##VIDEO ID:pTkpFR5nz4Y## e good afternoon welcome to the November 12th city of Apopka Planning and Zoning meeting if you would all please stand with me for a moment of Silent prayer and the pledge amen I pledge alance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God andice during the meeting there will be a section in each agenda item for members of the public to speak and give their opinion on the matter at hand if someone here has a Planning and Zoning related issue that is not on the agenda now would be the time to be recognized seeing none will move on item number one meeting minutes from October 8th 2024 any changes or adjustments I have one I have one correction um I was talking about the wastewater treatment plant not the um storm water that's not Aaron's fault I don't think I had my mic on at the time okay um what I said was I was worried about the capacity of the Wastewater uh treatment plant um I remember yeah basically they say it's going to reach full capacity in early 2029 which it could mean even sooner than that and that's one thing we can't kick down the road okay Aaron I assume you can make the adjustment all right all right any others okay have a motion to approve the meeting minutes with the adjustment requested by commissioner R make that motion motion by commissioner Ryan do I have second second second by commissioner mot all in favor say I I any opposed motion carried all right item number one future land use Amendment Golden Grove owners Tim birfields Stacy and Robert Moss applicants GL Summit Engineering care of Jeffrey L Summit location west of golden gem Road and south of night shaved Grove Lane and Saddler Road Miss Sanchez good evening Gan Sanchez with the Community Development Department this is a request to recommend approval of the future land use Amendment for Golden Grove from County Rural to mixed use the properties are located west of golden gem Road and south of nightshade Grove Lane and Saddler Road approximately 1976 Acres Golden Grove was annexed into the city on October 16 2024 under ordinance number 3073 the properties are within the Waka Parkway interchange Vision plan area and for the comprehensive plan future land use element policy 20.9 as well as the Celly Park interchange form based code the pro the subject property is required to have a mixed use future land use designation which would permit up to 10 or I'm sorry which would permit up to five dwelling units per acre Orange County Public Schools has indicated the capacity for the proposed development this property is available for elementary as well as middle schools however capacity is deficient at the high school level by 8.5 students the location is served by zel Wood Elementary Wolf Lake Middle and Apopka high schools the DRC recommends approval the recommended motion is to recommend is to recommend approval of the change in future land use from County Rural to mixed use staff and applicant are available for questions Mr chairman I'll make a motion uh the proposed future land use Amendment from County Rural to mixed use consistent with the comprehensive plan and Land Development code incompatible with the character of the surrounding areas and recommend approval of the proposed future land use Amendment based on the findings and facts presented in the staff report and Exhibits thank you sir motion by commissioner do have a second second Bobby good evening Bobby how planning manager the applicant has submitted a small scale future land use Amendment from residential very low to mixed use residential bar low sperman my apologies to mixed use property is located at 2584 West Kelly Park Road and it's approximately 45.3 7 Acres in size the applicant is requesting the future land use amendment to bring the property in into the Kelly Park form based code area specifically the transition character Zone which permits the maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre by right and 15 dwelling units per acre with a bonus subject to the criteria outline in section R of the kpi form based code applicant is requesting the future land use amendment to allow for the potential development of non-residential uses and a development consisting of 250 Town Homes of which is not permitted under the current future land use designation of residential very low spuren as you can see the current future land use and Zoning designations are on the screen mixed uses located to the north and if you recall from our last Planning Commission meeting the property to the east uh received unanimous uh recommendation of approval to allow mixed use future land use on that property the Chandler Hill Chandler Hills property Orange County Public Schools has indicated capacity is not available at the high school level is deficient by 28.25 seats uh the development Review Committee recommends approval and the recommended motion this evening is approval if you have any questions uh myself and the applicant are in attendance thank you Mr how anyone have questions of Staff yes I do commissioner Ryan the residential that's going to be all town houses yes sir and how many are there going to be there so there's gonna be 15 units per Acres no the 15 units per acre is a development bonus that's outlined in the form based code you have to achieve certain thresholds this development wouldn't achieve that is presented uh the max they can do within the transition character district is 10 units an acre they're proposing 7 and a half dwelling units per acre it's 250 Town Homes is what they're proposing okay thank you so I have a I have a question commissioner so Mr how when you say you know because I in reading this uh the staff report I highlighted the section there about the the uh bonus and I heard you just speak about the bonus and then you know even on the back it talks about the dwelling units U and then if you added the you know the bonus you know there what that would be additional so you're saying right now that the by the the section R what they presented does not qualify for the bonus no what they presented would qualify for what's in the transition character Zone which is the 10 units per acre Max the bonus is a whole laundry list of criteria you have to put I just put that in the report for clarification purposes okay um and then I um uh then couple other things the the in intent is to expand Kelly Park well it's within the Kelly Park form based coding area so this is within the one mile radius okay so the the expansion of Kelly Park goes farther east of this development correct right if you recall the last meeting the Chandler H Chandler Hills future land use was approved unanimously by this board uh which allowed five units per acre Max on that in the neighborhood character Zone this is within the transition character zone so if you recall in the form based Cod area there's a one M radius that emanates from the center of the intersection of um Kelly Park Road and 429 goes east west north and south this property is within that circular radius and you might be able to see it um you see the um orange area here that's about the extent of it it goes about out to okay so the circle okay yeah the circle goes out there okay um that was the only questions that I had okay thank you very well any uh questions of the applicant sir very well thank you sir uh yes I I do have a question no no you're fine um uh I realize we're sitting here discussing this has to go to City Council Etc but do you have a rough guesstimate of when you would like to start moving dirt I'll direct that to my client hey good evening gentlemen I'm with the developer Jonathan Bell uh excuse me sir I need your name and address for the record please yes sure Jonathan Bell Company addresses 3670 Maguire uh Boulevard here in Orlando we're local um the we would love to to start moving dirt in April that would be the idea very good thanks when do you think you be finished on Project completed it's probably gonna take I'm gonna I'm gonna throw out a guess in about three years yeah might be at full capacity on the wastewater treatment plant so yeah I would with see a about that okay I to have your project completed and not be able to would you like it to be completed sooner or later which works better I I I'm just worried that they're going to hit capacity before the your complex is complet because you have such high density gotcha so there one thing about the waste waterer we can't we can't take that down the road yeah yeah well that's why I asking because we can adjust our building schedule and kind of work around you guys a little bit easier money I would just I would talk to the city of about there okay it takes a while to set up a treatment plan as I understand okay all right thank you okay and uh for the record John Adams RJ Whit Associates 8 Broadway CM Florida thank you sir all right does anyone from the public here wish to speak on this matter seeing none we'll bring it back to the board for a discussion and a motion and I would add we we can't I I understand your concerned but we can't hold an applicant responsible for a lack of capacity on our part I would not vote against that no no I'm not V against trying to you know we need to pass set up the food chain yeah to the other people who sit in these chairs this one of my concern no I understand all right so we need a motion Mr how can you bring that up the motion yes sorry there you go um Mr chairman I I'll make a motion that we find um this proposed change future land use designation from residential very low Suburban to City mixed use consistent with the comprehensive plan and Land Development code and compatible with the character of the surrounding areas I recommend approval of the proposed change of zoning based on the findings and facts presented in the staff report and Exhibits and recommend approval of ordinance number 3076 thank you sir motion by commissioner M do I have a second second second by commissioner Ryan all in favor say I I any opposed motion carries all right brief time out before we go to the next one I was remiss and we have a new commissioner and I failed to introduce him I'm old and I forget things um Kurt Dixon is our newest member of the Planning and Zoning commission I'd like to welcome him here today thank you all right item number three rezoning kpi master plan INB homes owners Kelly Park Road property LLC applicant INB homes car of John Ryan Adams location 2584 West Kelly Park Road for the record once again Bobby H planning manager this is the companion resoning ordinance to the Future land use amendment that was approved uh property is located at 2584 West Kelly Park Road uh the master plan depicts a total of 250 town home units with a non-residential tract located to the front of the property uh there is a cell tower that is located within that tract uh a fall zone has been designed around that as well uh the developer of this property it's my understanding they will only develop the Town Homes at this time but reserve the non-residential uses to a future developer um the non-residential tract is 10.33 acres in size uh and so the property the developer will dedicate a 30ft wide strip of RightWay or reserve a 30 foot wide strip of RightWay for future needs for Plymouth sarento Road I'm sorry not pouth CTO Road Kelly Park Road on the master plan and within that strip will be a 12ft wide bicycle trail that'll be constructed by the developer to help facilitate construction of the Regional Trail system that is conceptually proposed within the Kelly Park form based code area roadway and pedestrian connections are provided to allow cross access to the properties to the West and East at such time that they develop according with requirement of the form based code 15% of the site will remain as open space and open space is detailed with on the master plan and is noted in the staff report uh common recreational elements include a community swimming pool Green Space an internal trail system passive open recre recreational open space areas and the dedication of the bike trail along cell Park Road and if it says Plymouth sento Road the STA report I do apologize for that typo it's Kelly Park Road uh as I had stated earlier County Public Schools is indicated capacity is not available at the high school level and is deficient by 28.25 SE 28.25 seats the development Review Committee recommends approval and the recommended motion this evening is approval of the resoning any questions myself and uh Mr Adams are here to help you all thank you Mr how anyone have well hold up um as this is quasi judicial I need to ask if anyone from the board had any expar communication on this matter no sir no sir very well does anyone have questions of Staff um I I just refresh my mind is the um overage is 15 students for high school correct 28.25 well it's 28.25 but to get them to move is 15 that I'm not aware of now the the school board issued in their findings that it's deficient by 28.25 seats at the high school level everything else is fine elementary and middle okay because I think there is a an overage that they allow okay and I thought it was 15 or not aware of any we've had some that so I'm kind of curious if that 28's above the already overage or if it's above you know that I'm not aware of we've had some where they've issued deficiency of like two students before have told us that yeah all right any other questions or that any question of the applicant very well is anyone from the public here wish to speak on this matter seeing none we'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion Mr chairman uh I'll find the proposed change in zoning from rsf-1 a residential single family estate to kpi dmu Kelly Park interchange mixed use transition consistent with the comprehensive plan Land Development code and comp compatible with the character of the surrounding areas and recommend approval of the proposed change of zoning based on the findings and facts presented in the staff report exhibits and recommended approval of ordinance number s z 3077 very well thank you sir motion by commissioner Mt do I have a second no second it second by commissioner Ryan all in favor say I I I any opposed motion carried right future land use Amendment Roseville Wolf Lake Ranch phase two owners Roseville Farms LLC applicant Bill Mackey location north of ponan Road East of ponan Pines Road and West of Jason dwell Park Miss Sanchez Jean Sanchez with the Community Development Department this is a request recommend approval of the future land use Amendment of the Roseville properties from mixed use to residential very low Suburban the properties are located north of ponan Road East of ponan Pines Road and West of Jason D Parkway it's approximately 2844 Acres the applicant is requesting the amendment of The Future land use of the property to be consistent and compatible with the surrounding properties including the Wolf Lake Ranch phase one project or development on the south properties to the north and south of future land use designations of residential veril low Suburban the future land use of residential veril low Suburban allows two dwelling units per acre and according to the city's comprehensive plan future land use element policy 3.5 residential developments north of bonan Road and West of Rock Springs Road will be restricted to no more than two dwelling units per acre and unless it's within the form based code area therefore the DRC recommends approval the recommended motion is to recommend approval the change in future land use from mixed use to residential VAR low Suburban for the roast build property staff and applicant are available for questions thank you Miss Sanchez anyone have questions of Staff anyone have questions of the okay sir very well is anyone from the public wish to speak on this matter seeing none we'll bring it back to the board for a discussion and a motion I I I do Mr chairman I believe this property is just to the west of the um the park it borders the park yep the um North West complex yeah yes yes sir so I would just make a comment to encourage the developer um whatever buffer is in between the park and that you know because the the lights at night the ball lights and all that kind of thing um certainly would want U anybody that lives in that neighborhood to be be hard for them me to imagine that they wouldn't know that there park to their East but and a lot of uh athletic play on weekends Etc I'll make that recommendation over to them and I'll consult the code as well for landscaping and buffers at the time of development plan riew yes sir is this I I looked at that is this is this is there lighted Fields close to that I thought like the the football field and that stuff on the other end and the soccer field there but the lights are kind of maybe the North Boundary might have something on there um okay I don't recall okay there you go I see you oh that's attention um my thing is is that as the city continues to develop that property needing more Fields Etc whether there is something there now or not there's a high probability that there would be something and at that point the homeowners of this development if it was at you know built out and then come to the meetings and say we can't have you know ball fields and and lights up there I'm not suggesting there couldn't be something else there you know as opposed to that but I'm just saying that let me invite the applicant over um to explain I have we we do have the concept plan for the zoning but we haven't discussed buffers right I'm joking I didn't realize that it went up and down my name is Tom Daly I'm a daily Design Group and I work with uh Bill Mackey's in my office typically what Builders will do they'll put notifications into their homeowners documents that will notify them that there is a city park and that there might be noise light and other objectionable things and so um we can make that a a condition as we move forward that that would be put in the notifications all right any more questions of the applicant thank you sir thank you is there anyone from the public here wish to speak on this matter very well see seeing none we'll bring it back to the board for a motion Mr chairman I find the proposed change in future land use designation from mixed use to residential very low Suburban consistent with the comprehensive plan and Land Development code incompatible with the character of the surrounding areas recommend approval of the proposed change of future land use based on the findings and facts presented in the staff report and Exhibits thank you sir motion by commissioner m do I have a second I'll second it second by commissioner Ryan all in favor say I I any opposed motion Carri item five change of zoning Roseville wolf lank Ranch phase two applicant Roseville Farms LLC applicant Bill Mackey location north of ponan Road East of ponan Pines Road and West of Jason dwelly Parkway the same item that we did before so I'm not going to check on the quasa judicial Miss Sanchez for the record Gan Sanchez for the Community Development Department this is the rezoning companion for the future land use amendment that was preceding um it's a request to recommend approval of the change of zoning from MGT mixed used East Shore gateway to rsf 1B residential single family large lot for the roast bu properties the applicant is requesting this change of zoning to be compatible with the surrounding properties including the Wolf Lake Ranch Phase 2 to the South and the proposed rsf 1B zoning district is consistent with the future land use designation that they're proposing in the preceding item um as well as um it is listed as consistent in Land Development code section 1.8 the applicant also provided a zoning conceptual plan proposing 56 Lots as phase two of the Wolf Lake Ranch subdivision sharing Ingress and egress at Phase One finite details of course of the site design will be determined at the development plan review the DRC recommends approval the recommended motion is to recommend approval of the proposed change of zoning staff and applicant are available for questions thank you Miss Sanchez anyone have questions of Staff question to the applicant very well I'm assuming no one from the public is here to speak on this matter but we'll ask anyways is anyone from the public here wish to speak on this matter see none we'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion Mr chairman I find the proposed change in zoning from mu-- GT mixed use eastshore gateway to rfs-1 B residential single family large lot consistent with the comprehensive plan and Land Development code and compatible with the character of the surrounding areas recommend approval of the proposed change of future land use based on the findings and facts presented in staff reports and Exhibits thank you sir motion by commissioner M do I have a second I'll second it second by commissioner Ryan all in favor say I I any opposed motion carries item six special exemption to use permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit in a mixed juuse downtown zoning District owner suil Matos hopefully I didn't do that too bad applicants the same location 49 East Orange Street good good good evening everyone my name is Amir Hamza I'm a planner the applicant has submitted a special exception request to allow an accessory dwelling unit on the site located at 49 East Orange Avenue just west of South Park Avenue and east of North Central Avenue these are the vicinity and aerial maps of the property the total area of the property is 0.42 acres and currently has a single family residence the property has a future land use of residential low and has a zoning of mixed use downtown mud as shown on these Maps an accessory dwell un is also called a granny flat or guest Cottage provides a complete independent facility for one or more persons which includes Provisions for living sleeping eating cooking and sanitation it is located on the same parcel or lot as the principal dwelling unit and shall be subject to the required setbacks of the principal structure and may be either attached or detached from the principal dwelling unit for purposes uh of determining maximum density and accessory dwelling unit shall not count as a dwelling unit so only family members um of the principal um of the owner of the principle um residents will be able to live there here the list of the special exception review standards the applicant must comply to according to the Land Development code section 2.5.1 Point G4 here's the S plan of the proposed Adu exent dwelling init um the total area of the Adu is 500 square feet which is what is the maximum allowed area that is allowed for an accessory dwelling unit in the mud mixed use downtown zoning District the development Review Committee recommends approval of a special exception to allow an accessory dwelling unit within the mud mixed use downtown zoning District subject to exhibits and findings of the staff report the recommended motion for Planning Commission is to approve a special exception to allow an accessory dwelling window within the mixed use downtown mud zoning District subject to the exhibits and findings of the STA report very well can you please go back one page to that the the site plan yeah I'm not clear okay so the the right on the setback in the very back is where the the accessory dwelling unit is going to be that would be correct yeah so they gave basically a five uh five feet of uh setback uh for side and rear okay since it's an accessory structure it will be 5et to the rear and side property of the property lines okay how big is the existing building on the property now uh existing building um currently there um is the applicant here in attendance to answer and also will that the uh granny cage match the main building or the existing building yeah the single family residence is on the front and the garage is right here in the back hi the um existing building is about ma'am excuse me um I need your name and address for the record please oh s Mato 49 East Orange Street OFA Florida 32703 thank you um okay so the existing building is about uh 900 square fet this a single family home and will the granny c um will it match the me the existing building I'm sorry I didn't get that I said will the uh the granny carage will it match the existing building yes that's the plan all right hang on one second please does anyone else have questions the applicant uh not the applicant but I'm just curious with the the code that you're talking about is there a driveway parking anything that that it says there I uh not in the code didn't didn't mention anything in regards it's just the mention in the code that the Adu is allowed in the mix use downtown zoning as long as it's 500 square feet or below an area and nobody and only the property owners or relatives family members can uh live in the property it cannot be rented out as a dwelling unit okay very well uh for the applicant I have a question you miss Matos you have a question yeah I have a question for you um have you any interaction with the the neighbors bordering that on the sides as far as this will they have any interaction is that your question have you spoke with your neighbors about do they know your intentions and yes and they're they're okay with that yeah they're all okay with that okay some of the Neighbors in fact offered to like um write some notorized letters which I didn't um I wasn't asked to get those no that's fine that's fine I I was just curious about that very well that thank you all right any more questions of Staff all right thank you m right anyone from the public wish to speak on this matter being none we'll bring it back to the board for a motion and a second Mr chairman I'll approve the special exception to allow an Adu accessory dwelling unit within the m-d mixed use downtown zoning District subject to the exhibits and findings of Staff report thank you sir I have a motion by commissioner Mt do I have a second I'll second it thank second by commissioner Ryan all in favor say I I any opposed motion carries okay item number seven special exemption ponam Plymouth sento mixed use commercial owners ponam property LLC applicant John C Vic III location 2920 Plymouth sarento Road Amir my my name is Amir Hamza I'm a planner the applicant has submitted a special exception request to allow a use of a gas station in the community commercial c-c zoning District on the site located at 2920 Plymouth serrento Road which is just south of West ponan Road these are the vicinity and aerial maps of the property the total area of the property is 14.97 997 acres and is currently bacon and is the combination of uh three Parcels together in to one develop one future development the property has a future land use of a commercial and has a zoning of community commercial as shown on these Maps here the list of special exception review standards the applicant must comply to to according to the Land Development code section 2.5.1 G4 here is a conceptual s plan of the proposed gas station um this will be then uh submitted later as a minor development plan in a separate um um application but this is just for the special exception permit to allow a gas station on the property Zone that is zones Community commercial c-c the development Review Committee recommends approval of a special exception to allow a gas station in the c-c community commercial zoning District subject to the exhibits and findings of the staff report the recommended motion for a Planning Commission is to approve a special exception to allow gas station in the C- the community commercial zoning District subject to the exhibits and findings of the staff report thanks you Mr Hamza um this is quasa judicial so I need to ask has anyone on the board had expart communication on this matter uh no sir very well anyone have questions of Staff yes I do yes all right commissioner Ryan no go ahead go ahead okay all right I see there's enough accessible parking on that on that PLT um but I'm not sure that's in the correct location but that's for another day um there's no EV charging stations on here uh so this is just for to allow a use to build a gas station this is not approving a actual gas station this is just a conceptual plan the actual uh plan to of the minor development plan of the gas station will be um submitted at a later date this is just because of community commercial zoning to allow a gas station it requires a special exception so I understand that but I just want to get ahead of the curve so when it comes back be tot correct okay I see very well my question Community commercial yeah okay so we're asked to determine you know whether we would approve a gas station on community commercial so I'm under the interpretation that Community commercial doesn't have gas station zone for them I mean it it per it's a permitted but it requires a special exception so if if they have a special exception permit that is approved they they have the right to De it's permitted to develop a gas station on there it requires a special exception just because it's a gas station yeah okay okay okay now that makes sense now the question for you in this in this slide that you've got there the property to the South is what what zone is that um to my knowledge I don't think that property is in the city it's in the county oh it's unincorporated yeah all right thank you yeah on the report it's County Rural both of those all right any more questions of Staff sir does anyone have questions of the applicant very well thank you Mr MOS anyone from the public wish to speak on this matter seeing none we'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion yeah I'll make a motion approve with special exception to allow gas station within the CC Community commercial zoning District subject to the exhibits and findings of the staff report thank you sir motion by commissioner Ryan to have a second second second by commissioner M all in favor say I I any opposed motion carries all right on the site plans sign variant for mullenax Ford of Central Florida applicants Mark brenchley location 1405 and 1551 East samron Boulevard Miss Sanchez Jean Sanchez with the Community Development Department this is a request to allow a variance from Land Development Cod Code table 5.10.5 A3 as well as table 5.10.1 A4 and section 5.10.5 C1 to allow primary sign of 165 Square ft of copy area with 20 ft in height in Le of 100 square ft and 8T in height secondary sign secondary signs with 28 ft and 9 in in height in L of 6 feet in height and one secondary sign with 131.8 square fet in copy area and L of 60 square ft copy area for mol nextx Ford the subject properties are located at 1405 and 1551 East semon Boulevard north of State Road 436 and east of Thompson Road approximately 21.6 n acres in size the development has almost 2,000 ft of Frontage along State Road 436 um I want to point out that these signs are already on the property however they are much taller and bigger and they are all considered pylon or P sign which we no longer allow allow since the um update of the Land Development code in 2019 the proposed conversion to Monument signs from these pylon or pole signs and their sizes size reductions also reduces the non-conformity of these signs and as such the variance process has been outlined in your staff reports the applicant has o submitted um responses to the criteria listed here in the stff reports as well um and with that the DRC recommends I'm sorry the DRC does not object to the variances that the applicant is requesting and therefore the Planning Commission decision shall be one of the following based on the review standards in the said section section 2.5.5 A5 the one approval of the variance two approval of the variance subject to modification or conditions or three the denial of the variance staff and I believe applicant are available for questions thank you Miss Sanchez um the clarification um in on one C it it it states that we are not adding it's not adding another sign nor is it contributing expanding the visual proliferation along the side of the busy commercial Corridor you you you you stated I thought you stated that the pylon side is larger than the existing existing signs the exist existing pylon signs right now is larger than the proposed so actually they're reducing the signs in general by height and square footage okay so we're replacing existing signs and because of the new ordinance yeah they're converting everything to really Monument signs which would Bode better for our Land Development code correct but because they were put in prior to the code okay I understand I just want that clarification okay does anyone have any other questions of Staff yeah I'm having a hard time with this commissioner Ryan is it two signs or is it one sign it's three one primary let me let me explain myself there's two Signs Now correctly is that correct there's a total of three signs they're replacing one primary sign right on 436 and two secondary signs one one sign or no they're all going to stay the same exact number of signs three signs to three signs the only change is that there'll be Monument signs um the copy area will be smaller and um the height will be shorter are they moving the signs at all the site plan doesn't indicate that it looks like it's an exact replacement well perhaps applicant let him I think um Let me let me invite the applicant up here so he can give you specific details all right before that you want to have any other questions of Staff very well okay thank you Sanchez can you put the and the touch this is if you want to my name is Mark brenchley my address is 3790 Beacon Ridgeway Claremont Florida I'm the authorized agent for the molx property and um I'm glad you asked the question about because there has been some confusion in the discussion this is a relocation of an existing sign okay I'm but there's three signs the three existing signs they all exceed the ordinance because they were all developed before 2019 right but you're moving you want to move one of them we're moving the north one to within 15 feet of the set setback it currently is setback into the parking lot and it has so there is the existing sign no that's the existing not there that where that blue dot is you're just increasing setb correct this one small this is the existing location of the pylon sign 22 feet tall they're proposing to move the new sign which is this one here a monument sign to within 15 feet of the setback okay and as I said this one is 22 feet tall this one is 29 feet tall and this one is also 29 feet tall all developed prior to the ordinance change in 2019 so this is a they're going with a new branding all if you notice all a Ford all Chrysler all they all going to Monument signs with the Platinum Look and this is doing that it's also compliant to your code in fact the pylon signs are no longer allowed they wish to move it forward to the front because where it is now it is hidden from uh much of the view and way finding opportunities along samaron because it's behind cars drove by there please bear with me so you got three signs but you're moving one sign correct okay right will it be any closer than the other two signs to the road uh well it confirms to the setback um no it has to be within the setback on there you see to the setback no I know that but they will they will expand sron Boulevard in the future they have room for it and I just want to make sure it's not going to be a problem will it be closer to the road than the other two existing signs no okay thank you very much also uh if there is an issue with the um larger sign area this sign as you see uh on the screen is the copy area is currently 65 square feet the the entire thing could be 160 square feet if if that causes you heartburn and in the compliance they can keep it to this 65q foot of sign copy so it doesn't exceed the uh the maximum signed area you you got so much fren there I don't think that's going to be a problem yeah there is see there's 117 feet of Frontage right yeah I have a question are are these by chance U electrified or they lighted they internally illuminated all three of them okay well the this proposed one is yes I think the other two are as well okay that's fine yeah no spotlights just all intern illuminated correct very well any more questions the sir thank you sir thank you anyone from the published would to speak on this matter seeing none bring it back to the board for a motion in a second Mr chairman I'd like to the to to um recommend that we um approve this request the variance approve the variance subject to the modifications and conditions okay do you have the thing on your screen there I do it's just it says the Planning Commission shall review the application and render a decision based on the review standards the Planning Commission decision should be one of the oh it's not correct I got you okay okay so then for clarification are you approving the variance as requested and as submitted there's going to be no modifications or conditions added that is my motion that is correct as submitted I'll second the motion all right very well motion by commissioner M second by commissioner Ryan thank you gentlemen all in favor say I I any opposed motion carries thank you all right site plan number two ponan Reserve South flat owners VSC ponan LLC applicants Aon bishman location South of West ponan Road East of Vic Road and West of North Rock Springs Road Mr Hamza good evening everyone my name is Amir Hamza I'm a planner the applicant has submitted a plat for the ponan reserve subdivision which is located just south of West ponan Road East of uh Vic Road and West of North Rock Springs Road these are the vicinity and aerial maps of the property the property has a feature land use of residential low Suburban which has uh 3.5 dwelling units per acre density and has a zoning of rsf-1 a which is residential single family uh estate District uh for um as shown on these Maps here is the ponan reserve plat which uh has a total of 14 uh Lots the development Review Committee recommends approval of the ponan reserve plat the recommended motion for planing commission is to recommend approval of the ponan reserve plan thank you sir anyone have questions of Staff yes I do commissioner Ryan uh can you go back to the map of the punken road the other one where they you can see the other side okay so you got these two offset entrances you know they got that one sub division just north and it's offset I'm just afraid there's going to be some problems there what is the speed limit on pan Road in that section uh speed liing I think it's 35 is that my guess is 35 but I have to confirm that but for my ass it's 35 but yeah but like the the two are not like they're two separate subdivisions they're not they're and they're offset I'm just for you know people turning in and out at the same time it kind of like reminds me of the situation where we have at the um on Rock Springs Road we have that McDonald's and across the street you got that dollar dollar store and there there's people are always heading in the turn lane they're always heading towards each other I guess there's no turn lane so we don't have that problem I mean this is just a platter I mean this was already An approved CSP for a subdivision that has already been this is just this is just the plot itself so right no yeah no I understand I just I just want to point out that um that my concern I guess I guess you'd call it thank you all right any more questions of Staff very well uh is applicant here they have presentation or they like to speak okay okay does anyone have questions the app very well all right pretty sure there's nobody from the public here to speak on this matter bring it back for a motion to the board I recommend approval of the punk and Reserve South Plant thank you sir motion by commissioner Ryan do I have a second second he got one there he got one a lot second by commiss Dixon every everyone in favor please say I I any opposed motion carries all right okay last but not least site plan number three hammock at Rock Springs plat owners BSC Rock Springs llc appli at montaz bar location west of North Rock Springs Road South of East ponan Road and North of East Lester Road Mr Hamza my name is Amir Hamza I'm a planner the applicant has submitted a plat for the hammock at rocks brings a subdivision located west of North Rock Springs Road South of East ponan Road and North of East Lester Road these at a vicinity and aerial mass of the property and you get access from North Rock Springs Road um the property has a future land use of residential low Suburban which has a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre and uh has a zoning of plan development PD as shown on these Maps here's the hammock of Rock Springs plat which has a total of 19 Lots the development Review Committee has recommends approval of the hammock at Rock Springs plat the recommended motion for Planning Commission is to recommend approval of the hammock at Rock Springs plat thank you sir does anyone have questions of Staff yes I do commissioner what's the density of that CL it's um future has a future land use of residential Lo suban so 3.5 dwelling units per acre it'll be less than that too okay thank you and this was already approved in uh this the previous um subdivision plan so I'm just getting clarification I just want I just wanted to make sure 20 acres I think was it yeah [Music] do I have a second I'll second it second by commissioner Ryan all in favor say I I any opposed motion carries all right do we have any old business do we have any new business Mr chairman commissioner m i um just some observations and possibly some questions for our our attorney sitting over here at the table as I was reading through the information that was provided for this meeting this evening um they have the staff report that come through and reading through the staff reports there's a section where um the the developer goes through and answers questions okay that's on a I don't think that's on that's only on a variance isn't that correct have or an special exception presumably uh What uh we be looking at our exactly the criteria listed for any type of aaz judicial decision and that would be the developer's response um to the the listed criteria okay yeah so one of the things that I as I was reading through these because there were several quasi judicial U things this evening and um letter G um which one on uh 3076 this would be under um right after the project summary yeah that's a future land use Amendment for INB homes yeah and and G and you know there's you know a through G at least and then there's some bullet points but one of the things it says there is would not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural envir enironment I'm now kind of curious what the word significant is defined as after the last hurricane and the massive amounts of rain that fell in Central Florida so I'm just kind of curious what we will now you know refer to as significant and then of course it then says including but not limited to water air noise storm water management you know commissioner Ryan has brought up storm water management what or storm or excuse me oh he did it to you just like the many meeting minutes Waste Water waste water but but uh I apology apology but uh the storm water management which was you know if you looked at some of the um storm water manage rations was overwhelmed and so my thought or question with with the attorney is it it appears that in the past that when these plans are brought forth a lot of things are reviewed in this uh plan it's approved plan developed then there's another plan over here there's a plan over here there's plan over here and all of a sudden this this plan that was approved Is Now encompassed by similar like type things and I have a feeling that each one of them are a microcosm but I'm now starting to wonder where in this review and this planning does the combination of the whole now get figured and and evaluated because it's it's hard for me to to see things that I had never seen since I lived in Florida since 1990 or 94 and the amount of water that came now granted it was um whether we want to call it unusual Etc you know whatever it did and the so the numbers and the statistics and the data that have made up these um parts that entities use for review um you know I'm I'm I'm working on a project that um has 16 to 177,000 traffic uses a day in a in a half mile where there was Zero now there's 177,000 and that is using not my numbers that is using the numbers that are provided to the entities that that create these things so when we sit up here as a Planning Commission the legislative is pretty cut and dry to me it's pretty cut and dry okay um the quad judicial I understand that as well and you know we have the ability to you know make more pertinent suggestions and we can you know vote that down um and an applicant can then take our vote and then go to the city council I understand that very clearly I understand we're an advisory commission okay but at what point would we say wait a minute we're gonna we're gonna hold up the stop sign early even though we're maybe not necessarily it's not quite it judicial do do you get what I'm trying to absolutely it's a very good question and uh I think the answer hopefully it's um hopefully it's specific enough for you because I I do have to kind of talk about State policies and how the comprehensive planning how that works just generally speaking um but you know as far as looking at something holistically is what you mentioned uh when you are looking at the comprehensive planning process uh every Community every City in the State of Florida like a poka has to have a comprehensive plan that comprehensive plan and its policies and so forth has to be consistent with regional and state plans so we're already coming down a tier we're looking holistically with the plan right and so that plan will have Citywide uh policies standards and so forth that are checked by uh by by planning staff as they're going through and and looking at development that comprehensive plan is always very much in mind now when there is a future land use map Amendment which is the first stage of a resoning which is an actual specific change within the comprehensive plan that's legislative right we've gone over that before but it still applies just to that one parcel that one area maybe more than one parcel but now we're getting to a smaller area now that of course is is checked against uh all the policies and standards for that future land use does it match up uh as far as planning uh what types of uses are going to to be allowed so still particularly you know still General but now we're getting away so so much just from the holistic and and looking at the partial and specific once we get to this level review now we're looking at zoning we're checking is that zoning going to be compatible with the comprehensive plan future land use Amendment so we're tearing down and down as we get more towards uh development oriented ultimately I don't want to say planning because at that point we get to site plans and so forth just implicates planning as opposed to the the planning process um in zoning and uh future land use amendments so when you're looking at this from a zoning standpoint you know really what it as far as we're not getting to the engineering standpoints of water and everything but hey is this a did the comprehensive plan captures there some sort of topography or or something that that wouldn't allow this to to have a commercial designation for instance is can it be developed for idential is open space the only use for it realistically we don't have mountains in Florida generally but you know is there some kind of topography that prent is there some kind of topography where if it were developed it would cause a catastrophic Landslide rockfall you know wash out that's what we're looking at now to take it a step further once you get down to site planner View and so forth that is where you are looking at your 100-year events your 50 Year events now I think they'll even I don't that's not my business but you know looking at some of the five 500 Year events uh really evaluating where the storm water runoff and and how it is going to be there may be some changes in Florida given what we've seen but nonetheless there are current standards in place for permeability of a site and that's what you'll be reviewing once we get past this step so really uh if you see where I'm going to answer your question the planning process is that holistic view coming all the way down to plan in the quasa judicial you know realm where you're making those final uh decisions which are ultimately all governed no matter what they are by what's contained in your holistic comprehensive plan I understand what you're saying uh you know I just come back to the the storm water runoff sure that we I I I would think all of us saw yeah I think part of the problem is that a lot of these retention have liners because a wet pond looks better than a dry Pond and and I personally don't think retention Pond should have a liner what do you think Mr how that would be more of an appropriate question for our city engineer he's a a storm water engineer Richard her um that's kind of beyond my realm of expertise when projects go before the development Review Committee those are things that he reviews and uh professional engineer signs and seals the plans and he'll review it per our storm water regulations so I would defer that to Mr herb and and I realize that we are um I don't want to use the word bound but we're um assigned to follow you know State you know if there's federal state you know local you know those kind of things but I'm also sitting down kind of wondering and I would ask the question when was the last time that data was reviewed and if you tell me it was the mid 1980s um I don't know for some reason um you would think a raindrop was the same size in 1980 as it is now but as we've seen you know some of the runoff and and the flooding and and that kind of thing it's it's hard for me to sit down and say was that flooding there before because there wasn't any thing here maybe it was but um now you sit and see where we have basically asphalted and concreted and and and that type of thing and I I probably seriously question the data that is used for storm water runoff um and and I hope that after this um last tane that you know came through Florida and the and the flood damage that we had I hope the entities that are um responsible for for looking at that data that they take a second look at that and I would never want to walk up and have somebody ask me a question and say yeah that's been there for a hundred years um and we haven't looked at it since maybe it has been there for a hundred years but um certainly nothing stays the same over that period of time so I just one thing I can add and I know Mr Han is going to chime in as well is that the storm water vied against Water Management District requirements as well St John's we're in the St John's Water Management District here I I I'm aware of St John's and I heard a person speak there and I think they use data from I don't know 1990 1980 so that's just my well I I because I'm involved in in an industry where we deal with St John's Water Management District I don't think it's been since 1980 since they've done that because I know that and it was a contentious issue because over in the windir area a gentleman owed a lot of property had cattle on it and he dug ponds for the and somebody bought the property with the idea they were going to fill in the the little ponds you know there was a lake over here and a bunch of little ponds they're going to fill in the pond and St John's came along and in one of their surveys which they did it had to be after 1987 or no 977 because the guy had built the ponds and when they came and did their survey they listed them as natural bodies of water and so the developer who bought the property was not allowed to fill them in and it literally had the gentleman that dug the pond it was 90 something years old go up to them with pictures and an affidavit and say I dug a hole over there and I pumped water into it for our cattle but so I just happen to have that in my head that it was after 97 he did that in 97 and sometime after that they came and Survey all the the natural bodies of water and the runoff in the water retention areas so I know they've done it in this area sometime prior to 1980 um the other thing that I would say I I had this discussion with one of my neighbors who unfortunately when four times since 1990 when a big storm comes through the water runs between his house and next to his house all the way up to his back porch and runs out to the street and then down into the gutter because poor development plan when they built it back in the 80s and the Swale that was put there they put a Swale in there that was going to divert that and then when they built the lot next door they flattened it all out and it's been a problem so for sake of argument we dug around and looked um at the same time that if you know at 436 and um and pedmont that Lake goes out the road and and one of the things one of the the people that we were having this discussion with said oh that thing floods it's in the road all the time every year it's in the road every it's all the time so we actually looked it up and did the calculation and it's been into the road 77 days not counting this last 30 days in 11,000 days so basically what's happened is five or six times in the last 20 years it comes out into the road or if it does it comes out for one day and then it goes away when they're pumping it down they've been pumping it steady since it's been there it's just it's one of those events and then that happens and so uh like in the same time that that happened usually the guy gets the water running through his yard and that's happened I know he's had that happen four times since 1990 is it really a lake or the retention P it's a retention P it was a liner it wasn't there I believe L yeah sure it does because it never goes below a certain level which is the liner stops here when the water's here it goes away and it stops at the liner but now next to the fire station is another Lake that theoretically is connected to that and the the drainage from that parking lot I don't I don't know the wise and wherefor I'm just knowing statistically 77 days out of 11,000 that we've had overage in that Lake and this guy's had it in his backyard so while it seems like you know oh that thing's always always in the road but I think the the parking lot's been that size since when that was built and I don't know Bobby maybe you know when that was built but I know it was prior to me getting here so it was sometime in the early 80s yeah it was in the early 80s well I as of um July 1 of this year there's a new uh law in the State of Florida that any homeowner who has filed an insurance claim for any water intrusion must disclose that on a SE on a seller's disclosure to a buyer that used not to be right it is now a requirement and so you start compounding certain things that some people have to do and other entities are right well we got our data can stand data don't you have to list on a on a the the elevation of the property if it's above or below the hundred-year flood plane or well which I don't understand the 100e flood plane because I'm six foot above it or whatever it is and the guy down the street is four foot above it but his yard's been flooded nine times so I I guess that's just this once in a 100e catastrophic event but didn't that have to be disclosed with the the elevation or how close you are to that so you know I forget when that was couple years ago and that's been in discussion for quite some time but prior to that there you know basically you could look at a map you could pull the map up you could you know zoom in and there would be a line right here on this street and you're in the flood plane and the other side of the street they're not in what they've found and what they're trying to work through it but yet they have not changed the map check is that's not necessarily true you're 8et away from a flood plate you know if you get if this gets water so are you but you're not the flood plane and of course that all impacts through flood insurance and so now they're trying to move away from that they've done a lot of work where it's not you know we don't just follow a street and you know go through um but it's still it's I think it's still a working progress right but that does that come back to our decision making process here well I'm I I'm I'm just I'm not saying that it does necessarily but if we're a a planning Advisory Board where do we advise the city council because basically legislative I mean we could vote against we could vote against the legislative thing and certainly then the in you know the individual can go to the city council and appeal the planning council's decision and they can do that probably at any point in time but I I I guess what I'm saying is if we're to be an advisory Council um maybe we should advise a little bit more often about something that we're concerned about I agree and and one of the things that I always kind of struggled with is if we're doing how do we how do I put that it's almost like when they put the the all the changes in the code up in front of us and it's 183 pages and it takes an hour to go through it I mean that I think that's the core of where what you were talking about where you have the subdivision Boom the density and and the infrastructure and all that is in the the the the future land use um or or or the code and then you know past that are when when it comes to things like saying okay well this guy's gonna over here and it's gonna cause a problem with traffic or whatever how do you single out that one individual that's a developer that owns a piece of property or is buying a piece of property and say well because he's the third man in there of the or the Fourth Man in there of this square and now the density level is going to be too much and it's going to cause road traffic well it's it's caused by all four of them so how do you punish that guy and go no we're not not going to approve that one so I always questioned that it's like okay so that's basically the staff and the city set up the code and the future land use and the density and all these areas um and the only time I've seen that really address is like when they did the Horizons West the density there's circles from the center of it and the density changes and the roads change all the way out and it's all pre-planned but we of course don't have that luxury so I don't know that's that's always stuck in my head it's like how do you punish somebody and go man we can't put another bunch of houses in there well okay so because you're the last guy in does that mean that you get punished and you can't do what the future land you says so that's something I think that's got to be done on a broader bigger picture well and I I believe Wild Oaks has a transition zone area correct I think they have a transition zone they have a transition they have multiple character zones to their property and so they I think that I mean you know using as an example Wild Oaks has something that I think might kind of be somewhat similar to the one that you're mentioning because this is here then this is here and now this goes out to you know so I get that understand that the other thing that would be of curiosity is with the most recent election and here in um Orange County I believe Orange County voters approved the um I forget what it was titled but um one of the um amendments in Orange County didn't they approve the um growth line or something in Orange County voters that was one of the Amendments for Orange County we didn't see it we didn't see it if you were in in a popka because we're not Orange County no no I didn't but I thought there was one of the Amendments that was Orange County that U got approved um which had something to do with boundaries I think that was the word they use boundaries or something but you're probably speaking of the rural urb growth rural where the annexations in rural areas yes that got approved didn't it yes yeah I'm a little jaded I don't because the general public approved something I don't necessarily no I'm just say bad idea I have a really weird thought process on that and I don't want to I don't want to verbalize it okay all right that's it all right great anything else sir