Planning Board/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting

know, if you need it, oh, no, no, no. Okay. ? ? ? ? ? ? Time. ? ? ? All. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> All right. I'm gonna call this meeting or its 302. Regions. 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. To get a roll call, please. Okay. Mister May here. Mister Christie present Mister Ms Nesbitt here and Mister Clermont. And requests to change to the site there, any requested changes to the order of the day? Yes, So first, I would like to suggest that we move item number 2, which is under quasi judicial that. >> 16, 16 Ringling rezone. I'd like to move that up so that we can hear those 2 items consecutively. The number one legislative item and then the number 2 cause you to shul. Okay. Says those are related applications. And then I would also like to request that we move presentation of topics by staff. We do have some staff members that aren't staying for the whole meeting and they want to address the board. Sure. So 16, topics by staff and then topics by for late of item. And then the second quasi judicial item moved first time. We all yes, because Thank you. Thank you. All right. And with are set to put conduct a we may disagree, but we will be respectful of one another. We will direct all comments to issues. All right. And then can we review. This just a time limits for the the 2 hearings are the 2 things. And then the other >> Great to the first part of 60's. If you're willing the We have 15 minutes city, 15 minutes applicants and with 3 minutes for any citizen. And the Re zone, which would be the one just will are we hearing with the 10 minutes from Mister, the city, 5 minutes for an effect persons. 3 minutes for a citizens with 3 minutes, a rebuttal. Any time for him today. I consensus that. >> All And what that can mister, the oath to anybody speaking to >> be speaking today before the board. Please rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony evidence or factual representations you're about to give represents the plane board during this hearing? How this 8th day of July 2026, are >> All right. And with topics by staff, yes, we'll have. Steve, the planning director, Lucy of the developed services director. >> Good afternoon Planning Board. Thank you for allowing us opportunity to come before you today to give us a few remarks to give you a few remarks again. For the record, I'm Lucy up and a good director of development services. And with me is Steve Kovar, the Planning Department director. We're here to address to clarify a few comments and statements that stated at the end of the June 10th meeting. The last planning board meeting. Just to clarify the record and to provide clarification really. So first, it was stated that that city playing staff does not simply interpret the code often in a natural in a neutral to a manner or even in the public bus interest. But they had their finger on the scale at times in favor of the developers. I believe that what who was be referred to here was development services and planning staff. So our role in development services is to coordinate the review process and review projects against city codes that have been adopted by past and present city commissioners. We also are the avenue for the public to provide input on the project. As the case planner, the public input is shared with the applicant. But as part of the official file and be viewed by the case planner for potential implementation of suggestions, however, we cannot require anything that's not backed by existing code or that it's not one of the standards for review for the applicable application. We are currently actively working with neighborhood groups and development group but Development Group or community to increase public participation and public input, including the public and the development process. It's very important to but I did want to. We say that we are limited by what the requires and allows. It was also stated that staff reports are often slanted towards the development applicant and staff has taken a position as an advocate for the developer. And intervene to protect the development interest. The staff reports from Development Services report reflects compliance with applicable codes. It is not a document advocate for anyone or any side staff is legally required to make a recommendation to that pretty body. Projects often take several months to get from said middle up to public hearing with numerous iterations and meetings which are required to come into compliance with code we actually get complaints a lot from the development community. That application the application process does take a long time because we go through a lot of iterations to get to compliance so we don't take what is initially submitted. Give it to you. So there's a lot of back and forth between us and the developer. If the project does meet applicable codes, then staff issues recommendation of approval often with conditions. There have been several projects that have received denial recommendations if we can't get into compliance with all the codes. It was also stated that getting answers to direct questions has been challenging. Staff can answer simple direct questions. Oftentimes questions that don't pertain to the application and the criteria that's in front of the planning board. These may seem like simple questions to some, but staff has to keep in line with the role of review. They cannot make assumptions on that is that they haven't verified. All really that don't pertain to application that's in front of you. It was stated that staff failed to make information available. That would have helped the planning board. This has come up several times recently with specifically with zone and stream occasion applications which don't require site plan to submitted. So we have as staff heard the planning board and now are submitting site plan materials. If we do have you know, along with the application, however, it has been practice to provide application details for you. Only the application material that's in front of the planning board to lessen confusion and to stick to. Decrease confusion to make the planning board and the public believe that something could be binding when it's not or when it's not in the purview of the planning board at the time. Also in comparison to over 15 years ago and going back, we're providing the planning board a lot more material than what was previously provided both in the material in the staff report explanations of compliance in the staff report and also the backup material. So again, it does. We have heard that the planning board wants to see any site plan applications that are. either. After rezone his minute or street vacation which is required by the code. And that would require an amendment to the code. If we do want to make it a requirement. So lastly, it was stated that staff is biased to the interests of the developer in should be held accountable. I could see the development services and planning staff is very careful with not having any bias towards anyone can simply following our codes, rules and procedures because of the amount of time spent on reviewing projects. Most do come into compliance with our codes. And that's why we are able to recommend approval as the director. I did want to also mention that I think I started I my education is a planning. I start off here in city as a So I was often the person coming in front of the board and the city commission with these I am. Extremely aware of the process and our role as the case planner. Steve. Yes, stay for the record. Steve cover director of planning a very well there might be some duplication and in my remarks, but I think it's important to emphasize these >> that like see us at the last planning board meeting. Some remarks were made about planning staff, those development services and planning department that we felt were simply false and we'd like to and we we want to do is address those comments today. Some of the remarks that were where that planning staffs more interested in developer centrist than community's interests. We're biased towards developers. We rights landed reports in favor of developers and we reversed and projects and the as what Lucy has said. None of these statements are true. One of the things that, you know doesn't come up. But I think it's really important to present to the planning board. Is that? If you knew how many projects? Are turned away before they even come close to coming to the planning board you would probably be surprised. We meet with the applicants and developers all the time. Many of those projects. I don't think the co don't meet the requirements and simply of her turned way no one ever hears about those projects. No one ever But that is definitely the I know there's some people that don't want to believe that that's the truth. But it is true. And a perfect example was years ago we had a who Dey who would tell chain that wanted to do a project on from the road. And the property that they were looking at. They were proposing the front of the hotel to come right up to the property line and literally be 3 feet or 4 feet away from from road. You know, we said to them, we don't think that's a good And in addition, really isn't good design. And after we had that meeting and the well, one of the proponents of the project said what we have a right to build up to the property line said that's correct. You do. But he really want the main entrance of the hotel. We have a 3 or 4 foot sidewalk outside along for road. And what was interesting was that the representative from the hotel chain said he's right. We don't want to do that. That doesn't make good sense from from safety standpoint, calls also from a design standpoint, and so that project a way, no one knew that story. No one knew that that happened. But was really important because that the final product, they had moved forward, the final product with none of good, not only for the city and pedestrian safety, but also for the applicant. There are some projects that come in to be honest with when we sit down, do you you know, this is this project got some real issues and a lot of those projects don't make But the same time there's a project that has merit staff does sometimes work with the applicant to improve that and make it viable. Made make sure that it meets the requirements and then those move forward. The statement was made. We made recommendations are reports. That is true. And that's our job. As professional planners, architects and engineers. We have liked said we have rules and regulations that were approved by past commissions that we must follow. That's what we have to do. We have to follow those rules and regulations. And even though the planning board may not like the rules and sometimes we don't like the rules, but that's what we have to phone because of the rules and regulations that are in place. Planning board members have to fight staffing, struggle to get straight answers who see address this. mean, there are times when there's a clear case of someone not liking staffs answers. Nothing else. And from my experience in testifying and land-use depositions, court cases, this happens all the time. There was a I was at the stand and literally an attorney spend an hour and a half with me trying to get a certain answer out of me. I kept giving them the true a response. He finally threw his hands up in the air, said this witness is impossible. I can't deal with this. I looked towards the judging of the big smile on his face and so I'm like I said might not like staffs answer planning board meetings are depositions and they are held in courtrooms. And so lastly, I would like to get back to the planning. Members have to fight staffing, struggle to get straight answers for some people. It's hard to accept that maybe there's just an honest disagreement and that's it. And I think a lot of cases that's and that's that's exactly what happens. That concludes. I want to apologize for changing market. That was going to say I miss. I missed a really interesting >> We have some discussion about this. What's the process now has or is that just? Presentation? I discussion. Thank you both. You have to come I'm just so grateful that you came and sort of pop this bumper. Because I've been thinking hard about this doesn't mean that you see the smoke coming out of my ears does come to any valid conclusions. But I just want to say that from my perspective. Staff does excellent work. And he's between a rock and a hard place. And that rock and hard place is administrative approval. The code is complicated. And should be and needs to be and what we need in the city is a staff that's knowledgeable and dedicated, interpreting and applying that code fairly. I think that's what you do. But the process is so complicated. Very few people grasp it. I still have to, you know, I'm I'm constantly going back to the code and looking for something looking for some regulation and usually the answers and staff. I just by definition, I want to say. Every time I've called staff members, they call me back. That's a bit today apologized for being on vacation so she couldn't get back to me right? I mean, it the dedication is there. The results are there. But I think we've put staff in an impossible position between the process and people who don't understand that process. You know, whatever you think of administrative approval, it has worked is my argument and needs to be rethought. It's not going to change how I approach a a decision here in the planning board. It is a burden on staff that they didn't ask for. And so what I'm suggesting is that instead of blaming staff. We enable them to do what they do. Well better. Fixing the process. That said. Maybe it's just my style. But more data is better. And I understand the balance. Miss Christie is explained it to me multiple times that you didn't want to influence us by providing data that's not on on our actual preview. At that moment. Rezone. This is my favorite. My favorite example. Rezone without a site plan, isn't it? A total non sequitur logically? Right? Not your fault. Not your fault. But as a matter of policy, which isn't what you're trying to achieve, really, as a matter of policy, allowing in fact, encouraging an applicant. Because of the, you know, the mismatch between their exact zone and the future land use that they might be in encouraging them to rezone without a site plan does not provide the level of detail that the public really should understand about what that applicant intends to do after the rezoned. Particularly in the downtown zones, particularly where administrative approval is in place. Particularly when there is among us of very vocal, slow down development community. So so I I think that contributes to staffs. Distress. I maybe I'm being too dramatic air. Things that are in our system and our process that don't make sense. Make it hard for you guys to do your job. And one of the solutions to that is to give us everything. Just to give us everything. I mean it it's not like you're not giving us a lot. But more is better. So I guess my 2 messages are that I think staff does a great job and it's incredibly responsive. And I was very uncomfortable during that meeting have to be honest with you because it was completely unfair. The second issue is that a lot of what we have done. In the past to get to where we are is no longer applicable and that makes that makes the the frying pan here in staff harder from you. And the only anecdote that I think we can do in the given legal and political climate is to just inundate us with data. Everything. Everything you have. And I think you heard that in Mister Christie's comments to the city Commission on Monday. And it's got instant response. And I appreciate that. So I'm sorry for going on and on. But I I appreciate you coming and doing this. I admire and respect the work in education, frankly, that you provide me as a non architect, not engineer. A non civil engineer person. When I have these questions and I think you guys generally do excellent, excellent work. I do not just for the record she was biased ICU as interpreters of a code that has long since needed provision. Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you. Mistress. Yes, see where we start. I think. Now having to name names, I think the person who made the vast majority, if not all those remarks, no longer sitting up here. So I don't know that that's necessarily a concern of the remaining or the planning board members, whatever that's worth. >> Second, just as kind of a fair notice, I don't think I was going to go in that direction. But I do actually have some. Keeping with those remarks. Comments on the first application that, they're appropriate to discuss numbers want to give staff a heads up as to that and then last but not least and I appreciate the information from Steve, but to the extent are you tracking the information on what gets rejected like? Is there a way that you internally you have records of how many come in? What flat out gets rejected? What gets work with and what basically comes in ready to go and not something where we have to do a lot of hand-holding with the applicant because I frankly think having that information. For the public and maybe even as part of the report that goes to city staff could assuage a lot of those concerns. I don't I. I didn't actually look at the report did get was on vacation. I don't think it was in there. So to the extent, you know, the public only sees what comes up here and what gets what gets approved. I think it would go a long way in this for the sake of perception and transparency. If we had the information about how many applications come in that we don't even see and why those come in and we don't see them is because they're so bad. We can't work with the developer or we were able to work with the developer and get them to use. So I think if that information could somehow be tracked internally just a suggestion. Obviously, I think that my cup go a long way and raising those concerns from either people up here or the public at large. So. Thank you. I just mentioned that I we're up and down the coast. The west coast of Florida a night. >> The professionalism of this department is really is. There's there's a lot of municipalities they want to be proud to have you guys on board. And I I appreciate a lot of the work that you guys do. It's behind the scenes and to this year's point, these things are years long, very expensive endeavors that's a lot of work to get him. Just to the point that the shot that this board. Anyway can move on. We is yeah, I was in Houston. That was a night with Sounds like a missed an interesting one. We apologize. We move into the closet judicial for 60's, the legislative a case or going the legislative. >> Okay. So that would bring us to staff. For the legislative public hearing, which is. 26 UPI, a 0, Good afternoon. I'm David Smith manager, long-range planning for the city. And I do have a a short presentation. Okay, before you we have a small scale comprehensive plan amendment. Petition number. 26 pH 0, 1, 16, 60 Ringling Boulevard. As many of probably no. That's the former county administration building that was purchased by about. >> It's back in 2020 ones of several years ago. And the county did lease the property and moved out. I think led late last year. But a small scale plan amendment for your decision. Today is a recommendation to the city commission whether to adopt or not adopt the amendment. This petition to change the future land use map from Urban edge to downtown core for about a one acre site. The owner Ccb. So Seeds, One LLC. This is a subsidiary of Benderson development. I'm Phillip Di Maria from Kimley-horn a submitted the application on behalf of the owner. Currently a side has a vacant office building with parking lot. And in the future propose use would be office and retail uses and perhaps in the future residential uses. Perhaps another building some time as market conditions may provide. Do have an aerial photograph of the site on the surface. It in your staff and your staff report. this this particular property a portion of an entire entire parcel was 2.8 acres in size. It does have split so need split future land, use classification. And the area in blue is the one acre site that's proposed for. The plan Amendment. You see about 42% of the existing is in this particular site. So the dividing line the downtown edge in downtown for districts in the urban edge and downtown core land use class says. Run throughout. Know that northern part of the blue line on the building. On these particular slides. I do have parcel. Yeah, Dana, fine red saying see the entire parcel. The current zone districts downtown edge or well under half or a little over half of the parcel downtown core for the northern a little under half parcel. Again. Here's entire parcel in red. In the future land use map today the site an edge. And the entire parcel as both urban edge and downtown core. As the land use classification. In the repose of us to change the land use class downtown core for this particular one acre site. I does recognize so that portion of the existing 6 story building, it's located in urban edge, which has a 5 story. Highs limit, making it a 9 conforming structure. Within the because it's 6 in the stores. Proving the amendment would allow the building to become a conforming structure in the downtown core land use class which has a 10 story highs A split future land use classification. Occurred as a result of the downtown master plan 2020, it was a result of the actions of the property owner or the previous property owner. Came out that masterplan from 20 something years ago. Land directly north of Myrtle Street and south of the subjects word an edge and will serve as a land use buffer between downtown core subjects site. And mixed residential located in Laurel Park south, aside across Monroe Street. I do have a graphic that. Visually displays that an edge would service the land use buffer between the downtown core. makes residential actually the mix residential directly South Monroe Street. You know, there's a big parking lot. That was part of the county office, you know, use for the county office that is owned by this particularly owners. Well. And about north-south would remain a certain edge. You see the the in Edgewood along the South North or a street continuing the pattern further to the east. The applicant involved a little part Neighborhood Association. By having several meetings with neighborhood Association is Puerto directors. The applicant did hold a three-day Charette in October 2023. And it holds 2 required community in August. 23 in December. 25. So these meetings provide the neighbors association and other members of the with opportunities to review various development proposals and provide feedback. As a result of the The app can scale back the original to the current request. The adopted levels of service for the site would not be negatively impacted. The amendments were approved. Staff does recommend approval of this particular petition and your blue sheet do have the recommended motion from. Any questions. We'll start with that. I questions. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Mister Smith, thank you. Mister Chair. you said something very interesting in your presentation that it that the so I just when cards on the table and very confused about the potential uses of this after the plan amendment is approved. The rezone, it's approved. If if that's what the board decides today. You said future residential use. Do you have any insight to offer on what the applicant thinking there? Because I'm confused about what their what their plan is. You certainly should ask the applicant. I will at their community workshop. The latest community workshop in December. I think they now for a number years they had various ideas and they I think pretty much narrowed it down from my understanding that they would use existing building for offices and retail uses and that in the they would consider building a another building on the site. And that would probably be residential. But that's a question that you want to ask them. That was my understanding here. I will from the yeah. Yeah. Good. Appreciate that. And that's allowed in the slayings class. It's issues yet clearly. Yeah, I'm not disputing that. I'm just trying to understand how to put this the plan amendment and the and rezone without a site plan together. Yes, I do have one question for you about the traffic. A study. And I'd like to refer to page one of the 9 of our materials and the right place. We can get there. Maybe it's in the traffic study. Yes, okay. One of 9. It says. I want to start with something else right? Pay. 29 turning movements. Were conducted on Tuesday, February 10th 2026. You see that. Yeah. Cents in the last paragraph and you consider that valid for building that's been empty for 2 years. Last and Okay. me just read through this They according to the the information here. They did provide a seasonal adjusted, just meant factor. To identify corresponding seasonal adjustments for traffic counts. the raw counts were adjusted to better represent conditions within the study area. As we said, we were talking you know, there's no traffic going to now that particular site. That's the traffic in the surrounding area. I'm not trying to track anything. I'm just asking it also says that future year 2020 applies, a one percent increase on page one 11 from the existing. I think our traffic movements. Do you think that's a reasonable expectation as well? One percent if they redevelop the building and they build the. Housing unit or whatever they got in there, their plan. I'm just trying to understand reasonableness here, I think is reasonable for, you know, that the downtown area here. Certainly they do do get some credit for the existing uses. You had been there. Obviously the county moved out in October. So so get to a traffic study for for a building that this kind of night? kind of I'm asking about the little guy patients. Just not as page. One, 13 past by trips estimated that 50% of existing usage once again for an empty building and the example is a mixed use is from a resident's to an onsite restaurant. Is because of what you may have mentioned in your presentation. I mean, it's somewhat it's not that big a lot, some of to get their car and drive from the restaurant that may be in the and the proffered limited. 38,000 Square feet, too. There residents in the back of the parking lot. get to. Yeah, it's really they're looking at, you know, the land use and zoning and what that would allow, OK, both, you know, residential and non-residential. Okay. Yeah. And then I want to take a quick comparison feline to figures 4, 7 in the traffic counts. Particularly the movements intersection 3, which I think Pine place and going east. It goes from 374, which is what they counted in February. Let's see on figure 7 goes to 396. So that's a net of 22 movements. Do you think that that? That's an exit to the to the east? If you look at those movements, do you think your experience is a planner that so? If there is a, you know, 3,000 square feet of retail and office that that's a valid movement count in that direction. Other figures I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm going to one 18. I think yes. before figure 4 zone page one, 12 and I'm looking at the project site movement. Mabel number 3, which eastbound movement during peak hour 374. Then figure 7. On Page one 18 is a peak. Our movement, a 396. That's 22 the night. Do that right? 2.74, from 3.96, is 22 just asking reasonable? Yeah. I think it is reasonable. I assume that they were. Looking at it as what was there previously and doing the Molly based upon that and with could come into place. Have a good life. Sumption thanks. And I wasn't the developed a traffic study. I understand. Of course. Thank you. The conforming peas or the nonconforming peace, that situated in the zone to the South. What happens to that of the buildings modified at all? >> What you think if this doesn't go through? buildings that have to what happens to him, my understanding reading the code. >> Is that if they remain downtown? right, they can only do routine maintenance of the to make sure the up keep us there. Yeah, my some of the presentations. They're looking at. Maybe re scanning the building, putting more windows in it without. And being a nonconforming ability. I don't think they would to to go that far. Right? Because this is that's not for me. can't make these major improvements. should try to do to the >> But the only thing that really makes it nonconforming is the story count because the height is counted and story is not the is if I'm just trying run through after that, it goes here. They removed one story from the top. What they have assume after that the entire building because it's situated in the TT zone as well as the D the downtown the tdc is correct to to make it conforming in the conforming so that they find like if they want to risk in the building when they have to remove the story from the entire building. That's probably a question for development services. I would say aye. Not sure about that, but at least on the DTE portion. I believe it's, you know, they they would really need this amendment to have to do anything to be able to do that. Is there for the dtc zone? That's fronting Ringling the building today a setback which I believe is also a nonconforming us. There's a 0 lot line that you have to front the street, correct for certain percentage of the the roadway. Not sure right off him without looking at the Cowen. Okay. Yeah. And that was of issues somebody to check on that. But there's if that's the case, then the building also would have to grow against Ringling Boulevard, assuming they'll come for a variance to save the trees, which I assume they would. on the will be the North West corner of the lot. They would have to. Improved that with a building of some sort just to meet the Code standard today, correct? So in order to do this, you know that you're talking about that have to remove a story and they have to. From the street on the northwest corner. I'm not sure if it's a primary grid street on Ringling right? I'm looking right now. Okay. It's not a primary grid street. They can said going back even in the GCC, the downtown core zone. Yeah, front setback for primary streets. And there's no limit to the there's no maximum setback. We know there's an actual front setback. Only a primary streets. Okay. Yeah, but yeah. Let check. Ringling is a primary street location. it's a real we'll get we just want That's right. We just want that apartment building that they're asking for a variance for. Okay. So I guess yes to that question will find out about the story. Yes. So thank you. Mister Christie's. Okay. So it's going to preface my series of questions with the I'm team Alex. Not team last meeting. Having said that as I was, getting these materials last night and looking at the public benefit review portion of our >> materials. I highlighted. 2. It's actually kind of my head before. Start speaking 6. 6 sections and the staff report where as I read them, as I think any reasonably objective person reading them. portion of the staff report with respect for the public benefit or interest really boils down to nothing negative is found. Whereas and the same sections may not for the public benefit or interest. Staff just clearly comes out and says staff did not identify any relevant components. So, for example, this is probably the weakest example under a neighborhood plan on Page 19. I found very little in the staff comments with respect to anything that from my perspective, could we support? The for the staff analysis finding that this may further the public interest. The closest I can come in the 3 or 4 paragraphs here was the roughly 92.2, 8 feet that was excluded from the change on the subject personal. But the vast majority of the discussion related to either things, the developer could do and did not do. Or maybe could do and did not do, but not even for this parcel. Same thing with recreation open space plan This is page. 22 appendix a contains results of the level of service now says for Recreation, Open space staff determined there would be no negative impact on the adopted level of service. How is no negative impact a public benefit? I got I got 4 more the second utility's plan. Same basic things that we have level of service analysis, nothing negative. The the applicant would need to obtain require stormwater permits. We need to do things but on its face, I don't see staff saying anything that is a public benefit. All I see is kind of a summary of they will have to do things. I didn't find anything negative. Yet. When I go on to the very next section of the same analysis for that same components, staff clearly comes out and says staff did not identify any relevant components of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment that may not for the public benefit. Why does that comment not come into play more frequently when you're basically saying no negative and the public benefit, but we didn't find anything that's may not for the public benefit. It seems like. It now. It's not team last meeting I think that's a reasonable this is for somebody to read staff reports and say it seems like you're kind of slanting for the developer and I'm not suggesting that's the case. But I just struck me as odd that you're you're basically saying we found nothing negative and that's a public benefit when at the same time in the same analysis for the same component, you're saying we couldn't find we couldn't find anything. That may not for the public benefit. It's like, doesn't that just reinforce neutrality and where? to us to decide that? Well, no, because there's a there's a narrative here that I think essentially says the same thing that they've summarized below when they say we couldn't find we couldn't find anything that was. Not negative versus we invite anything bad. That just seems like a little bit of slanting to me. So I just want to put that out there. I don't I don't understand again, the and the well, gee. And then last but not least. One more time. I spent all of them. Oh, wait, no, there was. Jay Historic Preservation plant. We didn't we didn't find that there's a historically significant structure that would be negatively impacted. But that's not a public benefit that there's not something there that would be negatively impacted. So why? Why? Why isn't that? Narrative there? Really essentially the same narrative you say below or use a staff and identify any relevant components of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment that may not a for us tonight. Should say that may further. That's what I think. That's the problem here is like we're clearly able to. Cleanly say may not for the public benefit, but we seem to have a problem and saying we didn't find anything that may for the benefit because I think the absence of a negative is not necessarily for the public benefit. That's my that's my core takeaway points. During the review. We're having to look at the adopted goals, objectives and action >> That's what we're reviewing 4. And, you know, with let's just say, a lower service standard. So the sale we have a standard 10 acres per 1000 resident population. This particular you know, could increase the population by a certain number. A very small amount. But we would not be negatively impacting that adopted level of service with these additional people. >> I know. But how does make how does not negatively impacting something a positive benefit? That's my. That's my takeaway point. I don't see the fact that something's not bad necessarily translate into its good work there or something that actually comes into play that favors it But then I think the absence of a bad is not necessarily good and ice. And again, I see the staff report easily saying that with respect to the Contra positive, the main of the may not for the benefit. You're clearly able to say you can find anything bad there, but you can't it seems like you're having trouble coming out and saying we find anything that furthers the public benefit you and to the extent we're supposed to be up here, doing a balancing when I discount those comments on those 6 identified. It's I point out money coming in us like it directly relevant to this. Really what people? I topic, may be some matter wording because we're not exceeding the level of service. >> Therefore, they have. But how is is that we're not doing a better not public. And I think that's Yeah, however, I don't understand how it if you're if not being negative is a public benefit. I don't know what we're doing up there. that's so about. The good news is there's a bunch of backup data to support one way or area knowing thank you. I said, I think as I do reports in the future, I'll take that into consideration. Thank you. And good Not that questioning their dog. That gets us to the applicant Dan, let's take minute. And a little left hand corner >> you know, come up, come a long way for tonight's I give Mister Christie's And, you know, kind of went seeking for the the benefits to the public, but I feel that you know, sometimes it can be oversold by city staff as well. So this seems to be more neutral and now it's going to be more up to the applicant to solve the City staff I see is saying, hey, you know, you know, bastions of their enthusiasm may they're letting us know that there's nothing negative here, OK, fine. That's a bases from which we can move forward. Lets you do have has to sell here because they do have to sell it. City staff is not to necessarily having to so that we do look for public benefit. And that and by city staff in this case, it really didn't come shining through. But this is going to the applicant. We're going hear from them next. And I'm anxious to hear it. I really have no question. Thank you. Mister Crime. While the applicant comes up just to answer your question, Mister exterior remodeling they can according a TE section for the downtown code. >> The exterior remodeling, we just have to come into compliance. But the rest of the building does not correct. But they could not renovate the interior interior remodeling is fine. They can keep the stories that you're right. So Please introduce yourselves for record. Lee, thank you, chairman. The first. I'd like to welcome our newest planning board member >> thanks for joining us. Thank you so for your first. I was feeling guilty about the whole >> I'm Brooke Fleming with Kimley-horn planner for the record. Phillip Di Maria player coming engine for the applicant. Representative Benderson Development. Great. So start off by first just addressing. I appreciate the conversation of sitting there in the audience listening some of the conversation here. So we're excited to be able to provide new details on the project itself, but also to address some of the concerns they have which are well founded in the points are well taken. So I'd like to first allowed time to just talk about the project itself, how it's come to us, how you know, the process we've gone through over the last few years. Great thanks. Felt again. My name is at this Representative Benderson development, we purchased the county administration building in 2021. The county decided to leave the building and access it for a variety of reasons. >> And they went through a public process to sell it. We're ultimately the offer at the highest dollar basis. A part of the motivation of of our offer and are purchased the building was we had a determined that there was a lot of good bones. There are a lot of good opportunity. The building was originally built to be 3 stories taller than it is. It has the capacity and potential to be 3 stories taller based on its structural system was originally designed that way. It has, as a chairman may point out, there's significant front yard in front of the building whether that front there, it is additional buildings specifically activating the street opportunity. So we felt the existing structure had good bones. If I was to make a an analogy to a football quarterback, it were from or from Buffalo's was like football Buffalo's quarterback when he was in college. Maybe not a the shining quarterback. He is today that said, you know, we of course, understood the zoning that bisects of the I think the county probably win the city adopted its zoning back in 2005 acquiesced to the zoning line. The zoning line doesn't come across anything special. It doesn't follow the column. grid pattern in the building in terms of what can be taller or less tall. It just cuts across the building. A straight line. So our today that's in front of you that feels good to go through in detail. It's the product of great deal of collaboration with the neighborhood. It's the product of a great deal of thought. our intention to make an adaptive reuse of the building which we're excited about. And to significantly improve the look of the building. along the lines of that public benefit question and it's also, David pointed intention is to react pay the building with office uses the city over the certainly the last 6 years and even before has continuously last office. Gla and also lost office tenants and employees as a result because when continues to be converted, 2 other Those are our competitors in the purchase of this property in 2021. And fortunately, but in 2021 that 2023 or 4, 1, one pricing and significantly escalated. Word somewhat unique in that we're local, but we're also very sort of very patient capital were in a company's so we take a very long view of this property. So office suits us well, the property in order to become class a office, which is our intent. I need to significant reinvestment, but we do believe we can adapt of Lee reuse the building and hopefully expand on the uses and and other buildings on the property over a long period of time. And we intend to having the office because there is a demand we believe in downtown. We believe there is a void in class, a office space available downtown market. And hopefully that will be a add to the mix of downtown that slowly continuously during our daytime population. So with that, I'm going to over to fill up and we'll be here to answer questions. Thank you. >> I do want to recognize for a moment that while we're discussing the building in the northern parcel today, this is larger as a large purchase of a campus as a whole and when that campus first came before us discussion was about what what was highest and best use for this campus, right? What could offer to the city? What did the future of it look like? Understanding? Really the question we're asking was what could it be? So we undertook a process. A three-day sure October of 2023 we tells well unintentionally with Mister Coe Versed point about, you planning takes time, right? And while we're here before you today, this is the result of a long, arduous process that we took to get here the three-day sure I was held at Architecture, Sarasota with a very well publicized schedule of what sort of work would be put it put into it. I think both morning and evening Sessions had a significant public outreach just from the Laurel Park neighborhood itself, but also the general business community being interested in what was going on there. Architecture, Sarasota was a great partner and allowing us to use their space but also to recognize that this sort of public process hadn't really been done in the city with the exception of maybe the Bay Park the 20 plan was created in the 2 thousands. So here are some from the shrub process the studies that were done about circulation. What could the future look like? Ultimately at the end of day 3 of this is what we call the consensus plan that look at the campus as a whole. You'll notice there's a intensification on the north That's the office residential and maybe hotel space that was envisioned on the North side as part of the process and market Lee and dramatic step down in intensity it moves south and use that more closely match. But don't Park? These are 3 D renderings of what that could look like. Once again, this was in 2023. and this is available for all the public to see it coming on. And in the time since after much discussion with Laurel Park community and understanding what their vision was and what their concerns were. But also the county vacating the building in late 2025. we made the choice to move forward with the proposal that's before you today. Which focuses on that northern parcel. Those the southern and the eastern parcel both eliminated. And you see before you that step down that would have occurred on the southern parcel is now occurring on the northern parcel. So movement of this entire zoning and land use transition further north. Can be clearly seen on the slide. And Mister Smith did a great job covering this and he's presentation to the location of the movement to allow for that building to said in the downtown to permit that adaptive reuse. The top too. This is the zoning aspect that implements the land use. And I think that result that we're all aware of is this high transition that occurs. But this is a simple graphics are showcasing where that step down occurs and how it goes further south. This continued to be a concern of the community. So this isn't section view that zoning line that we've been discussing is that dotted line that hopefully you can see on the screen and you can see how that the existing building building exceeds the height and what we're discussing is that the the building itself would allow for some vertical growth. That makes sense. That allows it to be reused in a way that's economical for a Talk touched on this It is important to recognize why this building was originally built in the downtown. What we call today as the downtown district was originally in the CCPD district, which permitted 180 feet in height directly about it are some 9. So this was a fully code compliance building when it was bill up until 2005 in which the city dramatically change the zoning code. You know, I I wasn't practicing in 2005, but suffice to say that if this was a privately-owned property there would likely have been some sort of settlement that occurred like many other and this area that reduce their entitlement due to the zoning code change. There's still a significant buffering. A distance we're talking about over 300 feet from the southern edge of that core district to the closest uses to the south. So we also view this as not just being compatible, but also recognizing that this is one of the rare instances and which we can up zone and are dramatically much better use out of the site with without impacting those around us. This is what I wanted to get to the to the public benefit piece. And so this is slightly technical. But I realize speaking with with technical folks so that the 2 criteria, right, the guidelines for review that you have your zoning code don't have to do directly with the public and public benefit review becomes part of the process. But really the tests that we do are for consistency with the comprehensive plan, right? Is it consistent with the current goals, objectives and policies and what establish a precedent that's inconsistent and what's what I find interesting about this is that the the Land use plan, the comp plan as a whole right. His future thinking has nothing to do with what's on the ground today. That's why we have a future land use map. That's why they're sometimes in consistencies between the zoning code red, your rights today versus what the city views as what should be done on the property in the future. And so that's why this is the test. That's not a stuff. Is this good for the public? The assumption that we make is that what's in the comp plan? It's good for the public. And we're testing despite consistency with the complaint. In our analysis, we pulled quite a elements from the comprehensive plan that directly speak to why these things are important. What how this project is supported by the comprehensive plan. And one thing I do want to point out is the actual intent of the downtown core district clearly speaks to a goal of the land use classification being primarily non residential uses, right. This dramatic shift that we've seen in our downtown over the last few years have all been a movement towards more residential units read more condominiums. The quay. Previously envisioned to be this mixed use. Non residential district has gone further in the direction of being nearly all residential, right. The Zenith building that's redevelopment. This fantastic will be beautiful. Be great for our city. But at the same time, it's the removal of fantastic office space that provides a public benefit and conversion to residential use. So there's a dramatic reduction in the land use mix and that's that's what we view and what I would see as a sensational public benefit. You're getting added a class, a office space in a downtown that's moving in the other direction, right? All in his price for these residential uses your staff also included their review, mentioning the bees. Consistency isn't recognizing also benefits of of the application. And this is further as well. And some of the rezoning report as well as it relates to capacity is right. Infrastructure capacities, transportation transportation as well can speak more about the adaptive reuse portion. It's oftentimes the most sustainable thing you can do in the building industry, right, making use of what's already there. Instead of demolishing rebuilding, bringing in a ton of material and it also during the construction phase result in a much shorter period of time, right? That's where a lot of the issues and the tension that exists in our communities during this construction phases where there's maybe degree of noise, dust, et cetera, that can be reduced through these adaptive reuse techniques. Todd touched on this that the structural integrity of the building. But this is a close-up of the roof. You can actually see the pillars that provide the structural basis for the building that were designed. And I think of this is like a also with structure that, you know, we used to do back in the but it was designed to allow for additional floors on top of a top of what excess. One thing I do want to mention as early the height of the building today. Yes, it's 6 floors. We're not sure how many real stories that would be because of the the city has a maximum floor of a Florida ceiling a distance of 14 feet. Then you have your interstitial space. This building is built a little strangely, right? It was under the the 180 foot So there's some larger spaces in So while there are 6 floors and might actually count as more stories are under the current code and future code. I spoke to economic vitality, but I also wanted this is something that very passionate about. It. You know, the office space and the change in mix of people. Downtown results and a difference on Main Street right? Folks getting coffee more so limited to residents as opposed to people working in offices, economic competitiveness of downtown it also real results and residents that are living downtown. That may be working. Folks having to travel further for office Just recognizing that there's an ecosystem here. Todd spoke the limited availability of office space downtown. The this is important to to him and his company's viability of reusing the space. But we did pull some data in an effort to provide you with some real facts about what's available downtown. You see that's extremely limited, especially in the classic category. There's the locations of those class, a office spaces. So as relates to public benefit, recognizing have 20 seconds left, this would certainly result in a benefit to local businesses with daytime employment increase, saying and also providing more space for those who are seeking office space to be downtown as opposed to somewhere else that restaurant space. I spoke to a, you know, we have weakened dining. We have night. >> Bars and may have another 2 minutes. Please. >> Kelly, wrap up quickly. Yes, wrapping up I can strengthening the mix that already exists, driving economic growth growth. Of course, the availability of office space will and provide an environment in which more can flourish. Downtown activation of the city were about 24 hour surveillance. The Jane Jacobs type stuff that we always talk about. It's important to have next? And then the is layered with in their comprehensive plan and your code. And that's a fully within this intent of of redeveloping the site through an adaptive reuse process. So I believe the slide up here. It's all things I've said one thing I didn't say thing that's not on here is the state of the building today. All right. It's it's not something that I think we would be. >> Pleased to have if it was proposed site plan, braver guard lists of whether it meant the coat or not. And I think in a men's public benefit that maybe goes unspoken but all say the quiet part out loud as permitting benderson reuse the building risk in the building. Well, dramatically. Improve. They set a quality honoring Lee Boulevard and to improve our cityscape as a whole. So thank you for your time. Thank you for the Thank you. So This but >> I think that that everybody's already asked this question, but can you. Tell us what the public benefit is. As I get that there's really not any rain out of the bacon buildings. That's kind of hard but since it was just purchase, was there different plan? Or is it just for a development restraint? >> Yeah, it's a good question. I start check. So you're absolutely right. I think you keyed in on. What we perceive the better for But also the reality of it is that it is a vacant and underused building today. That's not providing any benefit to the city. You know, lived a long useful life as a government administration also provided a place where folks could work and those folks would go and restaurants downtown, maybe live downtown because it was closer to work, right? And just provided a different piece of the go system as those people left. There's a dearth in our cities. has as far as they're being a place where those same types of folks could come. So I see that as the men's public benefit. I mean, I said on the board of the Chamber of Commerce and this is a discussion we have often about where's their office space downtown. And they're not being availability where can we find so much? So as there's discussions about these business parks going on, rezonings occurring out east because there's a need for businesses to relocate to places and their findings finding rather than being in our downtown. Where makes the most sense? So I think, you but several different scales, there's public benefit. Hopefully that answers your question. >> We'll try to say the same thing in a very different way. Very, very quickly, which is. Really this is a 5 acre donut hole in the middle. A lot of good things. World Park is an amazing neighborhood that's established to our west is only growing and getting better and to our east. You know, we're we're and I shot from the new carriage Hills restaurant, which is going to be beautiful and vibrant. And we have 5 acres. It's absolutely dead. And the building that it can't be reused in the form it exists today. There's just no purpose it has no windows. It has huge floor plates. It requires a but our vision is a very high vision, very class, a office building. Read action of the building. So that's the benefit is that we fill this gap between a lot of very good things in a way that's very compatible with all those things. That's so as we Mister Clinton like to go out. Go ahead. Mister Krim. >> He called with this very question know, take great, great, great, Okay. I don't think any of object to the idea that building be Well, that area be redeveloped or improved, but because it's, you know, it's on the slide eyesore. It's important right what I we're all looking for is. We understand the benefits of activating the building. That's clear. I think everybody wants to and everything that Mister Temer him mentioned in his presentation. I agree with what I want to clarify. is why this extra acre is needed. What benefit comes from that? In other words, if you don't have it, then what the building could be. We develop within current shell, correct? The parking lot cleaned up. You could build a 5 story building there what looking for, something different. this is this acre makes the difference between something impactful and something less so could you explain the I'd be happy to to take this so? Half of the building is existing non-conforming due to its total height. >> And in order to risk in the building, we need to modify the zoning if for no other reason than just to capture that existing a story in and The chair touched on this. But that zoning line does not cut across varying columns that could cross a line that was straight through the neighborhood. So clearly we need to amend the zoning in order to just redevelop the building, even at its existing height. We do want to take advantage of the bones of the building which are good and the potential raise the total height to 9 stories. Still one story what's allowed today on half of the building. So that's why the is limited to this piece of the building. Without that to repurpose is Frankly, I think the highest economic value would be to demolish it. And so to kind of develop or were not kind of developers to use some other. You know what, what might? Be a very undesirable use of the building that would be less vibrant, less class, a office oriented in terms of just just filling it up. So, you know, if if we're going to make the investment, we're going to make a even in just the plans for the building, right? We're going to go from from 6 digits and and what we've rendered. And we can show you some pictures if that's helpful, to to 7 digits. Just the design and engineer the building too. You know, tens of millions of dollars of reinvestment in the existing building it needs to make sense. It needs to meet that class. A demand that we believe does exist for downtown and it exists because there's not space available. And we hope that that adds to the city. So hopefully answers your question, both in a technical sense. and that market economic sense. >> the question for But Miss Christie, Miss Christie said some earlier that they could risk in the EU could risk in the building. Right now in the nonconforming. And you could do modifications inside the building even as as it is. Nonconforming is getting 2 different puts here. Can you are 10, you not. And not clear. >> So you can make exterior of music. Sear to a nonconforming building. But those exterior renovations have to the code compliant. What you could not do is add height to the downtown edge portion that exceeds what's allowed in downtown edge. >> But you can't make it more not going put that could put new windows. And yeah, it's a risk in the building they can go inside and they could remodel the building entirely. >> Yeah. Interior remodels fine. Next year we model you can do as long as the renovations comply with code so they would have to meet glazing requirements. Things like that on the exterior. But you could not increased height. So so if I could just survival stories detailed. You provide a more detailed example. It's it's a hypothetical. It's an example. The current building has a single