[00:00:06]
EVERYONE PLEASE RISE AND FACE THE FLAG FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
[CALL TO ORDER]
TO THE FLAG. AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC.IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
MR. BOEREMA. PRESIDENT MR. GOOD. MRS. JORDAN. MR GOOD.
MRS JORDAN HAS ASKED TO BE EXCUSED.
PRESIDENT. MR. OLSZEWSKI HAS ASKED TO BE EXCUSED.
MR. WARNER PRESIDENT MR WEINBERG PRESIDENT MR KARAFFA.
WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM AND OUR DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY RODNEY EDWARDS, IS PRESENT.
[ADOPTION OF MINUTES]
CAN I GET A MOTION, PLEASE? MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.MOTION FROM DORN. SECOND FROM.
ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE? AYE. ALL OPPOSED.
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.
FLOOR WILL THEN BE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
WE WILL FIRST HEAR FROM THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION AND THEN THOSE OPPOSED.
AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS, I WILL BRING THE CASE BACK TO THE BOARD.
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.
WHICH TIME THE BOARD MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
YOU FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE AND FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
FIRST CASE, PLEASE, MR. WHITE.
[OLD/UNFINISHED BUSINESS]
AND THIS IS A TEXTUAL AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TITLE 17 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 174 FLOODPLAIN AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION 174 .073.DUCTING A REVIEW OF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION SECTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
CLARIFICATION WAS NEEDED TO NEEDED TO ESTABLISH REQUIRED ELEVATIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO EXISTING DWELLINGS AND FOR THOSE THAT ABUT ADJACENT VACANT LOTS.
THANK YOU, MR. WHITE. AS THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
THANK YOU. HECTOR, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD? NO, SIR. OKAY.
BILL BATTEN, 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET SOUTHWEST.
WELL, THAT WAS PART OF THE PROBLEM.
IT WAS GENERATING ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHTS.
YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T NECESSARILY FROM THE CROWN OF THE ROAD.
IT WAS FROM WHERE THE SEPTIC TANK HAD TO BE PLACED ON.
THE SEPTIC TANK, IN SOME CASES WAS 3 TO 4FT DIFFERENT FROM THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR.
[00:05:04]
BUT THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT WAS GENERATING SO MUCH OF THE HATE AND DISCONTENT WITH WITH THIS LAYOUT.SO THAT GENERATES THE QUESTION FOR ME HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT THE HEIGHT OF THE SEPTIC TANK WAS GOING TO BE WHEN IT'S EVOLVING, WHEN THIS GUIDELINE WAS PERTAINING TO ANOTHER GOVERNMENT IDENTITY THAT WE ARE SETTING A STANDARD BASED ON.
I MEAN, THE THE FLOOR ELEVATION UNIFORM ON THE ENTIRE STREET.
SO IF SOMEBODY CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR ME, I'LL BE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN FAVOR OF THIS.
I UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE GOING ABOUT IT, BUT I DIDN'T SEE A CLEAR ACCESS ON SOLVING THE PROBLEM.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO COMMENT ON THIS? NONE. MR. WHITE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO MR. BATTEN? FOR THAT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT, PLEASE? THANK YOU. BOARD.
HECTOR FRANCO, ENGINEER, THREE PUBLIC WORKS WITH REGARDS TO THE CHANGE IN ELEVATION FROM 2 TO 3FT.
IT'S BASICALLY TO CONSIDER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEPTIC AND SEWER.
SO YOU HAVE HOUSES THAT ARE BUILT ON SEPTIC CURRENTLY, BUT THEN WILL BE CONVERTED TO SEWER.
AND SO THERE'S ISSUES IN DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION.
THIS ORDINANCE, WHAT IT DOES IS FOR DIFFERENT HOMES, IT GIVES A ONE FOOT VARIATION WHERE THERE'S SEPTIC OR SEWER NEXT TO IT TO ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR THAT FINISHED FLOOR WHEN THERE ARE NO HOMES NEARBY, THE MAXIMUM IS THREE FEET. SO I'M NOT SURE IF THAT CLARIFIES THE QUESTION.
BILL. HAD I BELIEVE THAT THAT MR. BATTEN'S QUESTION WAS THE WAY THE ORDINANCE READS THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION CANNOT BE MORE THAN SIX INCHES ABOVE THE OF THE SEPTIC.
YES. AND I THINK BILL'S BILL'S QUESTION WAS WAS PERTAINING TO HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? WELL, WE DON'T KNOW THE ACTUAL HEIGHT, BUT WE KNOW THE SEPTIC TANK IS SIX INCHES BELOW THE FINISHED FLOOR OF THAT HOME.
AND SO THAT'S SIX INCHES HIGHER FOR THE FINISHED FLOOR.
WELL, WE KNOW ON THE AVERAGE IT'S ABOUT THREE FEET.
AND THAT'S WHY WE ESTABLISHED THE NUMBER THREE INSTEAD OF TWO.
WITH REGARDS TO THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OF THE SEPTIC SYSTEM IS DONE BY THE WATER TABLE, THE ESTIMATED HIGH WATER TABLE BY THE STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. AND SO THAT NUMBER CAN VARY DEPENDING ON LOCATION IN THE CITY.
SO ON THE AVERAGE, IT'S AROUND THREE FEET.
SO THAT'S WHY WE CHOSE THREE FEET ABOVE THE CROWN OF THE ROAD.
AND I THINK BILL WAS CURIOUS AS TO HOW DO WE DETERMINE THAT, NOT JUST ESTIMATE IT.
YEAH, WELL, FOR SEPTIC AREAS IT'S SIX INCHES ABOVE THAT.
AND SO IT DOESN'T YOU DON'T NEED ANY VARIATION BETWEEN THE CROWN OF THE ROAD.
WHAT. THE VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO HOMES.
BUT AGAIN, HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS SIX INCHES ABOVE THE SEPTIC? HOW WAS THAT DETERMINED? WELL, THAT'S THAT'S PROVIDED BY THE BY THE STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT PERMIT.
THAT IS THAT WHAT THAT WAS THE QUESTION THAT HE WAS ASKING.
SO WE KNOW WHAT THE HEIGHT OF IT.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WHOOPS. OH, YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION.
I DO A LOT OF WALKING AND TALK TO DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS THAT ARE INSTALLING SEPTICS, AND ONE BLAMES THE COUNTY, ANOTHER BLAME THE CITY.
ONE TELLS ME THAT THE DRAIN FIELD HAS TO BE 30IN ABOVE THE WATER LEVEL.
AND THEN IT'S DETERMINED FROM THERE UP.
BUT YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CITY HAVE SEWER.
WELL, ON MY BLOCK, FOR INSTANCE, WE'RE ALL ON SEPTIC, BUT ALL DIFFERENT HEIGHTS.
AND I MEAN, THEY CAN BE 4 OR 5FT ABOVE THE CROWN OF THE ROAD AND IT LOOKS HORRIBLE.
AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY MOVING INTO THESE HOUSES, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM.
[00:10:05]
I WOULD NEVER BUY A HOUSE LIKE THAT.YOU CAN'T EVEN GET UP YOUR DRIVEWAY.
THEY HAVE TO COME BACK AND ALTER YOUR DRIVEWAY.
SO THE BOTTOM OF YOUR CAR DOESN'T HIT AS YOU'RE PULLING INTO THE GARAGE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS ORDINANCE IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING OR NOT.
I MEAN, IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE COUNTY'S RUNNING THIS OR THE CITY'S RUNNING IT.
AND THEN OUR ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR SIX INCHES ABOVE IT FOR THE SEPTIC.
YEAH. IN MY AREA YOU MIGHT BE TALKING.
SO IF THEY'RE ON SEWER, THEY SHOULD ONLY BE TWO FEET ABOVE THE CROWN OF THE ROAD.
YEAH. SO AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN BE SUCH A VARIANCE BETWEEN NEIGHBORS.
IT'S HORRIBLE. I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T BE HAPPY.
LUCKILY, MY NEIGHBORS ARE SAME ELEVATION AS I AM, SO I DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THOSE OTHER ONES.
BUT I WISH THAT COULD BE A LOT MORE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND HOPEFULLY THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DO THAT, BUT I'M JUST NOT SO SURE. SO.
YOU KNOW. HOW ABOUT NOW? LISTEN. ALL RIGHT, PERFECT.
SO WE HAVE HAD THEY'RE ACTUALLY NOT VARIANCES PER SE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN, BUT THEY'RE VARIATIONS FROM THE CODE THAT APPLICANTS HAVE APPLIED FOR THAT ARE ADMINISTRATIVELY REVIEWED AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
THIS ADJUSTMENT IS TO ACTUALLY ENCAPSULATE SOME OF THOSE REQUESTS BECAUSE OF THE VARIATION.
AND THEN WHAT WE ALSO DID ON TOP OF CHANGING THE 2FT TO 3FT, WE ADDED IN THE CLAUSE REGARDING VACANT DEVELOPMENT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA TO TRY TO MITIGATE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO NOW.
SO IF THEY ARE A NEW LOT WITH VACANT, LET'S SAY, ON THEIR WEST SIDE, THEY HAVE TO THEN HAVE THE TWO FEET IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT VACANT LOT AS WELL AS THE LOTS THAT ARE ALREADY DEVELOPED.
PREVIOUSLY IT WAS ONLY OFF OF LOTS THAT ARE PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED.
WHERE DOES THIS ONE FOOT PER FOUR FOOT SETBACK COME IN TO YOUR NEIGHBOR? I READ THAT SOMEWHERE IN THERE, THAT THERE, FOR EVERY FOUR FEET YOU CAN GO ONE FOOT.
YEAH. THOSE ARE THE SLOPES TO THE DRAINAGE AREA AND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY.
SO THAT KIND OF SETS THE PARAMETER FOR FOR WHAT THE SLOPE SIDE SLOPES WOULD LOOK LIKE.
SO THERE'S A TEN FOOT EASEMENT, RIGHT? SO THAT'S.
THAT WOULD BE 2.5FT RIGHT THERE.
RIGHT. ADDING A CLAUSE CONTAINING.
ONE FOOT TO. PART OF THE CONFUSION.
OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, HECTOR.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC HAVE ANY? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION.
CAN I GET A MOTION, PLEASE? MOTION TO APPROVE T 23 00002.
MR. MCLEOD, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
GOOD EVENING. I'M TANYA RAMOS, SENIOR PLANNER WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
[NEW BUSINESS]
HERE FOR CASE Z 23 00003.[00:15:10]
THE VICINITY SOUTH OF CATALONIA AVENUE NORTHWEST.THE FUTURE LAND USE IS CURRENTLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THE EXISTING ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL, RURAL, RESIDENTIAL AND THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 1.13 ACRES.
THEY'RE REQUESTING TO REZONE FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO AN RS TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND ANALYSIS IS THAT THE PROPERTY HAS A FUTURE LAND USE ALREADY FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE, WHICH ALLOWS A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF FIVE UNITS PER ACRE.
THE PROPOSED REZONING FOR THE POTENTIAL CREATION.
THE PROPOSED REZONING IS FOR THE POTENTIAL CREATION OF FOUR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 1.13 ACRES, AND IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE AND IT WILL ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN AN AREA THAT IS ALREADY PREDOMINANTLY ZONED TO THE SCHOOL BOARD DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPOSAL EXEMPT IS EXEMPT FROM SCHOOL CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPROVAL OF THIS REZONING REQUEST MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR.
WHO WOULD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS RAMOS? OKAY. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AS WELL.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION? AND WISHES TO SPEAK OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION.
BILL BATTEN, 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET SOUTHWEST.
RURAL RESIDENTIAL JUST MEANS ONE HOUSE PER ACRE.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TAKING AWAY.
SO THAT'S THE FIRST ONE, IS I DON'T WANT TO SEE A LOSS OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND.
NUMBER TWO, THE THE PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO CHANGE IT INTO IS TWO ZONING ON.
IF YOU LOOK TO THE NORTH SIDE OF IT, ALONG THE STREET, THEY HAVE NO EASEMENT.
THEIR PROPERTY ACTUALLY COMES OUT INTO WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE ROAD WOULD BE.
IT ACTUALLY EXTENDS OUT IN SO THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY WILL AUTOMATICALLY I CAN'T FORCE IT AND THE CITY COULDN'T FORCE IT, BUT IF THEY WANTED TO DO ANYTHING ALONG THAT ROAD, THAT EASEMENT HAS TO BE GENERATED TO THE CITY.
IT'S BLOCKED OFF. WE FACED THIS PROBLEM BEFORE ALONG GAYNOR ROAD.
AND THE LAST QUESTION IS, WHAT WAS THE LAYOUT GOING TO BE TO HAVE FOUR HOMES IN ONE IN A 1.3 ACRE LOT WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE PART OF THAT UP FOR THE EASEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY? WHAT WAS THE LAYOUT TO HAVE FOUR HOMES ON ONE ACRE WITHOUT HAVING ROAD ACCESS TO IT? INDIVIDUAL HOME SITES HAVE TO HAVE SINGLE ROAD ACCESS.
SO I DON'T SEE HOW YOU'RE GOING TO ABLE TO DO THAT WITHIN FOUR LOTS IN A ONE ACRE PLOT.
MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT I KNOW THAT WAS NOT IN THE DOCUMENTATION WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO LAY IT OUT AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE CITY EASEMENT.
THANK YOU. A WITH THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? HELLO, MY NAME IS ANTHONY ROSATI.
I USED TO LIVE IN MALABAR ON ACREAGE.
WE JUST MOVED TO WEST MELBOURNE WHERE ONE OF THE ZERO LOT LINES.
[00:20:06]
SO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE EASEMENT AND THAT'S HOW IT WAS WHEN I BOUGHT IT.I'M NOT REAL GOOD SPEAKER HERE, SO.
SO WHAT? WHAT DO YOU ALL NEED TO KNOW? WOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, SO YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PUT FOUR HOUSES ON THAT? I WASN'T PLANNING ON IT.
I MEAN, WHY IS IT MENTIONED IN THE DOCKET HERE? BECAUSE I GUESS THAT'S WHAT SAYS BECAUSE I HAD THE SAME.
BUT I COULD I MEAN, I WOULD PUT AS MANY AS I COULD PUT ON.
I HAVE A DAUGHTER THAT I LIKE TO LIVE NEAR.
I MEAN, BUT I DON'T I DON'T HAVE A PLAN ON HOW MANY HOUSES I WANT TO PUT ON THE PROPERTY.
I GOT TO HAVE A ROAD. YOU HAVE TO HAVE EASEMENTS.
LET'S SEE WHERE YOU HAVE. YOU KNOW, IF I COULDN'T FIGURE IT, THEN IT WOULDN'T WORK, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, RIGHT? THE QUESTION MIGHT BE FOR THE CITY HERE, THEN MORE THAN FOR YOU.
SO THE STAFF REPORT MENTIONS POTENTIAL FOR FOUR LOTS BECAUSE THAT IS A POTENTIAL FOR THE AREA.
IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S GOING TO HIT FOUR LOTS.
DURING THOSE PRACTICE PROCESSES, WE WOULD BE IDENTIFYING WHAT WE WOULD NEED AS THE CITY, SUCH AS AN EASEMENT TO BE DEDICATED, AND DURING THOSE PROCESSES WE WOULD HAVE THE DEDICATION OCCUR BEFORE APPROVAL.
IN THE PLOT WOULD COME BACK TO YOU BOTH AT THE PRELIMINARY STAGE AND AT THE FINAL STAGE.
SO YOU WOULD SEE IT AGAIN TWO MORE TIMES.
SORRY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? HECTOR? I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE SEEN THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, BUT I THINK MAYBE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DRAINAGE EASEMENT OR SOME KIND OF UTILITY EASEMENT.
I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD NEITHER.
THANK YOU. HECTOR FRANCO, ENGINEER.
YOU WOULD JUST NEED PERIMETER DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AND POSSIBLY UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES TO PROVIDE YOU SERVICE WITH REGARD TO THAT PARENT TRACK. YOU KNOW, THEY MAY NEED THE SAME.
SO THOSE EASEMENTS WOULD BE RETAINED FOR THEIR PURPOSES AS WELL.
FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT'S AT THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN LEVEL.
AT CONSTRUCTION PLAN LEVEL, YES.
RIGHT. IT'LL DEPEND HOW MUCH FRONTAGE THEY HAVE FOR EACH LOT.
AND THEY HAVE TO MEET ZONING CODES FOR HOW MUCH FRONTAGE THERE WILL BE.
BUT I'M SAYING, FOR INSTANCE, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO FOUR ALL THE WAY ACROSS.
SO IT DEPENDS ON THE DEPTH OF.
YEAH. I BELIEVE MR. BATTEN WAS REFERRING TO THE EASEMENT FOR THE ROAD.
YES, THAT THAT WOULD BE TYPICALLY REQUIRED WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT.
THE OTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY, MR. HECTOR. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS? SO. SO WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED A SUBDIVISION? IF WE. IT'LL DEPEND ULTIMATELY.
BUT TONIGHT, WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON IS JUST THE REZONING, WHICH THE REZONING ALLOWS FOR CERTAIN SIZED LOTS WITH A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DENSITY TO IT, WHICH OVERALL IS FIVE UNITS PER ACRE. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT, IS THE OVERALL DENSITY THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE THERE.
WHAT COMES OF IT LATER ON IS GOING TO BE A DIFFERENT PROCESS.
YOU'LL SEE THAT AS A PRELIMINARY PLOT.
SO IF IT'S JUST ONE INTO TWO, THAT'LL GO THROUGH THE COUNTY.
IF IT'S MORE THAN TWO, YOU'LL SEE IT AGAIN.
[00:25:05]
SPLIT. WE COULD NOT SUBDIVIDE TWO INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSES.I THOUGHT WE HAD ALREADY. IT DEPENDS ON THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF.
LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, IN AS TO THE SIZE, LOT THAT YOU NEED IS 7500FT².
SO IF YOU HAVE 48, 45,000FT² ROUGHLY IN AN ACRE, YOU CAN SEE HOW YOU CAN GET SIX LOTS POTENTIALLY OUT OF THAT ACRE AT 7500FT². OF COURSE, THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY OF THE CONSTRUCTION, YOU KNOW, THE ROADWAYS THAT YOU WOULD NEED FOR IT, THE EASEMENTS AND SO FORTH.
YEAH. JESSE, I'VE GOT A QUESTION, TOO.
IF YOU LOOK AT THAT MAP, IT APPEARS THAT THE JUST TO THE WEST OF THIS PROPERTY ON GREENBRIER, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT IS PLATTED FOR THREE QUARTER ACRE LOTS. IT WAS MOST LIKELY SOMETHING THAT OCCURRED THROUGH THE COUNTY, THROUGH THE LOT SPLIT PROCESS WE ARE SEEKING TO.
THOSE WOULD BE NON-CONFORMING LOTS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
BUT IT IS PLATTED OUT AS THREE SEPARATE LOTS.
CORRECT. RATHER THAN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ONE LOT MINIMUM, CORRECT? YES. AND I DO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.
SO WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED A A FLAG LOT IF WE WERE TO ALLOW THE ZONING AND ALLOW THE OTHER TWO BECAUSE THE OTHER TWO PROPERTIES TO POSSIBLY COME IN ON THE. ON THE ON THE.
THIS OTHER END OF THE PROPERTY.
SO THE DESIGN OF THIS IS GOING TO BE HARD TO SAY.
THERE COULD OR COULD NOT BE A FLAG LOT.
IT DEPENDS. WE DO TECHNICALLY ALLOW THEM.
BUT AGAIN, RIGHT NOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ZONING.
LOT TO. YOU'LL SEE THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR IT LATER ON AT THE NEXT STAGE.
CONCERN RAISED BY MR. AT THE FIRST ONE ABOUT LOSING RURAL RESIDENTIAL IF YOU WERE TO VOTE.
ANYONE ELSE? ANY COMMENTS? NOT ONLY TO MOTION MOTION TO DENY THE 23 00003.
SECOND. WHAT IS THE BASIS OF YOUR MOTION TO DENY? DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED FROM RURAL.
BECAUSE OF THE SURROUNDING LOTS.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? AND I MEAN AND I WOULD AGREE.
I THINK THAT. EVEN IT HAS LEAVING IT, LEAVING IT ZONED THE WAY THAT THE WAY THAT IT IS.
I MEAN, IF WE HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE CONCRETE INFORMATION AS TO.
UM. THE THE THE ZONING CHANGE THE WAY THE WAY IS WRITTEN WRITTEN.
NOW, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT WE'RE THERE'S THERE'S A POSSIBILITY RIGHT NOW FOR A BIGGER SUBDIVISION THAT THAT WILL NOT BELONG IN THIS IN THIS AREA, IN THIS ZONING AND THIS ZONING CATEGORY.
SO I THINK THAT EVEN IT THE RULE AS RURAL RESIDENTIAL WOULD JUST.
AND RIGHT NOW IT JUST MAKES SENSE.
IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY, SAY AYE.
U 23 0004 WAS GOING TO PRESENT THAT CASE.
GOOD EVENING AGAIN. STEPHEN WIGHT, SENIOR PLANNER FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
CASE BEFORE YOU IS Q 20 3-000 FOR THE OWNER IS PALM BAY STORAGE LLC.
[00:30:05]
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF SCHMIDT NICHOLS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND HERBAL PLANNING REPS.SIZE OF THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY 6.09 ACRES.
APPROXIMATELY THE ZONING IS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL.
THE FUTURE LAND USE IS COMMERCIAL.
THIS REQUEST IS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW FOR A SELF STORAGE FACILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 185.0 88F OF THE CITY OF PALM BAY CODE OF ORDINANCES CASE Q 20 3-0004 DOES MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST, AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
AND A COUPLE OTHER NOTES FOR THIS.
ON THE STAFF REPORT, THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE NUMBERS.
IT IS 1101 UNITS FOR 148,464FT² BETWEEN SEVEN ONE STORY BUILDINGS AND ONE THREE STORY BUILDING.
AND THIS PROPERTY HAD A PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR THE SAME USE UNDER RESOLUTION 2022 DASH 16.
STAFF IS AVAILABLE AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.
FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
SEEING NONE. THANK YOU, MR. WHITE. YOU CAN.
GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR. BOARD MEMBERS JOSH NICHOLS, FOR THE RECORD WITH SCHMIDT.
NICHOLS. WE'RE A PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE FIRM OUT OF WEST PALM BEACH.
OKAY, I'LL JUST KEEP IT VERY BRIEF.
WE'RE IN. WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
I'LL JUST SHOW YOU A COUPLE OF THE RENDERINGS.
SO I'LL SHOW YOU THAT THAT RENDERING.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE BACK BEFORE YOU WITH THAT REQUEST FOR THE RECONFIGURATION.
AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE PLAT THAT'S GOING TO BE A COMPANION APPLICATION NOT TO BE HEARD TONIGHT.
BUT LET ME JUST QUICKLY GO THROUGH.
MINTON AND JUST NEXT TO THE SCHOOL, THE ACADEMY.
THIS IS THE EXISTING SO YOU'LL SEE VERY SIMILAR TO JUST ACTUALLY FLIPPED VERTICALLY.
THE BOTTOM BUILDING, THE LARGER BUILDING IN BLUE, THAT'S THE THREE STOREY.
AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE SITE RENDERINGS.
SO WE DID SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS IN WEST PALM FOR THE SAME CLIENT.
AND SO LOOKING FORWARD TO ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AND THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.
IS THAT GOING TO BE SET BACK AT ALL? I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THE SETBACK ON THE FRONT IS.
SO WE HAVE LANDSCAPE BUFFERING IN FRONT OF THAT.
AND WE'RE ALSO THE CODE ALLOWS FOR 70FT.
AND WE'RE ONLY AT WE'RE ABOUT HALF OF WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS FOR HEIGHT THERE.
THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
ACCESS TO PARTICULARLY THAT THREE STORY BUILDING WILL BE FROM THE WEST SIDE, AM I CORRECT? YES. IT'S ACTUALLY FROM THE NORTH AND FROM THE WEST, CORRECT.
THOSE ARE WHERE THE LOADINGS FROM THE NORTH.
CORRECT. SO WE TRY TO HAVE COVERED LOADING.
AND THEN THE CUSTOMER PARKING IS IN THE FRONT RIGHT BY THE ENTRANCE THERE.
SO EVERYTHING SO THAT PORTION IS OUTSIDE OF THE GATES.
AND THAT WAY YOU HAVE SECURED FACILITY GOING BACK BEYOND THAT, SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS APPROVED BEFORE, JUST A LITTLE BIT ACCESS TO THE TO ALL THE STORAGE UNITS THOUGH, WILL BE INTERIOR, CORRECT? THAT IS THAT IS CORRECT FOR THAT, YES.
FOR THAT BUILDING. THERE'S OTHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE STILL THE ONE STORY MODEL.
[00:35:01]
THANK YOU, MR. NICHOLS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. PLEASE, ONE MORE QUESTION.YOU BROUGHT IT. IS THERE ONLY GOING TO BE ONE ACCESS TO YOUR PROPERTY, NOTHING OUT THE BACK SIDE OR CORRECT TO ANY SIDE STREETS OR ONE POINT OF ACCESS? THAT'S CORRECT. FROM MINTON.
THANK YOU. JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? BILL. BILL BATTEN, 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET SOUTHWEST.
WE'LL GET A BIGGER BANG FOR OUR BUCK OFF THE TAX DOLLAR FOR THE FOR THE COMMERCIAL SIDE COMING IN.
WE GET A LITTLE BIT MORE BANG FOR OUR BUCK.
THAT'S THE POSITIVE SIDE I LIKE ABOUT THIS FOR BUSINESS COMING INTO THE CITY OF PALM BAY.
THE NEGATIVE SIDE ON THIS ONE THAT I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN.
WHEN I WAS GOING THROUGH THE PACKET, IT SAID THERE WILL BE NO ACCESS DURING SCHOOL HOURS FOR THE OR SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE OF HOW THE SCHOOL WAS GOING TO IMPACT ON ACCESSING. AND I WASN'T QUITE SURE HOW THAT WAS GOING TO COME INTO PLAY BECAUSE IF YOU EVER GO BY THAT WHEN THE SCHOOL'S GETTING IN AND OUT, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE POLICE OFFICERS OUT IN THE STREET TO ALLOW TRAFFIC FLOW.
SO IF ANYBODY COULD EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS TRAFFIC FLOW SITUATION IS GOING TO WORK, IF YOU'RE THE BUSINESS THAT'S RENTED STORAGE IN THAT FACILITY, BUT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ACCESS DURING SCHOOL, DROP OFF AND SCHOOL, PICK UP, HOW YOU GO ABOUT ACCOMPLISHING THAT OBJECTIVE.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED TO THIS APPLICATION? NO. MR. NICHOLLS, WOULD YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT? YEAH, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW THE SCHOOL WOULD IMPACT BECAUSE THE ACCESS IS NOT GAINED FROM THE SAME SCHOOL DRIVEWAY.
AND ALSO OUR TRIPS ARE VERY LOW.
I MEAN, IN THE MORNING WE'RE TALKING FOUR TRIPS PER HOUR.
SO WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT OR CONFLICT WITH THE SCHOOL'S DRIVEWAY.
THANK YOU. I THINK MR. BATTEN WAS REFERRING TO THE THE TRAFFIC GOING TO THE SCHOOL AND PICKING UP AND AND DROPPING OFF THEIR STUDENTS, WHICH IS PROBABLY PRETTY EXTENSIVE.
BUT BUT AS WE ALL KNOW, STORAGE FACILITIES HAVE A VERY, VERY LOW TRAFFIC IMPACT.
SO I REALLY DON'T SEE IT AFFECTING.
TRAFFIC IN THE SURROUNDING AREA ALSO.
MOTION TO APPROVE CU 23 00004.
APPROVAL FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE SUBJECT.
WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE? AYE. ALL OPPOSED.
THANK YOU, MR.. OUR NEXT CASE.
STEPHEN WIGHT, SENIOR PLANNER FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
CASE BEFORE YOU IS Q 20 3-0006.
THE APPLICANT OR OWNER IS DAVID MULLENDORE TRUST.
THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 5.32 ACRES WITH THE CURRENT ZONING AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
IN THE FUTURE. LAND USE OF COMMERCIAL.
SECTION 185 .087 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PROVIDES SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF RETAIL STORES WITH A GROSS FLOOR AREA EXCEEDING 5000FT² WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
AND I BELIEVE THE GROSS FLOOR AREA IS 8350.
THAT IS THE TOTAL SIZE OF THE BUILDING.
THE RECOMMENDATION IS CASE CU 20 3-0006 MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
AS A BOARD, HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO, THANK YOU, MR.. APPLICANT.
PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, MR. SPYRA. ITS CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS JACK SPICER.
MY OFFICE ADDRESS IS 505 BABCOCK STREET IN PALM BAY.
I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT.
[00:40:01]
BASICALLY, THIS ZONING, AS INDICATED, IS COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMERCIAL.AND THAT IS INTENDED TO AND DOES REDUCE TRAFFIC ON MAIN ROADS.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS INTENDED TO DO AND WE'LL DO.
THERE WAS A CITIZENS PARTICIPATION MEETING HELD THAT WAS A VERY SPARSELY ATTENDED MY UNDERSTANDING THERE WAS ONE PERSON ALSO STAFF REPORT INDICATES THAT THE AREA HAS SIMILAR COMMERCIAL INTENSITY AND THE USE IS COMPATIBLE FOR THE LOCATION.
SHE'S A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.
SHE'S A VICE PRESIDENT OF VECTOR CIVIL ENGINEERING IN GAINESVILLE.
SHE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT.
SHE WILL DISCUSS THE PROJECT AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY BE RAISED AT THIS TIME.
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
IRISH WITH VECTOR CIVIL ENGINEERING.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AS A REPRESENTATIVE.
WE'RE. ASKING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING.
WE'RE AT 11% EVEN WITH THE INCREASE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
UM, SO JUST IN GENERAL, I'M GOING TO SKIP THROUGH ALL OF THE THINGS THAT'S A REPEAT OF WHAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT, BUT, AND SHOW THE SITE PLAN HERE SO WE ARE ABLE TO MEET AND COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE DESIGN CRITERIA THAT WILL COME OUT DURING THE SITE PLAN PERMITTING PROCESS. STAFF IS GREAT AND THEY'LL REVIEW EVERYTHING FOR THE LANDSCAPING BUFFERS, LIGHTING, TRAFFIC, THAT KIND OF THING.
ONE THING I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE IS THAT FOR UTILITY AVAILABILITY AND THERE IS NOT WATER SERVICE TO THIS SITE CURRENTLY IN LIEU OF A POTABLE WELL FOR THIS WE ARE PROPOSING A WATER MAIN EXTENSION FROM FELTON, WHICH IS ABOUT A LITTLE OVER A HALF A MILE TO THE SITE.
SO WE'LL WORK WITH PUBLIC WORKS ON THAT.
SO WE DO FEEL THAT WE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 185 087 THAT ALLOW FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
IT'S OFF OF SAINT ANDRE BOULEVARD.
ALL RIGHT. THANKS. THAT'S ALL.
I HAD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THERE WON'T BE ANY ACCESS OR INGRESS OR EGRESS ON THE ROUTE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. WE ARE ONLY PROPOSING SAINT ANDRE.
YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OKAY. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION OR OPPOSED.
SO MY NAME IS JENNIFER LARSON.
I LIVE AT 406 LAGRANGE STREET.
I AM LESS THAN HALF A MILE FROM THIS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.
THE INTERSECTION IS ALREADY HARD TO NAVIGATE BECAUSE IT'S LOCATED ON A CURVE.
I'M AWARE SHE JUST MENTIONED THAT THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT WILL BE ON SAINT ANDRE.
NONETHELESS, THERE ARE TRAFFIC SIGNS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA THAT ARE ON THAT CURVE HAVE BEEN REPLACED MULTIPLE TIMES DUE TO PEOPLE LOSING CONTROL ON THAT CURVE.
SO THE TRAFFIC FROM THIS WILL DEFINITELY INCREASE THE DANGER IN THAT INTERSECTION.
IN ADDITION, THE PEOPLE IN THAT AREA HAVE RECENTLY HAD THEIR ROADS PAVED.
THE CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE MAKING USE OF THIS.
YOU CAN FIND THEM OUTSIDE DAILY IN THE EVENINGS, RIDING BIKES AND SCOOTERS.
I'M WORRIED THAT THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC COULD PUT THEM MORE IN HARM'S WAY.
ANOTHER CONCERN OF MINE IS TRASH AND POLLUTION.
MANY RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA HAVE GARDENS AND PETS LIKE CHICKENS.
I'M AFRAID IT'S GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
ANOTHER CONCERN THAT I HAD WAS THE WELL WATER.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SHE ALSO ADDRESSED THAT IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING CITY WATER FURTHER DOWN, HOW ARE THE RESIDENTS IN THAT TRACK GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THAT? WILL THEY BE FORCED TO HOOK UP, AS SOME RESIDENTS HAVE IN THE PAST? THE OTHER THING IS THAT I MAPPED OUT THE OTHER DOLLAR GENERALS IN OUR AREA AND THERE IS THREE WITHIN A FIVE MILE RADIUS.
[00:45:08]
I DO BELIEVE THAT ADDING A FOURTH ONE IS EXTREMELY EXCESSIVE.I SURVEYED SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS AND ALL OF US ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT WE LIKE OUR QUIET LITTLE RESIDENTIAL AREA AND ENJOY OUR SLOW PACED CORNER OF THE TOWN. MANY RESIDENTS OUT THERE OWN MORE THAN JUST A REGULAR QUARTER ACRE.
I WOULD CALL IT ALMOST SEMI COUNTRY, AND WE PREFER TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.
AGAIN, I ASK YOU TO PLEASE OPPOSE THIS REQUEST AND PROTECT OUR RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THANK YOU. IF YOU WOULD WAIT TILL WE HAVE FINISHED WITH PUBLIC COMMENTS AND YOU CAN RESPOND.
BILL BATTEN 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET, SOUTHWEST.
I HAVE TWO ITEMS TO BRING UP ON THIS ONE.
THE FIRST ONE GOES KIND OF TO STAFF.
WHEN I WAS GOING THROUGH THE PACKET, IT HAD Q 23 0006 AND THEN HALFWAY THROUGH THE PACKET IT IMMEDIATELY JUMPED TO F D 23 0006.
SO IT WAS JUST A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING.
SO IT WAS JUST A JUST BRINGING THAT OUT SO STAFF COULD BE AWARE OF IT.
THE SECOND ONE ITEM WAS I THOUGHT COMMERCIAL HAD TO HAVE FORCE MAIN ALONG WITH WATER.
HI. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS NORA VANOVER.
I LIVE IN 249 FARLEY STREET SOUTHWEST.
AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO OPPOSE.
DID YOU FILL OUT A COMMENT CARD? YES, I DID. OKAY.
LIKE THE LADY SAYS, TOO MANY DOLLAR STORES.
THERE IS $3 STORES WITHIN FIVE MINUTES DRIVE AND WE LIKE TO KEEP IT.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO COME? AND MISS IRIS, DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND? THANK YOU, EVERYONE.
SO A COUPLE OF THINGS TO RESPOND TO THE CITY WATER CONNECTION.
I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY PARTICULAR FORCE MAIN AND WATER MAIN COMBINATION REQUIREMENT.
SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING THAT FOR THIS AT THE TIME.
SO AS FAR AS THE THE QUANTITY OF THE DOLLAR GENERAL STORES, I DON'T PARTICIPATE IN ANY MARKET ANALYSIS, SO I HAVE NO VISIBILITY ON THAT. THE DOLLAR GENERAL STAFF, THEY BASICALLY BRING IT TO THE DEVELOPER AND THEY SAY WE WOULD LIKE A STORE IN THIS AREA.
SO WE REALLY CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
AS FAR AS THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND ALLOWED USE, WE ACTUALLY HAVE COMPLETED A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THIS.
AND JUST IN GENERAL, I'LL READ THIS RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT SAYS THAT THE ADDITION OF A LEFT TURN LANE OR A RIGHT TURN LANE AT THE INTERSECTION IS NOT WARRANTED AND THAT THE RETAIL STORE WILL NOT HAVE A NOTICEABLE IMPACT ON THE LEVEL OF SERVICE OF THE ADJOINING STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTION.
SO WE'RE NOT THE REQUEST ISN'T PERTAINING TO THE USE, IT IS THE INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE SO THAT THOSE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF 185 087 KIND OF ALLOW THAT OPTION TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IF YOU MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH STAFF HAS OUTLINED.
AND WE ALSO FEEL THAT WE MEET THOSE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS.. IRISH.
AT THIS POINT, I WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION.
WE HAVE COMMENTS FIRST. MAY I ASK JUST ONE OFF THE WALL QUESTION? YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? SURE.
JUST. JUST. JUST AN OFF THE WALL QUESTION HERE.
[00:50:02]
UM, THIS DOLLAR GENERAL.THE VISUALLY OWNED OR IS IT A RELEVANT.
IT'S A REASON FOR THAT. THERE'S A REASON THAT'S NOT IN THIS BOARD'S PURVIEW TO DISCUSS WHO OWNS IT.
IT'S DOESN'T. I'D LIKE TO WEIGH IN.
THERE WAS THERE WAS A THERE WAS A THERE WAS A POINT BEHIND IT.
THERE WAS IT WAS GOING SOMEWHERE.
IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF WANT. IT'S A QUESTION OF IT'S.
AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, IT'S NOT IN THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD, BUT GO AHEAD.
SO. IN ESSENCE, THAT IF A DOLLAR GENERAL WANTS TO COME INTO THAT AREA AND PUT SOMETHING THERE, THEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO SO, CORRECT? YES, BASED ON THE ZONING DISTRICT AND IT'S JUST THE DISTRICT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT'S ALLOWABLE.
THE MAJORITY OF THEM HAVE HAVE.
SO IT'S IT'S JUST TO I JUST KIND OF JUST WANTED TO BRING THE POINT HOME THAT I KNOW THAT FOR SOME OF THE RESIDENTS BECAUSE BECAUSE BECAUSE WATCH ONE GO UP IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT FOR SOME OF THE RESIDENTS, IT'S IT'S IT'S A MAJOR PUSHBACK BECAUSE YOU'RE SEEING THIS MAJOR DEVELOPMENT COME INTO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
ELEMENT. THAT'S THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC.
AND IN MANY CASES, LIKE THIS SITUATION, IT REALLY WASN'T.
SO JUST KIND OF WANT TO JUST KIND OF MAKE THAT POINT.
I KNOW IT WAS KIND OF GOING GOING IN THE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, BUT THAT'S WHAT I DO.
BUT I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO JUST KIND OF LIKE BRING OUT THE POINT JUST SO THAT IT'S REALLY NOT AS BAD AS WE ALL MAY, MAY, MAY, MAY THINK OR AS IT SEEMS. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE THAT.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS, MR. MCLEOD? STAFF AND FOR STAFF, PLEASE.
APART. IF IT'S THE TRAFFIC STUDY YOU'RE REFERRING TO, THAT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT WE TYPICALLY DON'T SUBMIT UNTIL THE SITE PLAN PERMITTING PROCESS.
IT'S NOT REQUIRED AT THIS POINT.
SO STAFF REVIEWS ALL OF THAT AND VERY THOROUGHLY DURING THAT PROCESS.
MR. BOEREMA. THIS IS FOR STAFF.
THEY JUST GAVE YOU THAT NOW, RIGHT.
SO THAT WOULD BE FOR THE SITE PLAN LEVEL.
[00:55:03]
A ADDITIONAL TURN LANE IS WARRANTED.SO YOU COULD BUILD A LOT OF THINGS ON IT ALREADY.
YOU COULD BUILD A BANK AND BUILD A RESTAURANT WITHOUT EVEN GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
IT DOESN'T REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.
THE ONLY REASON THAT THIS THIS IS COMING FOR THIS BOARD IS BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE DOLLAR GENERAL, WHICH IS TYPICAL OF THEIR NEWER DOLLAR GENERAL STORES. SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING, YOU KNOW, EVEN THE PROPERTY RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET ON DEGROOTE IS ALSO ZONED COMMERCIAL.
AND REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT WHETHER YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF MORE DOLLAR GENERAL STORES OR OR NOT AND YOU KNOW I WON'T TELL YOU MY PERSONAL OPINION ON IT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND THEY'RE JUST SIMPLY ASKING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE AND THEY HAVE A VALID REASON TO ASK FOR A CONDITIONAL USE.
IT'S MY COMMENTS. ONE OTHER COMMENT, MA'AM.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE ALREADY CLOSED.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS BROUGHT UP WAS FOR THE WATER.
IN. WHEN MY TRAIN TO STAY HERE FOR THE RESIDENTS, ARE THEY GOING TO BE GRANDFATHERED WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE TO SWITCH OVER TO CITY WATER? MR ANDERSON, LET ME LET ME RESPOND TO THAT.
REQUIRING THAT. THAT ANSWER THAT.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
BOARD, CAN I GET A MOTION, PLEASE? MOTION TO APPROVE.
SO A MOTION TO APPROVE CD 23 Q CONDITIONAL USE.
OKAY. MOTION TO APPROVE SIU 23 00006 SUBJECT TO STAFF COMMENTS.
A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE, AYE.
ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
OUR NEXT CASE, PLEASE, MR. WHITE. LET ME GIVE EVERYBODY A SECOND TO SEE IF THERE'S A COUPLE THAT ARE GOING TO LEAVE.
ALL RIGHT, STEPHEN WHITE, SENIOR PLANNER FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT, THE CASE BEFORE YOU IS 20 3-000 FOR THE APPLICANT IS KB HOMES ORLANDO, LLC. JAKE WISE FROM CEG IS THE REPRESENTATIVE.
SOUTHEAST IS APPROXIMATELY 47.92 ACRES.
EXISTING LAND USE IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THE ZONING IS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
PHASE THREE. THAT IS THE REQUEST.
THE PROPOSED PLAN OF 199 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN OPEN SPACE OR RECREATION AREA.
THE DEVELOPMENT IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WITH THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF 4.15 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS BELOW THE MINIMUM DENSITY DEFINED IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE, WHICH IS UP TO FIVE UNITS PER ACRE.
SECTION 180 5.0 65C OUTLINES THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE WITHIN A PUD IS 25%.
THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE FOR THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS 12 ACRES.
THE APPLICANT IS DEMONSTRATING 3.15% EXCUSE ME, 3.15 ACRES OR 26% OF OPEN SPACE AREA REC AREA AND 8.86%, 74% FOR STORMWATER TRACKS.
THIS MEETS THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR OPEN SPACE RECREATION AREA.
IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL.
THE PROPOSAL MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 105.067.
THE CITY OF PALM BAY CODE OF ORDINANCES.
[01:00:06]
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF FDA 23 0004, AND IT IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALSO RECOMMEND APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL COMMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT.STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
EXCUSE ME, CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT.
2651 WEST, EAU GALLIE BOULEVARD.
JAKE WISE. I DO HAVE A HANDOUT, IF I MAY.
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE PASSING OUT IS JUST TO HOPEFULLY SIMPLIFY WHAT YOU'RE DELIBERATING FOR TONIGHT.
IT'S ABOUT A 1200 ACRE MASTER PLAN CONSISTING OF WATERSTONE AND CYPRESS BAY EAST.
SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE TOP SHEET THAT YOU WERE JUST HANDED, THIS IS THE WATERSTONE PROJECT.
SO TO YOUR FAR RIGHT IS BABCOCK STREET TO AT THE VERY SOUTHERN END IS THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF THE SAINT JOHNS HERITAGE PARKWAY, WHICH A PORTION IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW. IN THE TOP LEFT HAND CORNER, YOU SEE PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO, AND PHASE THREE LABELED.
SO WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT IS ONLY FOR PHASE THREE.
ALL THREE PHASES WERE ORIGINALLY BY THE SAME DEVELOPER.
PHASE ONE CONSISTED OF ONLY 40 FOOT WIDE LOTS.
PHASE TWO WAS A MIX OF 50 FOOT AND 60 FOOT WIDE LOTS, AND PHASE THREE WAS ONLY 50 FOOT WIDE LOTS.
PHASES TWO AND THREE WERE PURCHASED TOGETHER BY KB HOMES.
SO PHASES TWO AND THREE DON'T HAVE THE SAME DIVERSITY OF LOTS.
THEY DON'T HAVE ANY 40 FOOT WIDE LOTS BECAUSE WHEN THE WHOLE THREE PHASES WERE MASTER PLAN, ALL THE 40 FOOT WIDE LOTS WERE IN PHASE ONE. SO THE SECOND PAGE IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY APPROVED, AND THAT IS FOR PHASE THREE ONLY, THE VERY NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF WATERSTONE AND THAT IS ALL 50 FOOT WIDE LOTS, AND THERE'S 171 OF THEM.
IF YOU FLIP TO THE THIRD PAGE, YOU'LL SEE SOMETHING THAT LOOKS EERILY SIMILAR AND THAT IS THE EXACT SAME ROADWAY LAYOUT, THE EXACT SAME STORM POND LAYOUT, THE EXACT SAME AMENITIES LAYOUT.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE LIGHT GREEN AND THE DARK GREEN LOTS.
SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TONIGHT IS PERMISSION TO GIVE THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE DIVERSITY IN PRODUCT, AND THAT IS TO ADD SOME 40 FOOT LOTS, BECAUSE THE TWO PHASES THAT KB HOMES PURCHASED DOESN'T HAVE ANY 40 FOOT WIDE LOTS.
SO WE'RE ASKING TO PROVIDE 149, 40 FOOT WIDE LOTS.
YOU CAN SEE FROM THE STAFF REPORT OUR DENSITY IS STILL MUCH LOWER.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THAT AT ALL.
THEY HAVE A COMBINATION OF 100 ACRES OF DEVELOPMENT WITH 40, 50 AND 60 FOOT WIDE LOTS.
IF THIS WOULD BE APPROVED, APPROVED.
WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION AT ALL.
NOBODY CAME TO THE COMMUNITY MEETING.
WE DO MEET ALL CITY STANDARDS.
AS YOU HEARD EARLIER, WE HAVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE AND IF WE COULD RESPOND TO ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR MR. BATTEN OR OTHERWISE, THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC.
BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. WISE? AMEN.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'LL BE BACK.
OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE? BILL.
BILL BATTEN 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET SOUTHWEST.
[01:05:02]
THOUGH THIS WAS MORE FOR DEVELOPMENT, I LOVE WHAT THEY'RE ACCOMPLISHING OUT THERE.THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT IN PHASES.
SO I'M VERY HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY'RE WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
BUT ME BEING THE TYPE OF PERSON I AM, I ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT THE THE NOISE THAT I DON'T HEAR.
THESE ARE THE ONLY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S THERE.
THESE ARE THE ONLY HOMES THAT ARE THERE.
AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE PAYING BY FAIR SHARE, THE 100% OF IT SHOULD COME FROM THEM.
I KNOW THAT'S TONGUE IN CHEEK STATEMENT, BUT WHAT I'M REALLY TRYING TO ADDRESS IS THEY'RE BRINGING THESE NEW HOMES IN THERE, BUT THEY'RE NOT ADDRESSING WHAT THE IMPACT OF THE SAINT JOHN'S HERITAGE PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH ON THE EAST, ON THE WEST SIDE OF BABCOCK IS GOING TO BE.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WANT TO SEE IF WE CAN HAVE SOME KIND OF COMMITMENT.
I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE OWNER, SO IT MAKES IT SOMEWHAT HARD, BUT FOR SOME KIND OF A COMMITMENT, I KNOW WE CAN'T DO THAT IN P AND Z, BUT IF WE DON'T START TALKING ABOUT IT, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO SOLVE IT.
MINDSET OF THE PROBLEM WE'RE GETTING READY TO FACE.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.
ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO COMMENT.
SO THE THREE PHASES I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WERE GARDENS OF WATERSTONE.
WE ALSO HAVE COURTYARDS, WHICH IS COMPLETELY CONSTRUCTED IN TWO PHASES.
WE HAVE CYPRESS BAY, WEST, PHASES ONE, TWO AND THREE, WHICH IS ALSO ALL ON HERE.
AND THE EXTENSION OF THE PARKWAY THAT'S LABELED DOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SHEET.
THAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CYPRESS BAY WEST PHASE TWO.
IT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, IS ALMOST COMPLETE, IS ALMOST COMPLETED.
PROBABLY THE NEXT 30 TO 60 DAYS WILL BE SEEKING FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE PARKWAY THAT IS PAID FOR BY DEVELOPER DOLLARS, AS WELL AS THE LOOPING OF MARAGH LOMA BOULEVARD.
A BIG, BIG BENEFIT FOR THIS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS RIGHT NOW.
MARAGH LOMA HAS ONE ACCESS AND ONE ACCESS ONLY TO BABCOCK STREET, AND SO THEY ARE LOOPING THE STREETS SO IT CAN COME ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE PARKWAY AND THAT WAY THEY'LL HAVE ACCESS WITHOUT HAVING TO GO INTO BABCOCK STREET FOR ALL THE COMMERCIAL OF WATERSTONE AND CYPRESS BAY, EAST EMERALD LAKES, GET TO I 95 AND TAKE SOME OF THAT BURDEN OFF.
SIGNALIZE IT WITH PERMANENT SIGNAL SIGNAL ARMS, PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS.
AND THEN I MENTIONED EARLIER GARDENS, PHASES ONE, TWO AND THREE GARDENS.
PHASE TWO VOLUNTARILY HAD THE CONDITION PUT IN THAT THEY WOULD PAY FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT MARAGH LOMA AND BABCOCK STREET.
WE KNEW IT NEEDED TO FALL ON ONE OF THESE PROJECTS.
SO THAT PROJECT TOOK ON THAT COST.
DEVELOPERS AGREEMENTS DON'T BECOME BEFORE THIS BOARD.
SO THERE'S I CAN'T EVEN COUNT HOW MANY DIFFERENT PROJECTS AND PHASES INVOLVED WITH ALL OF WATERSTONE AND CYPRESS BAY, BUT EACH ONE IS TAKING ON A PORTION OF THAT WITH DEVELOPER DRIVEN DOLLARS.
SO THAT'S HOW THIS HAS PROCEEDED OVER THE YEARS.
[01:10:04]
AND THIS BOARD HAS SEEN EACH ONE OF THOSE STEPS AND HAS SEEN MY FACE WAY MANY TOO MANY TIMES.SO WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
THIS MIGHT BE TONGUE IN CHEEK, BUT PROJECTS THAT YOU'RE WORKING ON, YOU'RE WORKING ON MALABAR AND SAINT JOHNS PARKWAY AND NOW YOU'RE OUT AT BABCOCK. CAN'T YOU JUST CONNECT THE TWO? JUST GOODWILL FOR THE CITY.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF PROPERTY OWNERS IN BETWEEN THAT WOULD HAVE A VOTE ON THAT.
I LIKE THAT, THOUGH. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. WISE? THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP THE TRAFFIC.
I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU TO BRING THAT UP ANYWAY, BUT YEAH, THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED TO PAY FOR THAT AS WELL AS A PAY FOR TO PAY FOR THE THE CONNECTION TO THE SAINT JOHNS HERITAGE PARKWAY. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL BE ENTERING THIS THIS SUBDIVISION FROM THE SOUTH RATHER THAN FROM BABCOCK, WHICH IS A GOOD THING.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT FROM BEING ON THE BOARD AND THEY JUST HAVE COMPLETED AN ALTERNATE CORRIDOR EVALUATION FOR THAT AREA AND THEY'VE COME UP WITH THREE POSSIBILITIES. AND IT WILL BE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WAY, WAY IN THE FUTURE.
SO THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A WHILE, UNFORTUNATELY.
AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? SAY AYE? AYE. ALL OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. OUR NEXT CASE, PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT. BEFORE US, WE HAVE PD 20 3-00002.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS APPROXIMATELY 24.56 ACRES.
SO FOR OUR CODE FOR TOWNHOMES, WE DO NOT HAVE AN EXPLICIT OUTLINE OF HOW OR WHERE THE SETBACKS AND SO FORTH WOULD BE, WHICH KIND OF TRIGGERS THE ULTIMATE DETERMINATION OF GOING DOWN THE PUD ROUTE, WHICH IS SOME SORT OF THE EXPLANATION FOR WHY THE DEVELOPER DID CHOOSE THIS ZONING DISTRICT.
SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND WHEN LOOKING AT THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE DESIGN PROCESS? AT A LATER STAGE, IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT MORE STORMWATER WOULD BE NEEDED, WHICH ULTIMATELY REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF UNITS, CAUSING THEM TO NEED TO GO THROUGH AN AMENDMENT PROCESS TO THEIR PUD THAT THEY ORIGINALLY WERE RECEIVING APPROVAL FOR.
SO THEY WENT THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS BEFORE.
DURING THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS, WE IDENTIFIED THAT MORE STORMWATER WOULD BE NEEDED.
SO THERE WAS AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE CONCEPT PLAN WHICH REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF DWELLING UNITS BY 26.
AND NOW BEFORE YOU HAVE A 202 202 UNIT TOWNHOME PROJECT THAT GREATLY RESEMBLES THE PRIOR APPROVAL, JUST WITH THE DIFFERENCE BEING MORE STORMWATER AND LESS UNITS.
OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
MR. ANDERSON. AND WILL THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM? I DID NOT FINISH. SORRY.
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND AND RESTRICTIONS.
BECAUSE THIS IS FOR THE PDP PORTION OF THE PROCESS.
CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION, ENDANGERED SPECIES ASSESSMENT, IDENTIFICATION OF LIGHTING WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEN TECHNICAL COMMENTS WITH THOSE INSIDE OF THE STAFF REPORT. WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THIS PDP.
[01:15:07]
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CHRIS OSA.THANK YOU, MR. ANDERSON, FOR A GREAT PRESENTATION.
AS HE MENTIONED, THIS ITEM HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD BEFORE.
OBVIOUSLY SINCE THAT TIME THAT WE PRESENTED THE PROJECT, THERE'S BEEN MORE ENGINEERING DONE.
SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE ANOTHER ITEM FOR THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN RIGHT AFTER THIS, BUT I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. OSA. I THINK THAT.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD? OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION OR OPPOSED? PLEASE COME TO THE PLEASE COME TO THE TO THE PODIUM.
ON, SIR. SIR, PLEASE COME TO THE.
WELL, GOOD EVENING, GENTLEMEN.
AS YOU CAN SEE, I'M A NATIVE FROM AROUND HERE.
I COME TO CON PALM BAY COLONY AND 1979.
AND SO I KNOW THE AREA WELL AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND I KNOW I SOUND SOUND JUST LIKE A DROWNING MAN GRABBING A STRAW BECAUSE THERE WAS 2 OR 3 MEETINGS HERE THAT WE'VE HAD AND I HAVEN'T TRIED TO ATTEND IT, 2 OR 3.
BUT ALL OF THEM I GOT TWO FOR SURE.
CAN YOU SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE? MR. ANDERSON, WOULD YOU RAISE THE PODIUM SO WE CAN SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE? I'M SURE THE COMPLAINTS THAT I DIDN'T WANT TO START WITH A COMPLAINT.
I KNOW I'VE HAD THOSE MEETINGS AND KNEW PEOPLE WOULD THROW UP BECAUSE OF YOU OR ANYTHING.
I KNOW YOU'VE GOT A TERRIBLE JOB.
YOU'VE GOT TOMORROW TO THINK ABOUT.
AND I WAS AND YOU'VE GOT JUST THE ACTIVITY AND THE GOVERNMENT TO BE THINKING ABOUT, TOO.
BUT THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO.
AND BUT EVERY ONE OF THEM SHOULD HAVE A CLOSER LOOK AT.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING OF OF THE CONCERN ABOUT WATER ON THIS PROJECT COMING.
AND FOR EVERY ONE THAT HAS BEEN ONE AND ONE OF THE MEETINGS WE HAD, WE COULD WE COULD THROW OUT A LITTLE NOTE, PUT MY NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AND BALANCE AND WOULD LIKE TO COMMUNICATE WITH SOMEBODY ON THIS, AND I NEVER GOT A REPLY FROM IT.
I'VE COME TO THE MEETING TONIGHT AND I'VE HEARD ALL THESE PROBLEMS AND I KNOW WE CAME WITH MYSELF AND THE LADIES AND IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYTHING'S SO IT'S BEEN APPROVED.
THEY HAVE WE HAVE A WARNER CONDITION AND A FLOODING CONDITION THERE.
YOU CAN LOOK BACK AT ALL YOUR RECORDS AND EVERY YEAR IT'S NOT A HEAVY, WET YEAR.
IT IS A DRY AREA THAT I GO THERE EVERY YEAR.
WE HAVE AND WE'VE HAD A PRETTY DRY SPRING RIGHT NOW, BUT WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ZINGERS LATELY, BUT THEN WE'VE HAD THE FLOODING OF THE ROAD. IT WAS CARRIED RIGHT OFF IMMEDIATELY WITH GOOD DRAINAGE, BUT THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SOME DRY WEATHER FARTHER ALONG AS THE WATER WILL SEEP IN AND.
AND THE FACT THAT IT IS NEVER MENTIONED IN THERE THAT THAT'S A PROBLEM.
IT'S JUST POPPING THROUGH HERE NOW.
THE LAST ONE WE HAD WAS WAS WAS A PRETTY GOOD ONE AND IT DIDN'T HAVE ANY.
ANY OBJECTIONS AT ALL TO IT IS THE DOLLAR STORE THAT WENT OUT ON THE END.
A FEW. LOOKING BACK THAT HOME CONSTRUCTION WAS HELD UP OVER THREE WEEKS.
[01:20:03]
AND THEY STARTED TO BRING ALL THEIR EQUIPMENT IN THERE AND BUILD THERE.NOW THEY LANDED, SHOWED THEM WAS IT WAS SURVEYED AND EVERYTHING, AND THEY FIGURED IT WAS GOING AHEAD, BUT THEY WERE ON THE SAME LEVEL AS EARTH AFTER.
IF YOU PEOPLE WANT TO FIND THAT NOW.
BECAUSE WHEN I GO BY THERE EVERY DAY, I THINK OF MYSELF.
I'M LOOKING UP TO THAT BUILDING RIGHT NOW AND NO WAY WAS THAT EVER PUT IT ON THE SAME SURFACE AS ESSER OFF DRIVE WENT IN. I'VE DID A GOOD JOB OF BUILDING UP ABOUT TWO TIERS OF LITTLE BREAKWATERS FROM FROM THE PROPERTY WHEN IT DRAINS INTO THAT AND AND SLOWS IT DOWN.
SO RIGHT IN BACK OF ME, JUST TWO ROWS, STREETS BACK OF ME, I'VE I'VE WALKED UP TO MY KNEES IN THE WATER WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING THAT HOUSE AND THAT'S NOT THE HURRICANE AND THAT'S NOT THE THE TROPICAL STORMS THAT HAVE CAUSED THAT.
BUT I KNOW, BUT I JUST I HAD TO COME UP AND SAY SOMETHING TO HIM ABOUT IT.
BUT I'VE BEEN ASKED SO MANY YEARS AND I'VE SEEN SO MANY TIMES.
HAPPENED ABOUT THINGS THAT THEY WISH THEY NEVER PUT IN.
OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. I COULD GO INTO THAT.
THAT AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEND ANY MORE TIME.
WE SAW SOME ELEGANT SPEAKERS ABOUT THE TRACKS TONIGHT, AND I ADMIRED THE WAY VERY MUCH THE WAY THEY BOTH HANDLED THE CASES. YOU PEOPLE HAVE BEEN RECEIVING THEM.
IF THAT IF THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THE HOUSES ON WITH ABOUT I WAS TOLD THE FIRST TIME UP TO 16IN BY 18IN THERE. AND WHEN THEY START BUILDING THEM BUILDINGS AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO HIGHER THAN THAT.
ART, THANK YOU, SIR. PLEASE, PLEASE BE SEATED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
WANT TO SEE YOU IN THE AUDIENCE.
I'VE BEEN THERE NINE YEARS AND I BACK UP ONTO THIS DEVELOPMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORMWATER CANAL THAT'S IN EXISTENCE RIGHT THERE, AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THAT BECAUSE ALL OF OUR PROPERTIES DRAIN FROM OUR BACKYARDS AND SIDE YARDS INTO THAT CANAL.
IS THAT CANAL GOING TO REMAIN THERE OR RESPOND TO THAT? OKAY. OKAY. DID YOU FILL OUT A COMMENT CARD, PLEASE? I WILL. PLEASE TAKE YOU BACK TO YOUR SEAT AND YOU CAN DROP IT OFF.
AND I'M IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE MR ESSER.
DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT, SIR? THANK YOU. SPECIFICALLY THE DRAINAGE ISSUES.
THE DRAINAGE ISSUES. ABSOLUTELY.
PULTE HOMES WENT OUT AND CONTRACTED WITH A SURFACE WATER ENGINEERING CONSULTANT, AND THEY DID THEIR THEIR DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND LOOKED AT ALL THE SURROUNDING AREAS, WHICH THIS AREA IS UNDER THE PALM BAY BASIN 11, AND THEY PROVIDED US A BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.
ALSO DURING THAT TIME, THE QUESTION ABOUT THE CANALS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS A LITTLE GRAY.
BUT DURING THAT TIME, PULTE AND THE THE LANDOWNER WERE ABLE TO FIND THAT THEY THE CURRENT LANDOWNER, DOES OWN THE CANALS. SO AS PART OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE CANALS WILL BE PART OF THE PULTE PROJECT AND WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. CURRENTLY, THE STATE OF THE CANALS IS A LITTLE BIT IN DISREPAIR.
THEY HAVEN'T BEEN REALLY BEEN MAINTAINED, SO IT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO BE APPROVED.
[01:25:02]
PALM BAY COLONY, AS IT SITS RIGHT NOW, LACKS STORMWATER FACILITIES AND WE WERE PROVIDED PHOTOS DURING THE STORM LAST YEAR, THE TROPICAL STORM, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF HAND IN HAND TO SEE HOW WE'RE GOING TO IMPROVE THE STORMWATER CONDITION OF OUR NEIGHBORS WITH WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING NOW.OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. ROSA. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. ROSA? NO, THANK YOU, SIR.
ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION.
AND TO APPROVE PD 23 00002 SUBDISTRICT CONDITIONS AND STAFF COMMENTS.
MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE.
ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
GOOD EVENING. JESSE ANDERSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
OUR NEXT CASE IS FOR 20 3-00002.
I THINK I ADDED ONE MORE ZERO.
IT IS THE SAME PROPERTY AS JUST BEFORE.
IN OUR PREVIOUS CASE, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 24.56 ACRES.
AGAIN, THE REASONING FOR THIS PROJECT, MOVING BACK TO THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IS BECAUSE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE THAT THEY HAD MADE IN THEIR OVERALL CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT. SO THIS IS JUST FOLLOWING UP THAT PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE FINALIZATION OF THE ZONING REQUEST.
FOR THE ANALYSIS, THE AREA DOES HAVE A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR THE PUD ZONING OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS IN THIS CASE, AGAIN, 6.172 ACRES, WHICH THEY ARE PROVIDING 10.158 ACRES.
AGAIN, THE DENSITY CURRENTLY ESTABLISHED FOR THE AREA IS TEN DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
THIS PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT WOULD ONLY BE AT 8.8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
THE NEED FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR A PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AGREEMENT WILL BE DETERMINED UPON A COMPLETED REVIEW OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY BY STAFF PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL.
SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS IN THE STAFF REPORT BUT WAS MISSING FROM THE CONDITIONS LISTED ON HERE.
OVERALL, WE DO RECOMMEND THAT THIS IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MEETS THE MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR A FINAL DEVELOPMENT REQUEST, AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR IT. STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT HERE AS WELL.
MR. ANDERSON. BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU, MR. OZA. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD? YES. JUST WANT TO LET THE BOARD KNOW THAT OBVIOUSLY THE REDUCTION IN UNITS TO THE PROJECT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSIDERED BY OUR OUR CLIENT AND BASED ON WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO FIND AND AND THE LAYOUT THAT'S BEFORE YOU NOW WITH THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IT PROVIDES A LAYOUT THAT WORKS FOR OUR CLIENT AND ALSO IMPROVES THE CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE AREA.
WOULD HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. OZA? NO.
ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO ADD SOMETHING ELSE TO THIS APPLICATION? I JUST. MA'AM, COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE.
MY NAME IS DOLORES DAVY, AND I LIVE AT 1944 SAGO PALM IN PALM BAY COLONY.
AND MY QUESTION TONIGHT IS THE CANALS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLEANING THE CANALS OUT BELONGS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
WHOEVER OWNS THAT, IT NOT DOES NOT BELONG TO PALM BAY COLONY.
IS THAT UNDERSTOOD? ABSOLUTELY. YES, MA'AM.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE DEVELOPER THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF THOSE CANALS, AND THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE CANALS AND WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THEM.
AND AND ACTUALLY THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL HELP IMPROVE THE DRAINAGE FOR PALM BAY COLONY.
[01:30:04]
I KNOW ONE TIME BEFORE THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNER, WE HAD TO COME TO THE CITY TO FORCE HIM TO CLEAN IT OUT.SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT.
THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? AND IF YOU WOULD FILL OUT A COMMENT CARD.
DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD? NO, I DID NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU.
OKAY. AT THIS POINT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION.
IT'S THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SECOND YOU AMEND YOUR YOUR MOTION TO INCLUDE THE SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS.
OKAY. MOTION ALSO TO THE STAFF COMMENTS.
OKAY. WE HAVE MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE.
OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
ALL RIGHT. FOR YOU, WE HAVE 20 3-00005.
IT IS LOCATED NORTH OF BAYSIDE LAKES BOULEVARD, SOUTHEAST AND EAST OF ELDON BOULEVARD SOUTHEAST.
THE AREA IN QUESTION IS APPROXIMATELY 2.96 ACRES.
FIRST, SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS.
OH, SORRY. LET ME GO TO THE MAP.
THAT IS THE WRONG MAP ON THERE.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. BUT IN THIS AREA, IF YOU ARE OBSERVING THE STORE SAFE AREA THAT IS TO THE NORTH OF IT, THIS CAME THROUGH WITH THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN A LONG TIME AGO THAT ORIGINALLY PLOTTED THESE THREE LOTS BUT DID NOT GIVE THEM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AT THAT TIME.
AND IT ALSO OUTLINES WHAT WE ARE EXPECTED TO SEE FROM THESE THREE PARCELS, WHICH FOR TRACT A IS A STARBUCKS FOR TRACT B WOULD BE AN ADVANCED AUTO PARTS AND FOR TRACT C A MOD WASH.
THE OVERALL AREA WILL MEET THE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
THERE ARE NO IMPACTS TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AS THIS PROJECT HAS NO RESIDENTIAL USES, AND THE PROPOSED PLAN WILL BE CARRIED OUT IN THREE PHASES, WITH EACH PARCEL ACCOUNTING FOR A PHASE TRACT A BEING PHASE ONE TRACT C BEING PHASE TWO AND TRACK B BEING PHASE THREE.
TRACT A IS PROJECTED TO BE COMPLETED IN FALL OF 23.
TRACT B IS ALSO PROJECTED SORRY.
FOR THE OVERALL CONDITIONS FOR THIS, THERE WILL BE A NEED FOR FINAL ENGINEERED PLANS.
IT DOES SAY BEFORE PLAT APPROVAL, BUT OF COURSE THIS HAS ALREADY RECEIVED PLAT APPROVAL.
CASE 23 00005 IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MEETS THE MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUEST AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY STAFF. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND STAFF TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
MISTER ANDERSON IS BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.
MY NAME IS ROGER STERKEL, 265 KENILWORTH AVENUE, ORMOND BEACH.
AND AS MR. ANDERSON AND CLEARLY STATED, WHICH HE PRETTY MUCH TOOK MOST OF MY COMMENTS AND ADDRESSED.
THIS IS A PLATTED SUBDIVISION COMMERCIAL, THREE TRACKS, A, B AND C OF 2.96 ACRES WITH EXISTING DRIVEWAYS ALREADY ON THE MAIN ROADWAY OR BAYSIDE LAKES BOULEVARD OR USING EXISTING DRIVEWAY CONNECTIONS.
THE TRACKS ARE INTERNALLY CONNECTED FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.
[01:35:04]
THE OVERALL OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT OF 30% IS MET, AND THAT'S BASED ON THE RECORD PLAT AND THE SAINT JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT.UM, YOU KNOW, TRACK A IS STARBUCKS, TRACK B IS ADVANCED AUTO PARTS, AND TRACK C IS A MOD CAR WASH.
AS A BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO, THANK YOU, SIR.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADD? UH, CAN ROZANKA LASZKI LANS ROZANKA HERE.
ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT TWO OF THE DEVELOPERS ARE HERE.
JOHN RILEY AND JACK ZUCKERMAN.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT AND JIM TREADWELL WITH MOD WASH IS HERE AS WELL.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OPERATIONAL OR HOW THINGS WILL WORK AND.
THE ONLY OTHER INFORMATION I WANTED TO MENTION.
THIS HAS BEEN COMMERCIAL A LONG TIME, ZONING FOR A LONG TIME.
WE WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THANK YOU, MISS. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'D LIKE TO ADD ANY OF THE THE DEVELOPERS.
AND IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION? SURE.
GOOD EVENING. DANIEL CORCORAN 2124 LYNBROOK DRIVE.
I WANT TO TAKE JUST A MINUTE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
I KNOW STATISTICALLY IF WE TAKE A LOOK AT LEVEL OF SERVICE, WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO FIND THAT ALONGSIDE ALL OF THE OTHERS AT BAYSIDE LAKES BOULEVARD, WE'RE GOING TO CALCULATE THAT EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE JUST FINE.
BUT IN A PRACTICAL SENSE, THERE'S THREE THINGS I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER.
NUMBER ONE, ONE OF THE TENANTS IS A STARBUCKS, AND THEY'VE GOT BOTH A NATIONAL AND A LOCAL REPUTATION OF DRAWING IN LOTS OF CARS, ESPECIALLY TO THEIR DRIVE THRUS THAT THAT THAT FREQUENTLY CAN BACK UP.
NUMBER TWO, SIMILAR TO THE EARLIER DISCUSSION ON THE THE SAINT ANDRE AND SAN FILIPPO PROJECT.
YOU KNOW THE ENTRANCES AND THE ACCESS ACCESS AND EGRESS TO THAT PROPERTY IS ALONG THE CURVES ON BAYSIDE LAKES BOULEVARD SIMILAR TO WHAT WE SAW IN THE THE DOLLAR GENERAL.
LEFT TURNS ARE TRICKY ENOUGH ALONG THE STRAIGHT SECTION OF BAYSIDE LAKES BOULEVARD.
AND NUMBER THREE IS AN OPTIMIST.
I THINK THE TRAFFIC SITUATION IS GOING TO EXPERIENCE ANOTHER STEP UP WHEN THE GOLF COURSE REOPENS.
MR. CORCORAN. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION? SEEING NONE AT THIS POINT, DOES THE DEVELOPER WISH TO COMMENT? MS.. ROZANKA IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE TWO OF THE HANDOUT, AND I BELIEVE MR. SHUKLA EXPLAINED THIS, BUT THERE IS AN AWFUL LOT OF STACKING SPACE IN THIS PLAN.
STARBUCKS IS THE ONE ON THE LEFT AND IT HAS A LOT OF QUEUING AROUND IT'S DRIVE THROUGH AND THEN THERE'S ALSO ACCESS ROADS TO THE BACK AND THERE'S CROSS ACCESS BETWEEN THESE FACILITIES.
THEY HAVE ACTUALLY THREE ENTRANCES INTO THIS PROJECT.
AND IT WAS A VERY LONG TRAFFIC STUDY.
MR.. I'M GLAD YOU POINTED OUT THAT THERE WILL BE THREE ACCESSES TO EACH ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AT THIS POINT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR MOTION.
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD LISTEN TO COOPERATION FROM SISTER? GENTLEMEN, THAT'S PULLING THE CAR WASH.
WOULD YOU PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM? HELLO, MY NAME IS JIM TREADWELL.
I'M A SENIOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MANAGER FOR MOD WASH.
NOW, THE QUESTION IS, COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN THE OPERATION? I MEAN, IT'S SOUNDS DIFFERENT.
IT SOUNDS UNIQUE. I MEAN, SOME PEOPLE JUST THINK CAR WASH.
OUR DESIGNS ARE ESTHETICALLY FRIENDLY.
[01:40:02]
WE PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THE DESIGN OF OUR BUILDINGS THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE LANDSCAPING.IT WOULD INCLUDE WE'RE VERY CAREFUL TO HAVE QUEUING THAT GOES INTO OUR PAY THE PAY STATIONS TO ALLOW FOR CARS NOT TO STACK UP TO PROVIDE ENOUGH SPACE FOR THAT.
AND THE OTHER THING IS WE'RE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY.
WE WE USE PROBABLY LESS AROUND 40% LESS THAN A STANDARD CAR WASH.
IN FACT, WE'RE MORE EFFICIENT WHEN IT COMES TO A HOME, SOMEONE WASHING THEIR CAR.
WE'RE WE'RE MUCH MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT.
WE HAVE OIL, WATER SEPARATORS AND OTHER FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT THAT ACHIEVE THAT GOAL.
THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS THAT WE HAVE STATE OF THE ART, AS I SAID, FACILITIES.
WE RUN A VERY TIGHT SHIP AND WE'RE COULD BE A VERY GOOD ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY AS FAR AS THE SECURITY IS JUST 24 OVER SEVEN OR IS IT OR ARE YOU? WE HAVE 24 OVER SEVEN FACILITY.
WE HAVE A CAMERA SYSTEM IN ADDITION TO HAVING THAT MANNED.
AND WE TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY.
SO THE STACK ABILITY ALMOST THE SAME THING AS STARBUCKS, IT WON'T MAKE IT BACK OUT INTO THE.
NO, NONE OF THE CARS THAT GO INTO WE DID WE HAVE A TRAFFIC STUDY ANALYSIS THAT WENT INTO IT AND WE MADE SURE THAT THE DESIGN OF THE PAY STATIONS ALLOWED ENOUGH CARS TO GET IN, BUT NOT CREATE ANY CONGESTION TO THE OTHER SURROUNDING USES.
SO THAT WAS A PRETTY MUCH A REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR FACILITIES.
DID I UNDERSTAND RIGHT, YOU'RE GOING TO BE OPEN 24 OVER SEVEN? NO, NO, NO. I MEANT THE SECURITY ON THE FACILITY IS THAT WE HAVE CONSTANT CAMERAS THAT MONITOR EVERYTHING.
24 SEVEN. CONSIDER THAT, THOUGH, BECAUSE OUR RESIDENTS IN BAYSIDE OUT THERE, THEY LIKE CLEAN CARS.
YEAH. WE NOT ONLY WE HAVE ALSO FREE AIR STATIONS.
YOU GO AND BACK AREAS FOR FOR YOUR CARS.
WE'RE VERY PROUD OF OUR FACILITY.
I THINK IT'LL BE AN AMAZING ASSET FOR HERE IN THIS COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU AND WELCOME TO THE CITY.
I'M SORRY. WHAT'S THAT? CAR WASHES AROUND PALM BAY IN THREE YEARS.
THAT THE BONUS FOR THE MANAGER IS CONTINGENT ON THOSE FACILITIES WORKING.
WE HAVE A MANAGER AND WE ALSO HAVE TWO GENTLEMEN THAT WORK WITH HIM.
ALL RIGHT. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I NEED A MOTION BOARD.
MOTION TO APPROVE FTE 23 00005.
WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND.
SECOND. YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED.
THANK YOU, SIR. OUR NEXT CASE, PLEASE.
I VERY MUCH. THIS IS FWD 23 00006.
THE APPLICANT IS ANDROMEDA HOLDINGS LIMITED.
THIS PROPERTY IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE ONE YOU'VE JUST DISCUSSED.
THE LOT IS APPROXIMATELY 1.08 ACRES, AND IT HAS CURRENT ZONING OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
BUT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT.
[01:45:03]
SPACE. SCHOOL BOARD IMPACT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR A COMMERCIAL SITE, AND THE TRAFFIC STUDY PROVIDED NOTES THAT ALL ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND STUDY INTERSECTIONS HAVE CAPACITY AND WILL OPERATE AT A SATISFACTORY LEVEL OF SERVICE UPON COMPLETION.THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT CASE F D 23 00006 IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE PROJECT MEETS THE MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE STAFF COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
AND THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVES HERE AS WELL AS THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
MUST THE APPLICANT, MISS ROSENKER, THANK YOU.
KIM ROSENKER WITH LACEY LYONS, ROZANKA HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
THIS IS A PROJECT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE ONE WE JUST DISCUSSED, SOUTH AND WEST TO IT.
THIS WAS, AGAIN, PART OF THE 2500 ACRE PUD.
IT WAS ZONED PUD, BUT THERE WAS NO PLAN FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE.
THIS SITE NOW HAS A PLAN, A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TIRE SERVICE CENTER KNOWN AS MAVIS TIRES.
I DO NOT HAVE HANDOUTS FOR EVERYONE.
HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE IT IN YOUR PACKET, BUT THIS IS AA1 SITE.
SO IT WILL HAVE OTHER ACCESS AS WELL ACROSS ACCESS TO HELP ALLEVIATE ANY TRAFFIC CONCERNS.
THESE TRAFFIC TRIPS WERE VESTED.
THAT'S WHY THERE'S NOT A TRAFFIC STUDY WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.
THE OPEN SPACE HERE IS MUCH GREATER THAN CODE.
THEY HAVE 39% OPEN SPACE VERSUS 25% REQUIRED BY CODE.
THE STAFF REPORT SAYS THAT IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MEETS THE CRITERIA OF THE CITY CODE FOR A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THAT. WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THE ENGINEER CAN ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
OTHERWISE, WE WOULD ASK FOR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF 20 3-0006 TO CITY COUNCIL.
THANK YOU, MISS JENKINS. THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS ROSENKER OR THE DEVELOPER? NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSED BILL? GILBERT IN 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET SOUTHWEST.
I HAD ONE QUESTION THAT WAS I HEARD THEY SAY THAT IT WILL CONNECT TO THE THREE ADJOINING LOTS TO THE BUSINESSES FROM THE I GUESS THAT'S GOING TO BE THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
I JUST DIDN'T SEE HOW IT WAS ROUTING OUT IN THE PLAN.
AND THEN THE OTHER ACCESS WILL BE COMING IN OFF OF BAYSIDE LAKES, IF THAT IS CORRECT.
SO WHICH ONE IS GOING TO BE I'M JUST CURIOUS WHICH ONE'S GOING TO BE THEIR PRIMARY ENTRANCE INTO THIS? IS IT GOING TO BE BAYSIDE LAKES OR IS IT GOING TO BE THE NORTH SIDE PROPERTIES? THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO COMMENT? PHIL? PHILIP CORCORAN, 1878 LYNBROOK DRIVE.
WE, THE CITIZENS OF BAYSIDE LAKES, ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOISE CAUSED BY A TIRE CENTER.
AND IF I QUOTE FROM THE CHAPTER ON NOISE.
NO PERSON SHALL PRODUCE CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED OR ALLOWED TO BE PRODUCED.
ANY MEANS ANY NOISE WITHIN THE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS PLAINLY AUDIBLE AT A DISTANCE OF 75FT OR MORE, MEASURED FROM THE REAL PROPERTY LINE OF THE PROPERTY FROM WHICH THE NOISE IS BEING GENERATED OR EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM SOUND LIMITS AS ESTABLISHED IN THE TABLE.
NO PERSON SHALL GENERATE ANY NOISE ON THE PUBLIC.
THERE'S PLENTY THAT IS PLAINLY AUDIBLE AT A DISTANCE OF 75FT.
OR MORE VERTICALLY OR HORIZONTALLY FROM THE SOURCE THAT EXCEEDS THE SOUND LEVELS AT.
FURTHERMORE, NO PERSON SHALL REPAIR, REBUILD, MODIFY OR TEST ANY MOTOR VEHICLE, MOTORCYCLE OR MOTOR BOAT IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO CAUSE A NOISE DISTURBANCE ACROSS A REAL PROPERTY BOUNDARY.
I CAN SAY THAT I HEAR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE FROM PINEAPPLE GROVE ACADEMY EVERY MORNING AT 8 A.M.
AND PINEAPPLE GROVE IS FARTHER AWAY FROM MY HOUSE THAN THIS TIRE CENTER WILL BE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CORCORAN. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO COMMENT? MRS PHILIP. I WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION ABOUT NOISE.
[01:50:03]
COMMERZBANK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT FIRST, AS TO MR. BATTEN'S QUESTION, THE PRIMARY ACCESS IS OFF BASE.I'D LIKE THERE'S JUST TWO CROSS ACCESSES YOU CAN SEE ON THE PLAN THAT GOES INTO THE STARBUCKS FACILITY AND ALLOWS THE ACCESS TO THE NORTH. AS TO THE NOISE, THAT'S A THAT'S A PERFORMANCE STANDARD THAT HAS TO BE MONITORED AT THE TIME AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT IS ADDRESSED.
BUT I AM CERTAIN THAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
BUT THAT AGAIN IS A PERFORMANCE STANDARD THAT CAN'T BE ADDRESSED AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU. AND THAT'S A STANDARD THAT DOES HAVE TO BE ENFORCED.
SHOULD SHOULD A PROBLEM ARISE? IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION.
MOTION TO APPROVE T 20 3-00005.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. NO, THIS IS CASE THE EIGHTH CASE.
SORRY. I'M NOT UP TO SPEED, THEN.
WHY? WHY WE'RE DOING THAT REAL QUICK.
NEIGHBORHOOD WAS THERE WAS THE REQUIREMENT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT IS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE WAS NOT BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN ONE FOR THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SO THERE WAS ONE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WASN'T INVOLVED AT THAT POINT, SO I DON'T KNOW.
THIS ONE DID. YEAH, THIS ONE DID HAVE A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
I WENT STRAIGHT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
ALL RIGHT. SO CAN I GET A MOTION, PLEASE? OKAY. I GOT MY BEARINGS.
NOW YOU MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 23 00006.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OUR FINAL CASE FOR THE EVENING IS T 20 3-00005.
THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF PALM BAY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.
THE TEXTUAL AMENDMENT IS TO AMEND THE CITY OF PALM BAY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES.
TITLE 17 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 183 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGULATIONS ADDING SECTIONS 183 .40 THROUGH 183 .44 TO PROVIDE LANGUAGE ON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.
IT FURTHER ESTABLISHES MINIMUM OR OUTLINES TOPICAL AREAS THAT CAN POTENTIALLY BE OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHILE ALSO ALLOWING FOR MORE OPEN ENDED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY ON BROADER TOPICS OF DELIBERATION BEYOND THAT OF THE PROPOSED MINIMUM OR OUTLINED REQUIREMENTS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE INCLUDED IN THE DA OR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND CASE T 23 00005 FOR APPROVAL AND IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WAS. SURE.
SO THERE IS SOME ABILITY ALREADY TO ENGAGE IN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THROUGH FLORIDA STATUTES.
AND THIS IS TYPICAL OF LARGER SCALE DEVELOPMENTS OR EVEN ONES THAT JUST WILL OVERBURDEN OUR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE THAT CAUSE ANY NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT THAT WOULD BE BEYOND WHAT THE PUBLIC WOULD USUALLY DO.
THIS LANGUAGE ALLOWS US TO INITIATE SUCH AGREEMENTS TO THE CITY.
[01:55:03]
WE GET TO ENGAGE WITH THE APPLICANT TO OUTLINE WHAT TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS THEY NEED TO GO THROUGH IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY TO MAKE THOSE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS HAPPEN.SO IT'S A SHARED COST RATHER THAN SOMETHING THAT'S OUTRIGHT THROUGH THE CITY.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED TO THIS APPLICATION? NONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION.
MOTION TO APPROVE T 20 3-00005.
ALL IN ALL, THIS IS A GOOD THING.
IT'S A GOOD THING. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MCLEOD. IF THERE'S NO OTHER BUSINESS, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.