Planning and Zoning Board continues review of 4‑story 'The Link' condominium project after design, trees and loading concerns

The Planning and Zoning Board on Tuesday continued review of a proposed four‑story, 10‑unit condominium at 202 Northeast Sixth Avenue — known as The Link — and directed the applicant to work with staff on architectural details, the entry canopy, color palette and tree replacement before the project returns to the board. The motion to continue passed on a roll‑call vote. "File number 2024‑228 consideration of a level 3 site plan application for the construction of 4 story multifamily residential building consisting of 10 residential condominium units at 202 Northeast Sixth Avenue, known as the link," Rafik Ibrahim, principal of current planning, read into the record. The applicant, Christina Balenge, described the 0.36‑acre site as within the Commercial Core/CBD and said the proposal includes a rooftop pool deck, structured parking and activated street frontages. "It is a small parcel. It's only 0.36 acres," Balenge said. Board members pressed the design team on several points raised in the staff report, including the building's material palette, the prominent black canopy at the main corner entrance and the extent of balcony articulation. Architect Peggy Fitzgerald said the project uses the masonry‑modern style approved earlier and that terraces and recesses were intended to "create shaded outdoor living spaces for the residents and opportunities for them to also connect more with the neighborhood." Several board members raised landscape concerns, focusing on the removal of existing large trees and the size of new street trees. The project team said the street trees along Northeast Sixth are within Florida Department of Transportation right‑of‑way and that many on‑site and adjacent trees identified for removal were in poor condition or impacted by utilities. "Most of the trees that are being removed are in poor condition," said the project's landscape representative, noting that the application proposes 12 replacement trees and a mitigation payment because initial canopy at planting will be smaller than what is removed. Board members also questioned parking and loading: staff and the applicant said the plan provides 23 parking spaces for 10 units (two spaces per unit plus guest spaces) and that loading activity is expected to occur in the alley; the project requests a waiver of the two required loading bays. During discussion, several members urged design refinements to better articulate the massing, improve corner interest and reconsider the canopy material. Board member Mitch Katz moved to "continue with direction" so the applicant could coordinate with staff on the items identified on page 12 of the staff report (materials and details, entrance/canopy treatment, color contrast and review of tree removals). The motion, seconded by Judy Malika, passed 5‑0 (two members absent). The board's action is procedural: the continuation requires the project team to return to the Planning and Zoning Board with revisions and does not approve the site plan. If the applicant proceeds without modifications and the board's action is appealed, the matter could still proceed to the city commission under the regular appeal process. The staff report indicates the project is under the 3.0 FAR threshold (project FAR cited at 2.92), complies with many CBD criteria, and that school concurrency (S.C.A.D.) approval is required before site‑plan certification. The applicant and staff agreed to explore larger street trees where feasible and to revise the canopy and color contrast. No members of the public spoke during the hearing. The board set no date certain; the item will return after the applicant meets with staff to address the design, materials and landscape topics the board identified.