OK, FOLKS, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
[00:00:02]
THE AUGUST 4TH MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BEARD BOARD IS CALLED TO ORDER.[CALL TO ORDER]
DAVID WILL LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.EVERYONE, PLEASE STAND AND FACE THE FLAG.
CHANDRA, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? YES, MR. BOEREMA RESIDENT MR. BOOTHROYD MR. HILL PRESENT MS. JORDAN MS. MIRAJ HAS ASKED TO BE EXCUSED.
MR. WARNER HAS TO BE EXCUSED AS TO WEINBERG YOUR MR. KARAFFA AND I BOARD COUNSEL, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY JENNIFER COCKCROFT IS PRESENT.
WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. OKAY, THANK YOU, SHANDRA.
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS THE ADOPTION OF MINUTES FROM OUR MEETING OF JUNE 2ND.
[ADOPTION OF MINUTES]
CAN I GET A MOTION, PLEASE? GOING YOU HAVE A MEETING? OH, NO.JUNE, JUNE, YES. THE SECOND I GET EMOTIONAL, THE SECOND ANY DISCUSSION, NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AY AY, ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, IS AN ADVISORY BOARD COMPRISED OF SEVEN MEMBERS.
ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE UNPAID VOLUNTEERS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
OUR PROCEDURES ARE AS FOLLOWS.
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF WILL PRESENT THE STAFF REPORT FOR EACH CASE.
BOARD MEMBERS WILL THEN BE ASKED IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE WILL THEN BE ASKED TO COME TO THE PODIUM AND PRESENT ANY INFORMATION GERMANE TO THE CASE AND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
FLOOR WILL THEN BE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
WE WILL FIRST HEAR FROM THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION THAN THOSE OPPOSED. OR ALL PROCEEDINGS, ALL APPLICANTS AND SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE MUST SIGN OATH CARDS LOCATED AT THE PODIUM, PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
AS A COURTESY, I ASK THAT IF THERE IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD WHO MAY HAVE SIMILAR COMMENTS, YOU WOULDN'T FORMALLY APPOINT A SPOKESMAN TO CLARIFY YOUR VIEWS.
AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS, I WILL BRING THE CASE BACK TO THE BOARD AT THIS TIME, THE FLOOR WILL BE CLOSED AND NO FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC WILL BE HEARD.
I WILL THEN CALL FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND AT WHICH TIME THE BOARD MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
DECISIONS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ARE THEN FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR FINAL DISPOSITION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE AND FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
BEFORE WE BEGIN WITH OUR FIRST CASE, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A PRESENTATION TO MAKE
[ANNOUNCEMENTS]
RICHARD HILL, YOU ARE NOT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING.SO AS A TOKEN OF APPRECIATION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF PALM BAY, IN RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF YOUR VOLUNTEER SERVICE ON THIS BOARD FOR ONE YEAR, I PRESENT YOU WITH ONE EUROPEAN.
OK, UNDER OLD AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS, THE FIRST CASE, CPA 20 21 AND THE SECOND CASE, PD
[OLD/UNFINISHED BUSINESS]
20, 2021, OR BOTH BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT, SO NO BOARD ACTION IS NECESSARY IN THOSE CASES. ALSO, CASE SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, 10 AND 11, CPW 19, 20, 21, 21, 21, SHEEPY 10, 20, 21, SCHEPISI 10, 20, 21 AND CP 11, 2021.AND ALSO ITEM NUMBER 12 S.P.C.A.
11, 2021 WILL ALL BE RESCHEDULED AT A DATE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FUTURE.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS A NEW CHAPTER OF STATE STATUTES, CHAPTER 52.
AND IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, PLEASE HOLD YOUR QUESTIONS.
WE'LL DISCUSS THAT IN THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
OUR FIRST ITEM THAT WE WILL BE HEARING TONIGHT IS CASE NUMBER THREE THREE TWENTY TWENTY ONE, PATRICK. MR. CHAIRMAN, FIRST CASE ON THE AGENDA, 223 2021, THIS IS AN APPLICATION FROM THE CITY OF PALM BAY FOR A TEXTUAL MOMENT TO CODE OR ITS TITLE 17 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 174 FLOOD PLAIN AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SPECIFICALLY SECTION ONE SEVENTY FOUR POINT ZERO SEVEN THREE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION.
THIS IS TO CHANGE HOW FINISH FLOOD ELEVATIONS ARE ESTABLISHED AND TO CREATE A MEANS WHEREBY THE CITY ENGINEER MAY MODIFY THE DRAINAGE AND FINISH FOR REQUIREMENTS FURTHER TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR THE CITY'S ENGINEER ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO BE APPEALED TO THE
[00:05:02]
CITY COUNCIL. OVER THE PAST YEAR, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL CASES INVOLVING CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE REQUIRED VARIOUS APPLICATIONS TO SECTION 174 POINTS OF ENTRY TO BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING ZONING BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL OR ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GROWTH MANAGING DIRECTOR AND BUILDING OFFICIAL.THESE CASES HAVE TRIGGERED THE NEED FOR THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH WILL ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE CONNECTED TO CITY SEWER OF TWO FEET ABOVE THE CROWN OF THE ROAD.
ITS MAXIMUM LIMIT WILL ALLOW REVIEWERS IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO HAVE BETTER CONTROL AND LIMITS ON FINISHED FLOOD ELEVATIONS.
ADDITIONAL CHANGES WILL ALLOW THE CITY ENGINEER TO MODIFY THE DRAINAGE AND GRADING STANDARDS AS APPROPRIATE, USING SOUND ENGINEERING PRACTICES RATHER THAN HAVING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR OR THE CITY COUNCIL GRANT VARIANCES WITHOUT USING ENGINEERING CRITERIA. A FURTHER CHANGE RECOGNIZES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO LONGER EXISTS AND THAT ANY APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MUST GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR DISPOSITION AS A QUASI JUDICIAL ACTION PROPOSED LANGUAGE.
THIS AMENDMENT IS ATTACHED IN LEGISLATIVE STYLE AND WILL BE PRESENTED AT THE END OF THIS REPORT. ANALYSIS FOLLOWING SUBSECTIONS OF ONE SEVENTY FOUR POINT SEVEN THREE ARE PROPOSED TO BE MODIFIED SECTIONS.
A DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ITEMS ONE AND ITEM THREE IN SUBSECTION C, RESIDENTIAL DRAINAGE PERMIT ITEMS ONE, A AND B, AND THEN SECTION E APPEALS. ONE SEVENTY FOUR POINT SEVEN THREE EIGHT ONE IS BEING MODIFIED TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF FINISHED FLOOR BY ELIMINATING THE WORD LOWEST.
ALSO, A CLARIFICATION IS BEING ADDED TO TIE THE FINISHED FLOOR TO AN EXISTING DWELLING THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE SIDE OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING.
ONE SEVENTY FOUR POINT SEVEN THREE EIGHT THREE IS ALSO CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF SENATE FLOOR OR THE DISSECTION IS BEING MODIFIED TO ESTABLISH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE FINISHED FLOOR OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OF TWO FEET ABOVE THE CROWN OF THE ROAD AT A BUNCH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHEN THE PROPERTY IS CONNECTED TO CITY SEWER.
THIS WILL AVOID CIRCUMSTANCES FROM PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS WHERE THE FINISHED FLOOR IN CERTAIN CASES WAS FIVE OR SIX FEET ABOVE THE ADJACENT ROADWAY, WHICH TRIGGERED A VARIANCE FOR THE HOUSE BUILT NEXT DOOR TO IT ON THE STREET AND POSSIBLE FLOODING CONCERNS.
SECTION 170, 473, SEE ONE, A AND B ARE ALSO BEING MODIFIED TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF FINISH FOR. FINALLY, 174 OR 73 HAS BEEN COMPLETELY REWRITTEN TO GRANT THE CITY ENGINEER THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY THE STANDARDS IN SECTION 174 OR 73, AND B, THE CURRENT WORDING GAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHICH NO LONGER EXIST.
THIS SECTION WILL ALSO NOW PROVIDE THE CITY ENGINEER WITH THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT RELIEF USING ENGINEERING STANDARDS.
OTHER, SINCE THE CITY'S ENGINEERS DECISION IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, A PROVISION HAS BEEN ADDED THAT ALLOWS THE PROPERTY OWNER OR AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER THE RIGHT TO APPEAL. THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REQUIRES A JUDICIAL REVIEW.
THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CAN HEAR FROM DECISIONS OF THE GROWTH MANAGER DIRECTOR, WHICH CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION 169 POINTS YEARS OR SIX, RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
THIS AMENDMENT. YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'D BE HAPPY TO GO INTO FURTHER DEPTH.
THANK YOU, PATRICK SPORTIVE, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NONE. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED TO THIS THIS APPLICATION? NOT A CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR EMOTION.
MOTION TO APPROVE 23 2021 LIKE MOTION OR SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY, AY, AY, ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY OUR NEXT CASE, GREESON.
IS IT ON? SEEMS TO BE ON THEIR GOES ON THIS.
CASE OF 25 21, IT'S A VARIANCE TO ALLOW PROPOSED ATTACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO EXCEED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
BACKGROUND PROPERTY CONSISTS OF TWO STANDARD GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LOTTE'S BACK-TO-BACK PROPERTY AS A WIDTH OF 80 FEET AND A DEPTH OF 250 FEET.
THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE CURRENT APPLICANTS AND OWNERS IN 2019.
THE APPLICANTS ARE NOW SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, A PLACE A 30 BY 40 FOOT METAL GARAGE ON THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY FACING HILLIARD ROAD NW TO BE USED FOR STORAGE. NOTE ONE EIGHTY FIVE POINT ONE ONE EIGHT G STATES.
METAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OVER 300 SQUARE FEET OR OVER 12 FEET IN HEIGHT ARE PROHIBITED AND ASKED TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT UNLESS THE STRUCTURE IS DESIGNED TO SIMULATE NONMETAL CONSTRUCTION IS TREATED WITH A TEXTURED COATING ON ALL FOUR SIDES OR PAINTED TO MATCH THE COLOR SCHEME OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE.
AFTER AFTER THE VARIANCE ADVERTISEMENTS WERE COMPLETED, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED IN WRITING
[00:10:01]
THAT THE METAL BUILDING WOULD BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE COLOR SCHEME OF HIS HOME, WHICH MEANS THE APPLICANT NO LONGER NEEDS A VARIANCE FROM ONE EIGHTY FIVE POINT ONE ONE EIGHT.ANALYSIS VARIANCES FROM THE TERMS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MAY BE GRANTED WHEN SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST THAT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WERE ENFORCED.
HOWEVER, A VARIANCE MAY NOT BE GRANTED WHEN THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY WOULD BE COMPROMISED AS A RESULT OF THE VARIANCE.
APPLICATION MUST DEMONSTRATE THE ITEMS. ONE THROUGH SEVEN OF SECTION ONE SIXTY NINE POINT ZERO ZERO NINE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN MET.
REVIEW OF THESE ITEMS IS AS FOLLOWS.
ITEM ONE, SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING INVOLVED IN WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDS, BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME LAND USE CATEGORY, ZONING DISTRICT OR SITUATION.
THE APPLICANT STATE, OUR HOME IS ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN SQUARE FEET UNDER ROOF AND 997 SQUARE FEET UNDER AIR OR CODE.
WE ARE NOT ABLE TO BUILD AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LARGER THAN WHAT IS UNDER ER OF THE MAIN HOUSE, WHICH WOULD NOT, WHICH WOULD ALLOW US 996 SQUARE FEET.
A SINGLE CAR GARAGE ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE IS 220 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS ALSO THE ONLY LOCATION FOR THE WASHER DRYER HOOKUP.
AC UNIT AND WATER HEATER DOES NOT LEAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF ROOM FOR THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF THE GARAGE. REPOS GARAGE IS APPROXIMATELY 204 SQUARE FEET LARGER THAN WAS ALLOWED BY KOTE. ITEM TWO, SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IDENTIFIED, AN ITEM ONE ABOVE ARE NOT THE RESULT, THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IDENTIFIED.
IN ITEM ONE, THE APPLICANTS DESIRE FOR AN ACCESSORY GARAGE, THE RESULT OF THEIR ACTIONS.
ITEM THREE, LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME LAND USE CATEGORY, ZONING DISTRICT OR SITUATION UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO WORK UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT.
LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO BUILD AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SMALLER THAN THE HOME.
THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, A MULTIPLE STRUCTURES OF NINE HUNDRED NINETY SIX SQUARE FEET. TYPICAL GARAGE ASSOCIATED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS 400 SQUARE FEET.
ITEM FOR THE VARIANCE, IF GRANTED, IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, THERE'S NO VARIANCE NECESSARY.
THE DESIRED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS TWO HUNDRED FOUR SQUARE FEET LARGER THAN WAS ALLOWED BY CODE. ITEM FIVE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE REQUEST WILL NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT IS DENIED AT THE END OF THE CODE OF THE LANDS, BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME LANIE'S CATEGORY ZONING DISTRICT OR SITUATION RATING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE FOR THEIR PROPOSED GARAGE AS THE SAME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLY TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS COMMUNITY, STRUCTURE DOES NOT APPEAR TO CREATE ANY HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARDS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
ITEM SIX THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY.
THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CODE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR DETRIMENTAL PUBLIC WELFARE.
THAT'S NOT IDENTIFIED ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECT FOR THE WELFARE ITEM SEVEN STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED A CLEAN UP ON THIS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE BERT JAY HARRIS ACT OR ANY DEVELOPMENT ORDER. ITEM SEVEN IS NOT APPLICABLE.
NOTE AS A CONDITION FOR APPROVAL FOR THIS VARIANCE, THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ONE EIGHTY FIVE POINT ONE ONE EIGHT G OR THE GARAGE EXTERIOR, SIMULATES NONMETAL CONSTRUCTION, TREATED WITH A TEXTURED COATING ON ALL FOUR SIDES OR AS PAINTED TO MATCH THE COLOR SCHEME OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE.
THAT RECOMMENDATION, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, MUST DETERMINE, BASED ON THE FACTS PRESENTED, TO WHAT DEGREE, IF ANY, MINIMAL RELIEF IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED, REQUIRED UNDER SECTION ONE SIXTY NINE POINT ZERO ZERO NINE PALM BAY CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS.
THANK YOU. GRAYSON IS A BOARD.
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YOU KNOW. SO, YES, THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT, IT'S AROUND.
NO, WE DON'T REQUIRE FENCES AROUND ACCESSORY PERMITS AROUND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IF THEY CHOOSE TO, THEY MADE IT SO IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL OFFENSE REQUIREMENTS.
HERE ARE THE QUESTIONS. NO, THANK YOU, RESSAM WILL PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM.
BASICALLY, YOU CAN SEE GOD IS ON SOME INTO THE MICROPHONE, THE STATE, YOUR SENATORS, FOR THE RECORD, YOU CAN SEE SIMILARLY DRAWN TO WHAT I WANT TO ACCOMPLISH.
I'M NOT LOOKING TO DO, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING TOO DRASTIC.
A NOTE SAID IT'S ONLY 200 SQUARE FOOT ABOVE TWO HUNDRED FOUR SQUARE FOOT ABOVE WHAT CODE SAYS WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET TO WHERE I'VE GOT TWO BOATS AND THREE VEHICLES. I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THEM INSIDE, NOT PARKED IN AN EMPTY LOT.
THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
AGAIN, IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
SORRY, JAMES MUSGROVE, 278 HIGH ROAD NW PALM BAY, FLORIDA, A THANK YOU.
MR. MUSGROVE, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE?
[00:15:01]
YOU CAN YOU CAN BE SEATED.IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION OR OPPOSED TO THIS APPLICATION? NO, NOT CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK FOR THE BOOTHROYD, I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THERE IS ONE LETTER IN THE FILE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION. IS IT DOUBLE THAT, RIGHT? IT'S ONE LOT BEHIND THE OTHER, ACTUALLY, IS WHAT IT IS.
MOTION TO APPROVE A NUMBER OF TWENTY FIVE POINT ONE.
WE HAVE AN EMOTION AND A SECOND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY THIS THIS.
STRUCTURE WILL BE FACING THIS IS NOT A TYPICAL SIDE BY SIDE, DOUBLE LOT, THIS LOT IS BEHIND THE THE OWNERS A LOT, THE ORIGINAL LOT.
AND THIS THIS STRUCTURE WILL BE FACING HILLIARD AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE TYPICALLY WOULD ONLY IT'S NOT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
IT'LL BE BASICALLY A MIDDLE STORAGE SHED OR GARAGE.
IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A STREET WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON IT, THEN YOU HAVE THIS ONE, A DRIVEWAY UP TO A LARGE GARAGE, AS YOU AS YOU HEARD UNDER CURRENTLY THE HOUSE LIVING, YOU KNOW, STRUCTURE THIS HOUSE 197 SQUARE FEET UNDER AIR, WHICH WOULD MAKE PAGODE THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF THIS GARAGE, 997 SQUARE FEET.
SO HE'S ASKING FOR A VARIANCE OF OVER.
IT'LL BE OVER 300 SQUARE FEET LARGER THAN THE LIVING AREA OF HIS HOUSE.
AND I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? MAYBE ONE QUESTION OR THOUGHT IT IN THERE THAT THEY HAVE TO MATCH THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE. YES, DO THEY HAVE THE SAME STUCCO EFFECT OR AT A MATCH, THE MAIN REASON YOU WANT IS CORRECT THAT AS PART OF A CONDITION OF THIS VARIANCE, THEY WILL HAVE TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT OF THE CODE FOR ANY METAL STRUCTURES.
SO IT WILL HAVE TO BE SAME TEXTURE, PAINT OR COATING TO MATCH THE STRUCTURE OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. THE OTHER QUESTIONS.
ALL IN FAVOR, SAY, AYE, I OPPOSED NAY, NAY.
ISD TO. OUR NEXT CASE, PLEASE, GRAYSON, IS 27, 20, 21, THE VARIANCE OF OUR PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION TO ENCROACH SIX FEET IN A 25 FOOT BUILDING SET BACK. BACKGROUND, THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF ONE LOT WITH A WIDTH OF SEVENTY EIGHT POINT SIXTY SEVEN FEET, A DEPTH OF 220 FEET.
THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN OWNED BY THE APPLICANT SINCE 1994.
THE APPLICANT NOW SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE AUDITION FOR A THIRD STALL ON THE FRONT OF THE HOME, WITH THE DRIVEWAY ADDITION FROM THE EXISTING CONCRETE LEADING INTO THE NEW STALL. ANALYSIS ITEM ONE, SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST, WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND STRUCTURE, A BUILDING INVOLVED.
THE APPLICANTS HAVE STATED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A THIRD STALL GARAGE FOR CLASSIC CAR STORAGE, IT WILL BLEND WITH THE EXISTING HOME AND MATCH PERFECTLY.
AS THE HOME ALREADY HAS AN ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGE, THE DESIRED ADDITION IS IN EXCESS OF WHAT IS STANDARD IN THE COMMUNITY AND IS TO BE USED SOLELY FOR EXTRA VEHICLE STORAGE.
ADDITIONAL CONCRETE IS PROPOSED TO WIDEN THE ONSITE DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS THE GARAGE.
NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST FOR THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING INVOLVED.
ITEM TWO, ESPECIALLY THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IDENTIFIED IN ITEM ONE, ARE NOT THE RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IDENTIFIED AND THE NEED OF A VARIANCE AS A RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
ITEM THREE, LITERAL INTERPRETATION ENFORCEMENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTY IS IN THE SAME LAND CATEGORY, ZONING DISTRICT OR SITUATION.
LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO BUILD WITHIN THE APPLICABLE SETBACKS, BUILDING WITHIN THE REQUIRED SET BACKS WOULD ONLY ALLOW FOR A GRADUATION OF SIX FEET, WHICH IS NOT ENOUGH FOR AN ADDITIONAL VEHICLE. ITEM FOR THE VARIANCE, IF GRANTED, IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND BUILDING OR STRUCTURE MAXIMUM OF SIX FEET.
I KNOW I WROTE 12. THAT IS INCORRECT.
JUST SIX FEET. AS STATED BEFORE, SIX FEET INTO THE 25 FOOT BUILDING STEP BACK WOULD BE NEEDED TO MEET THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
ITEM FIVE, GRANTING INVARIANCE REQUEST WILL NOT CONFER ON THE APPLICANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, ANYTHING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD CONFER ON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE FOR SETBACK RELIEF AS THAT SAME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLY TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS COMMUNITY. ENCROACHMENT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT APPEAR TO CREATE ANY HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARDS
[00:20:01]
TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.ITEM SIX, THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CODE, NOT INJURIOUS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE STAFF IS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECT TO PUBLIC WELFARE.
ITEM SEVEN STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED A CLAIM UPON THIS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE BURGETT HARRIS ACT OR ANY DEVELOPMENT ORDER AS INDICATED ABOVE.
DRAFT RECOMMENDATION, PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MUST DETERMINE, BASED ON THE FACTS PRESENTED, TO WHAT DEGREE, IF ANY, OF MEDICAL RELIEF IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION ONE SIXTY NINE POINT ZERO ZERO NINE PALM BAY GO TOWARDS THAT.
WITH THAT, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU THINK IS BALTER HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
OK, THANK YOU, GRAYSON, AT THIS POINT, WILL THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM? MY NAME IS TOM CAPRETTO FROM 921 MANDARIN DRIVE AND PALM BAY JUST REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL SIX FEET OF WHAT MY.
SETBACK ALLOWS SO I COULD PUT ANOTHER STOP GARAGE BECAUSE I RESTORE CLASSIC CARS AND BOATS AND STUFF AND I WANT TO KEEP THEM IN THE GARAGE.
MY INTENT IS TO MAKE THE HOUSE LOOK EXACTLY LIKE IT IS NOW.
IT'LL BE WITH THE SAME. COVERING ON THE OUTSIDE, WHICH IS A SEVEN INCH CEDAR PLANKS, EVERYTHING WILL BE DECORATED AND.
LOOK JUST LIKE A NORMAL HOUSE, I HAVE A COUPLE OF PICTURES IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT MY PROPOSAL.
WE HAVE THE WE HAVE THE SITE PLAN ON THE.
SO I JUST YOU KNOW, I'M A CLASSIC CAR RESTORER AND BOAT RESTORER AND I LIKE TO KEEP MY STUFF IN THE GARAGE IS IMPORTANT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. CAPRETTO? OK, YOU MAY BE SEATED, THANK YOU, MR. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION OR OPPOSED TO IT? NO, I WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR EMOTION. TO PROVE THE.
THAT KIND OF EMOTION IN A SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? PERSONALLY, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF WORK, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN IN THE PROPOSAL, THIS ACTUALLY IS THE SITE.
EVERY GARAGE HAS A CURVED DRIVEWAY.
AND SO IT DOESN'T REALLY EVEN THE GARAGE DOOR DOESN'T EVEN FACE THE STREET.
SO IT'S I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH IT WHATSOEVER.
SO I WILL CERTAINLY SUPPORT THIS.
THE OTHER COMMENTS. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, AYE, AYE, ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY, YOU GO MR.. YOU'RE WELCOME.
OUR NEXT CASE, PLEASE, GRACIN.
THEY SEE YOU 26, 20, 21 AS A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL REQUEST FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, BACKGROUND SUBJECT PROPERTY KNOWN AS CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH HAS BEEN IN OPERATION SINCE 1990.
ONE SITE WAS THEN ZONED RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL AND REQUIRED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A CHURCH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT.
CHRISTIAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER WAS APPROVED VIA ORDINANCE 89, DASH 22, SENDED VIA ORDINANCE 90, DASH 30. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, CONDITIONAL USE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SITE PLAN, WHICH IS A REFERENCE INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT A, THE ATTACHED SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CREATION OF A RIGHT OF WAY AND THE NATURAL VEGETATION BORDER THAT WILL GROW TO SIX FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE NORTHERN, WESTERN AND EASTERN BOUNDARIES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT A REQUIRED THE CHURCH TO EXTEND NALE STREET NE EMERSON DRIVE NORTHEAST, WHICH THE CHURCH COMPLETED. AERIAL IMAGERY SHOWS AN EXISTING TREE CANOPY ALONG ALL PROPERTY LINES.
THE APPLICANT CHRISTIAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER, A CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE INCORPORATED, IS REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL TO OPERATE OUT OF ITS EXISTING FACILITIES, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION ONE EIGHTY FIVE POINT ZERO THREE ONE SEVEN AND ONE EIGHTY FIVE POINT ZERO EIGHT EIGHT E OF THE PALM BAY CODE OF ORDINANCES.
YEAH, PLANS INCLUDE THE PASTOR OF THE CHURCH AND THE FUTURE PRINCIPAL OF THE SCHOOL ANALYSIS. THE APPLICANTS ARE SEEKING TO OPERATE A PRIVATE SCHOOL TIDED CHRISTIAN LEARNING ACADEMY PALM BAY OF THE EXISTING CHURCH FACILITIES, SPECIFICALLY UTILIZING THE MAIN SANCTUARY AND SEVERAL CLASSROOMS. THEY ESTIMATE AROUND 30 CHILDREN WILL ATTEND WITH OPERATING HOURS OF EIGHT A.M.
TO TRUSTEE P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.
REQUIREMENTS TO BE GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL REQUESTS ARE EVALUATED UPON ITEMS ATHIE. WHILE THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SECTION ONE EIGHTY FIVE POINT ZERO SEVEN OF THE CODE LAWRENCES.
ITEM A IS ADEQUATE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE SITE.
SITE CAN BE ACCESSED BY AUTOMOBILE VIA SNAIL STREET NE PHILIP DRIVE YLE ALLOWS FOR
[00:25:04]
DROPPING OFF POTENTIAL STUDENTS WITHOUT HAVING TO TURN AROUND IN THE PARKING LOT OR STOP ONEIL. STREET ENTRY AND EXIT SIGNS ALREADY EXIST AT BOTH ENDS OF THE DRIVEWAY.THERE IS NO SIDEWALK LEADING TO THE CHURCH ALONG THE STREET OR ANYWHERE IN PORT MALABAR, UNIT 21, THE NEIGHBORING SUBDIVISION.
THE NEAREST PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE IS THE SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH.
SIDE OF EMERSON DRIVE NORTHEAST STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT A SIDEWALK BE PROVIDED FROM EMERSON DRIVE ALONGSIDE THE WEST SIDE OF NAEL STREET, THE DRIVEWAY AT CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH, TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.
ITEM B IS ADEQUATE OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING AREAS PROVIDED ADEQUATE OFFERS, FREE PARKING HAS BEEN APPROVED TO A SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
PROPOSED USE OF A SCHOOL WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES WOULD NOT CREATE ANY NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING ITEMS. ADEQUATE AND PROPERLY LOCATED UTILITIES ARE AVAILABLE.
CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH IS CONNECTED TO THE CITY'S WATER DISTRIBUTION THROUGH A SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEMS AS ELECTRIC THROUGH FINAL ITEM D IS ADEQUATE SCREENING OR BUFFERING.
THE CHURCH WAS DETERMINED TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH ADJOINING PROPERTIES VIA CONDITIONAL USE IN 1989. ONE OF THE CONDITIONS AT THE TIME WAS TO PROVIDE A NATURAL VEGETATION BORDER ALONG THE NORTHEAST AND WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTIES.
THERE APPEAR TO BE ENOUGH TREES ON SITE FOR THE CHURCH TO STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT. ITEM SIGNS, IF ANY ANY PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING WILL BE DESIGNED AND ARRANGED FOR ABOUT TRAFFIC SAFETY.
NO ADDITIONAL PHOTOMETRIC OR SIGN PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED FOR PERMITTING.
WITH THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANTS HAVE STATED THERE'S AN EXISTING ENTRY SIGN AT THE NORTHERN DRIVEWAY ACCESS BY PARKING LOT.
AN EXIT SIGN BY THE SOUTHERN ACCESS.
IMF IS YARDS AND OPEN SPACES, THE YARDS AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE HAVE BEEN MET AT IMG.
THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE OR HAZARD BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO ATTEND OR USE THE FACILITY BECAUSE VEHICULAR MOVEMENT NOISE FROM GENERATION OR TYPE OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY. EXISTING DRIVEWAY LOOP APPEARS TO SERVE AS APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR DROPPING OFF AND PICKING UP STUDENTS AS A LOOP CAN ACCOMMODATE SEVERAL VEHICLES FOR STACKING DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE REQUIRED AT THIS TIME TO THE SCHOOL WHERE TO EXPAND IN THE FUTURE.
FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO ACCOUNT FOR MORE VEHICLES MAY BE REQUIRED, AS WELL AS ANOTHER CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND APPROVAL ITEM.
EACH USE IS PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING OR PERMITTED USES.
BOTH THE CHURCH AND A SCHOOL ARE PERMITTED TO BE A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES ARE BOTH NEIGHBORHOOD BASED INSTITUTIONS AND ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
IT'S ACTUALLY ONE EIGHTY FIVE POINT ZERO EIGHT EIGHTY OR THEIR STIPULATES THAT A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL MAY BE GRANTED.
THE PROPOSED SITE IS LOCATED ON THE COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL ROADWAY.
THEN SET BACK SHALL BE 20 FEET FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES OR THE MINIMUM SETBACKS OF THE DISTRICT. WHICHEVER IS GREATER, THE MINIMUM SIZE OF THE SITE SHALL BE ONE ACRE AS A CONDITION OF ORDINANCE. NINE 22 CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH WAS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT THE EXTENSION OF NALE STREET NE ALTA EMERSON DRIVE NE MS. PROVIDES DIRECT ACCESS TO A MAJOR COLLECTOR ROADWAY WHICH STAFF DETERMINES TO SATISFY THE FIRST REQUIREMENT AS A SITE IS THREE ACRES IN SIZE AND MEETS THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE RR ZONING DISTRICT.
ALL REQUIREMENTS OF 185 POINT ZERO EIGHT EIGHT E HAVE BEEN MET.
ITEM I DEVELOPMENT OPERATION PROPOSED USE WILL BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE.
UM. WITH ANY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND SAFEGUARDS WHICH CITY COUNCIL MAY PRESCRIBE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO A REASONABLE TIME LIMIT WHEN THE ACTION SPECIAL APPROVAL IS REQUESTED, SHALL WE BEGIN OR COMPLETED OR BOTH? JORDAN, COUNSEL OF THE AUTHORITY AND RIGHT TO IMPOSE ANY ADDITIONAL UNJUSTIFIABLE SAFEGUARDS AND OR CONDITIONS TO ENSURE THE FACILITY OPERATES SAFELY AND HARMONIOUSLY WITH THE SURROUNDINGS, ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS INCLUDE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAS RECOMMENDED THAT SIDEWALKS WITH ADA ACCESSIBILITY BE INCLUDED ALONGSIDE NALE STREET, NE EMERSON DRIVE NORTHEAST, AS WELL AS A CROSSWALK ACROSS NEAL STREET NE AT THE EMERSON DRIVE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION.
THAT CONCLUDES WITH A MOTION TO APPROVE SEIYU, TWENTY SIX, TWENTY TWENTY ONE, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, CONSTRUCTION OF AN 88 88 ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALK PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT FOR THE SCHOOL ADJACENT TO THE WEST SIDE OF NALE STREET NE EXTENDING FROM THE SIDEWALK AT EMERSON DRIVE NORTHEAST, THE NEAREST EXISTING DRIVEWAY AT CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH.
THAT I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOEREMA HAVE OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
HAS THE APPLICANT AGREED TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS, IF IT DID, I WILL LET THEM SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. I DID GET IT VERBALLY, BUT THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THE CITY.
ARE THEY EXPECTING? LEARN TO WALK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING, SINCE THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS RIGHT THERE ALONG EMERSON AND WE'VE SEEN OTHER. PARENTS DROP OFF THEIR KIDS NOT QUITE AT THE SCHOOL AND CLOSE BY.
I THINK THE CONSIDERATION WAS CHILDREN'S SAFETY, SAY, SOMEONE WALKING FROM EMERSON.
THERE'S JUST NO SAFE WAY TO GET FROM EMERSON DOWN TO THE CHURCH.
AND THE OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU OF THEM THIS TIME WITH THE.
PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. WATCH.
[00:30:10]
GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY.I'M CHRIS ADAMS. THIS IS ABBY ADAMS, MY WIFE.
SHE WOULD BE THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SCHOOL.
I'M ALSO THE PASTOR OF THE CHURCH MENTIONED ADDRESS.
WE LIVE IN PALM BAY. DO I NEED TO GIVE MY FULL ADDRESS FROM MY HOUSE? YEAH. EIGHT THREE EIGHT THREE FOUR GLENDALE AVENUE NW PALM BAY THREE TO NINE A.M..
PRETTY MUCH. AS GRAYSON SAID, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE WHAT WE'RE APPROACHED BY A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL BASED OUT OF APOPKA THAT HAS BEEN THEY'VE STARTED MULTIPLE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS IN DIFFERENT AREAS ACROSS THE STATE.
AND THEY LIKE TO USE UTILIZE CHURCH FACILITIES TO RENT AND OBVIOUSLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITIES AROUND THEM.
AND THEY REACHED OUT TO US BECAUSE WE'D HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM BEFORE I MOVED TO PALM BAY AND MENTIONED IT.
AND SO WE TALKED TO FURTHER ABOUT IT.
AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S WHY WE FELT LIKE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DO.
AND SO WE REACHED OUT AND OBVIOUSLY STARTED GOING DOWN THIS PATH, THE CITY.
YOU HAVE ANYTHING BUT THE CHURCH WOULD BE COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THIS SCHOOL, IT WOULD BE A RENTER SITUATION, SO ANYTHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE APPLIED WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF TO DO AS, YOU KNOW, VERBAL CONSENT OR WHATEVER.
WE WILL DEFINITELY TAKE CARE OF SIDEWALKS, IF THAT'S WHAT IS RECOMMENDED.
OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
I DO WANT TO ADD SOMETHING, MR. ADAMS. YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK A QUESTION BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW IF I WAS SUPPOSED TO WAIT. I WENT OUT THERE THE QUESTION ABOUT THE SIDEWALK PERTAINING TO.
SO I KNOW WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT IT BRIEFLY, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING AS ONE OF THE LOTS BETWEEN OUR CHURCH AND EMERSON? SO ARE WE REQUIRED TO DO THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THAT SIDEWALK, I GUESS IS THE QUESTION? AS UP TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE WHAT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGES.
I KNOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE'S A CITY OWNED LOT RIGHT THERE NEXT TO IT, TYPICALLY YOU'D WORK WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND THEY HAD GRANT BELIEVE IT'S LIKE RIGHT OF WAY ACCESS. THERE'S SOME.
GRANTING THAT IT WOULD PARTNER WITH PUBLIC WORKS.
THE RECOMMENDATION FROM PUBLIC WORKS WAS TO STAND THE SIDEWALK FROM THE DRIVEWAY ALL THE WAY TO THE EXISTING TARMAC ON EMERSON AND ACTUALLY CONNECT TO IT, NOT HAVE ANY GAPS.
OK, OK, SO THAT SIDEWALK WOULD BE WITHIN THE NAIL STREET RIGHT OF WAY.
SO YOU WOULD ACTUALLY GET IT RIGHT.
WE USE PERMIT TO INSTALL THE SIDEWALK IN THE STREET WATERWAY ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE.
OK, SO WE'D HAVE TO CONTACT THE CITY IN ORDER TO DO THAT, CORRECT? YES. THAT PERMIT IS FROM THE CITY'S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS CROSSWALK IN ADDITION TO THE SIDEWALK. OK, WELL, THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, IS YOU ANY UPDATES AS YOUR ESTIMATE, 30 STUDENTS THAT BECAUSE USUALLY AS FAR AS I'LL LET I'LL LET YOU SPEAK ON THIS BECAUSE YOU HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, INITIALLY, WE'LL START WITH ABOUT 20 TO 30 BEING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OR PROBABLY AT LEAST THE FIRST YEAR FOR SURE.
AND WELL, MY CONCERN IS THIS IS AFTER THE FIRST YEAR, HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE 40? COULD IT BE 50? COULD IT BE IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU HAVE A GREATER NUMBER OF STUDENTS, IT MAY AFFECT THE SAFETY.
YOU'LL HAVE MORE CARS, YOU'LL HAVE MORE TRAFFIC, THAT KIND OF THING.
AND I KNOW THIS THIS FACILITY, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL BE USING THE EXISTING FACILITIES OF THE CHURCH. THE SCHOOL WILL BE.
SO WHAT WOULD BE THE CURRENTLY THE MAXIMUM SAFE CAPACITY FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING? WHENEVER I TALK TO MY PRINCIPAL, HE SAID THAT WE COULD EASILY HOUSE UP TO 80 WITHIN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WITHOUT THAT'S WITHOUT DOING ANY TYPE OF RENOVATIONS OR ANYTHING TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE GOING TO THAT NUMBER ANY TIME SOON AS WE GROW AROUND THE STUDENTS.
SO DEPENDING ON HOW MANY STUDENTS THERE ARE, WE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT THEM ON A WAIT LIST. SO THAT WAY WE CAN OPERATE WITH WHAT WE NEED TO.
I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
PATRICK, WOULD WOULD WOULD YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WITH 80 STUDENTS, LET'S SAY, UNDER THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES, SO THEY WOULD NEED TO SHOW THAT THOSE PARKING DEMANDS COULD BE MET ON SITE? THE PARKING RATIO FOR SCHOOLS IS ONE SPACE FOR EVERY TEN CHILDREN ON THE LICENSE THAT IS GIVEN TO OPERATE THE SCHOOL, PLUS ONE FOR EVERY ADMINISTRATOR IN THE SCHOOL.
SO IF THAT THEIR EXISTING PARKING AREA CAN ACCOMMODATE THAT NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND IT CAN'T, THEY WOULD NEED TO EXPAND THAT PARKING AREA ON MANY TIMES THE PARKING DEMAND DRIVES. WHAT CAN WE USE, EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY BE ABLE TO FIT THOSE MANY PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING PER FIRE MARSHAL AND PART OF THE BUILDING CODE, YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE OTHER ZONING PROVISIONS IN PLACE.
AND ONE OF THOSE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS IS TYPICALLY PARKING IF YOU'RE ADDING MORE IMPERVIOUS THAN YOU NEED TO IMPROVE STORMWATER.
SO THERE'S A CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN YOU GET TOO LARGE.
[00:35:01]
I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S WHY YOU BROUGHT IT UP.OK, YOU KNOW, I'D RATHER RATHER NOT APPROVE THIS WITH THE CONDITIONAL ON LIMITING THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS. BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE FOR THE BOARD IN YOUR APPROVAL, IN ADDITION TO THE STAFF, THE STAFF COMMENTS AS FAR AS THE ISD ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALK IN THE CROSSWALK IS TO TO PUT A REQUIREMENT IN THIS APPROVAL THAT SHOULD SHOULD THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS CONTINUE TO GROW UP TO, SAY, MAXIMUM 80 OR HOWEVER MANY, THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT THAT THEY'RE PARKING AND MEET ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR.
YES. IN THE SCHOOL WOULD REQUIRE TO GET A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT FROM THE CITY.
WHEN THAT IS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW, IT'S ROUTED TO LAND DEVELOPMENT, BUILDING, FIRE AND CODE. AND AT THAT POINT, WE ARE GOING TO FLUSH OUT EXACTLY HOW MANY SPACES ARE GOING TO BE NEEDING ON SITE BASED ON THAT LICENSE, WHICH THEY HAVE TO GIVE US A COPY OF IN ORDER TO GET THE BTR APPROVAL.
EXACTLY. SO THAT'S THAT'S MY CONCERN.
IS THE CHECKS AND BALANCES SERIOUS? OK, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, FOLKS.
WELL, I'M I'M TRYING TO BECAUSE PART PART OF OUR PARKING LOT IS GRASS, BUT AS FAR AS CONCRETE, IS IT CONCRETE, GRAVEL, CONCRETE? I'M I DON'T KNOW AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT I'D SAY OVER TEN FOR SURE.
AT LEAST THERE'S WELL OVER THAT.
THE CHURCH WE WE RENT TO SEPARATE, BUT THERE'S OTHER CHURCHES THAT OCCUPY OUR EXISTING BUILDING AND THEY'RE UPWARDS, YOU KNOW, OVER A HUNDRED EASY ON A SUNDAY MORNING ANY DURING ANY GIVEN TIME.
SO WE HAVE DEFINITELY HAVE THIS SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT MANY PEOPLE.
I KNOW OUR CHURCH EVEN BEFORE I GOT THERE, LIKE WHEN THEY'VE INCREASED OVER THE YEARS.
BUT BEFORE I EVEN GOT THERE, THEY WERE AT ONE TIME RUNNING OVER ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE PEOPLE ON A SUNDAY. SO, I MEAN, THAT KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA.
THANK YOU, FOLKS. YOU CAN BE SEATED.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSE THE APPLICATION BILL? MY NAME'S JOHN PURCELL AND I LIVE DIRECTLY BEHIND THE CHURCH.
I INFORMED THE SCHOOL, BUT I REQUESTED THEY PUT A FENCE, RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO FENCE.
AND WHEN YOU HAVE KIDS THAT WILL GO OUTSIDE FOR SAFETY, I THINK THEY NEED TO HAVE A FENCE AROUND WHERE THESE KIDS ARE GOING TO BE WHEN THEY HAVE A.
RIGHT NOW, ALL RIGHT, LIKE I SAID, WE ATTENDED THE CHURCH AND TALKED TO THEM.
AND RIGHT NOW, THE ONLY THING I SEE IS THAT THERE'S NO SENSE.
THAT EXIST ON HER PROPERTY THAT SHOULD BE THERE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE KIDS.
AND THAT'S ALL THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT OTHER THAN THE CHURCH.
BY THE WAY, THE CHURCH HAS USED.
THREE TIMES OTHER CHURCHES USE THAT FACILITY, SO I STILL THINK THAT THE FENCE IS A GOOD.
REQUIREMENTS THAT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE EXISTING PLANT.
THANK YOU, BILL. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK EITHER IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED TO THIS APPLICATION? YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT, I'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR EMOTION. TWENTY SIX, TWENTY TWENTY ONE STARBOY.
OK. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
THEY GO, FOLKS. OK, CASE NUMBER SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, 10, 11 AND 12 WILL BE RESCHEDULED, SO WE'LL GO NOW TO CASE NUMBER 13, PATRICK.
NEXT QUESTION, AGENDA 2020, 2021 CITIES ALSO THE OPINION ON THIS AMENDMENT.
THIS IS A TEXTUAL MOMENT TO CODE AUDIENCES.
TITLE 17 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER ONE EIGHTY FIVE ZONING CODE, SPECIFICALLY SECTION TWENTY FIVE POINT ZERO FIVE FOUR, WHICH IS THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
THIS IS TO INCLUDE INDOOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION TO THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES AND TO ADD CONDITIONAL USES OVER OVER 5000 SQUARE FEET FOR MULTITENANT BUILDINGS.
[00:40:06]
RECENTLY, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL LOCAL BUSINESSES WHICH HAVE REQUESTED TO OPERATE INDOOR RECREATIONAL USES SUCH AS GYMS, WORKOUT CLASSES AND PHYSICAL TRAINING IN THE DISTRICT.SOME OF THESE USERS ARE WAITING FOR THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE THEY CAN RECEIVE A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT OR BUILDING PERMITS TO OCCUPY SPACES THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY LEASED.
JACKSON WAS FIRST ESTABLISHED IN JANUARY OF 2004 PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 2004 DESHA ONE.
THE INTENT OF THE ZONE IS THE PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT SHALL BE TO LOCATE AND ESTABLISH AREAS WITHIN THE CITY WHICH ARE UNIQUELY SUITED FOR HEAVY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
SUCH AREAS ARE TO BE DEVELOPED IN AN INTENSIVE MANNER AND ARE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
A VARIETY OF TYPES, USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESSES TO LOCATE WITHIN THE CITY BY PROVIDING A MIX OF SERVICE, WAREHOUSING, COMMERCIAL WHOLESALING, STORAGE AND SIMILAR BUSINESSES AND USES. SINCE 2004, SEVERAL USES HAVE BEEN ADDED AS PERMITTED USES, INCLUDING STATE LICENSED TATTOO PARLORS AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS.
ALSO, SEVERAL CONDITIONAL USES HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE ZONE, INCLUDING SECURITY DWELLING UNITS, CANINE DAYCARE AND RELATED SERVICES, DANCING AND EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS, CHURCHES AND EVENT HALLS.
IN TOTAL, THERE HAVE BEEN 12 AMENDMENTS IN THE DISTRICT SINCE JANUARY OF 04, BUT NOT ALL OF THESE HAVE CHANGED THE ALLOWABLE USES.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE IS ATTACHED IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT ANALYSIS.
THE AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW INDOOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION USES IN THE G.C.
HOWEVER, IF THE ICR INDOOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION IS LOCATED IN A MULTITENANT BUILDING, IT MUST BE 5000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS.
IF THE ICR IS TO BE OVER 5000 SQUARE FEET AND IS LOCATED IN A MULTITENANT BUILDING, IT CAN ONLY BE APPROVED THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION.
THE REASON FOR THE SEA REQUIREMENT IN MULTITENANT BUILDINGS IS BECAUSE MANY OF THE ZONE LOCKS ARE SMALL AND DO NOT HAVE MUCH PARKING.
I SEE OURS OFTEN CREATE A GREATER PARKING DEMAND, ESPECIALLY OF GROUP CLASSES ARE PROPOSED FURTHER.
LOTS HAVE USES WHICH HAVE A LOWER PARKING REQUIREMENT, SUCH AS STORAGE USES, CONTRACTOR USES, CONSTRUCTION YARDS AND REPAIR FACILITIES, AND THUS WERE DEVELOPED WITH FEWER PARKING SPACES. THERE ARE OTHER USES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT WHICH CREATE MORE IN AND OUT TRAFFIC AND PARKING DEMANDS SUCH AS PERSONAL SERVICES, SCHOOLS, DAYCARE CENTERS, EATING ESTABLISHMENTS AND RETAIL SALES.
THUS, ADDING ISD TO THIS LIST DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A MAJOR DEVIATION FROM SOME OF THE OTHER PERMITTED USES IN THIS DISTRICT.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
BALTER MANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
I JUST ED, REAL QUICK, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT KIND OF BUSINESSES ARE THESE ARE GYMS THAT ARE LOOKING FOR THIS THESE KIND OF BUSINESSES OR ARE THEY? SO, YES, WE'VE HAD LIKE A DANCE STUDIO OR COCKCROFT DOJO, THE TYPES OF WORKOUT FACILITY, SOME TYPE OF GYM, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY A PERSONAL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT. IT'S A LARGER USE THAT HAS MORE TRAFFIC THAT COMES TO IT.
THIS USED WAS NOT IN I WAS REALLY REALIZED WHEN THE CODE WAS WRITTEN BACK IN 2004, BUT THEY HAVE REQUESTED TO USE THESE FACILITIES AND WE'RE REQUESTING TO ADD THEM TO THE DISTRICT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NONE AT THIS POINT IS THERE ANYONE IN YOUR AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED TO THIS APPLICATION? AND I WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR MOTION, A MOTION TO APPROVE.
TWENTY EIGHT. TWENTY TWENTY ONE SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY, AY, AY, ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY OUR NEXT CASE UNDER NEW BUSINESS, CHRIS. CASE V.
[NEW BUSINESS]
TWENTY NINE, TWENTY TWENTY ONE BEGINS TO ALLOW A PROPOSED GARAGE TO ENCOURAGE EIGHT FEET INTO 25 FOOT SIDE CORNER BUILDING SETBACK BACK AS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION TWENTY FIVE POINT ZERO THREE THREE F SEVEN C OF THE PALM BAY CODE OF ORDINANCES BACKGROUND.THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF ONE LOT WITH THE WIDTH OF AN JORDAN EIGHT POINT TO TWO FEET AND A DEPTH OF ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE FEET.
THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN OWNED BY THE APPLICANT SINCE 1910 1982.
THE APPLICANT NOW SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE FOR THEIR RV ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ANALYSIS.
ITEM ONE DEALS WITH SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXIST WHICH ARE CLEAR TO THE LAND STRUCTURE BUILDING.
THE APPLICANTS HAVE STATED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN RV GARAGE AS A HOME ALREADY HAS AN ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGE.
THE DESIRED ADDITION IS IN EXCESS OF WHAT IS STANDARD IN THE COMMUNITY, AND IT SEEMS TO BE USED SOLELY FOR EXTRA VEHICLE STORAGE.
THE STRUCTURE COULD BE PLACED ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOME AND MEET THE APPLICABLE SETBACKS. THUS, IT APPEARS NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST FOR
[00:45:02]
THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING INVOLVED.ITEM TWO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IDENTIFIED.
AN ITEM WARNER ABOVE ARE NOT THE RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IDENTIFIED IN THE IN THIS APPLICATION.
AND THE NEED OF A VARIANCE IS A RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
I'M THREE LITTLE INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO BUILD WITHIN THE APPLICABLE SETBACKS.
BUILDING WITH THE REQUIRED SETBACKS WOULD ONLY ALLOW FOR A GARAGE THAT WOULD BE NINE FEET WIDE, WHICH WHICH IS NOT ENOUGH FOR AN RV FOR BEARINGS OF GRANITE IS A MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF LAND BUILDING OR STRUCTURE.
A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT FEET INTO THE 25 FOOT SIDE CORNER BUILDING SETBACK WOULD BE NEEDED TO MEET THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND FIVE GRAND A VARIANCE REQUEST WILL NOT CONFER ON THE APPLICANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGES THAT IS DENIED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CODE TO OTHER LANDS.
BUILDING STRUCTURES IN THE SAME LAND USE CATEGORY, ZONING DISTRICT OR SITUATION FOR ANY VARIANCE WOULD OCCUR UPON THE APPLICANT.
A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE FOR THE SETBACK RELIEF AS THE SAME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLY TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS COMMUNITY.
ENCROACHMENT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT APPEAR TO CREATE ANY HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARDS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
ITEM SIX, THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENDED PURPOSE OF THE CODE THAT IS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECT TO PUBLIC WELFARE.
SEVEN STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED A CLAIM MADE UPON THIS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO PURCHASE PRIVATE PROPERTIES ACT.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION MADE A RECOMMENDATION IN ZONING BOARD MUST DETERMINE, BASED ON THE FACTS PRESENTED, TO WHAT DEGREE, IF ANY, OF MINIMUM RELIEF IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF VETERANS BEING REQUESTED AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION ONE SIXTY NINE POINT ZERO ZERO NINE CITY OF PALM BAY CODE OF ORDINANCES SAID.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MAY HAVE.
OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
THANK YOU. WILL THE PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM? GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JAMES GAMMEL.
THIS IS MY WIFE, CINDY GAMMEL.
FOUR MONTHS AGO WE MOVED DOWN HERE FROM OMAHA, NEBRASKA, TO CARE FOR MY MOM, WHOSE HEALTH CONTINUES TO DETERIORATE.
ONE OF THE VEHICLES WE MOVED DOWN HERE IS A SMALL 21 FOOT RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, WHICH WE SEEK TO HOUSE.
IN EARLY MAY, IT WAS VANDALIZED AND SUSTAINED SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS WORTH OF DAMAGE.
SO WE WANT TO SECURE IT NOT ONLY FROM ANY WOULD BE VANDALS, BUT ALSO THE WEATHER ELEMENTS TO 17 BY 24 FOOT STRUCTURE.
IT WILL FACE THE EXISTING CURVED ROCK DRIVEWAY AND WILL BLEND NICELY WITH THE HOUSE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DO. WHAT KIND OF CONSTRUCTION IS THIS GOING TO VISIT? LOCKERS AT METAL BUILDING METAL ON METAL.
ARE THE QUESTIONS. ONE OTHER QUESTION YOU HAD SAID YOUR RV IS 21 FOOT.
YES, OR LENGTH. WHAT I SEE HERE, THE DRIVE OR THE WIDTH OF THE GARAGE, A 17 FOOT.
AND YOU ONLY HAVE ONE WAY TO ENTER THAT GARAGE, CORRECT? THAT'S 17 FOOT FROM THE STREET, RIGHT.
HOW DO YOU GET THAT IN THERE, IS HE GOING TO MANEUVER IT IN RIGHT.
BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO. THERE'S A YOU COMING OFF THE ROCK DRIVE AND THERE'S ABOUT A 10 FOOT APPROACH THAT WILL BE WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET GET THE VEHICLE IN THERE AND THERE SO YOU WON'T HAVE TO PUT ANOTHER DRIVEWAY ON YOUR DRIVEWAY.
CORRECT. YOU AND THE OTHER QUESTIONS.
YOU KNOW, THE REASON HE LEFT THE STRUCTURE OF HOUSE.
CITY CODE GOT TO BE FIVE FEET OFF YOUR EXISTING STRUCTURE.
RECOMMENDATIONS. THAT'S ALL IN THE RULES.
OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, FOLKS, YOU CAN BE SEATED.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED TO THIS APPLICATION? FREDERICK SMITH, 13, 77, VATER AVENUE, BEEN THERE FOR PROBABLY OVER 30 YEARS, NOT EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT. IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD.
THEIR HOUSES ARE OLDER HOUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY THERE NOW.
AND THEY PUT A METAL STRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO OVERPOWER THAT HOUSE JUST AS WELL, TOO.
I FEEL IT'S GOING TO BRING MY PROPERTY VALUE DOWN WHEN WE DRIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S THE FIRST THING YOU SEE WILL BE THAT IS THAT HOUSE AND PLUS THAT STRUCTURE.
I NOTICED THAT THERE WASN'T ANY VARIANCE IN REFERENCE TO THEM SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT IT, LOOKING LIKE THE STRUCTURE.
WELL, IT'S TOTALLY OUT OF PLACE.
[00:50:02]
AND I'M JUST NOT EXCITED ABOUT IT, SO I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE THERE BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL LIKE IN THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, I DON'T THINK I DON'T I DON'T I JUST DON'T SEE THAT.AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE POLICE REPORT THE VANDALISM IN THE AREA BECAUSE WE HAVE AN OFFICER THAT'S BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS, AND WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ANY KIDS OR ANYBODY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AS FAR AS ANY VANDALISM OR ANY BREAK INS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE ON THAT STREET.
AND I'VE BEEN THERE FOR OVER 30 YEARS.
DID YOU FILL OUT A CARD? NO, I DID. CARD. YEAH. IF YOU WOULD JUST TAKE BACK YOUR SEAT AND JUST LEAVE IT ON THE PODIUM WHEN YOU COME BACK BEFORE YOU LEAVE.
OK. ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE, MA'AM? FOR SURE, I LIVE IN 13, 93 VATER AVENUE, I PRETTY MUCH AGREE WITH FRED THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A REAL EYESORE AND I'M NOT VERY HAPPY ABOUT IT EITHER.
AND I'M SURE THE PEOPLE LIVING BEHIND THEM, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HERE, BUT I'M SURE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH IT EITHER.
JUST NOT A BIG PROPERTY AND THERE'S A LOT OF NEW HOMES GOING IN AND IT'S JUST GOING TO BE AN EYESORE TO ME. AGAIN, I WOULD PHILIP ONE OF THE CARDS ARE THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? MS. I LIVE AT THIRTEEN FORTY SIX BATUR.
I AGREE WITH FRED AND TRISH, I'VE BEEN THERE FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND THE PROPERTY IS THE FIRST ONE THAT YOU SEE COME IN.
AND I SAID WE HAVE TWO BRAND NEW HOUSES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THEM.
I MEAN, EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD KEEPS UP AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT IT'S IT'S GOING TO MATCH WITH WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S. I THINK I WOULD BE A LITTLE OK IF IT WAS PART OF THE COLORING, BUT FOR THE OR WHAT THEY WANT OR WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IT.
IT'S GOING TO BE AN EYESORE, GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.
SO IF YOU WOULD FILL UP ONE OF THOSE CARDS.
THANK YOU, MA'AM, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS APPLICATION? YOU KNOW, AT THIS TIME, I WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR EMOTION MR. CHAIR BEFORE YOU VOTE ON AND I WANTED TO ADDRESS SOMETHING I DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A VARIANCE FOR THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAD STATED IN AN EMAIL TO MYSELF AND TO CHANDRA THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE SAME COLOR AS THE HOUSE. SO IT DOESN'T NEED A VARIANCE FROM THAT SECTION OF THE CODE.
OK, I APPRECIATE THAT. NO LATER.
YEAH, IF HE WAS. APPLICANT WOULD PLEASE COME BACK TO THE PODIUM.
I OF YOUR BALTER FROM THE LAST 21 GLASPIE ASPEY, HOW WIDE IS IT? AT NINE FEET.
ANYWAY, YOU CAN GO A LITTLE ORDER TO MAKE STRUCTURE.
THIS IS ABOUT THE SMALLEST WE CAN GO BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NINE FEET, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE ROOM TO GET AROUND.
OPEN THE SLIDING DOOR ON EITHER SIDE.
THIS IS A SMALLISH STRUCTURE WE CAN GO WITH.
ALSO, IT'S THE WIDTH OF THE OF THE STRUCTURE, NOT THE LENGTH OF IT WIDE.
FOUR FEET LONG. WELL, IT'S 17 FEET WIDE, JUST 24 FEET, BUT THE THING IS, HIS VEHICLES NINE FEET WIDE, SO. ONE THING I'VE NOTICED HERE WHERE WE'RE VOTING ON WHETHER TO ALLOW THEM TO ENCROACH ON THE SET BACK THE BUILDING ITSELF AS IS ALLOWABLE IF IT WASN'T OR THE SETBACK. EXACTLY, I WAS GOING TO POINT THAT OUT TO FOLKS.
YOU KNOW, IF IF HE DIDN'T REQUIRE THIS SETBACK FROM THE ROAD, HE WOULDN'T NEED A VARIANCE TO BUILD A STRUCTURE.
IT WOULD JUST NEED A PERMIT. THANK YOU, SIR.
YOU CAN SIT DOWN. BOOTHROYD, CAN I GET A MOTION, PLEASE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 29, 20, 21.
MOTION SEEKING ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.
ALL IN FAVOR, SAY, AY, AY, ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, THERE YOU GO, FOLKS LIKE. OK, OUR NEXT AND FINAL CASE, PATRICK.
LESS CHAOS ON THE AGENDA THIS MORNING AT A WAREHOUSE ORGANIC WAREHOUSE.
[00:55:10]
THIS CASE ON THE AGENDA IS KAFI 12, 2021.THIS IS ALSO A STAFF INITIATIVE, COMPLINE MINUTE BACKGROUND.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ALSO KNOWN AS A GENERAL PLAN OR A MASTER PLAN, IS A DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO GUIDE THE FUTURE ACTIONS OF A COMMUNITY.
IT PRESENTS A VISION FOR THE FUTURE WITH LONG RANGE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR ALL ACTIVITIES THAT AFFECT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
FIRST, PALM BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 1981 AND WAS DEVELOPED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 163 FLORIDA STATUTES.
THE ELEMENTS THAT ESTABLISHED POLICY WERE ADOPTED THE ORDINANCE 88, DASH 28.
THIS PLAN WAS THEN SUBSTANTIALLY REVISED WITH THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN 2001.
CITY HAS MADE SEVERAL CHANGES AND UPDATES TO THIS PLAN OVER THE YEARS, MOSTLY THROUGH THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL.
OR EXCUSE ME. APPROVALS REPORT PROCESS.
I'M MAKING A MENTAL NOTE HERE.
HE'S CURRENTLY EMBARKING IN ANOTHER OVERHAUL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO SERVE AS A GUIDE FOR EFFECTIVELY MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY THROUGH GROWTH, MANAGEMENT AND ADOPTION OF PUBLIC POLICIES FOR DEVELOPMENT ITEMS SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES, LAND USE, RECREATION AND HOUSING ANALYSIS.
THIS SUMMER, THE STATE OF FLORIDA AMENDED THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT TO REQUIRE EVERY CITY AND COUNTY TO INCLUDE IN ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, A PROPERTY RIGHTS ELEMENT OR STATUTES, SECTION ONE SIXTY THREE POINT THREE ONE 776 I1.
THE AMENDMENT WAS EFFECTUATED BY A HOUSE BILL, 59, SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE GOVERNOR AND BECAME EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1ST, 2021.
THE BILL REQUIRES THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO ADOPT A PROPERTY RIGHTS ELEMENT BY THE EARLIER OF ITS ADOPTION OF ITS NEXT PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT INITIATED AFTER JULY 1ST OR THE NEXT SCHEDULED EER REPORT.
AS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS BILL WOULD AFFECT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO AMEND ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE HAVE DECIDED TO ADOPT THE NEW ELEMENT NOW.
THEREFORE, THE CITY HAS PUT FORTH THE ATTACH LANGUAGE TO BE INCLUDED IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS ELEMENT L.
THE AMENDMENT INCLUDES THE BASIC TEXT FROM THE ADOPTED HOUSE BILL IN CONFORMANCE WITH WHAT IS NOW STATE LAW.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE CPW 12, 2021 AND TRANSMIT THE REQUEST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 163 FLORIDA STATUTES.
I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE ADDITIONS TO THIS BILL BEING SIGNED, THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, WHICH RESIDES IN TALLAHASSEE, HAS MADE A KIND OF A SHOCKING INTERPRETATION THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO ALLOW CITIES TO TRANSMIT ANY AMENDMENTS TO THEIR LAND USE PLAN, A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHETHER IT BE SMALL OR LARGE OR TEXTUAL, UNTIL WE ADOPT THIS PROPERTY RIGHTS ELEMENT.
THIRTEEN APPLICATIONS THAT ARE ON HOLD WAITING FOR THIS TO GO THROUGH, THIS WOULD HAVE EITHER BEEN IN THE LAST MEETING OR TONIGHT, WE WOULD HAVE HEARD SOME OF THOSE.
WE ARE NOW GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THIS GOES THROUGH.
SO THIS IS GOING TONIGHT, OBVIOUSLY, FOR YOU GUYS TO TO VOTE ON AND IT IS GOING TO CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 19TH.
WE WILL THEN TRANSMIT IT TO AN OPPORTUNITY.
THEY HAVE 30 DAYS IN WHICH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS BACK TO US.
WE WILL THEN SCHEDULE A FINAL READING BY CITY COUNCIL.
AND AT THAT POINT, THERE IS A CHALLENGE PERIOD.
ONCE THAT CHALLENGE PERIOD EXPIRES, THAT IS WHEN WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS BOARD WITH ANY OTHER LAND USE AMENDMENTS, WHICH WOULD BE FIRST WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER.
SO IT'S A PROCESS THAT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT WE'RE DEALING WITH IT LIKE EVERY OTHER CITY AND COUNTY IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THIS IS NOT UNIQUE TO PALM BAY.
THIS WAS FOR EVERYONE IN THE STATE.
WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE REGARDING ANY OF THE CRITERIA IN THE ELEMENT. OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
I GUESS I DO ENTER, UM, SO FAR AS THIS POLICY GOES, I KNOW THE STATE IS THROUGH TO EXPLAIN WHAT MOST OF THIS MEANS TO WHO THESE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE PUTTING THESE APPLICATIONS FORWARD OR WE NEED TO HAVE THIS.
OR APPLICATIONS FOR LAND USE AMENDMENTS? YES, OK, WELL, PEOPLE ARE FOOTING THE APPLICATION FOR LANGUAGE AMENDMENTS.
THIS WOULD BE ANOTHER ELEMENT BY WHICH WE JUDGE THEIR APPLICATION.
THERE ARE. SIX TO SEVEN ELEMENTS BY WHICH EVERY LAND USE IS EVALUATED AGAINST THIS WOULD BE ANOTHER ONE. AND WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY HAS VIOLATED ANY OF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THAT APPLICANT ITSELF.
THAT'S GOING TO BE KIND OF TRICKY TO LOOK AT IF WE MAKE SORT OF AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS DECISION WITHIN OUR STAFF REPORT THAT THIS LATEST AMENDMENT IS NOT MET DUE TO HOW THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED OR WHAT IT WOULD BE USED FOR.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE GROUNDS FOR A VIOLATION.
[01:00:02]
THE ELEMENT THAT IS SOMETHING TO BE CITED IN A COURT OF LAW IF WE EVER GET TO THAT POINT.IT HAS NOT BEEN A LOT OF DIRECTION FROM THE STATE WHEN THIS HOUSE BILL WAS SIGNED ON, HOW THIS WOULD ACTUALLY PLAY OUT ONCE AMENDMENT CAME IN FOR REVIEW.
SO WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE TESTING THE WATERS AS THIS GOES FORWARD.
THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, AND I KNOW IT WASN'T PROBABLY THE ANSWER YOU WANT.
NOW IT'S THE BEST ANSWER I CAN PROVIDE AT THIS POINT UNTIL WE'VE ACTUALLY GOTTEN TO CROSSING THAT BRIDGE. I KIND OF ALMOST SEEMS IS WHAT IT IS.
IT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A WHOLE LOT OF INSTRUCTION ON THE EFFECT OF THE ELEMENT, BUT IT IS A STATE REQUIREMENT NOW.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, THE FUNNY PART IS THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ACTUALLY ALREADY ACCEPTED AS PART OF REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW, THEY'RE JUST REQUIRING BASICALLY WE PUT THIS ELEMENT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
YEAH. AND THE LEGAL COMMUNITY IS IN A QUANDARY ABOUT IT ALL AS WELL.
IT'S A BIG DISCUSSION TOPIC AND WE'RE TRYING TO SORT IT OUT TO.
NOW SHE'S DOING THE BEST WE CAN, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DO HAVE TO ADD TO PUT INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ABSOLUTELY AND IT'S ALL CONJECTURE.
BUT AGAIN, AS I SAID, I MEAN, JAMES, YOU SHOULD KNOW, BEING REALTOR, I KNOW I'M A REAL ESTATE APPRAISER BY PROFESSION IS THE FACT THAT THIS IS ALREADY ACCEPTED AS PART OF YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AS OWNERS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.
WELL, THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING WHY THEY'RE JUST CODIFYING IT REQUIRES THAT IT BE INCLUDED IN THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO YOU JUST NEVER KNOW HOW THESE THINGS COME ABOUT OR WHY THEY DECIDED TO PUT THEM INTO LAW. BUT EXACTLY.
THANK YOU. ANY ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR. CAN I GET A MOTION, FIRST OF ALL, PLEASE, MOTION TO APPROVE CP 12, THAT'S 20 21. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY, AY AY, ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, JUST A NOTE TO THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, IF YOU'LL NOTICE.
CASE NUMBER TWO ON THE NEW BUSINESS CASE, NUMBER F.D.
30, 2021 HAS BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTINUES.
THAT'S WHY YOU WON'T BE HEARING THAT TONIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. YES. IF WE HAVE NO OTHER BUSINESS, I DO.
[OTHER BUSINESS]
SO AS I JUST BRIEFLY MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE A BACKLOG OF CASES DUE TO THIS PROPERTY SETTLEMENT. WE NEED TO GET ADOPTED.WE ARE GOING TO HAVE PROBABLY ANYWHERE FROM 11 TO 13 OF THESE THAT ARE GOING TO APPEAR ON OUR FIRST MEETING IN NOVEMBER, OUR REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING.
BUT ANY OTHERS THAT WE GET IN, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO STEAMROLL YOU GUYS WITH 20 TO 25 APPLICATIONS IN ONE NIGHT.
SO WE HAVE RESERVED THIS ROOM ON NOVEMBER 15TH.
IT'S UNFORTUNATELY THE ONLY NIGHT IN NOVEMBER THAT WE COULD GET THIS VENUE DUE TO A LOT OF OTHER BOARD MEETINGS AND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
SO WE ARE LOOKING TO HOLD A SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING ON NOVEMBER 15TH TO HEAR THE OTHER CASES THAT WE MAY BE GETTING WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS LEADING UP TO THIS. SO I'M HOPING THAT YOU GUYS CAN CHECK YOUR SCHEDULES AND GET BACK WITH SHANDRA AND LET HER KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE AVAILABLE THAT NIGHT SO WE KNOW WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A QUORUM ON NOVEMBER 15TH.
AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
AND I KNOW SHANDRA'S IS GOING TO SEND AN EMAIL OUT JUST SO YOU HAVE IT ON RECORD IS IN WRITING AND YOU CAN RESPOND AND MAKE SURE THAT WE WILL DEFINITELY HAVE A CALL THAT NIGHT SO THAT WHEN WE ADVERTISE, WE KNOW WE ACTUALLY WILL BE HAVING A MEETING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INDULGENCE.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. PATRICK, MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.