[Call to Order]
[00:00:04]
. >> GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE PLAN LINGS AND ZONING AGENCY FOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST. I HAVE 1:30 BY MY CLOCK. WE'LL GET STARTED HERE. WE'LL START WITH THE PUBLIC NOTICES STATEMENT READ BY VICE CHAIR MR. WOODARD
>> THIS IS A MEETING HELD IN CON CORNS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW. THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE AGENCY'S AREA OF JURISDICTION AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A TIME DURING THE HEARING. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK MUST INDICATE BY COMPLETING A SPEAKER CARD AVAILABLE IN THE VOWIER.
ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS MAY BE HEARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN. THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING THE MEETING ON EACH ITEM AND FOR A LENGTH OF TIME AS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES. SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT AND STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY. IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THAT THE TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE AGENCY IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TSTIMONY. IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDE THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE RETAINED AS PART OF THE RECORD.
THE RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE TO OTHER BOARDS OR THE COUNTY IN ANY REVIEW OF APPEAL RELATING TO THE ITEM. BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMINDED AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER THEY'VE HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSONS REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE OF THE FORMAL HEARING OF THE AGENCY. IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED, THE AGENCY MEMBERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THE PERSON INVOLVED IN THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE. WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES. WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU. UP NEXT IS PUBLIC COMMENTS.
[Public Comments]
THIS IS WHEN THE PUBLIC CAN SPEAK ON ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY. I HAVE ONE CARD.CLAY C. IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. WE'LL GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES.
>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: MY NAME IS CLAY C. I LIVE AT 301 AL TARA DRIVE IN THE SHORES. I AM HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT AN ITEM CALLED A MODIFICATION FOR 2019-0013 FOR ROCK SPRINGS FARMS ON 7085US1 SOUTH. I AM OBJECTING TO THE MODIFICATIONS. IT'S NOT BEFORE YOU FOLKS TODAY. I WROTE YOU AN EMAIL AS WELL AS THE COMMISSION ERRS LAST WEEK AND I INCLUDED THE TERESA BISHOP AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. I'VE SPOKEN AGAINST THIS ITEM BEFORE. I SUPPORTED THE ORANGE DEVELOPMENT OF THE -- ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUBLIC BUT I DISAGREE WITH THE WAY THE PUBLIC PARK THAT WAS PROMISED TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAS BEEN DILUTED BY A SMALL ADJUSTMENT THAT WAS MADE IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR. THEY REDUCED THE OPEN SPACE AND THEY REDUCED THE PUBLIC PARK AMENITIES AND THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IT AGAIN UNDER THE MODIFICATION THAT I SENT ALL TO YOU. I SENT THE SMALL ADJUSTMENT THAT THEY APPROVED.
I SET THE MODIFICATION THEY WANT TO APPROVE. AND I SENT THE ORANGE BCC THEY -- ORIGINAL BCC THEY DID APPROVE. THEY'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE PUBLIC RECREATION BY CREATING IN SMALL ADJUSTMENTS THEY CREATED, I DON'T KNOW, ABOUT TWO OR THREE ACRES OF PRIVATE RECREATION.
AND NOW UNDER THE MINOR MODIFICATION THEY'RE TEMPTING TO MAKE THAT PRIVATE RECREATION PUBLIC RECREATION SO THAT ON THE MAIN SCOPE OF THE PAGE IT STILL SHOWS ALMOST 8 ACRES OF PUBLIC RECREATION. BUT IT IS A CREATIVE WRITING AND SHELL GAME OF MOVING SOMETHING THEY CREATED IN A MINOR -- SMALL ADJUSTMENT. THEY CREATED AND MODIFIED IT IN THE ADJUSTMENT AND TAKE IT AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY TO GIVE IT TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY. BUT THAT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE PARK THAT WAS PASSED BY THE BCC. THEY'VE ELIMINATED A EDUCATIONAL BOARDWALK. THEY PUT A PATH AROUND A RETENTION POND THAT IS IN A PARK. IF YOU LOOK AT THE RETENTION POND, THEY CALL IT SOUTH -- RETENTION POND 2, UP ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER, THAT USED TO BE A GREEN FIELD. AND NOW IT'S JUST A RETENTION POND WITH A FIELD NEXT TO IT. BUT THE FIELD ACTUALLY ENCROACHES INTO THE BUFFER ZONE. SO, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DETAILS, AND YOU EXAMINE THE DETAILS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, THEY'RE REMOVING PUBLIC PARK THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE BCC. AND THE SMALL ADJUSTMENT SHOULDN'T HAVE PALLO ALREADY DONE. AND NOW THE
[00:05:04]
DEVELOPER IS BACK BEFORE THE STAFF AT A MINIMUM MODIFICATION LEVEL TO TRY TO USURP THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITY AND THEIR OWN VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT THAT THEY MADE TO THE BCC AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS PUBLIC PARK. SO, THEY'RE USING A SHELL GAME AND CREATIVE WRITING. I KNOW IT'S COMING BEFORE YOU ALL SOON AND I WISH YOU ALL WOULD CAREFULLY REJECT THAT PROPOSAL AND REQUIRE THEM TO GO BACK BEFORE THE BC. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU.DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? AGAIN ON THINGS NOT ON THE AGENDA. I SEE NONE. WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE HAVE NO MEETING MINUTES SO WE'RE READY TO GET STARTED. ITEM
[Item 1]
NUMBER 1 PLEASE. >> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, AGENCY MEMBERS. FOR THE RECORD, MARIE COOLIO, GROWTH MANAGEMENT. ITEM 1 TODAY IS SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2019-14 RA MONA'S PIZZERIA AND RESTAURANT. A PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR ON SITE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES UNDER THE REGULATION OF A TYPE 4COPFSS LICENSE IN CONJUNCTION WITH EXISTING RESTAURANT. THIS WOULD BE TO ALLOW FOR A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4010US1 SOUTH. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS RESIDENTIAL C. AND THE CURRENT ZONING OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL GENERAL WITH THE SHORES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH AND THE MULTRY PSD AND PUD ACROSS TO THE WEST AS WELL. THE APPLICANT STATES THE RESTAURANT CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 4,500 SQUARE FEET AND WILL PROVIDE 150 SEATS WITH NO OUTDOOR SEATING. THE HOURS OF OPERATION WILL BE TUESDAY THROUGH SUNDAY FROM 11:00 A.M.
TO 10:00 P.M. THE REQUEST AS SUBMITTED MEET ALL APPLICABLE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN CODE 20302. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW. I'M SURE YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS. IF YOU HAVE BEEN HERE A WHILE, YOU HAVE SEEN SEVERAL APPLICATIONS COME THROUGH THIS AREA. THIS IS THE SEATING DIAGRAM THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. THIS IS ALSO THE SEATING DIAGRAM THAT WILL MOVE FORWARD TO THE STATE FOR THEIR APPROVAL. THIS LOCATION WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED FOR A 4 COP LICENSE ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2011-13. LATER DUE TO CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP, IT WAS REAPPROVED ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIAL USE 2013-08 AND 2013-21. OWNERSHIP HAS RECENTLY CHANGED AGAIN. AND THE NEW OWNER WISHES TO CONTINUE WITH WHAT IS NOW THE 4 COP-FS LICENSE. THE RESTAURANT IS AN ALLOWED USE IN A COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATION. THE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE BEVERAGE LICENSE CAN BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND/OR THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND PLAN.
THE REQUEST IS SUBMITTED DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE INCOME PAMIBLE WITH SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SURROUNDING OR ADJACENT USES OR ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES OR SERVICES. AS SUBMITTED, THIS REQUEST DOES REQUIRE SPECIAL USE APPROVAL AND IT DOES COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS OF ARTICLE II OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO CORRESPONDENCE OR PHONE CALLS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION TO DATE. AND, WITH, THAT STAFF MINDS THAT THE REQUEST SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDES YOU WITH EIGHT FINDINGS AND ELEVEN CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OR FOUR FINDINGS FOR DENIAL. I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO AVAILABLE. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I SO NONE. IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT STEP FORWARD PLEASE. IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT PRESENTATION?
>> SPEAKER: NO THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ALL RIGHT. >> SPEAKER: OLIVIA ZENDA. MY MOTHER-IN-LAW IS LOOKING TO RETIRE SO WE AND MY HUSBAND ARE TAKING THE BUSINESS OVER.
CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I SEE NONE. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. WE SORT OF ASKED THIS OCCASIONALLY. HAS THERE BEEN ANY PAST POLICE
ACTIVITY IN THE AREA BECAUSE OF THE RESTAURANT? >> SPEAKER: NO SIR.
CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS. NONE.
[00:10:07]
>> BOARD MEMBER MARTIN: I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2019-14 REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR ON-SITE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES UNDER THE REGULATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN CON JFRNGS WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT DUE TO CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT 4010 US1 SOUTH UNITS 113-115.
SUBJECT TO THE 11 CONDITIONS AND EIGHT FINDINGS. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: WE HAVE A MOTION AND TWO SECONDS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. MOTION CARRIES APPROVED UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU. UP NEXT MS. KATZ HOW ARE YOU TODAY?
[Item 2]
>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. GOOD AFTERNOON TO THE AGENCY MEMBERS. CYNTHIA MAY WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND NOT GEORGIA KATZ [LAUGHTER] THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REZONING FOR 2301 STATE ROAD 16. THE SITE IS LOCATED ABOUT A THIRD OF A MILE EAST OF I-95 AND IS JUST WEST OF GREEN ACRES ROAD. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY -- WELL JUST UNDER TEN ACRES OF LAND FROM OPEN RURAL TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE AND THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND SURROUNDED BY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWS IT IS ALSO A MIXED USED PROPERTY. THE ZONING IS OPEN RURAL. THERE ARE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE, COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY TOURISTS A OTHER MORE INTENSE USES ALONG BOTH SIDES OF STATE ROAD 16. COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONING ALLOWS HIGHER INTENSITY USES WHICH INCLUDE THOSE LISTED THERE. ALTHOUGH NOT LIMITED TO THOSE USES. THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE WOULD ADD THE ABILITY TO HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, GENERAL BUSINESS, HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL, GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE, AND REGIONAL BUSINESSES. STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTED REZONING APPEARS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG A CORRIDOR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO DEVELOPMENT A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL USES AND THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WOULD APPLY. LOOKING AT THE COMPATIBILITY MAP, IT IS SOMEWHAT UNDEVELOPED IN THAT IMMEDIATE VICINITY AND COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS WOULD APPLY WHERE THOSE WOULD BE REQUIRED STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE OR PHONE CALLS REGARDING THE REQUESTED REZONING AND FINDS REDO NOT OBJECT TO A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. FINDING IT SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND PROVIDE FOUR FINDINGS IN FACT IN SUPPORT OF A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR
STAFF? I SEE NONE. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: YOU ARE WELCOME. HAVE THE APPLICANT STEP FORWARD, PLEASE. HOW ARE YOU, -- ARE YOU KAREN?
>> SPEAKER: I AM TODAY. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: YOU ARE TODAY.
>> SPEAKER: I WAS JUST JOKING. KAREN TAYLOR 77 SARAGOSA STREET. AND THE APPLICANT WAS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY BUT I DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE, CRAIG CUNNINGHAM. SO, IF THERE'S QUESTIONS I CAN'T ANSWER HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP AS WELL. SO, I'LL JUST BE KIND OF BRIEF.
CYNTHIA KIND OF COVERED EVERYTHING. THIS ONE IS PRETTY STRAIGHT FORWARD. AS NOTED IT IS THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROAD 16 AND RIGHT OFF GREEN ACRES ROAD. AND THIS AERIAL IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BEST TO KIND OF DEMONSTRATE THERE IS A EXTREMELY LARGE WETLANDS SYSTEM THAT SEPARATES THIS FROM ALL THAT. THE RESIDENTIAL BEHIND IT. AND I DIDN'T INCLUDE IT IN THIS PRESENTATION BUT I HAVE A COPY OF THE JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND MAP WHICH BASICALLY SHOWS THAT THIS WHOLE BACK CORNER IN HERE IS PART OF THAT SYSTEM. SO IT ACTUALLY CREATES A BUFFER TO ANYTHING AND IT JUST CONTINUES ON. SO, JUST KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE SITE.
KIND OF KNOW THE BASIC AREA. AS NOTED, IT'S FULLY WITHIN THE MIXED-USE CLASSIFICATION. REZ B TO THE SOUTH. IT IS OWNED OR RIGHT NOW BUT THERE IS CI, CG ADJACENT AND, OF COURSE, CHT
[00:15:01]
ACROSS THE STREET AND DOWN. INDUSTRIAL IS QUITE A MIXTURE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. AND AS CYNTHIA MENTIONED ON THAT, WE HAVE A LIST OF THE DIFFERENT USES. ALTHOUGH THEY ARE VACANT ACROSS THE STREET, THIS BEING STATE ROAD 16, THEY STARTED CLEARING FOR THE WAWA AND THE CHICK-FIL-A OVER THERE. SO, WE'RE PRETTY MUCH IN A VERY HEAVILY TRAFFICKED TYPE AREA. I JUST THOUGHT I'D BRING SOME PICTURES IN CASE FOLKS DIDN'T GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO OUT.SO, THIS IS THE CORNER OF G GENE -- GREEN ACRES AND STATE ROAD 16. THE IMMEDIATE PIECE THAT IS IN THE PICTURE IS THAT CORNER PIECE THAT IS ZONED CG WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PICTURE LOOKING BACK FROM THE RV SALES, NOW YOU KIND OF SEE BACK TO THAT -- THAT'S FROM THE WEST GOING EAST. THIS IS THE INTERSECTION WHERE GREEN ACRES ROAD COMES IN TO 16.
AND THAT IS GOING TOWARDS THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. JUST A LITTLE BIT TO GIVE YOU KIND OF HOW HEAVILY TREED IT IS AND WHAT IT LOOKS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD, THAT'S MORE OF THE WEST SIDE AS YOU GET INTO THE JURISDICTION OF WETLAND AREA. IT'S OBVIOUS. THIS IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD. THIS IS AT THE CURVE OF THE ROAD AS GREEN ACRES ROAD GOES AROUND AND THEN GOES INTO THE OTHER PART OF GREEN ACRES AND INTO USINA ROAD. THIS IS ONE OF THE HOMES THAT IS NEARBY. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT IT'S WELL HIDDEN BACK. THAT IS THE STRAIGHT AWAY GOING DIRECTLY EAST ON THAT TRANSITION TO USINA ROAD. AND A CONTINUATION OF THAT INTERSECTION AS WELL. SO, FEEL THAT THE ZONING DOES REPRESENT A SIMILAR INTENSITY AS MANY OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES. AND CYNTHIA WENT THROUGH SOME OF THE USES, BUT IT DOES COVER A LOT OF THE TRADITIONAL CNC-G TYPE USES. AS SHE MENTIONED SOME OF THE CHT AS WELL AS CI. BUT DEPENDING ON THE USE DOES REQUIRE BUFFERING WHERE NECESSARY AND PARTICULARLY ALONG THE ROAD. AND THROUGH A PRE-APP ON A DIFFERENT PARCEL, WE WERE TOLD TOO THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE SOME IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO GREEN ACRES ROAD AND NEED TO BE MADE BY THE DEVELOPER IF THEY PLAN TO USE THAT AS AN ENTRANCE OR EXIT. SO, THERE WOULD BE ACCESS FROM STATE ROAD 16 AND ON TO GREEN ACRES ROAD BECAUSE THAT IS A GENERALLY LOCAL ROAD THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE. SO, AGAIN, WE FEEL IT'S COMPATIBLE. PERMITTED USES WON'T HAVE AN UNREASONABLE INCOMPATIBLE IMPACT ON THE AREA OR THE TRAFFIC FLOW. THIS IS AN INTERSECTION SO IT ACTUALLY HAS DECENT BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE A LIGHT LIKE THE ONE JUST A LITTLE BIT FARTHER TO THE EAST WHERE THE ZACH'S BEES AND THE SUBWAY ARE. WE FEEL IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMP PLAN AND WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LDC. WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE AND OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS, BUT WE WOULD -- ARE REQUESTING A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU.
MR. ALAIMO? >> BOARD MEMBER ALAIMO: HOW FAR IS THE PROPERTY? THE OWN THEY'RE
ON GREEN ACRES, HOW FAR IS THAT FROM THE ZONING? >> SPEAKER: THIS DOESN'T SHOW UP VERY WELL ON THIS, UNFORTUNATELY. I SHOULD HAVE DONE IT IN WHITE INSTEAD OF A DARK COLOR. SO THE RESIDENTIAL HERE -- THEY'RE SHOWING YOU BACK AND FORTH -- THAT IS ABOUT 430 FEET. THE RESIDENTIAL -- THE HOME THAT I SHOWED YOU THE PICTURES OF, WHICH IS THIS HOME RIGHT IN THAT AREA, THAT ONE IS 291, ABOUT 300 FEET FROM THE CORNER. AS I SAID, MOST OF THAT GOT WETLANDS DOWN IN THERE. AND THEN THE NEXT HOUSE DOWN IS 590 FEET. SO, THERE'S QUITE A DISTANCE BETWEEN. AGAIN, YOU CAN KIND OF NOTE ON HERE, YOU CAN REALLY SEE THAT EXTENSIVE WETLANDS SYSTEM. IT IS THAT LIGHTER COLOR THAT IS GOING THROUGH THERE.
CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I SEE NONE. THANK
YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS? >> WE DO NOT.
CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY. MR. WAINWRIGHT? >> BOARD MEMBER WAINRIGHT: I'D OFFER A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RESIDENTIAL 2019-12 2301 ST. ROAD 16 COMMERCIAL A
[00:20:09]
REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 9.74 ACRES OF LAND FROM OPEN RURAL TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE.TO PROVIDE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONING FOR THE ENTIRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROAD 16 BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACTS WHICH FOLLOW ON PAGE 8.
>> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE,
PLEASE VOTE. VOTE CARRIES UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU. ITEM 3. >> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON
[Item 3]
AGENCY MEMBERS. MEGAN KUEHNIE PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM 3. WE ZONING APPLICATION 2019-17 NORTHWOOD PROPERTIES REZONING. THE REQUEST FOSS REZONE FROM OPEN RURAL TO COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE AERIAL MAP, THE PARCEL IS LOCATED SOUTH OF NORTH WAY DRIVE AND IS -- NORTHWOOD DRIVE AND UNDEVELOPED. IT IS LOCATED WEST OF HOMES BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF KINGS STREET. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 9.9 ACRES OF LAND FROM OPEN RURAL TO COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE. IT'S LOCATED IN A MIXED USE CORRIDOR. INDUSTRIAL USE AS WELL. IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED OPEN RURAL. THEY'RE ASKING FOR COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. THERE ARE OTHER INDUSTRIAL TYPE USES IN THAT AREA WITH THOSE IW ZONING, INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE ZONING, NORTH ACROSS NORTHWAY DRIVE AND TO THE ADJACENT WEST. COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE ZONING ALLOWS HIGH INTENSITYI USES INCLUDING DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS, RV BOAT STORAGE, OUTDOOR STORAGE AND ANIMAL HOSPITALS. BY REZONING FROM OPEN RURAL TO COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE, THEY WILL BE LOSING AGRICULTURE, MINING EXTRACTION, OUTDOOR PASSES TYPE USES BUT GAINING HIGH INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE. THE STAFF FINDS THE REZONING APPEARS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT'S LOCATED ON MIXED USE AND INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR. AND THE COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE DESIGN STANDARDS WOULD APPLY. HERE ARE THE COMPATIBILITY MAPS. SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE COMPATIBLE SURROUNDING AREA.THE SITE IS PART OF ASSEMBLAGE OF PORTION OF PARCELS SPLIT OFF FROM LARGER PARCELS BY THE LAKE CREATED FROM BIGGING A PIT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REZONE COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE WITH COMPANION COMMERCIAL USES. THE NORTH PARCEL ACROSS NORTHWOOD DRIVE IS CURRENTLY ZONED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE AND IT HAS OPEN STORAGE AND VACANT COMMERCIAL ON THE PROPERTY. THE WEST PARCEL IS ALSO ZONED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE WITH OPEN STORAGE AND VACANT INDUSTRIAL USES. THE REMAINING EAST AND SOUTH PARCELS THAT WERE CONNECTED TO THE OR ZONING WOULD REMAIN O.R. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM OPEN RURAL TO COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE WITH SETBACKS FOR COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE WOULD BE 15 FEET FOR THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR. MAXIMUM RATIO OF 70 PERCENT. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE OR CALLS REGARDING THE REQUEST OF REZONING THIS PROPERTY. STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF REZONING APPLICATION 2019-17 NORTHWOOD PROPERTIES REZONING.
STAFF FINDS REQUEST MEETS THIS EH REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF HAS PROVIDED FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT A MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. AND I WILL STAND BY FOR QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I SEE NONE. THANK YOU. MS. TAYLOR, HOW ARE YOU?
HOW ARE YOU FEELING NOW? >> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN. KAREN TAYLOR 77 SARE AGOSSA STREET. WITH ME WITH THE OWNERS WHICH IS HENRY GREEN AND STEVE BEEN INKER. SOME OF YOU MIGHT REMEMBER HENRY FROM A WHILE BACK. FROM THE ZONING BOARD.
CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: A WHILE BACK. >> SPEAKER: ANYWAY AND I'LL BE KIND OF QUICK ON IT. I THINK MEGAN REALLY COVERED MOST OF THE INFORMATION. BUT THIS IS KIND
[00:25:01]
OF AN INTERESTING PIECE, AS SHE DID MENTION, THAT IT'S KIND OF THESE LONG PIECES THAT WERE DONE OFF OF HOMES BOULEVARD. SO, THEY'VE ALL BEEN CUT THROUGH AND THIS IS OF COURSE A COUNTY RETENTION FACILITY. SO, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE LOCATION OF IT BASICALLY WHERE HOLMES BOULEVARD COMES ACROSS. YOU'VE GOT KING AS IT TURNS INTO 214 AND THE RAILROAD TRACK THAT GOES ALONG HERE. AND THAT'S NOT A HEAVILY USED RAILROAD TRACK BUT IT IS STILL A USED RAILROAD TRACK. IT IS 9.99 ACRES. THE APPLICANTS DO OWN A LITTLE MORE OF THE PROPERTY ON EITHER SIDE OF IT.BUT TO THE -- OVER HERE TO THAT NORTHEAST SIDE IS PRETTY MUCH A WETLANDS SYSTEM. YOU CAN SEE THE FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 313 THAT GOES THROUGH HERE AS WELL. THAT'S GOING TO BE AN ELEVATED ROADWAY BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO GO OVER THE RAILROAD TRACKS. AND IT ACTUALLY GETS -- BACK WHEN IT GETS TO KING STREET IS WHEN IT WILL BE BACK AT GROUND LEVEL. THERE'S ALSO A PORTION THAT THEY OWN THAT'S DOWN IN HERE AND WE DEBATED WHAT TO DO WITH THAT AT THIS POINT. AND SO AT SOME POINT YOU WILL PROBABLY SEE THAT ONE COME BACK AS WELL. IT'S FULLY WITHIN THE MIXED USE DISTRICT AND IT'S ADJACENT TO INDUSTRIAL USE AND EVEN INDUSTRIAL LAND USE CLASSIFICATION. THEN SHE ALSO SHOWED YOU THE MAP OF THE AREA FOR THE ZONING. IT KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA HOW MUCH IW IS IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA. AGAIN, THAT'S KIND OF CLOSER TO THE SITE. AND AGAIN HOW CLOSE IT IS TO THE FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 313. AND THEN JUST AS AN EXPLANATION I'VE GOT PICTURES OF A SITE FOR YOU ALL. IF YOU DID YOUR SITE VISITS. THIS PROPERTY, WHEN HENRY AND STEVE BOUGHT IT, WAS ACTUALLY UNDER CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE FROM 2014. SO, JUST A COUPLE YEARS OLD. AND SO WHEN THEY PURCHASED IT, THEY GOT WITH THE COUNTY AND THE COUNTY WANTED EVERYTHING K CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY AND THEY WANTED THE SITE RETURNED BACK TO AS BEST THEY COULD TO NORMAL TYPE THING. SO IT LOOKS LIKE THEY WENT OUT AND CLEARED IT AHEAD OF DEVELOPMENT BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. THEY ACTUALLY DRAGGED OFF A LOT OF DEBRIS.
THERE WAS A BORROW PIT THAT HAD BEEN DUG THAT DID NOT HAVE A PERMIT AND THERE WAS QUITE SOME INTERESTING THINGS IN THE PIT AS WELL, AS I UNDERSTAND. SO, THESE PICTURES KIND OF SHOW YOU THE AREA. THEY DID LEAVE A NUMBER OF TREES ALONG THE ROADWAY THAT ARE KIND OF SIGNIFICANT AREAS THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO CLEAN UP. AND SO THOSE WILL BE INCORPORATED WHEN THEY DO COME BACK FOR CONSTRUCTION PLANS ON THE SITE. THIS IS IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET. THIS IS THE KIND OF OPEN STORAGE WITH SOME CONTAINER STORAGE THAT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD TRACK. THIS IS COMING OUT OF THEIR SITE IF YOU WERE LOOKING TOWARDS HOLMES BOULEVARD. THERE'S ALSO SIGNIFICANT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE THAT GOES THROUGH INTO THAT WETLANDS SYSTEM THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS GOING IN TO THE DAVIS INDUSTRIAL PARK.
AND THAT'S THE INDUSTRIAL LAND USE AND THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING THAT'S IMMEDIATELY THERE TO THE WEST. JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA WHAT THOSE GENERALLY LOOK LIKE. THIS IS THE ADJACENT OWNER WHO HAS THE ONE KIND OF OUT PARCEL THAT WILL STILL STAY OPEN RURAL. AND, AGAIN, WE FEEL THIS IS VERY COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA. THIS IS HOW THIS AREA'S GONE FOR QUITE A WHILE. AND IT DEFINITELY HAS INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TYPE USES IN THE GENERAL AREA. AND, AS I'VE EXPLAINED ON MY OTHER ONES, I SEEM TO BE THE ONE THAT DOES ALL THESE CW ZONINGS, BUT I THINK FOR THE TYPE OF USE, IT KIND OF TAKES AWAY A LOT OF THE BASIC COMMERCIAL USES BUT IT ALLOWS THE ONES THAT KIND OF GIVE THEM THAT ABILITY FOR THE FLEX SPACE WHICH IS KIND OF WHAT HENRY AND STEVE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD. SO WE FEEL IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMP PLAN AND CONSISTENT WITH THE LDC. WITH, THAT I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, BUT WE ARE REQUESTING A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU.
QUESTIONS? FOR WAINWRIGHT? >> BOARD MEMBER WAINRIGHT: LOOKS LIKE A VERY GOOD USE FOR THE
SITE BUT WOULD YOU POINT OUT WHERE THE CLOSEST HOMES ARE. >> SPEAKER: WHERE THERE IS THAT ONE HOME. SO, LET ME GO BACK TO A MAP. SO THE ONE HOME THAT I'M SHOWING YOU THE PICTURE OF IS IN
[00:30:09]
THIS LOCATION. THAT GENTLEMAN HAS BEEN THERE QUITE A LONG TIME AND HAS QUITE A LOT OF INTERESTING THINGS IN HIS YARD. THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE DOWN HERE. SO, I'VE GOT TO GO BACK TO -- YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ON THIS MAP. SO IT'S A DISTANCE AWAY. THAT'S KIND OF WHY WE DIDN'T REALLY THINK CW NECESSARILY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE NEXT TO THE MOBILE HOME IN THISAREA. THAT'S A DEVELOPED SUBDIVISION. >> BOARD MEMBER WAINRIGHT: THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I SEE NONE. THANK YOU, KAREN. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS? WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY. FUTURE LAND USE IS MIXED USE. COUPLE OF PEOPLE HERE TO SPEAK. DR. MCCORMICK?
>> BOARD MEM >> BOARD MEMBER ALAIMO: I WAS GOING TO OFFER A MOTION.
CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: DR. MCCORMICK BEAT EVERYONE TO THE PUNCH HERE.
>> BOARD MEMBER MCCORMICK: RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZ 2019-17 NORTH WOOD PROPERTY REZONING -- REQUEST TO REZONE 9.99 ACRES OF LAND FROM OPEN RURAL TO COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE TO ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES. LOCATED ON NORTHWOOD DRIVE WEST OF HOLMES BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF KING STREET, HOLMES INTERSECTION, BASED ON FOUR
FINDINGS OF FACT. >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS.
>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: YOU ARE WELCOME.
[Item 4]
>> SPEAKER: MEGAN KUEHNIE AGAIN PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM 4. REZONING APPLICATION 2019-20 STATE ROAD 202 COMMERCIAL. A REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE AERIAL MAP THE PARCEL IS LOCATED EAST OF STATE ROAD 207 WEST OF WILDWOOD DRIVE AND NORTH OF BRINKHOFF ROAD AND CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 9.9 ACRES OF A 37 ACRE PROPERTY FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE TO RETURN THE PARCEL TO ITS PRIOR ZONING OF COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. IT WAS COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE PRIOR TO 2 2006 WHEN IT GOT REZONED TO A PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT BUT IT WAS NEVER DEVELOPED. IT'S IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICT CORRIDOR. THE ZONING MAP YOU CAN SEE IT'S PART OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO REZONE TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. THERE ARE OTHER COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONINGS IN THE AREA. ONE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE NORTH AND ACROSS STATE ROAD 207 AND SOME A LITTLE FURTHER NORTH FROM THE PROPERTY. COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONING ALLOWS HIGH INTENSITY USES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS, CAR WASH FACILITIES, KENNELS AND BOARDING FACILITIES AND VETERINARIAN ANIMAL HOSPITALS. BY REZONING FROM COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE FROM PUD THEY WOULD GET -- THEY WOULD LOSE OUTDOOR PASSIVE BUT THEY WOULD GAIN NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, GENERAL BUSINESS, OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL, HIGH INTENSITY CUSTOMER SCHILLING AND A FEW OTHERS. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST APPEARS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUND AREA. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG A MIXED USE CORRIDOR. AND COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WOULD APPLY. HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. RIGHT HERE. THE USED PARCEL IS PART OF THAT PUD. AND THEN IT'S THIS PORTION TOO. IT'S ALL PART OF ONE PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL. THEY'RE HOPING TO GET THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ZONED TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. THE EAST PARCEL IS ACTUALLY THE WETLANDS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO -- THAT'S WHY THEY'VE CREATED THAT BOUNDARY BECAUSE THAT'S ALL WETLANDS. AND THE REST OF THE PUD IS DOWN HERE. TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH THE NORTH PARCEL IS COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. IT'S
[00:35:01]
NOT CURRENTLY USING COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONINGS BUT IT WAS ZONED BACK IN 2004. THEN THE WEST PARCEL IS CURRENTLY ZONED OPEN RURAL WITH AGRICULTURAL USES AND A HOUSE ON THAT. THE SOUTH PARCEL IS A SEPARATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR FOR BOTH SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY HOMES. AGAIN, THE PROPOSED USE IS COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE SETBACKS FOR 15 FOOT FOR THE FRONT, 5 FOOT FOR THE SIDE, AND 10 FOR THE REAR.MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO IS 75 PERCENT. STAFF HAS RECEIVED ONE LETTER IN SUPPORT WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR IN THE O.R. ZONING. NO PHONE CALLS HAVE -- WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY PHONE CALLS AT THIS TIME. STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REZONING APPLICATION 2019-20. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF HAS PROVIDED FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THAT ENDS MY PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. AND I'LL STANDBY FOR QUESTIONS. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I SEE NONE. THANK YOU. HELLO MS. APPLICANT
>> SPEAKER: COURTNEY GAIVER. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND OWNER. I AM JUST GOING TO BRIEFLY GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE HISTORY OF WHY WE'RE REQUESTING THE REZONING AND A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXPIRED PUD. SO, AS STATED THE SUBJECT 9.9 ACRES HAS A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MIXED USE AND IS CURRENTLY AN EXPIRED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. IN 2006 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE STONE BRIDGE OAKS PUD AND ESSENTIALLY -- LET'S SEE IF I CAN GET THE POINTER TO WORK -- EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ONE PUD TOGETHER, IT WAS ESSENTIALLY TWO PHASES. PHASE I WHICH ENCOME PAUSED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WETLANDS WAS APPROVED FOR 37 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALIAL UNITS. THE OTHER PHASE, PHASE II, APPROVED FOR THE REMAINING FOR A TOTAL OF 84 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ONE PUD, THE ACCESS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WE'RE ASKING BE REZONED WAS ONLY OFF STATE ROAD 207 AND THERE WAS NO INTERCONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE TWO PHASES BECAUSE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL WETLANDS. THE PUD WAS NEVER DEVELOPED AND HAS EXPIRED. THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE ZONING MAP IN 2005 WHEN THE APPLICATION BEGAN. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ZONED C. I. WITH THIS REZONING APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT IS ESSENTIALLY REQUESTING THAT WE RESTORE THE PIECE OF THE PUD THAT IS OFF OF 207 TO THE INITIAL C. I. ZONING THAT WAS PRESENT PRIOR TO THE 2006 PUD APPROVAL. SO, AGAIN, THE WAY WE CAME UP WITH THE 9.963 ACRES IF YOU WANT TO BE TECHNICAL, IS THE PROPERTY RUNS FROM STATE ROAD 207, THE BOUNDARY, AND THIS LINE HERE RUNS TO THE 25 FOOT UPLAND BUFFER FOR THE JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND LINE. SO THAT'S WHAT THAT TEN ACRES ENCOMPASSES. SO THE PROPERTY IS ORIENTED TO STATE ROAD 207 WITH EXISTING C.
I. PROPERTIES AND OTHER COMMERCIAL USES. IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO GO BY, THIS IS WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE FROM STATE ROAD 207. AGAIN, IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF OUR PARCEL IS A PROPERTY THAT IS ZONED C. I. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IS LIKE A LOG CABIN THAT LOOKS LIKE A HOUSE BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S BEING UTILIZED TO OPERATE A BUSINESS OUT OF. THIS IS LOOKING SOUTHWEST ON 207 IF YOU ARE HEADED BACK TOWARDS I-95. THIS BLUE HOME AND THERE'S ALSO A VAC NITTY PIECE RIGHT HERE, THAT IS CI -- ZONED CI AS WELL AS THIS PIECE WHICH IS A VETERINARIAN ANIMAL HOSPITAL AND THERE'S ALSO LIKE AN AUTO TIRE REPAIR BUSINESS ACROSS THE STREET. THIS IS LOOKIN NORTHEAST TOWARDS WILDWOOD DRIVE. SO WE DID HOLD A COMMUNITY MEETING. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING LAST THURSDAY. UNFORTUNATELY, NONE OF THE NEIGHBORS ATTENDED. IF APPROVED, AGAIN, THIS REZONING WOULD REPLACE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESTORE THE ORIGINAL CI ZONING.
IT WOULD BRING MORE DESIRABLE COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND RETAIL USES TO THIS AREA OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY. STAFF DID FIND THIS APPLICATION WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S GOALS AND POLICIES AS WELL AS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE AGENCY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AND I WILL STANDBY WITH ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME.
[00:40:01]
CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: GREAT. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. MARTIN?>> BOARD MEMBER MARTIN: APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH FRONTAGE DO YOU HAVE ON STATE ROAD 207?
>> SPEAKER: THE FRONTAGE ON 207 IS ABOUT 125 FEET. >> BOARD MEMBER MARTIN: THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: I HAVE ONE. WHEN WAS IT FIRST ZONED
CI? >> SPEAKER: I DO NOT -- UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T KNOW THE
ANSWER TO THAT. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: OKAY. >> SPEAKER: I WOULD DEFER TO STAFF. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: JUST CURIOUS. NOT THAT CRITICAL
UNLESS WE HAVE AN ANSWER? >> SPEAKER: PROBABLY NOT A GOOD ANSWER BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS REZONED TO CI, BUT ZONING IN THE GENERAL AREA ALL OCCURRED IN THE '70S.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN REZONED AT THAT TIME. IT COULD HAVE JUST BEEN ZONED CI AT THAT TIME.
CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: OKAY. DIFFERENT TIME IN THE '70S. BELL BOUGHTONS AND BIG WIDE TIES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I SEE NONE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS? ALL RIGHT WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY. MR. WAINWRIGHT?
>> BOARD MEMBER WAINRIGHT: I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS I WOULD OFFER A MOTION UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE WISHES TO COMMENT. I'D OFFER A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZ 2019-20 STATE ROAD 207 COMMERCIAL. A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 9.9 ACRES OF LAND FROM PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE, CI, TO ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE USES.
LOCATED ON STATE ROAD 207 WEST OF WILDWOOD DRIVE AND NORTH OF BRINKHOFF ROAD. BASED UPON FOUR
FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH FOLLOW ON PAGE 5. >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND.
CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. ANOTHER UNANIMOUS YES. YOU ARE WELCOME. GOOD TO SEE YOU, SUSAN. HOW IS
RETIREMENT? >> SPEAKER: GREAT. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ALL RIGHT.
ITEM NUMBER 5. LAST BUT NOT LEAST? >> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON. FOR
[Item 5]
THE FORD JOE SEERLY. PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS.THIS IS THE SECOND HEARING IN A THREE PART SERIES. THIS REQUIRES MEETINGS BEFORE THE BCC AND THE PZA THEN THE BCC. SOME OF THESE ITEMS CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AS A DISCUSSION ITEM BACK IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR. STAFF RECEIVED DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ORDINANCE AND OTHER ITEMS WERE AT THE REQUEST FOR SUGGESTIONS FROM STAFF FOR CLARIFICATION. THE TOPICS INCLUDE FRONT YARD SETBACKS AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PUDS. CLARIFIES BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES. REDUCES TOWN HOME PARKING REQUIREMENTS. REVISES ACCESS EASEMENT STANDARDS. CLARIFIES STRUCTURES OR MAILBOXES LOCATED ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. EXTENDS THE MAIL NOTICE PROVISION. AND DEFINES, DEDICATE AND DONATE. SO, THIS IS AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE II TABLE 202. IF ANY OF YOU HAVE TRIED TO MANEUVER THROUGH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DETERMINE IF A USE IS AVAILABLE YOU KNOW IT'S OFTEN DIFFICULT. THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE WORKED ON PROBABLY I USED AS A SUPPLEMENTAL TOOL SINCE I FIRST STARTED WITH THE COUNTY. WHAT THIS DOES, IT PLACES ALL OF THOSE SECTIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY -- AS YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE IN PARAGRAPH FORM. IN 202 THEN YOU HAVE TO REFERENCE TABLE 202 ALLOWABLE USES TO SEE IF THEY'RE PERMISSIBLE. THEN FURTHERMORE REFRNGS TABLE 203 WITH SPECIAL USES. WHAT WE'VE DONE IS TAKEN THESE THREE SECTIONS AND CREATED A USE MATRIX THAT LISTS ALL THE USES AND THE USE CATEGORY AND DEPICTS WHAT ZONING CATEGORIES THEY'RE ALLOWED IN BY RIGHT OR BY SPECIAL USE OR NOT AT ALL. MOVING ON TO FRONT YARD SETBACKS AND PUDS. THIS IS ANOTHER DISCUSSION ITEM THAT CAME BEFORE THE BOARD. THE REQUESTED STAFF TO ASSESS THE STANDARD GIVEN THE HIGH NUMBER OF WAIVERS WITH PUD REZONINGS TO ALLOW THE NON-GARAGE PORTION OF A STRUCTURE. FRONT YARD SETBACKS TO BE REDUCED TO 15 FEET. CURRENTLY IT'S SET AT 20 FEET.
STAFF IS PROPOSING TO REDUCE THAT SETBACK TO THE NON-GARAGE PORTION OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO 15 FEET HOWEVER INCREASE THE GARAGE PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE OR THE DRIVEWAY SETBACK TO 25 FEET. THAT WOULD MIMIC THE STRAIGHT ZONING FRONT YARD SETBACK CURRENTLY. THAT'S IN OUR CODE. THE REASON FOR THIS IS WE RECEIVED QUITE A FEW PHONE CALLS ON TRUCKS OR CARS OVER HANGING ON THE SIDEWALKS OR ROADWAYS. AND, YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF
[00:45:08]
A FORD F-150 AND IT WAS 21 FEET, I THINK. SO, A 20 FOOT SETBACK OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE PLACING THAT VEHICLE WITHIN THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY AND SOMETIMES THE ROADWAY, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: I HAVE A THOUGHT BACK ON THAT ONE IF YOU DON'T MIND. THAT'S THE FRONT YARD MINIMUM SETBACK FOR THE NON-GARAGE PORTION BEING 15 FEET. I MEAN, SO WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THIS NOW BUILT OUT. BECAUSE THAT WAS APPROVED A COUPLE YEARS BACK. AND THEN SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS -- AND REALLY WANTING YOUR FEEDBACK FROM THE EXPERT LEVEL. IT SEEMS LIKE NOW YOU ARE LIMITING THE FRONT YARDS AND SEVERAL DEVELOPERS ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT, WHICH IS FINE. BUT LIKES THAT THE NATURAL KID PLAY AREA. AT LEAST TO BE OFF THE STREET. AND TO ME IT SEEMS TO CROWD THE ROADWAY AND SORT OF PUSHES MORE ACTIVITY TOWARDS THE STREET SIDE AT LEAST. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT OR ANYTHING ELSE?
>> SPEAKER: I LOOKED AT SEVERAL STUDIES. I THINK I EVEN ATTACHED ONE -- CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: YOU DID. AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT -- I THINK THE SETTING WAS LIKE A EUROPEAN STREET. IT'S OBVIOUSLY A LOT DIFFERENT THAN, YOU KNOW, SUBURBAN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.
>> SPEAKER: RIGHT. IT IS A PLANNING TOOL THAT'S OFTEN USED WITH YOU WILL SEE A NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. WHERE YOU ARE PUSHING THE BUILDINGS CLOSER TO THE SIDEWALK AND IT CREATES A TRAFFIC CALMING AFFECT. AS FAR AS PUBLIC SAFETY? I DON'T -- I MEAN, YOU HAVE SIDEWALKS AND YOU ARE TAKING AWAY FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. I DON'T SEE MUCH OF A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE AS IT TENDS TO HAVE THAT TRAFFIC COMING. IF YOU LOOK AT MORE MODERN DEVELOPMENT OR -- WHAT'S THE TERM FOR NEW -- TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT, YOU WILL SEE THEY HAVE THE HOMES, I MEAN, WITHIN FIVE, TEN FEET OF THE SIDEWALK. I DON'T KNOW WHAT DEVELOPMENTS WE HAVE HERE OTHER THAN RIVERTOWN THAT HAS THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY ISSUES THUS FAR AND MY RESEARCH HASN'T SHOWN THERE'S ANY ISSUE WITH KIDS
PLAYING IN THE FRONT YARD >> TO PUT THIS IN CONTEXT. THESE ARE ONLY APPLICABLE TO NEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS WHICH HAVE OTHER KIND OF DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS THAT GO WITH THEM. SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, NOT ENCOURAGING SPEEDING. TO KIND OF HAVE THOSE LINEAR ROADS.
DON'T WE HAVE MAXIMUM LENGTH OF A ROAD BEFORE -- LIKE IS IT 200 FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? 400 FEET BEFORE IT NEEDS -- YOU NEED SOME SORT OF INTERRUPTION. AND THESE ARE LOCAL ROADS WHICH HAVE A LIMIT OF 25 FEET, 30 FEET. I SEE DICK COMING UP SO HE MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK MORE ON THE EXPERT LEVEL ON WHAT GOES INTO THE DESIGN PROCESS OF SUBDIVISION ROADWAYS.
>> SPEAKER: DICK CHIEF ENGINEER FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT. SO, ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT PAULO JUST BROUGHT UP. IT IS A 1,000 FOOT MAXIMUM LENGTH BUT WE HAVE THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF CURVATURE LINEAR DESIGN. 1,000 FEET UNTIL THERE IS AN INTERSECTING ROADWAY. THE SIDEWALKS, FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROADWAY AND THEN WE HAVE -- THE DESIGN OF THESE LOCAL ROADS INHERENTLY FORCES YOU TO GO SLOWER BECAUSE WE HAVE TIGHTER RADIUS RETURNS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER DESIGN STANDARDS THAT GO INTO THEM IN TERMS OF SAFETY IN THE ROADWAY. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU. MR. MATOVINA, QUESTION ON THAT?
>> BOAR >> BOARD MEMBER MONTOVINA: I APPLAUD MAKING THIS STANDARD WHERE YOU CAN PULL THE HOUSE OR PORCH CLOSER BECAUSE I THINK THAT HELPS WITH SNUG HOUSES. 40 AND 50 LOTS TEND TO PUSH IT TO A SNAIL HOUSE. BEING ONE WHERE THE GARAGE STICKS OUT SO MUCH FURTHER SO YOU DRIVE DOWN THE STREET AND ALL YOU SEE IS GARAGES. THE FIVE FEET IS PROBABLY NOT A BIG DEAL TO THE INDUSTRY COST WISE. A DRIVEWAY COSTS ABOUT THE SAME AS SOD SO REALLY NOT A BIG DEAL. BUT IF WE'RE TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO PUSH THE HOUSE CLOSER TO THE STREET, I ANY THIS IS GOING TO DETER THAT A BIT. BECAUSE IF PEOPLE DO PUT THE MAIN BODY OF THE HOUSE FORWARD OF THE GARAGE, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE MUCH MORE THAN FIVE FEET QUITE FRANKLY. WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT IN NASSAU COUNTY WHERE THE COUNTY REQUIRED THIS AND ON THE SMALLER LOTS. AND SO WHAT THEY DID IS JUST CREATE A FRONT PARCH THAT EXTENDS FIVE FEET BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME TEN FEET FROM FRONT OF THE GARAGE WITH THE PORCH. MY SUGGESTION ON THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION IS PERHAPS TO ALLOW A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY AND CUT DOWN ON
[00:50:07]
VARIANCE REQUESTS IS YOU MAKE THE 25 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK. SO, IF FOR SOME REASON THE SIDEWALK GETS PULLED, ISN'T RIGHT ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND GETS PULLED CLOSER TO THE BACK CURB, THEN YOU STILL GOT YOUR 25 FEET. THE BIG LONG MACK DADDY TRUCK IS NOT HANGING IN THE SIDEWALK. BUT YOU STILL GOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO PULL THE HOUSES CLOSER TO THE STREET.>> I DON'T THINK THAT LOCAL ROADWAYS OFTEN -- I THINK THEY ONLY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A
SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE. >> BOARD MEMBER MONTOVINA: PERHAPS THEN YOU WOULD SAY THE SETBACK IS A MINIMUM OF 20 TO THE GARAGE. MATOVINA. THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION. BECAUSE
I AGREE, YOU DON'T WANT IT UP AGAINST THE CURB. I AGREE. >> SPEAKER: BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE. THIS IS A CLARIFICATION. BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES ARE A PLATTING TECHNICALITY THAT PREDICT LDC AND HAVE VARYING SETBACKS. ESTABLISHED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SOMETIMES CONFLICT WITH THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES AND IT'S NOT STATED IN THE CODE WHETHER THE SETBACK IS DETERMINED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR THAT THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE ON THAT PLAT. SO, THIS AMENDMENT JUST CLARIFIES TABLE 601 ARTICLE 6 THAT SETBACKS WOULD BE TAKEN FROM THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE IF PRESENT. THIS TOWN HOME PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CURRENTLY TOWN HOUSES ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TWO PARKING SPACES PER SWELLING UNIT PLUS ONE SPACE FOR EACH FOUR INDIVIDUAL DWELLING UNITS. STAFF SUGGESTS THAT'S SOME WHAT HIGH AND DOESN'T TAKE INTO THE ACCOUNT THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS. AND WOULD LIKE A MORE CLOSELY MATCH RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED BY THE ITE PARKING MANUAL. THAT'S -- THE ITE IS COMPOSED OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS AND EDUCATORS AND RESEARCHERS ALL OVER THE WORLD.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO DECREASE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT AS FOLLOWS FOR ONE AND TWO BEDROOM TOWN HOMES THAT WOULD EQUAL 1.5 SPACES REQUIRED. MORE THAN 2 BEDROOMS REQUIRE 2 PARKING SPACES. ONE THING THAT STAFF DID NOT INCLUDE IN THE REPORT THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE REQUEST TO BE PLACED IN THIS IS UNDER THE I.T. REQUIREMENT THAT'S ATTACHED TO YOUR STAFF REPORT IT ALSO LISTS CONDOS, TOWN HOUSES AND APARTMENTS. IN OUR PARKING TABLE WE HAVE AARTMENTS AND CONDOMINIUMS. WE'D LIK TO REQUEST TO THIS AGENCY THAT THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED AS PRESENTED TO THE BCC AT THE NEXT MEETING. AS THEY ALL KIND OF FALL IN THE SAME MULTI-FAMILY LOW IMPACT CATEGORY IN THE ITE MANUAL. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD
TO THAT PAOLO TO MAKE SURE WE GET IT IN THERE? >> NO JUST TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT THAT, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN A TOWN HOME HAVING A LESSER PARKING STANDARDS YOU DON'T HAVE A LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEX HAVING MORE PARKING STANDARDS WHEN THE ITE IS THE DOCUMENT THAT WE'RE USING TO JUSTIFY THIS. AND IT BASICALLY SAYS THEY APPROXIMATELY GENERATE THE SAME AMOUNT OF PARKING IMPACT. SO WE LIKE TO MAKE THE THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF MULTI-FAMILY FORMS -- TOWN HOMES, CONDOMINIUMS AND APARTMENTS -- HAVE THE SAME PARKING STANDARD SO IT'S CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD. SO, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO DEVELOP THOSE TYPES OF PRODUCTS, KNOWS
APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH PARKING THEY NEED. >> SPEAKER: ACCESS EASEMENT STANDARDS. THIS CAME BEFORE THIS AGENCY I WANT TO SAY LAST YEAR OR THE YEAR BEFORE REGARDING MORE THAN TWO HOMES TAKING ACCESS OF AN EASEMENT. IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE BOARD I THINK TWO OR THREE TIMES AS A DISCUSSION ITEM. IT WAS REVISED AND CAME BACK SEVERAL TIMES.
WHEN IT CAME -- AND WE BROUGHT IT BEFORE THE AGENCY. I THINK THE AGENCY HAS GIVEN IT A THUMB'S UP AT THE TIME. WHEN IT GOT BACK TO THE BOARD AS A DISCUSSION ITEM FOR DIRECTION THE BOARD DECIDED AT THE TIME TO LEAVE IT AS IT WAS AND JUST DEAL WITH IT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
I THINK THIS BOARD HAS WANTED TO BRING THIS BACK SO WE'VE INCLUDED IT IN THIS ORDINANCE.
AND I'LL GO THROUGH WHAT THE CODE CURRENTLY IS. CODE CURRENTLY ALLOWS EASEMENTS TO SERVE AS ACCESS FOR TWO DWELLING UNITS OUTSIDE OF PLATTED SUBDIVISIONS. THIS ACCESS IS MORE THAN TWO UNITS THEY HAVE TO CONSTRUCT OR PAVE THE EASE MINTED TO LOCAL ROADWAY STANDARDS INCLUDING THE 60 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION OR SEEK A NON-ZONING VARIANCE THAT WE SEE SO MANY OF. THE ISSUE WITH, YOU KNOW, REQUIRING THESE HOMES OFF AN EASEMENT TO PAVE IS
[00:55:07]
THAT -- AND TO CONSTRUCT THE LOCAL ROADWAY BARRIERS IS OBVIOUSLY COST. FOR THOSE ON LARGER LOTS SEEKING TO DIVIDE AND CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT. AS I SAID, WE HAVE SEEN A HIGH VOLUME OF THESE NON-ZONING VARIANCE OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS. THE STANDARD MITIGATION WHEN WE HAVE A NON-VARIANCE COME FORTH TO ALLOW MORE THAN TWO HOMES OFF A EASEMENT IS TO ALLOW -- YOU KNOW CREATE FIRE TRUCK TURN-AROUNDS. THEN PROVIDE US WITH A MENTHE AGREEMENT AND 20 FOOT STABILIZED WIDTH OF EIGHT INCH LIME ROCK. THE PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS AND AS I THINK AS IT CAME BEFORE YOU THE LAST TIME IS TO ALLOW UP TO NINE NON-PLATTED RESIDENTIAL UNITS OFF AN EASEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS. MUST PROVIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS TURN-AROUNDS. EXPAND STABILIZED WIDTHS TO INCLUDE SHOULDERS. AND ONE HING WE ADDED WAS IF TH MORE THAN FIVE HOMES OFF AN EASEMENT IT MUST BE IMPROVED FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 100 FEET. FROM WHERE THE EASEMENT STARTS AT THE EDGE OF THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY OR THE TURN THEY'LL HAVE TO PAVE THAT FOR 100 FEET. WHAT THAT DOES, IT ELIMINATES ANY KIND OF DEGRADATION TO THE ROAD. IF YOU HAVE JUST STABILIZED LIMEROCK, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE PAVED ROADWAY IS GOING TO BE HIGHER UP IN CURB SETTING AND SOME RUN-OFF IS UNDERMINING THAT ROADWAY. SO, WE'VE ADDED THAT PROVISION. IF YOU GUYS WANT TO STOP THERE AND DISCUSS THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH THESE AND STOP AT EACH ONE OR JUST KEEP MOVING. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: I SEE NOOTHER COMMENTS. SO, JUST KEEP GOING. >> SPEAKER: OKAY. THIS IS A CLARIFICATION IN OUR CODE. THE BOARD REQUESTED STAFF CLARIFY VERBIAGE REGARDING THE LOCATION OF CEMENT BRICK OR STONE MAILBOXES OR RIGID STRUCTURES WITHIN THE CLEAR ZONE OF ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE CURRENT CODE MAILBOXES CONCRETED FROM RIGID FOUNDATION. IT STATES SUCH MAILBOXES ARE PERMISSIBLE ALONG THE LOCAL RIDEWAYS. WE SIMPLIFIED THAT -- THE PROPOSAL IS THE REVISE THE LANGUAGE TO MORE CLEARLY COMMUNICATE THE INTENT. AND THERE'S A STANDARD IN DETAIL. HOVE IT'S NOT PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SO IT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE REPORT. THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE WOULD STILL DO THE SAME. STILL HAVE THE SAME INTENT AND WOULD PROHIBIT RIGID STRUCTURES OR BRICK MAILBOXES FROM BEING LOCATED IN THE CLEAR ZONE OF ANY COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND WOULD ALLOW RIGID STRUCTURES WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON ALL ROADWAYS WITH A POSTED SPEED LIMIT OF 30 MILES PER HOUR OR LESS. IF THEY HAVE A LOW PROFILE CURB AND
GUTTER. >> IT'S NOT ALL ROADWAYS. IT'S ROADWAYS WITH A SPECIFIC ROAD PROFILE. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: M MR. MATOVINA?
>> BOAR >> BOARD MEMBER MONTOVINA: ALL NEW HAVE TO HAVE CLUSTER MAILBOXES AN YOU HAVE TO HAVE HANDICAPPED ACCESS BILLY. WHAT WE'RE DOING IN SOME OF OUR SUBDIVISIONS IS WE PUT THEM BETWEEN THE BACK CURB AND THE SIDEWALK WHICH MEANS THEY END UP IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK SERVE AS THE HANDI CAP ACCESSIBILITY. I DON'T KNOW
WHETHER THAT QUALIFIES AS A RIGID STRUCTURE OR NOT. >> SPEAKER: I THINK IT DOES. I DON'T THINK IT -- THE STANDARD IN DETAIL IS NOT SPECIFIC AS TO A CLUSTER OF MAILBOXES OR A
MAILBOX. >> BOARD MEMBER: I TURN THEM BACKWARDS SO THEY FACE THE SIDEWALK. SOME OF MY BRETHREN ACTUALLY JUST PUT THEM TO WHERE SOMEBODY KIND OF HAS TO BE ON THE EDGE OF THE CURB. WHICH I DON'T FIND TO BE PARTICULARLY DESIRABLE. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE POST OFFICE IS ALLOWING THAT ANYMORE. BUT I DON'T THINK YOU WANT THAT.
>> SPEAKER: AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE CRITERIA AND -- I MEAN, THEY STILL HAVE TO APPLY FOR A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT FOR THE LOCATION OF THAT I'LL LET DICK SPEAK TO THIS.
>> SPEAKER: SO IN TERMS OF THE CLUSTER MAILBOXES. WHEN THOSE ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SIDEWALKS WHERE WE'VE GOT ROADWAY, CURB, WHICH IS 18 INCHES, THEN YOU TYPICALLY HAVE A 2 TO 3 FOOT UTILITY STRIP, 4 FOOT SIDEWALK THEN YOU HAVE YOUR CONCRETE PAD THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THE CLUSTER MAILBOX ON. AND IN THAT INSTANCE YOUR CLEAR ZONE FROM THE EDGE OF YOUR CURB/TRAVEL LANE IS ONLY A FOUR FOOT SPACE. SO, WHEN YOU CONSIDER A NEW DEVELOPMENT WHERE YOU ARE PUTTING THIS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SIDEWALK, YOU ARE WELL OUTSIDE OF THE CLEAR ZONE BECAUSE OF THE UTILITY STRIP AND FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK. IN THAT INSTANCE THE CLEAR ZONE WOULD NOT COME IN TO PLAY WHICH IS WHAT THE STANDARD AND DETAILS IS REFERENCING IN TERMS OF THE
[01:00:01]
SAFETY ISSUE. >> BOARD MEMBER: PUT THEM ON THE OTHER SIDE IS WHAT I AM TELLING
IF YOU AM BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND BACK CURING. >> SPEAKER: THAT WOULD REQUIRE A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT. I'M NOT 100% FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE CLUSTER MAIL BOXES ARE COMPRISED
OF. I WOULD SAY IT STILL REQUIRES PERMITTING >> AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS USUALLY A STANDARD THAT THE POST OFFICE WHICH ARE, YOU KNOW, RUNNING UNDER FEDERAL GUIDELINES THEY LIKE THOSE CLUSTER OR GANG MAILBOXES TO BE PLACED IN ALL SUBDIVISIONS. WE MAKE THAT COMMENT. IF THAT'S A FEDERAL RULE, YOU KNOW, WE DO OPERATE UNDER THAT FEDERAL MAILBOX RULE AS WELL WHICH WOULD KIND OF TRUMP ANY OF OUR LOCAL REGULATIONS. THIS WAS MAINLY GARNERED TO ADDRESS THE RIGID AND BRICK MAILBOXES, STAND ALONE MAILBOXES WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAYS.
BUT WE'LL LOOK AT THOSE CLUSTER MAILBOXES WHICH ARE NOW ALMOST MANDATED BY THE POST OFFICE
DEPARTMENT. >> BOARD MEMBER: ACTUALLY JUST TO CLARIFY. THEY ARE BEING MANDATED. THIS IS LIKE THE NUMBER ONE AGENDA ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FOR THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS AND HAS BEEN FOR FIVE YEARS. YOU CAN'T PUT IN NEW SUBDIVISIONS INDIVIDUAL MAILBOXES ANYMORE. I GUESS THE OTHER THING I WOULD TELL YOU IS THAT YOU ARE REFERENCING A FEDERAL STANDARD AND I WISH THERE WERE A STANDARD. BECAUSE EACH POSTMASTER TENDS TO HAVE THEIR OWN TAKE ON WHAT TO DO. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
>> SPEAKER: WE'LL LOOK INTO THAT BEFORE WE BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. I THINK I FIRST NEED TO
SEE WHAT A CLUSTER MAILBOX IS. WE'LL LOOK THAT THAT >> BOARD MEMBER: IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL METAL -- LIKE YOU HAVE 16 BOXES PLUS A POSTAL -- PLACE FOR A POSTAL BOX THAT ANYONE CAN GET TO. YOU KIND OF SEE THEM AROUND APARTMENTS. BIG METAL THINGS AND ON CONCRETE.
CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE DICTATES THE SIZE OF THAT INDIVIDUAL MAILBOX. THEN YOU HAVE BINS AND THINGS FOR PACKAGES AND OUTGOING MAIL SLOT AT LEAST. BUT THEY'RE
NOT ATTRACTIVE. >> SPEAKER: MAYBE WE CAN MAKE REFERENCE TO THAT. I'LL LOOK
INTO IT FURTHER. >> BOARD MEMBER: IF YOU WOULD EMAIL ME, I'LL GET SARAH IN MY OFFICE TO CALL YOU BECAUSE SHE IS THE EXPERT ON THE SYSTEM OF GETTING THOSE APPROVED.
>> SPEAKER: OKAY. MAIL NOTICES. THIS AMENDS ARTICLE 9. WE'VE HAD ISSUE -- TAKEN ISSUE WITH SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS SAYING THEY WEREN'T GIVEN ENOUGH TIME WITH MAIL NOTICES IN ADDITION TO THE NEWSPAPER ADS AND PROPERTY POE POSTINGS. THE CURRENTLY THE CODE STATES NO THE LESS THAN TEN DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE DATE OF THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING THESE U.S. MAIL MUST -- I'M SORRY. EXCUSE ME. PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THREE HUNDRED FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NEED TO BE MAILED. EXCUSE ME. PROPOSAL WAS TO EXTEND THE MAILING PERIOD FROM TEN CALENDAR DAYS TO 15.
AND, LIKE I SAID, THESE NOTIFICATIONS ARE IN ADDITION TO THE NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS AND
THE SIGN POSTINGS. >> THAT JUST MAKES IT 15 DAYS ACROSS THE BOARD FOR BOTH THE NEWSPAPER, THE POSTED SIGN AND THE MAIL NOTICE. I'LL BE HONEST, WE DO THOSE ON THE SAME DAY ANYWAY BECAUS IF YOU ARE DOING A NOTICE YOU MIGHT AS WELL DO THEM ALL. SO IT'S JUST KIND OF MODIFYING THE PROVISIONS IN THE CODE TO MATCH ALMOST EXISTING PRACTICE THAT WE DO.
>> SPEAKER: LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO DEFINE DEDICATION AND DONATION. THE ISSUE IS THESE TERMS ARE FREQUENTLY USED IN LAND USE APPLICATIONS. MORE SPECIFICALLY COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS. IN SOME CASES THE WORD DONATE HAS BEEN USED EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICANT MAY BE RECEIVING SOME FORM OF COMPENSATION. STAFF HAS CREATED TWO DEFINITIONS FOR DEDICATION AND DONATION. AND I BELIEVE THAT -- WAS IT DEDICATION? I'M SORRY DEDICATION WOULD IMPLY
THAT THE APPLICANT RECEIVED SOME TYPE OF REMOON RACING >> IT JUST ALLOWS IT -- THE DEDICATION STANDARD IS JUST SETTING ASIDE OF A PIECE OF LAND FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT AND, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER DOES THAT CAN RECEIVE SOME TYPE OF CONSIDERATION. THAT'S CREDITS,
[01:05:05]
THAT COULD BE CASH, THAT COULD BE AN ADJUSTMENT OF, YOU KNOW, RELAXATION STAND ARE OR SOMETHING OR EVEN AN OPTIONAL DENSITY BONUS. SO, THERE'S SOMETHING GIVEN IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT DEDICATION. THE DONATION WE WANT TO CLARIFY IS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY A TRUE GIFT. DONATION WITHOUT EXPECTATION OF COMPENSATION WHEN GIVEN FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT. REALLY IT'S -- YOU ARE DOING THE SAME ACTION. IT'S THE EXPECTATION IN RETURN FOR BOTH THE GIVER OF THE LANDAND THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY THAT'S RECEIVING THE LAND. >> SPEAKER: SO THESE CAME BEFORE THE BOARD ON OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR FOR FIRST READING. LIKE I SAID, IT REQUIRES TWO READINGS BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. WHERE THEY VOTED TO MOVE IT FORWARD TO THIS AGENCY. PROVIDED TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS AGENCY. AND MYSELF AND OTHER STAFF ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ALL RIGHT.
MR. WAINWRIGHT, QUESTIONS? >> BOARD MEMBER WAINRIGHT: TWO COMMENTS. ONE; THE ADDITIONAL TIME FOR PUBLIC NOTICE, ANYTHING THAT GIVES THE CITIZENS MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IS A GREAT THING. I SUPPORT THAT. AS I DO THE OTHER CHANGES. BUT THAT ONE, PLUS THE ONE ON THE MAILBOXES, EVERY TIME I PASS A CONCRETE MAILBOX IN THE SHAPE OF A PORPOISE FOR A WHALE OR A PELICAN, IT SCARES ME. IF YOU HIT ONE OF THOSE, YOU ARE GOING TO DIE. SO, I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THAT EFFORT IN THAT REGARD. NOT WITHSTANDING WHAT THE POSTMASTER WANTS OR DOESN'T WANT. JUST THE IDEA OF MOVING THEM BACK OR NOT ALLOWING THEM IS A GOOD IDEA. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: M MR. ALAIMO? >> BOARD MEMBER ALAIMO: THANK YOU. AGREE ON THE MAILED NOTICES. ANY TIME WE CAN GIVE MORE OF ADVANCED NOTICE. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING HOW THAT IS COMPILED. I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. BUT I WAS TRYING TO -- READING AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT. THE INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER WITHIN 90 DAYS? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING IN THAT AREA BEFORE THIS -- I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF PEOPLE WEREN'T GETTING THEM WAS IT BECAUSE MAYBE THEY HAD JUST MOVED TO THE AREA WITHIN THAT 90 DAY WINDOW?
I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THAT >> THE 90 DAY PROVISION IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE UPDATED ADDRESSES AND AN APPLICANT ISN'T USING AN APO WHICH IS AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICE THAT IS OUT OF DATE. BECAUSE THAT'S WHY WE REFERENCE THE PROPERTY APPRAISER BECAUSE THAT'S THE OFFICIAL ADDRESS FOR THE PROPERTY WHICH MAY NOT BE, YOU KNOW, THAT PHYSICAL PLACE.
IT MAY BE BEING SENT OFF TO SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN ANOTHER AREA THAT MAY BE A SECONDARY HOME. IT MAY BE A SECONDARY PROPERTY. IT MAY BE A P.O. BOX. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ACTUAL RECIPIENT IS UP TO DATE AS POSSIBLE. THE COMPLAINTS WE WERE BEING, YOU KNOW, THAT WE WERE RECEIVING ARE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, RELYING ON THAT MAIL NOTICE. THAT MAILED NOTICE -- WE HAVE TO GET IT IN THE MAILBOX IN TEN DAYS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT GETS TO YOU IN TEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. THAT JUST MEANS WE STUFF IT IN THERE. SO IT'S SUBJECT TO SNAIL MAIL AND THE RESULT IN THINGS THAT COULD OCCUR. SO THAT'S WHY WE PUSHED IT BACK TO THE OTHER 15-DAY PROVISIONS WHERE WE AS THE COUNTY HAVE TO MAKE SURE IT GETS ADVERTISED IN THE RECORD.
WE AS THE COUNTY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, YOU KNOW, POST THOSE ORANGE SIGNS THAT YOU SEE EVERYWHERE 15 DAYS IN ADVANCE. WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE AT LEAST 15 DAYS WE PUT THOSE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOTICES IN THE MAIL FOR IT TO BE SENT. SO, FOR THE PZA HEARINGS USUALLY THAT'S, YOU KNOW, A WEDNESDAY TWO WEEKS PREVIOUS. THEN FOR THE PCC
HEARINGS -- BCC HEARINGS THAT'S THE MONDAY PREVIOUS. >> BOARD MEMBER: ARE THEY DONE AT THE SAME TIME AS FAR AS PUTTING THE ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE PAPER AND THE SIGNS OUT.
THEY'RE ALL PUT OUT 15 DAYS? >> YEAH. HOPEFULLY IF THERE'S -- IF EVERYTHING GOES WELL -- NOW THERE'S A PROVISION SAYING, YOU KNOW, GOOD FAITH SCHEME LEITZ. WE CAN FAIL ONE OF THESE. LIKE THE RECORD FAILS TO ADVERTISE IN THE REQUIRED TIMEFRAME. THE COUNTY DOESN'T
[01:10:03]
HAVE CONTROL OF THAT. AS LONG AS YOU MEET THE STATUTORY GUIDELINES AT LEAST TEN DAYS FOR THE ORDINANCE WE HAVE A GOOD FAITH TRY. BUT YOU HAVE TO HIT THE OTHER TWO PERFECTLY. 15 DAYS PRIOR WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT THE RECORD IS ADVERTISED AT THE PROPERTY DATE THAT WE HAVE OUR INSPECTORS POST THE PROPERTY ON THE PROPER DATE AND THAT THE LETTERS HAVE BEEN PUT INTO THEMAILBOX ON PROPER DATE. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THE LETTERS NOWADAYS AND IT CHANGES A WHILE BACK, COME FROM THE COUNTY AND NOT THE APPLICANT.
AND THERE WAS SOME DIFFICULTIES WITH THE APPLICANT GETTING THAT OUT. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, 99.9 PERCENT OF THOSE LETTERS HIT THE MAILBOXES AT THE RIGHT TIME. AND THE PEOPLE WHO
CLAIM NOT TO GET THEM ARE OUTSIDE OF THAT 300 FEET >> SPEAKER: ANOTHER COMPLAINT IS IT WASN'T GIVING ANYONE ENOUGH TIME TO ATTEND MEETINGS OR RESPOND.
CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS. ARCHIE?
>> BOARD MEMBER WAINRIGHT: I OFFER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APP APPROVAL. AND I'VE GOT TO ASK HERE, WERE THERE ANY COMMENTS HERE THAT WE'VE GOT TO
INCORPORATE? >> I HAVE ONE I'D LIKE TO ADD. ON THAT GARAGE.
>> BOARD MEMBER WAINRIGHT: OFFER IT. >> BOARD MEMBER MONTOVINA: DO YOU WANT ME TO OFFER A MOTION? I OFFER A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FOR ALL THE CHANGES.
MY SUGGESTED MODIFICATION IS TO SECTION 5.03.03 CAPITAL B SMALL C. AND I WOULD SAY THAT THAT WOULD NOW READ... 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO FACE OF GARAGE. CROSS OUT THE REST OF THAT IN SLASH OR LENGTH OF THE DRIVEWAY AND INSERT, PROVIDED THAT THE FACE OF THE GARAGE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 25 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF ANY SIDEWALK. SO, I'LL REREAD THAT. 20 FOOT SETBACK TO FACE OF GARAGE PROVIDED THAT THE FACE OF THE GARAGE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 25 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF ANY SIDEWALK. SO I WILL OFFER A MOTION FOR APPROVAL ALL OF THESE CHANGES WITH THAT
MODIFICATION. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THERE WERE SOME OTHER TWEAKS YOU WERE GOING TO LOOK AT THOUGH YOU KNOW.
THAT AREN'T PART OF A MOTION BUT YOU THOUGHT YOU MIGHT REFINE OR SOMETHING BETWEEN NOW AND THE --
>> SPEAKER: THE MAILBOX. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: YEAH. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. ANOTHER UNANIMOUS ONE.
UNANIMOUS DAY. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE IT. STAFF REPORTS? >> SPEAKER: HAPPY THANKSGIVING. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: HAPPY
[Reports]
THANKSGIVING TO YOU AS WELL. AGENCY REPORTS? MR. MARTIN? SPEAK I JUST WANTED TO ASK IF STAFF KNEW WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNTY COMMISSION WOULD MOVE ON FILLING THE VACANCY FOR MY SEATBY THEIR NEXT MEETING >> WE HAVE IT SCHEDULED ON DECEMBER 3RD WHICH THEY ARE -- IF ALL GOES WELL THEY'LL MAKE AN APPOINTMENT. THERE IS SOME LAG TIME BECAUSE THE APPOINTED PERSON NEEDS TO FILL OUT FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS, NEEDS TO MEETS -- YOU KNOW BECAUSE THEY BECOME A COUNTY OFFICIAL AND THEY NEED TO DO FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES
>> I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A PHONE CALL OR SOMETHING. I'D HATE TO GET ALL DRESSED UP AND COME DOWN HERE
>> BOARD MEMBER: WELL YOU HAVE TO COME DOWN HERE FOR A ROASTING [LAUGHTER] CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: SO, PAULO, IT THEN EXPECTED THAT AT THE NEXT PZA HEARING, THE FIRST ONE IN DECEMBR, THAT MR. MARTIN WOULD BE A SITTING MEMBER OF THE AGENCY?
>> AT THAT POINT AND TIME, I BELIEVE. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK OUR COMMISSION OFFICE WORKS THAT FAST IN GETTING ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS OUT. BECAUSE THEY NEED TO ENSURE LIKE THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORM IS CORRECT AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE SAT AN AGENCY MEMBER WHO IS RECENTLY APPOINTED ON THE NEXT THURSDAY. BECAUSE THERE'S LIKE A DAY BETWEEN DECEMBER 3RD AND DECEMBER 5TH. SO, I'LL GET IN TOUCH WITH MELISSA FROM THE BCC OFFICE AND SEE WHAT THEIR
[01:15:07]
AVERAGE TIMEFRAME IS AND AFTER THAT I'LL ENSURE TO GET IN CONTACT WITH MR. MARTIN.CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU. WELL IT GIVES US A TIME TO PRAISE JEFF A LITTLE BIT AND GIVE HIM SOME ACCOLADES FOR SITTING ON THE BOARD FOR TWO TERMS. SO I WOULD RATHER NOT
SPIN MY WHEELS NOW. IF WE SEE HIM TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. >> AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT PREVENTS THE AGENCY FROM DOING A CEREMONY EVEN IF A REPLACEMENT WAS APPOINTED. KIND OF A CEREMONIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, YOU KNOW, AT THE HEARING ITSELF. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ALL RIGHT.
SO, SOUNDS LIKE WE'LL SEE YOU IN TWO WEEKS, JEFF. >> BOARD MEMBER MARTIN: ALL RIGHT. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ANOTHER AID AGENCY REPORT. IF THERE'S -- THIS IS JUST MY THOUGHT. IF THERE'S A NEW PLANNING STAFF MEMBER, IN THE PAST THERE HAVE BEEN INTRODUCTIONS, SO I CAN PRONOUNCE THEIR LAST NAME WITHOUT EMBARRASSING MYSELF REALLY. BUT JUST TO WELCOME THEM ON, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU DON'T MIND. GREAT. ANY OTHER AGENCY REPORTS? MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> BOARD MEMBER: SO
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.