[Music] [Music] [Music] in [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] for [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] oh [Music] [Music] n [Music] [Music] [Music] e e e e e e e e e the March uh 21st 20124 hearing for the planning and Land Development regulation commission is now called to order and if I please have you silence any audible devices that you may have and if I could get you to join me for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag 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 good morning I would like to thank everyone for joining us this morning and U Miss Tucker could I please have the roll call please hi good morning member Craig uh member Bender is absent member Shelly here uh member Costa here member Patterson here member sixma here and chair Mills here thank you Miss Tucker uh we do have minutes from the uh February 15 2024 meeting is there any discussion on the minutes I'll move to approve okay I do have one comment on it uh it's showing here that Mr Patterson was absent and he wasn't absent he was just late if we can make that correction um M you show late mine says late on my minutes yeah well I'm looking down here it says members bender and Patterson were absent it just says b absent and and Patterson late during the roll call down there where it says yep that needs to be corrected okay okay line 40 yeah okay you want to amend your yes I'll amend my motion to include that to not that excuse me yep I'm good with it okay I've got a motion to approve the February 15 2024 minutes from Miss Shell in a second from Mr sixma uh with the amendment of line 40 in the uh minutes to make Mr patteron late Not absent any any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay if anyone would like to speak for or against any of the cases being heard today I if I could get you to please fill out a form in the back of the Das here and give it to Miss Tucker to my extreme left here and we will be limiting you to a three minute time limit and after the comments have been heard I will give the applicant an opportunity to address any concerns the speakers have and answer any questions the Commissioners may have and at this time I'd like to turn over to Mr sorya for legal comments thank you Mr chair and this is for members of the public and for applicants that Decisions by this body on special exception cases and cases which rezone Real Property from one classification to another pursuing to the zoning ordinance are recommendations only to the County Council and they do not constitute a final hearing uh new evidence may be presented at the County Council public hearing decisions on variances made by this body constitute final action subject to an appeal to County Council and what that means is that no new evidence may be presented at the time of the County Council public hearing on the appeal an agreed party that appeals such a decision is confined to the record made before this body hearings by this body on rezonings special exceptions and variances are Quasi judicial in nature meaning that this body is acting more like a court and must take into account all oral written or demonstrative evidence presented their decisions on these cases must be based on competent substantial evidence in the record and competent substantial evidence has been defined as that evidence a reasonable mind would accept to support a conclusion thank you Mr chair thank you Mr sorya and while on legal comments I would like to ask the commission to disclose for the record any expart Communications that have occurred before or during the public hearing at which a vote is to be taken on any quasa judicial matter and I'll start with my immediate right with Miss Craig and I have none Miss Shell none none CA Mr none and I have none okay it looks like we have an item to be withdrawn is that going to be withdrawn or continued uh Miss Smith um it will be continued V2 4025 cjj Masters um did not meet do public notice and so we're asking to continue until April 18 okay okay I I'll make a motion for continues case v24 025 be contined till uh April 18th meeting second I got a motion for Mr 6 months to continue V2 24025 to their April 18th 2024 meeting and a second from Miss Shell any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay it looks like we do not have any unfinished old business so we're going to move right into our new business and if I could get michell to read the first case in please yes sir case number v- 24-16 variances to the accessory dwelling unit Adu requirements on a forestry resource F FR resource Corridor RC and Prime agriculture A1 zoned property thank you Miss Shelly uh Mr Hansen this one's yours good morning Michael Hansen Planning Development Services uh this particular variance uh application has the two requests the overall property is 35 uh approximately 35 acres in size and we're looking at an Adu as far potential addition as an Adu to the property that exceeds the limit of 50% of the living space of the principal dwelling so the house is developed with the or the property is developed with a principal dwelling that has a house that's 3,335 Square ft with a living space of 2,655 sare Ft the applicant proposes to construct an accessory dwelling unit as you can see on the variant site plan in front of you on the screen where the Adu has a living space of 2,634 square ft now the overall footprint of the Adu is 4,840 ft² in size that includes a uh 1,28 ft garage and 890t Leni and a 288 squ ft² Garden walkway um that ends up having a percentage of 99.2% of the living space of the princip IAL dwelling that's variance one variance two relates to the height of the proposed Adu so the county when looking at maximum height for any kind of roof structure that's pitched uses a mean roof height so the maximum accessory dwelling or maximum accessory structure roof height allowed is 25 ft by ride the request on this one is 29.75 Ft which exceeds the allowing a roof height by 4.75 ft um when evaluating the particular case the although if the structure was put on as an addition to the house um it would not require any of the variances however because there's uh Kitchen in the the addition and it's not connected directly to the house that's why we're looking n variances in an accessory dwelling unit in this case regarding the variance requests staff does have recommendations Of Denial on both variance requests noting that they fell for the five criteria I'm available for any questions the board may have thank you Mr Hansen any questions for staff heing none is the applicant present you want to come forward sir and could I get your name and address for the record yeah my name is Tom dady I'm the contractor 4020 serrento Road new beach okay Mr denat you've heard the staff report anything you would like to add to it or um we went around with the this is a um Association so we have uh given you four letters of recommendation from the adjacent homeowners in there this uh piece of property is very large it's 35 Acres um none of the adjacent properties have an issue with them putting this addition on and uh if you have any questions I'll be more than happy I I don't see any reason why it should not be approved it's just um if not approved we're asking the homeowner to tear down his whole house and build an 8,000 ft house which that's a primary residence it just doesn't make sense to do so all right let's see if we have any questions do we have any questions for the applicant okay I have a question go ahead Michelle I just I have one question I was just wondering um just for um information purposes you know why um you it's in here if they had attached it as opposed to the walkway then we wouldn't even be going through this process and um so that was really just my it it is attached it's attached but not with the with with the air conditioned space where it's attached is his um lenai laai yes sir where he's U going to do some outside cooking and everything okay and is this actually an accessory dwelling unit or is it actually their living area that there's the their living area is the primary house now and then they have a large family that when come in they want to be able to put them somewhere and that's that's the purpose of the house okay great thanks you're welcome okay let's see if we have any public participation if not we'll close the floor and make a decision no sir we don't have any okay you may have a seat sir okay we're going to close the floor for public participation open up for commission discussion or a motion I'll be glad to make a motion okay Miss Shelly yes um I move that we approve variances one and two case number v246 subject to the one staff recommendation um second okay I've got a motion on the floor from Michelli to approve variances one and two for v2 24016 and a second for Mr Costa for variances one and two with the one condition any discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor s Miss Craig I have a question about the um um it says environmental impact assessment may be required during permitting at what point does that uh does that become a solid um Mr Hansen yes uh so because the property has our natural resource management area on on portions of the property uh environmental permitting would typically require an environmental impact assessment um and during the development of the property so this is an addition so they use the language of of May so during the the building permitting process they'd make that determination okay any other questions for discussion okay all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay Miss Chile could I get the next case please case number v-24 d020 a variance to the maximum f height on Urban single family residential R4 zoned property thank you michell and this is Miss Ray good morning Kristen Ray uh so the applicant is Seeking a variance to allow an existing six- foot uh block column fence within the front yard to resolve a code violation um in January of 2024 uh staff discovered the 6ot block column fence being constructed without a building permit um and that's when the code violation was issued uh staff's recommendation for the variant request is denial um as the single family residents sits um approximately 166 ft away from the south front yard property line so there is sufficient enough space to um move the six foot fence to meet that 25 ft uh front yard setback uh however should the pdrc find that the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence two conditions have been provided for consideration and I'm available for questions thank you Mr Ray any questions for staff um Miss Ray if we were to approve this variance uh would it be what is actually there now or could they actually put in a a complete uh blockage of a six foot fence across they would be able to finish the construction of the six foot fence so they'd be able to raise where you would not be able to see through the whole six foot on the property rather than the the I get I think it's um metal between the pillars now but I think you answer my question they could put any six- foot fence they wanted to in that area okay yeah sorry all right is the applicant present you want to come forward please hello good morning sir you want to state your name and address for the record uh Pablo Pablo Diaz 773 West New York Avenue R City okay you've heard the staff report anything you'd like to add to that well yeah like you said you was asking her if it's going to be between it's going to be aluminum F between the Collins and just you know regular six foot black Collins that we doing okay and it's already you know it's already buil so hopefully it's approved so we don't have to take it down okay all right any questions for the applicant yeah I just want to make sure I understood the intent so what's between the columns is going what aluminum aluminum like almost like a cast iron type of aluminum fencing so you can see through you can see through yeah it's nothing all right thank you thank you anything okay all right do uh we'll see we have any public participation for this and then if we do we'll let you come back if not we'll close the floor do we have any no sir we don't have any okay we're going to close the FL for public participation open up for the commission discussion and I have a question for staff can we put a a condition in here that it be unobscured yes you can set an opacity limitation um between the columns uh because right now the fence has not been completed right so you can you know no more than this has to be reversed no more than 50% 20 50% opacity 25% opacity something like that so that it's see- through it's not just a pure you can actually see through it so yes because what we're trying to do is not prevent we're trying to prevent a six foot wall yes so what what do we need to do in order to do that put it you can set another condition saying that between the The Columns there is a limitation on opacity so that forces um uh you know actual light to go through between where the columns are okay so essentially if they're going to construct an aluminum rod you know um between the columns that kind of forces that they they have to at least they can't they can't make it a wall where you can't see through it right and we can put a percentage on that yes okay okay motion makers you got it you want to word it or if you want a word of at all I mean that's totally up to you guys um oright all right I'll make a motion on case b 24-20 um that we approve the variance concerning staff recommended conditions on this uh approve the variance with a note the the opacity not to exceed 50% in in between the columns and um there are two recommendations and with the two staff recommendations recommendations yeah right I'll second that one would you state your um about between the columns between the columns 50% OPAC not to exceed 50% see through them M yep just didn't get number thank you second yep okay I've got a motion on the floor uh to approve variance v2420 with the two staff recommending conditions with the addition to include that the unobstructed area between the two between the columns not to exceed 50% and for Mr Costa and a second for Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any oppos motion carries unanimously okay missell could I get the next case please case number v-24 d022 variance to the minimum yard requirements on Urban two family residential R six zoned property thank you missell uh this is Mr Hansen good morning once again Michael Hansen Planning Development Services this particular variance request is to legitimize the location of an existing uh two family dwelling uh the structure was built and permanent back in 1981 however in our R six zoning classification requires side yards of 10 ft it meets that requirement on the North side however on the South Side H it meet it's uh setback at 8 8 ft so we're looking at uh a request to reduce that required yard to match the existing uh structure that's been there since 1981 in review of the application staff has a recommendation denial noting that it Fells one of the five criteria um now the main purpose of the variance request is by the applicant because they want to be able to essentially subdivide the property into two um Parcels as you can see on the variant site plan with proposed parcel A and B that's typically allowed under the r six zoning classification and is common in the surrounding neighborhood that way they can sell the parcels independently of each other um overall uh the staff does have like I said a recommendation now we do have one condition noting that it's limited to the size and location the existing two family residents as as shown on the variant site plan I'm available for any questions that you may have thank you Mr Hansen any questions for staff is the applicant present would you like to come forward please would you like to state your name and address for the record Jennifer Porter 1118 and too Road okay you've heard the staff report is anything you like to add to that no I think the request is pretty straightforward okay let's see if the commission has any questions for you anyone like to speak have any question yes I have a question chair Mr cost um I just want to clarify something that I'm looking at here this is being split into two separate units two separate Parcels the parcel a is a single family dwelling yes correct and then partial B if there's a note on here it says one story duplex is that a duplex or a single family dwelling as well it's a single family dwelling okay all right just wanted to clarify that thank you okay okay we do not have any public participation for this for so we're going to close the floor for public participation open up for commission discussion or a motion I have a a quick question yes M um probably very basic but um just for clarification um for myself um says she's planning to um sell each unit and the under independent of each other and the lot will she have to come back in here or or back to y'all to have those properties divided before she sells them to actually make them two separate so yes so uh if the pdrc finds it to approve the variance request to allow the production of the yard requirement she'll have to work with our Land Development activity to go through the subdivision of the property okay I just wanted to thank you okay and I do have one question for Mr Hansen Mr Hansen lot size in that neighborhood there what is the traditional lot size there um that's the r six zoning classification it actually has two standards for lot size um regarding how it's developed because it does allow for single family residences or for uh two family residences as it is right now uh as a two Family Residence it requires a minimum of excuse me 11,000 square fet this particular property is 13,600 square ft so it does meet the minimum lot size if the pdrc approves the variance requests and then the applicant goes through the Land Development activity for the separation or the subdivision of the property both resulting Parcels would be conforming to the r six zoning classification that is allowed because we're not able to create any new non-conforming Lots Mr chair if you look at page 10 of your staff report you can kind of see how some lots are divided some lots are undivided in this general area okay okay I just didn't want to make a non-conforming lots in the r six zoning okay okay all right we close the floor for public participation now commission discussion or motion I'll be glad to make a motion okay that we approve case number v-24 d022 subject to the one staff condition second okay I've got a motion on the floor from Miss Shelly to approve variance V2 24022 with the one staff condition and a second from Mr Patterson any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I any opposed motion carries unanimous Shel could I get the next case please yes sir case number v-24 d023 variance to reduce minimum yard requirements on Urban single family residential or three zoned property thank you Miss Shelly Mr Shams this one's yours all right good morning Stephen Shams with Planning Development Services so the applicant is requesting one variants to reduce the north front yard for the construction of a porch uh the variants will reduce the north front yard from 30 ft to 20 ft 10 in uh the applicant is building a new single family home on a corner lot and the home is oriented towards the east side which is Dartmouth Road the applicant wants to construct a porch that wraps around the home on the East and North sides as seen on the site plan uh R3 requires a 30ft front setback so he is to that on the North and East sides um the east side of the porch is outside of the setback but the north side encroaches um overall uh staff recommends denial as the variances variance fails to meet four the five criteria uh should the pdrc F evidence to approve staff recommends one condition that it's limited to size and location is shown on the site plan I'm Avil for comment or question thank you Mr Shams any questions for staff hearing none as the applicant present good morning sir could I get your name and address shman and I 2327 mry Drive Winter Park Florida okay you've heard the uh staff report is anything You' like to add to that well where're since it's a corner lot there are two front yards there's a front yard on Dartmouth and a front yard on Stratford not asking for the entire um 9 and 1/2 ft or 9' one on the North side only 18t of it you notice that the porch only wraps around the front corner not down the full side of the property it's a circuit of porch reminiscent of many of the historic homes in the land and we built it we designed it after that so all right sir any questions for The Advocate all right we'll see if we have any public participation if we do I'll let you come back if not we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion I take a motion or any discussion on the the variance no no participants no sir okay then I'll make a motion case v-24 d023 that we approve variance not the variance with staff recommended conditions second okay I've got a motion on the floor from Mr Costa to approve V2 24023 with the one staff condition and a second from Miss Shell any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I any oppos motion carries unanimously M Shel could I get the next case please yes sir case number v-2 24-24 variances to the Min yard requirements and accessory dwelling unit regulations on Rural agriculture zoned property thank you Miss Shelly Mr Hansen this yours good morning once again again Michael Hansen Planning Development Services uh you might remember this particular property because it received a variance to separate non-conforming Lots back at the October 19th 2023 U pdrc hearing uh the applicants previously combined seven lots to create the partial and its current configuration it is non-conforming to the A2 zoning classification however the applicants are now seeking to develop the property um their intent is to create uh essentially a barn minum on the west side of the property that you can see over by variant 6 and S and they plan to live in that uh baram minum which is going to be listed on the it's listed in the staff report as an Adu however the structure on the south side of the property where it juts down to the South is the proposed residence so they plan to live in the Adu until such time that the residence is completed then go through a change of use to redesignate the uh house as the principal and then that way the Adu or the baram minum is listed as the Adu now in order to facilitate um their request they needed seven variances because as you can see on the variance site plan it's kind of an unusual configuration where there's a lot of platted uh unopen rways essentially with Highlands Avenue and then Hillcrest Avenue that account for uh variances 1 2 3 4 five and six variant 7 that that you can see there to the north of the property there's a 100 foot wide power line easement which prompts a essentially what we would consider a front yard so the overall variance requests that we're looking at for this and the staff report breaks it down so that variance requests uh one two and three deal with the proposed residents variances four and five deal with the applicants proposed swimming pool that they're trying to construct and Varian six and seven uh deal with the proposed baram minum Adu um due to the it's interesting because due to the parcels width especially on that North Side north of Highlands Avenue it's 108 ft wide so applying the front yard setbacks or yard requirements from The Highlands Avenue onopen right away and then also the power line easement uh would leave the applicants with a 8ft wide buildable area now the the south portion where the proposed residence and swimming pool is there's a a portion of Highlands Avenue on kind of the the Northeast portion of that South Side that prompts variance one as you can see um and then on the west side of it Hill Crest Avenue it exists there which prompts variances three four and five um based on the proposed structure that you see variance 2 is actually a sidey yard now the proposed residence that you see on the south portion of the property has a 5,300 ft footprint uh in EV evaluation of variances 1 through three for the house we had a recommendation Of Denial on it noting that they they fell two of the five criteria um variance is four and five also fell to the five criteria for the swimming pool noting that the structure which could potentially be reduced in size to reduce the requests that they're looking for in in the area uh for Varian is six and seven we uh evaluated the criteria and have a recommendation of approval um otherwise we did have um conditions on there three conditions related to variances 1 through three for the residents four and five and six and seven um essentially limiting the variances to the size and location of those structur I am available for any question that you may have thank you Mr Hansen any questions for staff Mr of Costa I just want a quick question here so we're building the baram minum first as your primary residents and is there a timeline to build the the actual primary residence the second structure or is that open-ended uh currently that's open-ended essentially when they go through with this the the baram minum would be permitted as single family residents however with variance applications we give them a year to make use of the variance so that would essentially put a timeline on them okay so that all right so the Varian is done don't do have an expiration date after all that's correct okay all right thank you any other questions for staff is the applicant present I get you come forward please your name and address for the record Ashley Jano 1320 bradic Road Delona okay you've heard the staff report is there anything you'd like to add to that no no any questions for the applicant okay do we have any public participation okay thank you all right we're going to close the four for public participation open up for commission discussion or motion all right let's make a motion here be glad to make a motion please that we approve case number v-24 024 subject uh variances to the minimum yard requirements with the three staff recommended conditions all six variances correct yes sir I have second seven seven oh that's right turn the page yep sorry seven yeah I'll second okay I've got a motion on the floor to approve the seven variances for v2 4024 from Miss Shelly and a second from Mr Costa with the three conditions of Staff any discussion on the motion Miss Miss Craig um I'm a little concerned about this variance uh four and five because it's such a an odd-shaped property and I just uh I'm not real fond of this idea of a giant pool there on the uh right along the the Street like that and I wonder if there's any concern for for that as an issue okay so from the 50 Feet to the 16 feet is that what you're looking at yes that's right and then the um swimming pool to be located in the front of yard this is one of those situations where you've got is it two front yards front yard yeah two front yards and I think that was in line with what the reason for the request um I will say that if this was a this is the zoning requires this much setback because if it was a residential uh zoning what would be the setbacks um Mr Hansen um if it was Zone R1 if if if that unopen RightWay wasn't there and it wasn't considered a front yard it'd be considered a side yard an accessory structure for swimming pool excuse me is allowed to be essentially 5T from the side yard setback otherwise if there's a screen enclosure um uh that would be 5T otherwise Water's Edge uh is 8 ft so Hill Crest to is not a it's just a ride of way there it's not a develop up street is that that's correct this whole area was platted back in approximately 1925 so Highlands Avenue Hillcrest Avenue are unopen RightWay the applicants actually did get a portion of Highlands Avenue vacated which allowed them to combine the the seven Parcels that they had so that they weren't bifurcated by that un unopen right away okay does that help you out Miss Craig yes thank you okay all right we have a motion on the floor and we also have a second for the uh seven variances with the three uh conditions from staff any other discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay Miss Shelly could I get the next case please yes sir case number v-24 026 variances to the minimum yard requirements and maximum lot coverage on Urban single family residential R9 zoned property thank thank you Miss Shell and Miss Ray this one's yours good morning so the applicant is seeking three variances variance one is to reduce the East front yard from 25 ft to 24.5 ft for the existing single family residence variance two is to reduce the South Side yard from 7 ft to 3.6 ft for a replacement wood deck and variance three is to increase the maximum lot coverage from 35% to 42.8% % uh the property has a total lot area of of 7,749 square feet um that includes it its extension into the water um however um the actual buildable area of the property is only 6,117 Square ft um the residence and the existing wood deck were built and pered in 1988 um staff's recommendation for variances 1 through three are for denial um however should the PLC finding the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence um one condition has been provided uh for your consideration I will also add that six letters of support were submitted including one from the neighbor to the South that would be the most affected by the um by variance to and I'm available for questions thank you Miss Ray any questions for Mr C you said this was permitted in ' 88 and built yes sir was there variances required in 88 not that I found not at that time okay so we're just replacing existing deck that's been built permitted in 88 and they're tearing it down and putting a new deck in its place correct not expanding the footprint just replacing s is correct all right thank you okay is the applicant present can I get your name in address for the record please yes good morning I'm Julie Holmes I'm the applicant um and my address is 2915 Elizabeth Avenue Orlando Florida 32804 um I have read the staff report and I'm actually a professional engineer so I understand all the issues um there was a Mis uh the house was built in 1988 and so before that there were no codes so that's kind of a lot of the issue um what's here so uh um you know this is a dated home it needs a lot of work and when we uh my parent um and actually um I am the agent for my parents so this is a family home so when we bought this house you know we approached it you could either renovate it as is or do a tear down and rebuild so clearly a tear down and rebuild has more environmental impact um I don't know if they have the the image that shows a lot extending into the water but there's a a large portion that's not even buildable because of the um the water that's there and so when we approached it you know we wanted to look at the impacts the environment our neighbors and community and um to make sure that we could get in this house as soon as possible and the way to do that is a rebuild versus tearing it down and starting it over um so if you weren't already clear these three uh variances already exist today um the front one is to Res reduce the front yard setback the house is actually at 24.5 ft I mean we're not going to tear it down and and push it you know back five more uh um half a foot just to meet that variant so hopefully uh that's easy to go through the side yard um there is an exterior stairwell so that's where the um you know and we have a 7ot side setback most homes in these areas actually extend the footprint to these side setbacks on both sides we're not even meeting that so you know we're losing a lot of buildable areas so that's why these stairs are outside we have a deck that goes around and so that's where um in order to uh get down the stairs and then walk around them we need to uh kind of come additional uh 3.6 ft instead of 7 foot sitb back um for variance three the um maximum lot coverage is 35 % um we're we're actually asking to get to 42.9 um but when I was going through that what's not clear is as today the house if you were using uh the uh calculations I submitted you're already at 40 .56 so I'm actually only asking for 2.33 additional increase in square footage but when I was looking last night I actually took those calculations based on the buildable square footage of the area which is at 6,117 not the 7,749 which which is a tax basis which I said part of it in the water so you can't even um go through that so when I go through and look at the staff criteria for variances one and two which is the uh deck in the front um front uh setback of the house the only condition we didn't meet was uh whether the special conditions and the circumstances don't result in actions from the applicant well clearly they're already there I didn't cause them so if that was approv we meet all five so I would hope that those two variances are easily approved um the third variant which is that uh maximum lot coverage you know I just said I I made some calculation errors I'm really asking for a very small number and if you took the um existing footprint and used it against that uh 7,749 I think I'm actually at um oh sorry I had that calculation I'm actually only at 32% lock coverage and the max is 35 so I'm already under it so you know however you look at it I do believe I meet it already but I messed it up in my application and so I put it in there but um you know we actually have received approval from all three of our neighbors one of the neighbors are the Dolphins that play in the water so they shouldn't count but the north uh Southeast um and the the two neighbors the North and South uh something that should be noted is they're about 2 feet higher in elevation and so this you know we do sit in a little bit of a lull um because they're 2 feet higher there's little retaining walls so you know anything that we do on the ground hopefully won't affect them um and you know we're just hoping that this is a dream home um and this is a non-conforming lot anyway uh a typical lot is 75 feet in width this one's only 50 and um you know the and and so hopefully you know I I'm going through it you know I think the the big issue is if we were to tear down and bring in dirt and tear up the the land you know you would have a lot more impact to that Lagoon which is the reason why we bought the property so in my opinion we've worked really hard with the architect to get a plan that works for us that has a minimum impact gets us in the house and um thank you for your consideration today and I'm here to answer any questions that you have okay Miss Craig you had a question yes on page nine um under the maximum lot coverage of 35% you mentioned uh to allow the installation of a pool and that's the only reference I found to a pool in this application what are what are the plans for that so um I don't know if you can tell but the the plan that's on your screen there if you can kind of see there's the the square I don't know the darker area and then it kind of comes out to like a little octagon shape there was a renovation on the house which actually pulled that area into an enclosed space so you kind of have the edge of the house and those sliding glass doors open and then there's an extension um we are actually taking down that um extra renovation and making it outdoor space because that's what makes this property so well so when we pull that in we're putting a pool in part of that area so I don't believe any of these uh issues requests for the variance because that that area that's concrete now I'm just going to put a pool in some of that area so that will I will have to deal with that when we go and submit the building plans but the the lot coverage really I mean when you look at the lot coverage it's only increasing that 2% or 1% versus what square footage you use it on so I'm not really changing the square footage whether I put a pool there or not that really shouldn't matter in this hearing here but that's something that I'm going to have to get permitted through the building department is that an above ground pool or an in ground pool it um it's going to be in ground but there is going uh we're being very creative and so it will be you know it'll have side areas and it will have elevation so I mean technically it's in ground but there will be areas that will be shown above ground okay it's going to be unique this is going to be a great property if I can get it approved well I'm I'm concerned about the the Water Area the Waterfront area um and um the possibility of of an issue with the pool so and I don't believe there's an issue because you look there's that 25 foot rear Waterfront setback and what I failed to mention is all of these Renovations keep us out of that so I think in the in the past there have been people that encroach into that area and we are not encroaching into that area in any way and I think that's the most important part of the renovation is to not impact that setback okay thank you okay let's see if we have any public particip do we have thank you thank you ma'am all right we're going to close the four for public particip you do have you have a form there Miss Tucker okay all right yes sir can I get your name and address for the record yes my name is Paul Holmes and my address address is current address is 5807 Round Lake Road up popka Florida okay um appreciate good morning everybody I just want to kind of reiterate I don't want to beat a dead horse but uh we spent a lot of money in planning to try to get to this point where we could work within the confines of the existing envelope of the building and the lot conditions and and uh this is a dream home for my wife and I we're trying to get to the point that we can um you know get get this thing completed we've spent right to date in excess of $15,000 studying trying to make it work and trying to avoid a complete demolition uh that's the only alternative to do that if we did a complete demolition we'd be able to incorporate an interior stairwell which is a huge negative right now in the house that exists and that's one of the one of the variant requests is to be able to it's not not ideal but we can make that work um we definitely the pool is is just going to be a tiny little plunge pool uh so when you're out in the water and you come in and it's hot as heck you want to just jump into something and cool down that's that's an important criteria for us if we tore it down we could fit it in differently but I just don't see the value in in going through that uh extra expensive tearing down something that's workable not ideal but workable um the internal awell would make it so much better our lot elevation could be raised if we did a demolition because right now we're in a well we got two houses up here and we're down here the water kind of filters through our property and goes out via our property into the Lagoon off the street and and overflow situations we're willing to live with that the pool elevation um is going to be much higher that's why it's it's an inground pool but it's going to be raised to be able to conform with the existing floor level which is still you know quite a bit lower than the than the water level in the lagoon so if we ever had a flooding vent the water would not from the Lagoon would not get into the pool nor would the pool water get out into the Lagoon so just asking your consideration for for you know our our requests I think are totally reasonable and we we personally just want to avoid a complete demo and rebuild all right sir thank you okay do we have anyone else okay okay we're going to close the four for public participation and open up for commission discussion or a motion the uh the pool would have to go through a sight plan anyway right or not the per and that that way they could they could address that there's any problem whatsoever well it's go the what is there now you've got an existing uh that's what they're they just want to keep it within that existing area yeah that footprint yeah exting footprint I'm ready to make a motion anybody ready okay I'll take case V2 4026 um I make a motion for approval with the one variance from staff one a recommendation I'm sorry second condition okay I've got a motion from Mr sixma on variance B 24026 for variances one two and three with the one staff is it one staff condition yeah one one condition from staff and a second from Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any oppos motion carries unanimously okay Miss Shelly could I get the next one please case number v-24 d027 a variance to the accessory dwelling unit Adu regulations on Urban single family residential are r four zoned property Mr Hansen this one's yours uh good morning once again Michael Hansen Planning Development Services uh this particular variance application uh is for an accessory dwelling unit uh per our code under Section 72 or 277 uh for accessory dwelling units on lots that are 1 acre or less we require their orientation to be have the front facade of it face the rearward side of the princi dwelling so that's what the variance request that you have in front of you is for as you can see on this variance site plan uh the property is developed with a three-story residence over on the west side that portion to the property over on the east side is where the proposed accessory dwelling unit is going to go the applicants uh or applicant on the the project uh their clients went through a lot combination combining two underlying lots that were developed for single family residences uh in uh two different Co um subdivisions of the kiny subdivisions which are cluster subdivisions um each individual lot met the meets the requirements of those of zoning classification under our cluster subdivision section of our code now the particular um size of the the structure as I mentioned three stories um the three-story house is four 4,740 ft as far as it square footage but it has 3522 ft of conditioned living space the proposed accessory dwelling unit is two stories in height and has a footprint of 267.9 square fet under our um zoning code for accessory dwelling units we limit the maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit at 1,200 square ft uh the plans on this one bring it to 1,00 and 99.5 square feet so it's right under that requirement of potentially needing a variance for size uh because it's still tied to that 50% ratio of the principal uh living area so it it is within that area it ends up being 34% um in the middle of this site plan as you can see it might be a little tough It's that these two lots are actually separated by a existing concrete wall uh in our Adu regulations we have restrictions in there that require um the property not to essentially be have the appearance of being subdivided in two individual Lots if an Adu were to be created in that location so we do have a condition if the pl orc approves a variance request for the removal of that wall so that way it doesn't have the appearance of of these two particular Lots also on the S plan you see the proposed accessory dwelling unit has driveway access to uh Islam marada Drive normally an accessory dwelling unit is supposed to use shared common access as the principal dwelling uh unit would do um however there's Provisions in the section of code for accessory dwelling units that allow for uh an administrative waiver to be granted to allow an Adu to ultimately use a SE secondary driveway Frontage and that applies due to the fact that this is considered a through lot after the lot combination um on the overall site plan it would be difficult for the applicants to use the existing driveway to access due to the configuration of the the existing property with the three-story home and their swimming pool um so we have a condition on the variance application should it be approved that um it'll be administratively waved to allow the applicant to access the Adu from Islam marada Drive the application did receive uh a number of public participation we we received a a letter of support signed by 17 individuals uh from the surrounding homeowners association we did receive two letters of opposition to the request um overall staff does have a recommendation of denial noting that the application meets zero of the five criteria for granting said variance um noting that the Lots the underlying Lots were platted and designed for single family residences and the variance request would not be necessary in the event for the applicant to subdivide the property back into the two uh conforming uh Parcels that they bore previously and then they'd be able to to develop their proposed residence or well the proposed Adu as a principal residence without need of variance or the conditions as it is with request for the Adu staff does have ultimately six conditions on the variance application noting the first is that it's limited the size location of the Adu as on the variant site plan the second is a demolition permit for that concrete wall that separates the two lots a third is for a use permit for uh essentially getting driveway access off of Islam marada Drive the fourth is for the lot containing the accessory unit shall not be subdivided to separate the accessory dwelling unit from the principal detached single family dwelling per our code it's set up like that for accessory dwelling units that way someone doesn't develop an accessory uh dwelling unit and then come in years later and try and subdivide the property and and sell it off as a principal residence uh the next condition is that the Adu cannot be sold separately from the principal details that ties into the previous condition and the last condition that we have is pending the approval of the variant an administrative waiver for that access off of Islam marada would be granted for that driveway I'm available for any questions the board may have Miss Craig you had a question I'm Sorry Miss Craig your mic's not on thank you thank you I have a question about um your recommendation number four uh suggesting not subdividing the units is there any reason to leave this this as one lot rather than go ahead and subdivide and wouldn't that uh eliminate the requirement of the size of the building itself so in the staff report under criteria for um it talks about the variance is not the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the land or develop the proposed Adu uh I spe specifically mentioned that the lot lots could be subdivided back to their previous configuration so that they could get what they're asking for without going through a variance application or or needing the variance in the first place um so staff had a a finding that that criteria was not met okay thank you Mr Costa you had a question yeah I just wanted to clarify you said there was two letters of opposition that's correct I have two letters but they're the same one so when I looked at them the the letters essentially the same format one is signed by Joel ricardi and then one is I believe it was a Mary um brownin or yeah that's the copy that we have is the same the same one aside by Maryann two of the same one okay she said there's a there's a there's actually a second there there there is a second one Miss Miss Tucker has it over at her just want to make sure okay any other questions for staff is the applicant present good morning good morning everyone for the record with the law firm of cob Cole 231 North Woodland Boulevard in D land um so this is an interesting one I I'll tell you that it's interesting because typically when you're combining property or you have one property um you know we talk about Corner Lots but we don't talk about lots that have right of ways on either side um so that makes this one fairly fairly peculiar I do want to start by stating what we're here for um because that seems to get lost in the analysis of the criteria uh the only variance we're asking for is to allow an Adu in the quote front yard because of the way the lots are um we're not asking for the size we're not asking for the height we're asking for nothing else but to be able to put this Adu behind the principal structure but still technically the front yard um so I do want to go through the criteria uh and kind of talk about it the first criteria is special conditions or circumstances peculiar to the land so you know the last sentence states that the proposed Adu can be built as a separate single family residence without variances that's understandable I think you could say that about every Varian ever created right you know you could just not build the pool you could build a smaller house you can you know buy another lot and not use this lot you can do various things not require variance that's not what we're here for we're here because we're we're asking for something we're asking for an Adu a commonly enjoyed right in the zoning classification one that the county recently created and put in their code uh we're trying to make it fit on the on the parcel so you know to to me to say you can just do something else that's not really the spir spirit of the variance uh criteria and the code itself that we have uh here you're also looking at a backyard space that's very small what didn't seem to be noted is that there's there are easements that line this property in the back which is quote back which we're considering the rear yard technically a front yard there's a 10-ft drainage and utility easement so let's say you didn't subdivide this property you didn't uh uh uh combine this property you only had the front piece and you want to put an Adu on it it's physically impossible that's why they went through the trouble of purchasing the other lot and combining it to be able to even have space to have an Adu or or we'd be here with a lot more variances uh so we were trying to limit the amount of variances required and do what we could in order to have an accessory dwelling unit on this site and so now we only need one variance as opposed to l seven uh because of the and and the constraints of the the the lot the primary structures on so that's number one number two uh special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant now I would point you back to what we're here for because you're only looking at what we're asking in terms of the variance we're asking to be able to place a structure in a front yard that we view as a rear guard well we didn't create the roadway there that's been there that's not the having double Frontage was not created by the applicant right obviously we're asking for something we want to put an Adu but again it's commonly enjoyed right number three so number three states that literal interpretation the provisions would deprive the applicant of Rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning classification what what I've been talking about there's no way we could have an Adu with the front lot it wouldn't be possible we'd be here for a lot more variances it you know the size of the Adu is consistent with your Adu regulations it's less than 12200 sare F feet of air condition space that's what we're required to meet and we're meeting it along with every other requirement of the ad regulations except for the fact that we got unlucky and we're we're on a little island and so to combine the Lots you have double Frontage uh the other note on number three states that the that it that it seems like the Adu appears to be a principal residence I'm not sure how that's relevant here because we meet all the Adu requirements the whole point of the Adu regulations with respect to size is to make sure you're not having these you know two massive residences but we meet those requirements this isn't about what we're here for which is being able to put an Adu on the quote Frontage of a lot so number four the variance granted is the minimum variance required well the response is the same we'll just subdivide it and do something else that's not what we're here for that's not relevant to the question of the variance which is how do we compensate for how do we make it such that we can put an Adu on the rear of the property that is now the frontage that's the question that we're asking we're not asking whether we can build another residence or we can subdivide or subdivide some more or do anything else we're asking if you review the criteria and you look at the situation that we're in with that exact lot in that configuration does it make sense does it make sense to have an accessory dwelling unit behind the principal structure but because of double Frontage it's technically viewed as part of your code as in front of the structure and the last one the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this ordinance on and on and on well we already went through the HOA the HOA has approved us we made sure to do that before we got here so that we're not kind of sitting here wasting our time it was reviewed by the by the Architectural Review Committee approved by the HOA permissible by the HOA and so now we're asking you to look at what the HOA did look at your Adu regulations look at the circumstance of this lot the fact that it does have dual Frontage the fact that we're only asking for one variance and we actually lessened our variance requirements by combining the lots and that this is an Adu for clients ailing parents which is one of the many reasons the Adu regulations were formed in order to be able to house individuals like that and as a result we ask you to respect respectfully approve this variance here for any questions thank you Mr any questions for the applicant these Lots were combined recently 2022 22 and so once the Adu goes on there and so the stipulation in here is that they cannot be then sold separately correct because you'd have to you have to separate the Lots again which I don't think you get that through here uh the second time um outside of that yes then you're dealing with a yard or a property that has technically two front yards and that's the situation that we're in um I don't see in here in our packet um the approvals from the HOA or the arc were those left out intentionally or just or I'm not sure that may the package no that'd be nice happy to provide that to you that it was formally approved yeah it'd be nice to see that yeah I'd take you your word but it'd be nice to see that that's all I have thank me a lawyer my word yeah any other questions okay any other questions for the applicant okay let's see if we have any public partici Mr chair thank you we don't have any public participation so we're going to close the FL for public participation open up for commission discussion or a motion I'll be glad to make a motion okay good okay uh that we approve case number v- 24027 a variance to the the Adu regulations on Urban single family residential are for zoned property subject to the six staff conditions second six may you second that yes okay all right I've got a motion on the floor from Miss Shelly to approve V 24027 with the six staff conditions uh and a second for Mr sixma any discussion on the motion this property Comes This Very comes with 17 letters of approval an ARC approval and a uh HOA or bod uh approval as well just want to make that point MH and we are dealing with two front yards correct yep okay all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay Miss Shell can I get the next case please yes sir case number v- 24-28 a variance to the minimum yard requirements on Urban single family residential R4 zoned properties thank you Miss Shell Miss Ray this one's yours good morning again the applicant is Seeking a variance for a proposed 480 sqt metal building uh the variance is to reduce the East Side yard from 5 ft to 3 ft the proposed accessory structure is less than 500 ft and therefore able to go to that 5ft setback and the applicant stated in their written petition that the proposed location would provide sufficient space um approximately 5 ft between the uh residence and the metal building um staff's recommendation is for denial uh however should the PDC have um find that the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence uh the following condition has been provided for consideration that the variance is limited to the size and location as shown on the variant site plan I do also want to add that four letters of support were submitted um including the neighbor to the east that would be most affected by the variance and I'm available for questions any questions for staff um Mr Ray is this an existing building no sir it's a proposed building yes sir okay all right okay is the applicant presentent good morning sir could I get your name and address for the record William Irvin 1340 2nd Street Orange City Florida okay you've heard the staff report anything you'd like to add to that uh no sir it's just well I guess um to meet the 5 foot setback the bill building would be within 3 ft of the home so I'm just trying to move it the other way an extra 2 feet so that I have distance in between my home and the building um I did get the four letters of recommendation East West and two on the North the one on the South Side I went and talked to um he did receive a letter and all that he said he was going to send a letter but he didn't but we're separated with 20 foot tall of V burum he wouldn't even be able to see the building anyway and then the other lot is empty and that gentleman lives in New York um that's all I have all right sir any questions for the applicant all right and I noted here that you do have um how many how many letters is support four four I sent out six letters I went right here I've got one additional okay all right sir let's see if we have any public participation if we don't we'll move forward we don't have any public participation so we're going to open up for we're going to close the FL for uh public participation open up for commission discussion or a motion I'll be glad to make a motion go ahead Melle ready okay that we approve case number v-24 028 a variance to minimum yard requirements on Urban single family residential R4 zoned property subject to one staff condition I've got a motion on the floor from Miss Shelly uh for v2 2428 and with the one staff to approve that variance with the one staff recommended condition and a second from Mr sixma any discussion on the motion she seconded the four but that's I didn't hear okay I am kind of hard to hear and hit me every now have to say a little louder when you say second you're way down there I apologize for that okay any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously Miss Shelly can I get the next case please yes sir case number v- 24-29 variances to increase the maximum height requirements and reduce minimum yard requirements on Urban uh I think I believe it has a door as seen on um the the three-dimensional model on the the right of the screen and variance two is for uh a decorative rooftop wall um this variance is for oh variance one is to increase the maximum Building height from 35 ft to 45t ft uh variance two is to increase the building height from 35 ft to 40 8 in so our zoning code allows maximum Building height of 35 ft and our building code allows an additional 3 fet for a safety uh safety railing sorry uh variances three and five are for uh the Southside privacy wall um these walls include Gates and act as passages for the home but not necessarily as a fence as they do not extend around the perimeter of the property each wall has a gated entryway of 7' 5 in and additional adornments that increase the height of the wall to 11t 4 and2 in uh section 72- 28 two of our zoning code specifies that all fences walls and hedges have a maximum height of 6 feet so these variances are for the additional 5T 4 in 4 and a half Ines and then variances five and six are for the locations of the Privacy walls so since the walls function as design features of the principal structure that extend to the property line they are technically within the side yards therefore these variances are to reduce the sidey yard from 7 feet to0 feet to to account for their proposed placement um so variances three and five are for the South and variances four and six are for the north so overall staff recommends denial as all of the variances fail to meet four of the five criteria um at the time of the review we did not receive any letters of opposition but since then we did receive one I believe that was provided to you um should theal the RC evidence to approve the variances staff recommends four conditions uh condition one is that the variance variance one for maximum height is limited to the proposed rooftop stairwell as depicted on architectural elevation variance two for maximum height is limited to the proposed decorative rooftop wall as depicted on the elevation uh condition three is for variances three and four for the privacy wall height on the North and South sides are limited to the elevator and then the last condition is that variances 5 and six for the location of the Privacy walls are limited to as depicted on the variant site plan I'm available for comment or question thank you Mr Shams any questions for staff here none is the applicant present would you like to come forward please morning morning sir could I get your name and address for for the record yeah my name is um Scott Capon I'm the architect for the project uh 603 Front Street Celebration Florida okay you've heard the staff report anything you like to add to that um yeah so as far as it comes to the uh the rooftop um access um it was our um understanding in the designing of it that it would uh classify as a penthouse um which is defined by the code as um an enclosed structure or structured above the rooftop of the building um that shelters a a vertical shaft opening which is it's just over the stairs it's 4T wide um the height of which is in the center of the property which if we had a sloped roof you know the tie point would be in the middle anyway um and uh there is a section of the code 72- 277 that allows for pen houses um and other similar accessory structures to um be an additional 25t above the max Building height so that's kind of where we were in our thought process there with the um that rooftop access um as far as the the decorative element um that is um for the variance number two it's just that kind of arch piece on the top middle of the of the uh elevation that you see there and a similar one on the back of the house so it's only about 6ot wide that gets that height um uh the design of the home was kind of U indicative of the new homes in Alice Beach up in the Panhandle these white you know stucco buildings and you know have that nice clean lines and that's was our inspiration for it um and then when it comes to the the the wing walls of it there um they are 8T at the property line but it's just the thickness of the wall the 8T um uh concrete block wall so that's the minimum of uh touching of the property line in that zero foot variance and I said um and the other reason say we wanted the uh the rooftop access is to um because she is across the street from the beach she wanted to see the ocean and with the homes across the street the balcony's lower we would really get the view and we trying to get a full walk access to the roof as opposed to like a roof hatch with a weird ladder or something like that that isn't quite as uh safe for children or or elderly family members okay what during your design you're the architect on this did you take in consideration of the joining property owners and the line of sight you're creating as far as obstructing it above 35 ft um so the the the there I believe that the lot behind is is um is vacant or if anything it's a bunch of trees between between them and and um us the Neighbors on each side um I think it wasn't necessarily included I did submit it in the um the uh packet but um we do have this I don't know if you the rendering here that shows that the building on the um South Side has a rooftop deck as well that is already higher than what we're Prov uh proposing as far as our rooftop deck so we're not higher than than them and uh in one way than anything they get better view into us than we'll have of them um so that was kind of we didn't think that we were any more um uh obstructive or um I'm trying to think of the other word um to the neighbors as what is existing there okay all right any other questions for the applicant I have a question um if I'm reading this correctly I was looking at this the um the walls the variances uh three and four regarding the height of the wall going up to 11t 4.5 in down the sides of the property that's I say that's it's just the the One Singular wall on each side and that 11 foot is just as it where it touches the house it kind of stops area and what is the rest of the wall so it um as you can see go down the side correct it it keeps going down and then it's 8 foot at the property line so it is eight okay checking thank you so still little higher than what's allowed perfect thank you okay any other questions for the applicant Miss Craig so this the privacy wall that you're talking about is basically freestanding it is attached to the house but but okay on the exterior side it's freestanding it doesn't attach I think the intention is to have a fence around the rest of the backyard eventually correct does that create some kind of a problem for fire access I not that I know of okay thank you okay do we have any public participation forums okay we're going to close the four for public participation up for commission discussion okay I'm going to I've got a real issue of variances one and two increasing that uh roof height to 45 or and 40 feet um I think 35 ft in a residential area is more than enough we've run into this recently when we were having a problem with someone going to the 35 ft so I'm not in favor of variances one or two I will agree with you on that because we've we've turned down several before that we're trying to exceed that height so I've got a problem with the 45 ft myself I would agree on that as well and okay yeah and we're doing a red reduce on the North side yard from seven to zero except so we're closing off that is that for that front wall Mr chams yes so uh Varian is five and six which reduce the side yard to zero feet it's for that wall and I think that in the conditions if you approve that we limit it to the wall so it's not going to be okay all right zero yard everywhere okay that's just for ask well until they put a fence up and then run the length of the run the length of the property that's going to have to be another variance put the fence at the zero lot line at the correct um no sir so fences are allowed to be on on property on property okay up to six feet so be attaching it right to the edge of that wall which is just a decorative wall basically an entry feature if you will and those walls are outside of the front yard set back so there's no issue there yeah you take a look at the the side view up there it actually gives you a better depiction of it just a wing wall um yeah I'm not sure on this height thing either honestly I think we need to discuss that amongst ourselves here for okay do you want take the variances into bit or separate one and two out of it for right now and just do a variance uh look at well we can look at one and two well let's look at well let's take a look at one and two as we're as since we're just kicking it around so if you look at one and two which you're basically eliminating is the that the the what would be the a barrier wall on the roof for a Sund deck right um and the question is if they remove that could they put a could you put a uh a fence up there there in in instead and still use that as a deck or is that also part of your overall height requirement that is part of it so the zoning code allows 35t Max height but the build-in code allows a 3-ft safety railing safe okay so the safety railing could still go up there as opposed to a masonary construction and go above that height yes sir so that the adornments they include are in excess of that 3T got it so that goes up to about uh 40 ft and 5 in so technically the all everything that's up there could be eliminated and kept that variant is not put up and they could still put up a twoot 3ot 3ot retaining fence they can't do that without the the variance for the three-foot can they no well it's it's separate so the building code permits that um so it's 35 ft plus the 3 feet of the safety fence that's allowed yeah that is allowed yes sir okay all right but it eliminates it also eliminates the penthouse itself so the moment we cap it at 35 the only access would be a Scuttle hole to get up into that onto that Sund deck yes correct or an exterior stairwell well I don't think that they have the sideline there for an exteror CW but uh that they have that capability without creating another variance to for the setback because the stair wheells would then stick out into the side setbacks MH I haven't seen what the back side of this thing looks like yeah I think from a consisten consisteny standpoint the I've got to stick with the 35 foot on here because even though this one here motional variances one and two for right now yeah even even though this one here doesn't have any neighbors per say that have blockage because a lot across the street is vacant it doesn't mean it'll be vacant forever right so can I get a motion on variances one and two I don't I hate making motions to the negative um we'll make it for the positive all right uh in case number v-24 d29 make a motion that we approve variants number one and variance number two and we'll come back to three and four separately with uh any staff recommended conditions on here y if if we could just make a clarification for you yes um this is not considered a penthouse right U there's only two circumstances where that um happens this is not one of those circumstances um they could eliminate all of that stucco around that staircase still have the safety railings that are required by our code our building code and not have that addition go up that high for the stairway that's okay so back to my original question then so all a decorative stucko and wall that's up there is eliminated they can still put a safety fence up there and they can still have a staircase coming up to that deck without variances required that is correct got it but not exceeding will yes M Sor you can uh I want to clarify the um the the opening to The Stairway yeah is not considered a penthouse you know it doesn't it doesn't shelter mechanical equipment and it's not or Sheltering the vertical shaft opening in the roof it's it's a it's a it's an opening to for a Stairway which is why it is subject to the height limitations rather than you know the just a shelter for for covering of mechanical equipment okay Mr Sor this is proced your question if we get a motion to approve and it fails to get a second is it that an automatic denial it would be if there were no further motions addressing that issue uh my recommendation is if if the board or if one of you want wants to clarify if that motion fails is to make a motion for denial of variances one and two okay so we have a record and then we have that denial based on um an affirmative action by the board okay go ahead Mr Costa all right where was I uh make a motion on case v-24 029 Varian is one to approve variances one and two with the staff recommended conditions can we now we're waiting for a second do we have a second on that motion we don't have a second on the motion so that motion fails and I'll entertain a second motion everybody at want here go ahead I I don't like making motions in the negative I don't like negative go ahead I was going to ask a question um I did note that the applicant is there no way for okay just checking I just saw hand go up out there I'll tell you what let me make another let me make a separate motion here in the denial I said I don't like I I can't I can't yeah I'm I'm going to make a motion on case v24 d29 variances number three and four for approval with staff recommended conditions let's go with that first second yeah what about five I didn't see and see five and six sorry uh 3 four five and six okay with staff recommended conditions I'll um I'll go ahead and make a second for that okay I got a motion on the floor from Mr Coster for variances 3 four five and six for case number V2 24029 and how many conditions are there pertaining to those variances I believe there's four two two to those Vari cor conditions three and four okay with the two conditions from staff got that from who did I get that from I got that from you yeah she did and the second from who I I made the motion second was over there no second was I got a motion from Mr Costa y to approve variances 3 four five and six with the two staff conditions and a second for Miss Shelly right okay any discussion on the motion um just making sure that that it's only pertains to those front walls right that's the condition correct yes all right yeah I'm good by that okay all those in favor signify by saying I I any oppos motion carries unanimously all right okay now we're going to go back to variances one and two I'd like to get something on the record of before we make that motion I just want to make just point this out quickly uh if you're looking at the the the sheet or the picture that's on our on our screen mhm that that open that fence that split rail fence that's up there on the roof technically by denying the motion and removing all the stucko that existing fence which is at a height of 37' 8 in could technically be put all the way around the building without any variances required long as everybody understands that yeah that that is a known and the same with the stairwell that the enclosure of the stairwell would go away the Stucker would go away but they could still put that they could still utilize that Sund with a safety railing all the way around at that 37t 8 in height is that correct yep yes okay as long as everybody's aware of that that's fine all right okay let's get a motion Mr chair I make a motion to deny variances one and two your mic isn't on Mr turn your mic on Mr chair I make a motion to deny variances one and two to on case v- 24-29 I will have to second that one okay I've got a motion from Mr Patterson to deny variance V 24029 variances one and two and a second for Mr sixma any discussion on the motion well I love this design unfortunately it just doesn't fit with within our criteria so that's my only comment any other comments all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay two fails basically y m shell can I get the next case read in please I can't do that I'm Parliament yes sir I'm a member of the National Association parliamentarian case number uh the next two read them in yeah I want to read them both in the same because they are both pertaining to the same case all right case number CPA d224 small scale comprehens a plan Amendment from the rural R future land use Fu designation to the commercial and urban low intensity flu designations and case number p-22 d70 a resoning from the rural agriculture A2 zoning classification to a planned unit development PUD thank you Miss Shell Mr Shams this one's you hi good morning once again so these two applications are for a land use change and a resoning on a uses um the larger area which is about 3919 acres is being changed to Urban low intensity which can be developed at a density of up to four units an acre and the remaining section of the property which is about 3.17 acres is being changed to commercial so the applicant is proposing to develop the site with 121 single family residences and 36,000 ft of commercial uses um the development would be performed through the companion PUD resoning uh the property is adjacent to the SunRail Activity Center which you can see on the south side of State Road 44 uh this area has been targeted for highdensity residential commercial mixed use in transit oriented development in line with the SunRail station that is set to open uh in addition Delan 2050 Vision plan highlights this area as being within the urban core and the State Road 44 uh TR Transit oriented development Corridor the applicant has also been coordinating with fucha County development engineering about Trail connectivity for the spring to Spring Trail currently there is a gap in the trail between Lake barisford Park and West Minnesota Avenue um the project would assist in filling a piece of the Gap along the east and Northern boundaries um the city of Delan reviewed the project and would like they had a few comments uh one of which is the consolidation of access points to St 44 which I believe the applicant has obliged um enhanced amenities in the residential area and a consideration of Trail connectivity which is also something that they've been very uh cognizant of the property is within the city of D's utility service area and will will receive Central utilities um and its current configuration with the rural future L use the property can be developed with 41 single filmy residences and no commercial use so there are about .86 Acres of wetlands within the area as proposed for Uli and that will reduce the Upland area to 38.33% dwelling units which is in excess of what they're requesting uh the proposed commercial future land use for the remaining section uh could yield a maximum of about 76,000 Square ft of commercial uh the application was reviewed in for consistency with our comprehensive plan and we did find that it was consistent with the elements of the comp plan and satisfied six of eight urban sprawl criteria um the existing designation of verl could generate uh 464 daily trips and 45 PM peak hour trips that's with uh the development of single family residences the proposed designations could generate a maximum of uh 3,162 daily trips and 356 pm. peak hour trips uh since the project does exceed a th000 daily trips and 100 PM peak hour a traffic impact analysis is required during the Land Development phase um the applicant has already submitted a TIA and is being reviewed by traffic engineering but it has not yet been approved and they would need to have an approval of the Tia during Land Development phase to actually move forward so overall staff recommends approval or recommends forwarding to the County council with a recommendation of approval for the the land use change so the Pud is the resoning from rural agriculture to a PL development for the 121 residences and 36,000 ft of commercial so this resoning is contingent on approval of the CPA uh overall the area itself is it's transitional between the less intense agriculture conservation and Industrial uses to the west and the more intense residential and Commercial uses to the east that are within the city of Dand in addition to site is adjacent to the real activity center and as I said before it is within D's utility service area so they already have um access to utilities by the city so the Pud will be developed in two phases phase one with a 2025 estimated commencement should everything be approved is for the 121 uh homes and Phase 2 which is estimated at 2030 commencement is for the commercial area and the commercial area is on the Southeast corner of the site um and the residential area is the rest of the site uh so the commercial area along sit Road 44 is subject to the thoroughfare overway standards non-residential design standards and the City of D land's emerging Gateway standards uh the concept plan was reviewed by staff and meets uh the PD requirements which include common open space and tree preservation requirements um the open space amenities included on the plan include a dog park an amenity area with designated parking uh they have uh proposed two spaces one for Ada access and one standard space uh there's full sidewalk coverage throughout and the spring to Spring Trail segment which you can see on the plan is the brown line that moves from the East side up to the northeast corner and then moves West before it kind of Curves North um one important note is that the proposed Trail on the North side will occupy the 30 foot wide area that would otherwise be a landscape buffer so these residences on the North side that are uh dark yellow squares they'll be required to have a 6ot uh tall privacy fence at the rear of the home and the trail would then be on just north of that so the proposed PUD as stated previously is consistent with the comp plan and is contingent on the future land use change so overall staff recommends forwarding the resoning application to County Council uh for final action of approval and I'm available for any comments or questions any questions Mr costy just want to I'm looking at uh at the Pud itself um so they've got two different types of lots in here 50 wide and 60 wide yes sir combination thereof mhm okay just want to confirm that thank you okay I've got a few questions for staff um seeing that you was a recommendation of approval um this common open space requirements requires 20% and the um it says not to include the Retention Ponds storm water ponds and Landscape buffers that correct that's correct sir what about wetlands um Wetland are would not be included either it would not be included either no so they meet that 20% without including the Wetland into that 20% so the Wetland is shown on the plan in the northeast corner and they're not including that in their calculation they're going to kind of leave that okay reserve it the other question I had for you was in your conceptual approval uh this verbiage in here states that uh um they can change density intensity um and I actually they can just change the whole design of the conceptual plan to meet the requirements that that comes forth without having to come back to get approval for the Pud so that language is so right now what they're proposing is this plan but when they go to Land Development should they need to reduce intensity to meet the requirements is uh that's what's meant by that clause well it says or intensity May or intensity may occur so it can go either way they limited to the 121 looking at the conceptual approval the intensity is spec is typically talks about non-residential square footage um they are capped by their comprehensive plan I mean that's an absolute cap you so so within the confines of the of the comprehensive plan so um they can you know amend the conceptual PUD because we don't know they don't know what the engineering is is going to be they may have to lose Lots um they may have to shift some things here and there that's typical for this type of development but they can't exceed the absolute density or intensity limitations of the comprehensive plan 121 is a is a hard Max is what you're telling me 121 units technically no no it's 156 that's the question yeah 156 or 153 I believe it's 156 I'm looking at page five could yield the gross density of up to 153 um on the comp plan or the CPA 153 units page five of 34 okay my mistake it's 153 just confir thank you just clarifying so they could change this could change by the times it comes into actual development that's correct yeah this conceptual plan yeah so the land use as poo said is setting the the max cap density so it's 153 single family and 76,000 ft of commercial that's their absolute limit m okay the other thing too is when you took into cons when you look at this conceptual plan and you Tak I'm looking at your topo map on page 61 and 63 and I'm noticing that obviously majority of the uh storm water and is going to be pretty close to the wetlands there um do we don't have a setback requirement for that the storm water to the wetlands yeah we have a wetland buffer of 25 ft 25 ft yes sir but we got 150 ft when you do a borrow pit or something like that when you're digging a hole for a borrow pit but yet for storm water it's only 25 ft yes okay well the reason I'm bring this up is because the the topography map here shows that it that that is actually the low area where the proposed one of the proposed storm water is and I'm looking and more so to the adjoining property owner who has actually uh a low elevation there towards the front there and my question is was that ever taken in consideration of what the saturation of the ground there would do to the adjacent property owner so I would refer to the applicants engineer okay who I believe is in attendance the other question I have is do we take into consideration during the development of the consumption permit from the city and what's required to come back to that area from the city and where is that going to go and I don't know we don't see those consumption permits so you don't see it either do you no sir okay all right Mr chair I just want to clarify that the Pud itself does restrict the number of uh dwelling units to a maximum of 100 21 so you have an absolute cap in your comprehensive plan your Z your zoning caps at 121 so if they everone to changed that they would have to go through the resoning process to get additional units um that's or consistent with the comprensive plan well I understand that but what my my my issue is the the verbiage in here actually states that they could increase the intensity that no that's that they would not be able to do do that upwards there's the cap is 121 in here so they on the conceptual they can go downwards um but they they can't increase the absolute well they can't increase the cap on in the in the Pud without resoning and they can't um they definitely can't exceed the comprehensive plan without going through that legislative process again okay all right I guess we have any other questions for staff is the applicant present I am good morning sir good morning do I have the clicker for my presentation for the record Michael Woods with cob Cole 231 North Woodland Boulevard here today on behalf of the uh property owner um uh before I get into my full presentations as we bring up the PowerPoint just to touch onto your comments with the respect to the change in density and intensity our understanding has always been that that's the allowability to bring it down down um and I think that's spoiler plate language that the that the county to requires if you want anything more Express to reiterate that our Max cap in the PD is at 121 we're happy for that like there's there's no concern there um that's just the language that the staff typically requires um and then with respect to uh the storm water I'll have my engineer come up uh to discuss that um but a lot of what we are trying to do here is incorporating the drri or I'm sorry the Li standards that though the county has not formally adopted them yet we're trying to implement them in this project and you do see that the storm water and the and the wet is being kept wet whereas on the western portion of our property it's all the high and dry sandy soil lands for the for the pine trees uh so kcg engineering is our Engineers they've done a couple other projects they're familiar uh Sean forier is our primary engineer on that he's on a spring break with his family but he's very aware of the hydrology issues that we've been dealing with on the other side of town and so incorporating this you know right location right place for the historic swarmm water and the absorption of the moisture is what he's looking to uh Implement here as well um looking make sure I can move this forward all right so again I I guess we'll go through the the overall and and and I'll go through the land use first and then to the to the zoning uh but we're really happy to be here before you we've been working on this project for about two years now uh and the applicant does in fact own the property uh and feed closed on it about a year ago uh in fact we're looking through our calendar and our neighborhood meeting we had was in December of 2022 over at the sandborn center um it was interesting it's I like anecdotal stuff uh we had Terry Jorgenson and a couple of his ilk were there as well and they were kind of chattering around a little bit and one of the most San questions was well when do you expect this to start getting underway in vers you know when it gets constructed and it wasn't Terry that said this but one of the other gentleman he said well you know in five years I'm going to be living in bokeh and in six years or 10 years I'll probably be living on my daughter's mantal pace and it was just such a it it was a weird weird meeting uh but I like sharing that because that's kind of it was it was real um so be that as it may uh with the project that you have here it's total of 42 acres and and change 121 lots of 50s and 60s uh we do have that commercial out parcel I'll talk a little bit about our philosophy and thinking with providing for that we do have the tree pres preservation and the open space and a lot of what you have um with our our concept plan and a lot of what the discussion was taken into was trying to incorporate to the maximum level possible for functionality the County's TPA requirements their Wetland requirements their storm water requirements and their open space requirements to maximize that qu that upper quadrant we knew knew that and it's a little bit more than a quarter of the property we knew that that was going to be up there to be kept in its natural condition allows us to have deeper setbacks off of Grand Avenue and allows us to put our residential development primarily where the where the pine trees were and just to kind of give you uh familiarity of the uh site that's obviously the aerial photo the existing uh northwest corner of the intersection is the Circle K uh gas station there um and then as you can kind of see uh let me jump historic photos 1994 you can see pretty clearly in the black and white the um Sil culture pine tree plantings uh here in 1999 it looks like Circle K has finally come along 2004 we invent color and get to see the full growth and you can kind of see here where our predominant development is for our residential and then you can see where the the overgrowth is tracking with the the the wetter area is there um you've got the conso plan we'll touch on this for the resoning comments in a few few minutes but you see we've got access along Grand Avenue and then we've got access along New York Avenue uh the commercial um alignment is being is is being um coordinated with fdot for the driveway access points to the south on the pelum forget what the name Rick wolfheart's project that was approved on the south side that straddles both sides of Grand Avenue I'll show you where we kind of interconnect with that But ultimately when that commercial development comes through um it'll have to comply with fdot standards really for the commercial standpoint you know we we provide for square footage and an acreage both under the land use and then also for the for the PD and it may in fact have some commercial development you know in the strip level to service this neighborhood um probably if it does get developed in that way it would mirror the uh approvals for the commercial on the Pud to the South um it doesn't have a lot of wiggle room for large structures there so probably more neighborhood type of of of capture but really why we held that back is the location of that gas station uh there is no contract there is no plans um there is no discussion with the gas station for expansion but I personally worked on a couple of different projects throughout the county and whenever those gas stations decide to upgrade whether because there's additional pass by traffic or or just they be become old they always need more Elbow Room they always need more space um and you can see that up on 40 and 11 up in Barberville uh now that was a RightWay taking that got stalled but we that original configuration of what I would say the 1980s layout of a Circle K versus today they just need more square footage um here as well we just anticipate that if they wanted to they could come and there's proper we didn't want to hem them in because when you hem in an old an older gas station and they don't have the flexibility or the the ability to expand they typically sell out from the national chains to a local operator that's non Affiliated and that tends to have more of a declining operations so we're we're trying to keep that available for them and I would suggest it would probably be a similar square footage different alignment and then a whole bunch of storm water for them because any of the commercial would also have to provide for their storm water on their site our storm water is accommodating for our residential project site data there historic photos so with the land use Amendment um a lot of what is being driven by this is um is connecting to two elements that we think is really important and that's really excited me about this project it makes it a little bit different obviously staff made a good reference to the proximity to Sun Rail uh if you go from the corner where um Circle K is where the gas station is straight down Grand uh without any of the new improvements going in there just walking down Grand and picking up old New York Avenue it's one mile away um and as the uh wolfart project comes forward and if the uh Ford Holdings uh along you know west of southwest of uclid Avenue come in there's more opportunity to cut in a little bit sooner but that's the farthest extension and we'll talk a little bit about the connectivity for that um the other thing and the other connectivity that really has driven our project was the incorporation with the County's uh trail system uh we saw this as a great opportunity to piggyback on some of the improvements that were done to the South directly around the SunRail station um and to fill in a gap um to help out the county and the neighborhood in a couple of reasons and I'm going a little out of order here but I want to emphasize this we know generally that the the outline for where the County's trail system needs to go we know where the where the dead ends are um it's at the Terminus it's technically Grand Avenue but it's where Minnesota kind of Loops in and there's a a down angle there the problem with bringing anything up that section of the roadway uh is that that's all prescriptive right away so you've got just just from that segment of grand where it Trend Trends West to pick back up on the Grand Avenue that goes north up to Delian Springs you'd be having a takings on one side or the other for that property and not all those are larger Lots but they're not that large to lose the front yard similarly uh if you come down our section of grand as well there is the potential of either encroaching into the front yards of the residents on the east side of the road because you've got a CND site up at that northwest corner of Grand in uh Minnesota and there's no real space there to run it either um and the problem the biggest problem with that is for County dollars to be or for the county to be able to use some of the State dollars for the it's like the suntrail program I forget funny acronym you can't have a taking it's got to be voluntarily contributed property so what with our project does and I can let me just scale to there real quick quick um we will have this the the trail runs East along our property line now it's technically the county has enough rideway there if they need additional rideway we can grant that to them and then we can figure where did that go I guess you can say then we cut through the northern perimeter of our property and we had some conversations about trying to bring it a little bit more into the neighborhood that creates a lot of problems with driveway conflict um and then there's always the issue of liability so as is right now what we've been able to do uh is is we will convey and dedicate in fee to the um County the necessary rideway along that Northern boundary to cut through um there was some discussion previously about trying to build it ahead of time uh it doesn't look like the timing's working out great on that um and then one of the other kind of negatives of that was from a you know if you do roadways above and beyond to kind of help the you know you get impact fee credits there's no real impact feed credits available for trail construction either um but this this solves a big problem for them because it takes it off of Grand sooner and then they run it farther to the north if you look in your staff report there's some references to a conservation easement that might be in Conflict that's only if they run that property North through the very Eastern side of the Martin Marietta property they had some of their tree preservation area there so that's Department to Department to iron out but even so we are still looking to acquire additional property to may be able help them out and shift that over a little bit farther but at the end of the day when this Trail segment comes in and I don't I don't remember what the distance was of this it was under a mile of length but it's a pretty substantial amount and it runs up to another project where're we're taking a look at to run through there as well our residents will be able to get onto the trail right now ride North all the way to Deli on Springs ultimately they can go up to State Road 40 ride South to the sun rail station and once we make that connection and bridge between where SunRail is and Alexander Avenue down by Beford once that connection is made you can get out to Titusville you know you can get out to to Bard County on your bike it's a fantastic uh amenity and we're real excited to be able to put houses right on it a lot of the other homes and you could recall back in the days when Pat Nory was on the County Council and the fights that were going on in oin about the bike trail going through people's yards the values on those homes are enormous with amenity there now and everyone really likes it so again real happy and excited to be able to try to bridge the gap and fill that in for you getting back to the land use Amendment um as I said with the Uli we do have the Uli across the street um and then those those homes are all flag lot homes you wouldn't necessarily be able to develop them as they are today that's how they kind of get their WID because you basically have one home behind the other along there but uh is that Uli uh density and then obviously to the South is the um Activity Center um our Development Area includes those former Timberland areas where where the pine trees are while the wetlands are being preserved or being enhanced with uh with uh uh L ldi um and that commercial out parcel talked to you about that already um tree protection is very uh important and even in our open space like where we have to have the active open space we're not planning on cutting down trees there like this is going to be a well treed and and connected um covered area um so then the request your staff report addresses it pretty well uh the requests for the land use change being driven again that location the on the sun rail or on the uh bike trail and the SunRail proximity was Pro preeminent and us coming through with this location um and the staff report does a good job of addressing the differences with the urban sprawl criteria and how we are not contributing to that uh it's a little uh weird because we're kind of reorienting now based upon on the proximity to the sun rail versus being on the western edge of city of Dand uh but even there we do have a city of Dand uh project up the road on Grand on the east side of of grand but we are ourselves not contiguous to the city so we can't Annex in there um but the the focus of this project has been the walkability and getting people both to the commercial for our property the commercial that's proposed to the South and then to the sun rail station with the respect to the rezoning um we've worked through with staff a great deal to provide adequate buffering wherever we can 10 I think the smallest buffer we have right now is a 10-ft buffer and that's technically commercial to commercial um and again should somebody come forward with the commercial property to uh revise that they would have to come before you to see it obviously the predominant area here is for us to do the residential project um again for our amenities we've got the dog park that multi-use trail is really I think the big selling point we got a couple pocket parks and there's a playground amenity area by the by the um natural open space really working on on that natural open space and obviously the sidewalks as well um shared use where I got that and these are just some of the pictures for the for the entrance ways and the layout again given the sense of the walkability and the radius um you know that that uh 2.5 minute walk is at 660 ft if you look at the scale down below so the entire neighborhood is is walkable to our amenity area and then again I think getting people to do the the bike path or The Pedestrian path is going to be outstanding this is the connectivity plan to kind of show you how we fit into the bigger picture down on that South that was that PD that was approved maybe two or three years ago that is in the SunRail station and the development of that project uh uh along Grand Avenue you have town houses uh off of Grand Avenue to the West you have Apartments uh along New York Avenue on both sides of grand are commercial and then you can see the larger white space and the Northeast quadrant of that that area that's single family homes I think 40 foot wide Lots so again the proximity from the SunRail station which you can kind of see in the small dot in the bottom left corner moving out you got Apartments tow houses 40 foot single family and then we come in with 50s and 60s that's our Trail feature again avoiding the CND site and avoiding the impacts to Minnesota we think it's a really really good benefit for the county um and and again County staff asked for fencing because we are providing we we think that the the trail area functions as as an awesome like roll out the bed get onto the trail we really like that we have the fencing less so for our residents more so for the to set a barrier for the for the P bicyclist as they come down that area but for the rest of the property where we get to the East that's all open and natural to kind of have a good view for people to see there again that's where our wetlands and and our storm water will be kept signage if you got any questions on that um I'm happy to answer any questions you may have uh the preemptive question obviously with this area is on traffic uh that's why we've already started a year and a half ago and working with the the county uh on traffic mitigation and trying to figure out what the action plan is the last time the the first submitt of the Tia and it was a full Tia that has been submitted was at the same time that fdot and the county was working on possible timing uh modifications on New York Avenue and the truck route uh and so those factors uh were being built in and I think that's where the discussion is is okay how do we figure that out when what is the Horizon for that to happen right it was hypothetical at that time that's why that the the requirements are when you go to site plan when you know exactly what's going in and then in those conditions so we absolutely know we're going to have a bill to pay with that uh and and we'll be coming forward and that that would be um at the site plan level other than that all the other uh facilities are in place um and we think this is a really good project we've been excited to bring before you we've been waiting for quite some time and we're happy to be here any questions you've got I do have my engineer here as well um and we're happy to answer any questions okay any questions for the applicate actually I would yeah go ahead it's funny you brought traffic yes sir um do we have any anything concrete on the tra I know you sort of well yeah so we we have I mean we we know what the analysis has to be for the land use right because that blows out the maximum we know what the if you guys approve this we know what the um actual impact would be certainly for the residential and then when you go through with they um site plan for the commercial you'd do the impact for that as well um and so we'd have the number of trips and I think Mr Shams report adequately or accurately reflects what those trips are then figuring out how does that flow through where does that traffic go and then how do you deal with the intersection change that still is the matter in question um you do have that dead gas station at that corner there um some reconfiguration could give ability just even for turn Lanes to bleed off some of the stacking and the queuing there um but no there hasn't been anything solid on that and even to the point in reviewing the Tia and 20 February 23 was the last date that I saw for that one that was in study right now so everyone's kind of looking around to see who does what we just know that at the time when when our project comes right if we're early and there's a lot of backup we're going to have to address what our impacts are um but I've not heard of like there's no other bypass right there's no other um secondary roadway that's being proposed it's going to be about signalization and and timing well also the uh the project got approved a couple years ago I was the only descending vote on that and main one was because of traffic and water and whatnot but uh you're talking about the one to the South there yeah yeah that that that's a huge huge huge project yeah it's going to put a major impact on the roads around there the roads are a nightmare right now around there well and I think this is one of those situations um particularly on the East West on 44 right State Road versus County and well we went through all that of like the discussion of how that's all going forward um but at the end of the day as the traffic comes forward that's what brings forward the improvements when it gets to critical mass now you and I well you've been here a little bit longer than me not that much longer but you know we know how some of these roads used to be and how quick it used to be you know I always say the analogy is to go from Pearson down to Orange city for West valua Little League it was nothing right now it's a really long drive yeah but that still doesn't mean that that longer drive that you and I are experiencing when you get into like the traffic analysis and the flow to level of service that builds in other expectations now if it gets to the point where it's there's the failure that's where we have the real problem um and it it comes down to what people are accustomed to versus what actually is what's going to be really interesting is and I I had this conversation analysis and this is me as a lawyer not as a traffic engineer but what's really interesting is trying to figure out the timing and distances because we always kind of Orient ourselves on 1792 going north and south the proximity of these projects now on the West Side to sarento Hills to the to the West in Lake County um that's not that far away and the idea of uh certainly if like a a Target I think that Target is closer than the one in in Orange City not necessarily miles wise but travel time wise um I don't know that our analysis contemplates going that far to the west but traffic patterns are going to be evolving as a result result of all the all the construction that goes out there for sure I I I travel 44 A Lot East and West rush hour is a major problem right now without these developments yeah well I might make a comment on those lines too is that we don't know what the additional impact on traffic is going to be from the already approved development to the South and one of the concerns I had back then and I was one of the other descenders on that was the fact that you don't we're going to put traffic on uclid and beersford Avenue which is residential neighborhoods that is not even uh addressed as a connector I mean in our in our uh plan for any of this and so I just I know that's going to happen it's happening now because to avoid the intersection of 44 and 5 yeah yeah so that that's my concern there and um well and and to your to your point on that so this gets into the traffic pattern stuff um I don't think obviously you don't want commercial traffic running through those neighborhoods like that's not the idea that's not the goal you don't want the trucks and whatnot but there's also an element and when you look at the traffic analysis when you look at the hot spots whether it's in East Valia or west Valia everyone kind of points to downtown D land as being really good because the traffic Road Network there through the residential neighborhoods I don't know that I have much of a problem with residential traffic rolling through a residential neighborhood when it's you know you're you're going through now what I do have concerns with particularly on say Beford um yeah we've got the long straight runs right we went ahead and we built some of these roads back in the day and when it's vacant and there's no driveways there's no subdivision entrances you can get the kids that are going their hot riding down it well maybe even the adults too I don't know as more development gets on there that has a traffic calming uh nature there's also other elements within those straight runs to readdress with the roadway to provide kind of chicanes within there to kind of slow down it's some traffic um I was at a conference uh in December on planners and I want to it wasn't Lake County maybe in Sumter but where they've taken the existing roadways and you're within the rideway and your asphalt obviously doesn't take the full amount but just kind of undulating it here or there to force the slowing down of the traffic and keeps because you know even when it's rated at what does everyone do right particularly it's a straight line so getting into that policy and allowing for that to be able to address some of those concerns because I do think you're right I think the traffic is going to go into other neighborhoods uh traffic finds the the quickest way you and I if we are driving from Delan to go out to 44 you may not be going up 44 you may go up 4S or something like that that's how the traffic network is supposed to work now again I'm not the traffic engineer that's what the Tia and the traffic Engineers are supposed to be working through but it's it's not a there's not a fatal flaw to it but there does need to be a lot of work being done on it and that that comes at the at the site plan okay all right I guess my other question is for your engineer okay got good morning still barely good morning did I get your name and address for the record Scott Gentry Kelly Collins and gentry civil engineer 1700 North Orange Avenue of in Orlando okay you heard my previous questions to staff and I'm one of the concerns I have is looking at your topography map on the site and you're putting your retention area right next to a wetland um one of the things that in a in a borrow pit we had require 150 ft setback from a burrow pit to a wetland but yet we only require 25 F feet right from a retention Pond to a wetland and I think eventually that will be looked at I know the County Council has made the priority for the enra to be looking at your storm water issues and uh that my question is if you received if you applied for a consumption permit from the city of the land for this project yes uh no no okay this is we So based on the Storm water area on both I know you got one in the front and you got one in the rear and the but the one in the rear is the one I'm more concerned about because where would you be putting the reclaim water that the city is probably going to require you to retain and take back okay yeah if I could kind of back up a little bit um about borrow pits borrow pits are a little bit different than Retention Ponds primarily because how long it takes to build them or operate them you know with the B P you've got operators out there digging they may be out there for two months they may be out there for two years they may be out there for 5 years so there a whole different process of how they're digging the pond is constantly barp it'ss changing size during that construction so depths and everything else whereas a retention Pond is something that's permitted to function long term but it's only constructed you know maybe in 30 days or 60 days so we have the opportunity permit these to uh certainly the county but also so through the Water Management District so we have the opportunity to look at those elevations to look at the U Wetlands nearby and to make sure that we are this Pond will function taking all that into consideration so and it's actually kind of you know I I I love the way this site has all this open space in this one area uh and especially around the wetlands and what have a lot of times you have Wetlands uh on projects that are surrounded by the the development themselves whether it's ponds or Lots or whatever to have you um this one actually has a little bit of flexibility there so as we come in and and and work uh through the development design the development and design the Retention Ponds and actually throw in some liid which is I can get into that more detail if you'd like because we do a lot of that uh uh in in Orange County done a lot of studying on that and uh those those are those are very effective for the environment so so we have the opportunity here to when we put our pond in we'll look at all that stuff and we will get you know we have the hydro period from the consultant which is the you how the how the pond the Wetland functions we know what the the geotechnical parameters are the existing groundwater so when we design our pond and get it permanent to the county and to the Water Management District we look at all those things so um yeah ponds typically go go on the low sides of uh of projects which is good but it also gives us opportunity because of the way the open space is here to really take a take a good look at that I I think one of the questions you're getting at and apologies for Scott because he's filling in for for Shawn where Sean's doing a lot of the work in valua and in D land area with with respect to the retained or the ReUse and the hydrology of that um I don't know that there's been a solid determination on that from the city as of yet but our approach has been thus far to make it in such a way to dissuade the utilization of that in one part because even with 121 units it's not a large subdivision to kind of justify the cost and the expense of what those pumps would then require to be able to process the city's retain or reuse water um and and I think on one of the other projects that Sean uh got approved in in Dand it was of small enough scale that we don't anticip there's not enough volume and there's not enough cost offset to be able to justify the city asking for that but our our preference would be to not have that be here because we are aware of those other issues that are there and if we can keep this you know keep the wet lenses natural use our liid standards where we can for the storm water um and and not have it interfered with by that now I don't have a 100% commitment on that but that is where we are reaching towards and that's how we're trying to design this is to not make that be TurnKey ready for that to receive that I guess is the way I would say that so but we we are absolutely aware of that situation I think this this location is very different from over there but Sean's abroad of of all those issues and so why why spread that problem you know well I appreciate the Li implementations there because I think that is definitely something that to be looked at well and and and to that just because you guys are here and it comes before you um you know there's process now to try to incorporate that so that you're able because there's there's some elements here right now with the interaction with wetlands and open space that if you so long as you can make your Wetland or your storm water work with traditional you are free to amenitie it with li not every location has that ability and has That Elbow Room I think you'll be looking at some guidance coming from staff probably down the road but trying to encourage the liid cuz right now like I would love to be able to say in conjunction with the county we have implemented the liid standards they don't have hard standards yet we're implementing them through the traditional building standards and I think those standards are coming your way um but it's also very it can be challenging to implement it when when it's almost like talking apples and oranges so as that comes forward to you know that there are builders that would love to be able to do this but some of the standards make it very difficult and you end up going back to that more traditional um Pond system which is serviceable but we think we're going to be able to get something that's both better function gives us a little bit extra capacity above and beyond and can be treated as an amenity from an appearance standpoint but that's me on my soap box for that issue okay well I kind of agree with you there I think that the liid should be especially implemented in cases where you have a a topography like map like what we're looking at yeah when you do have Wetlands on the the site and you got a joining property that obviously is lower than what your site is going to be and so what we've had in the past is a saturation problem and it doesn't take a hydrologist to realize that when they continue to put water back in an area that is not normally getting uh water being brought to that area on a daily basis yeah and each one of these units by standard is is rated for about 300 gallons a day I would believe if it's a three-bedroom home and let's put it even at the 200 gallons a day MH so that's going to be a consumption of about 200 gallons a day per unit in there MH so my question is and then and then if the city requires you to bring that back that you're going to be bringing that back that doesn't normally be put in that area to begin with okay I see what so you're saying that from the consumptive use permit the portable water comes in yes and then going gray water out and having to have some type of staging for that rather than going into sewer no no going into sewer no I'm not saying staging for that at all what I'm saying is in some of these consumption permits that the city's requiring you and you're saying that they probably won't because they won't pump won't realize to pump it back but they're going to have to have it on the opposite side on the south side of that other not this project but the other project okay okay you're going to have to have some kind they they got to send it somewhere they can't put it in the St John's river after a certain period of time yeah and so this is where we're getting into a little bit of a problem with her with water yeah and their flooding issues and I'll come right out and say it um and then I'm looking at the adjacent property owner by according to the pro the uh topography map the property directly to the north of this property on Grand Avenue there if you look at his elevation in there is running somewhere the say between from anywhere between 29 to to what 40 something and your highest point on your project and I don't know whether you're going to raise the elevation up or not once you bring in your Retention Ponds where that elevation is going to exceed what is there now but these going to be a lot lower than what your your project is going to be and so my one of my concerns is are we going to be flooding out the adjacent property owners and that can be done obviously from the the elevation number one number two is the actual saturation of the ground in that area to where whenever you have a minor rainfall it doesn't have to be a Hurrican but if it's a heavy rainfall event that we create standing water on a property that normally would have absorbed it from the GetGo and so and I think this is some of the flooding issues that we're encountering and I think it's been brought everybody knows we have them and they talk about the uh and they go historically but those historical uh comments that are being made as far as flooding were due to hurricanes and they showing that we had a flooding situation in' 05 at the beginning 05 we had three hurricanes in 04 they show and then they do the even more historical they show where we have uh flooding situations but it seemed like it it was in in consistency with our our uh hurricanes um and we're going to have that I get that but for on a daily basis we shouldn't have to encounter with the heavy rainfall of flooding yeah and and I I guess it's kind of like a catch 22 here because you know in other designs or other elements where you have the pawns just located from an Aesthetics purposes alone without taking into context topography you get dinged for that because you know we've had the conversation of okay well the storm water goes here it's the upper level there has been that historic hydrology down below I think what Sea's design has done here is to reflect is like look the water has been running this way historically it's ready to be able to discharge it's ready to be able be absorbed and through there he's still uh answerable to the standards to keep all that runoff on site on premises um if anything I know about him he is over engineering because of what he is seeing going on over there you know it's I feel I feel very I understand where your question and concerns coming from um and I but I think from both the soils on the west side and on the east side of this project uh uh are being able to be addressed and accommodated very very well we and we have Elbow Room here for sizing issues we don't have a problem with that here this isn't a 10 PBS in a 5B bag we have definitely left ourselves room to be able to accommodate all of that so going back to your comment I'm not concerned much about runoff because I know you're going to that that's easily taken care of my concern is when you saturate the ground to the point where you create a false water table 365 rather than and again that's the Pumped water you're worried about from the city now I'm worried about the pump water and also bringing all the water from that area up on the high side into that one low area that may not go there begin with okay MH I mean it would be absorbed through the ground on the high side but now we're going to bring all this water into the retention pod mhm and now we're going to saturate that ground right there there already saturated because it's got wetlands and we don't want to create a false water table year round in other words in Florida you know you've lived here all your life you got a flexibility in water table it could be it could be 3 feet one day the next day it could be 15 ft we do have a fluctuation in these water tables and so and whenever you bring it to the top at that three foot and use that as a benchmark then what happens is you take to get ground saturation so you're going to have saturated ground where you not normally have it I mean I think at the end of the day when you go to site plan with this we think we've got this the concept here that adequately accommodate that Al together but going back to that first question you had about density or intensity if you find out that at that level at that analysis it is insufficient the recovery there is then you start losing your Lots at that time we have a maximum cap we think we've got more than enough Elbow Room to accommodate that but it's not like we can then move forward with a failing storm water system it can't happen that way um and I think I think that ultimately that has to go down with the engineering you get the hydrology you get the water flows you get all that analysis as as necessary um and you're able to meet those standards and that's all we can do is we can meet those standards and and we will and that's that's ultimately what is is before you guys for consideration is that we will be able to meet those standards well this is my hope whole point is to bring this to the make it a conversation Y and it's been a conversation um and I matter of fact I've had a conversation with your other engineer about this and he's aware of it he's aware of it and he's trying to deal with it he knows there's an issue that's the first step knowing that there's an issue yeah and uh I just wanted to keep it on the Forefront on these developments yeah I can appreciate and I I hope you can kind of see right so we've got some liid elements in here it's not in the code yet but some of our projects we're trying to do is to say look how we can do this look how this can be implemented this is a project that has the right size that can do it we had one in Dand that was smaller in size and there was no space to make a you know you can call it liid but it wasn't having that hydrological functionality necessarily um this does and I I appreciate you bringing that up because I think that's the way we're all going towards like I would be surprised if those weren't Incorporated formally into the standards all I would say on that is that it then be produces a challenge in the how you calculate the open space and how you able to do that I think there's a way to make this treated that as an amenity because I think when it's done right it looks awesome it's good for the Aesthetics and you can still walk along it that's a conversation for another time though but I I appreciate you continuing to bring that up because I I know this this firm for sure is very aware of it and they've been designing with cushioning under under that concern okay I'm make one more comment then we let it go the I heard the conversations being brought forth with that talking about Li and I've even heard a comment made about giving density credits in order to use that I think that's defeating the purpose of the L okay so I just want to make that comment while we're talk on that conversation is giving density credits because you're using Li I think he using an liid in order to address the problems that were occurring now well I I think my concern of that is less on a density credit and I think it's more of a just because it functions as storm water it doesn't mean it's also not a park amenity right and right now there's like no double dipping on that right it's either if it's going to form in function of storm water then that's all it can be but in reality is you can look at you know whether it's Municipal Parks commercial facilities or residential it that's where I would look at to just kind of readdress because I think from a design standpoint of gting away from cookie cutter that's one of the limiting factors there but again that's us on our soap boxes but as that moves forward keep that in mind because I think at the end of the day you want it to function you want it to look good and you want it to be it can be a win-win for everybody Who develops it who's building it who's living there and the municipality that's dealing with the storm water um but there's a lot there's there's a lot of massaging that needs to be done to get that but I I I think they're going on the right track with that so and the other thing on the conception uh plan here quite frankly I'd like to seen the commercial side been a little bit larger because I think we're going to need some commercial development in order to relieve some of the traffic issues that we have you don't have them driving five miles to get the grocery store rather than you know a quarter mile well and I I I think I think you're right to that point right and that was a a big cons well we ultimately settled on the level that we had but that was a big conversation at the at the Forefront um looking at and it's not directly applicable here but you know city of Dand has their Tod Corridor along this portion of 44 because they know about the subrail to the South and so in addition to our area being into that Urban core for increased density along this Corridor they were kind of thinking about that but then you get into the nature of whether it's strip commercial or not we try to dissuade that um the size you know there's already an access point there with the with the gas station so we figured that would always be the anchor of some kind and then we also provide for internal Connection in our property so that um you know we we show a driveway right now but if that goes away that might have to go away for FD or From fdot's perspective um but a lot of where we think from a commercial need you do have that much larger commercial area to the South Side that's proposed with with that PD right that's on east and west of Grand Avenue and the runs through there going back to our Trail you now have the access and the ability to get there without having to get into your car and go um trying to look at this location as whether it's just neighborhood commercial or something else servicing the 44 area I kind of think if I came in and and you're right like that trip capture for commercial would be awesome but I think I'd have a lot more people up in arms if we were trying to do that I think ultimately like I think we need to move toward the node design and I think the SunRail kind of uses that as as that nugget um but there's there's there's some resistance to that and and and what that does then though is it prevents everything from flowing that you don't have to go to the core of D Land Before You Branch out going somewhere else and I think as we decentralize that that's not a bad thing um but we we struggled with what the adequate commercial is here again I think it's it's more so to ensure for the possible Redevelopment of that gas station and not getting stuck with a vacant gas station um so but I appreciate your comment okay Miss Craig um I had a question can we go back to the um the con the concept map with and you you there was another um slide you had that showed detail of the buffer on the the north side uh oh yeah either either one would do was that it yes yeah okay the the trail there you show and and mentioned that there that the buffer the landscape buffer would be eliminated and and therefore the Lots would have a required six foot privacy fence as a trail there what you're trying to do is get out into nature and see something pretty I don't think people along that trail are going to be too thrilled with the idea of having the the six foot privacy fence there and I also don't think that the that the homeowners U to be honest would be um satisfied with that is there any way to incorporate rather than an either or have an and so that there is a a more substantial buffer um as well as a fence didn't necessarily there's a buffer there it wouldn't necessarily have to be a privacy fence so so we we did a lot of conversation about that as well um with this configuration with that angle coming down there's a design element there to make sure you know because they've got a grade change from where they are at the Terminus of Minnesota and Grand to here about 30 ft uh so as they come down they don't yet know because of their final alignment what that grade is going to be here from a turn perspective um the rideway that's being granted to the county is 30 ft in width the actual Trail itself I believe is 12T in Asphalt so that then they have an additional uh 18 ft total on either side N9 and N where the county can landscape or not how they how they choose I mean that's the the typical uh layout if you ride on like the beersford trail you know you can kind of get that configuration um the screening uh again is just for those units that right at that end where that where we come down from the Northern end and turn in those are the only units that back up to it and staff was pretty adamant about having a privacy fence there I think out of experience at other locations now i' I've seen it done many ways so you can go on a Tri County Trail you know some of those go through the subdivisions through the roadways there's lots of stop signs you got to look out for the drivers so we didn't go that route and then there are some that have like more of like the cattle fence like the crosswood kind of stuff like that here the idea was you know just to avoid any possible incursion from the trail folk you know always plan for worst case scenario right so the encroachment from folks on the trail into the backyards um you know we went back and forth with that and you will see that when you get farther to the east once you get past that row of homes it does just stay natural there is no screening there you get to then look into the open spit yeah here let me show you so so once you get past that we have a driveway stub out there because we have to have potential future connection or whatnot but um once you get past that driveway you're now into the open space and the Natural Area all the way down until you get to our other driveway on Grand Avenue um that was the nature of what we were trying to keep uh that your point is well taken um but that that fencing was out of just to avoid problems with complaints down the road um I I think we're happy to have that be landscaped on now landscaped on our property like our fence will be on our property line and then the county will have that 30 ft of their property to design however they want to I don't know that um and I guess design I don't want to speak got of ter whether it's parks and wrecks or the road but I don't know that they want to have a CRP Myrtle or an oak at the terminous like I don't I don't know what they have to do cuz one of the one of the reasons why we are giving them that 30 ft in fee because we don't want to be responsible for the liability of the riders that are on there so to the extent I I think what you could say is to the extent that you've seen the um landscaping or decorations on other segments of the county controlled Trail you could probably expect the same thing here I don't think they get very industrious in imp planting certainly not like row um but here or there to supplement um but but then I don't know now to the north once you get off our property there most likely that'll be coming Down The Backs side of a CND site on the East but that's got screening and then you'll be on the back side of Martin marota materials which is all um all treed and that's the that's the easement uh conservation easement that the county is working on right now um so you'll be coming once you go down from um the location on Minnesota and Grand go down behind the CND site at that corner you'll be back into some tree coverage you'll pop back out you'll see our fencing and then you'll be back into the natural open space in Wetland area before you come around and get down to the to the ground uh Grand roundabout okay thank you for that clarification and then I had a question about the wild life Corridor overlay that this um uh occurs on um the west side is there any kind of fencing or anything going there that would uh impede traffic through the wildlife quarter uh I I do not believe so we don't have any provisions for any fencing on on the perimeters of the property it's all natural buffering that we've utilized there okay thank you yep any other questions for the applicant we do have a public participation form and I'll give you a chance for reut awesome okay miss Karen Clark good morning could I get your name and address for the record it's um Caren Clark 1855 Grand Avenue and welcome to be here everybody and I loved your questions oh my goodness it saves my time um I'm looking at well from one angle they're asking for these many houses why do we have to say yes why can't we say yes to maybe half the number of houses that's just one a normal everyday person would ask you know it's like does a kid want to have eight candy bars no you're going to have one so everybody always asks for more and then you get to see what's chopped down I love the fact that you brought up um Mr Mills about the wildlife um Pond over there the natural we know I had friends that live over by the beersford where a development went in and they believe they have TW they had 12 acres of pasture for their horses which now some of them have to be boarded elsewhere because they're knee high in water and sometimes a little bit deeper and that's because they plopped these in there now where you are is not such a bad area for developments one is right on the other side of Grand Avenue where um old New York Avenue Cuts into Grand and uid and around there they just put a develop in there but the houses aren't 6 feet apart you know I've been to Margaritaville they're having problems over there and this is a similar kind of design to Margaritaville all I know is that if I had a fire somewhere in there and that fire Tru and I know the fire department has to still make a decision on this whether the roads are big enough they couldn't if there was a car parked on the sidewalk if they if they allow on street parking you know the truck can't get through or any emergency vehicles so we all have to start thinking about this with all these people coming in all different ages that doesn't matter and obviously they have to have a decent income to live here where are the house where are the cars going to be actually on their property I know it's 50 ft wide with um they're allowed what is it 5 foot sidey yard permits and uh 20 ft in the front and 25 ft in the 25 in the front and 20 ft in the back back okay so where are you going to allow parking and most people don't have just one car anymore so you have possible people blocking the roadways and everything so they have to look at the really big picture you don't plan on having an ambulance come into your house and you don't plan on fire and stuff like that so that that's one main issue the other one is this Trail around there it it's nice and you were talking about how to separate the trail from the we have regular uh post fences along Grand Avenue and it was wonderful because of the the um oh I'm almost done well we you're combining two things together right yes so can I talk another minute since I would put my name up for two independent yeah I want to allow that go ahead I'll give you U just you just need another minute yeah yeah go ahead um as far as keeping there's the wildlife was brought up well we can't have fences higher than 4 ft along Grand Avenue because you're in the tail end of Lake Woodruff you know it goes all the way down and we have Bears we have lots of bears now because all the trees are disappearing um one other thing was you have nice pictures of the trees up there is it the twoin wide trees that were put in arv when everybody was shown in the pictures wellestablished trees that were at least 50 years old you know there's water underneath those trees are 10 times the amount as after they rip out all the trees which you have to for a development so now you're going to have more water being available to flood and one last Quick One um you brought up Mr Mills about the height of the development to start okay so the one that's right down the street that's in there now that's already flooded the little property next to it which I know they bought I believe believe they bought so that that would settle that thing they just the water just goes everywhere the city of Delan used to have an a recommendation that your plot couldn't have so much of concrete and and you have to have so much percolation is that the correct word that I'm using so that there's less flooding where where is this they're going to have you know driveways house possible a pool or whatever if they can afford to put that in nowadays you know you just have to look at the water that's being retained in the ground by the existing trees and that's where you came up Mr Mills about the property being saturated thank you thank you Mrs SC hope I made some sense any questions for the speak okay do we have any more public participation for this Miss Tucker no no sir okay all right Mr Woods if you'd like to come back with a rebuttal um I I appreciate the comments that Miss Clark has made i' heard from her on other projects too and I always appreciate what what she comes to say um you know again from the standpoint there is an impervious and maximum build requirement for the overall project and yes it is true you have these smaller lots that have that uh design you know 5ft setbacks and the like um but the overall project is designed to accommodate the storm water flow through and that's why you've got those huge percentages that you do for open space for treat preservation and for storm water um and as far as the roads and the parking is concerned the requirement for that front yard is to require the two Drive the driveway is deep enough for not just a vehicle but like a pickup truck that's why that 25 foot depth from front of garage versus the the home itself um you know we've had different Integrations in different jurisdictions um County at present doesn't really favor on street parking or designing into having on street parking because it becomes a a maintenance issue they don't want to take on additional uh asphalt and so even when even even that conception you know you look at our our activity area we have parking there effectively so that if you're having a birthday party at our park you don't have to bring the wheelbarrow you can load up the car and drive it over there so we but I kept our spaces there to just two because they didn't want us to put anything even like parallel against against the park um so instead we've got a 90° that will go in there um and then as far as the the fencing is concerned um if staff doesn't have an objection we can go to like that post which again is what's along the entirety of the trail at least the part that I the flat parts that I ride um over on on barard and the like I think we can do that but I don't I don't we don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on that um we think it's probably good to delineate where the S the residences are versus the the trail um but we can we can have that discussion further um if I could just add to that because actually I was the one who who requested that based on exper experiences that we've had at the county we get frequent calls from homeowners complaining about people from the trail coming onto their property if you all feel that another type of fence is better in this situation we we support whatever you recommend no I think a fence is needed and with the with the 30 you said 30 foot wide the the dedication to the county is 30 ft wide yeah and so you got enough room there to put a landscape buffer if the county so wants to do that you know so but I guess the question there is right now we are providing for a six- foot privacy fence if if you guys have no strong feelings we can just let it roll through if you guys have strong feelings we're okay with that going down to like the cross pole uh cattle fence it D thank you I always get that I don't never get that right but um we're okay with that but again I don't know that that's it it's affecting three nine homes has have you there been a um discussion with the joining property owner to the north to the north where in regards to the trail and and the and what you're doing here there is some discussion about uh acquiring um but that's early in in process um it's not really negative it it's wholly contained within our property um although ideally and when I'm talking about acquiring acquiring additional property on that western side side to pull the trail off of the Martin Marietta property to try to help the county out a little bit with that uh that that's two Parcels of about 10 acres in total there's a single family home on Grand but nothing else is there um we haven't heard any objections or anything to that point the other iteration on the trail system was considering going farther up Grand so would have been through his front yard and then cutting over where the um Power Line easement is but even there too it's an easement so you're still encroaching in to someone's property that you really need it if you don't get it voluntarily dedicated or conveyed over you lose your state funding so um we haven't heard any objections about the trail going through there um and I'm not I'm not overly concerned about the easement I think that's for the county departments to battle amongst themselves I think they'll resolve that um but if not we're already working to try to figure out a better way we're really excited well I'm really excited about this this has been my my baby to try to get through and your your development in that area you realize I know you do you got two landfills there we do we do and the methane coming off the one there is pretty strong through there that's the far that's one up on on uh Plymouth Avenue correct and then we've got the existing um CND that is right uh at Minnesota and Grand yes um and that that one more than anything else that the presence of that is what's dictating the alignment of our of our Trail too because that goes right up to the property line like they're there screening and buffer well you can see it when you come down um Plymouth to take a left onto Grand you know they've got their main gate which is just kind of wide open so you can see what what goes down there um but yeah we are aware of that um and we're we're comfortable with any compatibility issues there okay okay we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion we're going to take the U CPA first because obviously we can't do the Pud without the CPA any discussion I I think I've expressed my concerns I'm not going to go over them again um I just wanted to be ready recognize that we this water issue should stay at the Forefront as far as the development along 44 there I don't see where it's intrusive as far as to the U compatibility other than the landfills uh I know that's going to become an issue in the future with them but you know if you put you put a build something next to a hog FM you ought to you expect to smell of you know so then that's what they're going to get there they're going to get there going to be some problems there future that's an issue yeah so so um and you can't expect who the existing businesses there to to change their plan because you've come in and put a development next to them and more than likely I'm going to just for the sake of conversation so it doesn't get unanimous whatever it is I'm probably going to be a descending vote on both of these because of the fact I want to keep the order issue in the Forefront and at least cause some sort of conversation with that I'm prepar to make a motion Mr chair yes sir on case number cp-22 d004 that we find the future land use Amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and for the application case 22-4 to the County council with a recommendation of approval to transmit to the Florida Department of Commerce for expedited State review and to the Valia growth management commission for certification that's a motion needs a second second thank you okay I got a motion on the floor from Mr Costa to find the future land use Amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and forward the application case number CPA 22004 to County council with a recommendation of approval to transmit the Florida Department of Commerce for expedited State review and to the vucha county growth management commission for certification uh for Mr Costa and then I've got a second from Mr Patterson any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any any descent I no two NOS there's two okay I'd like to request a roll call vote please okay member Craig no member Shelly yes chair Mills no member Costa yes member Patterson yes member sixma no that is three for approval and three for denial just that fail no it goes the question the the question presented fails um so um that's what I options are are you can have another uh vote for denial um you you can anyone who is in the prevailing side can uh make the same vote we'll consider that as a reconsideration vote um or you can ask for any motion any votes uh and it would go forward for technical Denial in that case I would recommend that you also vote on the Pud so we have um recommendations on both grounds un or you can also continue it uh TI vote is grounds for continuance well I don't think Mr Woods wants to continue this so I tell you um a technical I'm going to reconsider my vote and I'll tell you why because that development is going to occur out there anyway and it's right there on 44 and it isn't a super large project and I believe the from what I've heard today that Mr woods and his firm are are pretty much dedicated to resolving the issues that we're having with the developments whether it be traffic whether it be uh storm water whether it be Reclamation water whether it be actually groundwater and if they work diligently on this I believe we can come up with a solution that would satisfy everybody so I'm going to reconsider my vote and do I need to do we need to vote again yes because we've already got enough desent there to um to bring up the facts so that needs to be discussed at the council level right uh so your your motion is to reconsider uh any member can second the reconsideration that would reset the vote I'll second that reconsideration and then you would vote on the reconsideration you just by a Voice vote okay okay okay you want to do a roll call member Craig just just I'm sorry I'm confused what are we voting on the motion right now is to reconsider the the vote so it basically resets everything and someone would have to make another motion after that got it right so this is this is just a v v v v Voice vote Voice vote for the reconsideration reconsider I vote i i i i i i okay motion carries unanimously and then anyone from now on so we you've reconsidered so anyone can make a motion for the the main question all right I make a motion that we find the future land use Amendment consistent with a comprehensive plan and forward the application case number CPA 22-4 to County council with a recommendation of approval to transmit to the Florida Department of Commerce for expedited State review and to the valua management commission for certification you okay I've got a motion on the flo to find the future land use Amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and forward the application case number CPA 22004 to count County council with a recommendation of approval to transmit to the Florida Department of Commerce for expedited State review and to the vucha growth management commission for certification from Mr Costa and a second from Mr Patterson and I'll take a roll call call the vote member Craig no member Shelly yes chair Mills yes member Costa yes member Patterson yes and member sixma no okay 4 two all right then we need to consider the Pud and ready hold you to this Mr [Laughter] Woods like I'll make a motion on PUD 22-7 that we forward the resoning application case number PUD 22- 070 to the County Council for final action with a recommendation of approval second okay I got a motion on the four to forward the rezoning application case number PUD 22070 to County Council for final action with a recommendation of approval from Mr Coston a second from Mr pattersson and I'll take a roll call on this to member Craig no member Shelly yes chair Mills yes member Costa yes member Patterson yes member sixma no two motion carries uh four to two four to two all right uh you want to read in our next case please are you giving me an option um this is the truck part yes but I have a question um oh not a question the date just needs to be changed for the 21st on on the top it says March 13th that's what that's why I was hesitating I was like how did that get in there and then I realized um the date thank you um case number 0 24-11 ordinance 20247 truck parking good morning Rebecca coddle with planning and development services on October 18th 2023 County Council directed staff to draft an ordinance that would allow for the parking of commercial vehicles specifically big rigs in agricultural zoning classifications they were very specific about the conditions that would be required with the parking of these vehicles that included that the vehicle must be utilized and parked on property that was inhabited by the owner operator the vehicle cannot be located within the front of the house or the front yard setback there is a maximum of two commercial vehicles allowed on a single parcel and the minimum parcel size is 2 and half acres um we currently do not have a definition of semi or tractor trailer so the ordinance does include two definitions that were pulled from the state statutes that are would be added to the ordinance in this draft and I do want to make a correction to the um staff report we actually did include commercial buses and cutaway vans in the ordinance since commercial vehicles were discussed and it was specified that tractor trailers and semi- trucks would be included um these were included just for further discussion U whether or not the should be included um and I'm available for any questions thank you Miss K K is it yes K thank you Miss K any questions for staff I do have a question Mr C so the definition of commercial vehicle is so there that is it kind of depends um it's used in other ordinances some times it includes things like chassis Cab trucks buses those can all be considered commercial vehicles um County council's discussion seemed to center around semi trucks and tractor trailers you know more specifically M so we included these two definitions for those two types of vehicles um and then we did add buses and cutaway vans in the ordinance to open that up for further discussion whether or not that should be included in this but you threw in agricultural in there correct agricultural Vehicles as part of the commercial vehicles umbrella those are already permitted already permitted yes with without a limit with right if they have the a if they have an A use okay that's where because when you as soon as you put that two commercial vehicle limit in there and you threw the a in there I mean you're talking most most Farmers have got multiple forest or stock trailers in in addition to their equipment haulers so on and so forth so this is for yeah commercial vehicles not related so we're targeting here specifically tractor trailer traffic or like a semi Tru trailer okay M all right all right thank you yes sir go ahead Mr patter how are you going to enforce this because is do I have to call code enforcement or if there's a problem or is it just somebody going to be going around looking for this problem so we we aren't at this time creating a conditional use permit for this use um so that would be the Avenue someone would submit a complaint or if code enforcement were to see a violation then it would go through code enforcement activity so this is this we aren't creating a special permit you're creating we are not you are not creating a special permit okay so if so a violation a code violation would be the course of action if someone were not not in compliance with this so would be a based on a a viol a complaint yes per se okay got it okay my question goes back to in line with Mr Costa is you're not limiting horse trailers you're not limiting the the that type of because you said your statement was it had to be uh a Bonafide agriculture use no so this is for commercial vehicles that are not tied to it agricultural use right so right now we what is what ties you to an agriculture use and the reason I say this is because a lot of times you get agriculture uses but they may not have an agriculture exemption I don't want the agriculture exemption to be tied into the agriculture use okay so is that not done here so this is to address commercial vehicles that would normally be limited to a heavy commercial um or an industrial zoning classification so in the County Council discussion they were mostly referring to semi trucks right so this is to allow the parking of semi trucks and then we did include commercial buses and cutaway Vans I just don't want it to to hamstring those people who use their agricultural property for horses raising horses and not have an agricultural exemption permit right so this isn't for a a tractor or a combine or those agriculture cultural Vehicles this is related to semi TR bus those typ okay just as long as we're clarified on that I just want to make sure it's very clear that we're not they're not restricting somebody that's got a a horse stable that is not agriculturally exempt we're not limiting them to two vehicles at a time no that is not the intent of this orance the intent I just want to get that clarified okay Mr chair it's a this is nothing but a Feelgood type of feeling to let people think that we're going to do something but people don't want to file a complaint because the person uh that's being VI that's violating this is can find out that the person called in it used to be that you know code enforcement you could just back in the day just uh file a complaint and nobody knew who it was it just County went out and did it nowadays people don't want to file complaints because they don't want to aggravate their neighbors or end up with broken windows or flat tires at their house so it's just a Feelgood kind of deal on the flip side of that though is if you got a code enforcement person driving down the road and he sees a tractor trailer park there he can't issue a code violation even if there's no complaint that's the flip side of that so yeah it's a feel good yeah I'm ready to feel good are you ready yes I'm ready all right so there's no other oh do we have a b public participation on this I'm getting ahead of myself yes okay we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or a motion or a motion all right and case I'll make a motion on case Zer case o- 24-11 that we forward forward to the County council with a recommendation of approval second okay I've got a motion on the floor to forward um case number 024 011 to forward it to the County council with a recommendation of approval and a second for Miss Shelly for Mr cost and second for Miss Shell any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed oh did we need to include that uh recommendation to include those um it says because it's to include is that included the commercial buses and cut cutaway Vans is that included in the ordinance yes sir those are in okay all right okay guys did everyone do their homework didn't quite understand the assignment but I did it okay I tell you what we're going to do we're going to take a five minute break then we're going to tackle this thing and I want you to think about your homework because what I'm get what my plan is is to go through this and if you did your homework I'm not going to go through line by line what we're going to do is anything that stood out that you want to talk about or had a concern with uh I want you to bring it to the attention and we'll talk about that otherwise we're going to send it on okay so let's take a 10-minute break and we'll resume at uh 128 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e we're going to bring the public Workshop into existence right now and like I said previously hopefully we U we did our homework and come up with some things what rather than go line by line and take up a lot of time there's basically three things we're looking at here we're looking at by right PL drrc or account council is that correct Miss Smith yes sir so basically what the council or I guess what has been presented was the to take some things that does not have to go all the way to council it can be decided the plrc and then there are some things that should be done just by right so if you guys looked at your packet uh I'll start without with anyone that has any concerns or questions on any of the things before us did anybody have any problem Mr Costa yep mine all have to mine all stem with regarding agricultural stuff so um and I'll tie I'm going to lump them all in together and ask the question and maybe that answers it quickly so I look back on page page seven so you got uh feed lots are required to come in front of the plrc Hog Farms are required to come in front of PL pdrc dog and cat boarding is a conditional use and then you have the boarding of horses also plld drrc so why those Street why horses Hogs and feed Lots will you just a little bit of background a lot of these items were created a very long time ago we now have laws on the books that say we don't regulate bonafied agricultural uses so part of this exercise is anything that's a bonafied agricultural use will you'll no longer see here other things that are not bonified agricultural uses um we're trying to determine if it has an impact a big impact on the neighbors and and we want to know if there should be public input on those items all right so then so then feed Lots could potentially just be by right based on the the acreage and the zoning that you've got listed correct that's one eliminated and then the Hog Farms uh um what is OCR on your on the zoning there that's an oin zoning a special oin zoning got it so again it's again they're all basically a uses from the Hogs Farm standpoint I don't see a necessity to make them go through come in front of the pdrc for that if they're a Bonafide AG use they would not if someone who just wants to have pot belly pigs all over the place then perhaps that might be something that you'd want to look at okay so you're saying that a hobby farm would require would have to come in front of the PE RC that for four or five Hogs it's it's your choice that's what we're asking oh that's what you're asking me okay I would say that no that should be by right and you know and being one who does or had at one point half a dozen hogs on my farm on an M3 mh3 same with the feed lot uh and then the boarding of horses I don't know enough about the horses and the and the licensing involved but it kind of struck me just to help cuz we're we're trying to record this as you're doing it so as you hit the item if you can just tell us the page number we can tag it thanks page two of 13 boarding of horses third from the bottom I'm not sure what it what all entails as far as the licensing there and if that's why you have it coming in front of the pdrc but other than that I would say that again if there're a if it's an a uh process or or business that it should be by right right as well so that would be uh boarding of horses on page two of 13 Hog Farms are page six of 13 I think those are boarding houses oh boarding houses never mind I'm reading horses there okay same way you did did you I read horses right I did too okay I rraw that that one then so it's just livestock the feed lots and the uh feed Lots on page seven and the hogs on page six I I think those are the only ones that I had big question marks on okay and how does the rest of the council feel I kind of in line with what Mr cost is saying so should we send that through as a change to the recommendations here no no no on that no on just on those no on that I'm just talking about what he was concerned about I'm gonna go by I'm g go through each one of you now if you got a concern on on an issue we're going to go ahead and express that okay is everybody in agreeance on that or we need to take a vote on that or how do you want to do this we're good yeah we're good okay so he's made can you make that notation please yes sir okay um anyone else have a problem or an issue Miss Craig I'm sorry well going back to the horses now on page four we do have equestrian livestock event facility that is proposed as a special exception approved by pdrc and that's more of an event than a than a boarding operation so yes I I agree yeah we we had I remember we had the dog thing up in near oin I remember right they were doing dog training and then kind of shows that kind of thing so I think that that yeah I think that that I think that's a good place for that to be that it does need to have a take a look at because you'll have especially with equestrian events you're going to have lighting and noises that the neighbors will definitely want to chime in on so okay Miss Craig is your mic on my points of interest are not as um grouped together as we've already had so far on um on page three um having to do with temporary C camp sites for special events I sort of have a problem with that as it being by by right I'd like to see a little bit more discussion of that before I don't know if it then goes to conditional use or if it comes before this board but I think that that has the potential for um disruption to the fact where it needs page three of 13 of 13 yeah on the top up there say temporary campsites right and that was one of mine mine too I had that marked um to address because you may have um public input on that and it may affect them directly that was my concern whether it's be whether it be looked at the between the pdrc or the um uh council's I mean whether it has to go further than the pdrc we need to get some public input on that beond that I wanted to uh talk about the car wash option I think that those are uh controversial enough that that needs public input as well that's also on page three of 13 and then I jumped to Excuse Me Miss C so do you want it to stop at the pdrc or do you want it to go through to the full Council um I feel I think PL drrc is probably enough um Car Wash what about cemeteries and surface yeah yes exactly so I wasn't sure why why would you yeah yeah it depends I mean something one of those classifications that should come to us I guess my question I think it's more because think these are all bus I think it's because people object to car washes that there are so many proliferating all over and because water has become such a tremendous issue I think I think the public deserves the right to to um chime in on the on topic um I skipped to then to page six of 13 golf courses I think that needs to come before the council personally because of the um rather controversial use of chemicals that um uh people object to having to do with maintaining golf courses mhm I had that on my list also I think it needs to have public input because of the fact that you've got your R1 through one through 9 zoning included in this and that is strictly residential so um I think it needs to go either through at least the pdrc or the council maybe the council wants to look at it well everything comes to pdrc first so do you want it to go on to council after that well that's up to the council they may want to look at it or not as far as I'm concerned we could finish it here unless it becomes an because they can always appeal it to the council and that's what council needs to understand that they can always be an appeal process that goes to them regardless if it stops here or not and I think what they're trying to do is get some of release some of their workload it isn't going to make ours any different other than if we don't accept it by right but I think that needs to be looked at also Miss Greg anything else um page eight having to do with Motocross courses I think that needs to at least come to the plrc I think that's um is that cross coures on on 8 of 13 oh okay um about nightclubs I'm sorry I said what about nightclubs yeah that was that was my next one was nightclub I think uh that's pretty controversial as well for nightclubs on Motocross tracks we really need to look at that yeah and in a shooting range while we're at it yeah exactly um and then yes so nightclubs was included in that and then also down with private clubs I I'm kind of questioning that terminology does it need some kind of definition of what of what a private club is can we just go back to nightclubs please are you talking PL drrc or do you want that to go on to councel I think PL drrc I'm sure the council's going to pick up some of these regardless if we say so that is a good clarification because um they are allowed by right in the if you look at the second column the only place that a special exception applies is in oin and so we were proposing to just have a more of a consistency in the reviews is that the Motocross nope the nightclubs oh the nightclubs so what are you saying about that I'm sorry um if you look at your spreadsheet it's set up the first is the use the second column is it's already Allowed by right right and the third column is where it's you need a special exception so in the case of nightclubs you would only need a special exception if you are in the oin area everywhere else it's by right I know okay in that case I I don't know I don't know how restrictive things are at oin um let's see then I went down to oh I had a question about planing Mills not allowed anywhere with the regular zoning classification is that because of noise or what it that's on page nine of 13 that's just for my own knowledge I'm sorry can you repeat that further on planing Mills on page nine of 13 about in the middle of the page I was just kind of curious why it was not it doesn't show any classification where it's allowed by right and I was just wondering why noise I think it's just because it's one of those um uses that you know have to go through a special exception or at least it was back in the day um certain uses you know are are not allowed by writer needs to go through some process okay um and then so what is the definition of a plainy meal that's one of the questions that theet i' bring because I couldn't find a definition for it I actually forgot to bring bring my dictionary but um in imagination our rule actually says in the event that something is not defined um you you uh use Webster's 11th uh Collegiate uh Edition dictionary for the terms does that include Google no it's specifically that dictionary give me a okay let me rephrase this give me an example of a planning Mill why do we have why is it even in there I was curious about the circuit circus uh is whats there's a circus headquarters one that I thought was kind of hum well I'm talking about the planing Mills the Planing Mill is where Lumber is brought to be cut right and that does Get Loud real loud I would think yeah but it's on agriculture we we passed something like that on on Route 40 a couple of months ago right well actually there's several yeah it's goes in hand with the Sawmills basically yeah it's a secondary okay you don't want to leave that by right I I'd leave it by right yeah yeah I'm going to leave because of the zone that they're on for sure right yeah I just need to get an idea of what it was I'm figure many and what was your other one miss Craig um need you need to bring one pul and paper manufacturers what page uh that's on 10 of 13 I think that should go to the council I've been around paper manufacturing and it's a nasty process but it's it what it is it's industrial right I2 okay so I mean I understand where you're coming but it's already got a pretty strict designation on the zoning okay it's just the industrial there I didn't have an issue with that um so where did you all page 12 of 13 I'm sorry so so leave it as is as recommended by right yeah i' leave it by right um to 12 of 13 Speedways RAC tracks and motorized vehicle motoc cross courses I think should go to the council you don't think you could create a good enough judgment to make a decision on that on on which which line is that I think because on public input being so important I don't know that we provide enough of a platform for people to I'll be honest with you we get more public participation here than the council does because they don't know when that's coming up on the agenda well that's true and and their their meetings are pretty lengthy I think we get a lot of public participation in a lot of this stuff well then let's leave it as is okay I just as long as it's looked at that's my concern and obviously it will be it looked be looked at here and if we made a decision that it's not contrary to what they want they've always got the opportunity to appeal it to the council that's the end of my list okay anyone else okay okay controvers I'm sorry remember Shelly your microphone's not on we didn't catch any of that I said I just thought it was interesting that we were listed as the ones for controversial they want to send those to us but anyway I just uh what was I had a couple on here are um with bed and breakfast does do airbnbs fall in that category no okay I thought they should would be listed differently that was a question I had on that and then uh okay conditionally perfect okay okay yep I think I'm good oh what we decide on the car wash thing uh I believe it was still all right uh plrc when on the oin ones I'm not sure we got an updated recommendation to uh are we Le by right it's it's by right in all of the other commercial zoning districts the only special exception the only time it triggers a special exception is if you are in one of the oin categories got it okay I don't want to make it more restrictive yeah oh don't need to add sorry I B4 and B8 as well sorry for the car washes so we decided that those were going to go to plrc for B4 and B8 what was B4 B8 car wash car washes would go to pdrc if they're in the B4 and B8 and oin categories so the staff recommendation was by wri so you all just need to decide if you want it to be elevated I I Believe Miss Craig indicated she did okay everybody agrees on that hang on hang on hang on tring to find a Mr C did you well the definition the difference between the B4 and and and the B5 I mean you were split heavy commercial is B5 B4 is is um office space I mean the biggest difference is overnight parking things like contractor storage yards between four and five is overnight parking that's five yeah B4 we would not allow the overnight parking and then what about between 8 and six B8 and B and B6 B8 is your tourist uh zoning District got it so that's where your hotel motels hotels um and your car washes for your tourists are going to be exactly yeah um yeah I don't I don't see that we need to I mean that that's my opinion I don't see that we need to add another layer of government there on something that it's already got a special exception still got to P it's still got to pass mustard through permitting anyway so yeah it's got to setbacks water retention D it's got to go through all all that M yeah i' say leave as is leaving it as is okay we're going to leave it as is yeah and the county Yeah by wash by right yeah by right okay I'm going to run through my list real quick uh cluster and zero lot line subdivisions you've got in here by right it's page three yeah 13 cluster zero lot line and subdivision you've got that um where it's by right and certain and then you want to put it into rural residential that reflects the ex how it is existing so anyone can do a cluster subdivision as long as they're in R1 1 through 4 six MH om o it's the only time you would need a special exception if they were in rural residential to do a cluster or zero lot line so the proposal is to treat it all the same and have it by right even in the rural residential zoning district oh I was misunder but yet the rural residential has a larger setback than residential and on a normal permitting process we'll see it during the this is where I have an issue all the time yeah so the cluster subdivision allows they would have still have to apply the setbacks what you can do is you can shrink the minimum lot size and in exchange you put the the balance of that into to basically a common area so you know to avoid impacts to um sensitive features such as Wetlands these zero lot line subdivisions I'd rather see go to PUD than anything not just get by right by having the zoning yeah so how do I address that that's a that's a larger change um we can whenever you get to a zero lot line I'd rather see that in a PUD one here was a community residential homes Community residential homes um you're that covers a pretty broad area does it not Community residential homes some yeah I know and you you is the oin area is this all oin right here M currently they only require a special exception in oste correct really and is by right and other zonings I know that you've seen a veterans facility of veterans house I understand that but I also see what I also see is uh rehabs rehab homes being brought into residential communities we'll we'll go back and we'll look and confirm that one yeah I wish you would because these Community residential homes I believe you have to have a special exception in in uh even on a property on those I think I'm not sure but I think okay so you want to look at that one yes okay I know they always cause people to show up daycare centers you've added a whole lot of zonings in here pretty much every zoning out there to put a daycare um and my concern is that is not not that I have an issue with putting a daycare there but I believe the public should have an ability to put input into that if it's going into my neighborhood I want to know what kind who's facilitating it there's a lot of things that need to be known on the daycare I mean that's my opinion I don't know how the rest of everybody feels but I need it needs I think it needs to be looked at and have public input I'd agree with pdrc or councel or both as far as I'm concerned stops here as far as I'm concerned okay so some dayc carees I think we are preempted by Statute let me find out what it is I think I I want to say 10 10 or less right yeah I'll need to check on that one so so essentially we would be talking about um bigger operations well that's is what I'm saying it needs to be looked at and you know 10 or less you know if it it by stat statute is by Statute but anything above 10 we it needs to be we need to take a look at it or somebody does and at least have public input on where it's going so H when was last time it was updated so we've got uh we'll take a look at it um I'll need to see how it Compares of whether or not we're preempted on this particular aspect which is why you know it's a use Allowed by right in residential zoning districts um but with we we'll take a closer look at at that particular aspect there is a definite preemption um it's 12519 and it's basically saying that the operation of a residents as a family daycare home as defined by law registered a license with um DCF shall constitute a valid residential use for purposes of any local zoning regulation um and no such regulation shall require the owner or operator of such Family Daycare home to obtain any special exemption or use permit or waiver or to pay any special fee in excess of $50 to operate in an area zone for residential use so we're going to have to play with that preemption aspect to see if you know what we can do with it it all it all relates back to the licensing and the definition of Family Daycare home to see you know what trips that I believe it is 10 or less is the Family Daycare home well in in retrospect too on other zonings you're talking talking about residential but in other zonings you could have a topless joint you don't want to put a daycare beside it and the zoning could be correct got it yep okay [Laughter] smiling okay we won't go okay that was on page four by the way okay moving to page five you've got um right here storm water Retention Ponds for which permit is required by zoning ordinance and you're wanting to do it by right and here's my I think I made my point this morning on these Retention Ponds where they're putting in when we look at the uh topography maps and knowing that it's going to be an issue doesn't take a hydrologist to figure that out and so we go in there and we're doing it letting them put it in by right without looking at where with a conceptual plan of words going and this is under excavation it goes under final plan [Music] review of the zoning ordinance does this not be need to be looked that so so just a clarification this is for storm waterer ponds that are cited on their own parcel it's not part of subdivisions we require the stormw ponds for subdivisions to be put on those same Parcels so it would be if someone for some reason wanted to do a pond on its own parcel with no other infrastructure got it all right we'll leave it by right long as that we cover that's not included in the subdivisions okay the other one on page six was your hotels and motels have you added it in uh there's by right but you added B4 into that equation is the zoning allowing hotels and motels B4 it's currently allowing it by special exception exception only only so if you wanted to do a hotel motel in your General commercial You' have to go through plrc in Council in the B4 yes currently and that's what we're do we're just looking at B4 correct yes okay we can add that into the buite I mean as far as I'm concerned okay just need to get clarification on and I think we talked about the um Motocross what did we decide on that public input so we're going to B DRC on that now do do you want we're talking about bicycle only guys on this one not motorcycles not motorized vehicles Motocross courses bicycle only but there's two separate ones there Motocross courses an A2 by right you don't want public input on that on the motorized yeah yes on the motorized yes but on the bicycle only I don't see a reason to well yeah I agree but the motorcross course the A2 A2 I would say about P the pdrc is fine about that okay on the motorized motoross also my next one was the multif family right underneath that three or more dwelling units um on R six property you've got by right that doesn't need to be looked at as far as a special exception R six with an aster what does that mean yeah what is r six with an as the aster indicates that there are other requirements Beyond just the special exception requirements okay okay so what do you want to leave it by right folks okay little less little less paperwork work right yep okay as long as there's other requirements to be looked at okay page 10 public utility use of structures and you putting in here by right on all those zonings and I believe the public should have an ability to make have public input on this whether it be through the P DRC or the council strictly because if you utility wants to put in a lift station or something in the right of way next to my home I'm Going To Raise Hell okay I don't want it pdrc only it doesn't matter as long as the public has input now there are some Public Utilities uh electric substations for example where we are preempted you know we have to concerned about them all right I'm not concerned about them I'm concerned about more so the sanitary sewer than I am any of the others or and I'm assuming that the public utilities could also include Retention Ponds is that correct could that definition be considered there well those would be stormwater ponds andless say if they were Standalone storm water ponds that would be categorized as that you know what we previously addressed but that was on private property then usually those are considered rights of way if the county or city is doing it um we would own the property we'll take a look at that yeah if you would I'd like for you to take a look at that obviously I think public input should be put in I'm not sure we consider those as specific Standalone those are usually you know um a pertinent and adjacent to the functioning of a road we we obtain right way and adjacent storm water Pond land so it's it's usually holding storm water for Road runoff and not creating flooding well that's the function of it the function is to to would you like to ride by one I can show you flooding the adjacent property you can take a ride with me this afternoon I'll show you one no I I think this needs to be looked at okay all right and that pretty much does it for me anybody else that I that we haven't covered [Music] anything are we good did have a question sort of a silly question but I I'm curious about circus headquarters why do we have circus headquarters as a designation I I I think Valia County used to have a big brothers this used to be the home the winter home still exist my good right out there the train station not New York does it still exist yeah that's why it's in there we had elephants and everything else living out there wow yeah tigers and eleph me went the way of driving theaters I had another question come back I had another question that really doesn't have to do with the staff recommendations but it just um out of curiosity about the communication Towers one of the things that it talked about was the tower to Tower spacing and it had zero feet for camouflaged towers and I was wondering if that was correct for oh the the difference in communication well the communication Towers goes to the plrc anywhere and it's it's from my understanding and Mr Sor can correct me if I'm wrong we can't even force him to camouflage that Tower any anyway right because I know one that was put in and they said they were going to put a flag on it American flag on it and that had hasn't been done yet and that's been about eight years ago well it's still it was we don't have a requirement to make them camouflaged um there are certain Provisions under the federal law where you know if you have a a camouflage type Tower um it puts a restriction on on the height of the antenna that you can put on that camouflage Tower um usually you see these as you know they describe them as like monop Pines so you have a giant 300t Tall Pine Tree or something that kind of tries to look like that um so that but really realistically the camouflage towers are are they try to incorporate it into the structure of the building so it doesn't look like a tower antenna it look kind of looks like something else so it's more of like an aesthetic type um analysis okay and with our skydivers and low flying planes around here we don't want to camouflage okay I have a question yes sir yeah anything that we are talking about that might change if somebody is already in that they're grandfathered in and they won't have to be or if they somebody buys their Pro their operation do they have to come before the pdrc for example is it we we have a vested rights provision um for anything unaddressed okay um so if someone has uh a valid construction plan permit or anything like that we would cons you know they they can make an argument that they're vested in that particular aspect um and they can always uh appeal to council or file um we've got a vested rights determination provision for specific uses that you know they demonstrate that they um they they detrimentally relied by the expenditures of funds on the way our zoning code Works um and they've got you know plans and they've expended money to get it underway um and then we change the code on them you know this this happens regularly well not regularly but this but our code has built in Provisions to allow for um someone to claim vested rights when they're in the middle of a process and still work under the the previous code I will say this everything we've talked about today is already a special exception yeah and it already has to either come before plrc and the County Council what we've tried to do is eliminate some of the frivolous type special exceptions that we require less paperwork less bureaucracy and also that they don't have to come before the pdrc and the County Council um even though this could go to the County Council and they may want to see some of the things we've got listed for the plrc which is their prerogative to do so well I have a question for staff let me let me reverse the role here of all of these that are in here which ones gave you the most heartburn good question anim fellow and animals anything having to do with animals is usually very controversial wow animals uh backyard chickens kennels equestrian facilities right you know you throw an animal in there suddenly everyone cares wow interesting I'm gonna throw this at you I would love to have a conversation with some of these ordinances we have in place um in your RR zoning you pass an ordinance you're allowed 100 chickens correct I think it's up to and then you have to go through a permit right up to a 100 chickens you build a chicken coop bigger than 10 by1 you got to pull a building permit for that chicken coop yes oh cuz you're not a farm yes yes yes you do your structure what in the world are we making somebody to house 100 chickens we're allow to have the 100 chickens but we want them to have a building permit and I've had stories say well what if a hurricane comes through and blows it into your neighbor's yard well then you go get it the other thing too is you know you're not housing people here and we're we're looking at the public interest and other than it ended up in somebody else's yard which I can go par my sailboat in my yard during the hurricane get it off the inter Coastal which I don't have a sailboat but I could and it could end up in my neighbor's yard so a lot of these ordinance I mean I really wish they'd spend some time on some of these things unfortunately I think the building code aspect is the building code and it's not our Land Development code um you know I uh building permits are required for things like kennels um they're considered structures um so that's we we'll see what we can do for that particular aspect but uh but ultimately it would be the Florida building commission if they require a a permit for you know a specific type of chicken CP that exceeds a certain size it was explained to me by someone in in your building department that um we as a council or or a pdrc cannot supersede or overwrite the Florida building code period that we can't make any kind of a special exception to whatever is in that code book yes is that correct cuz I was challenging on a issue with height requirements in Barnes been was basically in no one certain terms was boom black and white yes the the Florida building code especially the technical requirements they take their own path um it's an appeal of the Florida building officials determination that goes through another board currently called the clca and then that goes through that can get appealed to the actual Florida building commission um and then to change make technical or administrative changes to the florid building code is a whole other the process and they're only good for three years because that's the that's the reset time for Florida building code do we need to make a motion on this here yeah yeah we do we're going to have to because we need to forward this County Council recommendation of approval to amend the zoning ordinance and review as with the changes that we've made correct yeah so I'll accept one of those motions now I'll make a motion on case o02 3-10 that we forward to the County council with recommendation of approval to amend the zoning ordinance for review of special exceptions as identified during the pdsc workshop on March 21st to 2024 with the changes that we so made do we have to uh we don't have to lift all those no they to change they were taking notes it's all done okay I got a motion on the floor to um forward to the County Council 023 no 02310 um to County council with recommendation of approval to amend the zoning ordinance for review of special exception is identified during the pldr prdc workshop on March 21st 2024 from Mr Coston a second for Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously and and Mr chair that that recommendation is going to the uh we're having a growth management workshop on April 30th um for County Council is for them to discuss both your recommendation as well as other things related to growth management ultimately this list will come back to you in ordinance form um strike through underline which will give you and the public another shot at the changes okay oh I have no idea I'm I'm not going to be actually be here during that that uh Workshop that they're going to be having uh would anybody like to go and answer any questions they may have of the P April 30th April 30th starting at 3 pm do I want to go in here 3:30 you I was going to you 3 I think you should Point Mr C to go I believe they have it scheduled specifically as a workshop for discussion by the County Council itself yeah um it's not like it's not a special meeting so they may open it up for the public they may not it's a workshop amongst well hopefully they've listened to our discussion today and if they've got any questions they can for bring them forward before their workshop um I think we've been pretty self-explanatory a lot of things Ian they may want to take it further than just the pdrc I know it's hard to give up Authority sometimes but but they may but that's their right that's their right to do so so anyway um do we have any other staff items no sir do we have any commission comments hearing none we have any pron citizen comments this meeting is a Jour and we got out here by one e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e