The Shoppes of Wilton Manors passed its final vote, 5–0. Here is what was approved.

On Tuesday, September 22, the City Commission approved the redevelopment of the Shoppes of Wilton Manors at 2200–2292 Wilton Drive — the plaza that holds Georgie’s Alibi Monkey Bar, Hunters and their neighbors — 5–0, on second and final reading.

What it means for the Drive

• The Alibi and Hunters building stays. The existing building and its tenants remain essentially as they are; the façade gets updated to match the new construction.
• The vacant half becomes three new buildings. Two commercial buildings, 14,770 square feet in all, fronting Wilton Drive, and one residential building with the 89 homes and a 99-space garage where the empty structure stands now.
• 89 homes, and that is the ceiling. The cap is written into both the zoning approval and a restrictive covenant; raising it would mean coming back to the Commission in public. The earlier Wilma-on-the-Drive approvals for the same site, which carried 252 units, are repealed.
• Commercial parking stays about where it is. 156 spaces proposed against 112 required, plus 21 city-metered on-street spaces along Wilton Drive and NE 7th Avenue. The 39-space reduction the developer asked for applies only to the residents’ parking.
• No bare lot for years. Within six months of demolition, the developer must have a permit issued for the residential building, for sodding and irrigating the parcel, or for a stabilized temporary parking or staging area.
• New residents sign up knowing where they live. Every future resident must acknowledge the condominium sits in the Arts and Entertainment District — “the vibrant cultural, dining and nightlife corridor of Wilton Manors,” in the wording added at the meeting — which Commissioner D’Arminio said is meant to spare the businesses next door “frivolous calls to code enforcement.”
• The rules for the rest of the Drive came next. The Article 30 rewrite that sets parking, uses and design standards for the whole corridor passed first reading the same night and was on the October 13 agenda for its final vote; we are confirming the result.

No start date for construction was given at the meeting. The applicant’s attorney said the plans had been revised to match the conditions; from the dais, one commissioner said they hoped there would be no delays on the timeline.

This piece first ran on September 24 without the result, because the minutes were not posted and we would rather confirm an outcome against the record than repeat a guess. It was then reported from the meeting video, with the time in the recording given for each vote so you can check it yourself. The Commission approved the minutes on October 27, and they confirm every vote and roll call below.

How the vote went

All five members were present: Mayor Scott Newton, Vice Mayor Chris Caputo, and Commissioners Mike Bracchi, Don D’Arminio and Paul Rolli.

At the hearing on the item, one resident spoke, in favor, and no one spoke against. Two written comments went into the record: one in support, and one asking the Commission to explain the Lift Station 11 sewer figures before approving more load. Each commissioner disclosed on the record that they had spoken with the applicant or its representatives before the meeting, which the quasi-judicial process requires them to state.

Because the rezoning was quasi-judicial — a decision about one specific property, held to a court-like standard — witnesses were sworn in and the Commission’s decision had to rest on evidence in the record. The resolutions were ordinary legislative votes.

What changed between first and second reading

The applicant’s attorney and city staff put these on the record (0:46:30–1:10:30):

• A deeper setback next to single-family homes: 40 feet instead of 35.
• 89 homes is the ceiling, twice over. The maximum is written into the PUD and, at the Commission’s request at first reading, into the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants as well. Going above it would mean coming back to the Commission.
• Future residents must acknowledge where they are moving. Condition 35 already required every future resident to acknowledge that the condominium sits in the Arts and Entertainment District. Commissioner D’Arminio asked that the condition also define the district — “the vibrant cultural, dining and nightlife corridor of Wilton Manors” — so that, in his words, the city does not see “frivolous calls to code enforcement.” The applicant agreed.
• A deadline after demolition. Condition 38 was rewritten: within six months of demolishing the existing 48,616-square-foot commercial building, the developer must pull a building permit for the residential building, or a permit to sod and irrigate the parcel, or a permit for a stabilized temporary parking lot or staging area. In plain terms, no bare dirt lot sitting on the Drive for years.
• Sewer capacity, clarified. A consultant’s letter in the packet said Lift Station 11 could not handle the added flow. Staff said that analysis used 2017–2019 data; as of September 1 the station runs about 12.9 hours a day, the project and other committed development would take it to about 14.07, and the recommended ceiling is about 15. A replacement station with more capacity is in design and is expected to be running by the end of 2028, staff said; Commissioner Paul Rolli said that would come before the project opens.

The parking numbers, finally in one place

This is the part residents asked about most, so here is what staff put on the record (0:56:00–1:06:00):

• Under the rules in force when the application was filed (1.5 spaces per home), the 89 homes needed 134 spaces. The developer proposed 95, an exception of 39.
• Under the 1.15-per-home standard in the Article 30 rewrite (below), the requirement would be 103, and the shortfall would be 8 — or 5, counting golf-cart spaces.
• Commercial parking: 112 required, 156 proposed, with no exception requested.
• 21 on-street metered spaces along Wilton Drive and NE 7th Avenue, city-owned, counted separately.

The exception was approved as part of the site plan, on the filed-date rules.

Background: units, and what residents raised

What “89 flexibility units” means

Broward County lets cities hold a pool of extra dwelling units that can be moved around within the city — “flexibility units.” A city can assign them to a specific parcel so a project can build more homes than its land use designation would otherwise allow, without amending the land use plan at all. Resolution 2026-077 is that mechanism. The earlier Wilma-on-the-Drive approvals for this site, which carried 252 units, were repealed as part of the same ordinance.

What residents raised at Planning and Zoning

When the Planning and Zoning Board heard the project on June 16, it voted 7–0 to recommend approval, with conditions of its own added to staff’s. OutSFL, which called the project the most ambitious development in the city in more than ten years, reported a packed chamber at the board’s hearing. Four concerns came up repeatedly: traffic cutting through to Dixie Highway, noise in both directions, privacy for the back yards behind the site, and parking. The setback, the resident acknowledgement and the parking figures above are the Commission’s answers to three of them. On traffic, a resident at Tuesday’s public comment period again raised cut-through traffic on NE 7th Avenue and nearby residential streets and asked for traffic diverters; no action was taken on that at this meeting.

The next item: Article 30

Ordinance 2026-016, the rewrite of Article 30 of the land development rules for the urban center mixed-use districts — permitted uses, alcohol sales, parking, building design, signage — passed first reading 5–0 (1:21:30). First reading means it comes back for a second vote, so unlike the Shoppes, it was still open that night. It was on the October 13 agenda for second reading; the city hasn’t posted that meeting’s minutes yet, and we are confirming the result.

This was the ordinance’s second time at first reading. This version dropped the proposed height-map changes; staff’s later report also lists a parking change, to 1.15 spaces per home for apartments in mixed-use buildings and 1.25 for freestanding apartment buildings. At staff’s request, after Commissioner D’Arminio raised it with them, the Commission also reworded a line of the permitted-use table: “dwelling, multi-family and/or town house, within a mixed-use project.” The City Attorney confirmed it does not have to return to Planning and Zoning.

The Shoppes decided one parcel. Article 30 decides what can be built along Wilton Drive, Dixie Highway and Andrews Avenue generally, and its 1.15-space standard for apartments in mixed-use buildings is the number the Shoppes analysis above was measured against. Candidates in this November’s race have campaigned on streamlining approvals, on parking requirements, and on building heights. Article 30 is where those positions turn into enforceable text. We will report what happened at its second reading once we have checked the record.

Also decided Tuesday

Ordinance 2026-019, second reading — the first amendment to the city’s franchise agreement with Coastal Waste & Recycling of Florida passed unanimously (1:26:00). It extends the contract two years, to September 30, 2028, with a one-time 2.5 percent rate increase. The Finance Director said a single-family home would pay $48.84 for trash collection for the year that began October 1, up from $47.65. That buys twice-weekly garbage, weekly recycling and monthly bulk pickup, and it appears on the water bill, not the tax bill. Vice Mayor Caputo asked the Commission to consider moving the charge to the tax bill in future, as other cities do; staff said that could come back as a resolution.

Resolution 2026-070 — pulled from the consent agenda for explanation, then passed 5–0 (0:34:00). It is a joint agreement with Broward County to replace the city’s water main under Andrews Avenue at the same time as the county’s surtax-funded rebuild of the street between Oakland Park Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard, rather than tearing up a new road two years later. Staff said combining the projects delays the county’s Andrews Avenue work by about a year.

Resolution 2026-069 — four appointments to the Library Advisory Board: John Fiore, Iris Gonzalez, Frank Marin and Talia Garcia, chosen by written ballot read into the record, then confirmed 5–0 (0:42:00).

The consent agenda passed 5–0 (0:28:30) with the remaining resolutions, 2026-067, 068 and 071 through 076: pension board appointments, a police training contract, a debt collection services agreement, a software addendum, and the city attorney contract renewal. Consent items pass together in one vote with no discussion unless a commissioner pulls one out.

Vacant storefronts on Wilton Drive — the discussion item Vice Mayor Caputo requested. Staff walked the Drive and searched listings beforehand: four spaces are available for lease and one for sale. Several others that look empty are in licensing or renovation for new businesses, or are live-work units that can only be used by their owner. No vote was taken; the staff inventory is in the agenda packet, and the full discussion was tabled to the October 13 agenda.

Two staffing items were approved by consensus, without a formal vote: restoring two part-time library page positions, and filling the full-time Fire Marshal position when the current one retires this year. The Fire Marshal’s post is paid from the fire assessment fee; staff said that if the position proves hard to fill, the city will seek the service from Fort Lauderdale, which already provides its fire and EMS crews.

The election was formally proclaimed for Tuesday, November 3: a mayor for a two-year term, two commissioners for four-year terms, and one charter referendum question. The question is explained on our Vote 2026 page.

What happens next

• The final budget hearing on Thursday, September 24 set the tax rate and budget; see our recap.
• Article 30, second reading was on the October 13 agenda; we are confirming the result.
• The Commission’s November 10 meeting is cancelled, according to the city’s meeting portal. The next meetings are the organizational meeting and swearing-in on Tuesday, November 24, and the regular meeting that night.

Three minutes per speaker, no sign-up required, Commission Chambers at 2020 Wilton Drive.

---

Correction, October 29, 2026. An independent check of this piece against the September 22 minutes, approved October 27, and the agenda packets found errors, now corrected above:

• The vacant half of the site gets three new buildings, not six.
• The Planning and Zoning Board heard the project on June 16, not July 13, and voted 7–0 to recommend approval with conditions; it did not forward it with concerns unsettled.
• The resolution numbers for the developer’s agreement (079) and the declaration of easements (078) were swapped.
• A Library Advisory Board appointee’s name is Iris Gonzalez, not Edis.
• The 2028 timing for the new lift station was Commissioner Rolli’s statement, not staff’s.
• Condition 35 covers every future resident, not only buyers.
• The change to Article 30 also included a parking change, and its wording change came at staff’s request.
• The staffing items were approved by consensus, not by a voice vote.
• We added the two written public comments, including one asking about the Lift Station 11 figures.
• We added Article 30’s October 13 second reading, the tabling of the storefront discussion, and the cancelled November 10 meeting.
• We removed “a month” from the garbage rate, which the record doesn’t state.
• We replaced our own unsourced “biggest land-use decision in over a decade” with the project’s $45 million cost and OutSFL’s description.

Updated October 3, 2026. Added the summary of what the decision means for the Drive at the top of the piece.

Updated October 1, 2026. This piece first published on September 24 without the outcome of the vote. It now reports the results and roll calls from the meeting video, what changed between readings, the parking figures staff put on the record, and the other items decided that night.

Correction, October 1, 2026. The original version said the consent agenda included the Library Advisory Board appointments. It did not: those were Resolution 2026-069, taken as a separate vote. Corrected above.