The Planning and Development Board on Wednesday recommended that the City Commission approve a planned‑unit‑development amendment and site plan for Hillcrest Village, a proposed 110‑unit affordable apartment building at 1101 Hillcrest Drive, but it attached conditions requiring revised architectural designs and two design alternatives before final commission action.

The board acted after a lengthy staff presentation and more than an hour of public comment. The board’s recommendation covers the PUD amendment, the site plan and design; members voted to recommend the PUD amendment and site plan and to forward the design to the commission only after the developer submits revised architecture that simplifies facade elements, improves compatibility with neighboring buildings and breaks up the building massing. The developer must provide two alternatives for the commission to consider.

The project is proposed on a 2.45‑acre parcel within the Hillcrest PUD. Reggie White, planner with the City of Hollywood, told the board the applicant proposes an eight‑story building with 110 units, 157 parking spaces, and a package of resident amenities including a pool, fitness center and rooftop garden. White said the applicant is relying on Broward County’s bonus‑density policy (Broward County Policy 2.16.3) to make up the difference between remaining PUD units and the proposed unit count by providing a required number of units at lower area‑median‑income (AMI) levels.

Liz Summerstein, counsel for the applicant and team representing the Housing Trust Group and Harwin‑Tobin 1101 LLC, said the development addresses a severe local shortage of affordable housing and that the applicant revised the plan after public outreach: “This project really addresses a critical need to provide affordable housing for this community,” she said, adding the developer reduced the original proposal from 120 units to 110, increased parking from 136 to 157 spaces and added family‑sized three‑bedroom units.

Residents and members of the Hillcrest Leadership Council urged the board to reject the project or require major changes. Speakers cited parking, traffic near the adjacent charter school, impacts to property values, gameable rights to existing Parkview amenities and potential damage during construction. Several residents said existing private and association infrastructure already carries significant maintenance costs and questioned whether the new development or its residents would share those costs. Many speakers asked the board to require legally enforceable agreements, especially for the school’s 24 off‑site parking spaces that are proposed to be on the Hillcrest Village site during school hours.

The applicant and staff said the proposal includes measures intended to limit off‑site impacts. The site plan shows two access points on Hillcrest Drive, an on‑site stormwater system designed to meet county standards and 24 spaces dedicated to the adjacent champion Academy charter school during school hours via a shared‑parking agreement that the board made part of the recommended conditions. The developer also promised property‑management measures, including key‑fob access, intercomed visitor screening,24/7 camera surveillance and leasing restrictions that register vehicles and limit on‑site parking to authorized residents and visitors.

Legal and technical issues were also discussed. Staff confirmed it had asked the applicant for a surveyor’s affidavit that clarifies whether the subject parcel is covered by an earlier 1976 Hillcrest declaration and subsequent 2016 amendments; staff and city legal counsel reported engineering review concluded the parcel is not bound by the recorded 1976 declaration language that residents cited. The board asked the applicant to bring back evidence of any required recorded documents (for example the unit‑of‑title instrument and the shared‑parking agreement) before final action by the commission.

After public comment and developer rebuttal, the board voted to recommend approval of the PUD amendment and the site plan. For the design, the board approved a recommendation to forward the application to the City Commission only after the applicant submits revised architectural plans addressing three areas identified by board members: (1) simplify and reduce the number of facade elements so the exterior reads as a cohesive whole; (2) evolve materials and proportions to be more compatible with nearby Hillcrest buildings; and (3) break the massing visually to reduce perceived bulk. The board explicitly required the applicant to bring two design alternatives for consideration at the City Commission meeting.

The City Commission will have the final decision on the PUD amendment, design and site plan, and the developer needs to record any required covenants (including affordability covenants required by Broward County and any unit‑of‑title instrument) before permits are issued.