##VIDEO ID:7INsSYOcGDM## e e e e e e e e e good evening and welcome to the November 14th uh meeting of the Indian River County uh Planning and Zoning commission um we'll call the meeting to order and begin with the Pledge of Allegiance please Al United States America stand one nation under God indivisible Li thank you um any additions or deletions sir you sure unfortunately okay um our first order of business is the approval of the minutes for the October 24th 2024 meeting motion to approve um all in favor I I um oppos good enough we've got a full agenda tonight we've got six public hearings and so we will um begin with the first one this is um Emerson Oaks PD it's a request for modified conceptual plan development um and PD resoning approval and concurrent pre preliminary PD plat and plan approval for 171 laot single family resident development uh py home uh company LLC is the applicant be uh BGE Incorporated is the agent the zoning is A1 agricultural up to one unit per 5 Acres land use designation is 4 point Acres of ag1 uh agricultural one up to one unit for five acres uh 78.9 um and 78.9 Acres of the L1 low density residential one uh up to three uh units per acre uh the proposed density is 2 .38 units per acre um any Declaration of exp parte communication on this one Noe we'll swear in any participants that would like to speak on this first public hearing please do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth do uh staff presentation thank you Mr chair just a quick order of business um to my right here at Center Stage is Chris Balter formerly chief of longrange planning now the planning and development services director um I will be presenting this item on behalf of Patrick Murphy and uh hanging around for a little bit but then I'll will be taken off and Pat Chris will take over running the meeting just for order of business for the record I am Ryan Sweeney assistant Planning Development Services director tonight we have a request for a modified special exception and conceptual PD plan and concurrent preliminary PD plan plat approval for the Emerson Oaks plan development a brief slide on the plan devel vment process uh the first step is the conceptual PD plan which involves a Planning and Zoning commission recommendation at a public hearing which is being held tonight and a second public hearing with ultimate denial or approval at the board of county commissioner level the second step in the process is preliminary PD plan PL approval which is strictly pnz approval which they are also requesting tonight concurrently again subject to approval of the modified conceptual plan the third step is the Land Development permit or waiver reviewed and approved at the staff level and then the final step is the final PD plan plat which is back at the board approval typically a consent item the project site is located west of 43rd Avenue between 13th Street Southwest and 17th Street Southwest and from this point forward all slides North will be pointing to the right so we have 13th Street on the right 43rd at the bottom and 17th Street at the left this is an aerial depicting the existing conditions of the site with the project site overlaid on the are excuse me so for background the on November 15th 2022 the BCC previously approved a very similar project under the name red Tree Cove PD more recently a different applicant developer is requesting a slightly modified PD approval under the current project name of Emerson Oaks PD due to the nature of the requested changes which does include one modified or additional waiver as well as one additional public benefit the mod modified PD project is required to go back through the same approval process as the original project so the modified developments summary the new uh project site 76.7 3 net Acres after rideway um is slightly smaller now due to an increase amount of rideway that's being dedicated we'll touch on that in a minute the uh 171 single family units is actually a reduction of four units again due to a new RightWay alignment that they are accommodating through their public benefit the density is 2.38 units per acre which is almost exactly the same as it was before the there is a reduction in the overall project open space from 69.7% to 60.73 per still well over and above the required open space and that's by that's entirely due to the increase in building coverage on the individual Lots so the common area open spaces tracks buffers those all remain the same it's purely a function of larger buildings on the individual lots and the phasing slightly different they now have three phases Phase 1 a which is a small uh small sort of subphase with seven model units on their model row and the entry in a small storm water area and then phase 1B which was originally phase one is the roughly the north half of the project with 70 lots and phase two which is the South half with 94 units and also as part of this modified uh request they are seeking again to increase the maximum building coverage on the individual Lots from 35% to 50% that's a different developer home builder that has a different building product and different footprint uh in order to offset that additional request the applicant has agreed to dedicate additional rideway and in order to accommodate a new alignment of 13th Street Southwest after redtree Cove was approved a different project um injur a point which was formerly Turtle Cove was res is being resurrected on the east side of 43rd and it was discovered at the time that the 13th Street alignment on that side of the road is actually further south and um so in order for that intersection to eventually line up and be a T intersection um this project is going to accommodate that shift uh all other waivers uh public benefits required improvements offsite improvements buffers and project layout does remain the same I for the record we did do a full complete staff Report with you know basically resetting all the parameters however for the for PowerPoint presentation I just hit the highlights I do want to show just what the pre previous conceptual PD plan looked like and the and really the only modification is down here in the bottom right corner which is actually the northeast corner again is this RightWay alignment um and again they did lose four Lots due to that alignment I for the record want to run through dedications improvements and conditions which include RightWay dedications and this is all outlined in the staff report but RightWay dedications for 13th Street Southwest 17th Street Southwest and 43rd Avenue the offsite traffic improvements which are all the same external sidewalks internal sidewalks Street lighting common Green Space Recreation Area and the South County initiative item which is the contribution to the bridge future bridge on 43rd uh public benefits again all Remains the Same with the additional additional rideway for 13th Street Southwest RightWay dedications 17th Street Paving 13th Street uh eastbound right turn lane upssize utility lines which again is covered in more detail in the report and the contribution to the 17th Street Bridge Southwest Crossing and staff's recommendation is that the Planning and Zoning commission Grant preliminary PD plan and PR approval subject to the BCC approval of the modified conceptual PD plan and special exception requests and to recommend that the BCC Grant modified conceptual PD plan and special exception approval for Emerson Oaks PD with itions listed in staff's report again touching on RightWay dedications the contribution to the Future 17th Street Bridge um offsite traffic improvements and Paving final landscape and buffer plans and Street lighting and sidewalk plans thank you thank you any um commissioner questions of the staff to the right here okay go ahead couple Ryan could you put up the public benefit slide you just had up or the staff recommendation sure uh under Road dedications and contribution to Future 17th Street Bridge Crossing yes can you give us just a little bit more information like how much or the length of the you know the um front Frontage that kind of thing um sure uh Mr chair um Beth um the RightWay dedications are all spelled out in the the St report on in section 11 on page three for 13th Street Southwest um it's an additional 30 ft of rideway for the Western 272 ft as well as the nearly almost an acre 0.94 acres here at the corner so it's a pretty sizable dedication for 17th Street Southwest it's 100t of RightWay along the Project's entire Frontage and for 43rd Avenue it's 50 additional feet so it is quite quite a lot over well over and above the required it's very substantial I'm sorry I missed that that's and then as far as the uh Bridge contribution we intentionally left it um somewhat I won't I won't say open-ended but we do have there's a percentage and I think we discussed this two years ago uh historically there's two way of of sort of seeking out a contribution setting a set dollar amount or agreeing to a percentage of what the future cost will be and we've been burned on a number number of times where we set the dollar amount and then 5 10 20 years later that that dollar amount diminishes so we do have a percentage that's been agreed upon however the actual cost of the bridge won't be calculated until that payment is due thank you any on the left not yet no y I just have one note suas in part of Deputy County attorney um on here it talks about under sub paragraph 3 C dedication of the conservation easement in favor of the county um that should be done prior to review the final plat process just a reminder to the applicants that that should be done through a separate conservation easement with an actual agreement to maintain that with the planning staff the environmental planner so that would need to be done either at the time that the plat is recorded or prior to and recorded and it referenced on the plat yeah I'll I'll go ahead and ask just in case um the access off of 17 Street Southwest and I don't know what it was before um that seems awfully close to 43rd Avenue um thank you Mr chair and and Mr Landers that that has not changed um okay it's it's actually it's it's considerably further than than You' think it it meets the intersection spacing um sufficient distance away from the intersection correct it's the scale of the plan that is a little bit misleading okay good on the left all right this is a um public hearing so I'll open the um floor to public comment please use either one of the microphones um state your name and address please for the record good evening Jim vider with BGE engineer of record 601 21st Street Bureau Beach 32960 uh we're here with the property owner uh developer traffic engineer to answer any additional questions might come up we agree with the staff report it's been a long time getting here but finally happy to see this com to a conclusion so happy to answer any questions or comments that might come up any questions no anyone else yeah actually I do sorry um as they come to me uh the part of the agreement is the change in the lot sizes and with a 50 foot wide lot and I mean I'm looking at a 40 foot envelope which is it is what it is but I mean are we really looking at 10 foot 10 foot between the two the proposed standards PD standards um the 65 foot wide lot the 50 Foot lot and then side setbacks are only 5 feet on the 50 foot wide that uh yes Mr chair Mr lers that is correct for the for the 50ft wide Lots um it would be a 5ft side which would be 10 ft in between um so but that's roughly half of the total lots and then the other half is 15 still just 10 feet between two houses I mean that's that is that is correct anything else chip anyone else from the public like to speak on this okay we'll close the public hearing any additional questions or I'll call for a motion a motion to approve per staff's recommendations second all in favor I oppose good enough public hearing number two is Hunters Grove PD and this is a request for a conception plan development PD plan and PD resoning approval and concurrent preliminary PD plan or plat approved for 170 unit multif family residential development Randolph Construction Group Incorporated is the applicant mbv engineering is the agent the zoning is RS6 residential single family up to six units per acre land use designation is M2 medium density residential 2 up to 10 units per acre proposed density is 9.04 units per acre um any um Declarations of export a communication none uh anyone who would like to speak on this please stand and be sworn in do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth good enough staff presentation all right good evening chair members of the board before you tonight is the hunters Grove plan development PD rezoning conceptual PD plan and preliminary PD plat that will be running concurrently with one another so just to give you an overview of the PD rezoning process so we we are here tonight at the PCC recommendation stage this whole entire package will be bundled up and sent to the BCC for their approval or denial or alternation of conditions it's their choice um technically speaking the preliminary PD plan would then come back to the plan and zoning board however since it's going running as a concurrent package everything will be given to the BCC and they will give their final recommendation on the rezoning the conceptual PD um plan and preliminary PD plan so once PCC makes their recommendation if it's an approval it will go to the Land Development permit stage or they can seek a waiver through public work staff however since this is a big project a waiver is very unlikely um and then finally they would do the final PD plan and which would be submitted to staff for staff level review and then once it passes staff level review it we put on the consent agenda for the BCC for their recommend or for their approval or denial so just to give you an idea of kind of where this site is it's north of 41st Street and East of or yes east of 43rd Avenue uh Dodgertown Elementary is to the north you have the grace Grove subdivision to the east you have the IRC Emergency Operations Center and public work or uh Public Works utility Center to the west and then you also have the sheriff's department to the south of the property this is just to give you an idea of how the project will be overlaid uh with the current conditions that are on the site it's mostly a vegetated site uh with some abandoned buildings on site the proposed development will be approximately 17.8 acres in size it will provide for a total of 161 total multif family units and the overall density will be 9.04 units to the acre it is commensurate with its future land use of 2 which which allows up to 10 units to the acre um they are also only requesting one PD waiver and this is for storm water maintenance purposes so again this is to give you an idea of how the um site will be overlaid uh there will be um multif Family town home buildings most of them will be uh two units each uh they'll be on the periphery of the development and then also in the middle of the development as you see there's also going to be a clubhouse and a pool to the Southeastern portion of of the site as well so again they're just requesting one PD waiver for storm water maintenance this has been fully reviewed vetted and approved by uh Public Works engineering who handles all the drainage for the County Traffic circulation plan calls for one standard ring road that goes around the interior of the development there will be one emergency access driveway on 43rd Avenue which is a requirement as it's over 100 units and there will also be one full access connection to 41st Street again there'll just be one standard wet storm water Pond that will be directly Center to the middle of the site for the landscape buffers we will have a 30 foot type B Southern landscape buffer it's going to be on the South Western portion of the site this is required to be 30 ft because the ab budding land use across the southern portion of 41st Street is um commercial industrial and that is a requirement of the uh PD uh buffer section um on the other portion of the Southern site which is uh southeast of the site they can have a 20-ft thoroughfare plan Road buffer because the future land use is a public which does not require any special type of um buffers um for PDS there will also be providing the 20- foot thoroughfare plan Road buffer on their Western Property boundary as well and then the applicants will be providing a 15 foot type sea buffer on both the North and East portions of the site this is actually above and beyond what the PD section requires as it buts as it abuts residential zoning where technically no buffer is actually required the required improvements will be one internal sidewalk and a pedestrian system Street lighting and green space and Recreation areas typically for a project of this size sidewalks would also be required on the periphery of the site however there are sidewalks located on 41st Street and 43rd Avenue so since those are already there the applicant does not need to provide those public benefits for for this project are a dedication of 20 ft of rideway along the north side of 41st Street dedication of 15 ft of rideway along the Eastern side of 43rd Avenue there's going to be a bus bus stop with shelter on the north side of 41st Street this was coordinated with the Metropolitan planning organization and the final location will be determined via Land Development permit there will be a sidewalk extension along the north side of 41st Street um so they're going to basically extend the sidewalk where it it ends at the grace Grove subdivision it's going to go East for approximately 1,525 linear feet and it will stop approximately at the intersection of 32nd Avenue and 41st Street so that would that will provide a much needed sidewalk space and then as we get more projects in the goal would be to extend the sidewalk along 41st Street all the way to US1 and then again as I said they're going to have an increased 15ot typec landscape buffer along the north and east property lines so staff recommends that the p zc Grant preliminary PD plat approval along with the rezoning um this will be subject to BCC approval uh we recommend this with the conditions listed in the staff report these conditions generally relate to dedication of rideway obtaining the Mo's approval for final bus stop and shelter locations obtaining staff approval for all final sidewalk locations and Designs along 41st Street final landscape Street lighting and tree mitigation protection plans and finally the construction of all on-site and off-site improvements I'm available for any questions you may have thank you Brandon um any um commissioner questions on the left uh chip um regarding the the PD approval process usually there's a lot of give and take and I see us giving a lot not getting a lot um I mean we went from a project that was basically 71 units um RS6 zoning you get four units out of that I mean you know then we went to 10 units per acre which you get eight that's 142 units and now we're up to 161 units so I mean that that's quite a bit of a difference in that respect and I understand there's allowances that can be made but I also expect that we should be able to get more out of it um which leads to a question that I have um two things one is the north section of the property versus the school we have a landscape buffer do we have anything else a fence or whatnot um no they don't have offence on this plan um but they technically don't have to provide the landscape buffer because it is residentially zoned property so they're they are going above and beyond County codes to provide the 15 foot landscape buffer except it's a PD and I mean separation between the school from anybody that's in that project walking onto the school grounds what's there is there offense from the school side on that is there okay M Mr lonard again for the record Ryan Sweeney assistant Planning Development service director I believe there's a fence on Dodger toown property we believe there is I believe I can't confirm but I'm almost positive that there is off fence on the Dodger toown property Elementary well that would be something I would be wanting as a potential condition but the other thing and the most important thing to me and I'm not really sure how this can be done or worked out but the the drainage pond in the middle of the community and there's no barrier between the units and that pond correct there's no fencing there's nothing correct again the fencing requirement typically within residential development is not a requirement um based on the slope design of the pond it's a shallow slope well and after unfortunately the little boy that drowned out west on the apartment project there's nothing nothing to stop somebody from wering in there and that's that's a major concern that I have nowadays that we have to fence in common Area Properties along the roads and everything else so why can't we see that in a private Enterprise that I mean and it's minor money I mean it really is but from a security standpoint and I'm sure it's a lot less money than the liability that may be there uh for somebody as a developer so I mean th those are my major concerns right now any questions on the right all right this is a public hearing and so um I will open the public hearing there are microphones on both sides please state your name and address for anyone that would like to speak good a good evening Commissioners U my name is Aaron Stanton I'm the engineer of record for the project representing the the client and I'm here to answer any questions I just want to thank staff for their great presentation and um if you have any questions for me or uh the client chip can he help you with any of the questions you had I don't know can you help me I can talk to him I mean if that's uh one of the conditions that you would require we can we can definitely and we're not talking a six foot tall chain link fence I mean even a small 4 foot ornamental I mean something I mean that would be should should we I'm only one vote but should we get there for a motion that would be part of my motion as a requirement because it's just we don't need to see it again I mean sorry right I think that's yeah we're an elderly person too sure sure I I can definitely uh you know we would be amenable to that condition I think you know whether Dodger town is fenced Dodger Town um Elementary on the north side of your project I do not know if they have a fence around there I I don't know all right any other questions anyone else like to speak um if not we'll close the public hearing any additional questions none uh call for motion I'll make a motion we approve staff approval uh with the condition of a fence of some sort between the pond and the units themselves I'll second that there's there's a second all in favores what did you have well you have to for landscaping for landscaping and maintenance yeah but I mean we can only do so much that's better than nothing all in favor I oppose passes thank you thank you Commissioners the third public hearing tonight is Kennedy also 27th rezoning uh Kennedy also 27th llc's request to rezone approximately 2.9 Acres from CL limited commercial District to CG General commercial District um any um Declaration of expar Tite communication no no uh anyone who would like to speak on this please stand and be sworn in do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you uh staff presentation good evening I'm Cindy Thurman for the record long range planning senior planner this request is for uh commercial light or commercial limit limited commercial cl to General commercial the property contains 2.90 acres is located at the southwest corner of 9th Street or Oslo Road and 27th Avenue Southwest The Sur of the county features a blend of commercial warehousing residential and undeveloped commercial land all lying within this urban service area this property is currently zoned a limited commercial District purposes of this request is to obtain The General commercial zoning District to develop the site with uses allowed in CG such as drive-thru restaurants construction trade uses storage Andor Warehouse under certain criteria Boat RV automotive and repair services the surrounding land use pattern consists of mixture of commercial residential and multifamily land uses particularly along the Oslo Road and 27th Avenue Southwest corridors here you can see the zoning map we're really looking at just this South this corner here at the Southwest intersection here's the future Lan use map that shows in the red the commercial node this limited commercial district is intended to provide for areas of development of restricted commercial activities to accommodate the convenience of retail and service needs for area residents while minimizing the impact of such activities on any nearby residential areas in CL no drive-throughs are permitted with no outside activity or storage here's a snapshot of the minimum lot area minimum lot width and density of the two zoning classifications side by side you can see they're almost exactly the same CGS intend to provide for development of General retail sales and selected activities CG zoning district is not intended to provide for heavy commercial activities such as outside commercial service uses or heavy repair again no outside storage is allowed and self stor stage is allowed but it's limited to No More Than 3 acres this is again in the established commercial node the CI commercial industrial feature land use designation is intended to provide for areas for the development of of Industrial and Commercial uses it's located in areas with suitable levels of service and infrastructure for urban skill and development and there since this is an established commercial industrial featured land use node no featured land use Amendment changes proposed as part of this request as part of all resoning requests the board is required to analyze everything against chapter 90212 subsection 3 the review criteria is established to determine whether or not the pro proposed amendment is a in conflict with any applicable portion of the Land Development regulations this request meets the criteria the requested CG zoning designation is consistent with the prop with the property's commercial industrial L use designation B the future L use element objective policies 1.17 1.18 1.43 the property does remain separated by clal property and does not AB residentially zoned or used property so it is in compliance with those policy objectives of the comprensive plan Objective C criteria C is it consistent with the existing proposed land uses it is and again there is no future land use Amendment change proposed as part of this request is it in compliance with the adopted County Thorofare plan property is at the Southwest intersection of Oslo Road in Southwest Avenue or 27th Avenue Southwest generate traffic which should decreased levels of service as adopted all Redway segments within the area of influence would operate as an ex acceptable level of service in the proposed CG zoning F economic conditions have transition in this area to be more conducive for uses loged within CG so we did find that subject to subject to change conditions exist that do warrant an amendment criteria G would decrease levels establish Serv service levels established for sanitary sewer pable water water Solid Waste range and Recreation the applicant may be required to pay connection customary Fe fees a more detailed concurrency review will be cond conducted during the development review process we're also required to review everything on the section 91.07% and the 10,000 ft floor area per acre the most intense would be 29,000 ft² a retail commercial under both the C and the CG zoning and a few more criteria here H with the result in a significant adverse impacts on natural environment the subject property is currently vacant so it would need to go under a environmental analysis prior to uh development criteria I the proposed amendment does align with Comm of plan the surrounding land uses and will provide for a logical and orderly development pattern criteria J the request is in harmony with purpose and inent of the Land Development regulations criteria K we do find that the all currenty mandated facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use under the proposed zoning District in conclusion the requested CG zoning District is compatible with surrounding area consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the County's adopted conert plan is consistent with the County's Land Development regulation is deemed suitable for CG zoning and can be supported by staff and staff does recommend that the pen zoning commission recommend to the board of County Commissioners approval that this request be rezoned from cl to CG thank you any um any uh commissioner questions of staff on the right I have I have just one all right I'm assuming that there is not an intended development plan for this property is is the property just on the market I would defer to the applicant for that one um I believe the applicant has been in talks with a few different um potential site locators um but I will'll let him speak on it more so we'll deal with that when we open the floor go ahead um my question may also be dealt that way um I was wondering if we could understand a little bit more about what the changed conditions are it's in item F and it's about the business climate I was just curious that is so I can let the applicant answer that a little bit more but obviously because of co uh we've seen a huge change in the business Market as a whole you know you've seen less uh storefronts coming in you you've seen closures and uh bankruptcies that have large corporations have been downsizing so with the intended use of the rezoning the zoning category allows for a little bit more flexibility and a little bit more uses um the reason why it's situated at the corner for that is that that would be a more intensive use for the corner and then as it transitions to CL which truly is for residential zoning as it gets closer to that neighborhood to the east or excuse me the West see you follow up anyone else on the right here any questions on the left Mark um when the the storage unit went in on Route 60 in the city of AR Beach we I believe we talked about not allowing storage unit of that type to be in a highly visible position cor me if I'm wrong but this seems to be a highly visible piece of property on the corner of 27th in a road and I noticed it kind of jumped out to me that one of the changes that change in zoning allows is storage units can respond to that sure with the parcel as small as it is I doubt that there would be any feasibility in having storage units on that site uh typically what I've seen for a size of a site now keep in mind uses are not to be considered during rezonings but typically a use that would be conducive to a size site as that would be typically a drive-thru restaurant or drive-thru type establishment um in the two some Acres would it be limit it to like one drive-thru restaurant or would there be multiple uses this reone par so if I may season PR of Deputy County attorney so I think we can't we cannot necessarily look as to what their what that use is going to be they have to go based off of what they think the most intense use for that particular zoning is um I think staff has said that whatever the most intense use is if that and if the most intense use is something that is still compatible um basically the board can only deny the ver zoning if they find it that it's either incompatible with the comprehensive plan if it doesn't meet something that's for the public health and safety um those kinds of reasons not because perhaps they disagree with the use whether it be drive-thru storage facility or the like so it would have to be something that would like I said it would have to be incompatible with a comprehensive plan and at this point I don't think staff sees that so I don't think we we cannot contemplate one drive-through two drive-thru storage unit or not I don't know if that makes sense I'll be on our scope thank you yes yep and actually that's partly um the the rezoning from cl to CG would allow them to do a drive-thru correct uh yes okay and in if this was approved for that small section the balance of the CL that's there would not be able to be rezoned to CG because of the uh adjacent residential is that correct so uh if an application came in before staff um we would be able to support that because there are specific policies within our comp plan for uh CG being close to residential the applicant actually had discussions with the long range planning section um and wanted to include a larger portion however um with discussions with the applicant we in you know going through that whole process instructed them that staff could only support the corner for more intense uses as that's what's allowed per our comprehensive plan and our Land Development regulations I know that piece has been on the market for quite a long time with numerous people um but making it smaller would allow them to do the density the CG zoning and I think most of your questions will be answered when the applicant or their representative come up um because they can lend a little bit more on to who they've spoken to and what their intended plans are enough with that in mind this is public hearing so we'll open the public hearing um uh microphones on both sides name and address please yes sir hi uh Jeff barquette with shy bidle and Stoddard uh 1717 Indian River Boulevard um thank you staff really don't have much to to add there I'm sorry I'm here with Mr Kennedy also who can certainly answer questions better than me but um don't have much to add to the staff uh review and the inuse as was quoted is you know it's up in the air right now hopefully this will allow more diverse use but to answer your question sir heck no he's not putting many storage there enough I he he Le leaned over and told me that one but Mr Kennedy can expand more on questions if that's if you have any do you want to go ahead and start with your followup sure y sure so can you just describe a little bit for me what you consider to be the changes and conditions okay um TP Kennedy 3906 Sable Palm Drive your Beach Florida um I own the parcel it's actually 10 acres total it wraps around and there's conservation that's already been dedicated um that wraps around the backside of the Mobile station so I'm just here for basically the drive-throughs because you know CL zoning in the county does not have drive-throughs which I think needs to be changed long term but anyways um I'm just trying to improve the restaurant options coffee options banking options which all need drive-throughs for that area so that's what I'm focused on I'm not doing any uh storage so um so I own the the two and three acres in the front there and then about seven acres behind it good for you no I I think you answered my question at the same time so thank you thank you guys anyone else like to speak on this um seeing none will close public hearing and if there are any additional questions we'll take them otherwise motion move to approve second all in favor I I oppose good enough that passes uh our fourth public hearing is HF properties rezoning HF Properties LLC uh request to rezone approximately 5.55 Acres from CG General commercial District to CH heavy commercial District um any Declaration of expart take Communications none anyone who would like to speak on this please uh stand and be sworn in do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth very good staff presentation this is HF property LSC resoning Quest from CG to CH property contains 5.55 Acres located between Highway US1 and Old Dixie Highway immediately north of 71st Street purpos of this request is the reone the property to CH heavy commercial to develop the site with uses permitted in ch District this area of the county is characterized by a sparse mixture of commercial and Industrial with residential development clustered at to the north at 73rd Street the areas south the subject Pro property is either vacant or more intense commercial and light Industrial in character here's a zoning map that depicts that you can see the CH there in the red and the CG orange there to the north with the subject property there in the yellow and then here's the future land use map all of that red is the commercial node commercial industrial node CG General industrial General commercial district is the existing zoney which is intended ride for areas of development of General retail sales and selected service activities it's not intended to provide for heavy commercial activities such as outside commercial service uses or heavy repair services no outside storage is allowed Self Storage is allowed and CG is limited to No More Than 3 acres here is a snapshot of the two Z District side by side CG and CH two different minimum lot areas lot width density there are some differences there CH is a heavy commercial zoning District intend to provide for establishments engaging in wholesale trade major repair services restricted light manufacturing activities provides for Support Services necessary for the development of commercial and Industrial use uses allowed within other nonresidential zoning conflicts here again we're talking about something that is part of an established commercial industrial future land use node the commercial and future land use no designations is intend to ride for areas for the development of Industrial and Commercial uses located along major transportation routes and separated from residential areas again no fature Lous Amendment changes proposed as part of this request again we need to analyze all of our resoning against chapter 92.1 2 subsection 3 and the review criteria whether or not the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portion of L development regulations the land use zoning Matrix provided in section 911. 7 of the county land vment regulations requested CH zoning designation is consistent with the uh commercial industrial L use designation criteria B consistent with all the elements of the comprensive plan policies 1.17 1.18 and 1.43 nearby properties include uses permitted in cation iil industrial zoning districts therefore it does meet this criteria criteria C consistent with existing proposed land uses proposed CH zoning is consistent with the c commercial industrial and no for land uses amend is proposed starting to sound repetitive in my own head criteria D in compliance with the adopted County ther plan the property is at the northwest corner of Highway US1 to 71st Street and the traffic generated would would it decrease the levels all Redway segments within the area of influence would operate at an acceptable level of service under proposed CH zoning in criteria F subject to change conditions economic conditions have trans transition this area to be more conducive for uses allowed within the CH District due to the presence of the existing CH zoning to the South and you could see that in the zoning map when I showed you all the CH there to the south in the red criteria G with a decrease level of service St for sanitary sewer poble water Solid Waste drainage and Recreation and the applicant again would may be required to pay the connection customary fees uh once the development R process begins and again we do have to review based upon the most intense use required by section 91.07% proposed CH is over 111,000 square fet of General industrial criteria H with this result in its significant adverse impacts in natural environment again the sub property is vacant so an environment analysis would need to be done criteria I with this result in an order logical development pattern given that there is existing C in the area the proposed amendment does align with the commer of land the surrounding land uses and would provide for a logical and orderly development pattern criteria J is it in conflict with the public interest the request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the land devel regulations criteria K we believe that it's all in that all concurrency mandate facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use under the proposed zoning District in conclusion the request of CH zoning district is compatible with the surrounding area consistent with the goals objectives and policy the counties adopt a Comm of plan is consistent the County's Land Development regulation is deemed suitable for CH zoning and and can be supported by staff and staff can recommend that the plan zoning commission recommend to the board of County Commissioners approval of this request to re Zone the subject property from CG to CH thank you cdy any um commissioner questions on the left I'm assuming that um we're not going to get into the concrete plant Bey issue um would that be because that would be require industrial or heavy industrial or and uh the acreage limit come into play here too so that would be correct so he heavy industrial is the only zoning category that allows for a concrete batch plant and that is not what it's requested before this commission tonight um okay uh and then I guess ought to raise the same question about the uh storage because this again highly visible but in more of a industrial area so in preliminary talks with the applicant um when the last time we had spoken they had wanted to do the rezoning to do actual contractor trade off offices now that's something that can't be taken into consideration during the resoning process because it's all of the uses that are allowed Self Storage would be allowed in that zoning category um it would be up to the owner if they so choose to go with Self Storage but I will let them answer the question to see if they have an end user for the site okay and do we have we're up zoning here correct is there a shortage of um commercial heavy in this area or anywhere so there is vacant commercial uh heavy commercial to the South um the actual there is some development plans that have been submitted to our Uh current development for the South portions um in talks with the property owner and the engineer like I said they were looking to be able to do contractor trade offices at that location um which there has been a shortage of um and I will let the applicant explain a little bit more if they have an end user because that would obviously facilitate more of a need to do a rezoning but with meeting all of the landan development regulations and the actual comprehensive plan policy staff was able to Res uh support this request thank you that's all I have Mr chair thank you any to WR any questions I'm just curious is there anything in our regulations that prohib ibit storage from highly visible areas not specifically um it has been a obviously topic of discussion um and it's something that I know the board of County Commission has uh discussed somewhat um but they have never instructed staff yet to uh look into further reducing it that is why there is a 3 Acre threshold on other zoning categories um but there has been nothing uh at the BCC level to direct staff thank you no sure oh right anything else this is a public hearing so we'll open the public hearing microphones on each side name and uh address please good evening uh Wesley Mills Mill short Associates address 7 22nd Place be Beach Florida 32960 uh representing the applicant tonight also the property owner uh Neil hawal is here tonight as well um happy to kind of elaborate on some of the questions um I Heard earlier uh so really the reone there there isn't an enduser plan for the property right now um the the property's been on the market for over seven years um my clients own the property for around 15 years it just seems like uh all of the market demand for this property revolves more around uses that would be U more conducive into the heavy commercial zoning most of it relating to business type uses um we don't or I don't foresee a self storage facility going here um there's a large self storage facility going up on 77th um Street um and there's one that just got built to the to the South um so I don't foresee that being a use um the site is is be marketed um and but but most likely more of a business type type use followup Mark no thank you okay any other questions thank you thank you thank you anyone else like to speak on this seeing none we'll close a public hearing any additional questions none uh call for motion motion to approve second all in favor I oppose motion passes okay our fifth um public hearing is uh red Jasmine reone and it's red Jasmine ly company llc's request to rezone approximately 4.2 Acres from from CL limited commercial District to CH heavy commercial District uh any Declaration of expar communications none would anyone who would like to speak on this please uh be sworn in stand and beorn in do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you uh staff presentation this is red Jasmine Land Company llc's resoning Quest from cl to CH property contains 4.20 acres and is located along the US Highway 1 Corridor at the Northwest intersection of US1 and 73rd Street 73rd Street is a key connector linking the established limited commercial node to accommodate convenience oriented retail needs for the nearby residents the surrounding land use pattern consists of a mixture of commercial to the North Industrial land to the west across the FEC railroad tracks and Old Dixie Highway with sparse development and limited existing retail commercial commercial service uses which are usually established in clusters or shopping centers within a two mile radius along the US Highway wind Corridor there are undeveloped properties zones CG General commercial and CH heavy commercial to the north and south of the subject property notably the property does not directly abut the EC railroad tracks is separated by another seal zoned parcel similarly it does not border Old Dixie Highway the nearest IG General industrial zone property is situated West buffered by additional CL zone property Old xxie Highway and the FEC railroad tracks not I want you to see all those things I just noticed there you can see here that the property is adjacent to US1 but it does not about the railroad tracks it is buffered there by a CL prop property and then to the South is the CG property but it is centrally located in an area that is CL and then here to the South you can see that is centrally located in a commercial industrial node in the future land use map CL limited commercial District the existing zoning is intended to provide for areas of development of restricted commercial activities intended to accommodate the convenience of retail and service needs of area residents while minimizing the impact of such activities on any nearby residential areas no drive-throughs are permitted no outside activities or storages storage is permitted and again here is CL and CH side by side heavy commercial zoning district is intended to provide for areas for establishments engaging in wholesale trade major repair services and restricted light manufacturing activities it also provides for services necessary for the development of commercial and Industrial uses allow within other nonresidential zoning districts this is part of an established commercial industrial futured land use node like I showed you on the futured land use node there in red the commercial industrial featured land use node designation is intended to provide for areas for the development of Industrial and Commercial uses located in areas with suitable levels of service and infrastructure for urban scale development located along major transportation routes and sep separated from residential areas and again no future Lous Amendment changes proposed as part of this request we're looking again at the analysis of is zoning request against chapter 92.1 two subsection 3 in the review criteria review criteria a is it in conflict with any applicable portion of the Land Development regulations it is not the CH zoning designation is consistent with the subject property CI land use designation it meets this criteria criteria B is the request consistent with the elements of the comprehensive plan in this instant it does not meet the criteria the featured land use element objective one particularly policy 1.43 this request fails to meet the locational Criterion for policy 1.43 the property lacks Frontage along the railroad tracks is surrounded by SE zoning and a bus and occupied non-conforming residents criteria C consistent with the existing proposed land uses it is it does not this request is does not uh is not requesting change to the Future land use designation current criteria D is it in compliance with the adopted County ther plan yes it does about Highway US1 and 73rd Street would it generate traffic which should decrease levels of services adopted we believe that all radway segments within the area of influence would operate at an acceptable level of service under the proposed CH zoning criteria F subject to change conditions exist that warrant an amendment in this instance we do not believe it meets this criteria while the highway US1 corridor has recently experienced an increase in the development of storage and warehousing facilities there are already many undeveloped CG commercial General General commercial and CH commercial heavy properties within 2 miles of this location outside the established limited commercial area I showed you that in the pink on the zoning map where this property is centrally located introducing additional zoning changes heed would disrupt the existing land use patterns and as you heard in the previous test me on the zoning application there are other areas where there other are other projects that are being um going up in this area G criteria G would decrease levels of Service established for sanitary sewer pable water Solid Waste drain and Recreation we believe it meets this criteria the applicant may be required to pay connection and customer Affairs but a more detailed review be conduct during the development review process and again for highest and best use we review this under Section 91.07% one the new developments proposed more detailed environment analysis would be done based on site site specific development proposed criteria I with this result in early logic of development pattern we do not believe that it meets this criteria while the request is consistent with the comprensive plan is not harmonious with the surrounding zoning districts and would disrupt the existing zoning development pattern this lack of compatibility undermines the goal of achieving an orderly and cohesive development pattern in the area criteria J in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and interest of the Land Development regulations we do not believe it meets this criteria the request to reone to heavy commercial in a commercial a limited commercial area would introduce higher intensive uses of conflict with the established lit to commercial and residential developments in the area and this would result in significant in compatiability the surrounding zoning districts and disrupt the existing development pattern criteria K any other matters that may be deemed appropriate in review and consideration the proposed amendment such as police fire protection Emergency Medical Services at this time we do not have any so we believe it meets this criteria and all concurrency mandate facilities of out capacity to accommodate the most intense use under the proposed uh zoning District so in conclusion the request the CH Z District we do not believe is compatible with surrounding Zony area as there is no other ch own properties within the vicinity it's not consistent with the goals objectives and locational criteria outlined in policy 1.43 of the adopt a conversive plan the property is not situated in area suitable for the heavy commercial CH uses this property is historically zoned as CL limited commercial this designation is more appropriate for preserving the character the area's character and supporting nearby residential developments introducing heavy commercial uses would be incompatible with the established zian surrounding Community CH heavy commercial is not suitable as it would introduce higher intensive uses that could create substantial incapacities with adjacent properties disrupting the intended balance and Harmony of the area such a change would undermine the area's character and can negatively impact existing residential and limited commercial uses and therefore after thorough consideration of the surrounding land use patterns compatibility concerns and consisting with the comens plan and County's Lane St regulation staff's recommendation is to deny the request for resoning any of you have questions both Chris and I are available thank you cdy any questions on the right um I have somewhat of a procedural question this is the first time I've seen an application for staff is recommending denial so could somebody walk me through what happens next in other words if we agree with that what happens to this application and if we don't agree with it what are our options okay thank you so I'm I'm glad you asked that Beth I was Miss Mitchell I was getting ready to go over that before you all went into your voting um so at this point um you're you've heard staff's presentation you obviously will probably hear some rebuttal from the applicant um any decision that this board makes needs to be based on competent and sub substantial evidence um whether it is to Grant the rezoning or it is to deny the rezoning um the findings of fact should be very clear in whichever manner that you are finding um you know why it is that you are granting the request why it is that you are denying the request um I do have Casa um that talks about uh denials as well if that's the route you should choose to go but I either way it needs to be based on competent substantial evidence um first and foremost secondarily should this board choose to Grant this it still would go to the board of County Commissioners for their consideration um should this board choose to deny this our specific code under please excuse me 90212 sub think that's three or four I'm sorry sub four B sorry sorry sub four C and D um it talks about denials of applications and it basically goes if you all deny it goes the applicant can then appeal to the board of County Commissioners they only have 21 days to do that um from basically the signing or the the issuance of the denial um so those are the two routes that happen so but I I must caution again that regardless of whatever route you choose that it must be based on competent substantial evidence and based on um whatever does they put in front of you and whether you agree that it meets the comprehensive plan or you disagree that it meets with the comprehensive plan you need to note all of that information and those facts must be duly noted in your motion what happens in the event of a split decision it would still it would still basically lose because you need to have in order for for a rezoning the request is to reone so the burden initially is on the applicant um to make that request to reone then it kind of runs to us as to whether or not it actually as being the government entity whether or not it actually reson um if there's a split decision um then it doesn't go anywhere it doesn't get reson well it gu appeal you can get appealed uh if there's a split decision I would I not seen that before um I believe it would be appealed I cannot say entirely that it would be appealed or not appealed considering that it would be a split decision but considering it would be an automatic denial I would imagine they they would oh you have anything else on the right I'm curious one of the reasons it wasn't compatible was the commercial like it doesn't abut to the railroad track um can you tell me a little bit more about the ownership of the commercial light um land that does a butt to the railroad seemed like a pretty small sliver policy 1.43 the future Lan use element requires there's there's locational criteria and one of the criteria is that the actual property AB buts the railroad tracks and so the property itself does not AB but there's a piece of property in between there's actually 39th Street and then there's a parcel and then it there's Old Dixie and then there's a railroad so it it does not meet the locational criteria not just because of partiel ownership but because of RightWay as well Mr chair if I could say something as well um if you could bring back up the actual map that shows the location and Zoning oops I just want to make some clarification so in uh the little arrow there is a separate parcel that is a uh legal non-conforming residential use so in policy 1.43 it states that um to rezone to a higher zoning classification that um it protects residential developments now it specifically doesn't say Zoning for that purpose um so that is why it fails that criteria I also want to make note to the property to the South so you just heard the resoning for the property to uh the next parcel down where the actual CG lettering is and uh I can pull it up with the mouse right here so that was the uh one that you just heard in the previous case the actual owner of that property um owned the whole parcel uh it in discussions with that property owner the reason why the whole parcel wasn't brought in was exactly the fact of it failing those Criterion of not being able to be properly upzone because of it failing policy 1.43 in reference to the residential uh development to the uh Northwest thank you any questions on the left I uh I heard someone mentioned a restaurant um and also I'm not clear about legal nonconforming residential would you discuss those two aspects sure on the North End of the property uh there is an existing uh restaurant uh I can't remember the name of it but there is an existing restaurant to the North End of the grill yes I think so uh so for the non-conforming the legal non-conforming property that property actually existed prior to the zoning classification being applied to that land so when the zoning classification of Cl was applied to that land the house already was pre-existing so so when the comprehensive plan policies were designed we had to design around legal non-conforming uses to protect those uses from any uh rezoning that would up Zone and potentially be non-compatible or disrupt the natural Harmony of the actual land uses and Zoning categories is the restaurant consistent with the resoning the restaurant is actually consistent with the land use that's to the north and it's consistent in its actually zoning it zoning category as well thank you you good on that yes all right um this is a public hearing we'll uh open the public hearing uh microphones on both sides name and uh address please before we start at the initial of this I recall seeing two people in the public get sworn in everyone else behind did not stand to be sworn so all of you would need to be sworn in before you make any statements so I I just wanted to make sure we get that done thank you swear in now yes that would be great do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth uh good evening Rebecca girlall mbv engineering 1835 20th Street voo Beach 32960 here tonight on behalf of red Jasmine Land Development company and I want to just talk more about the staff analysis we do have a presentation um next slide please again it's a four .2 acre parcel it is um we are requesting the CH commercial heavy from the CL it does maintain the CI future land use node um I just want to briefly introduce the property owners representative he has sworn in Damen Brinks um and we would like to just review a couple points in the staff recommendations so next slide please this is our site I think you've seen that um the parcel and if I could ask a question of Staff the parcel that's CG the lower half of that was just recommended for approval to CH is that correct that would be correct okay and then beneath that just to the south of that it's ch I think it's incorrectly shown on your zoning map still as CG but that was rezoned this summer in the June July time frame to CH so next slide please um again we are right between US1 and Old Dixie Highway uh we do have some finger tip connectivity to Old Dixie Highway as well as the um f railroad Corridor it would be great at some point in time if we could produce um and pick up that parcel immediately to our West um the US1 Corridor currently has 120 feet of RightWay and the fdot is looking to expand that right away it is subject to another 31 ft eminent domain off of our site and we anticipate that that's going to significantly increase the trips along US Highway 1 um there is a nonconforming existing residential use adjacent to the site um and we'll talk about that in a minute but otherwise the next closest residential home is over 270 ft from the subject property a lot of that is the um US Highway one right away and the properties South um again we just talked about this were recently reson from CH to CG if you want to skip to our next slide so this is the RightWay dedication where we're looking at 31 ft and that would also impact the um restaurant to the north which is an existing use within the CL next slide our site um the prea meeting to reone to CH that's the arrow you saw you just heard that case to reone to CH and that's just one parcel connectivity to our South and then the recently rezoned parcel um just south of that also went from CG to CH so this is a corridor that's rapidly changing um there is a lot of movement and Direction on this site so next slide I do want to talk about this where staff says that the use could significantly disrupt the existing character of the area which is much more aligned with the limited commercial and residential uses I think based upon the applications that we've seen come before this board again this Corridor is changing and it is moving to the CH uses um commercial heavy along this interstate so next slide please um interesting enough in the in the comp plan um this property is within the commercial Corridor the segment itself is shown shown as only 38% developed and I think the reason we're seeing that there's not a higher level of development along this Corridor is simply because the zoning it doesn't match the current demands for the properties and that again is reflective upon the applications coming forward to staff and to this board for rezoning next Slide the non-conforming residential um in discussing this while we recognize that you want to protect that it is an existing single family home in a c already zone property within the commercial industrial node um how much longer they can hang on I don't know but we would be willing to adequately buffer for it I do want to also talk about in the Land Development code section 904 within the purpose and intent this is the chapter that talks about non-conformities it quite clearly states that the further purpose and intent of this chapter is to Pro promote the phasing out of non-conforming structures and uses so I want to lay that out for you tonight too um next slide I'm here to answer any questions um again with mbv engineering and Damian um and Cindy if you could just jump ahead one more slide I think and one more one more oh I don't know okay um so that is then the end of my presentation um I am happy answer any questions I have Daman here tonight too the owner's representative and I know there's a number of people in the audience who would like to speak so I'll yield the microphone to them thank you next my name is Santiago Ares and my address is 7405 36 cour which is a resident uh residential Community about maybe 200 ft from this property and I also own the lot across the street which is a CL 7350 50 right across the street from us one and um I think um um the Chang in this to CH could impact not only my resident also like 15 homes they are like maybe across the street from me and um I I mean I I like to say go ahead you know do your best with the property but I think um it is very close to a residential community and CH for what I understand what I seen before it could um it it has a broad purpose so uh I really want to kind of think about this a little bit and and that's I guess I guess I get the letter because I'm 300 I think at less than 200 less than 300 feet from that property thank you very much thank you uh my name's Andrew Eli I own the the adjoining property at 73rd uh uh my initial understanding it would be possibly uh upgraded to General uh I'm not comfortable with it being upgraded to heavy uh it makes us very vulnerable to any kind of business that might come in there and I'm I'm just asking the board to deny thank you Donna Richards we're at 7360 36 court and we're in the community directly across us one with 25 homes and I mean we have the train here here now that we have enough noise I really hope you would deny heavy commercial there um and so does everybody else in our community Unfortunately they can't make it tonight but um I would hope they would want to beautify us one instead of having heavy commercial all along us one which is a nice Road thank you for your thank you is this active Mark Eli I am a resident at 389 73rd Street which is on the other end of the restaurant this is our home I would ask that you would deny this uh we already have enough noise and we're concerned about that thank you anyone else Damen Brink um representing the ownership here um addresses uh 100 P's way sweet 200 Del Beach Florida 33444 this area of the county is where these type of high commercial uses should go between a major Corridor US1 and Dixie Highway and the CSX railroad in fact our property is actually closer to the industrial cement plant than previous rezonings just to the south of us that just received your recommendation for for commercial High um we think this is appropriate and the zoning code uh as you develop property you're required to do buffers you're required to enhance the property and what I mean we we were proposing to do an enclosed um type of RV and Boat Storage to protect people's million dollar Investments that's one of the ideas we we had to do here um we think the the project would not be intensive to uh surrounding properties I also want to point out staff appears to to suggest that policy 1.43 are required criteria it clearly states in the comp plan these criteria may be used by the County Commission to approve a reson so you know just because we don't abut the the the railroad doesn't mean you can't hear it and I will say for those that live on the uh east side of US1 as development grows North along us one any buildings that are that are are placed on those properties would would would potentially buffer that noise from the railroad so uh we think this is you know an opportunity we think the properties uh we we actually purchased the property a year ago cuz we see the development moving north of US1 and uh like I said we we think it's a great property for development and we think it's more appropriate it it feels UND zoned and we feel it' be more appropriate with commercial High I appreciate your consideration on that thank you very much thank you anyone else um any commissioner questions of the um public I do have one question and it concerns your presentation please clarify for me I I probably misunderstood but I thought that you referred to the fact that the property that was rezoned earlier in the meeting to commercial heavy abutted the southern end of your property it's separated by one I don't know if you wanted to bring that map back up no no no I know it's I thought that you referred to the fact that that it abuts your property no it is separated by one I appreciate clarifying that and then the property to its South is also CH thank you any other questions uh we'll close the public hearing um any uh additional discussion call for a motion I'll make a motion to approve staff's recommendation to deny the request for the rezoning based on compatibility concerns and surrounding land use uh patterns when you say compatibility concerns in the surrounding land use what are you referencing in there as refence I just want to clarify as referen in staff report CH zoning versus the C G zoning the adjacent could you use the mic I I'm sorry yeah I'm City Baker um the lack of continuity of the proposed resoning uh the staff's comments as to the compatibility of the surrounding area as well does that answer your question yes I just wanted you to clarify your motion okay thank you okay we have a motion is there a second I'll second it there is a second to the motion all in favor I I opposed pass I think we will um take a 10-minute break before diving into the final um public hearing so uh 7:38 will resume e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e let's rejourn for the final uh public hearing please the final uh public hearing tonight is we baso Point resoning uh Donald C Proctor senior and cjb Holdings Limited Partnerships request to rezone approximately 22.2 eight Acres from CG General commercial District to OCR office commercial residential district uh any exp partite communication reports none with would anyone who would like to speak on this uh as part of this public hearing please stand and get sworn in do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir thank you um staff presentation last but not least Donald C Proctor senior and cjb Holdings Limited Partnerships for resan quests from CG to OCR such a property consists of approximately 22.2 Acres of undeveloped land is located in the northern area of the county on the west side of highway US1 65 miles north of 510 the purpose of this request is to reone the property to OCR office commercial and res residential district which permits professional offices health clinics and multiple family dwellings the property is Southwest the city of Sebastian jurisdiction and north and west of the wabaso school and approximately with approximately 580 ft of US Highway 1 Frontage currently zon General commercial with properties within a large undeveloped commercial node extending east to west between Highway US1 and the FEC railroad rideway from north to south the commercial node though featuring a mix of conforming and non-conforming Commercial residential structures remains adequate adequately utilized within its current zoning designation here's a zoning map which shows you there that it's in the very large commercial node of CG and then again there is the future land use map which shows you that CI commercial industrial node CI in red CG General commercial district is intended to provide for areas development with General retail sales and selected service activities CG Zan District does not intended to provide for heavy commercial activities such as outside commercial service uses or heavy repair services no outside storage is allowed self self storage and CGS limited no more than 3 acres here's a look at CG and OCR next to each other very similar OCR limits your number of units to six units per acre with a minimum open space of 35% office commercial and res residential district proposed zies intend to provide area for the development of restricted office commercial and residential activities in a manner that will be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods end to provide land use controls to ensure the separation of potentially incompatible activities such as intense commercial uses from established residential areas intend to be located at the perimeter of large perimeter of large commercial nodes to provide transition between commercial areas and residential areas again this is part of an established commercial industrial future land use node which is a commercial industrial fature land use not use designation is intended to provide areas for the develop of IND industrial commercial uses located an areas with seable levels of service and infrastructure for urban scale and development located along major transportation routes and separated from residential areas no futur land use amendment is Chang as part proposed as part of this request and again analysis per chapter 92.1 to subsection 3 the review criteria criteria a is it in conflict with any applicable portion of the Land Development regulations the OCR zoning designation is consistent with the subject properties uh CI use designation however a mix of uses may not be compatible with surrounding land uses criteria B consistent with the all the Mills of the coner have planned we find that this is not meet the criteria in particular policy 1.43 it fails to meet the locational criteria it is not adjacent to existing office uses as required it would not serve as a buffer between residential commercial districts and it is not at a node perimeter criteria C consistent with existing Pro proposed land uses the proposed OCR zone is consistent as it is in an existing commercial industrial future land use designation criteria D in compliance with adopted County thare plan property does have Highway US1 Frontage criteria e would it generate traffic which decreased levels of service we do not believe that proposed Zony of OCR would generate uh would decrease of levels of service criteria F subject to change conditions exist we do not believe that there are any conditions uh it does not meet this criteria the subject properties are situated in the middle of an existing commercial node that remains largely undeveloped and these conditions have not significantly changed criteria G with the levels of Service established sanitary sewer reples water Solid Waste drain and Recreation a more detailed Cony review would be conducted during the development review process if such Lan was to be developed uh based on the most intense use for section 9107 of the Land Development regulations under the most ents under the most existing proposed they would have the same square footage of retail commercial criteria H with the result in the significant adverse impacts the national environment subject property is currently vacant so a detailed environmental analysis would need to be done before development was conducted result in an orderly and logical development pattern uh we do not find that this meets this criteria the proposed amendment would not provide Prov for a logical and orderly development pattern the OCR zoning district is a transitional zoning District criteria J is it in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and interest of the Land Development regulation it does not meet this criteria this CR request is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of land Dev regulations the USR district is designed to complement and enhance existing development and again this area is largely vacant criteria K any other matters May deemed appropriate uh we at this point the concurrency mandate facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use in this area in conclusion the requested OCR Z district is incompatible with surrounding area development patterns it's not consistent and does not align with the goals objectives and locational criteria outlined in policy 1.3 of the adopted cons plan and the property is not situated in areas suitable for transitional zoning it is not at a perimeter of a uh the commercial industrial node so therefore staff cannot support the request to rezone the subject properties from CG to OCR and we cannot recommend that the penan zoning commission advise the board of County Commissioners to approve this request and staff's recommendation is for the plan zoning to recommend denial of this request we can answer any questions any um any commissioner questions of staff on the left here here not yet no any commissioner uh questions of staff on the right no all right um in that case this is a public hearing we'll open the public hearing um microphones on each side name and um address please thank you Mr chair members of the board my name is Pete Sweeny I'm an attorney with the firm of block and Scarpa my address is 601 21st Street I have a presentation um if it could be brought up and if I can have you queue it through thank you very much of course this is for the wabaso point project this is requesting or resoning a down zoning from CG down to OCR and uh if you can take me to the next slide lead you into why this board should recommend approval despite staff's recommendation of denial um I'm going to take you through these are actual overhead so you can see the zoning map sometimes fails to provide the reality of the situation which is there is no commercial development in this area so fundamentally if you're basing a decision on competent substantial evidence you would be looking at this map and you would have to identify where the commercial development is that would be in conflict with our request and as you can see there are three Parcels the first parcel is the master parcel right here with Frontage on us one and directly AB buts as you'll see the alaso school directly to the South it also has the FEC railroad tracks you heard conversation earlier tonight we do directly about that and directly to the west of that is the John's Island West Golf Club which is actually zoned rm6 uh if we can continue to the next slide there are actually three Parcels this is a very small. 39 parcel which directly AB buts also us one and if you can continue to the next Slide the third parcel again there is nothing there as you see directly to the north this is the only other property contiguous to us that is developed it's a non-conforming single family residence which is clearly not General commercial it is a hold over from the rezoning of this entire development corridor from time unknown if we could continue to the next slide I think this will start to show the 3 X's identify exactly where the parcels collectively adding up to the 23 almost 23 acres are and what I really importantly want to show you the other two that you'll see there are large parcel uh both are non-conforming single family residences you also see the wabaso school that we mostly abut and directly below that is a mobile home park clearly not a commercial Endeavor and actually is non-conforming because it would fall within the residential zoning District it is not a commercial District but that is what it is keep in mind most importantly you will see directly there in the light purple across the street OCR zoning there is already precedent not just generally but less than 300 feet from our boundary lines OCR and that actually was rezoned within the last four years I believe um staff certainly can correct me if I'm incorrect on that but what is going in back there is a very large development it's currently underway and it was broken up through a rezoning process approved by this board into several Parcels including the PD but the OCR which is where town homes are going up certainly very shortly lends Credence to the fact that this particular set of parcels is incorrectly zoned right now as CG General commercial in fact we're asking to down Zone still Within future land use category of commercial to OCR and at that point I'm going to start to talk about some of the reasons now you just heard staff's report and again this is a quasi judicial hearing so anything that they say is subject to cross-examination would have to be proved the first is we do agree with most of the stuff that's in the report but what we take some exception with is number one the suggestion that there is no office uh otherwise first of all everything in the CG if you look at the zoning chart of available uses every single type of office space you can think of is already allowed in CG so just because no other offices have been built there it's a misstatement to suggest that there's no other office compatible zoning next door in fact everything is it's even more reinforced by the OCR uh across the street uh the second part is what could go there obviously a much more intense uh currently what would be allowed a hotel could go there a liquor store could go there a car wash could go there a uh drive-thru restaurant a car dealership um you're going to hear some testimony in just a minute from both the owners and uh the agent who's been working on this for several years there is just simply no appetite for that and that's going to speak to the change conditions which staff has said there are no change conditions but you're going to hear testimony that in fact significantly change conditions um the third part is that and we submitted this along with our application um Miss BR if I can approach you um what we have here is representation I'm sorry support you can go to the next slide Chris um and there you see where we have in fact I I misspoke it's actually less than 200 feet from our border OCR is so we already within that and the president is there but if you can go to the next slide Chris this is a letter um and Miss pra can pass that down to you um Dr David Moore our school board superintendent uh authored on behalf of our group in support of zoning the rezone this to OCR uh with the idea that if residential were to be developed in the form of town homes multif family which is allowed in OCR but also is allowed right now in the CG through an administrative approval process so let's not suggest that this isn't something that could happen it's a different procedure but it could happen right now the school board has suggested they would be willing not only just to support but enthusiastically support our proposition that we would set aside 10 % uh of the property to be able to support residential uh development for their employees of the in County School District and this is really important because this leads me to a fourth point which is one of the things that the staff report says at page three and uh you saw this a little bit earlier this is the future land use element uh under Item B from staff's report uh policies 1.7 and 1.18 future land use element states that all commercial and Industrial uses must be located within the County's urban service area now I'm certainly sure this board is aware of the discussion and review of the urban service boundary that's been going on for the past year with the county uh Mr Balter LED that and the presentation was just approximately two weeks ago and as a result of that Workshop a pretty clear uh directive was given to staff that the urban service boundary apparently will not be extended with the finite discussion that there is more than enough of developable area within the county USB as it sits and this project would support that directive from the board of County Commissioners this Collective of almost 23 Acres if it were allowed to be rezoned to OCR and did move in the direction of multif family residential Town Homes um quite frankly would totally support that comprehensive plan element the directive from the board maintaining the current USB while also as I continue on to the three reasons why they said it does not meet 1.43 number one adjacent to existing office uses well they said no in staff's report but quite frankly again I believe that's misleading because office uses are completely allowed within the CG zoning this would just be supportive of that in quite frankly a lesser as you saw by unit type and also by uh open area um from the C G zoning the second is there is a buffer between residential zoning districts and arterial roads or other commercial zoning districts uh Chris if we could go back um just one more slide please thank you if you look to the West the John Z golf course is in fact zoned rm6 that is clearly a residential zoning you have residential zoning across the street not only through the PD but also through the also rm6 development significant Development Across all of that area and I would posture to this board that not only is the school but the mobile home park and all of those bordering single family residences those are not commercial General Parcels those are holdover non-conforming single family residential if anything I would strenuously argue that resoning this does in fact provide a buffer not only from the West also from the industrial to the South the commercial light and as you move north on US1 potentially more commercial whether general or heavy the third point that they said it is not at a node perimeter well I'm not sure what the definition of perimeter is but as you can see in the bottom right of the screen there that's where the wi baso Bridge comes around and uh it may not be at exactly the corner which is not a requirement within the code as I would also agree with the prior speaker who said these are elements that may be considered not our definitive so you are free to disagree with staff's interpretation of any of these items and in fact I believe that you should because quite frankly I believe that they're not accurate the way they've been interpreted if we move on to the last two things that they have said the first conclusion is that it would result in it not result in orderly and logical development patterns but at no point can you hear anything in staff's report saying exactly what the negative implication would be of down zoning this to OCR and the p and the last is would it be in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and interest of the Land Development regulations again this is a lesser intensity clearly there has been no development in the area there's an opportunity to maintain the harmony of the commercial future land use which this is within it's just a what I would call little brother while allowing a little bit more flexibility also the support of the school board that's not going anywhere the school's not going anywhere that's not suddenly going to become something else and I would strongly uh I'm going to bring up here in a minute uh Mr TP Kennedy who can talk about the change conditions in the general economic environment so that's all I have for my presentation at this point and uh I would yield the floor to Mr Kennedy and TP if you can just introduce yourself talk about your background and how long you've worked on this project um TP Kennedy uh 3906 Sable Palm Drive ver Beach Florida um I've worked on this property for over seven years um it's General commercial from 45th Street in gford all the way through Sebastian we have a world of commercial up there I call it Dead Man's Land because no one ever goes there because there's nothing to do you know there's a little piece here a little piece there but overall you know since my whole lifetime of fourth generation here in town we have way too much commercial you know the Market's changing Co changed everything again a lot of this could be you know affordable housing for a lot of people so um we had discussions four or five years ago with a storage unit guy but they it was more than three acres so they needed CH zoning so we came in and talked to staff at that time about up zoning to CH well there wasn't support of that because of the wabaso school in the South they couldn't support that so we even says well maybe we want to do industrial because we actually border industrial on the west side too but they wouldn't support support that so um you know it comes down to you know residential is the best fit for that it's the best fit for around the school you can have a 24-hour Walmart you can have an ABC Liquor Store there is that what we want no I think we want a nice Town Home Development um that that wraps around the school and we have the support from the school so this fits the area this fits the wabaso area immediately across the street you have DR Horton which is on OCR zoning which has gotten done in the last few years um it is Town Home Development to immediately across the street you also have offices in that PD uh that little PD District um there's a couple contractors in another office in there with a sub shop I personally in 2005 was part of it was called work at landing at that time WCA bought WCI bought it it since transitioned to py and we took 25 acres my dad and I and down zoned it to OCR uh same scenario as this for residential and now P's finally building on it so um there is precedence here um it's not going to stop here it'll go straight to the County Commission but this is time to to make a stand and we need more developments like this low intensity I represent um a couple land owners to the north of this and they would much rather have rm6 rm8 land rather than General commercial so um please see it that uh that we can uh have this motion thank you thank you um with that I want to go ahead and introduce also Mr Chris maren and two of the owners and yield the floor to them good evening I'm Christopher Marine I'm an attorney with the law firm of goul cookie finel my office is 979 Beachin Boulevard I represent the owners not the applicant represent the owners of the property the owners are here tonight one is an individual and one is a is a trust uh um this property is like a lot of other property a lot of other real estate in Indian River County it used to be in Citrus there are lots of it and it's being transitioned or it's been transitioned out of citrus and you got to figure out what to do with it you got to figure out what to do with and we don't always get it right um I served on a board for the city of V Beach and I served on uh the board of adjustment for in River County for many years and I've dealt with a lot of these issues and uh when when these regulations are drafted when these things go into place we don't always get it right um and I don't think they got it right here um most of the property has been owned by uh the trust over 40 years like 42 years something like that um one of the owners is a very uh successful and respected developer and general contractor in our community if he couldn't get it done as commercial I'm not sure who could I mean he's been around quite a long time and has many many of these projects under his belt and yet it's been listed for years like Mr Kennedy said and yet here it sits bacon after all these years here it sits still vacant and we just submit there's a reason for that a very clear reason for that it's the wrong zoning this property is not suitable for General commercial uh development in any way shape or form and that's why you have the big expense that was shown in those Aerials of nothing going on so I know that staff has recommended that you deny this uh resoning request and I know why I mean I've worked with staff for many years and they have their job to do um and they have the analysis that they have to conduct but we're confused by it in this instance and just don't just don't agree with it we don't think that an OCR zoning is much of a stretch we don't think it's much of a stretch here at all it's not a big jump um for a number of reasons the first reason is the future long-term land use designation for this property is commercial industrial and OCR is clearly one of the permissible zoning designations within commercial industrial so this is one of the zoning classifications you have a choice to apply to different properties within a commercial industrial node again not much of a stretch doesn't seem to fit the criteria but we just submit that it's a applying the code to this particular piece of property is square peg trying to push be pushed into a round hole um so it's fully compatible at OCR with the long-term land use one two it's a down zoning application we're not asking to go from you know General commercial to heavy commercial or light industrial to heavy industrial or from you know some form of residential zoning to commercial zoning going the other way going the other way down zoning and I know there was some commentary in the staff's comments that OCR and General commercial are pretty similar in terms of what type of commercial development you can do don't get misled by that and I'm not suggesting that they intentionally Miss LED you they're just doing an analysis of the code but don't be misled by this because there's no intention whatsoever to do commercial development here it just doesn't work and the stuff that that um could be done in OCR can be done in General commercial right now that's not what's planed it's just not going to work the other thing I wanted to point out and I'm not going to go on too much longer because I think Mr Sweeny did a really good job in covering it is that um the the solution in the future already revealed itself here right I mean right across US1 is new residential development with an OCR zoning Orchid Reserve it's a DR Horton development and uh it's getting off the ground nice that's literally across us one from this property so somebody figured it out um you guys I guess at some point um but this is what we're seeking we're asking you to Grant the resoning request um the owners endorse it obviously they'd like to see you uh recommend to the County Commission to approve it thanks so much I appreciate it thank you good evening uh I'm Donald C Proctor uh 218 Ru Road Vero Beach um I've been a resident of Indian River County for 51 years but I've been coming here since 1959 so I know a little bit about the county it was 25,000 people here when I was here to begin with my family's been very involved here uh we probably built I don't know how many thousands of units in Indian River County uh nothing that I wouldn't live in myself I can tell you that so uh when I see people that work here not be able to live here it bothers me when you have people that can't live in our County that work here because they can't afford to live here this is an opportunity to have somebody build things that people can actually afford to buy they've offered School School teachers firemen policemen whatever a 10% reduction in whatever the prices are which are more reasonable than anything else around them from what I see and I think it's a great opportunity for our community to allow something like this I think if the OCR is a a designation there's no better place to put it than right here next to the wabaso school which it's a great buffer for something else coming in there there going to be a disruptor so like I say I've been in development business all my life not just not just the 51 years I've been around it since 1951 with my father we came up here when Dade County was 200,000 people and um you know Vero Beach is a beautiful place but we're really losing it for our people that cannot afford to buy housing and that's why I'm here to support it so the people that were were one of my partners was Charles Bradshaw who owned the property behind mine uh his family now is just his children he's passed away his wife's passed away and this is an estate piece that they have for his children and that that uh for them to uh have whatever proceeds come out of it so and mine is something that you know I'm putting into the thing because I believe in it so I'd appreciate y'all if You' support it too we need it here that's what I say thank you very much for your time tonight than you Mr Parker anyone else are there any commissioner questions of the presenters on the right I have one okay and any and all of you could answer this I'm trying to Envision I know where the wabaso school is this property is north of 510 approximately how far can we put and and and the reason that I asked that uh the the comment earlier you know no commercial there is and correct me if I'm wrong there is an old Cumberland Farms there that was converted to a medical office yes and so it's it's is it yet north of that okay thank you just north of the school thank you I have a question question of Staff how many other schools are in a commercial zoning General commercial in in county is that typical uh I don't know the exact number off hand uh it is allowable um so it is an allowable use there are some that are in a commercial district there are some that are not in a commercial District you know I just don't know the number offand serous Mr chair if I could uh also speak on behalf of staff for a rebuttal to Mr Sweeney's testimony um he did a a brilliant job of painting his picture but I would like to clear up some inaccuracies um in reference to multif family being allowed on the actual zoning of the CG and the underlying CI L use so in our General commercial zoning District we only allow multif family residential as accessory to a permitted commercial use and it has to be accessory to that use so it would not be allowed to be a standalone multif family development um as well as the uh comment about the USB so the USB's actual wrap-up and final recommendation report is in its draft format but on the discussion that was directed by the board of County Commission one of the recommendations was to look at the existing uh densities and intensities within the existing urban service boundary this property is within in the in the existing urban service boundary however the caveat to that is is that it's all of the properties that are correctly zoned for their uses that is what the report said that we have allowable uh future population growth within the UR urban service boundary that does not take into account any rezonings for said Parcels the other thing I'd like to go back to Mr Proctor's testimony for affordable housing in this community obviously I don't know if the board is aware but I am the chair uh the staff liaison for the ahak committee and I was the former ship administrator and affordability is a a big uh Factor within this community and it is needed but that is why the live local Act was brought before the actual Florida Governor brought it into law um we actually would support the local going on this location because that is what it's designed for it is designed to be able to put on industrial or commercial Zone land multif family that builds in affordable criteria and in discussions with the property owners and the I believe Concordia group was the the group at the time we had suggested they go that route because that was what we could properly support within our exist in comprehensive plan it is pretty specific on the criteria for OCR the OCR does have to meet those criteria um there are three three criteria um in the first criteria it says that it has to be adjacent to existing office uses the key word is existing there it's not the proposed it's not not built yet it is existing office uses the next criteria is is buffered between residentially Zone districts and Commercial Zone districts this is neither there's limited commercial to the South and there's uh General commercial to the north the other thing is that at node perimeters the reason why it's stated at node perimeters and the intent that was built in when this was designed in the comprehensive plan was so that it could properly transition from a node commercial nodes obviously transition back to residential so in office commercial residential that allows that transition to properly have those less intense uses and not be put in the center of a commercial node so that it is properly and compatible for the area and that's all I have okay the if I the group on the left had no chance to ask questions about the presenters any questions look for comment I I I just I have to State a comment really quick I wanted to State it before we keep going back and forth um just to clarify what the policy does say because it looks like the staff report says may and I know the last commenter said may but I pulled up the actual um comp plan to get the exact language for the board so you can decide with a clear an open mind here um it's policy 1.43 says the board of County Commissioners shall rezone land only in a manner that is consistent with the future land use element table 2.14 furthermore the board recognizes that not every zoning District allowed and the land use designation is appropriate for every site within that land use designation for any parcel the board of County Commissioners May may deny a rezoning request even when the requested zoning district is consistent with the parcel's landuse designation if the denial serves a legitimate public purpose a a board of County Commissioners determination that the requested zoning district is not appropriate for the parcel may also be based upon the absence of the following local criteria and that's where it says that the OCR office of um commercial residential zoning District adjacent to the existing official uses as a buffer between the residential zoning districts in arterior roads or other commercial zoning districts are add a node um perimeters so it does have those things as those things that can be considered they may also be based on that it doesn't say the board has to consider that but it does say above that the only shell that I see in there is for um that it has to be consistent with the future land use Element table 2.14 um I will note that I don't know that that's consistent with our code though 9212 sub three I'm sorry B but that's um for the sides to argue but I just from a legal standpoint so you guys can know exactly what it says instead of just that small snippet Donald Proctor again I'd just like to say that uh you know the raso school there is a specialty school and there isn't anything that's going to be better than residential next to that you've got the largest piece of property that's along that node there that could be utilized and it can either be residential it could be something else I don't know what else could even make sense there to tell you the truth uh as far as all the things that I've been involved in so and to get some affordable housing there would be great for our County so that's that's all I'm really have to say about it it's it's the definitely the highest and best use for that property so that's uh I'd just like to say thank you very much for your time I do have sorry I do have one quick question on that is there a reason why the live local isn't being used if you're looking for a affordable housing since that has clear guidelines as to what's affordable pardon me is there a reason why the live local Act is not being used since it has clear statutory guidelines as to what's affordable I would have somebody else answer that I I don't know thank you thank you Miss pra uh board members um please keep in mind live local is not a zoning procedure what we are here on tonight is a rezoning application and this much to miss pra's Council very early in this meeting suggesting that uses ultimately which would come in through a site plan right that is not to be considered live local would be in fact live local would completely bypass this board completely uh and would not give any information or input from either this board or from the County Commission but that's not a zoning application that is a site development application so fundamentally that's probably putting the horse in front of the cart uh instead what we are here is to move forward with a rezoning application which if a den is recommended and I do agree with Miss pra that there's a clear problem between what the comp plan says and the decision-making Authority Under element 1.43 versus your inning River County Land Development code and suggesting that this board has the final decision-making Authority but regardless of whatever that decision is it would have to be based on competent substantial evidence as to why you would if you did deny it that you'd have to articulate on the record today and I do agree with you that's absolutely fundamental the law in Florida and anything less than that would be subject to not only appeal but reversal um and I think that's just whether I say that whether Miss pra says that or whe any other board certified local government attorney were to say that that's the state of the law so we respectfully request that we've met all of the elements that in fact we have proved by coment substantial evidence that resoning would be appropriate to move forward from the current CG down to OCR that the contraindications from staff in fact have been met and that there is no remaining items and you should in fact recommend approval for the rezoning if I may if that's the case I would like to respond then Mr Sweeny and state that then the board if that is the case that you're not wanting to take in future considerations then all of the testimony about the future uses of homes and affordable housing should not be taken into consideration when they are dealing with the fact finding in this case as the only thing they can take into consideration would be the highest and best use of the uh well not the highest and best use but the highest int use intensive use that they can use in this zoning district and if that in fact is the case and I appreciate you saying that if in fact the basis for the decision should be the highest and most intense use staff's unrefuted presentation is that the current zoning is a much more intense use than our requested resoning there is zero evidence to refute that thank you any questions well I hate play attorney but because I heard some ifs and shs can you go back to that a little bit because when I heard the word if was something that rised interest interest so basically we're required it's this particular section is saying that the board accounting commissioner shall rone a land that is consistent in a manner with consistent with a future land use element of table 2.14 so they have a requirement to rezone the land so long as it's consistent with that um but then it goes on to say that for any parcel the board of County Commissioners may deny a res zoning request even when the requested zoning district is consistent with the parcel's land use designation if the denial serves a legitimate public interest so what that's saying is basically even though it meets the criteria where they shall Grant it that they have the ability to deny it if it serves a legitimate public interest um and then that's where it goes on to say the bard of County Commissioner's determination that the uh requested zoning district is not appropriate for the parcel may also be based upon the absence of the following locational criteria for the OCR office commercial residential zoning District it's adjacent to existing offices uses as a buffer between residential zoning districts and arterial roads or other commercial zoning districts are at a node node perimeters um those are the ones where it says they may also be based upon the absence of the following um so with that being said those are the reasons and the case law on this does back that up that it does have to be say something for a legitimate public purpose um it's that or for it not um complying with one of the actual comp plan um requirements are both public are both uh reasons for under the case n basis for denial um as upheld even by the Supreme Court in the uh so couldn't Snyder case couldn't the denial based on legitimate public purposes be turned around to say an approval of rezoning be allowed based on legitimate public interest I have not seen that in the case all and that's not what this specifically says um it just specifically says if the denial serves a legitimate public purpose personally I'm struggling to find the public interest in a denial and I'm leaning towards being swayed by Mr Sweeney's testimony it's it's this board's job to take the evidence of both sides weigh it and determine what you find in make your determination based on the competent substantial evidence so that is your job whether it be for approval or denial that is this board's job and I support staff's position because they can only work with what they have as opposed to excuse me the real world that's out there that may there's more gray area than there's black and white I to me always not just a specific situation but uh in that respect but you know it talks about not being adjacent to residential well if it becomes residential and I the question then is office commercial residential it could be whatever correct it does we cannot say if you approv a resoning it has to be residential we can't do that correct um so that's part of where I was coming through coming from and where staff is saying there are certain things that are not consistent but I'm reading here under the ldr as a resulting resoning District raises concerns regarding potential land uses incompatible with jent properties where I would argue the other way around uh whether it's a school or John's Island Golf Course or whatever but again we have rules we've got to deal with that are black and white as opposed to to what might make more sense in the real world too so I'm kind of betwix in between not to mention the non-conforming residential structure that's adjacent well yeah I mean that's not going to be there for ever but I'm thinking out loud sorry go ahead Mark um I have a comment and then perhaps a question uh I'm your representative the board's representative the commission's representative on the affordable housing committee and as such I have have to applaud the applicant for um their effort toward affordable housing uh affordable housing kind of hard to Define and hopefully you know this will be carried through so that some people at least can afford this but um the question is I assume that staff and the applicant have worked together to find a zoning classification if you know if it's not uh OCR um I'm I'm not good enough to know why you wouldn't go uh straight to a multif family um residential zoning but I hope you have worked together to exhaust all possibilities so I can answer on that because I actually did have the uh we in our long range uh section we require all applications prior to going before any board uh to actually have a pre-application meeting so what staff indicated to the applicant at the time which was the con CIA group um was uh the application that was given in front of us which was a pre-application for a resoning to be able to get to a product of multif family um the only way that staff could support said zoning to multif family to get them to their end use would be to utilize the live local act which allows for uh melty family in a commercial or Industrial district and has built in criteria for affordable housing specifically um which requires 40% of the units to be affordable um that was discussed with them um and we went from there uh it was noted that staff could not support any request to OCR for the uh reasons listed in the staff report as well as items a through k and the uh comprehensive plan policies so I just want to interject here and kind of drive us back away from this again because we aren't supposed to be discussing what the potential use you know whether it's a house it's a drive-thru it's whatever have to focus on whether or not they meet the criteria um for the resoning um based on competent substantial evidence and also um if we could just kind of get away from what our ideas of a specific uses and it needs to be based on whatever whatever the competent substantial evidence demonstrates and not only that but what the most uh exhaustive uses what is it commercial here so the most intense use would be commercial there you go which is the existing zoning category could we do the equivalent of jury nullification here yeah Mr chair and Madame pra if I may just add a little bit to Mr Richer's uh comment another part of you suggested a rezoning to just a straight residential zoning that would clearly also require a future land use map comprehensive plan Amendment and I think In fairness to the applicant it's clear we are not asking for something outside of the CI future land use zoning this is a different smaller neck down version within that otherwise you truly would have an island of a future land use residential use in the middle of all of this to suggest that this is not a commercial use is just a blatant misrepresentation it's called OCR it is a zoning category within the commercial industrial future land use designation that is irre proposing that that was that the residential the multif family residential was possible but it just um just because I don't understand all the ins and outs of that I just wanted to answer your question I I understand thank you any other questions Mr chair if I may I do want to draw attention to a lot of conversation was brought on behalf of the actual comprehensive policy but there is Land Development regulations that go into this too every application is evaluated on items a through K and I want to bring to the attention item I whether or not the proposed amendment would result in an orderly or logical development pattern specifically identifying any any negative effects on such pattern so when we look at the existing zoning District which is a general commercial which only allows for commercial uses um when you look at the office commercial residential by the actual zoning regulations that would introduce residential into that commercial location so yes the highest and best use or the highest and most intense use in the commercial District if rezoned is commercial however you have to look at the zoning District as a whole as of all other uses that could be brought into that potential commercial node and other zoning districts which does allow for residential so in Miss Prada's comment of what the County Commission is allowed to deny is even if it's allowable within the land uses which is the commercial industrial land use there still can be a denial for that because the uh actual zoning district is not compatible within that commercial industrial land use I do want to bring that to motion or mention excuse me I would think U Chris if you put your affordable housing haton this would be a dream so I I would like to comment on that as well so when if this board chooses to go with uh an approval of office commercial residential there is no guarantee from the applicant that this is Affordable um the state statutes are very specific on what affordable means um and not to even bring up Liv local again but it's built into into that criteria of those definitions into that L that tool site plan development tool um I don't know if the applicant would be willing to enter into a um self-imposed restriction of a uh meeting affordable but as in any resoning they can choose any of the allowable uh zoning uses in that criteria so that can be commercial commercial office and residential correct but I I guess uh we're not allowed to place a condition on the no and I think I I I think um I want to gear you back away from that again Mr mucher um once again we're not going to focus on whether there's going to be affordable housing here or not just you know they can say they will and tomorrow they could sell it to someone else or they could do it I mean we can't hold them to that it's you have to consider whether or not they meet the criteria that are here we cannot consider the proposed uses for it so um please scratch the affordable housing I think from the consideration because we have to consider based on the facts and evidence either whether it fits into this criteria and it meets the definition and the requirements for the resoning or it does not I I yes I do have a question I understand most everything that's been discussed about affordable housing but Susan What If This Were to make it to the commission on the appeal process what leeway do they have in terms of affordable housing or any other uses the commission is bound basically by their own same rules um they have uh for applicate for approval and for denial um so at that point in time I mean they can make their own determination it's just basically another fact finding set another fact finding board that's going to make the decision um whether or not they approve or deny um based on the rules and items that we have set forth it's just kind of I can explain it better it's almost like another layer to the onion if I may say that um so their decision can also be denied to the Circuit Court should whoever not agree with the decision um but that's that's kind of where that goes and that's how that works if that if that answers your question I hope no um doesn't I'm trying to think of it it doesn't get me where I want to be I'm sorry please you can ask another one I I might ask one what what do you think uh our exposure is with moving this to OCR I understand that OCR is meant as a transition um you know buffer zone between commercial and residential you can certainly argue that John's Island is rm8 residential and then and well I guess just what do you think the exposure is and the downside side of of De deviating from what can be seen as a comprehensive plan so I don't know that I can give you an opinion as far as exposure um I think that would fall outside of my duties to this board which would be to give relatively legal advice in what you can and cannot do and what you should and shouldn't consider basically which is just the evidence um so I'm sorry I cannot answer that question for you um that's something I think you'll have to consider okay on your but I don't think that's something that you can necessarily take into consideration when you're doing this it would just need to be the evidence that's presented before you just so I understand the process and not assume anything they didn't go live local because they of the delay of changing the Land Development regulations in essence what is the time period on that normally to use the live local bill so there is there's no delay in using the live local bill it's done administratively and it doesn't go before the Planning and Zoning Board or the County Commission ldr changes nope the uh thing that I can say that in talking with most developers is they don't like that they are required to set aside affordable units and you have those affordable units meet the state's criteria I I have to object to continuing to talk about live local it's not relevant to the issue you've already advised this board multiple times I I would agree I think we need to get away from the live local give get away from any affordable housing talk um that was brought up by the applicant um and so we need to make sure that we strike that and just go based off of the uh criteria thank you thank you and I wasn't going that far along I was just more concerned with timing to be fair but and I also serve on the affordable housing committee too so um which is not relevant at this point and and you know if we're being clear about it Liv local would only be for residential development the OCR which is the pending zoning application is for office commercial residential I know that keeps getting lost in this but what that is is the tail wagging the dog we would still have to come in for site plan approval for whatever would go there and it could still be one of the permitted uses in the CG it still could be what this allows is a less intense use as you've already heard Still within the CI overlay and across the street you already back to the question about whether there's exposure I know council could not answer that but you already have OCR across the street that clearly did not cause a problem with the comprehensive plan otherwise staff certainly would have not recommended approval of that and it wouldn't have made it through this board and all the way up to the County Commission it's inconceivable to suggest that this is problematic when less than 300 feet across the street is exactly the same thing what is the evidence supporting that thank you Mr chair so to speak on the the actual zoning that's across the street it is OCR and in that commercial Noe is limited commercial for a true transition of OCR to the residential neighborhood and then further back to limited commercial so that is why that was able to be supported and rezoned uh because it met those criteria and was truly a transition and met items a through K of the actual uh requirements of the Land Development regulations anything else I'd just like to make a comment Mr chairman um and I agree you know we we have spent a lot of time talking about uses when this meeting is about rezoning um and correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like under the current zoning CG the most intense use is greater than OCR OCR appears to be more restrictive so I just am not convinced that that's not in the Public's best interest just a comment thank you thank you anything else I've heard some comments that um the M family residential is allowed in in CG is that am I wrong so multif family residential is only allowed in CG when it is accessory to a commercial use it is not allowed in The General commercial District if it is not accessory to a commercial use in the OCR District residential is allowed in that as the standal correct with no commercial component so I I want to bring the board's attention back again to once again not uses and whether or not it meets the criteria the CR the criteria is laid out in section 90212 of our county code subsection 3 standards of review letters a [Music] through sorry K those are the criteria and it's this board's determination to job is to determine whether or not there's compet substantial evidence that this uh request for resoning meets those criteria Calvin I know you got a football game to look at can I see that criteria sure we're here so the first one doesn't meet the criteria because existing uses is not adjacent to existing uses and would serve as a buffer between the residential and Commercial if it's it's not if it's OCR B I'm sorry if it's OCR and potentially it would possibly be a buffer on so this is where the comprehensive plan actually ties into the analysis part of the chapter of 92.1 3 subsection uh excuse me 92.1 two subsection 3 and one of those review criteria is is it is it consistent with all elements of the comprehensive plan so we have to take in that policy um and as we've stated and I don't think I need to say it again it does not meet that specific policy of 1.43 which is and I just want to say that it does say consistent with all elements of the comprehensive plan and then I can flip to the next one if you just want to see that one that's subsection F and then there is uh on the next slide I'm sorry sure one more this one yes so it's subject to change conditions that warrant an amendment which may or may not be accurate okay and then on the next page and then I result in orally and logical Ian provide a logical and orderly Dev elment pattern okay J not in harmony with can you talk to the m I'm so sorry um and Jay is it's not in harmony with the purpose and intent to complement and enhance existing development okay is that it and then yeah that's it no yeah okay all right not aware of a lot of existing development that's um around that area right now it seems that that land is fake and and has not been able to been put to uh you know use for I think seven years we heard they've been trying to develop that so I think we are looking at a square peg round hole situation we ready to close the public hearing anything else else on the right left anything else we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and I think we're pretty much talked out so I think we're in a position to call from a motion I would move to approve staff's recommendation or a second we give specific reasons we yes we would need to have an an a you would have to State um what facts and evidence you're determining the denial on um I you're approving staff's recommendation so and staff's recommendation they say they want to deny based on whatever reasons they had in there um are you differing are you adopting all those reasons I we yeah we have to be a little bit more clear as to why you're denying so motion say that we're approving staff's recommendation for denial based on the fact that the project is incompatible which was found in the analysis okay so sorry incompatible are you so they they went through subsection B incompatible with the PO with the um 1.43 1.43 in or are you going with I was going with everything that they listed okay okay so for I'm sorry can you please put that back up I just want to make sure we have a clear motion for the record the the stuff that you were denying it for it was for 1.43 in the conclusion section of the um backup material thank you right there so you're saying that you're wanting to deny based on the fact that it was not consistent with all the elements of the comprehensive plan basically 1.43 move to the next one yes I know you guys Clos the public hearing but there's something not right on there so it says there's office not adjacent Travis whitfield's office is across the street so they didn't do their work and find out there's office across the street so make that record okay so to the next piece please um on basically on Part F that said subject to change conditions exist in warrant and Amendment the subject properties are situated in the middle of an existing commercial node that remains largely undeveloped so this is your reason for that yes thank you next I result in the orderly and logical development pattern specifically identify any negative effects on such pattern that it does not meet this and it does not result in an orderly development pattern yes in conflict with public interests and is in harmony with the purpose and interests of the Land Development regulations that it does not meet that criteria that the request is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Development regulations as the OCR district is designed to complement and enhance existing development yes and and I'd like to make two comments along with this motion um I understand the inability to talk about the needs or the land use and I and I certainly won't do that um but I do appreciate the effort that has gone into um this application and those discussions and I would really like to see that concept developed further that's just my own personal opinion um it's obviously from all the discussion this is really a um it's very strange that that we can't get to some solution and I realize that there are some par and property out there that that have floated around for a long time but I I would like to see this resolved in a positive way for all of us and I I very much appreciate the efforts that's gone into it so far but back to my motion you stated it well Susan okay I just want to make sure that I'm covering what you're wanting in your motion okay so there's a motion is there a second I feel compelled to um uh recognize that staff has put a lot of effort into this and and they are doing what they need to do and and we need a second for discussion so we can discuss we need a second sorry sorry guys everybody else has been talking that's it I'm done is there a second doesn't sound like it okay so then the motion fails for lack of a second is there another motion I'll make a motion to approve the resoning request second we have a motion to approve the zoning request we have a second all in favor before can we have discussion sure yeah I was going to say I think you need to State your basis for approval and what competent and substantial evidence you have for approving the resoning thank you no no they don't need to stay at all that I'm getting a a very big uh headshake no from May I approach sure Mr chair um as you did say earlier Miss prao um if an application comes in and it is recommended for denial staff initially has the burden once that burden shifts over to the applicant if the applicant meets that and a recommendation for approv approval you do not and I I've never seen it this is my my experience as a local government lawyer I've never seen an approval with recommendations evidence suggestions it's just simply an approval the point of a denial having enunciated reasons is so that on appeal somebody who's not here tonight could see the reasons why but an approval is an approval so I I respectfully disagree that you would need to enunciate any reasons for an approval the motion with an appropriate second is on the floor I think it's now either time for discussion or vote as a point of order for Robert's Rules of Order thank you you work for them and she works for us I totally understand so I would just like to note that under the Snider case it does say that that's the Supreme Court case of Florida it says that the landowner seeking the resoning has the burden approving The Proposal is consistent so the burden starts with the landowner um it then goes to the staff to rebut that um and make sure that it's and to sayate that it's not at this point in time you all are saying that the uh applicant has proved their case so we can open this at least from the first and the second you can open it up for discussion and discuss what you shall uh I don't feel the need to elaborate on my motion but I will say that I believe it's compatible with surrounding area developments and in my opinion suitable for transition zoning any other discussion I need if you a second no you're fine if you second it and you don't want to add anymore that's fine last chance all in favor I I opposed I motion passes uh sorry five to one thank you all thank you thank I know that was long thank you commissioner matters commissioner matters planning matters no attorney matters ajour for