Mar 12, 2026 Planning and Zoning

[1. Call to Order]

[4. Approval of Minutes]

[5. Comments from the Public on Non-Agenda Items (Part 1 of 2)]

[00:04:08]

>> GENE I KNOW I SPEAK FOR MANY OTHERS. YOU'LL BE MISSED.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. LLINOIS MISS YOU.

ILE MISS YOU. AND ENJOY THE MOST COMMODITY, TIME.

[APPLAUSE]. >> SO WE HAVE A SMALL TOKEN FOR JEAN FOR HER 14 YEARS OF

[00:05:07]

>> NOW WE'LL TURN IT ON TO TEAMS. >> THANK YOU, AT THIS TIME, I'M

GOING TO ASK IF THERE IS ANYBODY ELSE. >> MR. CHAIR, WE DO HAVE A

COUPLE OTHER PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE SOME REMARKS. >> YES.

>> AS A HEADS UP WE'RE GOING TO TURN IT TO THE PEOPLE ONLINE. IN A SECOND.

>> GET BACK IN THERE. WE'LL WAIT A MOMENT UNTIL JEAN GETS BACK IN HER SEAT.

>> JEAN, CAN YOU SEE TEAMS UP ON YOUR SCREEN? >> YES!

HI JEFF. AND MITCHEL. >> AND TO THE RIGHT.

>> MICHELLE. >> GREAT, WE'RE GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO THE FOLKS ON TEAMS TO SAY A COUPLE OF WORDS BECAUSE BOTH JEFF AND MICHELLE HAVE WORKED WITH JEAN FOR THE WHOLE TIME IN THE CITY. THEY WANTED TO SAY A PARTING FAREWELL.

>> WELCOME. >> HI. >> GO AHEAD, MICHELLE.

>> WELL, JEAN, IT'S GREAT TO SEE YOU CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR RETIREMENT.

SWANEY, YOU SAID IT ALL, ALL I CAN SAY THAT RETIREMENT IS GREATLY UNDER RATED, YOU WILL HAVE A BLAST AND I WISH YOU ALL THE BEST. CONGRATULATIONS.

>> JEFF? >> JEANIE, BEANIE PANINI, AS I ALWAYS SAY.

IT HAS BEEN A WHILE. I'M SO SORRY THAT I DIDN'T GET TO GO IN BUT I WOULD HAVE FELT HORRIBLE IF I GOT YOU SICK. GLAZESING ON YOUR RETIREMENT, YOU EARNED IT.

PARKLAND IS GOING TO MISS YOU SXWLAIM. MISS YOU!

>> LOVE YOU JEAN. >> JEFF, YOU'LL ALWAYS BE THE SIGN KING, YOU ALWAYS TAUGHT ME

HOW'S TO DO SIGNS. >> YOU HAVE TO BE KNOWN FOR SOMETHING.

>> THANK YOU, I'M VERY TOUCHED. >> KATELIN, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING

>> COPY AND PASTE, WHAT ELSE CAN YOU SAY? MY TOKEN SAYING FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS SINCE WE GOT TO BE BACK IN THE CITY IS THAT EVERY CITY NEEDS A JEAN.

IF EVERY CITY HAD A JEAN OUR JOB WOULD BE EASIER AND A LOT MORE ENJOYABLE IN A LOT OF PLACES BECAUSE JEAN MAKES EVERY DAY ENJOY, PERSONALLY AND A LOT EASIER PROFESSIONALLY.

SHE TAKES ON WAY MORE THAN HER WRITTEN JOB DESCRIPTION SAYS AND IF YOU CAN KEEP WITH HER GOING FROM END OF CITY HALL TO CITY HALL, YOU GOT YOUR STEPS IN FOR THE DAY.

BUT JEAN, AS MUCH AS SHE SAID I TEACH HER SOMETHING NEW ALL THE TIME, SHE TEACHES ME EVERY DAY AS WELL. IT'S BEEN A WONDERFUL PARTNERSHIP AND SOMETHING I ENJOY COMING TO CITY HALL, SEEING YOU HAPPY AND ENERGETIC GIVES ME DRIVE TO DO THE SAME FOR THE CITY. AND YOU'RE SUCH A VALUABLE ASSET TO ME AND THE CITY AND WE'RE GOING TO MISS YOU MORE THAN YOU KNOW. SO THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU

DO FOR US. >> THANK YOU, KATELIN, I ALWAYS SAY WE WERE THE DYNAMIC DUO TOGETHER, WE WORK WELL. TT LIKE WE READ EACH OTHER'S MINDS.

>> I'M GOING TO TURNOVER TO MY LEFT, MR. TONY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

TONIGHT I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND THANK JEANIE FOR HER DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE PARKLAND PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD. WHILE SHE WASN'T PART OF THE BOARD, SHE PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE BEHIND THE SCENES AS OUR CLERK AND AS A PLANNER.

[00:10:05]

AS YOU BEGIN THIS CHAPTER I WISH YOU A FULFILLED RETIREMENT FILLED WITH HAPPINESS, GOOD HEALTH AND MANY WONDERFUL ADVENTURES AHEAD. THANK YOU, JEANIE.

>> THANK YOU, TONY. >> THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE]

>> TUZ, ANYBODY ELSE? I'M GOING TO CLOSE ITEM NUMBER 5.

[6. Comments by the Chair]

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

[7. Approval of the Agenda]

>> ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? >> NO CHANGES.

>> ARE IS THERE ANY CHANGE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS IS? >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> JOEL AND MOTION AND TONY SECONDED.

[8.A. Ordinance 2026-004: Amending the Land Development Code]

>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO OPEN THE ITEM 8 PUBLIC HEARING, ITEM A. ORDINANCE 2016-004 AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COMMISSION OF PARKLAND FLORIDA AMEND ING THE CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 5 ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL PROVISIONS SECTION 5, TERMS DEFINED TO ADD A DEFINITION OF FAST CASUAL RESTAURANT AND B1, B2, B3 AND OP COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS SECTION 1045-05 USES PERMITTED IN ARTICLE 90 OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING, SECTION 90-530 AMOUNT OFF STREET PARKING TO PROVIDE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO FAST RESTAURANTS PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION AND AFFECTIVE DATE.

AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO KATELIN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

KATELIN, WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I HOPE YOU ALL ATE DINNER BECAUSE TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT FAST CASHL RESTAURANTS.

WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS AND THE CON CEPT OF THEIR RAPID GROWTH AND THE CONSIDERATION FOR TONIGHT. IF YOU'RE NOT ONE, YOU HAVE TO BE THE OTHER.

ESTABLISHMENT WHERE FOOD AND BEVERAGES ARE ORDERED FROM. MENU AND THAT'S KEY, PREPARE AND SERVE FOR PAY FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISE AND THAT'S THE OTHER KEY.

SO WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT IS PRECLUDED FROM TAKE OUT SERVICE.

AS WELL AS ANY ESTABLISHMENT WHERE ORDERS AREN'T TAKEN FROM A MENU.

WHERE--AT A TAKE OUT COUNTER OR WINDOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE SEATING FACILITIES AND MAY INCLUDE FACILITIES BY WHICH CONSUMERS ARE SERVED WHILE REMAINING IN THEIR VEHICLES.

SO THIS IS WHAT OUR CODE ALLOWS FOR. SO WHAT TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT

[00:15:03]

IT TAKES A WHILE TO GET THROUGH THE PROCESS. IT HAS TO GET THROUGH STAFF.

IT HAS TO GO THROUGH PNZ AND CITY COMMISSION. THAT IS CERTAINLY A DEVELOPMENT HURDLE FOR SOMEBODY WILLING TO COME INTO THE CITY FOR APPROVAL OF A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT IF THEY'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO OCCUR IN A TIMELY MANNER. BUT THERE IS REASONS THAT THE CITY HAS HISTORICALLY PROCESSES THESE AS SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SEE HAVE DIFFERENT LAYERS OF PROTECTION THROUGH THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION REVIEW PROCESS. SO, OF COURSE, WE'RE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH FAST CASUAL RESTAURANTS RIGHT, THROUGH THE LAST DECADE OR MORE, THESE ARE INCREASINGLY POPULAR, IT'S THE THIRD HYBRID TYPE OF A RESTAURANT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN FOOD SERVICE AND FAST FOOD IS WHERE THE FAST CASUAL RESTAURANTS LIE.

THEY OFFER HIGHER QUALITIES, FRESHER FOODS, YOU CAN CUSTOMIZE THEM MORE EASILY THAN FAST FOOD. AND ONE OF THE WAYS THAT PEOPLE TRY TO DEFINE IS YOU PREPARE FRESH FOOD RATHER THAN ASSEMBLE IT. SO IT'S KIND OF A TERM IN TERMS OF WHERE THE DIFFERENCES LIE BETWEEN FULL SERVICE AND FAST FOOD.

BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE CAPTURED IT PRETTY WELL. SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH SLIDES EXACTLY HOW WE MAKE THAT DISTINCTION IN JUST A MINUTE. HERE'S A SLIDE SHOWING THE GROWTH PROTECTIONS, IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE A BIGGER AND BIGGER COMPONENT OR SECTOR OF THE MARKET AS IT RELATES TO THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY. SO THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES ARE GOING TO HELP US ESTABLISH WHERE THAT FAST CASUAL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUBBLE DIAGRAM LIES. SO SOME SFT KEY CHARACTERISTICS SO YOU PAY AT THE COUNTER SIMILAR TO FAST FOOD BUT AGAIN, IT'S MORE CUSTOMIZABLE, IT'S FRESHER FOODS, HEALTHIER FOODS, AND THEY DO FOCUS ON THE ATMOSPHERE THAT IS CREATED WITHIN THE RESTAURANT AS ONE OF THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS, IT'S MAYBE A WLILT MORE MODERN, THEY ENCOURAGE YOU TO STAY AND DINE MORE THAN A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WOULD. AND HERE'S A CHART THAT AGAIN, SEPARATES THE TWO INTO SOME KEY CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN HOW YOU ORDER, THE SERVICE, THE QUALITY, AGAIN THE ATMOSPHERE. FAST CASUAL IS ON THE RIGHT. AND THEN ONE MORE CHART.

FOCUSING ON THE FOOD AND THE TYPE OF FOOD. VARIETY AND THE AMBIANCE.

SO SINCE THIS IS A MISSING CATEGORY IN THE CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY, THE STAFF IS PROPOSED TO ADD POIN OF SALE PRIOR TO CONSUMPTION PREPARED TO ORDER AND INTENDED FOR CON ASSUMES ON OR OFF THE SERVICE. LIMITED OR NOT PROVIDED.

UNLIKE FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS, FAST ESTABLISHMENT EMPHASIZED FRESHLY PREPARED AND MENU ITEMS AND ONSITE DINING RATHER THAN PREPREPARED FOODS FOR TAKE OUT OR DRIVE-THRU.

FAST CASUAL RESTAURANTS SHALL NOT INCLUDE DRIVE-THRUS FM THERE IS SOME EXAMPLE OF SOME

[00:20:07]

THIS IS WHAT THE AMENDED TABLE WOULD LOOK LIKE IN OUR B1, 2 AND 3 WE WOULD PERMIT FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS WHERE THE FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS WITH PERMITTED BY RIGHT AND OUR B1 AND 2 AND 3 LEAVING UNTOUCHED WHICH WOULD REMAIN AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

FOR PARK ING, WE WOULD PARK IT AT THE SAME RIGHT WHICH WOULD BE THE ONE SPACE PER 35 SPACE OF CUSTOMER SERVICE AREA. THERE IS A LOWER PARKING RATE FOR FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS WHEN ARE PART OF A SHOPPING CENTER THAT EXCEEDS A PERCENTAGE.

WE WANTED STICK TO A RATE FOR NOW WE WANTED TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT LOWER IF WE FOUND THAT THIS WAS TOO MUCH PARKING FOR THEM. BUT I WANTED TO START WITH THE 1-35 AND SEE WHERE THAT GOES FROM THERE IN TERMS OF IF WE NEED TO REDUCE THE PARKING RATE WE CAN CONSIDER THAT. IT'S EASIER TO DO THAT THAN TO GO THE OTHER WAY AND TRY TO MAKE IT FOR RESTRICTIVE. OVERALL, WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND WE'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD AT THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU, KATELIN, ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS? JOEL? I'M SORRY.

>> I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT IS MOTIVATING BRINGING THE AMENDMENT NOW?

>> IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE BACK OF OUR MIND FOR A WHILE THAT THERE IS A GAP IN THE RESTAURANTS IN TERMS OF THE PERMITTED USES, WE GET CALLS ALL THE TIME ABOUT DIFFERENT RESTAURANT OPTIONS THAT WANT TO COME INTO THE CITY AND IT'S A CHALLENGE TO PUT THEM INTO THE SILO WITHOUT HAVING THE THIRD OPTION WHICH WOULD BE THE FAST CASUAL RESTAURANTS.

>> CAN I ADD TO THAT, IT'S A 5400 APPLICATION FEE AND I GET THE CALLS AND THAT TURNS THEM OFF. THEY STILL HAVE TO DO A BUILD OUT.

>> NOT TO PREPARE THE DOCUMENTS AND GO THROUGH THE REPRESENTATIVE.

>> TT JUST A REGULAR RESTAURANT AS OPPOSE TODAY FAST-CASUAL? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING

THAT IT WOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE? >> SO IS THE 5400 FEE IS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS NECESSITATED FOR FAST FOOD. SO IF YOU'RE NOT A FULL SIT DOWN WHICH SO SO MANY RESTAURANTS AREN'T. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS A MIDDLE GROUND THAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO ATTRACT IN TERMS OF RESTAURANT OPPORTUNITIES BUT, YOU KNOW, MIGHT NOT HAVE SOME OF THE NEGATIVE DRAWBACKS LIKE A TRUE FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WHERE WE'RE TRYING

TO HAVE THAT EXCEPTION AND CRITERIA AND PROTECTION. >> SUBJECT MATTER CAME UP FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING. I HAPPEN TO WALK INTO A RESTAURANT THAT I HAD NEVER BEEN TO BEFORE I'M SURE PEOPLE IN HERE HAVE BEEN IN IT, THE BAMBOO RESTAURANT, I THINK IT'S CALLED, BAMBOO HEALTHY FOODS, IT'S IN THE SAME SHOPPING PLAZA THAT MD IS NOW WHERE HURRICANES USED TO BE. THERE IS A BIG SIGN, I TOOK A PICTURE, THAT SAYS WE'RE NOT A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT. AND I WONDERED, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS, IT SAYS WE'RE NOT A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW, ARE THEY DEFINING THEMSELVES? I BELIEVE THAT THESE TYPES OF RESTAURANTS ALREADY EXIST POTENTIALLY.

>> THAT'S IN CORAL SPRINGS. >> SO, I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW, THAT THE POINT THAT PEOPLE ARE ALREADY HERE. THE TYPES OF RESTAURANTS ARE ALREADY HERE.

SO THOSE TYPES OF RESTAURANTS, THEY DON'T HAVE TO AT THIS POINT, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE HISTORY OF EACH ESTABLISHMENT AND WHAT PERMITS THEY RECEIVED BUT ALSO NOT FAMILIAR WITH BAMBOO HEALTHY FOODS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT TYPE OF

ESTABLISHMENT, THEY HAVE IN TERMS OF THEIR OPERATIONS. >> IT LITERALLY FITS THE DEFINITION THAT YOU HAVE. YOU ORDER AT A KIOSK, IT'S THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT.

THEY'RE MAKING THE FOOD IN FROFNT YOU AND YOU CAN CUSTOMIZE IT.

>> YEAH, THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT MEETS THE FAST-CASUAL WITHOUT BEING THERE.

AND WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME PICTURES HERE. IT DOES LOOK GOOD.

[00:25:03]

>> IT IS GOOD, IT'S GOT A CULT FOLLOWING. >> LITERALLY, THEY PUT A SIGN THAT THEY'RE NOT A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT. SO THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. SO THE OBJECT IS TO ATTRACT THAT SETTING HERE.

OKAY, THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> YES.

>> GO AHEAD. >> DID I CUT IN FRONT? >> NO.

NO. NO, I WAS NOT GOING DO YOU WANT LINE.

>> I CAN YIELD TO JOEL. >> GO AHEAD. >> OKAY.

TOO FUNNY, I CAUGHT THAT JOKE, JOEL. I'LL GET YOU BACK.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WITH CHANGE AND THE CODE TO HAVE THE DEFINITIONS.

I THINK THE DEFINITIONS, YOU KNOW, GIVE THIS RESTAURANT SITUATION A STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, IT'S THAT MIDDLE CATEGORY. ON ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IS, DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE RESTAURANTS THAT ARE OPERATING IN THE LINES, ALONG THE LINES OF WHERE JORDANA WAS STATING THAT ARE FAST CASUAL? OPERATING AS FAST CASUAL BUT THEY'RE NOT IN THE CATEGORY OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE CATEGORY, IS THAT OCCURRING RIGHT NOW?

>> THERE IS CERTAINLY RESTAURANTS THAT UNDER THE NEW CODE THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FAST CASUAL BUT THEY WOULD BE PUSHED UNDER THE FAST FOOD OPTION, UNFORTUNATELY THEY WERE

MADE TO GO THROUGH AN EXTRA PERMITTING PROCESS. >> YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITHOUT LIVE LISTING THEM BUT THIS IS HELPFUL TO THE PROCESS AND HAVING IT MORE DEFINED.

DO WE HAVE FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS OPERATING IN THE CITY? I MEAN, I CAN'T THINK OF ANY. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ON THE BOARD.

>> NONE WITH DRIVE-THRUS. >> YEAH. >> STARBUCKS WOULD BE FAST FOOD.

>> WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO GUARD THE PAL ANS AS IT RELATES TO THE FAST FOOD PLACE.

I LOOK MAKING THE CATEGORY, SO ELIGIBLE RESTAURANTS CAN GO INTO THAT CATEGORY AND ALSO WHERE YOU WANT IT IN THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT WE HAVE THE CATEGORY AND WHERE DO WE PUT THEM? AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

LET ME SEE, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, I BELIEVE. DO WE PLAN ON RECATEGORIZING THE EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT POTENTIAL ARE FAST CASUAL OR WE'RE JUST NOT CALLING THEM THAT? WILL THEY GET A NEW DESIGNATION?

>> A DESIGNATION FROM WHAT PERSPECTIVE? >> THEY ARE CONSIDERED A FAST CASUAL RESTAURANT PER OUR CODE SINCE WE HAVE THIS NEW DEFINITION AND THEY WOULD NOT BE A FULL RESTAURANT THAT THEY ARE A FAST CASUAL? NOT THAT IT WOULD BE PUNITIVE BUT YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT WE HAVE RESTAURANTS THAT ARE OPERATING AS FAST CASUAL BUT THEY'RE NOT IN THAT DEFINITION BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST AT THIS TIME.

DO WE PLAN ON CONNECTING THAT GOING FORWARD? DO WE NEED TO?

IS THERE ANY BENEFIT TO THE CITY TO DO THAT? >> THE ONLY TIME THAT WOULD PROBABLY COME UP IS IF THEY WERE LOOKING TO EXPAND OR RELOCATE AN EXISTING FACILITY.

IT WOULD IMPACT THEIR PERMITTED USE AND PARKING REQUIREMENT. BUT IF THEY'RE JUST AN EXISTING BUSINESS AND THEY'RE STAYING IN THEIR CURRENT LOCATION AND NOT ASKING FOR ANY KIND OF PERMITS, THERE IS NO ACTION TO BE TAEN. BUT IF THEY'RE LOOKING TO RELOCATE AND EXPAND, ZONING

REVIEW, THEN THEY WOULD BE FAST CASUAL IF APPROPRIATE. >> YEAH.

I, I SUPPORT THE ITEM. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE DEFINITION FOR FAST CASUAL RESTAURANTS. THEY ARE OPERATING HERE AND TO HAVE A DEFINITION FAST CASUAL, I THINK IS IMPORTANT. AND, AND THE LOCATION OF THE FAST CASUAL IN THE ZONING DISTR

PROVIDED MAKES SENSE. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU.

JOEL? >> MR. ATTORNEY, IS THERE IN THE THE AGENDA SUMMARY ON THE BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE, LAST SENT SENSE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, WHEN MAKING REFERENCE TO FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS, IT SAYS THIS PROCLUESED ESTABLISHMENTS TO GO ORDERS. NOW WE KNOW MOST OF THESE RESTAURANTS HAVE TO GO ORDERS.

IS THERE ANY ZONING LANDMINES TIED TO THAT SENTENCE? >> SO JUST, YEAH FOR CLARIFICATION, IT'S NOT THAT IF YOU HAD AN OLIVE GARDEN, YOU CANNOT OFFER TO-GO ORDERS.

IT MORE CURRENTLY IF YOU WERE A, SHAKE SHACK A LOT OF THOSE ARE TRUE TO GO ORDERS, OR DINE

[00:30:08]

OUT, YEAH. >> FAIR ENOUGH. >> THANK YOU, JOEL.

>> FOR THE RECORD, I THINK THE MEMO WAS IN THE CONCEPT OF QUALIFYING AS A FULL SERVICE

RESTAURANT. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY, IS THERE A LANDMINE FOR EXISTING.

>> IN THIS ORDINANCE, WE'RE NOT TOUCHING FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS AT ALL.

WE'RE NOT MAKING AN AMENDMENT. >> IS THERE SOMETHING THAT CAN SAY, THEY CAN DID AND/OR THEY

CAN'T OFFER TAKE OUT. >> I'LL ADD SOME CLARIFICATION IN THE AGENDA SUMMARY.

>> YEAH, WHEN IT GOES TO COMMISSION, WE'LL CLEAN IT UP. >> THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE? I WANT TO INTERRUPT, FOR THE RECORD, ALEX STEPPED IN WHEN HE WAS ORIGINALLY DURING THE ROLL CALL. SEW HAS BEEN PRINT DURING THIS

WHOLE AGENDA IDEA. --ITEM. >> PRESENT.

>> WHAT TIME? >> I USUALLY PUT THE TIME. >> 6:08.

>> MEET ING STARTED AT 6:00 FOR THE RECORD. >> I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE VOTE AND IF IT STATES HE WAS ABSENT IT WILL BE CRITICAL.

ANYBODY ELSE? >> DID HE BRING A NOTE? >> ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, KATELIN FORT RECORD, --FOR THE RECORD AND THE PARTICULAR SLIDE, THAT SHOWED THE PARKING RATIOS, YEAH, GROSS FLOOR AREAS CUSTOMER SERVICE AREA.

>> OKAY, THIS IS JUST A GENERAL RULE OF THUMB TO SHOW YOU THAT THE 1-35 IS SATISFY, IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE OVER PARKED. WE WOULD RATHER START WITH A HIGHER REQUIREMENT AND THEN IF WE SAY, HEY OUR CENTERS ARE WAY OVER PARKED WE CAN COME DOWN WITH SB180, IT'S HARD TO GO THE OPPOSITE WAY. SO WE WOULD RATHER STICK TO THE 135 WHICH WOULD GENERATE, BASED ON THE MODEL HERE THAT WE GAVE WITH THE 2700 GROSS FOOT ESTABLISHMENT, ASSUMING 40 TO 60 PERCENT IS CUSTOMER SERVICE AREA, BASED ON OUR RATE WHERE 27 WOULD BE REQUIRED JUST ON THE AVERAGE RULE OF THUMB OF THE PER SPACE 100. GFA.

>> THANK YOU. I WANTED TO DWELL ON THAT, PARKING IS FUNDAMENTALLY, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT POINTS THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND DELVE INTO DURING AN APPROVAL PROCESS. SO, I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. NOT CLARIFY.

WHAT IF ANYTHING WOULD, ESTABLISHMENT IN ANY OF THE CATEGORIES THAT WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE LIQUOR IN THEIR BUSINESS? IS THAT JUST A SEPARATE LIQUOR LICENSE? IS THERE IS NO EXTRA SUSPENDERS FOR BUSINESS OR RESTAURANT THAT IS GOING TO BE SERVING LIQUOR, NOT A BAR BUT THE WAY THE CODE READS? IS THERE ANY AFFECT? SHOULD THERE BE ANY RESPECT WHERE ALCOHOL BEER OR WINE IS

SERVED? >> SO WE DO HAVE ALCOHOL REQUIREMENTED IN THE CODE THAT ESTABLISHED, MINIMUM DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

OF COURSE LIKE YOU SAID, WE DON'T ALLOW FOR PURELY BARS, YOU WOULD HAVE NEED A

RESTAURANT TO SERVE ALCOHOL. SO IT WOULD BE. >> BY DEFINITION, HAVING THE NEW DEFINITION OR THE NEW CATEGORY, IN THE ZONING CODE IS THERE ANYWHERE ELSE THAT WOULD OFFSET OR PRECLUDE OUR ZONING CODE THAT ADDRESSED LIQUOR? YOU SAID WE CANNOT HAVE BARS.

YOU ALSO WITHOUT US, PROCESS, AND FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT THAT HAS LIQUOR HAS CERTAIN PERCENTAGES OF FOOD AND SEATING AND DOES, DOES THAT, DOES THE NEW THE WAY THE NEWS CODE IS WRITTEN, DOES IT ADDRESS A NUMBER OF SEATS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT HAVING TO DO WITH

LIQUOR? >> IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO ANY LIQUOR SALES OR ESTABLISHMENT.

YOU CAN LOOK AT THE ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT ORDINANCE AND SEE HOW THAT WORKS WITH THE FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT EXCLUSION THAT IS IN THERE. I DON'T THINK THERE IS AN

[00:35:02]

APPETITE TO EXCLUDE FAST CASUAL. >> THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN A BIG ASPECT, IF THERE IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION EVERYTHING FROM SEATING, PERCENTAGES TO FOOD TO LIQUOR, TO PARK ING ALL OF IT.

I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE WE'VE GONE THROUGH AND ADDRESSED IN THE PAST, THE WAY OUR CODE IS WRITTEN.

>> YEAH, WE'LL DEFINITELY TAKE A LOOK AT THAT SECTION. >> SO FAST CASUAL, YOU'RE GOING

TO LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN HAVE ALCOHOL? >> NO, JUST HOW OUR CODE TREATS IT WITH NEW CATEGORY, DOES THE LIQUOR ASPECT OF OUR ZONING CODE ADDRESS FAST FOOD VERSUS FULL SERVICE IF IT DOES, IT WOULD NEED TO ADDRESS THIS NEW CATEGORY, PERHAPS.

>> YES, WE'LL LOOK AT THAT, WE'RE PULLING IT UP CURRENTLY. >> I KNOW, FAST CASUAL CHIPOTLE HAS LIQUOR LICENSE YOU CAN BUY A BEER. THAT WAY WE ADDRESS IT AHEAD.

>> SO SHOULD WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION?

>> WE'RE NOT READY TO DO THAT. >> NO, NO, NO, TO YOUR POINT SHOULD WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION WHETHER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THAT CATEGORY.

>> MY INPUT IS JUST A MATTER WHETHER IT WAS LOOKED AT OR NOT, AND IF IT WAS, GREAT, AS

LONG AS THE COMMISSION HAS ALL THE INFORMATION TO ADDRESS IT. >> I GET YOUR POINT.

MY POINT IS DO WE WANT TO CHIME IN AND ADVISE THE COMMISSION ON IT AND SINCE NOBODY IS SPEAKING

ABOUT IT? >> OUR FULL PRESENCE ADVISES, WE'RE ADVISORY TO THE

COMMISSION SO HOPEFULLY THEY'LL LISTEN TO OUR CONVERSATIONS. >> SO KATELIN MENTIONED THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT THAT WE DO HAVE FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT BUT FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THAT BUT AS OF YET, IT DOES NOT ADDRESS FAST CASUAL RESTAURANTS.

SO IF YOU WANT TO PROVIDE SOME INPUT WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THOSE SHOULD BE EXEMPT?

>> WE'RE GOING TO REFER TO MOD PIZZA AS A FAST CASUAL, THEY SERVE BEER AND WINE IN A CAN.

WE WOULD NOT WANT TO CHANGE WHAT THEIR OFFERINGS ARE RIGHT NOW FOR SOMETHING THAT WE'RE

HEADING IN. >> AND DOES THIS, DOES THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SERVICE CREATE A SPECIAL EXEMPTION WITHIN A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT CURRENTLY?

IT DOESN'T, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> RIGHT IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A ALCOHOL AT A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT IT'S A SPECIAL EXEMPTION.

>> RIGHT. >> LOCK THE DOOR SO I GO BACK TO MY EARLIER COMMENT OR QUESTION, SHOULD WE ALLOW ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SERVICE IN THE FAST CASUAL WHAT WOULD WE WANT TO ADVISE THE COMMISSION? WHAT'S THE PROS AND CONS ON THAT?

OR MAYBE WE DON'T WANT TO ADVISE THEM? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE PRO HIB HITED, THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN BUT YOU MAY WANT TO ADDRESS WHETHER IT SHOULD BE EXEMPT LIKE FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS ARE FROM A DISTANCE SEPARATION THAT'S

SOMETHING YOU MAY WANT TO ADDRESS. >> I'M GOING TO OPEN THE AGENDA ITEM OT PUBLIC AT THIS TIME. IF THERE IS ANYBODY ON THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK.

SEEING NONE, IT IS NOW CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC. WE'LL CONTINUE THE DEBATE OR

SEEK A MOTION. >> I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> HANG ON, I'VE GOT TO PUT THE AND AND IN THERE. WHAT CITY ATTORNEY SEROKA HAS STATED ABOUT PROVIDING THE EXCEPTION FOR FROM DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.

>> SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS. >> IS THERE A SECOND. >> SECOND.

>> SECONDED BY DEREK, MOTION BY JOEL CALLED FOR THE VOTE PLEASE. >> GOLDSTEIN?

>> I'M GOING TO SAY NO, EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS NOT ANY INTENTION BUT WITH WITH THE ADD

ON. >> NO. >> YES.

[00:40:03]

>> SORRY, YOU DIDN'T CALL ME. >> DEREK. >> YES.

>> BILL. >> YES. >> ALEX.

>> YES. >> VICE CHAIR. >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN? >> YES. THANK YOU.

[9. Comments from the Planning Director]

>> 5-1. >> KATELIN COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR IT?

>> IT LOOKS LIKE WE'LL BE HAVING AN APRIL MEETING, SHOULD BE OUR REGULARLY APRIL 9TH MEETING AND WE MAY ALSO BE HAVING A MAY MEET ING. SO WE'LL BE SEEING YOU THROUGHOUT THE SPRING AND INTO SUMMER. WE'VE GOT SOME EXCITING STUFF GOING ON WITH BEHIND THE SCENES WITH A LOT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SO LOOKING FORWARD TO

SEEING YOU SHORTLY. >> ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO REALIGN THE AGENDA AND WE'RE

GOING TO HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER IF WE MAY. >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

JEAN, HOW MUCH APPLICATIONS ARE WE GETTING FOR FAST CASUAL RESTAURANTS?

>> I'M GOING TO GO YEARLY, I WOULD GET FOUR CALLS A YEAR AND WHEN THEY HEAR ABOUT THE PRICE,

[5. Comments from the Public on Non-Agenda Items (Part 2 of 2)]

THEY JUST MOVE ON. >> HELLO MR. MAYORSON. >> STATE YOUR NAME.

>> BOB MAYORSON, 672 NORTHWEST 80TH--MAY FAIR. >> JOEL CAP LAND'S NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> CONDOLENCES. >> MR. CHAIR, I DO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT, TO I DON'T KNOW CONGRATULATE, ORBITER SWEET, I KNOW THIS IS JEAN'S LAST MEETING.

I DO WANT TO THANK HER FOR SERVICE WHEN I WAS ON PNZ, AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER.

ANYTHING I NEEDED SHE WAS ALWAYS THERE TO HELP TO GUIDE TO SUGGEST TO RECOMMEND, ALL THEY IS THE ONLY ONE WHO WILL GET THIS JOKE BUT, YOU KNOW, HER CLOTHING STYLE SOMETIMES, LACKED DESIRED. WE HAD CONVERSATIONS AND SHE NEVER WORE, YOU HAVE TO BE THERE. SHE WORE A PLAID SHIRT AND I SAID WHY ARE YOU WEARING THAT?

AND SHE NEVER WORE ABOUT IT. >> DON'T EVER TELL A WOMAN YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING.

AND I NEVER WORE IT AGAIN. WE HAD A PARTY AND THEN I WORE IT.

>> THANK YOU, IT'S IRREPLACEABLE. >> THANK YOU.

>> [APPLAUSE] >> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO DO THIS, IS THERE

A VOTE TO A MOTION TO ADJOURN? >> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM JEANIE.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM HER. >> I THINK WE SHOULD CLOSE THE MEETING.

>> OH OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN

THE MOTELING. --MEETING. >> SECOND.

>>

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.