Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board backs variances and site plan for Palm Condominiums expansion on SW 80th First Avenue
Summary
The City of North Lauderdale Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of six variances and a site plan to allow Sage Consulting’s Palm Condominiums to add 10 three‑bedroom units and a small office, citing existing site constraints and prior investments in the property.
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The City of North Lauderdale Planning and Zoning Board on May 22 recommended approval of six variances and the related site plan that would allow the Palm Condominiums at 700–728 SW 80 First Avenue to fill an on‑site pool and add 10 three‑bedroom apartments and a 400‑square‑foot community office.
Board members approved the variances and the site plan after a presentation by the applicant and staff about existing site constraints, parking shortfalls and landscaping tradeoffs. The motion to approve the variances (Variance 2501) and the site plan (SPR2501) passed with all board members present voting yes: Vice Chair Barbara Thomas, Board member Ramgulam, Board member Mann, Board member Celeste McGill and Chair McKay.
The applicant, represented in the public hearing by a project attorney, told the board the owner invested about $1.5 million to renovate existing units, remediate code violations and add landscaping, and that elected officials had encouraged maximizing units on the parcel. Staff and the applicant said the parcel narrows along the south end where the new buildings would go and that fitting additional three‑bedroom units required reductions from several numeric code requirements.
Key variances the board approved include: a 200‑square‑foot unit‑size shortfall for the new three‑bedroom units compared with the code minimum; a shortfall of six required guest parking spaces (the plan provides 29 spaces total, including two accessible spaces); reduced perimeter landscaping on the east side (a requested reduction to approximately 3.5–3.9 feet in one area where the code requires 5 feet); three deviations to terminal planter‑island requirements (two missing islands and one island that is roughly 1 foot under the required width); and a front setback match to adjacent existing buildings so new buildings align with the current 25‑foot setback.
Andrew Disbury, assistant community development director, told the board the site plan is contingent on the approved variances and that the applicant worked with the city’s fire marshal and utilities to reconfigure water service and emergency access. Disbury said one fire hydrant will be added adjacent to the property and that the applicant adjusted curbing and island geometry so fire apparatus can access the internal drive.
The applicant noted several design concessions: five ground‑floor units will be ADA accessible, new trees will be relocated on site rather than removed, and the proposal provides roughly 8,600 square feet of fully pervious open space—more than the minimum required. The applicant also said two compact parking stalls were proposed to ease maneuvering in one constrained row and that some underused parking on the property’s north end will serve additional demand.
Board members asked about the exact deficit amounts, neighboring property conditions, landscaping materials and emergency vehicle turning. Staff and the applicant acknowledged a clerical error in the packet concerning the buffer figures and corrected the record before the vote: the approved landscape‑buffer variance on the east side is for 3.5–3.9 feet (deficient amount), not the reversed numbers originally printed in the backup.
The board made a single motion that incorporated the corrected landscape‑buffer figures and clarified planter‑island counts (two missing terminal islands and one deficient island). The board’s recommendation approves the variances and forwards a favorable recommendation on the site plan to the City Commission, which is scheduled to take up the matter at its May 27 meeting.
The applicant and staff said they will submit final materials and that staff will include the board’s discussion and noted concerns (parking dead‑end configuration and buffer reduction) in the Commission memo.
