OKAY FOLKS WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. THE MAY 1ST MEETING OF THE
[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:04]
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IS CALLED TO ORDER. CHANDRA [INAUDIBLE] BEFORE THE ROLL CALL WOULD YOU LEAD US THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PLEASE. K WOULD YOU LEAD US TO PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE. EVERYONE PLEASE RISE AND FACE THE FLAG.OK. CHANDRA WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? YES, MS. DOMONOUSKY. HERE. MR. FELIX. MS. JORDAN HAS ASKED TO BE EXCUSED. MS. MARAGH. PRESENT MR. REED. I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM MR. WARNER. PRESENT. MR. WEINBERG.
HERE. OUR SCHOOL BOARD APPOINTEE HAS NOT BEEN SET YET, AND MR. RODNEY EDWARDS IS PRESENT AS OUR BOARD COUNSEL. MR. CHAIRMAN WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU CHANDRA.
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS THE ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR APRIL 3RD
[ADOPTION OF MINUTES]
MEETING. DO I HAVE A MOTION PLEASE? MOTION TO ADOPT OUR MINUTES FROM APRIL 3RD.SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE MOTION AN A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE THE
[ANNOUNCEMENTS]
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. THE FLOOR WILL THEN BE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE WILL FIRST HEAR FROM THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION THEN THOSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION. 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 INFORMALLY 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. I WILL THEN CALL FOR A VOTE. DECISIONS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ARE THEN FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL DISPOSITION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE AND YOUR COOPERATION. PATRICK DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? YES MR. CHAIRMAN BEFORE WE MOVE INTO OLD BUSINESS I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE THE TIME TO APPOINT ONE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEMBERS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. ABSOLUTELY, AS K'S TERM IS UP DO WE HAVE A MOTION, A NOMINATION. YES, I MAKE A MOTION TO ELECT KHALILAH MARAGH TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.CONGRATULATIONS K. ALSO FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AUDIENCE AND THE BOARD CASE NUMBER ONE UNDER NEW BUSINESS HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 5TH MEETING AND THE CASE NUMBER TWO UNDER NEW BUSINESS HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY STAFF. PATRICK, OUR FIRST CASE PLEASE. OUR
[OLD BUSINESS]
FIRST CASE IS FD-9-2019, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR GULFPORT KEY PUD CONSISTING OF A SEVENTY SEVEN LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. ANALYSIS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 185, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PD THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN KNOWN AS GULFPORT KEY. THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN [INAUDIBLE] CONSISTS OF TWENTY POINT SEVEN SIX ACRES OF LAND TO BE DEVELOPED INTO SEVENTY SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE LOTS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PONDS. THE PROPOSED DENSITY IS THREE POINT SEVEN ONE UNITS PER ACRE WHICH IS BELOW THE MAXIMUM DENSITY DEFINED IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE, 5 UNITS PER ACRE. PER THE [INAUDIBLE] THE TYPICAL LOTS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ARE 50 BY 120 AND THE MINIMUM SIZE HOME WILL BE TWELVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET. TWO POINTS OF ACCESS ARE PROVIDED FROM GULFPORT ROAD CREATING U SHAPED INTERIOR ROADWAY THAT WILL ALLOW SEVENTY SEVEN LOTS DIRECT ROADWAY ACCESS. A THIRD ACCESS POINT IS FROM GRAPEFRUIT ROAD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF PALM BAY SERVICE AREAS FOR WATER AND SEWER. THESE UTILITIES WILL BE EXTENDED INTO THE PUD TO PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE UTILITY SERVICES. ONE[00:05:05]
LIFT STATION IS PROPOSED DECLARATIONS OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND WILL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF APPROVAL. OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF COMMON AREAS SHALL ALSO BE IDENTIFIED. IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL THE PROPOSAL MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 185.067 IN THE PALM BAY CODE OF ORDINANCE. IT IS UPON REVIEW. IT APPEARS THEIR REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING BEING ADDRESSED PRIOR TO CITY STAFF SIGNING [INAUDIBLE]. A) THE BOUNDARY AND TITLE OPINION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY SURVEYOR. B) A CITY OF PALM BAY UNTILITIES AGREEMENT SHALL BE EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE CITY.THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL SUBMIT A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROPERTY DEED AS VERIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP AS PART OF THE UTILITY AGREEMENT. C) A TREE SURVEY SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW SHOWING THE SIZE AND TYPE OF THE EXCEPTIONAL SPECIMEN TREES.
D) PROVIDE SIDEWALKS ALONG THE FRONT EDGE OF THE PROPERTY WITH PUBLIC STREETS. E) RIGHT OF WAY DONATION WILL BE REQUIRED ALONG THE GULFPORT ROAD TO COMPLETE THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY. F) PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS MUST BE GRANTED ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL ALONG WITH THE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FROM THE CITY SURVEYOR. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION CASE FD-8-2019 IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO STAFF'S COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. THAT BEING SAID I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE, AND THE APPLICANT AND HIS REPRESENTATIVE IS IN ATTENDANCE. THANK YOU CHRIS. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING WLL THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. GOOD EVENING MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE P&Z. MY NAME IS BRUCE MOIA I'M THE PRESIDENT OF MBV ENGINEERING AND WE ARE THE ENGINEER OF THIS PROJECT. WE'VE BEEN BEFORE YOU FOR THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD AND WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS WELL. WE ARE MOVING THROUGH THE PROCESS. WE'RE PREPARED TO SUBMIT FINAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS PRETTY SOON TO STAFF AND THIS IS ONE OF THE NEXT STEPS IS TO GET THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD. WE'VE REVIEWED THE STAFF'S ANALYSIS. IT WAS VERY THOROUGH. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT, BUT I DO HAVE SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO SUBTRACT FROM THAT.
WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS FOR QUITE A WHILE. WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS PROCESS THE FIRST STEP IS TO GO TO STAFF AND HAVE A PRE APPLICATION MEETING AND AS PART OF THAT PRE APPLICATION MEETING WE MEET WITH MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS, ENGINEERING, ALL THE STAFF MEMBERS THAT REVIEW THE PLAN. AND WHEN WE PRESENTED THE PLAN AND WHEN WE PRESENTED IT FOR THE PRIMARY APPROVAL WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD AND BY CITY COUNCIL WE HAD SUBMITTED THAT WE WOULD ONLY HAVE SIDEWALKS INTERNAL TO THE PROJECT. AS WE HAVE SHOWN I BELIEVE IT'S ONLY ON ONE SIDE STREET PER THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED. AND COMMENT NUMBER 4D HAS BEEN ADDED. THIS IS A NEW COMMENT WE'VE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS, AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IT WAS MADE FROM A STAFF MEMBER THAT HAS NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS SINCE THE BEGINNING. HE WASN'T AT THE PRE APPLICATION MEETING. HE WASN'T PART OF THE PRIMARY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND NOW WE HAVE A COMMENT TO PROVIDE SIDEWALKS AND THERE'S THREE REASONS WHY WE DON'T THINK IT'S APPLICABLE. ONE IS THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS IN THE AREA AT ALL, ANYWHERE REMOTELY NEAR THIS PROJECT. SO IT WOULD BE SIDEWALKS TO NOWHERE. IT WOULD BE A SAFETY HAZARD YOU KNOW MORE THAN IT WOULD BE AN ASSET TO THE CITY. TWO THERE'S ALREADY INSUFFICIENT RIGHT OF WAY ON GULFPORT. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY DEDICATING PROPERTY TO THE CITY SO WE CAN HAVE A FULL RIGHT OF WAY ALONG OUR FRONTAGE.
AND THEN THREE IT WOULD IMPEDE THE DRAINAGE AND THE SWALES ALONG THE SIDE ALONG THE ROADWAY. SO TO ADD A SIDEWALK WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE DRAINAGE IN THE AREA. SO WE THINK THAT THAT COMMENT SHOULD BE STRICKEN.
IT WASN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVALS, NEVER COME UP BEFORE, AND SO WE THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE AND WE WOULD HOPE THAT THE BOARD WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THAT 4D BE BE REMOVED FROM THE STAFF REPORT AS A REQUIREMENT. I'M UP HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. MOIA. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MOIA? [INAUDIBLE].
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION OR OPPOSE THE APPLICATION? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. PATRICK OR CHRIS WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO MR. MOIA'S COMMENTS?
[00:10:02]
IF THE BOARD WISHES TO GIVE RELIEF ON THE SIDEWALKS. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU IF YOU DO GIVE RELIEF OR IF YOU'RE LEANING TOWARDS THAT THAT YOU MAKE IT ONLY FOR THE EXTERIOR ROADS AND NOT THE INTERNAL ROADS. THANK YOU. BOARD I NEED A MOTION PLEASE I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE FD-8-2019. EXCUSE ME, SORRY. WITH THE PROVISION THAT NUMBER 4D PROVIDE SIDEWALKS ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY WITH PUBLIC STREETS IS STRICKEN, BUT NOT THE INTERNAL STREETS.WOULD YOU AMEND THAT MOTION TO INCLUDE THE COMMENTS IN STAFF REPORT PLEASE? INCLUDING ALL STAFF COMMENTS. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND PLEASE? SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. YES. [INAUDIBLE]. I THINK WE JUST WANT TO MAYBE GET A BETTER IDEA AS TO WHY THAT WAS ADDED IN THE FIRST PLACE. I MEAN IS IT A SPECIFIC PURPOSE OR REASON WHY THIS IS ADDED AT THIS STAGE OF IT INSTEAD OF THE PRELIMINARY PART OF THIS PROJECT. THE REASON WHY THIS COMMENT WAS ADDED IT CAME OUT OF OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AFTER THEIR REVIEW. THEY REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION FOR ITS ENTIRETY AND THEY FELT THAT THIS COMMENT WAS WARRANTED FOR THIS STAGE IN THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IT STATES PROVIDE SIDEWALKS ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY WITH PUBLIC STREETS. TO ME I DON'T SEE ANY LOTS THAT ABUT A PUBLIC STREET. THERE IS AN INTERNAL ROAD TO DO WITH THE PROJECT, BUT I DON'T SEE UNLESS YOU CAN POINTED OUT TO ME WHERE THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY WITH PUBLIC STREETS. IT WOULD BE THE WHOLE PROPERTY THAT ABUTS A PUBLIC STREET. SO IT WOULD BE EVERYTHING ON GULFPORT AND EVERYTHING ON GRAPEFRUIT THAT ABUTS IT FOR THE WHOLE PROJECT. YOU HAD A QUESTION? BUT THERE IS NO LOTS THAT ABUT ON GRAPEFRUIT ITS OTHER SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IS IT NOT? NO, ON GULFPORT IT ABUTS IT, AND ON GRAPEFRUIT IT ABUTS IT. PATRICK I'LL PULL IT UP AND I'LL SHOW. I THOUGHT THOSE WERE DRAINAGE SOMETHING OR OTHERS THERE. IT'S STILL CONSIDERED THE PROPERTY. SO ALONG THIS SECTION HERE AND ALONG THIS SECTION UP HERE WHERE THE PROPERTY ABUTS A PUBLIC STREET.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT WHAT THIS SAYS IS THAT SIDEWALKS WOULD HAVE TO BE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINES ON GULFPORT? THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. OKAY. I'M STILL CONFUSED ABOUT GRAPEFRUIT. IT'S WAY OVER THERE. SO NANCY WOULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE AERIAL UP HERE OR THE PLAT, SO WHAT PUBLIC WORKS IS LOOKING FOR IS A SIDEWALK HERE, ONE THAT RUNS HERE AND HERE. [INAUDIBLE] RUNS THIS WAY AND THE REASON WHY THEY MAKE THAT COMMENT IS SO THAT WHEN THEY PUT SIDEWALKS OUT THE REMAINDER OF THE SUBDIVISION THOSE ARE GAPS THEY DON'T HAVE TO FILL. SO THE DEVELOPER PUT THAT SIDEWALK IN AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PUT THAT SIDE. THEY'D PUT THE OTHER SIDEWALKS OUTSIDE OF THIS PROJECT. HOWEVER, SINCE THERE ARE NO EXISTING SIDEWALKS THERE NOW THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THAT REQUIREMENT. NOT IN THE NEAR FUTURE, NO. YOU HAD A QUESTION? I THINK HE ANSWERED THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK REGARDS TO IF THERE ARE PLANS BY THE CITY TO PUT SIDEWALKS THERE. SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE PROJECT? IF WE STRIKE THIS AS A REQUIREMENT IN THE FUTURE WHEN THERE IS SIDEWALKS WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT MEANS THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO PUT THEM IN WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND WE'D HAVE TO CONTINUE THAT SIDEWALK PATH.OK. LET ME ADD SOMETHING TO IT. FIRST OF ALL AS MR. MOIA POINTED OUT THIS WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. SECONDLY, YOU KNOW IS THE CITY EVER GOING TO PUT SIDEWALKS THERE? WHO KNOWS. THERE ARE CERTAINLY NO IMMEDIATE PLANS. IF THE CITY WILL EVER
[00:15:02]
PUT SIDEWALKS THERE THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN. AND I THINK IT'S JUST SOMEWHAT PUNITIVE TO KIND OF ADD THIS IN THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WHEN IT WASN'T ADDED IN ORIGINALLY. SO I REALLY DON'T SEE NO NEED FOR IT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? DEVELOPER IF THAT WAS NEVER AN ISSUE WHY NOW? ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE BOARD? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. WELL, JUST TO ADD THAT WAS THE REASON WHY I POSED THE QUESTION BECAUSE IT WAS JUST PRETTY MUCH WHY WAS IT NOT IN THE PRELIMINARY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT SHOWED UP HERE, SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TRYING TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHY BEFORE WE VOTED ON THIS. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. OUR NEXT CASE, CHRIS. OUR NEXT[NEW BUSINESS]
CASE IS GOING TO BE PATRICK'S. CP-5-2019. CASE CP-5-2019 IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE OF AN EXISTING PROPERTY ALONG DIXIE HIGHWAY FROM HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL OR EXCUSE ME COMMERCIAL USE TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE. ANALYSIS, PER CHAPTER 193 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGULATIONS, SECTION 183.01B THE PURPOSE OF INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS TO ENCOURAGE THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE OF LAND AND RESOURCES TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. FUTURE LAND USE SETTLEMENT, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY ALLOWS FOR A MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF TWENTY UNITS PER ACRE WITH A RANGE OF ZERO TO TWENTY UNITS PER ACRE. TYPICAL USES INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, DUPLEXES, MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS, CONGRUENT LIVING UNITS, RECREATIONAL USES, AND INSTITUTIONAL USES SUCH AS SCHOOLS CHURCHES AND UTILITIES . SUBJECT PROPERTY IS BORDERED BY DIXIE HIGHWAY TO THE WEST AND THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON TO THE EAST. THE PROPERTY ABUTTING TO THE NORTH IS DESIGNATED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AND THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS DESIGNATED AS COMMERCIAL USE. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AND COMMERCIAL USE CATEGORIES ARE GENERALLY LOCATED IN PROXIMITY TO ONE ANOTHER AND THEREFORE DESIGNATIONS EXIST ON BOTH SIDES OF DIXIE HIGHWAY NORTH OF THE SITE. A RE- DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO MFR WOULD EXTEND THE ALREADY EXISTING AND MFR AREAS LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND WEST. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS THEREFORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS FURTHER EXPLAINED IN THE FOLLOWING ANALYSIS THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT SHOULD PROVIDE THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL WITH INFORMATION TO DETERMINE THE NEED AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHANGE. THE EFFECT OF THE CHANGE ON THE SUBJECT AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO FURTHERING THE PURPOSES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT AREA AS IT IS LOOKING EAST OF DIXIE HIGHWAY.HOWEVER, THE PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED BUILDING PERMITS AND IS PRESENTLY DEVELOPED IT SHALL BE NOTED THAT ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WILL REQUIRE ADHERENCE TO THE STIPULATIONS PROVIDED FOR IN THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT AREA. CONSERVATION ELEMENT, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTER OF THE CITY IS MAINTAINED THROUGH CONSERVATION, APPROPRIATE USE, AND PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES. PARCEL IS NOT LOCATED WITH ANY OF THE FOUR [INAUDIBLE] POLYGONS IDENTIFIED ON THE CITY'S HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL LISTED SPECIES ARE KNOWN TO INHABIT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ANY LISTED SPECIES IDENTIFIED IN THE SUBJECT PARTIAL WOULD NEED TO BE MITIGATED FOR AS REQUIRED BY STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND PER OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY CON 1.7B. RECREATION, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE DOES HAVE MORE OF A DEMAND ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS THAN COMMERCIAL USE. HOWEVER, THE RECREATION OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SETS A LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD OF 2 ACRES PER 1000 RESIDENTS. THE CITY MAINTAINS PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF PARK DESIGNATED LANDS THAT FAR EXCEEDS THIS REQUIREMENT. HOUSING ELEMENT, THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT DOES NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE SUPPLY AND VARIETY OF SAFE DECENT ATTRACTIVE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN THE CITY. THE AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW THE SITE TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND INCREASE THE DIVERSITY OF HOUSING. INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENTS. THE CITY EVALUATES PRESENT AND FUTURE WATER, SEWER, DRAINAGE, AND SOLID WASTE AND ASSESSES THE ABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT. FOR UTILITIES THE FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE WILL NOT CAUSE LEVEL OF SERVICE TO FALL BELOW THE STANDARDS ADOPTED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THESE SERVICES FOR THE CURRENT PLANNING PERIOD. A SIX INCH PVC WATER DISTRIBUTION LINE AND AN EIGHT INCH SEWER COLLECTION LINE IS LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF DIXIE HIGHWAY. THEREFORE POLICY FLU 3.1B, ADEQUATE ACCESS TO WATER AND SEWER SERVICE, IS MET. DRAINAGE, THE PROPERTY CONTAINS A TERRACED
[00:20:01]
DEVELOPMENT THAT ALLOWS FOR ANY STORMWATER RUNOFF TO INFILTRATE THE LAND. THERE IS EXTENSIVE OPEN SPACE ON THE PROPERTY AND ANY FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WILL BE FURTHER EVALUATED AT THE TIME OF PLANS SUBMITTAL. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT, PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE SITE TO BE USED AS ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. IMPACTS TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM ARE NEGLIGIBLE. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT ARE TO PROVIDE A SAFE, BALANCED, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT MAINTAINS ROADWAY LEVEL SERVICE AND ADEQUATELY SERVES THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WILL NOT CAUSE LEVEL SERVICE OF DIXIE HIGHWAY TO FAIL. SHOULD THE APPLICANT OR ANY FUTURE PROPERTY OWNER SUBMIT PLANS TO INCREASE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS MAY BE REQUIRED. IN SUMMARY, THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT SHOULD PROVIDE, THAT'S ALREADY BEEN REPEATED.STAFF RECOMMENDATION, MOTION TO APPROVE CASE CP-5-2019 PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 163 FLORIDA STATUTES. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE. THANK YOU PATRICK. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, MR. CHAIR. RAINER. PATRICK, IS THIS PROJECT IN ANY WAY ASSOCIATED IN ANY PART WITH THE BCRA. WAS IT JUST SO HAPPENED [INAUDIBLE]. IT'S LOCATED IN THE BCRA. IT'S NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE BCRA OTHER THAN JUST BEING LOCATED [INAUDIBLE]. THE ONLY AFFILIATION WOULD BE THAT IT'S LOCATED IN THE DISTRICT, YES. THE PROPERTY HISTORICALLY HAS ALWAYS BEEN COMMERCIAL.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY A GASOLINE STATION BACK IN THE 50S, TRANSFERRED TO A FISH MARKET.
IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF OTHER RETAIL USES, BUT IT WAS CONVERTED IN THE EARLY 90S TO A BED AND BREAKFAST, AND THE APPLICANT RIGHT NOW INTENDS TO USE IT AS SINGLE FAMILY.
THEY ARE HERE SITTING IN THE FRONT ROW IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THEIR INTENDED USE. BOARD HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE JUST ONE COMMENT PATRICK. SURE.
IN THE SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST YOU HAVE THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING A SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT TO CHANGE A 1.10 ACRE PARCEL FROM COMMERCIAL USE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL [INAUDIBLE]. NO, THEY'RE ASKING TO CHANGE IT TO RM15 MULTIFAMILY. CORRECT? THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST IS A CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL USE TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE. EXACTLY. FOR THE LAND USE. THERE'S A COMPANION ZONING COMING RIGHT AFTER THIS. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT THE SUMMARY SAYS THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING A CHANGE TO SINGLE FAMILY FOR STAFF WILL THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM? GOOD EVENING MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. JOSE MARTINEZ. 4185 KISSIMMEE PARK ROAD ST. CLOUD FLORIDA. JUST TELL US JUST BRIEFLY IN A FEW WORDS WHAT YOUR PLANSARE, WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO DO. ST. CLOUD WE CURRENTLY THERE AND WE'VE LIVED THERE ABOUT EIGHT YEARS NOW AND IT'S GOTTEN REALLY CROWDED. SO WE WERE FORTUNATE ENOUGH LAST YEAR TO PURCHASE THAT PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO RELOCATE THERE. AND YOU KNOW WE CAME UP WITH SOME FUNDS TO REMODEL THE HOUSE AND AGAIN THE PROCESS PLANS WERE DRAWN UP, SUBMITTED FOR APPROVALS. ALL THAT WENT THROUGH AND THEN WE FIND THAT WE HAD TO REZONE WHEN WE WERE ASKING FOR YOU KNOW TO COME IN AND INSPECT THE PROPERTY TO CONTINUE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, WITH A REMODEL OF IT. SO THAT'S WHAT BRINGS US HERE. OUR INTENT IS AGAIN JUST TO YOU KNOW GET OUT OF THE HECTIC ST. CLOUD WHICH I LOVE, BUT AGAIN THIS IS TOO MANY TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT THE MOMENT. WE LOVE THAT PROPERTY. WE WOULD LOVE TO RESIDE IN IT AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. NOTHING MORE. [INAUDIBLE] THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT? [INAUDIBLE]. YES SIR. SO THE EXISTING HOME THAT IS ON HIS PROPERTY THAT'S THE HOME THAT YOU ALL ARE PURCHASING? OR THIS IS THE WHAT YOU ALL PLAN TO BECOME RESIDENTS IN? YEAH IT'S BEEN BUILT SINCE '99 THE WAY IT IS. THE LAYOUT DIDN'T MAKE ABSOLUTELY ANY SENSE TO US. YOU KNOW SUCH A BEAUTIFUL HOME REALLY HAVE ONE AND A HALF BEDROOMS, SO WE FIGURE YOU KNOW WHAT WE ARE A FAMILY OF FIVE. WE NEED THE SPACE SO THAT'S WHEN ALL THIS STARTED OF US INTENDING TO REMODEL IT. BUT THE RESIDENCE IS THERE NOW. THERE'S NOTHING ELSE OTHER THAN THE INTERIOR INNOVATIONS HAPPENING. SO YOU DON'T PLAN TO PUT ANY OTHER STRUCTURE ON THIS ONE POINT SEVEN ACRES? NO. A LITTLE BIT OVER ONE. I THINK ONE POINT ONE OR SO. BUT NO, THAT THE PLANS ARE TO LIVE IN IT AND HOPEFULLY YOU KNOW IN THE FUTURE ONE OF MY KIDS LET'S SAY HE WANTS TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE BE NEIGHBORS OF OURS THEN POTENTIALLY WE'LL BUILD SOMETHING THERE. BUT AGAIN FOR A IMMEDIATE PLAN NO WE JUST WANT TO RESIDE IN IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU. YOU HAD A QUESTION K? [INAUDIBLE]. OKAY. ALL RIGHT THANK YOU
[00:25:02]
SIR. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION OR OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION? SEEING NONE I'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. K YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? YES. SO I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED AS TO THEY'RE LOOKING TO DO SINGLE FAMILY AND WE'RE LOOKING TO CHANGE IT TO MULTIPLE FAMILY? YEAH, OR MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY ALLOWS FOR SINGLE, TWO, AND MULTIFAMILY ALL WITHIN THAT SAME CATEGORY. OK. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU COULDN'T GO THE OTHER WAY AROUND. YOU COULDN'T PUT MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY, BUT THE MULTIFAMILY DOES ALLOW ALL THREE TYPES OF USES. OK. OK. BOARD DO WE HAVE MOTION PLEASE? MOTION TO APPROVE CP-5-2019 WITH ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. [INAUDIBLE] IN THIS CASE PATRICK. NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE CPZ-5-2019. SAME APPLICANT, SAME PROPERTY. THIS IS THE COMPANION ZONING TO GO WITH THE LAND USE REQUEST THAT YOU JUST HEARD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONING FROM THE HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO THE RM15 SINGLE, TWO, AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE TO FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT YOU JUST RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF. [INAUDIBLE] HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES SIR. WELL, JUST KIND OF GOING BACK. NOW I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS AS TO WHY IF THERE WAS ALREADY A HOME THERE WHY WAS IT NOT ALREADY ZONED RESIDENTIAL? WHAT HAPPENED THERE? IT WAS NOT A HOME WAS A BED AND BREAKFAST.
IT WASN'T A PERMANENT RESIDENCE IT WAS A COMMERCIAL USE. IT WAS A BED AND BREAKFAST. GOTCHA.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, MR. MARTINEZ COULD YOU JUST STEP UP TO THE PODIUM JUST TO VERY BRIEFLY AGAIN REITERATE WHAT YOU JUST SAID. OKAY. SAY MY NAME AGAIN? PLEASE. JOSE MARTINEZ 4185 KISSIMMEE PARK ROAD ST. CLOUD FLORIDA.
AGAIN, YOU KNOW JUST TRYING TO GET THAT HOUSE BUILT AND MOVED INTO.
BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, AGAIN IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF OR OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION PLEASE MOTION TO APPROVE CPZ-5-2019. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. BEST OF LUCK TO YOU FOLKS. NEXT CASE PLEASE.
CONGRATULATIONS FOLKS. NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE FS-1-2019. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION CALLED PALM BAY PLACE WITHIN THE CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
ANALYSIS, SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN THE VICINITY NORTHEAST OF INTERSECTION OF BABCOCK STREET AND MALABAR ROAD. THE LAND LIVES ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING RACETRACK SERVICE STATION LOCATED AT THE CORNER. INTERNAL DRIVEWAY IN THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE RACETRACK AS DOES THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE RACETRACK SITE. THESE COMMON ACCESS DRIVEWAYS WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND RECORDED WITH THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAVARD COUNTY. PALM BAY CITY COUNCIL GRANTED FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A THREE LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON SEPTEMBER 8TH 2008. THE PROJECT WENT THROUGH SEVERAL ROUNDS OF REVIEW, BUT DID NOT RECEIVE CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL. DUE TO UNEXPECTED DELAYS WITH PERMITTING THE JOINT USE POND OWNED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, COUPLED WITH THE DOWNTURN IN THE LOCAL ECONOMY SUBDIVISION PLANS WERE NOT APPROVED AND THE PLAT WAS NOT RECORDED. THE SHARED DRIVEWAYS THAT EXIST TODAY WERE CONSTRUCTED IN 2011 AS PART OF THE RACETRACK PROJECT. THE CURRENT PROPOSAL PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE THE SEVENTEEN POINT FIVE ACRE SITE INTO FOUR COMMERCIAL LOTS. 50 FOOT WIDE ACCESS UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE LOTS 2 AND 4 ACROSS THE COMMON LOT LINES OF LOTS 3 AND 4 ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN PORTION OF LOT 1 AND RUNNING WEST TO EAST THROUGH LOT 1 TO CONNECT ALL THE LOTS. THE APPLICANT OR THEIR SUCCESSORS SHALL CREATE A PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION TO IDENTIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE FUTURE THAT OWNERS WITH REGARDS TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINING THE FUTURE INTERNAL DRIVEWAYS. A CONDITION OF THE PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WAS FOR THE APPLICANT TO DEDICATE A TWENTY FIVE FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND ADJACENT TO BIDDLE STREET SO AS TO COMPLETE THIS ROADWAY. THIS LAND IS SHOWN AS TRACT A AND IS IDENTIFIED ON SHEET ONE OF THE PLAT TO
[00:30:02]
BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY. THE PORTION OF LOT ONE THAT IS LOCATED BETWEEN THE FDOT POND AND THE ADJACENT PARCEL IS ZONED RS 2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS PORTION OF THE LOT SHALL HAVE THE WORD ACCESS REMOVED FROM THE PROPOSED EASEMENT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THIS LAND IS REZONING AND ACCESS TO BIDDLE STREET APPROVED. THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER AT THEIR EXPENSE WILL BE REQUIRED TO DESIGN, PERMIT, INSTALL AND INSPECT MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS OF [INAUDIBLE] THE FUTURE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH MAY INCLUDE A LIFT STATION. ALL FUTURE BUILDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO THE CITY'S WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM AND THE CITY OF PALM BAY UTILITY AGREEMENT MUST BE EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE CITY. SECTION ONE EIGHTY FOUR POINT TWO FIVE B TWO OF THE CITY SUBDIVISION CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM TWENTY FIVE FOOT PERMANENT LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENT ABUTTING ALL RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF LOT ONE ABUTS PARCEL 503 WHICH IS ZONED RM15 HOWEVER, THIS PROPERTY CONTAINS THE FDOT STORMWATER POND. THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD DETERMINE IF THE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT IS PRUDENT IN THIS LOCATION, AND IF NOT WAIVE THAT REQUIREMENT. IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL THE PROPOSAL MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 185.067 OF THE CITY PALM BAY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES. UPON REVIEW IT APPEARS THIS REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING BEING ADDRESSED PRIOR TO THE CITY STAFF SIGNING THAT [INAUDIBLE].BOUNDARY ENTITLED OPINION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY SURVEYOR, AN UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDY SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ARE WARRANTED, ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY ALONG BIDDLE STREET MUST BE CONVEYED TO THE CITY PURSUANT TO THE DEDICATION OF THIS PLAT, DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR CITY STAFF REVIEW, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS MUST BE GRANTED ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF APPROVAL, AND DURING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS THE PROJECT ENGINEER SHALL PROVIDE MASTER PLANS FOR STORMWATER TREATMENT CONVEYANCE, TRAFFIC ACCESS, AND THE PROVISION OF UTILITIES. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF CASE NUMBER FS-1-2019 SUBJECT TO ALL STAFF COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE. THE APPLICANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN ATTENDANCE. THANK YOU.
PATRICK. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM YOU SAID THE REASON WHY THE PLANS WERE ORIGINALLY TURNED DOWN WAS JUST BECAUSE OF THE DOWNTURN IN THE ECONOMY OR THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE? THE PLAN WEREN'T TURNED DOWN. THERE WAS A LOT OF DELAYS WITH GETTING THE JOINT USE POND PERMITTED. THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN DOT, ST. JOHNS. THERE WAS SOME RIGHT AWAY THAT WAS ACQUIRED ALONG BABCOCK STREET BY DOT OF THE APPLICANT. WHENEVER YOU HAVE THESE BIG JURISDICTIONS WORKING TOGETHER SOMETIMES THEY DON'T WORK TOGETHER, SO THERE WAS A LOT OF DELAYS IN GETTING PERMITTING. IT DID GO THROUGH SEVERAL REVIEWS, BUT AT THAT POINT THE ECONOMY GOT TO THE POINT WHERE THE APPLICANT DECIDED NOT TO GO THROUGH WITH THE SUBDIVISION. IT WAS NEVER TURNED DOWN.
IT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL AND IT WAS GOING THROUGH STAFF REVIEW. IT JUST GOT TO THE POINT WHERE THEY DECIDED NOT TO GO FURTHER. OK. SO THE APPLICANT MADE THE DECISION. OK. BOARD HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WILL THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM.
GOOD EVENING BOARD MY NAME IS KYLE [INAUDIBLE]. FOR THE RECORD I'M WITH BOMA CONSULTING 4450 W EAU GALLIE BLVD IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA, AND I'M HERE AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT. WE AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION PLAT ,AND I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BACK IN 2008 BY CITY COUNCIL BUT DUE TO THE STRUGGLES WITH PERMITTING AND THE DOWNTURN OF THE ECONOMY THE APPLICANT DID DECIDE TO PULL THE APPLICATION AT THAT TIME. NOW THAT THINGS ARE DOING BETTER THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SUBDIVISION OF THIS PROPERTY. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION OF RELIEF FOR ITEM NUMBER SIX. ITEM NUMBER SIX GOES OVER THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. AS PATRICK STATED THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ARE NOW A FDOT STORMWATER POND. SO WE'D JUST LIKE TO ASK FOR RELIEF FROM THAT CODE REQUIREMENT. THANK YOU MR. [INAUDIBLE]. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NANCY. I NOTICED ON THE DEED THAT THERE'S FOUR LLC LISTED AS OWNERS. CORRECT. SO [INAUDIBLE] ARE THEY DEEDING ALL OF IT TO [INAUDIBLE] LLC. I MEAN [INAUDIBLE], I'M JUST CURIOUS. THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. UNFORTUNATELY I CANNOT ANSWER THAT. [INAUDIBLE]. OKAY. NEVER MIND. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? K. DO YOU ANTICIPATE HAVING ANY PERMITTING ISSUES AGAIN OR WE'RE ALL SET? NO THIS STORMWATER POND HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED FOR
[00:35:02]
FDOT. THE RIGHT OF WAY TAKE HAS HAPPENED. SO ALL OF THAT WAS DONE IN THE PAST. SO EVERYTHING STORMWATER-WISE IS ACTUALLY MASTER PERMANENT. MOVING FORWARD ALL THE LOTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO TIE INTO THAT STORMWATER POND. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YES MR. CHAIR. RAINER. I GUESS THIS IS JUST KIND OF WELL, THE QUESTION BASICALLY IS IS FROM 2008 TO 2019 IS THE APPLICANT STILL CONSIDERING PUTTING IN THE SAME THING THAT HE WAS GOING TO PUT IN BACK IN 2008 OR HAS THAT CHANGED AS WELL WHERE NOW HE'S GOING TO PUT IN SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT? AS FAR AS I KNOW THERE ARE NOT ANY PLANS FOR WHAT'S GOING TO GO HERE OTHER THAN THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION WHICH IS ACTUALLY NEXT TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD. THANK YOU. SO BASICALLY YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO GET FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND THEN YOU COULD YOU KNOW THEY COULD SELL THEM OR WHATEVER IF SOMEONE HAD INTEREST IN ONE OF THE [INAUDIBLE]. CORRECT, YES MA'AM. ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU MR. [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION OR OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION? SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRINGING BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION PLEASE. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE FS-1-2019 SUBJECT TO ALL STAFF REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCUSSION. I CAN MAKE THE MOTION, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THAT BUFFER, POSSIBLY EXCLUDING IT. WELL YOU CAN INCLUDE THEM YOUR MOTION IF YOU WISH. SO I'LL EXCLUDE NUMBER SIX REQUIRING THE TWENTY FIVE FOOT WIDE PERMANENT LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENT ABUTTING ALL RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES. I DIDN'T SEE ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE PROPERTIES ABUTTING IT. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY K. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? JUST TO BE CLEAR WE'RE GOING TO? I'LL EXPLAIN IT.THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO STAFF COMMENTS AND WAIVING THE PROVISIONS LEDGER NUMBER SIX WHICH IS THE 25 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENT. SO THE EASEMENT IS BASICALLY THAT WE'RE GOING TO WAIVE THAT BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY RESIDENCES [INAUDIBLE] BUFFER. CORRECT. SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE MAP HERE THIS AREA RIGHT HERE, 760 LINEAR FEET, THIS IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL BUT IT'S OWNED BY DOT. IT IS A POND AND IT IS ALSO AN OVERFLOW, SO THEY HAVE A WET POND AND THEY HAVE A DRY POND. AND THEY KIND OF TWO STAGE POND. THAT LAND IS OWNED BY DOT. I DON'T SEE DOT EVER SELLING THAT PROPERTY. THEY NEED THAT STORMWATER AREA. SO IT'S MORE THAN LIKELY NOT GOING TO DEVELOP PRESIDENTIALLY. IT'S ALWAYS GONNA BE OWNED BY DOT AND ALWAYS GONNA BE A POND. SO THAT REQUIREMENT KIND OF IS IMMATERIAL AT THIS POINT. THAT EASEMENT IS THERE TO OBVIOUSLY PROTECT RESIDENTIAL FROM COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISIONS, BUT SINCE THAT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO BE USED RESIDENTIAL IT'S KIND OF A MOOT POINT TO HAVE IT ON THERE. BUT SINCE THEY DIDN'T REZONE THE PROPERTY IT'S STILL A CODE REQUIREMENT THAT STAFF CAN'T GRANT RELIEF FROM. AND THAT'S WHAT I REALLY WANTED TO CLARITY ON THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY RESIDENTIAL COMING THERE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE KIND OF FOOLISH FOR US TO REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT IF KNOWING THAT THERE IS SOMETHING GOING TO COME THERE. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS. WE HAVE MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. OUR NEXT CASE PLEASE. NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA CU-12. CU-12 YES. IT DIDN'T PRINT FOR ME SO I'M GONNA READ IT OFF THE SCREEN. IT'S A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A CAR WASH IN A PROPERTY ZONED CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL. ANALYSIS, THE PROJECT PROPOSES THE DEVELOPMENT OF A ONE POINT SEVEN THREE ACRE VACANT COMMERCIALLY ZONED LAND. PROPOSAL INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTEEN SQUARE FOOT AUTOMATIC CAR WASH FACILITY AND SELF OPERATED CLEANING AREAS, VACUUM AND DRYING STATIONS.
CODE REQUIREMENTS, IN ORDER BE GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL A REQUEST IS EVALUATED UPON ITEMS THROUGH A THROUGH I OF THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS LISTED IN SECTION ONE EIGHTY FIVE POINT ZERO EIGHT SEVEN OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. A REVIEW THESE ITEMS IS AS FOLLOWS. ITEM AM ADEQUATE INGRESS AND EGRESS. ACCORDING TO THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN THE SITE WILL BE ACCESS FROM THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHWEST PORTION OF THE SITE WHICH PRESENTLY SERVES AS AN ACCESS POINT
[00:40:03]
FOR THE EXISTING RACETRACK. THE PLAN ALSO PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A CROSS ACCESS DRIVEWAY FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE NORTH ALONG THE BACK OF LOT THREE AND THEN WEST ALONG THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE OF LOTS 3 AND 4 TO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY CURB CUT ON BABCOCK STREET. A REQUIRED SIDEWALK PLAN WILL BE EVALUATED DURING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS. ITEM B, ADEQUATE OFF STREET PARKING.CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES NOT CONTAIN MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS FOR CAR WASH FACILITIES. THE CONCERN WITH SUCH A FACILITY IS THE STACKING AREA PROVIDED FOR VEHICLES WAITING TO ENTER THE CAR WASH FACILITY. FOR THIS PARTICULAR OPERATION VEHICLES MOVE THROUGH THE WASHING FACILITY ON A COMPUTER CONTROLLED TRACK THAT BRINGS A VEHICLE THROUGH THE WASH AND AUTOMATIC BLOWERS. PATRONS HAVE THE OPTION OF LEAVING THE SITE OR PULLING INTO A SELF-SERVICE SPACE TO VACUUM THE INSIDE OF THE VEHICLE AND/OR DRY OFF ANY EXCESS WATER. THE PLAN PROPOSES 31 SUCH SPACES AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL SEVEN STANDARD PARKING SPACES WITH NO FACILITIES IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE FOR EMPLOYEE PARKING. THE SIX SPACES SHOWN NORTH OF THE SALE KIOSK ARE THE PATRONS TO PRE WASH THE VEHICLES BEFORE ENTERING THE WASH TUNNEL. ITEM C, ADEQUATE AND PROPERTY LOCATED UTILITIES, A 10 INCH WATER MAIN STUB OUT IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE. AND AN EIGHT INCH FORCE MAIN IS LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF BABCOCK STREET. ELECTRICAL LINES RUN ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. ITEM D, SCREENING THEM BUFFERING, THE PARCEL OF LAND FOR WHICH THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IS A VACANT WOODED LOT WITH UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE NORTH AND EAST WHICH ARE PLANNED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE SITE ABUTS BABCOCK STREET TO THE WEST AND AN EXISTING RACETRACK IS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH. THE BUILDING IS APPROXIMATELY 480 FEET FROM THE NEAREST HOMES LOCATED ACROSS BABCOCK STREET ADJACENT TO PIGEON AVENUE. THE CLOSEST HOME ON BIDDLE STREET IS APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET FROM THE FACILITY. THE STANDARD LANDSCAPE CODE AND SEPARATION DISTANCE APPEARS SUFFICIENT BUFFERING FROM EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ITEM E, SIGNS AND LIGHTING, NO SIGNS ARE SHOWN ON THE DRAWING AND A LIGHTING PLAN WAS NOT PROVIDED. IT SHALL BE NOTED THAT CITY CODES REQUIRE ANY AND ALL LIGHTING TO BE SHIELDED AND OR DIRECTED DOWNWARD TO AVOID CREATING A NUISANCE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. DURING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW A LIGHTING AND PHOTOMETRIC PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED. ITEM F, YARDS IN OPEN SPACE, THE YARDS AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE HAVE BEEN MET. ITEM G, PROPOSED USE WILL NOT CREATE A NUISANCE OR HAZARD BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO ATTEND THE FACILITY. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED WITH SUFFICIENT DRIVE AISLES AND AMPLE ONSITE MANEUVERABILITY. MOREOVER, THE LOOPED STACKING OF THE SITE AND INTERNAL DRIVEWAY CONNECTIONS WILL PROVIDE FOR SAFE OFF STREET MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES. THE TRAFFIC STUDY WILL DETERMINE ANY OFFSITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY. ITEM H, COMPATIBILITY THE PROPOSED USE IS PERMITTED VIA CONDITIONAL USE AND THE SITE IS BORDERED BY A COMMERCIAL END OF THE NORTH SOUTH AND EAST AND BY BABCOCK STREET TO THE WEST. MASTER STORMWATER ACCESS AND UTILITY PLANS ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW THAT WILL CREATE THE LOT FOR THIS PROJECT. ITEM I, ANY ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS, PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY AND RIGHT TO IMPOSE ANY ADDITIONAL AND JUSTIFIABLE SAFEGUARDS AND/OR CONDITIONS TO ENSURE THAT THE FACILITY OPERATES SAFELY AND HARMONIOUSLY WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS. STAFF CONCLUSION, PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL MUST DETERMINE IF THE REQUEST MEETS THE CRITERIA OF SECTION 185.087 OF THE PALM BAY CODE OF ORDINANCES. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU PATRICK. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, MR. [INAUDIBLE] WOULD YOU COME TO THE PODIUM PLEASE? KYLE [INAUDIBLE] BOWMAN CONSULTING 4450 W EAU GALLIE BLVD MELBOURNE, FLORIDA. AGAIN WE AGREE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION. UTILITIES ARE AVAILABLE. ACCESS IS AVAILABLE. STORMWATER IS ALREADY PLANNED FOR THIS SITE. WE FEEL LIKE IT'S A COMPATIBLE USE WITH COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE RACETRACK TO THE SOUTH AND WE FEEL LIKE IT'LL BE A GREAT CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMUNITY IN THIS AREA. THANK YOU. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. [INAUDIBLE]? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU SIR. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION? SEEING NONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION PLEASE. MOTION TO APPROVE CASE CU-12-2019 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. NAY. MOTION CARRIES 3 TO 1. EXCUSE ME, FOUR TO ONE. OUR
[00:45:05]
NEXT CASE PLEASE. OUR NEXT CASES V-9-2019. A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A PROPOSED [INAUDIBLE] TO ENCROACH 9 FEET INTO THE TWENTY FIVE FOOT SIDE INTERIOR SETBACK AS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 185.045 F7 OF THE PALM BAY CODE OF ORDINANCE. ANALYSIS, VARIANCE FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MAY BE GRANTED WHEN SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST THAT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WERE ENFORCED. HOWEVER A VARIANCE MAY NOT BE GRANTED WHEN THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY WOULD BE COMPROMISED FROM THE VARIANCE. AN APPLICANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7 OF SECTION 169.009 OF CODE OF ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN MET. A REVIEW OF THESE ITEMS IS AS FOLLOWS. ITEM 1, SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND AND STRUCTURE BUILDING INVOLVED WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDS, BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME LAND USE CATEGORIES ZONING DISTRICT OR SITUATION. THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THE NORTH REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY IS THE ONLY FACILITY IN THE CITY WHICH CAN PRODUCE REUSED WATER FOR THE CITY FOR USE BY THE CITY CUSTOMERS. THE REUSE WATER IS DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE CITY THEREFORE THE QUALITY OF THE REUSE WATER PRODUCED AT THE NORTH REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY HAS AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE CITY AND ULTIMATELY TO THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON. THIS IS A SITUATION UNIQUE TO THIS SITE WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER SIMILAR PARCELS. ITEM TWO, THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IDENTIFIED IN ITEM 1 ABOVE ARE NOT THE RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IDENTIFIED IN ITEM 1 ARE NOT A DIRECT RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. THE NORTH REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY WAS DESIGNED CONSTRUCTED AND IS OPERATED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND COMPLIES WITH THE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA IN THE PERMIT. HOWEVER, THE SAVE OUR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON PROJECT PLAN IDENTIFIED THIS SITE AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT IF MODIFICATIONS ARE IMPLEMENTED TO TREAT THE REUSED WATER TO MEET MORE STRINGENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY REQUIRED. ESSENTIALLY THE NORTH REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND UPGRADES WILL RESULT IN AN ANNUAL REDUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY EIGHTEEN THOUSAND POUNDS OF TOTAL NITROGEN AND A THOUSAND POUNDS OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS TO THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON. ITEM 3, LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF THE RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME LAND USE CATEGORIES, ZONING DISTRICT, OR SITUATION UNDER THE TERMS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WILL WORK UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIPS ON THE APPLICANT. THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO BUILD WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. HOWEVER, THIS WOULD PREVENT THE CITY FROM BEING ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT GOALS OUTLINED IN THE [INAUDIBLE] INDIAN RIVER LAGOON PROJECT PLAN. OTHER OPTIONS EVALUATED FOR THE SITE INDICATED PROBABLE FLOOD ZONE IMPACTS AND WOULD REQUIRE RELOCATING THE [INAUDIBLE] AND CLOSER TO THESE AREAS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING SURGE TANK AND REUSING THIS AREA OF THE SITE MINIMIZES STORMWATER RUNOFF POTENTIAL AND PROVIDE SOME MORE EFFICIENT USE OF THE CITY'S PROPERTY. ITEM FOUR, VARIANCE IF GRANTED IS A MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. THE APPLICANT WILL REQUIRE 9 FEET OF RELIEF FROM 20 FOOT SIDE AND INTERIOR SETBACK. ITEM 5, GRANTING A VARIANCE REQUEST WILL NOT CONFER ON THE APPLICANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGES THAT IS DENIED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CODE TO OTHER LANDS, BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME LAND USE CATEGORY ZONED DISTRICT OR SITUATION GRANTING VARIANCE WOULD CONFER TO THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE SIDE INTERIOR SETBACK. HOWEVER, IT WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO IMPLEMENT THE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT GOALS OUTLINED IN THE SAVE OUR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON PROJECT PLAN. ITEM SIX, GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CODE. IT WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH. STAFF HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECT TO PUBLIC WELFARE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATED INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE PROJECT WOULD BENEFIT THE PUBLIC WELFARE BY PERMITTING THE CITY TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS IN NORTH REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY WHICH WILL REDUCE NUTRIENT LOADING TO THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AND IS THE MOST COST EFFICIENT USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS TO REALIZE THESE BENEFITS. ITEM SEVEN, THOSE ARE THE BERT J. HARRIS PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED A CLAIM UPON THIS. STAFF'S ACCOMMODATION, PLANNING AND ZONGING BOARD MUST DETERMINE BASED ON THE FACTS PRESENTED TO WHAT DEGREE IF ANY OF THE MINIMAL RELIEF IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF A VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 1 6 9 POINT ZERO ZERO NINE OF THE CITY OF PALM BAY CODE OF ORDINANCE, AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A FINAL REVIEW. THAT BEING SAID THE APPLICANT IS IN ATTENDANCE AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE.THANK YOU CHRIS. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? RAINER YOU HAD SOMETHING? NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. WE'LL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. AND WHO IS GOING TO
[00:50:03]
PRESENT THE CASE FOR THE CITY? PUBLIC HEARING YET.PRESERVE. AM I RIGHT? BECAUSE THE NUMBERS THAT YOU SAID ARE NOT THE SAME NUMBERS THAT I GOT IN THE MAIL. I'VE BEEN ON VACATION AND I CAME HOME AND I FIND THIS AND I AM UPSET ABOUT IT. WE ARE DESIGNATED FLOOD PROPERTY ON OUR STREET, WHITE SANDS COURT, WHICH ISN'T EVEN WRITTEN UP ON THIS MAP THAT I HAVE AND IT'S THREE HOMES ONLY THAT ARE DESIGNATED FLOOD LANDS AND RIGHT UP AGAINST THE PRESERVE. 20 YEARS AGO WHEN WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY AND BUILT A HOME ON IT WE WERE TOLD THIS WAS GOVERNED BY ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT AND THAT IT COULD NEVER BE BUILT ON OR ANYTHING COULD EVER BE DONE THERE BECAUSE IT IS PRESERVE LAND. NOW SUDDENLY WE'RE HEARING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE IN DANGER BECAUSE YOU WANT TO MOVE NINE FEET IN AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT. AND I REALIZE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MANY MANY MORE PEOPLE THAN THESE THREE HOMES, BUT I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO MESS A WHOLE DIVISION UP AND IT'S ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY ONE HOMES. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT INTRODUCING MYSELF. MY NAME IS ANGEL THICK AND NORTH. I LIVE IT 2391 WHITE SANDS COURT NORTHEAST IN THE SANDY PINES PHASE 1 AND 2 SUBDIVISION. AND I JUST CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW SUDDENLY YOU CAN TAKE THIS AND CONSIDER IT NOT WORTHWHILE BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S PRESERVE. I'M VERY UPSET BY IT. I'M SORRY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO TELL YOU BECAUSE THAT'S NOT ONLY JUST GOING TO BE DANGEROUS FOR US, FOR OUR LAND, WHICH WE HAVE TAKEN BEAUTIFUL CARE OF FOR 20 YEARS AND YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED IN SAVING PERSONAL PROPERTY. INSTEAD YOU WANT TO TELL ME THAT IT'S GOING TO IMPROVE THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON. I'M ALL FOR SAVING THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF RUINING SOMEBODY ELSE'S PERSONAL PROPERTY. I THINK YOU'RE GONNA BRING DOWN THE VALUE OF OUR PROPERTY. YOU'RE GOING TO ENDANGER US BECAUSE YOU'RE MESSING UP FLOOD AREA AND ON TOP OF THAT YOU WANT TO FLOOD US WITH THE TERRIBLE SMELL FROM THE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES. I'M VERY UPSET.
I'M SORRY I SOUND LIKE THIS, BUT I AM EXTREMELY UPSET BY THIS BECAUSE IT'S OUR WHOLE LIFE AND YOU DON'T REALLY CARE. ALL YOU CARE ABOUT IS EASY WAYS TO TAKE CARE OF SOMETHING. TAKE CARE OF IT. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS AND YOU HAVEN'T TAKEN CARE OF IT. NOW SUDDENLY YOU WANT AN EASY WAY TO TAKE CARE OF IT. THE EASIEST WAY TO DO IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO AND YOU DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT SUBDIVISIONS AND INDIVIDUAL HOMES. IT'S THE EASY WAY. THANK YOU. DOES THE STAFF WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT? I THINK MA'AM. I THINK YOU HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT REALLY THIS IS GOING TO DO WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. I'LL LET STAFF RESPOND TO THAT. YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE SITE YOU SEE ON THE MAP BEHIND YOU THAT'S CROSSED HATCHED YELLOW. THAT'S THE SITE OWNED BY THE CITY OF PALM BAY'S UTILITIES DEPARTMENT. THE FACILITY THAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN THERE IS A TREATMENT TANK THAT'S BEING PLACED BETWEEN TWO EXISTING TREATMENT TANKS. IT'S NOT BEING PLACED ON THE CONSERVATION PROPERTY THAT LIES BETWEEN SANDY PINES AND THE CITY PROPERTY. IT'S ON THE CITY PARCEL WHICH HAS BEEN THERE FOR ABOUT 40 YEARS. THE ENCROACHMENT IS GOING WITHIN NINE FEET TO THE NORTH WEST WHICH IS A PROPERTY TO THE NORTH THAT IS BEING USED BY DON [INAUDIBLE] FOR A STAGING AREA FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. IT'S NOT ENCROACHING ANY FURTHER TO THE SOUTH OR WEST WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL IS LOCATED. SO THIS STRUCTURE ON CITY PROPERTY AND IT'S MOVING AWAY
[00:55:01]
ACTUALLY FROM RESIDENTIAL. THE REASON WHY IT'S HERE IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A MINIMUM SET BACK FOR STRUCTURES WITHIN THE ZONING CATEGORY AND THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT THEY CAN PHYSICALLY PLACE THAT AND STILL CONNECT TO THE OTHER TWO TANKS ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT. SO THE ENCROACHMENT IS GOING THROUGH THE NORTH TOWARDS AN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY NOT TOWARDS THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES OF SANDY PINES AND THIS GOING TO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON SANDY PINES. NO NOT AT ALL.APPLICANT. BUT ISN'T THERE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT? YES THERE IS. WHOEVER HANDLES THIS [LAUGHTER]. YEAH. WOULD YOU LIKE TO [INAUDIBLE]? I'M SORRY. I WENT OUT OF ORDER A LITTLE BIT. GOOD EVENING MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS DAN BURDEN. I'M A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WITH A CONSULTING FIRM OF WADE TRIM. WE'RE THE WASTEWATER AND WATER TREATMENT CONSULTANT FOR THE CITY'S UTILITY DEPARTMENT. I SERVE AS A PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE NORTH REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROJECT. AND AS STAFF TOLD YOU ALL THE DETAILS OF THAT PROJECT. WHAT WE'RE DOING HAS STAFF JUST DESCRIBED WE HAVE AN EXISTING 60 FOOT DIAMETER TANK THAT LIES TO THE NORTHWEST PERIMETER NEAR THE HEAD OF THE TREATMENT PROCESS. THIS TANK IS GONNA BE DEMOLISHED AND WE'RE GONNA BE REPLACING IT WITH TWO LARGER BASINS. THOSE LARGER BASINS ARE THE BASINS THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL TREATMENT TO REMOVE THE NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS THAT WE'RE GONNA DO TO IMPROVE THE WATER QUALITY AND THE REUSE WATER THAT WE'RE PRODUCING AT THAT FACILITY. THESE TWO BASINS MEASURE APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE FEET IN LENGTH IN TOTAL AND ABOUT 85 FEET IN DEPTH. THE PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE ONLY ENCROACHING ON IS THAT ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE FEET INTO THE NINE FEET OF THE EXISTING 20 FOOT SETBACK DISTANCE AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED. BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? [INAUDIBLE]. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. I WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE V-9-2019 REGARDING THE VARIANCE IN ADDITION TO ALL THE STAFF COMMENTS. A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE JUST ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IS THIS BEING PAID FOR ENTIRELY BY THE LAGOON TAX? BY WHICH TAX? LAGOON TAX, THE [INAUDIBLE] LAGOON TAX. I THINK THE UTILITIES DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT ONE. HI, I'M CHRIS LITTLE THE UTILITIES DIRECTOR. YES, THE INTENT IS TO HAVE IT FULLY FUNDED BY THE SAVE OUR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON PROGRAM. GREAT. THANK YOU CHRIS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
NEXT CASE PLEASE. NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS THE LAST CASE ON THE AGENDA. IT'S A REALLY REALLY LONG STAFF REPORT. THE APPLICANT [INAUDIBLE] THE CITY OF PALM BAY. WE ARE LOOKING TO REMOVE POLICY FLU THREE POINT TWO A FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTRY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ORDINANCE 2016-17.
SO ANALYSIS, THE SUBJECT POLICY WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL CREATION OF THE PALM BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH WAS ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 6, 1988. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS HAD MANY UPDATES OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS TO REACT TO CHANGES IN DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND TO ADDRESS NEW IDEOLOGIES. ON APRIL 21ST 2016 THE PALM BAY CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2016-17 WHICH AMENDED TITLE 17 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 195 ZONING CODE TO UPDATE CERTAIN PROVISIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS CHAPTER.
ONE OF THESE CHANGES WAS THE DELETION OF SECTION 185.088D PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. SINCE THIS SECTION WAS REMOVED THERE IS NO NEED TO HAVE POLICY 3.2A REMAIN WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION TO APPROVE CASE CP-6-2019 AND TRANSMIT THE REQUEST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 163 FLORIDA STATUTES. BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU PATRICK. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS APPLICATION? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC
[01:00:04]
HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION PLEASE. MOTION TO APPROVE CASE CP-6-2019. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. IF THERE IS NO OTHER BUSINESS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. NANCY YOU HAD SOMETHING. YES I HAVE A QUESTION. WELL, I HAVE A COMMENT TO
[OTHER BUSINESS]
MAKE, AND I GUESS IT'S UP TO STAFF. THERE'S SEVERAL OF US THAT'RE GONNA BE GONE IN JULY. WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT QUORUM FOR JULY'S MEETING. WHEN YOU SAY SEVERAL WHO ARE YOU REFERRING TO BESIDES YOURSELF? WELL, THERE'S ABOUT THREE OF US THAT'S GOING TO BE OUT ON VACATION MR. CHAIR. AND SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE A QUORUM FOR JULY. SO WHERE WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO [INAUDIBLE]. IF THREE ARE GONE THE OTHER FOUR DO SHOW UP WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. IT ONLY REQUIRES FOUR FOR A QUORUM. WOULDN'T IT JUST BE EASIER FOR US JUST TO, I MEAN IF THERE'S NOT A LOT ON THE AGENDA JUST TO MOVE WHAT IS IT THE JULY 3RD I THINK IT IS, JULY 3RD MEETING TO AUGUST OR [INAUDIBLE]. WELL, IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF EASIER IT'S A QUESTION OF IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE A QUORUM THERE'S NO NEED TO CANCEL THE MEETING.A QUORUM WE'LL HAVE A MEETING. IF WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM THEN OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T HAVE A MEETING. WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT KNOWN THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE ADJOURN? NO? MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.