IMPOSED.

WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS ALREADY BEING ALLOWED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

HERE IS THE PROMISE TABLE THAT I WANTED TO PRESENT TO YOU.

[01:00:13]

WE ARE COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH BOTH PARKLAND BAY AND FOUR SEASONS.

FEET OF GREATER SETBACKS. POOL AND DECK THE SAME.

CREATE:SCREEN ENCLOSURE IS ROUGHLY THE SAME.

MAX LOT COVERAGE -- 64 AND 63 RESPECTIVELY.

MINIMUM LOT SIZE -- WE HAVE A GREATER MINIMUM LOT SIZE.

MEANING OUR LOTS WILL BE LARGER THAN BOTH PARKLAND BAY AND FOUR SEASONS. AND ONE MORE -- WITHOUT HAVING TOO MANY CHARTS HERE. HERE WOULD BE A SIMILAR CHART FOR BOTH KAREN BAYLOR AND WATERCRESS.

AND AGAIN, IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME STORY.

IF YOU GO DOWN EACH AND EVERY INSTANCE, WE HAVE LESS INTENSE, MORE SETBACKS, LARGER LOTS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

WITH A COUPLE OF EXCEPTIONS. FOR INSTANCE, THE STREET YARD SETBACK IN HERON BAY -- I'M SORRY, AND WATERCRESS IS 15.

SO THEY ARE SLIGHTLY GREATER IN THAT REGARD.

BUT WE ARE PROPOSING A 10 PERCENT GREATER LOT SIZE.

IN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AGAIN WE HAVE LARGER LOTS.

SO THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE THROUGH ALL THE VARIANCE DISCUSSIONS -- ALL WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS CONSISTENCY WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. I THINK THESE CHARTS DRIVE THAT POINT HOME. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT OUR NEIGHBORS ARE.

THE POINT OF THE EIGHT VARIANCES YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IS TO ACHIEVE THE SAME THING. THAT THESE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE AROUND US WERE GRANTED. WE LOST THE ABILITY TO ASK FOR WHAT THESE NEIGHBORHOODS WERE GRANTED THROUGH THE PRD CODE.

SO WE FOUND AN ALTERNATIVE WAY OF PRESENTING THE SAME THING TO YOU USING THE RS THREE CODE AND THE VARIANCES.

SO I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THE ONLY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THESE TWO COMMUNITIES IS FUNCTION.

THE FORM WILL BE THE SAME. SO THE PROCESS WE ARE GOING THROUGH TO GET TO THIS POINT IS DIFFERENT.UT THE FUNCTION WE END UP WITH IS THE SAME. GOING TO THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL. AS WE MENTIONED, WE ARE PROPOSING 210 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WITH THE 2.86 ACRE PARK.

UP IN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND SIDE.

I'LL GO OVER THIS RATHER QUICKLY.

WE HAVE THE DESIGNER THIS EVENING.

AND SHE CAN GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE THINGS.

AN INTERESTING THING IS SHE IS ALSO THE DESIGNER FOR BOTH FOR SEASON AND PARKLAND BAY. SO SHE CAN SPEAK OF THE SIMILARITIES OF THESE COMMUNITIES.

WE HAVE A RESORT STYLE CLUBHOUSE AND AMENITIES.I WOULD HASTEN TO ADD THAT IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRD CODE IN TERMS OF THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF SPACE.

I THINK IT'S 4200 SQUARE FEET WE ARE PROPOSING.

WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PRD CODE.

AGAIN, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED, THIS WOULD ANNEX GATOR ACRES TO THE CITY OF PARKLAND.IN THE 2.6 ACRE PARK WE DISCUSSED.

AND WE WILL GET INTO THIS WHEN MS. TOOMER GETS UP HERE TO DISCUSS. I PUT THE PROJECT DATA IN HERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'VE GOT LOTS OF OPEN SPACE.

18.69 PERCENT OF OPEN SPACE TRACTS AND BUFFERS.

ADD TO THAT THE RECREATIONAL PARCEL AND LAKE PARCEL -- WE HAVE OPEN SPACE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRD CODE.

AS MENTIONED, WE ARE ALSO PROCESSING A PLAT.

IN THIS CASE, THE PROPERTY WILL BE RESTRICTED TO 210 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. THAT'S INCLUDING THE GATOR ACRES PROPERTY. SO IT WILL BE WRITTEN IN STONE ONCE THE PLAT HAS BEEN APPROVED.

AND WITH THAT, I LIKE TO TURN THINGS OVER TO MS. TUMA AND SHE CAN WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE SITE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS.

[01:05:10]

>> GOOD EVENING. WENDY TUMA WITH URBAN DESIGN STUDIOS. THIS IS THE PROPOSED GATED ENTRY. WE ALSO HAVE A SECONDARY EGRESS LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE PARK. THE SITE IS A TOTAL OF 210 UNITS.HESE ARE COMPRISED OF TWO DIFFERENT LOT SIZES AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE TWO COLORS. 143 OF THE 53 -- SPACE ON THE SITE, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURITY REGULATIONS. THIS IS MADE UP OF FOUR LAKES.

ALL OF THE LAKES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW PURITY REGULATIONS, WHICH REQUIRE ONE SIDE OF THE LAKE TO BE OPEN TO THE RESIDENCE AND NOT SURROUNDED BY LOTS.

WE MET THAT REGULATION. WE ALSO PROVIDE A CENTRALLY LOCATED RECREATIONAL PARCEL, A LINEAR PARK, AND OF COURSE, THE 2.8 PARK DEDICATION IN THE NORTHWEST.

AND I WILL JUST BRIEFLY GO OVER THE BUFFER THAT WE ARE PROVIDING. IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH ANY OF THE PROJECTS ON LOX ROAD, THEY HAVE A 40 FOOT WIDE, DECORATIVE BERM AND BUFFER, WITH AN EIGHT FOOT WIDE PATH.

WE ARE GOING TO BE CONTINUING THAT.

AND IT WILL PROVIDE A GREAT CONNECTION TO THE FUTURE PARK.

WE ALSO HAVE A 40 FOOT WIDE BUFFER WITH A SOLID FENCE ADJACENT TO THE SITE. AND THE OTHER TWO SITES HAVE A

25 FOOT WIDE BUFFER AND BERM. >> NEXT, MR. BARBARA -- MR. BARBARA IS OUR CIVIL ENGINEER AND HE HAS A BRIEF

PRESENTATION. >> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS BILL BARBARELLA. I'M GOING TO GO OVER SOME OF THE DRAINAGE DESIGN FOR THE PROJECT.

I'M GOING TO TRY TO KEEP IT FAIRLY DIRECT.

WE HAVE RECENTLY RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN AND THEY WILL BE ISSUING THEIR PERMIT.

WE RECEIVED THAT APPROVAL BASED ON THIS DESIGN.

THIS SITE WAS DESIGNED SIMILAR TO THE PHASE 1, WHERE WE ARE DISCHARGING DIRECTLY TO THE HILLSBORO CANAL.

SO WE ARE NOT TIED INTO THE NORTH SPRINGS APARTMENT DISTRICT DRAINAGE BASIN. FOR THAT REASON, OUR CONTROL ELEVATION IS WITHIN THE HILLSBORO CANAL, WHICH IS NINE.

SO WITH THE DESIGN, AND ALL OF THE SITUATIONS GOING ON IN PARKLAND, THE SITE HAS BEEN DESIGNED AT HIGHER ELEVATIONS.

OUR FINISHED FLOOR IS SET AS ELEVATION 15.7, WHICH IS PROBABLY IN THE RANGE OF 2 AND A HALF FEET HIGHER THAN PARKLAND BAY. WE ARE IN PROXIMITY -- WE ARE PROBABLY, MAYBE SIX INCHES HIGHER THAN FOUR SEASONS STOP WHICH IS COMPARABLE. FOR THE SITES, WE HAVE GONE AND MADE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS. FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT.UT AS AN OVERALL SYSTEM, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE COLORED ALL THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IN RED.

EVERY LOT WILL HAVE A REAR LOT DRAINAGE.

EVEN THE LAKEFRONT LOTS WILL HAVE REAR LOT DRAINAGE.

TO MAKE SURE ALL DRAINAGE IS COLLECTED PER LOT NO MATTER THE LANDSCAPING SITUATION. AND IT WILL DISCHARGE TO THE PONDS, WHICH STAGE. AND WE HAVE ONE OUTFALL.O THE HILLSBORO CANAL.WE DESIGNED WITH THE PERIMETER BERM. THAT PERIMETER BERM IS ESTABLISHED BASED ON 25 YEAR, THREE DAY STORM EVENT STAGE.

[01:10:05]

THAT'S WHY WE PRESENTED OUR LOWEST PERIMETER BERM ELEVATION. THIS IS COMPARABLE TO FOUR SEASONS. WITH THAT, I JUST WANT TO GO INTO SOME OF THE DESIGN THAT WAS DONE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS. THIS IS AN EXHIBIT THAT'S PART OF THE PLANTS. THIS WAS DESIGNED -- IT WAS BASED ON COORDINATION THROUGH THE APPLICANT WITH THE CITY TO CIRCUMVENT SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT THEY ARE HAVING SLEPT WITH A WIDER SIDE SETBACK -- I WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS SECTION AA. WHAT IS PROPOSED IS THAT THE LAST TWO FEET OF FILL WILL BE CLEAN SAND.

THE ENTIRE SIDE YARDS. THIS ALLOWS FOR BETTER PERCOLATION. WE ALSO HAVE REQUIREMENTS IN THE ENGINEERING PLANS FOR THE BUILDERS TO STAGGER THE AC UNITS. SO THERE IS NOT A BLOCKAGE THERE. THEY WILL BE STAGGERED SO IT ALLOWS FOR GRADING. ALL LOTS ALSO HAVE A HIGH POINT IN THE MIDDLE AND GRADED IN THE FRONT AND THE BACK.

WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE HOMEBUILDER IS THAT ALL OF THE ROOF DRAINS WILL BE TIED INTO A NETWORK OF PIPING THAT CONNECTS TO THE BACK REAR YARD DRAIN. EVERYTHING FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE BACK IS DRAINED TO THE REAR YARD DRAINS, WHICH TIES BACK INTO THE STREETS DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

EVEN FURTHER, WE ARE PROPOSING -- WHICH IS IN COORDINATION WITH THE CITY -- THAT WE WILL HAVE A FRONT YARD UNDER DRAIN.

THIS IS BASICALLY AN INFILTRATION SYSTEM WHERE IT COLLECTS ANY WATER THAT WOULD FALL IN THE FRONT YARD OR DRIVEWAY. AND THAT IS ALSO TIED INTO THE YARD DRAIN SYSTEM. WE'VE GONE AND SEPARATED THIS.

YOU CAN SEE THROUGH OUR SECTION, THAT IT ALLOWS FOR FENCING AND LANDSCAPING TO GO IN.

AT THIS NETWORK OF PIPING WILL GO TO THE BACK REAR YARD DRAINS AND TIE INTO THE SYSTEM.O WE HAVE MADE PROVISIONS FOR THESE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL HOMEBUILDERS AND WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT MATCHES THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE BEING RETROFITTED TO SOME OF THE COMMUNITIES.

WE'VE SET IT UP HIGHER. WE ARE CONFIDENT WITH THE SYSTEM AND WE ARE CONFIDENT WITH THE ELEVATIONS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING. IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BUT THIS IS REALLY BASIC --

>> (INDISCERNIBLE). >> THE CONTROL ELEVATION?

>> (INDISCERNIBLE). >> CERTAINLY.

>> OKAY. I'LL PASS IT ON TO SUSAN.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YEP.

>> HI I'M SUSAN O'ROURKE TRAFFIC ENGINEER WITHO'ROURKE TRAFFIC AND PLANNING. WE BEEN ANALYZING THE SITE AND ALL OF ITS FORMS AND NUMBERS AND TYPES OF LAND-USE .

BASICALLY, THIS IS JUST THE LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLE.

WE USE THE DATA FROM BROWARD COUNTY, AS WELL AS THE CITY OF PARKLAND. YOU WILL HAVE YOUR OWNED ANALYSES. AND WE LOOKED AT BOTH OF THEM.

IT'S PART OF A WORST-CASE SCENARIO BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT COMMITTED TRIPS. WE ARE LOOKING AT GROWTH RATE IN ADDITION TO THE COMMITTED TRIPS.

SO WE HAVE EXISTING. WE HAVE GROWTH AND OTHER PROJECTS, AS WELL AS THE PROJECT OF TRAFFIC ADDED IN.

I ADDED A COLUMN THAT WASN'T IN THE REPORT THAT JUST GAVE A LEVEL OF SERVICE LETTER.O EVERYTHING IS IN THE CMD, WHICH IS ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH OR WITHOUT THE PROJECT.

[01:15:07]

>> GOOD EVENING, AGAIN -- COULD YOU PUT UP -- NOT THIS SLIDE.

THE COMPARISON SLIDE, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE.

IN SOME -- IN SUMMATION OF EVERYTHING, I JUST REALLY WANT TO FOCUS. I SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF MY REMARKS THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS OF AVELLO AND ROGERS HIT UPON IMPORTANT QUESTIONS EARLY ON. WITH RESPECT TO THE NEIGHBORING DEVELOPMENT. WE WENT THROUGH THIS AND QUITE DETAIL WITH THIS CHART AND THE NEXT ONE.

AND THEY SHOW WHAT'S IMPORTANT. THE VARIANCES, WHICH IS A DEVIATION PERHAPS FROM THE NORM OF WHAT YOU MIGHT DO.

ALL IT DOES IS CREATE A PROJECT HERE THAT IS COMPLETELY COMPATIBLE AND HARMONIOUS WITH NOT JUST THE TWO -- BUT LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT THE TWO RIGHT NOW.THE TWO PROJECTS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO OUR PROPOSED PROJECT.THAT'S PARKLAND BAY AND FOUR SEASONS. SO INITIALLY, WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE VARIANCES, THE FIRST REACTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN, OH MY GOSH, LOOK HOW SUBSTANTIAL THIS REQUEST IS.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORING DEVELOPMENTS, THAT ARE IN THE WEDGE. AND HOW THE WEDGE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, YOU SEE THIS IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT.

AND I COULD BRING UP THE SECOND SLIDE, IF YOU WANT, JEFF, WITH RESPECT TO WATER CREST AND HERON BABE.

HERON BAY IS NOT IN THE WEDGE BUT WATER CREST IS.

AND YOU CAN SEE, AGAIN, CONSISTENCY.ONE OR TWO SLIGHT DEVIATIONS -- BUT GENERALLY, WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS CONSISTENCY WITH WHAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED OUT THERE.

AND THAT IS REALLY WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

AND WE ARE REALLY THE LEAST DESIRABLE PROPERTY OF ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED.

HERE IN BAKE, WATER CREST, PARKLAND BAY, FOUR SEASONS -- PWE ARE THE LEAST DESIRABLE OF ALL OF THEM.

AND CERTAINLY, THE LEAST DESIRABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE TOWER THAT WAS LOCATED ON OUR SITE.

SO WHEN YOU CONSIDER THIS, YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD POLICY FOR THIS CITY, ETC.? IS IT NOT GOOD POLICY TO HAVE A PROJECT THAT FILLS OUT THE LAST UNDEVELOPED PIECE? THAT IS HARMONIOUS AND CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS? THAT WERE CREATED AND BUILT OUT THERE RECENTLY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS? WE BELIEVE THAT BENEFITS TO THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS THE DEDICATION OF THE PARK, AND THE COMMITMENT THAT WE HAVE MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE PART.

BRINGING GATOR ACRES AND SUBJECT TO THE CITY REGULATION.

HAVING THREE SEPARATE PARCELS OF PROPERTY -- SABRA, SID, GATOR ACRES DEVELOPED AS ONE UNIFIED SITE INSTEAD OF THREE SEPARATE SITES OR TWO SEPARATE SITES.

ONE UNIFIED, COHESIVE LAND. WE BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT THE CITY WOULD WANT. WE BELIEVE THAT THE RELEASE OF THE AGE RESTRICTION IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT MAKES PARKLAND THE GREAT CITY THAT IT IS TODAY.

AND THE MAXIMUM DENSITY IS ACTUALLY, IN REALITY, 2.73 UNITS PER ACRE AS WAS EXPLAINED.

SO WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL FOR THE ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.ND IFI CAN, I NEED A LITTLE TIME LATER FOR A REBUTTAL.

AND IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE. THANK YOU AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M NOW GOING TO GO AMONGST OURSELVES AND HAVE A DISCUSSION.

I'M GOING TO START WITH DEREK. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? TEXT THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

[01:20:04]

I DIDN'T SEE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE ORDINANCE FOR THE 55 AND OLDER. IS THERE ANY REASON THERE WAS NO RECOMMENDATION MADE? I'M REFERENCING THAT?

>> THE 55+ -- IT IS A LEGISLATIVE ITEM.

IT WAS A CONDITION OF THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT ORDINANCES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY PUT IN PLACE FOR THE SID.

IT'S PURELY UP TO THE BOARD. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR STAFF. I DON'T KNOW IF CAITLIN HAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. BUT WHILE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE 55+ -- I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT SHOULD YOU APPROVE THAT AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IT'S CONDITIONED ON APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN. SO IF YOU ARE OKAY WITH APPROVING THE 55+ -- JUST KEEP IN MIND IT'S NOT ONE OF THESE OH, I NOW APPROVE THE 55+ BUT I'M NOT HAPPY WITH THE SITE PLAN. IN LIGHT OF THAT, IT'S AN CONDITION OF THAT APPROVAL. IN THE SITE PLAN AND VARIANCES

ARE TIED TOGETHER IN ONE ITEM. >> THANK YOU.

ADDITIONALLY I NOTICED THAT CAITLIN, YOU SHOWED US A SLIDE EARLIER. CAN WE SEE THAT AGAIN?

>> I BELIEVE THE SLIDE YOU ARE REFERRING TO IS THE SLIDE WHICH IS THE CRITERIA FROM THE CODE ITSELF.

I'M HAPPY TO PULL THAT UP IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW IT.

>> YES, PLEASE. >> I BELIEVE THIS IS THE SLIDE

YOU ARE REFERRING TO. >> THANK YOU.

THESE ARE THE ISSUES THEY WENT OVER AS WELL.

WAS THERE ALSO A STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PLAT

APPROVAL? >> THE PLAT IS MORE OF A TECHNICAL APPLICATION. SO LONG AS THE VARIANCES IN THE SITE PLAN ARE APPROVED, THEN STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PLAT AS WELL. NOTING THAT THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THE FINAL PLAT WILL COME BACK FOR FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.T WON'T COME BACK PTO THIS BORDER CITY COMMISSION. IT COMES BACK FOR

(INDISCERNIBLE) APPROVAL. >> I KNOW I WASN'T AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT THERE WAS A SCHOOL BOARD STUDY DETERMINING THE

SCHOOL CAPACITY? >> YES.

PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS IS TO ACCUMULATE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS. IN WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO IS CALLED A SCAD LETTER. WE DID OBTAIN A SCAD LETTER.

THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY FOR THIS PROJECT.

AND IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I LEFT SOMETHING OUT OF MY PRESENTATION. THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST MENTIONED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

I LIKE TO GO ON THE RECORD THAT THERE ARE TWO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT WE DO OBJECT TO. I CAN GO THROUGH THEM IF YOU'D

LIKE? >> WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT AND PUT IT ON THE RECORD AT THIS TIME.

>> THIS WOULD BE ON PAGE 11 OF 19 ON YOUR STAFF REPORT.

THE FIRST ONE IS CONDITION NUMBER D. AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL --

>> JEFF, I NEED YOU TO READ INTO THE MICROPHONE.

>> I'M SORRY. IT WOULD BE CONDITION D AS IN DOG. ON PAGE 11 OF 19.

AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF THE COMMUNITY ENTRANCE FEATURES, AMANDA GUARDHOUSE SHALL BE PREQUIRED. PROVISION OF A GUARDHOUSE SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE PERPETUITY OF THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. WE DO NOT AGREE TO THAT.E

[01:25:06]

AND IT WOULD PLACE A TREMENDOUS FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY. SO WE OBJECT TO THAT ONE.

AND THE SECOND ONE THAT WE OBJECT TO WOULD BE ON THE NEXT PAGE, AT THE VERY TOP -- G. IT IS DETERMINED BY THE -- OH, IF IT IS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER TO BE FEASIBLE, THE APPLICANT SHALL REVISE ENTRANCE DESIGN TO THE POINT OF VEHICULAR ACCESS GATES RATHER THAN THE CALL BOX AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED. AGAIN, WE FEEL THAT IS NOT A CODE REQUIREMENT. IT'S VERY TIGHT SPACE IN THERE.

>> IN THE MICROPHONE. >> I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD THAT WE OBJECT TO BOTH OF THOSE CONDITIONS.

OTHERWISE, WE AGREE WITH ALL PTHE OTHER CONDITIONS SUGGESTED

BY STEP. >> THANK YOU.

>> ON THAT NOTE, IN YOUR COMPARISON TO ALL THE OTHER COMMUNITIES, (INDISCERNIBLE) MANNED GUARD GATES, IS THAT CORRECT? WATERCRESS DOES? FOUR SEASONS -- THEY DO? OKAY.

>> (INDISCERNIBLE). >> THERE IS ALSO THE CONCEPT OF CRITICAL MASS. AND WE ARE CONSIDERABLY SMALLER THAN THESE OTHER COMMUNITIES. IT WOULD BE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE RESIDENCE TO HAVE A 24 SEVEN MANNED GUARDHOUSE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.

>> SO I GET THE SMALLER LOTS. IT'S SIMILAR TO OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THAT. I LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN -- TWO THIRDS OF THE LOTS ARE SMALLER. AND THE ARGUMENT OR THE APPROACH I'M HEARING IS THAT -- PARAPHRASE IN YOUR WORDS -- NOT A DESIRABLE SPOT.T'S GOT THIS UGLY TOWER.

YOU WANT TO HAVE IT IN THE CITY OF PARKLAND WHERE WE ARE PRIDEFUL OF OUR COMMUNITIES. IT'S AN UGLY PIECE OF PROPERTY NEAR THIS UGLY TOWER AND WE WANT TO SQUEEZE IN AS MUCH AS WE CAN ON A TINY SITE. IT DOESN'T SIT RIGHT TO ME.O EVEN THOUGH THE DENSITIES MIGHT BE SIMILAR, I'M JUST NOT UNDERSTANDING THE ARGUMENT OF JUST BEING LIKE THE OTHERS, WHEN IT'S THE UGLIEST PIECE OF PROPERTY IN PARKLAND.

AND THAT'S HOW YOU ARE DESCRIBING IT.

SO I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. CAN UNDERSTAND HAVING A FEW SMALL SITES THERE.BUT TWO THIRDS OF ALL THE SITES THERE ARE THE SMALLEST. AND IF YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE TOGETHER, THAT'S ABOUT SEVEN HOUSES WITHIN ONE ACRE.

I KNOW THAT'S PROBABLY NOT HOW WE LOOK AT DENSITY.

BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, I SEE ABOUT SEVEN HOUSES PER ACRE. THAT'S SCARY TO ME.

THEN I FEEL LIKE WE ARE ON THE DOUBLE EDGED SWORD.

BECAUSE IF WE DON'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS, POTENTIAL WORKFORCE HOUSING OR FOR FIVE-STORY MULTI-FAMILY -- IT'S VERY DISCONCERTING TO ME. SO THE OTHER ARGUMENT I HEARD WERE ALL THESE CONCESSIONS -- IT'S JUST MONEY.

IT'S NOT DOING ANYTHING GREAT FOR THE PROPERTY IN MY OPINION.

YOU KNOW, THE COUPLE OTHER DIFFERENCES -- AND I'M NOT SURE OF THE ERALL PICTURE -- ALL THESE OTHER PROPERTIES WERE APPROVED AND DEVELOPED. AND I THINK BEFORE WHAT WE KNEW WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. SO THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT MAKES ME CONCERNED ABOUT THE DENSITY.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TWO ENTRANCES.

THEY ARE BOTH ON LOX ROAD AND THAT CONCERNS ME AS FAR AS TRAFFIC. I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT THE 55 AND OLDER. I THINK IT SEEMS LIKE THE CITY IS PRETTY WELL REPRESENTED. AND IN MY OPINION, THE TIMELINE ON THE SALES OF THOSE PROPERTIES SEEM TO BE LACKING IN THE WORLD OF THE HOTTEST MARKET (INDISCERNIBLE).

MAYBE I'M WRONG. BUT I THINK WE ARE REPRESENTED FIND THERE. I JUST FEEL LIKE WE ARE LOOKING

[01:30:01]

WHETHER YOU ARE GOING BY THE CHARTER SCHOOL OR GOING DOWN CORAL RIDGE. THERE IS STILL A LOT OF TRAFFIC THERE. SO I'M NOT SAYING I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. I'M JUST MAKING SURE WE ARE VERY WELL AWARE -- IT'S A PICKLE.

AND JUST BECAUSE THERE WERE PAST APPROVALS DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT TO KEEP APPROVING THE SAME STUFF THAT IS CREATING MORE PROBLEMS. SO I'M INTERESTED IN HEARING WHAT MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS AND THE CHAIR HAVE TO SAY BEYOND MY THOUGHTS. BECAUSE I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS. THAT'S ALL.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, TODD.

TONY? >> I LOVE THE DRAINAGE.

IMPRESSIVE. MR. BARBERA? MAYBE YOU COULD SPRINKLE THAT ARE ROUND THE REST OF THE CITY WHILE YOU ARE PUTTING THAT IN? BUT IT STOPS THERE IN TERMS OF WHAT I LOVE. I FIND THE SITE PLAN UNREMARKABLE. THIS IS THE CLASSIC 10 POUNDS OF BALONEY IN THE FIVE POUND BAG.

I SEE ISSUES WITH STREET PARKING.

SMALL DRIVEWAYS. HAVE WE DEPARTED IN 2019 AND CHANGE THE CODES AS WE WERE DEALING WITH ISSUES IN THE CITY WITH PARKING AND STREET PARKING.

AND PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO PARK ON DRIVEWAYS.

PEOPLE NOT PARKING IN THEIR GARAGES.

PUTTING ALL THE CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY AND THE STREET.T WAS A CLUTTERED MESS. THAT'S WHY WE DEPARTED AND MADE THOSE CHANGES. I WOULD ADVISE THE CITY COMMISSION -- I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SITE PLAN ABSENT THE VARIANCES. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS AN EFFORT HERE WITH THIS SPACE TO DO THIS SITE. WITHOUT ANY VARIANCES AT ALL? I'D LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. AND I WOULD ADVISE THE CITY COMMISSION IF THEY COULD GET HOLD OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I LOOK AT THE VARIANCES AS SELF-IMPOSED.

YOU ALL DECIDED TO PUT THE 10 POUNDS OF BALONEY IN THE FIVE POUND BAG. I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS CONSISTENCY WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. THAT'S THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL. I'LL ASK THE STAFF -- CONSISTENCY WITH OUR NEIGHBORS, IS THAT A CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE

APPROVAL? >> IT'S MORE SO IN LINE OF

REZONING. >> I'M JUST USING THE WORDS OF

THE DEVELOPER. >> RIGHT.

>> CONSISTENCY WITH OUR NEIGHBORS IS A SONG WE CONSISTENTLY HEAR ABOUT THE VARIANCES.

IS THAT A CRITERIA FOR APPROVING A VARIANCE THAT -- WELL, THEY HAVEN'T NEXT-DOOR SO WE WANT IT.

>> RIGHT. NO.

>> THANK YOU. IN TERMS OF THE DILEMMA, ABOUT THE WORKFORCE HOUSING, I THINK IT'S A BIG BLUFF.

A BIG OLD BLUFF. IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO THERE AND DO IT, YOU WOULD HAVE DONE IT ALREADY.

>> SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BOND. HERE'S THE DEVELOPER GOING TO GET HIS WATER FROM? WHERE IS HE GOING TO GET IT FROM? IS SID GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DEAL WITH THE COUNTY? NO, THEY ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY (INDISCERNIBLE) IN THE CITY.

I THINK IT'S A BIG OLD BLUFF AND I THINK YOU ALL KNOW IT.

AND I HOPE THE CITY COMMISSION IS LISTENING.ND THEY LOOK INTO THAT. I LOVE THE DRAINAGE.

THAT'S IT. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, TONY. NATHANIEL.

>> KNOWING MR. MOSCOWITZ FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND HAVING BEEN

[01:35:03]

I WOULD NOT HOWEVER HIRE YOU TO WORK AT THE SALES CENTER OF THE COMMUNITY THAT EVENTUALLY GETS KILLED HERE (LAUGHING).

IN LIGHT OF YOUR COMMENTS WITH REGARDS TO THE DESIRABILITY OF THE PROPERTY. AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS WORKED IN REAL ESTATE FOR 16 YEARS, WE ALL KNOW THAT LOCATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REAL ESTATE. SO I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. MOST OF WHICH ARE FOR STAFF.

CAITLIN, I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE IN THE FIVE VARIANCE CRITERIA. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE VARIANCES A LITTLE BIT. I KNOW THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED AGAINST THE VARIANCE.

SO TO START WITH, CAN YOU RUN THROUGH THE FIVE CRITERIA AND WHAT ABOUT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES STAFF VIEWS AS NOT BEING CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THOSE CRITERIA ARE?

>> CERTAINLY. I'LL PREFACE OUR COMMENTARY BY SAYING THAT THIS IS A POLICY DECISION.

OF COURSE, WHICH WAS NOTED FOR DENIAL.

HOWEVER THE BOARD AND COMMISSION ARE BOTH ABLE TO REVIEW THE CRITERIA AND MAKE THEIR OWN FINDINGS.

WHETHER THAT IS IN AGREEMENTS OR SOMETHING TO THE CONTRARY.

>> CAITLAN, FOR ME, I WENT TO LIVE SCHOOL TO AVOID ENGINEERING, MATH, AND BEING ABLE TO EVALUATE PRETTY PICTURES AND DECIDE IF THEY ARE ANY GOOD.

I KNOW THAT MR. AVELLO HAS SAID THIS IN A NUMBER OF US HAVE SAID THIS -- WE RELY ON STAFF FOR YOUR PROFESSIONAL ADVICE.

AND WHEN THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF, I TAKE IT EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. AND I WILL THEN GO AND VOTE.

SO IF YOU COULD GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL AS TO WHAT ABOUT THE VARIANCES, IN THE STAFF'S VIEWS, DIDN'T MEET THE CRITERIA. I KNOW IT'S ULTIMATELY A POLICY DECISION FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE.

BUT I KNOW FOR FACT THAT THE COMMISSION RELIES ON STAFF FOR ITS PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION WHO IS A PLANNER.

SO I'M SURE THEY ARE RELYING ON YOU AS WELL.

>> SURE. I'LL START BY ADDRESSING THE TOWER, SINCE THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONSISTENT REASONS THAT THE APPLICANT STATED THEY NECESSITATED THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS. THE TOWER, AND STAFF'S OPINION, DOESN'T HAVE A DIRECT NEXUS ON THE SITE PLAN ITSELF.

IT'S SEPARATED BY A THREE ACRE PARK.

TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, NOT MINIMUM SEPARATION CRITERIA.

IF YOU HAVE A TOWER THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING AND YOU WERE PROPOSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO IT.

SO THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EXISTING TOWER AND THE SITE PLAN IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF STRUGGLED WITH.

OTHER THAN, OF COURSE, THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THAT.

IT DEGRADES PROPERTY VALUES. BUT THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IS

NOT SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERED. >> CAN I STOP YOU FOR A SECOND? I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER COMMUNITIES IN PARKLAND THAT HAD BEEN ADJACENT TO VERY TALL TOWERS.

THE BEASLEY PROPERTY ON THE CORNER OF HILLSBORO AND NOT HILL HAD THREE LARGE RADIO TOWERS ON IT.

IN THE MIRROR LAGO COMMUNITY BACKS UP TO IT.

I KNOW THAT FOR FACT SUCK BECAUSE MY HOUSE BACKS UP TO THE PROPERTY WHICH HAD THREE RADIO TOWERS.

IS THERE ANYONE ON STAFF WHO WAS HERE BACK THEN WHO COULD COMMENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT VARIANCES WERE SOUGHT, REQUESTED OR GRANTED IN THE MERRILL LAGO COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE ADJACENT TOWERS TO THE PROPERTY? I KNOW, CAITLIN, YOU WEREN'T HERE THEN.

I KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER MEMBERS OF STAFF MIGHT BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON THAT. DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHETHER OR NOT A VARIANCE WAS REQUESTED FROM THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE THEY WERE ADJACENT TO VERY TALL TOWERS? THREE OF THEM, IN FACT? OKAY.

CAITLIN, IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE ON.

>> SURE. THE SECOND REASON THE APPLICANT STATED THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE DISTRICTS STANDARDS IS THE CODE AMENDMENT.

AND AS SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS DISCUSSED, THERE ARE REASONS THAT THE CODE WAS CHANGED IN THE PRD.

UNFORTUNATELY, FOR THE APPLICANT, THE TIMING WORKED OUT SO THAT THE PRD WAS REVISED TO CREATE MORE AESTHETICALLY

[01:40:05]

SO THE CODE ITSELF CANNOT BE A HARDSHIP THAT'S A COMMON PLANNING UNDERSTANDING. SO THE CODE ITSELF CANNOT BE HARDSHIP. SO THE FACT THAT THE CODE HAS CHANGED CANNOT BE A REASON TO NECESSITATE A VARIANCE.

>> ABOUT THAT IN PARTICULAR -- SO THIS PARTICULAR SITE PLAN THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT TONIGHT, THIS WOULD NOT MEET THE CURRENT

PARITY, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> WOULD THIS HAVE MET THE PRE-2019 PRD CRITERIA?

>> THERE WASN'T A FORMAL ANALYSIS OF THEM.

THE APPLICANT DID PRESENT SOME SIMILARITIES IN TERMS OF THE SETBACKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THERE IS A LIKELIHOOD THAT IT IS MORE COMPATIBLE. BUT A STRICT REVIEW WAS NOT CONDUCTED UNDER THE OLD PRD STANDARDS.

>> UNDER THE OLD PRD STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN REFERENCED TONIGHT, BOTH PARKLANDBAY, FOUR SEASONS -- MIRROR LAGO -- PARKLAND BAY IS AT 1.4 UNITS PER ACRE, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> SO WITH 1.4 UNITS PER ACRE, EVEN OF THE LOTS WERE THE SAME SIZE AS THESE LOTS, THE OVERALL PROJECT WOULD HAVE FAR MORE GREEN SPACE, CORRECT? OR -- FAR MORE UNUSED AND UNBUILT SPACE, CORRECTLY.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING, THE PARKLAND BAY SITE REPRESENTED THAT THERE IS APPROXIMATELY SIX FEET OF OPEN SPACE DUE TO THE

LARGE LAKE. >> UNDERSTOOD.

THERE IS NO LARGE LAKE ON THE SITE PLAN.

SO IF THEY WANTED TO HAVE (INDISCERNIBLE) SIZE HOUSES FOR PHASE 2 AND HAVE A LARGE LAKE IN THE MIDDLE, WE WOULD HAVE

FAR FEWER HOUSES THAN 210? >> CORRECT.

>> SO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SCOTT, WATERCRESS AND MIRROR LAGO. EACH OF THOSE I THINK WERE TWO

UNITS PER LATE:ACRE, CORRECT? >> YES.

WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE COMMUNITIES IN THE WEDGE AT THIS POINT, EXCEPT FOR FOUR SEASONS, WHICH HAS

(INDISCERNIBLE). >> THE DIFFERENCE THERE BEING IT'S THREE UNITS PER ACRE (INDISCERNIBLE).

AND IT'S ALSO PRD, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

ALL THE COMMUNITIES IN THE WEDGE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED UNDER THE PRD STANDARDS AS THE ZONING DESIGNATION.

>> CONTINUING ON WITH THE FIVE CRITERIA.

I THINK WE GOT THERE NUMBER 2. >> WE TALKED ABOUT THE TOWER AND THE CODE ITSELF NOT BEING A HARDSHIP.

THE APPLICANT NOTES THE UNUSUAL SHAPE LARGELY POINTING TO THE FLAGPOLE PARCEL. I THINK THAT'S HOW IT'S REFERRED TO. THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED ON THAT FLAGPOLE PARCEL.HEY ARE NOT TRYING TO WORK RESIDENTIAL LOTS AROUND THAT.

IT WAS USED FOR PASSIVE OPEN SPACE THERE.

THE UNUSUAL SPACE, IF IT'S STRICTLY INTERPRETED TO BEING THE FLAGPOLE PARCEL THAT CREATES THAT UNUSUAL SPACE, THERE IS NO REAL HARDSHIP THERE.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT OTHER THAN THE PASSIVE

RECREATIONAL SPACE. >> RIGHT.

IF IT WAS JUST THE FLEXIBLE -- I'M JUST GONNA CALL THE PASSIVE SPACE. IF THAT'S ONLY PROPERTY IN QUESTION, MAYBE A VARIANCE MIGHT BE NEEDED TO DEVELOP ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY GIVEN ITS UNUSUAL SIZE.

BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE PROPERTY AS A WHOLE LOOKS ROUGHLY -- A

RECTANGLE? >> THE BALANCE OF THE PROPERTY IS RELATIVELY AVERAGE IN SHAPE OR SIZE.

>> ALL RIGHT. CONTINUING ON WITH THE

CRITERIA, PLEASE? >> THERE ARE MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS. AT SOME POINT, BEFORE THE SITE PLAN TO WORK, THE GATOR ACRE PROPERTY (INDISCERNIBLE) AS WELL AS WITH THE CITY'S ZONING DESIGNATION.

WILL ULTIMATELY BE APPLIED TO THE GATOR ACRES PARCEL.

MAKING EVERYTHING CONSISTENT AT THE END OF THE DAY ACROSS THE BOARD WITH CITY LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS.

WHILE THE MULTIPLE JURISDICTION DESIGNATES UP PROCESSING HEADACHE, IT DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO NECESSITATING

VARIANCES.>> THEY COULDN'T CHOOSE TO DEVELOP GATOR ACRES AS A SEPARATE PARCEL? AND JUST CHOOSE TO HAVE THE SABRA AND NSID PARCELS AS ITS OWN SEPARATE COMMUNITY,

[01:45:10]

CORRECT? >> CORRECT

>> OF THE LAST CRITERIA.>> THE LAST ITEM WAS ADJACENCY TO WILDLIFE PRESERVES . NOT EXACTLY RELEVANT TO THE MINIMUM LOT STANDARDS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED IN TERMS OF THE DEVIATIONS THAT ARE REQUESTED. THE ADJACENCY TO THE WILDLIFE PRESERVES ISN'T -- STAFF WAS STRUGGLING TO SEE THE NEXUS

THERE. >> I'VE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS THAT ARE UNRELATED TO THE VARIANCE.

AND I'LL OPEN IT TO WHOEVER CAN ANSWER THESE.

MR. MAAS WHICH MENTIONED THERE ARE TWO TOWERS.

THERE'S THE TOWER THAT'S ON THE GATOR ACRES PROPERTY AS A RESULT OF THE 911 CELL EXPANSION.

AND THERE'S ANOTHER TOWER ACROSS THE CANAL.

SET IN BROWARD COUNTY? THE SECOND TOWER? OR IS THAT IN PALM BEACH COUNTY?

>> (INDISCERNIBLE). >> IT'S IN PALM BEACH COUNTY.

SO BROWARD COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO JUST PUT SOMETHING IN PALM BEACH COUNTY. I'LL JUST MAKE THAT AS A STATEMENT. THIS CAN GO THROUGH THE PAGES OF NOTES I HAVE HERE REAL QUICK.

THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE COMMENTED ON.

AND I LOOK TO STAFF TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING RELATING -- OR IF IT'S A CRITERIA FOR US TO BE CONSIDERING.

THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE THAT THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT'S ALL THE WAY IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BROWARD COUNTY.

AS FAR OUT -- PRETTY MUCH IN THE EVERGLADES AS HE COULD POSSIBLY GET. IT'S NOT IN THE CENTER OF THE CITY, WHERE PEOPLE WILL BE DRIVING BY IT AND SEEING IT AND EVERYTHING ELSE ALONG THOSE LINES.

IS THAT A CONSIDERATION FOR EITHER THIS ADVISORY BOARD OR FOR THE CITY COMMISSION TO DEVIATE FROM STANDARDS IN CONNECTION WITH APPROVING A SITE PLAN OR CONSIDERING A VARIANCE? JUST BECAUSE LOTS OF PEOPLE WON'T SEE SOMETHING THAT'S MAYBE NOT AS NICE --?

THAT'S NOT A CRITERIA, IS IT? >> (INDISCERNIBLE).WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FIVE CRITERIA (INDISCERNIBLE).

>> OKAY. AND AS MY STATEMENT ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, JUST BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO SEE SOMETHING EVERY SINGLE DAY AS I'M DRIVING HOME OR TO WORK DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULDN'T CONSIDER SOMETHING THAT'S OF LESSER QUALITY OR LESSER CONSIDERATION.

JUST BECAUSE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO SEE THE MOST UNDESIRABLE PROPERTY IN PARKLAND ARE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE. I THINK WE ARE HERE TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO (LAUGHING) LIVE IN IT.

IN THE CITY COMMISSION IS HERE TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO LIVE IN IT. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT DRAINAGE.

COMPARED TO THE UPFRONT RANGE PLANS AND EVERY OTHER COMMUNITY THAT HAS BEEN BUILT IN THE WEDGE, WE NOW HAVE THE BENEFIT OF (INDISCERNIBLE). I KNOW SEVERAL MONTHS AGO -- MAYBE EVEN A YEAR AGO, THERE WAS A MORATORIUM.

THERE WAS AN EXPERT CONSULTANT ON DRAINAGE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE CONDUCTING A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF DRAINAGE ISSUES IN NORTHWEST PARKLAND.

HAVE WE GOTTEN THE FINAL REPORT YET? FROM THAT CONSULTANT? BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER THAT FINAL CONSULTANTS REPORT EVER BEING BROUGHT TO THE COMMISSION. I KNOW THERE WERE COMMISSIONERS WHO WERE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT WHAT THE RESULTS OF THAT PWAS. CAN ANYBODY COMMENT ON THAT?

>> YOU WANT TO HOLD THAT UNTIL WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM THE

BOARD?>> I'M ASKING STAFF IF YOU HAVE GOTTEN THE FINAL

REPORT YET FROM THE CONSULTANT? >> I'LL DEFER THIS ONE TO THE

CITY ENGINEER ON ANSWERING THAT QUESTION.>> GOOD EVENING.

I'M THE CITY ENGINEER. WE HAVE NOT REVIEWED THE FINAL REPORT FROM THAT YET. WE EXPECT TO BE PRESENTING THAT

IN NOVEMBER. >> OKAY.

AND MY RECOLLECTION -- PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG -- THIS IS THE COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF DRAINAGE CONDITIONS IN THE WEDGE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS? AND ALL OF THE THINGS YOU WOULD EXPECT FROM THIS TYPE OF COMPREHENSIVE CONSULTANTS REPORT, CORRECTLY.

>> IT ADDRESSES THE ISSUES IN THE WEDGE AND THE CRITERIA THAT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THIS DRAINAGE DESIGNED.

MANY OF THEM COME FROM THE CRITERIA FROM THE REPORT.

[01:50:01]

>> OKAY. BUT ISN'T THAT REPORT SUPPOSED TO GUIDE THE COMMISSION ON THINGS SUCH AS ITS CONSIDERATION OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT -- OR ANY PROJECT HAPPENING IN THE WAY? ISN'T THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE REPORT? TO COME BACK TO STAFF AND COMMISSION? I'M NOT ASKING THAT AS A RHETORICAL QUESTION. I REMEMBER BEING AT THE MEETING. WHERE THE COMMISSIONERS -- WHERE THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED. QUESTION HOW IT IS THAT WE CAN BE LOOKING AT A SITE PLAN AND DRAINAGE PLAN WHICH, AGAIN, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, LOOKS A HELL OF A LOT BETTER THAN ANYTHING I HAVE SEEN IN THE WEDGE.

I COMMEND BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE ENGINEER FOR COMING UP WITH SOMETHING THAT, TO ME, CERTAINLY LOOKS GREAT.

BUT I WENT TO LAW SCHOOL TO AVOID MATH.

SO I HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT ENGINEERING WHATSOEVER, OTHER THAN TRIN ENGINEERING AND PNOBODY HERE IS WEARING OVERALL OR A LITTLE HAT. SO I ASSUME NONE OF YOU ARE TRAINED ENGINEERS. I QUESTION HOW WE CAN EVEN CONSIDER THE DRAINAGE PLAN AND ALL THOSE OTHER ISSUES IN THE CONTEXT OF NOT EVEN HAVING THE REPORT? SO THAT'S A COMMENT WITH THAT DS TO THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A RUSH TO CONSIDER SOME OF THESE THINGS BEFORE THAT REPORT IS ISSUED.

AND THEN, WE KNOW OR HAVE A FULL ANALYSIS FROM THE CONSULTANT WHETHER OR NOT THIS DRAINAGE SITUATION IS GOING TO PERSIST IN THE WEDGE AND IN THIS NEW COMMUNITY.

EVEN WITH THESE. I DON'T VIEW THIS AS A WIN-WIN.

I DON'T VIEW THIS AS A WIN-WIN AS PRESENTED TODAY.

I LOOK AT THIS AS A LOSE-LOSE. WE LOSE BY ACCEPTING THESE VARIANCES IN THIS SITE PLAN. AND MAYBE WE LOSE IF SOME KIND OF APARTMENT BUILDING IS BUILT IN THE MIDDLE OF A SWAMP.

I, FOR ONE, AM ALL IN FAVOR OF WORKFORCE HOUSING.

I WOULD BE ALL IN FAVOR OF THE FOUR-STORY PROPERTY BEING OUT ON GATOR ACRES AT THE END OF THE DAY.

AND IF THAT'S WHAT THE PROPER PLANNING COUNCIL ULTIMATELY SAYS IS FINE BY THEM? AND THE BROWARD COUNTY COMMISSION SAYS IT'S FINE BY THEM? AND IF YOU WERE COMPLAINING BEFORE ABOUT A TOWER SOMEHOW MAKING YOUR PROPERTY ON THE SABRA AND NSID PARCEL LESS DESIRABLE? LET ME KNOW HOW IT WORKS OUT WHEN THERE IS A 100 UNIT OR 85 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX O THE WEST. AND EVERYONE WILL HAVE TO DRIVE BY THIS PROPERTY TO GET TO THEIR HOMES.

I'M NOT AFRAID OF WORKFORCE HOUSING.

I'M NOT AFRAID OF WORKFORCE HOUSING IN PARKLAND.

BROWARD COUNTY HAS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS.

I MIGHT BE A HYPOCRITE BECAUSE I LIVE IN A NICE HOUSE IN PARKLAND. AND THERE IS NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEARBY. BUT -- IF THAT'S WHERE AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS TO GO, THEN FINE.

WE NEED IT. THE LAST THING, AND THIS IS PURELY A TRAFFIC RELATED MATTER, SO I WOULD LOOK TO THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER ON THIS ISSUE AND TO STAFF.

I REMEMER READING IN THE REPORT THAT THERE WOULD ONLY BE NINE CARS STACKING BEFORE THIS GOES OUT TO LOXAHATCHEE ROAD?

DID I READ THAT RIGHT? >> I'LL DEFER TO THE ENGINEER OR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT. (INDISCERNIBLE).

>> DID YOU NOT HEAR ME ABOUT THE MATH THING ABOUT TWO MINUTES AGO? THE PROPERTY BEFORE GETTING TO THE -- ABOUT?

[01:55:07]

SOMEBODY BALLPARK ME. >> 220 FEET.

SO THAT'S 10 CARS. >> OKAY.

THAT'S 10 CARS. BEFORE THERE WILL BE CARS ON LOCKS AND LOXAHATCHEE ROAD POTENTIALLY MAKING A LEFT TURN.

AGAIN -- MY MATH IS POOR! THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CAITLIN -- THE PRD THAT WE HAVE NOW -- THE PRD ORDINANCE THAT IS IN PLACE. 30,000 FOOT GOALS -- BOTH WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT, THE STAFF DRAFTED IT.

AND WHEN THE COMMISSION VOTED ON THAT PRD ORDINANCE.

DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE OVERARCHING GOAL WAS INTENDED TO BE? CAN YOU TELL US AGAIN AND

REMIND US? >> SURE.

ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE WERE LOOKING TO DO WAS ADDRESS SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS THAT WE HAD SEEN.

THE DRAINAGE AND PARKING. WHILE ALSO ADDRESSING SOME OF THE AESTHETIC CONCERNS. THROUGH CERTAIN URBAN DESIGN BEST PRACTICES, CREATING FAMILY-FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENTS.

SOMETHING THAT ENCOURAGES SOCIAL INTERACTIONS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. PPROMOTES LIKABILITY.

IT CREATES FUNCTIONAL AND USABLE OPEN SPACE.

AGAIN, GETTING RID OF SOME OF THE COOKIE-CUTTER AESTHETICS WHERE EVERYTHING IS IN ONE CONSISTENT LINE.

WE HAVE ANTI-MONOTONY RULES. BUT THIS TOOK IT ONE STEP FURTHER TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT IS BOTH MORE FUNCTIONAL FROM A PRAGMATIC STANDPOINT AND MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING.

>> IN ESSENCE, I REMEMBER THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT FINDING A DEVELOPER WITH FLEXIBILITY FROM THE CURRENT STANDARD CODE. IN EXCHANGE FOR PROVIDING SOMETHING UNIQUE, SOMETHING SPECIAL.

SOMETHING WITH A BENEFIT TO THE RESIDENTS THAT THEY COULD NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDE (INDISCERNIBLE).

IS THAT A WAY OF DESCRIBING IT? >> SURE.

THAT'S THE OVERARCHING GOAL OF THE PRD ITSELF.

WHAT I WAS DESCRIBING WAS SPECIFIC TO THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE FROM THE PREVIOUS ITERATION.

BUT YOU ARE CORRECT. THAT'S THE OVERARCHING INTENT

OF THE PRD DISTRICT AS A WHOLE. >> IN MY VIEW, A HYBRID -- THIS IS NOT A QUESTION, OR IT'S A RHETORICAL ONE -- HYBRID OF AN R-3 DESIGNATION AND THE PRD WOULD STILL ENCOMPASS THAT OVERARCHING GOAL. AND FITTING 10 POUNDS OF SOMETHING IN A FIVE POUND BAG, I DON'T THINK DOES IT.

I AM VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CITY.

I THINK THAT, OBVIOUSLY, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PARCEL IS IMPORTANT AND GOOD. AND I CERTAINLY WOULD CONSIDER THINGS LIKE REMOVING A 55 AND OVER DESIGNATION FOR IT.F EVERYTHING ELSE -- MET THE STANDARDS FOR WHICH I THINK ARE INTENDED FOR THIS AREA. AND I DON'T THINK THIS DOES IT.

I THINK TRYING TO FIT 210 HOMES WITH TWO THIRDS OF THEM BEING THE SMALLER ONES IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. THE DENSITY IS DOUBLE WHAT PARKLAND BAY IS. EVEN AT 2.73.

IT IS NEARLY 1/3 AS MUCH AS ANY NONRESTRICTED COMMUNITY IN THE WEDGE. AND THAT'S THE END OF MY QUESTION AND COMMENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, NATHANIEL. JOE?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'LL DO MY BEST TO NOT REPEAT WHAT SOME OF MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SAID.

WHEN THE CODE WAS CHANGED, REFLECTED ON WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE WEDGE AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN WHEN IT WAS DEVELOPED. THE DEVELOPMENT WAS COCONUT CREEK. I LIVE IN A COMMUNITY WHERE I THINK IT WAS FOUR OR 5 TO 1. THE HOUSES ARE CLOSE TOGETHER.

AND AS A COMMUNITY DEVELOPED TO THE WEST, IT WAS USED AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT NOT TO DO. AND WHEN THE WEDGE WAS DEVELOPED, AND WE'VE SEEN CERTAIN ISSUES WITH THE WEDGE AND WHAT'S HAPPENED THERE. WE MADE THESE CHANGES AND USE SOME OF THESE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS OF WHAT NOT TO DO IN MANY RESPECTS. OBVIOUSLY, THE DRAINAGE THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP IS A HUGE ISSUE.

[02:00:03]

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO PARK THERE. THAT BUTTS UP AGAINST OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE IN THE COMMUNITY.

SO YOU CAN ACCESS THE PARK. KIDS GO DOWN LOX ROAD ALL NIGHT. I KNOW THAT STEP THEIR DRIVING PAST MY HOUSE ALL HOURS OF THE NIGHT BECAUSE I LIVE IN LOX ROAD. SO THAT WAS INTERESTING.

SO I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE RESIDENTS WOULD WANT THE GUARDHOUSE. IN THAT MEASURE OF SAFETY, WHICH ON THE VARIANCE CRITERIA, (INDISCERNIBLE).

I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO MANDATE -- THE SAME THING FOR THE TWO LANES. I DON'T RECALL IF LOCKS WOULD BE THREE LANES. I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE TOO.

SO NOW WE WILL HAVE PEOPLE BACKING UP ONTO LOX ROAD.

WE ARE CREATING THE SAME PROBLEMS WE HAVE -- AND I'M SORRY, SIR, I DON'T REMEMBER YOUR NAME.

MY APOLOGIES. I FORGOT TO WRITE IT DOWN.

YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT CRITICAL MASS THERE.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE CITY IS AT CRITICAL MASS SO FAR AS TRAFFIC. AND CONGESTION IN GENERAL DUE TO THE LACK OF -- JUST IN GENERAL FROM WAY BACK WHEN.

THE REPORT REFERENCES -- NUMBER 10, I BELIEVE IT WAS.

REPORTS FROM 2016, 2018. AGAIN, THAT'S THE NONSTARTER FOR ME. WITH THE INFLUX OF PEOPLE RECENTLY AT ALL CHANGES QUICKLY.

I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CIVIL ENGINEER.

I DID LIKE THE DRAINAGE -- YOU SHOW YOUR PLANS FROM ELEVATIONS AT 1390 AND 1484. YOU ARE USING THAT AS A WATER

LEVEL HEIGHT? >> NO.

THOSE ARE BASED ON RAINFALL. SO THERE'S CRITERIA THAT IS USUALLY REQUIRED. (INDISCERNIBLE).

THE 25 YEAR THREE-DAY STORM EVENT IS WHAT YOU NEED TO MAINTAIN ON SITE. THAT'S THE HEIGHT YOU SET YOUR

PERIMETER BERMS AT. >> OKAY --

>> SO OUR PERIMETER BERM IS PROPOSED AT 1475.

IN THE 25 YEAR, THREE DAY IS (INDISCERNIBLE).

SO WE ARE WELL ABOVE THAT WITH OUR BERM.

>> OKAY. SO IF THE HOUSES ARE AT THE 1571 -- IT DOESN'T SAY HOW MANY ARE GOING TO BE THERE --

>> THAT'S THE LOWEST. MOST OF THEM WILL BE HIGHER.

THIS IS THE ONE IN FRONT OF THE CATCH BASIN.

THIS IS THE LOWEST. >> THE ONES BEING IN FRONT OF THECATCH BASIN ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT .

SO AT 1571, THE GROUND BELOW THE HOUSE OR NEXT TO THE HOUSE AS YOU STEP OUT THE BACK DOOR IS GOING TO BE SIX INCHES LOWER? HOW ARE YOU THINKING IT WOULD DRAIN OUT -- I SEE IT WORKS, OBVIOUSLY.

BUT AT WHAT POINT DOES THE WATER LEVEL COME UP? TO THE POINT THAT IT -- CROSS TALK]

>> I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.

SO THE HUNDRED YEAR ELEVATION -- IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY. SO WE HAVE THOSE CRITERIA.

IN THE MOST STRINGENT APPLIES. FOR US, OUR HUNDRED YEAR THREE-DAY STORM EVENT IS AT 1485.

IN THAT CASE, THAT'S WHEN YOU ARE JUST WORRIED ABOUT SAVING PLIVES. EVERYTHING IS FLOODED.

THE ROAD IS FLOODED. THE GRASS IS FLOODED.

THAT'S THE CRITERIA. THE 25 YEAR IS TO MAKE SURE

[02:05:11]

IN THIS CASE, WATER WILL DRAIN AWAY FROM THAT SLAB.

IN ANY OF THOSE CASES, IT WILL GET INTO THE SAND AND GET INTO THE YARD DRAINS THAT ARE ON ALL FOUR CORNERS.

FOR THE BACK TO CORNERS AND AN INFILTRATION -- SYSTEM ON THE

FRONT AND BACK PROPERTY LINE. >> SO YOU WILL BE RUNNING PIPE

BETWEEN HOUSES? >> YES.

CHAIRMAN'S POINT, YES, THE DRAINAGE I THINK IS VERY INTERESTING. BUT TO ACHIEVE THAT, WE NOW LIMIT THE ABILITY TO PUT FENCE ON THE PROPERTY?

>> NO. I'VE DONE THIS FOR 20 YEARS IN

THIS AREA. >> I HEARD YOU MENTION --

>> THE REASON IS EVERYBODY WANTS TO PUT A HEDGE.

EVERYBODY WANTS THEIR HEDGE. SO IT'S ADS PIPE.

IT'S PIPE THAT IS OFFSET THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

THIS WAY, WHEN YOU PUT A FENCE OR HEDGE IN, WE ARE NOT RIGHT ON TOP OF IT. AND EACH RESIDENCE WILL HAVE ON BOTH SIDES THEIR NETWORK OF PIPES TYING IT IN.

BASICALLY MANIFOLD PIPES GOING FROM THE VERY FRONT DOWNSPOUT AND ALSO THE BACK WANT TO TIE THEM IN.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CONVEYING IT.

WE WANT TO GET THE WATER INTO THE PIPE, INTO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND INTO THE LAKES. ALLOW IT TO STAGE.

>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT.

KUDOS TO THE DESIGN TEAM. AS MUCH AS I'M NOT A FAN OF THE

SITE PLAN, (INDISCERNIBLE). >> THE CITY STAFF ALSO DESERVES SOME RECOGNITION AS WELL. WITH EVERYTHING THAT IS GOING ON, THEY WORK HAND-IN-HAND. AND THE APPLICANT.

THE APPLICANT WORKED WITH THE CITY TO MAKE SURE TO MEET THE

CRITERIA. >> THANK YOU.>> QUESTION.

THE SITE PLAN -- WAS SET FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING OR LOW INCOME

HOUSING? >> CAN US THAT AGAIN?

>> THE ALTERNATE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US -- WAS THAT WORKFORCE HOUSING OR LOW INCOME HOUSING?

>> IT WAS WORKFORCE HOUSING. AND THE LOGIC BEHIND THAT IS IF YOU GET INTO THE LOWER STAGES OF THE MEDIUM OR LOW INCOME STAGES? OFTENTIMES THEY ARE DEPENDENT ON MASS TRANSIT. AND THERE IS NO BUSING IN THIS AREA. SO WE FELT IT WAS BEST TO LIMITED TO THE HIGH-END OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECTRUM.

>> THANK YOU.> OTHER THAN THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN,

(INDISCERNIBLE). >> THANK YOU, JOEL.

NEIL. >> THANK YOU.

I WON'T REPEAT THE COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES.

AT OUR LAST MEETING, AND I'M SORRY YOU FOLKS WEREN'T HERE.

THERE WERE MANY PARENTS AND A STUDENT WHO POKE SO PASIONATELY ABOUT THE CONDITIONS IN THE SCHOOL AND THEIR CONCERN ABOUT REMOVING THE 55+ RESTRICTION.

AND THE IMPACT ON THEM. I'M TERRIBLY SORRY THAT YOU WEREN'T HERE TO HEAR YOU IT. I HAVEN'T HEARD THE RATIONALE YET FOR REMOVING THE 55+ RESTRICTION.

I WAS REALLY TAKEN. TAKEN BY THE PASSION THAT THE PARENTS SPOKE ABOUT. IN PARTICULAR, A STUDENT WHO GOT UP AND TALKED ABOUT THE CONDITIONS IN THE SCHOOL AND THE CROWDING THAT EXISTS NOW. I HOPE THAT SOMEONE HERE WOULD ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THE RATIONALE OF REMOVING THAT

RESTRICTION. >> MY NAME IS BRIAN TUTTLE.

[02:10:04]

AND I'M THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PROJECT.

THE RATIONALE FOR REMOVING THE ACTIVE ADULT WAS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION. WHO CAME TO ME AND DISCUSSED IT WITH ME, GIVEN THE FACT THAT WHEN FOUR SEASONS IS BUILT OUT, THERE WILL BE 538 ACTIVE ADULT RESIDENCE THERE.

AND I BELIEVE THERE IS ABOUT 450 AT THE RYAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WHICH MAKES FOR CLOSE TO 1000 UNITS.

WHAT PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND IS ACTIVE ADULT, WHILE THEY ARE ACTIVE ADULT AT 55 AND 60, THEY TEND TO BECOME A HUGE ECONOMIC DRAG ON THE CITY THAT THEY ARE IN.

AND THE COMMISSION FELT -- AND I AGREE WITH -- IS THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF ACTIVE ADULTS HOMES HE WOULD HAVE WITH CLOSE TO A THOUSAND OF THEM, PLUS ALL THE OTHER HOMES IN THE CITY, WHERE NORMALLY PEOPLE GET OLDER AND WOULD STAY WOULD CREATE AN ECONOMIC PROBLEMFOR THE CITY IN 20 YEARS.

BECAUSE REMEMBER -- AND ACTIVE ADULT -- WHEN YOU HAVE A THOUSAND UNITS AND YOU HAVE A THOUSAND UNITS OF PEOPLE IN THEIR 80S AND 90S REQUIRE 4 TO 5 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AS A REGULAR LIVING UNIT.

PLUS THE PROPERTY VALUES IN GENERAL DETERIORATE ON ACTIVE ADULT VERSUS SINGLE-FAMILY, WHICH GO UP.

SO YOU GET A DOUBLE WHAMMY. THOSE UNITS STABILIZE AND TEND TO DETERIORATE.ND YET THEY REQUIRE MORE SERVICES THAT THEN REQUIRES THE CITY TO RAISE TAXES ON THE NORMAL UNITS.

SO THAT WAS BROUGHT TO US. AND MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THIS IS A BUSINESS DEAL. IT'S NOT AN EMOTIONAL DEAL.

IT'S NOT A PERSONAL DEAL. IT'S WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITY AND WHAT'S BEST FOR US. AND YOU MAY NOT WANT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT'S BEST FOR THE DEVELOPERS.

BUT DEVELOPERS ARE PEOPLE AND THEY HAVE RIGHTS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS. SO WE DECIDED TO GO FORWARD WITH THE ACTIVE ADULT NO VARIANCES.

THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE CAN GO. WE CAN COME BACK HERE IN 60 DAYS AND WE CAN HAVE ZERO VARIANCES.

AND YOU WILL HAVE 210 UNITS THAT WILL MEET EVERY CODE AND REQUIREMENT. AND IF YOU THINK THE LOTS ARE SMALL NOW? THERE'S GOING TO BE TOWNHOMES AND VILLAS.UT IT WOULD MEET THE CODE AND IT WILL HAVE NO VARIANCES. AND WE CAN DO THAT.

BUT THE CITY DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT.

THE CITY SAID WE DON'T WANT MORE ACTIVE ADULTS.

AND WE DON'T WANT 100 APARTMENTS OUT THERE.

NOW, I LOVE MY ATTORNEY. BUT HE'S A TERRIBLE SALESMAN! I WOULD ARGUE THAT THIS IS THE BEST PROPERTY IN PARKLAND BECAUSE IT'S AT THE END OF THE ROAD.

IT HAS NO TRAFFIC TO GIVE YOU A PROBLEM.

IT'S PEACEFUL. IT'S QUIET.

THERE'S NO NOISE. YOU CAN WALK TO THE PARK.

YOU CAN GO TO THE KAYAK RENTALS.

THERE ARE SO MANY WAYS THAT I COULD CONVINCE YOU THAT THIS IS THE GREATEST PROPERTY IN THE CITY.

HE PRESENTS IT ONE WAY AND I PRESENT IT ANOTHER.

THE QUESTION ABOUT THE PARK. IF YOU WANT TO GO KAYAKING, YOU GET TO DRIVE OUT ALLIGATOR ALLEY AND GO KAYAKING.

THE COMMISSION'S -- I'M NOT GOING TO NAME PEOPLE -- THE CITY CAME TO ME AND SAID WE WANT A PARK WHERE OUR SCHOOL KIDS CAN TAKE SCHOOL TRIPS TO THE PARK AND VISIT THE EVERGLADES. WE WENT TO PARK WHERE PEOPLE CAN GO BIKING OUT THERE. WE WANT THOSE THINGS.

SO WE THOUGHT LONG AND HARD FOR SIX MONTHS -- WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING. THE DRAINAGE? EVERYTHING HAS BEEN A FIGHT. EVERY SINGLE THING HAS BEEN A FIGHT. AND I HAVE FOUGHT AS MUCH AS I'M GOING TO FIGHT. AND I GAVE IN A LOT OF STUFF, THE CITY HAS GIVEN IN ON A LOT OF STUFF.

THIS IS A COMPROMISE. AND IT'S AS GOOD AS IT GETS.

OU CAN SAY IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

AND I RESPECT YOU. AND IT'S OKAY.

IT'S OKAY. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT -- IT'S OKAY. BUT IF YOU DO WANT A PARK?

[02:15:06]

WE UNDERSTAND THAT AND WE WILL PRESENT SOMETHING -- NO VARIANCES. ONLY IN THE CITY.

WILL MEET YOUR CODE TO THE LETTER.

ON YOUR PRD CODE -- HIM TO SAY THIS NOW.

THAT WAS DEVELOPED BY A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO HAD NO IDEA HOW TO BUILD UNITS. NO DEVELOPER -- WHEN YOU SEE THE SITE PLAN AND IT MEETS YOUR CODE WITH NO VARIANCES? IT REQUIRES ALLEYWAYS. DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR HOUSE AND SIT AT YOUR POOL AND HAVE AN ALLEYWAY BEHIND YOUR HOME? IS THAT WHAT PARKLAND IS? THAT'S URBAN DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S NOT PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT. BUT THAT'S WHAT YOUR CODE

REQUIRES. >> THAT WAS BASED ON THE

DEVELOPMENT (INDISCERNIBLE). >> I'M JUST TELLING YOU.

DO YOU WANT ALLEYWAYS BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR HOME? DO YOU WANT AN ALLEYWAY BETWEEN YOUR BACKYRD AND THE LAKE? OFFENSE AND AN ALLEY? AND PEOPLE DRIVING BEHIND YOUR HOME TO COME HOME AT MIDNIGHT? BUT THAT'S WHAT YOUR CODE

REQUIRES. >> (INDISCERNIBLE).

>> PRIVACY (LAUGHING). WHAT YOU MEAN, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? DO YOU WANT SOMEBODY DRIVING IN

YOUR BACKYARD? >> THAT'S A TMD?

>> YES. BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

MY POINT IS, WHERE DID THE ACTIVE ADULT COME FROM? IT WAS REQUESTED. I'LL DO IT EITHER WAY.

I WILL DO WHAT THE COMMISSION TELLS ME TO DO.

BUT THOSE ARE REALLY THE BUSINESS DECISIONS WE ARE FACED WITH. DO WE WANT A PARK? DO WE WANT TO LET THIS GO? AND MATCH PARKLAND BAY? OR, DO WE WANT TO HAVE ZERO VARIANCES AND WE WON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT GATOR ACRES? WE'LL JUST FORGET IT AND STAY IN THE COUNTY. THE COUNTY WILL DO WHAT THE COUNTY WANTS. WE ALL HAD ON DOWN THE ROAD?

>> THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING OTHER QUESTIONS.

MINE WAS SIMPLY TO BRING TO THIS GROUP THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE AT THE LAST MEETING WHEN YOU WEREN'T HERE.

AND THE PARENTS DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR VOICE HEARD.

THANK YOU FOR THE EXTENSIVE ANSWER.

>> YEAH. AND I JUST WANT -- THIS IS NOT -- WE ARE ALL NERVOUS AND EMOTIONAL.

WE WANT TO DO WITH THE CITY WANTS.

SO WE HAVE ONE PART OF THE CITY SAYING THEY WANT THIS.

WE HAVE THE OTHER PART SAYING WE DON'T WANT VARIANCES.

WE HAVE BEEN ARGUING. IT'S BEEN FUN (LAUGHING).

BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A GREAT PROJECT. WILL THERE BE A MAN GAY?OST LIKELY, BUT WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO DICTATE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T LIVING THERE YET. IT'S A DOUBLING GOING IN THE SUBJECT WE CAN TALK ABOUT STUFF LIKE THAT.

BUT THE BASICS ARE THE BASICS. >> THANK YOU.

AND THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED AS FAR AS THE APPLICANT'S

PRESENTATION. >> ONE OTHER COMMENT.

IT REALLY ECHOES WHAT OUR VICE CHAIR SAYS.

WHEN DO WE ANTICIPATE HAVING A SITE PLAN THAT WILL SHOW US ABSOLUTE VARIANCE WITH WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH?

>> IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CITY STAFF IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE APPLICANT HAS

PRODUCED OR CAN PRODUCE. >> WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING IS WHAT WE INCLUDED IN A CAB APPLICATION.

WHICH BY CODE IS NOT REQUIRED AT THIS POINT.

THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT THING WE BRING IN AS WELL AS THE CAB APPLICATIONS. FOR THE HOMES IN THE SAME PROGRAM AND THE ENTRANCE AND ALL OF THAT.

THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF CAB APPLICATIONS THAT THE BOARD

WILL BE SEEING NEXT. >> THANK YOU.

>> WOULD BE SEEING NEXT?> EXCUSE ME? WE WOULD HAVE TO FILE AN APPLICATION.

AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED AT THIS POINT.

>> IF I COULD JUST CLARIFY, I THINK MR. VOGEL'S QUESTION IS WHEN HE WOULD SEE A SITE PLAN EXCLUSIVE OF ANY VARIANCES? NOT NECESSARILY REGARDING YOUR CAB APPLICATIONS.

>> WHAT I AM GETTING AT IS IF THE VARIANCES WERE NOT GRANTED,

WHAT WITH THE CITY PLAN LOOK LIKE?>> HERE YOU GO.

[02:20:01]

>> OKAY. THIS IS THE PLAN.

AS STAFF INDICATED, IT DID NOT GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE

REVIEW PROCESS. >> DO WE HAVE A SLIDE?

WE HAVE A SLIDE OF THIS?>> I BELIEVE WE DO.

LET ME JUST FINISH WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY REAL QUICK AND I'LL PULL THE SLIDE UP. WE HAD WORKED ON A SITE PLAN AS MR. TUTTLE JUST SUGGESTED. WE REFER TO AS A BUY WRITE SITE PLAN. ONE FREE OF ANY KIND OF VARIANCES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

WE RENTED THROUGH SEVERAL COMMENTS AND THAT READER ATIVE PROCESS. WE HAVEN'T COMPLETED IT YET.

PBUT IT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT DEEPLY.

AND OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I'M 95 PERCENT THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD END UP WITH. THESE ARE THE TOWNHOMES THAT MR. TUTTLE WAS REFERRING TO. AS WELL AS (INDISCERNIBLE).

AND THIS WOULD BE THE GATOR ACRES FAMILY SITE APPEAR.

DO YOU WANT ME TO PUT THIS ON THE OVERHEAD?

>> DO YOU GUYS WANT TO SEE A CLOSER?

>> (INDISCERNIBLE). >> THAT'S FINE.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, NEIL? >> IT'S NOT A QUESTION.

IT'S ACTUALLY A PERSONAL COMMENT.

YOU MIGHT NOT BE THE WORLD'S BEST SALESMAN, BUT I'M GLAD YOUR HEALTH PERMITS YOU TO BE WITH US TONIGHT.

THANK YOU! >> THANK YOU, NEIL.

ALEX? PLEASE STEP UP.

FOR THE RECORD, ALEX IS A BOARD. OF OUR PLANNING AND THE -

>> THANK YOU EVERYONE. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR APOLOGIZING TO THE RESIDENTS AND THE BOARD FOR THE LAST MEETING. YOU WEREN'T HERE, BUT THAT WAS A FIASCO. THERE WAS A LOT OF FEEDBACK AGAINST THE PLANNING AND BOARD THAT WAS OUR MISTAKE.

SO THANK YOU FOR TAKING RESPONSIBILITY AND APOLOGIZING.

AND BRINGING THE RESIDENTS BACK OUT AND US BACK OUT.

WE JUST HEARD THAT THIS IS NOT A BUSINESS DEAL.

THIS IS A BUSINESS DEAL. WE SHOULDN'T BE EMOTIONAL.

THIS WHOLE PRESENTATION STARTED TONIGHT ABOUT PLAYING OUR EMOTIONS. AND THAT'S WHAT I DIDN'T REALLY LIKE ABOUT THE WHOLE START OF THIS.

WAS IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS.

SO I DIDN'T LIKE THE APPROACH OF YOUR PRESENTATION TONIGHT.

WE KNEW WHAT YOU COULD DO. WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS PLAN. NOT -- (INDISCERNIBLE).

I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF THIS PROJECT.

I DO NOT THINK WE NEED ANOTHER 55 AND UP NEIGHBORHOOD IN PARKLAND. I HAVE A YOUNG FAMILY IN PARKLAND. I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING MORE YOUNG FAMILIES. I DID HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS ABOUT THE SCHOOLS THAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE.

I LOOK THROUGH THE REPORT. AND I NOW BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WILL WORK IN THE SCHOOLS. AND THERE WON'T BE ANOTHER 250 KIDS IN STONEMAN DOUGLAS NEXT YEAR.

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. SO THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION AND THE REPORTS ON THAT.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A COOKIE-CUTTER NEIGHBORHOOD -- I THINK THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF A COOKIE-CUTTER NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO NOT SEE AGAIN IN PARKLAND. WITH THESE TYPES OF VARIANCES -- AND AM NOT SCARED TO GIVE VARIANCES.

I'M OKAY WITH MOST OF THE VARIANCES.

BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO DO VARIANCES, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME MORE THOUGHT INTO THE DESIGN.

THIS VERY SQUARE DRIVEWAY IS VERY LONG -- WE ARE ASKING A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF REDUCTIONS.

THESE ARE GOING TO BE NOW YOUNG FAMILIES PLAYING IN THEIR FRONT YARD. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE CARS WHIPPING DOWN THE STREETS. A LOT OF THESE AR TWO WAY STOPS.I DON'T SEE ANY TRAFFIC AT ALL THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A MAN GATE. THERE IS GOING TO BE NOBODY TO CALL FOR SPEEDING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A SECOND LOOK AT TRAFFIC IDEAS OR OTHER MEANS OF WEAVING THE ROADS.

MAY BE AROUND ABOUT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? OR OTHER TYPES OF SAFETY MEASURES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.WHEN IT COMES TO THE PARK DEDICATION -- THE 2.73 ACRES THAT THE APPLICANT IS OFFERING? VERY NICE AND VERY GENEROUS. I THINK WITH THE VARIANCES THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR TONIGHT, THOUGH? I BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE ASKING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE.

[02:25:08]

WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WE ARE GIVING A LITTLE AND THEY ARE GIVING A LITTLE. SO HOW ABOUT YOU GIVE US ALL GATOR ACRES? HOW ABOUT IF WE DO A NEARLY 5 ACRE PARK THERE? I WOULD LOVE TO SEE PASSIVE PARKS. I LOVE THE IDEA OF THE PARKS AT THE EVERGLADES. TAKE MY KIDS TO THE EVERGLADES ALL THE TIME.

E DRIVE THROUGH THE DIRT LOTS.

I LOVE THE IDEA OF THE PARK. ESPECIALLY SOMETHING TIED TO EDUCATION. THERE IS BEEN PROVEN STUDIES THROUGH COVID BOUT MENTAL HEALTH AND GETTING OUT TO THE PARKS. SO I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR OUR CITIES. SO IF WE ARE GOING DOWN THIS ROAD FOR THESE LEVELS OF VARIANCES IN THE AMOUNT OF -- EXTRA REVENUE? IT COULD POTENTIALLY CREATE FOR THE DEVELOPER -- BRINGING UP THE LOT DENSITY, WHICH BRINGS UP THE HOME SIZES. THESE HOMES -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT SIZES THESE ARE ALL GOING TO BE, BUT YOU ARE LOOKING AT BETWEEN SIX AND 8000 SQUARE FEET HOMES.

MILLION-DOLLAR HOMES. SO I BELIEVE THEY COULD AFFORD TO DEDICATE THAT WHOLE GATOR ACRES TO THE CITY OF PARKLAND AND DO A FULL PARK THERE. HEARING THE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR BISHOP PIT ROAD? THAT'S MY FAVORITE ROAD WHEN IT RAINS. YOU GET TO GO AND THE KIDS GET TO SEE THE WATER FLY UP IN THE AIR.

WITH ALL JOKING ASIDE, THAT ROAD IS TERRIBLE.

THAT'S A GREAT OFFER. SO I DO THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING YOUR NEIGHBORS AND CONSIDERING PARKLAND AND PITCHING IN TO FIX BISHOP PIT ROAD.

I DEFINITELY THINK WE COULD SEE MORE OUT OF THAT PARK.

AND SEE MORE OF THAT. LET'S SEE, WHAT ELSE DO I HAVE TONIGHT? THE DRAINAGE -- I AM AWARE OF THE DRAINAGE OUT HERE. I DO KNOW THE APPLICANT, THE DESIGN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS. THE REAR DESIGN OF THE DRAINAGE. IT'S IN THE DRAFT DRAINAGE REPORT. SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH WHERE THE DRAINAGE IS AT AN UNCOMFORTABLE THAT THIS APPLICANT HAS SHOWN GOOD FAITH COMING UP WITH THE DESIGN AND WORKING WITH THE CITY. SO I HAVE GOOD FAITH IN THAT.

THE GUARD GATE. I LIVE IN MEADOW RUN.

WE ARE A 250 HOME NEIGHBORHOOD. THE 24-7 GUARD PUTS THE BURDEN ON THE SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD. I SIT ON THE BOARD THERE.

IT'S OUR NUMBER 1 THING. BUT THE RESIDENTS LIKE IT.

THE RESIDENCE WILL PAY FOR IT. IF I CAME TO A BOARD MEETING AND TOLD THEM WE WERE GETTING RID OF -- WE DON'T CALL THEM GUARDS -- OUR GREETERS? THAT WOULD BE THE END OF MY HOA DAYS. BUT THAT'S ON THE DEVELOPER.

IF THEY DON'T WANT TO PUT IT? IF THEY DON'T THINK THE RESIDENTS NEED IT -- I'M FINE WITHOUT IT.

I THINK MORE IMPORTANTLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS TABLE TONIGHT. AS A NONVOTING MEMBER I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF INPUT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS TABLE TONIGHT TO SEE IF THE DEVELOPER COULD DEDICATE THE WHOLE GATOR ACRES PARCEL TO US FOR A FULL PARK THERE? DO SOME TRAFFIC CALMING OR OTHER TYPE OF TRAFFIC DESIGN IN HERE. TO MAKE IT NOT SO COOKIE-CUTTER.THE SIDE SETBACKS AT 6 AND A HALF FEET? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT AT 7 AND A HALF FEET.

OR, AT LEAST GIVE US SOME VARIATION, OKAY? IF YOU NEED A COUPLE AT SIX AND HAPPY, OKAY.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE -- NOT THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD AT 6 AND A HALF FEET. YOU ARE HANDING SUGAR TO YOUR NEIGHBOR, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

I LIKE TO SEE THAT AT A MINIMUM OF 7 AND A HALF FEET.

I THINK THAT EXTRA SPACE -- ESPECIALLY TALKING ABOUT THE DRAINAGE -- AN EXTRA FOOT ON EITHER SIDE WILL MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE. THE FRONT YARD SETBACK -- 15 FEET. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT INCREASE. I GET IT THAT THAT'S IN ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. BUT IFTHERE IS A THROUGH STREET , ESPECIALLY SUCH AS THE STREET ALL THEWAY ON THE WEST SIDE ? THAT VERY LONG CORRIDOR? MAYBE SET THOSE HOMES BACK A BIT TO 20 FEET BACK? SO THOSE CHILDREN HAVE A CHANCE OR THE VEHICLES HAVE A CHANCE TO AVOID TRAFFIC.

IT'S THE NUMBER 1 ISSUE IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.

[02:30:09]

SO I WOULD REALLY THINK TWICE ABOUT THOSE TWO.

OTHER THAN THAT, I'M OKAY WITH THE LOT SIZES COMING DOWN.

THE LOT WITH ITS COMING DOWN. THE LOT COVERAGE, I THINK, IS THE BIG GIVE THAT WE ARE GIVING.

WE ARE GOING FROM 35 TO 60 -- THAT'S A 71 PERCENT INCREASE.

THAT'S A HUGE VALUE ADD TO THE DEVELOPER.

AND REMOVING THE AGE RESTRICTION.

SO WITH THOSE TWO THINGS, WE HAVE JUST TAKEN THIS PROJECT FROM $100 MILLION PROJECT TO A $200 MILLION PROJECT BY GIVING THOSE TWO THINGS.N THOSE NUMBERS -- DON'T QUOTE ME ON THOSE NUMBERS. BUT I'M NOT A DEVELOPER, I DON'T KNOW THOSE NUMBERS FOR A FACT.

BUT GIVING THOSE TWO THINGS, YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY SEEING A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN VALUES FOR THE HOMES IN HERE.

THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE -- I THINK IT WOULD BE A FAIR DEAL TO GET THE WHOLE PARK AND SEES MORE TRAFFIC CALMING THROUGHOUT.

WITH THAT, THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION.

>> THANK YOU, ALEX. I APPRECIATE IT.

MY COMMENTS, AND I HAVE A FEW. AND THEN WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AFTER THAT. WE ARE -- AS EVERYBODY KNOWS WE SIT HERE AS AN ADVISORY BOARD. WE KNOW THE COMMENTS WE MAKE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH AND BE VETTED TO THE COMMISSION.

IF THE APPLICATION MOVES FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING.WHETHER IT IS APPROVE OR DENIED.

I DO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A FOR SALE PROPERTY.

CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, PLEASE.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY: DOES THE FACT OF VARIANCE -- IF AND WHEN IT IS GRANTED BY OUR BOARD AS A RECOMMENDATION AND ULTIMATELY, BY A CITY COMMISSION, DOES THAT SET A PRECEDENT TO OTHER AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS OR PROJECTS

IN THE FUTURE? >> VARIANCES ARE LOOKED AT BASED ON THE SPECIFIC PROJECT THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU.

CERTAINLY, SOMEONE COULD MAKE THAT COMMENT.

BUT ULTIMATELY, THEY ARE LOOKED AT ON A PER PROJECT BASIS BASED IN THE PROVISIONS LAID OUT IN THE CITY CODE.

>> THANK YOU. AND I KNEW THAT ANSWER.

I WANTED THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THAT AS WELL.

AND THAT THE COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS THAT AND KNOWS HOW IT WORKS. I DO THINK IT'S A DIFFICULT ASPECT WITH RESPECT TO THE TOWER.

THE APPLICANT OWNED THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE TOWER BEING -- PRIOR TO THE EMINENT DOMAIN CONSTRUCTION IN THE TOWER. THE ADDED DRAINAGE WAS GREAT.

I THINK THAT WAS A HUGE ASSET TO THE PROJECT.

I THINK NATHANIEL ALSO BROUGHT UP A FEW IMPORTANT COMMENTS.

THAT THERE WERE SOME RESTRICTIONS ON FUTURE APPROVALS SUBJECT TO THE RESOLUTION OR ANALYSIS OF THE DRAINAGE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON AND ONGOING.

THAT IS SOMETHING I'M SURE THE COMMISSIONER WILL TAKE UNDER CONSIDERATION. OUR CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER IS VETTED AND APPROVED THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT

TO THE APPROVAL. >> I'M THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER CONSULTANT FOR THE CITY.THAT IS CORRECT.

WE HAVE DONE THE REVIEW. ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

THE 220 FEET IS THE REQUIRED LENGTH TO GO INTO THE GATE.

FOR MY NOTES AND FOR THE COMMENTS WE PROVIDED, THE CURRENT STACKING IS 280. 280.

ONE MORE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, IF I MAY? WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TABLE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER AS PART OF THE LEVEL OF SERVICE? WHOEVER MADE THE COMMENT ABOUT NOT KNOWING WHAT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE MEANS? I WOULD SAY NOT TO FOCUS ON THAT.

FOCUS ON THE OTHER TWO COLUMNS. ONE THAT SAYS THE CAPACITY AND ONE THAT SAYS THE TOTAL. AND COMPARE THE TWO.

IF YOUR CAPACITY NUMBER IS GREATER THEN THE VOLUME, THEN YOU ARE MEETING THESE STANDARDS.

AS FAR AS THE LEVEL OF SERVICE LETTERS, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS WE TYPICALLY TRY TO EQUATE THEM TO (INDISCERNIBLE).

AND THAT'S NOT THE CURRENT WAY TO DO IT.

IF MY SON COMES TO ME AND SAYS I GOT A B OR C, I WOULD SIT DOWN WITH HIM AND FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHAT WE NEED TO CORRECT. WHAT YOU WANT ON YOUR (INDISCERNIBLE) IS TO HAVE A LEVEL OF SERVICE BEFORE YOU BEFORE YOU START THINKING ABOUT CAPACITY.

[02:35:03]

>> THANK YOU. I THINK IT ALL COMES DOWN TO VARIANCES. MANY, MANY YEARS AGO -- AND I BEEN ON THIS BOARD FOR MANY YEARS, BUT WHEN I FIRST STARTED ON BOARD, I WAS ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

WHICH I KIDDINGLY RENAMED THE BOARD OF NO ADJUSTMENT.

[LAUGHTER] > TRUE! NOT OFFICIALLY, BUT -- AND IT'S ALWAYS A DIFFICULT SITUATION.

WITH ADDRESSING VARIANCES. HARDSHIP WISE AND EMOTIONAL -- EMOTIONALLY AS WELL. THAT'S A BIGGIE.

THAT SOMETHING THAT REGARDLESS HOW OUR BOARD VOTES THIS EVENING, THAT THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS AND DEAL WITH. AND ULTIMATELY, THEY ARE THE ULTIMATE DECISION-MAKER. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

AT THIS TIME, -- YES, SIR,? >> (INDISCERNIBLE).

>> SURE. >> (INDISCERNIBLE).

>> THEY WERE. THEY WERE A STANDARD DIC

MEMBER. >> (INDISCERNIBLE).

TRADITIONAL CUL-DE-SACS. INDISCERNIBLE) HAVING RECENTLY WRITTEN IN AN AMBULANCE (INDISCERNIBLE) WAS

PRETTY TIGHT. >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BOTH POLICE AND FIRE HAD NO FURTHER COMMENT ON THE SITE PLAN. I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES IN THE AUDIENCE FROM BOTH DEPARTMENTS.

>> IF THERE IS NOBODY FROM FIRE (INDISCERNIBLE) ANSWER BRIEFLY WITH THE STREET WITH IS? THE ROAD WITH (INDISCERNIBLE)?

>> I BELIEVE IT'S A STANDARD 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> COME UP FOR THE RECORD SO IT

IS DOCUMENTED. >> I BELIEVE THEY ARE TYPICAL 12 FOOT LANES. AND FOR YOUR QUESTION REGARDING THE FIRE ACCESS -- IT MEETS THE TURNING RADIUS IS.

BASED OFF THE FPA CODE. AND AS FAR AS THE DATA ENDS GO, THE CODE IS 150 FEET THAT THEY CAN BACKUP.

SO IT MEETS THOSE REQUIREMENTS. >> THIS IS PROBABLY A QUESTION FOR YOU. TO THE SIDEWALKS ABOUT THE STREET? I SEE A LOT OF COMMUNITIES WHERE YOU HAVE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS AND (INDISCERNIBLE).

>> I THINK IT'S A COMBINATION OF BOTH, DEPENDING ON WHAT PARKING IS THERE. THE SIDEWALK IS PUSHED OUT TO THE PROPERTY LINE. WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE

SECTION. >> (INDISCERNIBLE).

>> IS MORE OF A SITE PLAN. SO THE SIDEWALK IS AT THE PROPERTY LINE. SO IT'S PUSHED TO THE PROPERTY LINE. SO YOU DO HAVE GRASS SEPARATING FROM THE GUTTER AND THE ROADWAY.

>> OKAY. ROADWAY, GUTTER --

>> GRASS, SIDEWALK. YEP.

>> THE LAST QUESTION IS -- >> IT'S NEVER THE LAST

QUESTION! >> (LAUGHING).

THE NUMBER OF GUESTS (INDISCERNIBLE).

I'M NOT INCLUDING THE AMENDMENTS.

GUEST PARKING SPACES THAT ARE NOT (INDISCERNIBLE)?>> THAT ARE NOT ON STREETS? YOU MEAN NOT DRIVEWAY?

>> NOT DRIVEWAY AND NOT ALONG THE ROADWAY.

>> ARE YOU INFERRING TO BEING CLUB DEDICATED?

>> (INDISCERNIBLE). >> WE HAVE 26 DEDICATED GUEST PARKING SPACES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.

AS WELL AS 54 PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE RECREATION POD.

[02:40:07]

>> THANK YOU. >> I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO ASK ANOTHER ONE. I WAS GOING TO CUT YOU OFF!

>> AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE GENTLEMAN RELATING TO THE DRAINAGE. THE DRAINING PIPES THAT ARE UPSET FROM THE PROPERTY LINES, WHO WILL OWN THOSE?

>> THOSE WOULD BELONG TO THE RESIDENT.

BUT I WANT TO REMIND YOU, THE OVERALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM BELONGS TO THE COMMUNITY. AS ALL THE COMMUNITIES IN PARKLAND -- MOST OF BROWARD COUNTY YOU WILL IN THE DRAINAGE. THE HOMEOWNER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN IT IF IT BREAKS OR MAINTENANCE? . IN ITS MANIFOLD IT.

IF THEY HAD A BLOCKAGE IT COULD BE REMOVED AND JETTED.

THAT CAN ALL BE DONE FROM THE ROADWAY.

>> THANK YOU AGAIN. GO AHEAD, CAITLIN.

IT LOOKS LIKE SOME BUT HE HAS A QUESTION.

>> IF I MAY, JUST TO CLARIFY ONE QUESTION THAT MR. KLITSBERG HAD. FOR THE RECORD THERE WERE NO VARIANCES GRANTED FOR MIRA LARGO.

I KNOW THAT CAME UP EARLIER. >> (INDISCERNIBLE).

>> CORRECT. THE COMMUNITY OF MIRA LARGO AS A WHOLE HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED VARIANCES.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

I'M IN A PUT MICHAEL SHADES ON SO I CAN READ AGAIN.

I STATED EARLIER THAT OUR COMMENTS (INDISCERNIBLE) THE ADVISORY BOARD AND THE VOTING RESULTS GO TO THE COMMISSION.

SAME FOR WHEN THE PUBLIC SPEAKS.

I'M JUST GOING TO READ A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WAS PROVIDED BY CITY ATTORNEY TODAY INTO THE RECORD.

IT'S JUST BASICALLY A DECORUM. A COUPLE OF NOTES.

THIS IS REFERRING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AT REGULAR MEETINGS.

THERE ARE TWO ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER SHALL PRESERVE ORDER AND DECORUM. NEITHER THE BOARD NOR THE PUBLIC SHALL ATACK OR DISCUSS THE PERSONAL QUALITIES OF AN INDIVIDUAL. NOR SHOULD THEY USE LANGUAGE WHICH WOULD OFFEND PERSONS WITH ORDINARY SENSIBILITIES.

SHOULD A MEMBER OF AN AUDIENCE BECOME REALLY SUCH AS TO DISRUPT THE ORDER OF THE MEETING OR SUCH PERSON REFUSED TO FOLLOW THE RULES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, THE PRESIDING OFFICER SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT AND AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE SUCH PERSON TO LEAVE THE MEETING SITE.

I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE MANAGEMENT ITEMS. BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS THIS EVENING.

I'LL SAVE THAT FOR NEXT TIME. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU, AS I SAID. SO IT AT THIS TIME I'M OPENING T UP TO THE PUBLIC. COME ON UP PLEASE.

STEP UP TO THE PODIUM TO SPEAK. THANK YOU.

AND YOU ARE READY NO TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. AND ALSO, UPON COMPLETING OF YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE SIGN -- THERE IS A FORM THERE.

PLEASE SIGN AND LEAVE SO THE CITY CLERK HAS IT.

>> WELCOME. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOUR ADDRESS.

>> PETER LE HOPE SKI, (INDISCERNIBLE) NORTHWEST 72ND PLACE. I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE COMMENT REGARDING THE SCHOOL. I UNDERSTAND WE ALL WOULD LIKE TO SEE SURROUNDED BY YOUNG FAMILIES WITH KIDS.

BUT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO HAVE CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS. I LIKE BEING SURROUNDED -- I WORK WITH YOUNG KIDS. I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST OLDER FOLKS AS WELL. THEY EARNED THEIR RIGHTS TO BE HERE AND THEY EARN THE RIGHTS TO BE ACCOMMODATIVE.

HOWEVER, WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE ISSUES WE ARE FACING IN THE SCHOOLS. WHEN I LOOK AT THE DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL, IT CLEARLY STATES THAT THE WEST PLACE WILL BE OVERWHELMED WITH STUDENTS. THAT THE CAPACITY IS GOING ABOVE THE REQUIREMENT. THE STUDENTS WILL HAVE TO ATTEND CORAL SPRINGS.'M NOT SURE HOW THAT RELATES TO NOT INCREASING THE SITES? AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BRING UP TO THE COMMISSION, WHEN I LOOK AT THE DEVELOPERS NUMBERS AND THE GROSS CAPACITY, THERE IS A REFERENCE TO THE NUMBER OF 3790 STUDENTS AS THE CAPACITY. HOWEVER, I CAN SHARE THAT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY -- THE SCHOOL PLANNING TOOL.

[02:45:05]

THE CAPACITY OF 24 STONEMAN DOUGLAS IS (INDISCERNIBLE).

THAT'S A DRASTIC DIFFERENCE. IT'S NOT 3790.

THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT WAS QUOTED BY THE DEVELOPER.

THE NUMBER IS 3077. THAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE.

YOU HEARD MY DAUGHTER TALKING ABOUT THE CAPACITY OF SCHOOL.

THE CLASS IS HAVING 40 STUDENTS NOW.

THE SCHOOL WILL HAVE 50 STUDENTS PER CLASS.

HOW IS THAT INCREASING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE? YOU TALK ABOUT RESIDENTIAL RIGHTS -- RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. THE MAJORITY OF INDIVIDUALS WITH YOUNG KIDS MOVE HERE BECAUSE OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

IF WE LOSE THAT, WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR RIGHTS? I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SCHOOL AND THE QUALITY.

IF YOU SQUEEZE AS MANY KIDS AS YOU CAN, YOU CAN'T KEEP THE SAME QUALITY. AND I'M NOT GOING TO EVEN BRING UP THE SAFETY THAT MY DAUGHTER SPOKE ABOUT.

I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION.

SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT -- REMOVING THE 55 RESTRICTION. BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE AN IMPACT.

AND IT DOES HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE SCHOOL.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE SEEN A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS YET.O THIS IS SOMETHING I WOULD ENCOURAGE FOR US TO KEEP IN MIND WHEN WE DO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

AND PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE NUMBERS I PROVIDED TO YOU.

AS THEY DO NOT MATCH WHAT THE BROWARD SCHOOL BOARD HAS ON THEIR WEBSITE. IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE FROM THEIR WEBSITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

YES SIR, STEP UP. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING PUBLIC

STATEMENTS TO BE MADE. >> COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD?

>> MY NAME IS ARNOLD RADY. MY ADDRESS IS 12300 KEL MAR CIRCLE SOUTH, IN PUTNAM. THE FOUR SEASONS COMMUNITY.

WELL, I SHOULD -- I HAVE TO GET IT OFF MY SPACE.

THAT IS THAT THERE IS NO RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE AND THE FOUR SEASONS OR ANY OTHER COMMUNITY ON THE WEDGE.

200 ACRES. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

OKAY. NEXT, THE TRAFFIC ISSUE WAS LIGHTLY GLOSSED OVER BY THE PRESENTATION.

BUT I THINK THAT THE RENOVATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED ON LOXAHATCHEE ROAD MUST BE RECONSIDERED AND REEVALUATED. DUE TO THIS PROPOSED COMMUNITY.

BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO INTRODUCE A WHOLE DIFFERENT PROFILE OF PEOPLE, WHO WILL LIKELY HAVE TWO CARS.

BECAUSE IT'S ALL WORKING FAMILIES.

AT LEAST TWO CARS BECAUSE THEY CAN HAVE TEENAGE KIDS.

AND THERE MIGHT EVEN BE 1/3 CAR OR MORE.

AND ALSO, IT'S GOING TO INTRODUCE BUSING FOR SCHOOLS.

AND LOXAHATCHEE ROAD IS NOT BUILT FOR THAT.

THE TRUCKS ECHO UP-AND-DOWN LOCKS RIGHT NOW AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION? MOST OF THOSE TRUCKS CAN'T EVEN SIT IN THE LANE. BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCH NARROW LANES. AND TO SAY IT'S A -- AND ACCIDENT-PRONE SITUATION. IN THE PROPOSED (INDISCERNIBLE) DOESN'T SOLVE THIS REALLY. IT'S STILL GOING TO LEAVE TWO LANES. ONE IN EACH DIRECTION.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO HELP WITH THE CONGESTION.

AND WHAT'S MORE, IT ALREADY IS SUCH A SITUATION OF DRIVERS GOING FAST. AND THEY HAVE TO PASS INTO THE ONCOMING LANE. THIS IS HORRENDOUS.

AND OF COURSE, YOU CAN SAY THE OLDER PEOPLE ON THE ROAD, THEY

[02:50:01]

AND ADD THAT TO THE TRUCKS. SO I WOULD, NUMBER 1, ASKED THAT THE PLANS OF THE LOXAHATCHEE ROAD HAVE TO BE REEVALUATED DUE TO THIS PROPOSED COMMUNITY.

AND SECOND, ANY CONSTRUCTION AT THIS SITE, WHICH IS GOING TO HAVE MORE OF THESE TRUCKS IN THE ROAD, SHOULD BE HELD UP UNTIL AFTER RENOVATION OF LOXAHATCHEE ROAD IS COMPLETED.

>> TIME IS UP, SIR. >> OH! I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS OUT OF TIME.

I DIDN'T EVEN GET TO THE PROBLEM OF ONLY HAVING ONE

EXIT.>> GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE ON BEHALF OF THE LADY

(INDISCERNIBLE). >> THANK YOU.

FOUR SEASONS SUFFERS FROM HAVING ONLY ONE EXIT.

AND THAT IS ON LOXAHATCHEE ROAD.

THIS COMMUNITY IS GOING TO HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE ARE SEEING MORE AND MORE ACCIDENTS ON LOXAHATCHEE. WHICH CLOSED DOWN THE ROAD.

WHICH DOESN'T ALLOW ANYONE FOR EMERGENCY OR OTHERWISE TO LEAVE OR COME BACK. THE ROADS ARE CLOSED.

SO THAT'S THE ONLY EXIT OUR COMMUNITY HAS.

AND YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THE SAME PROBLEM THERE.

SO WHAT WE HAVE TO HAVE IS A RENOVATION OF LOXAHATCHEE THAT ALLOWS FOR THE ONE EXIT.ND NOW, THE PROBLEM IS GOING TO BE DOUBLED AS A RESULT OF THE NEW COMMUNITY.

LET'S SEE -- OKAY. I'LL SIT DOWN.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? STEP UP, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

>> WE DO HAVE A CLOCK THAT'S THREE MINUTES.

SO THANK YOU. >> WILLIAM MORGAN, 12550 --

>> I'M SORRY REPEAT THAT ADDRESS?

>> 12550 NORTH PARKLAND (INDISCERNIBLE).

I LIVE JUST SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.

I'M JUST COMING HERE TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT IF YOU GO OUT WHERE I LIVE AT, SOUTH OF THAT PROPERTY ON ANY GIVEN NIGHT, SOMEONE OR SOMETHING IS BURNING OUT THERE.

AND IT WILL MAKE YOU ILL. I'M A MILITARY VETERAN WITH OVERSEAS SERVICE. AND I HAVE BURN PIT EXPOSURE AND I GET QUITE ILL IN THE EVENINGS WHEN I GO ON WALKS.

SO SOMETHING IS BURNING OUT THERE.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.

BUT IF YOU PLAN TO PUT MORE HOUSES THERE, WHICH OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE BUILDING AND PARKLAND BAY -- I GET CONCERN FOR MY POTENTIAL NEW NEIGHBORS. BECAUSE I'M LIVING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROAD BUT THOSE PEOPLE LIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD. WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY COULD BE EXPOSED TO? WHO KNOWS WHETHER THAT SMOKE IS CARCINOGENIC? IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT PERTAINING TO THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PROUD ASPECT OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND.

I WOULD ASK THAT SOMEBODY PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS.

BECAUSE I PERSONALLY GET ILL AND MANY NIGHTS.

I WILL INVITE YOU -- ANYTIME. I CAN GIVE YOU MY NUMBER.

PLEASE COME OUT. MANY TIMES.

I GO FOR WALKS AROUND 11 OR MIDNIGHT.

LATE IN THE EVENING. I GET VERY ILL FROM WHAT IS HAPPENING OVER THERE. SO IF YO PLAN ON PUTTING UP MORE HOUSES OVER THERE? I'D BE CONCERNED.

AND I SECOND THE THOUGHT ABOUT LOXAHATCHEE.

IT'S VERY THIN. I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE WIDENED IF YOU HAVE MORE CARS COMING.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR.

SPEAK W STEP UP. >> SIR, I NEED YOU TO SIGN THE

SHEET, PLEASE. >> (NAME) 8351 CANTERBURY TERRACE. THREE MINUTES IS NOT ENOUGH, HONESTLY. SOME TO TRY TO KEEP THINGS SIMPLE. ADMIRATION, ADORATION AND

[02:55:02]

ANXIETY. DISCUSSED.

EXCITEMENT. FEAR, HORROR, INTEREST.

NOSTALGIA. THOSE ARE ALL EMOTIONS.

WHEN IT COMES TO OUR CITY, THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

THIS IS AN EMOTIONAL CITY FOR MANY REASONS.

AND I THINK WHEN WE HEAR IT'S JUST A BUSINESS DEAL -- WE KNOW EVERYTHING WE HAVE TO KNOW. YOU LOOK UP THIS MAN'S NAME -- HE MAKES MILLIONS WITH BUSINESS DEALS.

BUT EMOTIONS ARE IMPORTANT IN THESE DECISIONS.

THEY CAN'T BE IGNORED. THERE ARE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE HERE.ND THEY ALL HAVE EMOTIONS.

AND HE'LL HAVE CHILDREN. AND YOU TAKE AWAY 55 AND OLDER, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE TO GO TO OTHER CITIES RIGHT NOW JUST SO WE CAN HAVE ALL OF OUR RECREATIONAL SPORT PRACTICES BECAUSE OUR PARKS ARE NOT ENOUGH.

SO WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO THESE RESIDENTS WHO WILL MOVE INTO WITH THEIR CHILDREN? WHERE ARE THEY GONNA PLAY SPORTS? WE LITERALLY GO ALL THE WAY TO SUNRISE JUST THAT PRACTICE FOR OUR RECREATIONAL SPORTS RIGHT NOW. SO AGAIN, I THINK HE SAID IT ALL. BUT THE EMOTIONS DEFINITELY NEED TO BE CONSIDERED. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE? SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PORTION.

ND WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THE APPLICATION AMONGST

OURSELVES. >> I THINK WE WILL TAKE A VOTE

ON EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE. >> WE DEFINITELY HAVE TO DO THAT. YEAH.

EXACTLY. SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF?

>> I JUST GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. A VOTE ON ONE ITEM AFFECTS ANOTHER ITEM IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN?

>> WE ARE GOING TO START WITH A AND GO DOWN THE LINE.

>> I'M JUST QUESTIONING WHETHER THAT IS THE RIGHT ORDER?

>> ANTHONY, DO YOU WANT TO REITERATE YOUR INSTRUCTIONS?

>> YEAH. I CAN THAT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS THE VARIANCES.

THE SITE PLAN VARIANCE ITEM I BELIEVE IS THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA. BUT I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT BOTH ITEMS THE 255+ ORDINANCES AMENDING FOR THE REMOVAL, BOTH HAVE CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND VARIANCE APPROVAL ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM 8E.

AND I WANT TO EXPAND ON AN ANSWER I GAVE BEFORE.

THE QUESTION IS ABOUT WHY THERE IS NO STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE 55+. I SAID IT WAS A LEGISLATIVE ITEM. WHAT I MEAN IS THERE IS NO QUALIFICATION OR CONSIDERATION IN OUR CODE UPON STAFF LIKE CAITLIN COULD LOOK AT AND SAY OKAY, I APPLY IT OR NOT.

THE DEVELOPER IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THAT REMOVAL.

YOU WON'T MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BUT IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE IF THAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR THE CITY OR NOT BASED ONWHAT IS LAID OUT. BUT I THOUGHT T WAS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AN EXPAND UPON MY ANSWER .

WITH RESPECT TO THE REZONING, ITEM 8 A? KEEP IN MIND THAT DOESN'T APPROVE A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF UNITS BUT IT DOES SET A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS AT 210. AGAIN, ITEM 8E -- BECAUSE I KNOW BOARD MEMBER OF AVELLO AND VICE CHAIR MENTIONED THE CONCERN ABOUT THE VARIANCES. THE SITE PLAN AND VARIANCES ARE TIED TOGETHER IN ONE ITEM. SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. THAT'S ITEM 8E.

I HOPE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS BUT IF YOU HAVE

FOLLOW-UPS, LET ME KNOW. >> DID YOU HAVE A FOLLOW-UP? OKAY. BUT ITHINK WHAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO DO -- EVEN IF IT TAKES A COUPLE OF MOMENTS .

IF SOMEBODY MAKES A MOTION. MAKE SURE WE ARE ALL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS THE LABEL FOR THE ORDINANCE OF REZONING, SPECIFICALLY. MY POINT IS, IF YOU NEED A MOMENT TO READ IT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE VOTING ON, THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT.

>> THE 55 AND OLDER RESTRICTION ARE BNC?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. ITEM 8B AND 8C ARE THE PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE PRIOR ORDINANCES TO REMOVE 55+.

>> ON THIS APPLICATION. BUT WE ARE GOING TO DO THEM INDIVIDUALLY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS

ON THE PROCESS? >> AND AGAIN -- ANTHONY, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT IT BEING A LEGISLATIVE ACT, YOU ARE BASICALLY SAYING IT IS PURELY DISCRETIONARY TO THE COMMISSION WHETHER OR NOT TO REMOVE OR NOT REMOVE THE 55+?

[03:00:03]

CHANGE? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IT. YES.

>> I ALSO WANTED TO MAKE SURE -- AND I DIDN'T WANT TO FORGET THAT THE APPLICANT, MR. MOSKOWITZ, WANTED TO HAVE A MOMENT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE WE DID PROCEED TO OUR VOTING.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. BUT I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS NEEDED OR RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS OR

INQUIRIES THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER MIGHT HAVE.>> THANK YOU, SIR. ALEX, YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> I THINK ITEM E AND THE SITE PLAN AND VARIANCES -- I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER. BUT I THINK THAT'S THE BIG TICKET. IF WE DON'T APPROVE E, THEN NOTHING ELSE GOES WITH IT. ALL OF THESE VARIANCES.

SO TO TRY TO GET A GAUGE ON WHERE THE BOARD IS, CAN WE TALK TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT TABLING THIS SITE PLAN AND BRINGING BACK SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR THE NEXT MEETING? YOU KNOW, IF ALL THE OTHER ONES ARE IN LINE AND WE ARE GOOD WITH THE 55 AND UP. BUT WE ALL HERE WHERE WE ARE AT ON E -- THAT'S HOW I WAS LOOKING AT IT.

IF WE COULD SEE A DIFFERENT SITE PLAN? OR SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE -- MAYBE EVERYTHING ELSE WILL

FALL IN LINE. >> I WOULD TAKE THAT AS A COMMENT. BEING THAT YOU ARE NOT VOTING THIS EVENING -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ADDRESS THAT.

MAYBE ANTHONY CAN EXPOUND ON THAT? ANY VOTING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SITTING UP HERE WANT TO TAKE THAT APPROACH, IF YOU WILL, IF THAT'S THE RIGHT TERM?

WE WILL ENTERTAIN THEM. >> MR. CHAIR, ANTHONY, JUST A QUESTION ON D. THAT GOES TO THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT'S

THE PLAT? >> YEAH, D. DELTA.

>> ANTHONY, SINCE THERE ARE SO MANY QUESTIONS -- AND I THINK EVERYBODY IS DONE ASKING THEM -- I'LL JUST REITERATE THAT WE ARE STILL COMFORTABLE GOING IN THE ORDER OF A THROUGH E, IS

THAT A TRUE STATEMENT? >> YOU COULD MOVE THE AGENDA IF THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHAT YOU DESIRE TO DO.

YOU ARE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALL OF THESE ITEMS. IT MAY BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL.

I WOULD ASK IF THEY HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS AS WELL.

IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU WERE GOING TO HAD.

>> I THINK SINCE WE REQUESTED FROM STAFF -- WE APPROVE THE AGENDA, I THINK WE SHOULD STICK TO IT AT THIS POINT.

MEANING, THE ORDER IN WHICH THE AGENDA IS RECOGNIZED AND VOTED

ON? >> UNDERSTOOD.

>> AND I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A PROCESS QUESTION.

YOU WERE RIGHT -- I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU. >> NO ONE IS SHOCKED! SO THERE WAS A GENTLEMAN FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THE SCHOOL CAPACITY ISSUES.

THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE SPEAKING ABOUT THE SCOPE CAPACITY ISSUES. THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BETWEEN THE CAPACITY IN THE APPLICATION VERSUS WHAT'S ON THE PLANNING TOOL FOR THE CITY.

CAITLIN, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS FOR YOU OR FOR ANOTHER MEMBER OF STAFF -- DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE CAPACITY NUMBERS AT DOUGLAS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED INCLUDE THE 1200 BUILDING? THAT IS GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED AFTER THE TRIAL OF THE PERSON WHO I WILL NOT SAY HIS NAME? IS IT 3700? OR IS IT 3000? IS ONE OF THEM CONSIDERING A BUILDING NOT BEING USED TO BE TORN DOWN? BECAUSE THAT'S A CONSIDERATION THAT I THINK APPLIES. BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE CAN'S CURRENCY NOTICE FROM THE DISTRICT INCLUDE THAT SPACE? DON'T INCLUDE THAT'S BASICALLY I DON'T REALLY KNOW. SO --.

I APOLOGIZE. WE WOULDN'T BE ENGAGING BACK AND FORTH WITH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

I'M ASKING THAT OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT OR REPRESENT TIVE OF

[03:05:06]

>> I'LL ADD TO YOUR QUESTION TO ASK WHETHER OR NOT THE SCHOOL CAPACITY LEVEL WAS PROVIDED? AND AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T ANSWER

NATHANIEL'S QUESTION. >> THERE WAS A LETTER THAT WAS

PART OF -- >> RIGHT.

SO THERE IS A CAD LATTER ISSUED.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THE SCHOOL BOARD CONSIDERED. THAT IS SOMETHING PERHAPS THE APPLICANT COULD ANSWER IN TERMS OF THE SCHOOL BOARD'S ANALYSIS.

IF NOT, THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN DEFINITELY GET AN ANSWER.

>> I THINK REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS TONIGHT, I THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT THE COMMISSION WILL WANT TO CONSIDER WHEN IT'S

CONSIDERING THESE THINGS. >> OKAY.

I THINK THEY WOULD RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THAT.

>> WITH THAT, I HAVE THE FIRST MOTION.> THAT'S FINE.

GO FOR IT. READ FULLY INTO THE RECORD.

>> SINCE WE DON'T DO NEGATIVE EMOTIONS, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 8A, ORDINANCE 2021 ? 012 PARKLAND ROYALE FEZ TO REZONING. I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE WHOLE

PARAGRAPH. >> I'LL SECOND IT.

>> THE MOTION WAS MADE BY NATHANIEL AND SECONDED BY TONY.

TO APPROVE 8A. P

ALL RIGHT. >> I'LL MAKE THE NEXT MOTION.

A MOTION TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 8E, ORDINANCE 2021 ? 11, AMENDING ORDINANCE 2015 ? 15.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE FIRST OF THE TWO THAT RELATES TO THE REMOVAL

OF THE 50 5H RESTRICTION. >> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> A MOTION WAS MADE BY NATHANIEL AND A SECOND BY ANTHONY. CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE.

EQUITY. >> 5-2.

>> IS THERE MOTION FOR ITEM C? >> SURE, I'LL MAKE THE NEXT MOTION FOR APPROVAL ITEM 8C ORDINANCE 2021 ? 21 EIGHT AMENDING ORDINANCE DASHCODE THIS IS THE SECOND ITEM RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF THE H RESTRICTION.

>> I'LL SECOND IT. >> NATHANIEL MADE THE MOTION AND SECONDED BY ANTHONY. PLEASE CALL THE BOAT.

>> MAKES THE MAKE THE NEXT MOTION ITEM 8D PLAT APPROVAL

FOR PARKLAND ROYALE PHASE 2. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> I'LL SECOND IT. >> MOTION BY NATHANIEL AND SECONDED BY ANTHONY. CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE.

>> AND THEN, JUST TO DO THE FINAL ONE.

I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 8E, RESOLUTION 2021 ? 073 THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR PARKLAND ROYALE

PHASE 2. >> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

>> A MOTION BY NATHANIEL AND SECONDED BY ANTHONY.CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE.

[9. Comments from the Planning & Zoning Director]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 9, COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING AND THE DIRECTOR.

>> NO FURTHER COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.

I'M SORRY -- ACTUALLY, MR. CHAIR, YOU WANT TO HAVE ANTHONY

[03:10:03]

AND WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO RESCHEDULE OUR PNC.

I'M NOT SURE IF THE BOARD IS IN A POSITION TO DO THAT AT THIS TIME? OR IF, PERHAPS, WE COULD COORDINATE ANTHONY VIAEMAIL ? OKAY.

>> EMAIL. >> AND PERHAPS WE WILL SEND OUT A COUPLE DATESAND TAKE A POLL AND SEE WHICH DATE WORKS BEST ? HOPEFULLY, THERE WILL BE ONE ITEM COMING BEFORE YOU IF WE CAN GET THE TIMING WORKED OUT. THAT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PARKLAND BAY ENTRANCE FEATURE BEING THE FIRE FEATURE THAT IS INCORPORATED IN THE FRONT FOUNTAIN.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO SWAP THAT OUT IN FAVOR FOR SOME STANDARD FOUNTAINS.SO THAT WOULD BE THE ITEM IF IT'S READY.

THAT WOULD BE BEFORE YOU ON YOUR NOVEMBER MEETING.

>> AT THIS POINT, IT'S NOT A FUNCTIONING FIRE FEATURE.

[10. Comments from the Board]

>> SO YOU WILL SEND OUT AN EMAIL?

>> YES. I THINK PERHAPS THAT WOULD BE BEST. I JUST WANTED TO PUT OUT THERE THAT WE NEED TO RESCHEDULE BUT DUE TO THE OBSERVATION OF

VETERANS DAY. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS? >> YES --

>> IS ALWAYS JUST ONE! >> JUST ONE QUICK ONE.

I JUST WANT TO THANK THE STAFF ARE RECONSIDERING THE DISCUSSION ON RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK IT WAS VERY HELPFUL.

YOUR TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE IS IN HIGH REGARD WITH ME.

AND I'M THANKFUL FOR ALL OF THESE GUYS APPEAR.

I'M GLAD WE TURNED A CORNER ON THAT.

I THINK IT'S A POSITIVE CHANGE. AND LOVE IT!

>> THANK YOU, DAVID. >> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.

SO COUNSEL, PROBABLY FOR YOU. SEVERAL MEETINGS WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT SCHOOL CROWDING.

AND I RECOGNIZE IT'S COUNTY AREA RESPONSIBILITY?

>> SCHOOL BOARD. >> SCHOOL BOARD.

SORRY. SO THE QUESTION FOR ME -- IT'S OUT OF MY OWN CURIOSITY, BUT IT ALSO KEEPS COMING UP -- IS THERE A WAY TO GUIDE -- WHAT COMES TO MY MIND IS IS THERE A VENUE OR AN AVENUE TO SEEK THE SCHOOL BOARD TO RELOOK AT BOUNDARIES OF WHERE STUDENTS ARE RESIDING? BECAUSE I HAVE TO THINK THAT IF THEY REALLY LOOKED AT WHERE THE STUDENTS ARE RESIDING AND COURSE CORRECTED TO CORAL SPRINGS OR WHERE EVER THEY RESIDE, IT MIGHT REBALANCE THE SCHOOL. AND THE ISSUE MIGHT RESOLVE

ITSELF. >> I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS. START GOING TO SOME MEETINGS.

>> THE I ZONE MEETINGS. THE BOUNDARY PROCESS HAPPENS

EVERY YEAR. >> HERE'S WHAT I LEARNED.

HERE'S WHAT I HAVE LEARNED -- FOR MANY, MANY YEARS -- FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS I WOULD ALWAYS PUT ON THE RECORD MY CONCERN, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF 12 FOUR-BEDROOM HOUSES. IN THE SCHOOL LETTER THAT IS USED TO USE APPROVALS FOR OUR CITY.

IT WOULD SAY THERE WOULD BE 7.5 STUDENTS.

IF YOU DO THE MATH, WHAT'S 12?4? 48 BEDROOMS -1 BEDROOM FOR NONSTUDENTS? DO THE MATH. HOW DO THEY GET THE NUMBERS? AND WHAT I HAVE LEARNED IS THERE IS A FORMULA.

AND THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. WHATEVER THEIR FORMULA IS, I WOULD ALWAYS SAY FIX THE FORMULA.

BUT THAT'S WHAT OUR APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE.

AND IT'S PROVIDED FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD.

AND THEN WE END UP HERE AND DEBATE AND AGREE WITH CLASSROOM

SIZES AND -- >> (INDISCERNIBLE).ISN'T IT THE SCHOOL BOARD CAPACITY THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE AS A CRITERIA FOR DENIAL? IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> IF THERE IS A CONCURRENCY LETTER FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT

-- >> I THINK IT'S AN ACCURATE

STATEMENT I'M MAKING. >> AND I WANT TO BE VERY PARTICULAR AND CAREFUL WHEN I ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

[03:15:05]

BUT THE 55+ -- LEGISLATIVE ITEM.

SO IT'S REALLY UP TO THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE TO (INDISCERNIBLE).

AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. >> MY LAST COMMENT.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.T'S GOOD TO BE BACK.

AND SECONDLY, I WANT TO REITERATE WHAT TONY SAID ABOUT THE CHANGES IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE PRESENTATION WAS EXCELLENT TONIGHT.

SO JUST ABSOLUTE KUDOS. THIS WAS A VERY GOOD MEETING.

AND A LOT OF VERY STRONG EFFORT BY STAFF AND YOU, CAITLIN.

>> MOTION TO

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.