Jun 10, 2021 Planning and Zoning

[00:00:01]

>> GOOD EVENING, WE'RE GOING TO COMMENCE THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING FOR

[1. Call to Order]

EVERYBODY PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, 1 NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL NA UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALLO N UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JN NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR

ALL ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> ROLL CALL T >> MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF

[4. Approval of Minutes]

MOTION? >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECONDED.

>> MOTION MADE BY TODD. SECONDED BY JOEL. ANYBODY OPPOSED?

>> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE >> IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD WISH TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO COMMENTS BY THE CHAIR, OTHER THAN TO WELCOME EVERYBODY TO

[6. Comments by the Chair]

[7. Approval of the Agenda]

THERE IS AN ITEM THAT WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE HEARING, RECOMMENDED FROM FURTHER RECOMMENDATION, THAT STILL GETS HEARD AND READ INTO THE MEETING.

>> IT WAS ON THE AGENDA, SO WE CAN GET IT READ INTO THE MEETING.

THE COMMISSION DID TABLE THE ITEM. SO NOT TAKING ACTION TONIGHT.

>> VERY WELL. NO PROBLEM. OKAY.

VERY GOOD. AT THIS TIME WE'LL COMMENCE WITH ITEM A, PUBLIC HEARING

[8.A. Resolution 2021-048: Carmela Coffee Outdoor Dining]

MAXIMUM NOT TO EXCEED 69 SEATS. GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE PARKLAND COMMONS SHOPPING CENTER AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF UNIVERSITY DRIVE AND TRAILS AND INTERSECTION, NORTH OF THE EXISTING COFFEE TENANT PLACE, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, EFFECTIVE DATE.

GA-21-008. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. CAITLYN FORBES FOR THE RECORD. TONIGHT WE WILL BE PRESENTING FOR YOU THE CARMELA COFFEE OUTDOOR DINING RELOCATION, WE SHOULD CALL IT.

I WANT TO MENTION THAT WE HAVE TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM CARMELA'S COFFEE HERE, IF THE BOARD HAS ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THEM. HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THEM IN AND OUT HERE. AS MR. ZOIG NOTED, RESOLUTION TO APPROVE INSTALLATION OF THE PAVER PATIO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CARMELA'S COFFEE LOCATION, WITHIN THE PARKLAND COMMONS SHOPPING CENTER, CURRENTLY APPROVED FOR 69 SEATS.

WE'LL GET INTO THAT A LITTLE FURTHER HERE IN A MINUTE. HERE IS THE LOCATION.

JUST THERE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF UNIVERSITY DRIVE AND TRAILS END, SPECIFICALLY THE BUILDING IS LOCATED TOWARDS THE WEST PROPERTY LINE THERE. AND IS THE NORTHERN OR AN END BAY TENANT SPACE THERE. THIS IS GENERALLY A VERY MINOR APPLICATION OR REQUEST.

IT'S ONLY BEFORE YOU BECAUSE THERE WERE CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS WITH TRAFFIC AND SAFETY. THE VISIBILITY AND THE LANDSCAPE REMOVAL, WE DID HAVE POLICE, FIRE, LANDSCAPE ALL REVIEW THIS APPLICATION AND THEY ARE ALL APPROVING RECOMMENDATION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION, SHOULD ALSO NOTE ENGINEERING REVIEWED IT AND ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. SO THE BACK STORY ON THE APPLICATION AND THE REASON WHY IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS THAT THE LANDLORD HAD CONCERNS WITH MAINTAINING CLEAR AND ADEQUATE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS AROUND THE STOREFRONT.

SO THAT IS WHY THEY'RE TAKING THE SEATS LOCATED AT THE FRONT OF THE STORE AND SHIFTING THEM TO THE NORTH OF THE STORE, AROUND THE CORNER. SO THAT IS WHAT REALLY PRECIPITATED THIS APPLICATION, AND WHAT WE WILL BE CONSIDERING HERE TONIGHT.

AERIAL OF THE CURRENT BUILDING. AND YOU CAN SEE WITH THE ARROW A COUPLE OF PALM TREES IN THE

[00:05:06]

AND HERE IS A SITE LOCATION PICTURE. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ON THE VERY EDGE SOME OF THE TABLES EXISTING AND THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT WILL BE AMENDED.

AND THE PROPOSED DESIGN HERE. IT ACTUALLY IS SLIGHTLY LOWERED IN SQUARE FOOTAGE AND WE'VE AMENDED THE RESOLUTION TITLE TO ADDRESS THAT. I BELIEVE THE RESOLUTION TITLE SAID 450 SQUARE FEET. AND THE LATEST PLANS AFTER THE ITERATIONS WENT THROUGH WITH

ENGINEERING, 430 SQUARE FEET. >> EXCUSE ME. I HATE TO INTERRUPT YOU.

THERE IS NO NORTH ARROW ON HERE. >> NORTH IS UP.

>> I KNEW THAT. BUT I JUST -- >> LET THE RECORD STATE THAT AT

6:07 NATHANIEL HAS ARRIVED. >> NORTH IS UP IN THIS PICTURE. YOU WILL SEE, THE OUTDOOR PATIO AREA, FIVE TABLES PROPOSED. YOU WILL SEE THE FIVE FOOT CLEAR PATHWAY MAINTAINED.

THEY ARE ALSO PROPOSING FOR SAFETY REASONS THE BALLARDS ALONG WITH A DECORATIVE FENCE, BE SCREENED WITH A SERIES OF HEDGES. OF COURSE, THE PAVERS WILL BE TIED IN TO MATCH THE EXISTING PAVERS THERE. THEY ARE PARKED FOR THE 69 SEATS. APPROVED FOR 69 SEATS. THEY WILL HAVE TO AMEND THEIR EXISTING SIDEWALK CAFE PERMIT. RIGHT NOW THEY'RE APPROVED FOR EIGHT SEATS.

THAT WAS PRE-COVID. DURING COVID RESTAURANTS WERE ALLOWED TO EXPAND THEIR OUTDOOR DINING, SO THEY ACTUALLY HAVE 18 TO 20 SEATS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.

AGAIN, THIS IS A RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING SEATS. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A LARGE EXPANSION OF THE OUTDOOR SEATING. I BELIEVE THAT WE WENT OUT AND DID A COUNT AND THERE IS 18, OR THERE WERE 18 SEATS ON THE DAY OF THAT COUNT.

SO FROM APPROXIMATELY 18 TO 20. BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE APPROVED FOR 69, THERE IS NO NET INCREASE IN THE SEATING CAPACITY. THEY DON'T HAVE 49 SEATS INSIDE, IN DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICATION, OR THE APPLICANT, THERE IS 44 SEATS INSIDE.

SO WE'RE STILL UNDER THAT MAXIMUM APPROVED THRESHOLD. THEREFORE THERE IS NO PARKING CONCERNS WITH THE APPLICATION. NO DIFFERENCE IN PARKING GENERATION IN TERMS OF WHETHER THE SEATS ARE LOCATED INSIDE OR OUTSIDE. OVERALL STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS RESOLUTION, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, COORDINATION WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IN REGARDS TO FINAL ENGINEERING AND DRAINAGE AND DISCHARGE ON THAT PATIO PROPOSED, ENSURING THAT THE PERIMETER HEDGES DO NOT EXCEED TWO AND A HALF FEET AT ANY TIME. FOR VISIBILITY, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LANDSCAPE DEPARTMENT AND THEIR COMMENTS, THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL REVISE THEIR EXISTING SIDEWALK CAFE PERMIT, OF COURSE, AS NECESSARY TO REFLECT THE NEW CONFIGURATION, LOCATION AND NUMBER OF SEATS.

OUR STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT GRANTS THE CITY THE ABILITY TO INSPECT THE LANDSCAPING, NOTING THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY CONSTITUTES A SITE PLAN VIOLATION AND THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PAY ALL COST RECOVERY FEES AND THEN JUST ONE FINAL ONE THAT CAME UP DURING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY INTERNALLY, THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTION IS THE STATE. CONFIRM BASICALLY WHAT THE TITLE OF THE RESOLUTION STATES, AT NO TIME SHALL THE INDOOR SEATING CAPACITY EXCEED 49 SEATS, NOR SHALL THE OUTDOOR DINING EXCEED 20 SEATS WITHOUT SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL.

REITERATING WHAT IS ON THE SITE PLAN AND WHAT IS IN THE TITLE OF THE RESOLUTION.

I WILL NOTE THAT THERE IS TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM CARMELA HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

ABOUT OPERATIONS OR WHATNOT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, IF ANY ARISE. THANK YOU. START WITH DAVID.

>> CAITLYN, COULD YOU PUT THE PICTURE OF THE EXISTING CONDITION UP?

>> THERE IS THIS ONE. AND THEN THE AERIAL. >> NO. NO. THAT ONE.

WHY IS THE HEDGE IN THE ROADWAY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE CURB INSTEAD OF BEHIND THE

CURB? >> IN THE PROPOSED DESIGN? >> YEAH.

I THINK THE DRAWING DOESN'T MATCH THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. AS YOU FOLLOW THE RADIUS

[00:10:03]

BUT THE CROSS-SECTION IS WRONG. SECTION AA IS WRONG. THE PAVER AND DRAIN DETAIL 5 IS WRONG. I DON'T THINK THAT THE HEDGE SHOULD BE IN THE DRIVE AISLE AT ALL. I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY WOULD CUT THE DRIVE AISLE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURB. I THINK IT SHOULD BE FLIPPED.

>> SURE. IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN INCLUDE AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO ADJUST IT SO THAT THE CURB IS ON THE OUTSIDE AND THE HEDGES ARE ON THE

INSIDE. >> A COUPLE OF MORE THINGS. IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT EXISTING CONDITION, THERE IS TWO VERY TALL PALM TREES IN THAT AREA RIGHT NOW.

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THEM? ARE THEY BEING ELIMINATED? THEY BALANCE OUT WITH THE PALM

TREES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT DRIVE ENTRANCE OVER THERE. >> THE APPLICANT DID WORK WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONSULTANT. AND I BELIEVE THEY WILL BE ELIMINATED. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FINAL CONSENSUS WAS?

>> ELIMINATING ALL OF THE TREES. >> SO THEY WILL MAKE THE DONATION TO THE TREE FUND AND THAT IS USUALLY BASED ON THE CALIBER OF THE TREE.

>> DO WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR FOUNDATION PLANTING THAT IS IN THOSE HEDGES THAT ARE THERE

RIGHT NOW ALONG THE BASE OF THE BUILDING? >> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE LANDSCAPE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS

REGARDING THAT. >> OKAY. AND LASTLY, I THINK THAT THE PAVERS SHOULD MATCH THE EXISTING PAVERS. THEY SHOULDN'T BE THIS PAVER THAT IS SHOWN IN THE PROPOSAL, THE OCTAGONAL PAVER. I THINK IT SHOULD LOOK LIKE

IT'S PART OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGN. >> I BELIEVE THAT IS THE

INTENT. >> CAN YOU COME TO THE -- >> STEP UP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. SO WE CAN GET YOUR COMMENTS ON THE RECORD.

>> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ALSO PRIOR >> JAY CARDONA.

HOME ADDRESS? >> BUSINESS IS FINE. >> 6830 NORTHWEST 101ST TERRACE. SAME PAVERS AS THE PLAN. THE CONTRACTOR PUT THE WRONG

PICTURE. >> SO IT'S GOING TO MATCH THE EXISTING?

>> IT'S GOING TO BE THE ONE YOU SEE ON THE PICTURE. >> AND THEN ONE LAST QUESTION, THE BALLARDS HAVE A CHAIN BETWEEN THEM. AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOCATED, THE BEST I CAN TELL, MAYBE SIX INCHES FROM THE FENCE.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAIN? >> WE THOUGHT IT WAS A STANDARD

NECESSITY. >> I DON'T KNOW. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE AN

UNUSUAL LOOK. >> IF NOT NEEDED, WE CAN SAVE THE MONEY.

>> YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS. FOR THE RECORD, I OBJECT TO JUST ELIMINATING THE LANDSCAPING. I DO THINK THAT THIS IS A BETTER, MUCH BETTER DESIGN THAN THE WAY THEY HAVE IT NOW. I'M INTERESTED AS TO WHAT THE CONCERNS WERE. IS IT JUST THAT THE CURRENT SEATING BLOCKS ALL OF THE TRAFFIC IN FRONT OF THE BUSINESS, BLOCKS OFF THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IN FRONT OF

THE BUSINESS? >> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. THIS MIGHT BE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE CARMELA REPRESENTATIVES. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE GENERATION OF THIS APPLICATION WAS BASED ON JUST PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY, MAINTAINING CLEAR

PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS. >> YES. SOME COMPLAINTS FOR THE FOOT TRAFFIC IN THE FRONT. SO THAT IS THE MAIN REASON THAT WE'RE MOVING TO THE BACK.

OR THE NORTH. >> OKAY. THAT IS ALL MY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. >> JUST A GENERAL COMMENT, AS A FREQUENT PATRON OF YOUR STORE, THIS IS A MUCH BETTER LOCATION. IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. I WISH YOU ALL OF THE BEST AND

CONTINUED SUCCESS. YOU DO A GREAT JOB. >> DERRICK.

>> YEAH. (INAUDIBLE) PROVIDE SHADE (INAUDIBLE)

>> I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. >> NATHANIEL. >> MY ONLY COMMENTS ON THIS --

[00:15:12]

I ALSO AGREE THAT THE CHAINS BETWEEN THE BALLARDS, I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT AROUND.

DOESN'T PARTICULARLY LOOK NICE TO ME. BUT IF THEY WANT IT, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. I ALSO AGREE THAT BEING ABLE TO HAVE SOME FORM OF YOU KNOW, THE LANDSCAPING, WHETHER IT'S THE ALEXANDER PALM OR SOME OTHER TREE.

BECAUSE AGAIN, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE IS SOME SPACE AVAILABLE HERE, THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE UTILIZED FOR SEATING FOR SOME SHADE AND SOME GREENERY.

THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE. ALTHOUGH, I AM NOT OPPOSED TO IF THE APPLICANT TRULY WANTS TO GET RID OF THOSE AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IT, IT WOULDN'T BE MY PREFERENCE.

BUT THOSE ARE MY ONLY COMMENTS, I DON'T FREQUENT THIS LOCATION VERY OFTEN.

BUT I HAVE MANY TIMES. I THINK IT'S A DEFINITE BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY AND I THINK THAT WHATEVER WINDS UP IN THIS PARTICULAR SPOT BASED ON THE COMMENTS TONIGHT AND OBVIOUSLY AT COMMISSION, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A VALUE ADD TO THAT PLAZA.

SO BEST OF LUCK TO YOU WITH IT. >> THANK YOU. JOEL.

>> MY ONLY COMMENT IS WOULD IT BENEFIT THE APPLICANT TO MOVE THE BIKE RACK? IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S IN AN ODD PLACE NOW. WHILE I DO UNDERSTAND, WOULD LIKE TO KEEP SOME FOLIAGE BACK THERE, IF WE COULD PUT THAT IN THE BACK, GET IT OUT OF THE WAY OF EVERYBODY, YOU COULD MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE NICE. WE'RE MAXED OUT BASED ON THE

LANGUAGE. >> RELOCATE IT. >> CAN YOU RELOCATE THE BIKE

RACK? >> GETTING RID OF BIKE RACKS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO

SAY. >> WELL, THE IDEA OF MOVING IT IS OBVIOUSLY THE BEST IDEA.

BUT WE WERE TRYING TO SAVE ON THE NEW CONCRETE PAD AND IF THERE IS ANY REBAR IN THERE.

IF WE CAN GET RID OF IT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> GETTING RID OF IT IS

PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE AN OPTION. >> I THINK IT WAS A REQUIREMENT

OF THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN. >> GIVEN THE FOCUS ON MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION IN

THE COMP PLAN. >> IF WE HAVE TO RELOCATE IT TO THE CORNER, THEN WE WILL.

>> I JUST THINK THAT WOULD LOOK BETTER. >> RELOCATING THE BIKE RACK.

>> CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? >> GO AHEAD. >> THE FIVE-FOOT CLEAR ACCESS DOESN'T REALLY NEED TO PROVIDE ACCESS IF YOU JUST FOLLOWED ALL THE WAY AROUND, GOING INTO THE PARKING LOT, THEY COULD PROBABLY EASILY SHIFT THE BIKE RACK MORE TOWARDS THE DRIVE AISLE IN THE FIVE-FOOT ACCESS AND THEN THE FIVE-FOOT ACCESS COULD KIND OF COME CATTY CORNER

AROUND THE BACK OF THE BIKE. >> THESE ARE NOT THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS THAT ARE

GOING TO BE SUBMITTED WITH RESPECT TO THE -- >> YEAH.

THEY DON'T MATCH. SO THEY DO NEED TO BE REVISED. BUT THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD -- IF THE ENGINEER IS OKAY WITH THAT, THAT MIGHT BE A WAY TO SHIFT IT FURTHER INTO THE DRIVE AISLE INTO THE FIVE-FOOT ACCESS AND YOU WOULD STILL MAINTAIN THE FIVE-FOOT ACCESS COMING TOWARDS THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOUR BUILDING. AND YOU WOULD STILL HAVE ACCESS COMING UP THE PARKING, IT'S ACTUALLY VERY DIFFICULT TO TELL BASED UPON THIS SNAPSHOT.

WE REALLY SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE A DRAWING SHOWING THE ENTIRE SITE OR A MUCH BIGGER AREA.

BUT YOU COULD MOVE IT A LITTLE BIT PROBABLY AND STILL HAVE YOUR CLEAR ACCESS.

>> THANK YOU. >> YEAH. WE AREN'T GOING TO COMPLICATE THIS. IF IT'S BENEFICIAL, I'M OKAY WITH YOU MOVING THE BIKE RACK.

WHEN I VOTE, I'M HAPPY TO SAY IT'S OKAY SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS.

>> CAN I GO ON RECORD AND LET YOU KNOW THAT THE OWNER OF THE WHOLE PARKLAND COMMONS, THEY WANTED THE TREES REMOVED FOR A LIABILITY ISSUE. THEY ALSO WORKED TOGETHER WITH

THE OWNERS TO WANT TO REMOVE ALL OF THE TREES. >> EVEN THE LITTLE ALEXANDERS?

>> THEY COULD HAVE PUT SOMETHING SMALL THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME ISSUE.

>> THE LITTLE ALEXANDERS CAN STAY. AND SOME MULCH IN THERE.

THEY CAN STAY. >> WE CAN MAKE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THEY COORDINATE

WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE. >> THAT WOULD BE THE BEST

[00:20:01]

RESOLUTION. >> TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY LANDSCAPING THAT CAN REMAIN.

>> THEY'RE SMALL. I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS. >> THANK YOU.

JOEL, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> NO, SIR.

>> TODD. >> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OF VALUE TO ADD OTHER THAN

COMMENTING IT'S A GREAT PLACE AND GOOD LUCK. >> THANK YOU.

MY ONLY COMMENT IS FROM A MAINTENANCE STANDPOINT, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE'RE APPROVING, OR PROPOSED TO APPROVE AND MOVE FORWARD THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL AS IS WITH ANY COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS ALONG WITH A MOTION, AND ONE OF THEM IS WITH RESPECT TO THE MAINTENANCE OF, FOR EXAMPLE, CUTTING AND KEEPING THE SHRUBS TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT OR WHAT HAVE YOU. AND IT'S APPLIED TO THE APPLICANT AND THEIR APPROVAL BUT THE OWNER OF THE SHOPPING CENTER IS WHO ADDRESSES THE MAINTENANCE OF THE LANDSCAPING.

AND IT'S ONLY AN ISSUE WHEN IT'S AN ISSUE. BUT HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>> SO ULTIMATELY THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE LANDSCAPING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CODE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, YOU KNOW, AS WELL TO THE EXTENT THEY LEASE

THE SPACE. >> IT'S IN THEIR LEASE. >> THEY MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FROM THE LANDLORD OR THE OWNER OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

BUT THEY REALLY SHOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE CITY CODE. AND THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED AND THE LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN FOR THE

SHOPPING CENTER OR INDIVIDUAL LOCATION. >> UNDERSTOOD.

I WANTED A COUPLE OF COMMENTS TO BE PUT ON THE RECORD FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN ALL OF THE REST OF THE SHRUBS, NOT BEING SPECIFIC TO THAT SITE, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, ALL SHRUBS AREN'T TO BE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED AT A CERTAIN HEIGHT, BUT YET IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE. YOU KNOW, SIGHT VISUAL SAFETY ISSUE.

TO MAKE SURE, AGAIN, IT'S A GIVEN AND IT'S COMMON SENSE, BUT YET WE'RE MAKING THE APPLICANT, AND I AGREE WITH DOING IT, I'M JUST POINTING IT OUT FOR REFERENCE, BUT MORE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT THAN WHAT MAY BE MAINTAINED NORMALLY AT THE REST OF THE ENTIRE COMPLEX.

THAT IS ALL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> THE SIDEWALK GOING TO THE WEST I'M NEVER A FAN OF A SIDEWALK GOING INTO A DRIVE AISLE. WHAT IS THE INTENT OF THAT SIDEWALK?

>> IS THAT A SERVICE DOOR? >> ONE ON THE FAR RIGHT? >> FAR LEFT.

>> THE LEFT. >> THAT IS THE BACK OF THE STORE'S SIDEWALK TO THE STREET.

>> EXISTING SIDEWALK. >> EXISTING, YES, SIR. >> THAT IS A DOOR ACCESS RIGHT

THERE? >> DELIVERIES AND STUFF. >> BECAUSE THAT IS RIGHT IN THE

DRIVE AISLE RIGHT THERE. >> THAT WAS THERE. >> OKAY.

>> MY COMMENT ALSO WAS THAT SECTION AA JUST NEEDS TO BE -- YEAH, THAT HEDGE.

OBVIOUSLY SHOULD BE BEHIND THE CURB. >> I AGREE WITH YOU.

OTHER THAN THAT I'M GOOD. >> THANK YOU. >> LET'S MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE IF IT'S IN ORDER. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO CORRECTING THE DRAWING TO REFLECT THE CURRENT CONDITION, INCLUSIVE OF REVISING SECTION AA AND 5 AND SECTION 4, NOT 4, TO REFLECT THE CURB WILL BE AGAINST THE DRIVE AISLE. THEN THE HEDGE. AND THEN I THINK YOU HAVE THE BOLLARDS AND THE FENCE. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE PAVERS. AND THAT THE PAVERS MATCH THE ORIGINAL PAVERS THAT ARE IN THE WALKWAY IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.

I WOULD BE FINE WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE CHAIN BETWEEN THE FENCE.

IF ENGINEERING IS OKAY WITH IT. AND THAT YOU TRY TO WORK WITH OUR LANDSCAPER TO INCORPORATE SOME LANDSCAPING TO PROVIDE SOME SHADE OF SOME SORT INTO THE EXISTING AREA, TO REPLACE

THE ROYALS AND STUFF THAT ARE COMING OUT. >> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> COULD I JUST ASK YOU TO REPEAT THAT?

WHAT SECTION? YOU SAID TWO SECTIONS. >> SECTION AA AND SECTION 5.

NOT 4. >> BEFORE WE CALL FOR THE VOTE, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE ITEM TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. SEEING NONE, SEEING NOBODY HERE FROM THE PUBLIC, IT'S NOW CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. THE MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVID, SECONDED BY NATHANIEL.

[00:25:05]

>> CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE. >> ROLL CALL >> GOOD LUCK, GENTLEMEN.

THANK YOU. >> WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 8, ITEM B.

[8.B. Ordinance 2021-005: Brewpub Ordinance]

DETAILED USE REGULATIONS BY CREATING DIVISION 7, PROVIDE STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS FOR BREW PUBS PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE WITHDRAW THIS ITEM FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION AT THIS TIME.

IS THERE A VOTE THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN ON THAT? OR JUST OMIT IT

>> YES, PLEASE, CHAIR, IF YOU CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION. ANY EXPLANATION I CAN.

>> PUT THE GAVEL ASIDE. >> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. >> GO AHEAD.

>> I MAKE THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE ITEM BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY DERRICK.

>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> ANY NAYS? >> THANK YOU.

[8.C. Ordinance 2021-008: Full-Service Restaurant Special Exception Ordinance]

>> PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 8, ITEM C. ORDINANCE 2021-008, FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT SPECIAL EXCEPTION ORDINANCE. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND FLORIDA, AMENDING APPENDIX B LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE 10, SECTION 10-60, INTERPRETATION OF PERMITTED, PROHIBITED AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES AND ARTICLE 60 ENTITLED SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, SECTION 60-20.

USES PERMITTED, TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT RELATED USES SIMILAR TO SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED USES IN THE B1, B2, B3 ZONING USES, PROVIDE FOR CODIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THAT WAS A MOUTHFUL.

>> YES. YOU DID WELL ON THAT, THANK YOU CHAIR.

BY THE WAY, I'M USED TO READING TITLES. YOU DID GOOD ON THAT.

SO YOU KNOW, THE LAST ITEM WAS TABLED. WE GOT SOME DIRECTION, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AT THE LAST CITY COMMISSION MEETING ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE BOTH YOU KNOW, THE BREW PUB ISSUE AND POTENTIALLY THE SIMILARLY SITUATED ITEMS. THE MOTION WAS TABLE THE ITEM WHICH WAS SIMILAR TO I GUESS ITEM B THAT WE JUST WENT OVER AND STAFF WAS GIVEN A LITTLE DIFFERENT DIRECTION FOR CONSIDERATION.

I THINK SOME OF IT WAS IN RECOGNITION OF SOME OF THE UNDERSTANDABLE CHALLENGES BY THE WAY BY THIS BOARD ON TRYING TO HELP TO FIGURE OUT WITHOUT KNOWING THE SPECIFIC SITE LOCATION, ALL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE. AND MAYBE SOME OF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR ONE SITE, BUT MAYBE NOT ANOTHER.

LOOKING AT A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY VERSUS 2500 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY MAY HAVE DIFFERENT IMPLICATIONS. SO BASED ON SOME DIRECTION TO STAFF AT THE COMMISSION MEETING AND SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS WITH SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND WITH PLANNING STAFF, AFTER THAT MEETING IS WHY YOU HAVE THIS ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU. AND THE CONCEPT IS WELL, LET ME SAY THIS, FIRST, TWO KEY CONCEPTS RECOMMENDED I BELIEVE BY THIS BOARD THAT A VOTE WAS TAKEN, ALTHOUGH YOU DIDN'T GET TO ULTIMATELY VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE I THINK ARE STILL MAINTAINED WITHIN THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU. AND THAT IS ONE, THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER LIKE A BREWING OPERATION, THAT IT BE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT. SO THAT WAS I KNOW THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE BOARD.

THAT IS IN HERE. THE SECOND THING IS THAT AT THOSE TYPES OF USES WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND THAT IS ALSO IN HERE.

THERE WAS ALSO DIRECTION AT THAT MEETING FOR PLANNING STAFF TO LOOK AT PERMITTED USES AS A WHOLE. IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND ALSO SET A WORKSHOP IN THE FUTURE TO FURTHER DISCUSS THAT. SO THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO ADDRESS ALL OF THAT. IT'S INTENDED TO ADDRESS SORT OF THIS LIMITED ISSUE OF YOU KNOW, A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT WITH MAYBE A BREWING OPERATION BUT OTHER USES THAT MAY BE SECONDARY USES AS WELL. SO WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU NOW IS AN ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS SPECIAL CONSIDERATION WHERE THERE IS A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT AS THE PRIMARY USE BUT THERE IS SOME SECONDARY USE THAT MAY BE USED IN CONJUNCTION

[00:30:02]

IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT THIS BOARD, ONE THING THAT IS POSSIBLE UNDER THIS STRUCTURE IS THAT WHEN IT COMES BEFORE THIS BOARD AND ULTIMATELY THE CONDITION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION CONSIDERATION, YOU DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADD CONDITIONS TO ANY APPROVAL. AND THE CONDITIONS SHOULD BE RELEVANT GENERALLY TO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE ALREADY IN OUR CODE. AND SO FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS A NUMBER OF THEM, BUT THE FIRST ONE I THINK WILL GIVE YOU, SHED SOME LIGHT ON THIS, THE FIRST ONE IS THE CAPABILITY OF SUCH USE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY, NOISE, STORAGE, DANGEROUS MATERIALS AND THEN AGAIN, IF YOU AND WHEN YOU ACTUALLY GET ONE OF THESE APPLICATIONS, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN THEN HAVE THE SITE IN FRONT OF YOU AND ACTUALLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THIS SPECIFIC ADJACENT USES FOR THAT PARTICULAR SITE AND ADD CONDITIONS RELEVANT TO THAT SECONDARY USE THAT MAY BE MORE APPLICABLE. AND ALSO, IF THERE IS SOMETHING IN OUR CODE THAT SAYS THAT A PARTICULAR USE IS PROHIBITED, THEN THAT SECONDARY USE WOULDN'T APPLY TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. FOR EXAMPLE, MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY, YOU CAN'T COME IN AND SAY HEY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT, AND THEN THIS SPOT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO DO MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY USE.

THAT IS PROHIBITED IN THE CODE. SORRY. SO THAT IS THE ORDINANCE YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU. BY THE WAY, JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE UPDATED THE TITLE FOR THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE TEXT IN THE ORDINANCE.

BUT DUE TO THE TIME FRAME AND THE COMMISSION WANTING TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AND GET THIS GOING, THAT IS WHY THAT IS THERE BEFORE YOU. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I KNOW CAITLYN IS AVAILABLE AS WELL.

>> TODD, ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE?

>> NO. I DON'T HAVE ANY. >> JOEL. >> THIS ALLOWS US TO TAKE ALL OF THE UNKNOWNS OUT BECAUSE EVERYTHING WILL BE SUBMITTED AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

WE CAN LOOK AT EACH ITEM INDIVIDUALLY, OR EACH APPLICANT INDIVIDUALLY BASED ON AND INCLUDE THE SURROUNDING AREAS AS APPLICABLE. AND WE DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT 51 PERCENT VERSUS 48 OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT.

>> NOT UNLESS YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE 51 PERCENT. YOU WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO DO SO, NO. AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES, JUST WITH THE CAVEAT THAT YOU KNOW, THE CONTEXT IS MORE LIMITED. AGAIN, THEY GOT TO HAVE THAT FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT AS A PRIMARY USE AND THEN WE CAN START TALKING ABOUT ONCE THEY DOCUMENT THAT, THAT GETS THEM IN THE DOOR TO START TALKING ABOUT A POTENTIAL SECONDARY USE.

I KNOW WE'VE BEEN PRIMARILY TALKING ABOUT THE BREWING OPERATION.

MAYBE THAT IS THE POTENTIALLY SECONDARY USE. BUT THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, WANTED TO HAVE AN ARCADE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> I WAS JUST THINKING, I WAS GOING TO SAY DOES EVERYBODY REMEMBER WILT'S IN BOCA.

THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE AUXILIARY USE. >> DAVID AND BUSTERS

>> I THINK STAFF HEARD YOU LOUD AND CLEAR IN TERMS OF THE FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT.

SO THAT COMPONENT WAS MAINTAINED. AND IT GIVES YOU SOME

FLEXIBILITY TO REALLY ADDRESS SITE SPECIFIC ISSUES. >> THANKS

>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, JUST AND A FEW THINGS THAT I THINK SHOULD BE CLARIFIED, POTENTIALLY FOR THE RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, GOOD SWITCH TO THAT. WHAT HAPPENS IF AN APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THEY MEET THESE CRITERIAS BUT THE CITY MANAGER DESIGNEE DOES NOT MAKE THE FINDING? WHAT RELIEF IS AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT AFTER THAT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES?

>> THE CITY MANAGER'S DECISION WOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT IS APPEALABLE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD. COME BEFORE YOU.

>> EVEN IF THE CITY MANAGER DECIDES NO, THEY CAN STILL PROCEED FORWARD BUT THEY'RE

ACTING AS THE LEAST INITIAL GATE KEEPER FOR THESE THINGS? >> CITY MANAGER DESIGNEE, SHE CAN DESIGNATE THAT AUTHORITY TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. YES.

IT WOULD COME TO YOU AS AN APPEAL OF THE MANAGER'S DECISION.

>> ACCESSORY USE, IS THERE A GOOD CLEAN DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY USE ELSEWHERE IN THE

[00:35:01]

MEANING OF THIS ORDINANCE? >> THE TERM ACCESSORY USE, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

SO ACCESSORY USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE, ONLY ONE REFERENCE IN THERE, IT'S REALLY IF IT'S SPECIFIED IN THE CODE THAT SOMETHING IS YOU KNOW, PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE, I BELIEVE THERE IS A DEFINITION. THE DEFINITION, BY THE WAY, IS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE LANGUAGE YOU WILL SEE IN A SUB I THERE, THAT SPEAKS TO IT BEING YOU KNOW, SUBORDINATE. SO IT'S SOMEWHAT CONSISTENT. WE KIND OF BUILT UPON THAT

CONCEPT OF ACCESSORY USE IN SUB I. >> AND SINCE THESE WERE ALL LEADING ATTORNEY QUESTIONS THAT WERE ACTUALLY ALL INTENDED TO LEAD TO THIS, I AM STRONGLY

RECOMMENDING THAT YOU ADD A COMMA AFTER SUBORDINATE. >> SAY THAT LOUDER.

>> A COMMA NEEDS TO BE ADDED AFTER SUBORDINATE. I MEAN THAT IN ALL SINCERITY, THERE IS ACTUALLY A FEDERAL CASE THAT DEALS WITH THE USE OF THE OXFORD COMMA AND THE DANGEROUS RESULTS OF NOT USING IT. I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THAT BE A

PART OF THE CONSIDERATION, PUTTING THE COMMA IN ITS PLACE >> YOU KNOW I'M A WHICH AFTER

COMMA GUY. SO NO PROBLEM. >> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANOTHER FIVE-MINUTE CONVERSATION ABOUT COMMAS, BECAUSE JOEL DESIRES IT MORE THAN ANYTHING IN THE

WORLD. >> I OBJECT. >> I THINK WE ALL DO, ACTUALLY.

EVEN I DO. >> IT'S NOT PERTINENT TO THE ORDINANCE.

>> OUT OF ORDER. >> I THINK THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS ALSO HOPING TO SEE, I THINK THAT THIS DOES, IT PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY AND IN THE END, STILL KEEPS A TIGHT REIGN ON WHAT WE WANT AND DON'T WANT IN THE CITY WITHOUT BECOMING, GETTING INTO THE MINUTIA OF THE REGULATION UPFRONT FOR SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW IS GOING TO BE EXACTLY WHAT AN APPLICANT DESIRES TO COME IN WITH. SO I COMMEND CAITLYN AND ANTHONY FOR PUTTING TOGETHER EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD WANT IF I WERE KING OF THE WORLD.

THANKS MUCH >> THANK YOU. >> I'LL KEEP IT BRIEF.

I AGREE. REITERATE NATHANIEL'S COMMENTS. THIS IS A PERFECT RESOLUTION ABOUT EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN BELABORING THE LAST TWO MEETINGS.

GOOD JOB TO STAFF. THANK YOU. >> I WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD AS OFFICIALLY SUPPORTING NATHANIEL'S COMMA. THAT BEING SAID, MY COMMENTS ARE THE SAME. I THINK THIS DOES THE JOB THAT THE BOARD WAS LOOKING FOR.

THIS ACCOMPLISHES EXACTLY WHAT THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD HERE, IT'S A GENERIC ORDINANCE

THAT CAN BE DEALT WITH MORE EFFECTIVELY, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WILL BE THE DISSENTER. I THOUGHT THAT THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAD WORKED ON REGARDING BREW PUB WAS A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.

I THOUGHT WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING IT, I WASN'T LOOKING AT ONE LOCATION, I WAS LOOKING AT THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN A BREW PUB OF SOME SORT COMES IN.

I THOUGHT THAT THE REGULATIONS WERE GOOD. I DIDN'T LIKE, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS A COHESIVE AND COMPREHENSIVE ORDINANCE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMISSION WANTS TO ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY SO I'M FOR ALLOWING THE FLEXIBILITY.

I'VE LOOKED AT OUR BUSINESS LIST AND IT'S TRAGIC. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT IS SO LIMITED IN WHAT IT IS. BUT IT ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE REVISED AND UPDATED.

I HOPE THAT WILL BE DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD EVER BE UNWILLING OR AFRAID TO PUT SPECIFIC REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES INSIDE OF OUR ZONING CODE. WITH A USE LIKE THIS, SOMEONE COULD SPEND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, PUTTING TOGETHER A SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION, WITHOUT A CLEAR EXPRESSION OF WHAT WE INTEND TO SEE FOR SUCH USES AND THEN COME BEFORE US AND SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS WERE DISCUSSING THAT WE COULD JUST DENY THEM. I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT EASY TO JUST DENY THEM WITHOUT CLEAR GUIDELINES IN OUR CODE. I THINK THERE IS PLENTY OF ROOM FOR DISCUSSION IN THE VAGUE SPECIAL EXCEPTION LANGUAGE WE HAVE IN OUR CODE.

HAVING SAID THAT, I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE MASTER BUSINESS

[00:40:05]

WITH RESPECT TO THIS, YOU KNOW, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY, I ALWAYS WANT TO BE FLEXIBLE IN OUR ZONING. I DON'T LIKE GENERAL, GENERIC, I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY GOOD THAT COMES OF GENERIC AND BROAD ZONING CODES. THE COMP PLAN IS GENERIC AND BROAD. THE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS IN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THIS IS JUST RELYING ON LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE IN THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. ALLOWS PEOPLE TO SUBMIT ANYTHING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO US AND PUTS THE ONUS ON THE PLANNING BOARD AND/OR THE CITY COMMISSION ULTIMATELY, TO DENY SOMEONE AFTER A RESIDENT OR PROPOSED BUSINESS OWNER HAS SPENT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND THEY DON'T HAVE AN IDEA EVEN IF THE LOCATION THEY WANT MEETS THE GENERAL PARAMETERS WHICH WERE VERY CLEARLY DISCUSSED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. HAVING SAID THAT, I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN THE BREW PUB ORDINANCE MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE THOSE VERY THINGS ARE THE THINGS THAT THE BOARD IS GOING TO BE LOOKING AT WHEN AND IF THEY WOULD GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR SUCH A USE COMING FORWARD. IF SOMEONE DOESN'T MEET THOSE GOING IN, IT'S A REQUIREMENT AND THEY ULTIMATELY FAIL, THAT IS ON US, WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARER IN OUR ZONING CODE.

THOSE ARE MY ONLY COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU, DAVID. ALEX.

>> I LOVE THE IDEA AND CONCEPT. THE THOUGHT WAS RESTAURANT FIRST, OF COURSE.

BUT SIMILAR TO THE COMMENTS WE JUST HEARD, I THOUGHT WE DID A GOOD JOB AS A BOARD LAST MEETING AND THE TWO MEETINGS, I HAD A LOT OF FUN STAYING UP LATE WITH YOU GUYS, HATCHING OUT ALL OF THOSE THINGS. I AGREE WHEN WE ARE SUBMITTING A SITE PLAN TO A CITY OR BOARD, I LIKE THOSE DETAILS IRONED OUT UP FRONT. I AGREE, THIS GIVES MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT IT ALSO PUTS THEM AT A LOT MORE RISK.

SO YES, IT MAY ATTRACT MORE BUSINESSES, BUT THEN IT'S PUTTING IT BACK ON US TO HAVE MORE LATE NIGHT MEETINGS IN THE FUTURE. I MEAN, IT'S WELL WRITTEN.

PRO COMMA. WORD HAS ALWAYS CORRECTED ME NOW.

BUT YES, I WOULD BE FOR THIS TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT AGAIN, I AGREE, I WAS READY TO MOVE WHAT WE DID LAST MEETING, AGAIN, YOU KNOW WHERE I STOOD, I VOTED YES AND NO ON A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT ONES. I WAS READY TO MOVE THAT FORWARD AS A BREW PUB ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY. WITH THIS, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE WORK FOR US IN THE FUTURE.

WHICH I'M EXCITED TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS ON IN THE FUTURE. >> THANK YOU.

THAT MANY YEARS AGO, DEVELOPERS, OTHER APPLICANTS FOR DEVELOPMENT WOULD COME BEFORE US AND WE WOULD GIVE THEM VERY DIRECTION AFTER DENYING AN APPLICANT FOR WHETHER -- GOING BACK TO TOO MUCH STUCCO, NOT ENOUGH STONE, TOO MUCH GLASS, NOT ENOUGH STONE. YOU KNOW, BLUE ROOFS. COUNTRY CLASSIC ELEGANCE PARK LIKE, HOW DO YOU DEFINE THAT? AT THAT POINT IN TIME, I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, WE CAME UP WITH A DESIGN BOOK AND MY COMMENT ALWAYS WAS, AND WE WENT THROUGH, I THINK THERE WAS AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT, THEY PUT TOGETHER A DESIGN BOOK, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

I WOULD ALWAYS SAY BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR. BECAUSE IF YOU HAND A DEVELOPER A DESIGN BOOK, THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK WITH ITEMS IN A DESIGN BOOK AND THAT IS WHAT HEM. WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE STAFF AND I BELIEVE THEY'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST, I'M GOING TO ASK IT FOR THE RECORD, CAN STAFF DIRECT PRIOR MINUTES, IF YOU WILL, OTHER THAN HAVING COMMENTARY WITH A PROSPECTIVE APPLICANT, SHOWING THEM WHAT THE MINDSET OF A BOARD MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST? IT'S A PUBLIC RECORD. IT'S KIND OF WHERE THE MINDSET IS.

>> IT'S A PUBLIC RECORD. I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH SAYING YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. WHETHER THEY DO OR NOT IS UP TO THEM.

CAITLYN COULD SPEAK MORE ON HOW THEY HANDLE WHEN THEY GET INQUIRIES.

>> TO GO OFF OF WHAT ANTHONY WAS SAYING, WE ALSO OFFER THE PREAPPLICATION PROCESS, ANY

[00:45:04]

>> THE FLAVOR. >> UH-HUH. >> AGAIN, NOT TO DWELL ON THE PAST, BUT WE LEARN FROM IT, WHAT ONCE WAS PROPOSED AS A VETERINARY CLINIC, THE LOCATION WHERE THE RIVERSTONE WINE WAS IN THE END UNIT, IT'S CURRENTLY VACANT.

THEY WERE DENIED I BELIEVE IT WAS -- I KNOW OUR PLANNING BOARD DENIED IT.

IT WAS SOLELY SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF THE NOISE ELEMENT RELATING TO THE WALKING OF ANIMALS AND BARKING, IF YOU WILL, AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE HOMES BEHIND I THINK IT'S PARKLAND OR OR PARKWOOD. PARKWOOD. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THAT IS BASED ON HISTORY. SO WHEN YOU SPEAK OF YOU KNOW, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR CONCEPT THAT IF YOU -- AGAIN, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR, IF SOMEBODY COMES IN WITH A PERFECTLY TAILORED APPLICATION, BUT THERE IS HISTORY BEHIND PRIOR DENIALS, SUCH AS NOISE IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION, I DON'T KNOW HOW SOMEBODY COULD CIRCUMVENT A DENIAL IF THAT BE THE CASE FROM PAST HISTORY, NOT THAT THEY'RE THE NEW APPLICANT, NEW PROPOSED RESTAURANT BREW PUB AND THEN BEING DENIED AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE A PRIOR HISTORY OF THAT TO REST OUR LAURELS ON, SO TO SPEAK. ANYWAY, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. DAVID

>> COUNTRY CLASSIC ELEGANCE AND THE PARK-LIKE SETTING AND THE EXPRESSION OF THOSE IDEALS AND THE GUIDELINES THAT WERE PUT FORTH, I DON'T KNOW THE DESIGN BOOK, ARE THE REASON PARKLAND HAS BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL IN BEING A PROACTIVE GROWTH MANAGER AND THE REASON WHY THE PROPERTY VALUES HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED AS HIGH AS THEY HAVE. WITHOUT THOSE EXPRESSIONS, WE WOULD HAVE HAD MARSHBROOK, WHERE THE PARKLAND GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB WAS.

WHICH WAS LIKE THREE TIMES AS DENSE AS WHAT THE PARKLAND GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB WAS.

WE WOULD HAVE HAD A LANDFILL OUT HERE, AIRPORT OUT HERE. WE HAVE TO ALWAYS EXPRESS OUR DESIRES AND GUIDELINES AND GET WHAT PARKLAND WANTS AS OPPOSED TO MAKE THE BEST OUT OF WHAT IT'S GIVEN. WE HAVE TO SET FORTH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE CODES TO ASPIRE TO WHAT WE WANT IN THE CITY, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO DEAL WITH WHATEVER COMES OUT.

THAT IS THE FRAMEWORK THAT I COME FROM. COUNTRY CLASSIC ELEGANCE AND PARK-LIKE SETTING WERE FANTASTIC GUIDELINES. CYPRESS HAD TALL PINES.

THE HANDSOFF APPROACH WAS IN PINE TREE ESTATES, CITY DESIGNED WITH AGRICULTURAL AREAS. FANTASTIC GUIDELINES. WE SHOULD STILL HAVE THINGS IN OUR CODE. OUR MASTER BUSINESS LIST FALLS FALL SHORT OF ANYTHING THAT WE

WOULD HAVE HAD BEFORE. >> THANK YOU. >>

>> RESPECTFULLY, I THINK THAT TALKING ABOUT LANDFILLS AND AIRPORTS IS JUST YOU KNOW, BRINGING UP THE BOOGIE-MAN, WHEN WHAT WE HAVE HERE PROVIDES FOR STAFF, THIS ADVISORY BOARD AND THE COMMISSION TO EXERCISE WIDE DISCRETION IN EVALUATING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

AND AGAIN, FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, IN A VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCE TO A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT THAT WANTS TO HAVE AN ACCESSORY USE. IF WE GO THE OPPOSITE ROUTE, WE EITHER NEED TO COME UP WITH EVERY POTENTIAL SECONDARY USE, MENTIONED EARLIER OF AN ARCADE, IF WE DIDN'T THINK ABOUT AN ARCADE, THEN WE WOULD BE HAVING THE SAME TWO MEETINGS THE LAST TWO MEETINGS. AGAIN, VERY FUN, ENJOYABLE. I SERVE ON THIS BOARD FOR FRANKLY MY OWN AMUSEMENT MANY TIMES. CERTAINLY NOT FOR JOEL.

[00:50:03]

>> MOTION IS MADE BY NATHANIEL. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> SECONDED BY NEIL. >> QUESTION. DO YOU TAKE A SECOND BY

MICROPHONE OR BY RAISING YOUR HAND? >> WE'RE GOOD.

I'M GOING TO CALL FOR THE VOTE. >> OKAY. >> SINCE THERE IS NOBODY FROM THE PUBLIC, I STILL WILL ASK IF THERE IS ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC, HAS THERE BEEN ANY

E-MAILS OR ANY OTHER COMMUNICATION ON THIS MATTER? >> NO. OUR OFFICE HAS NOT

RECEIVED ANY. >> THANK YOU. IT IS NOW CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

AND STAFF. >> CALL FOR THE VOTE >> ROLL CALL.

>> >> THANK YOU. CAITLYN, ANY COMMENTS?

[9. Comments from the Planning & Zoning Director]

>> I WILL JUST COMMENT, OUR OFFICE AND DEPARTMENT HAS STARTED THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THE PERMITTED USE LIST AND WE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERWAY WITH THAT PROCESS IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANTHONY, SO THAT WILL BE COMING BEFORE YOU SHORTLY AND I CAN'T PROMISE THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING, BUT CERTAINLY WITHIN THE NEXT HANDFUL OF MEETINGS.

>> THANK YOU. >> I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A JULY MEETING SCHEDULED.

THERE IS NOT ANY ITEMS THAT WE BELIEVE WILL BE READY FOR A HEARING AT THAT POINT.

>> WE JUST HAD A DRC MEETING ON PARK MEMORIAL PHASE TWO, PROPOSING TO PUT 210 HOMES.

HE IS GOING TO DESIGNATE THE GATOR ACRES AS A PARK TO THE CITY.

WE'RE WORKING ON THE PLANS RIGHT NOW. >> 210, WHAT IS THE OVERALL

DENSITY FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE PARCEL? >> I BELIEVE 2.73, MAYBE 2.71.

IT'S LESS THAN THREE. IT'S LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM LAND USE.

>> DOES THAT INCLUDE THE PARK? >> THE MAXIMUM LAND USE IS THREE.

YES. THEY GET TO COUNT THE PARK IN THEIR DENSITY.

>> THEY'RE CLUSTERING IT ON THE NON-PARK AREA. IT WILL BE VERY DENSE.

>> IT WILL BE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE IN THE WEDGE NOW IN TERMS OF DENSITY.

AND SOME OF THE SETBACKS. THEY ARE ASKING FOR A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF SETBACKS AND OTHER LOT STANDARD VARIANCES, I BELIEVE WE'RE UP TO EIGHT OR NINE.

THEY ARE REQUESTING TO REZONE TO RS3. THEY ARE NO LONGER SEEKING A PRD DESIGNATION. THAT IS THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION SO FAR.

IT'S A VERY FLUID REQUEST, THERE IS A LOT OF MOVING PARTS. YOU WILL BE CERTAINLY IN FOR LOTS OF LONG MEETINGS. WHICH SEEMS TO BE PART OF THE ENTERTAINMENT HERE.

>> BRING IT ON. >> MOSTLY BECAUSE OF JOEL. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

[10. Comments from the Board]

>> I HAVE A COMMENT. >> I WAS NOT RAISING THE BOOGIE-MAN.

RESPECTFULLY. HOWEVER, THE PARKLAND COUNTRY CLASSIC ELEGANCE AND PARK-LIKE WERE THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF OUR ENTIRE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THEY WERE WHY WE DON'T HAVE

THOSE THINGS. THAT IS IT. >> THANK YOU.

IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? >> ANYBODY SAY NO? >> THANK YOU.

>> WHAT SAY

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.