Jun 09, 2022 Planning and Zoning

[1. Call to Order ]

[00:00:16]

>> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE THANK YOU TO THE CITY OF PARKLAND PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING TODAY IS THURSDAY JUNE 9 AT 6:0.

PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

INAUDIBLE. >> THANK YOU, ROLL CALL PLEASE.

(ROLL CALL). >> THANK YOU, IS THERE A MOTION

[4. Approval of Minutes ]

FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES? >> I WILL MAKE PROMOTION.

>> IS THERE A SECOND PAIR. >> A MOTION BY DEREK AND A

SECOND BUT ALEX BOONE. >> WASN'T SECONDED BY JOEL?

>> EVERYONE A FAVOR SAY AYE. THANK YOU.

>> AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE MEETING FOR ANY COMMENTS

[6. Comments by the Chair ]

CLOSE THAT ITEM. ANY COMMENTS BY ME OTHER THAN TO

[7. Approval of the Agenda ]

[8.A. Resolution 2022-028: PGCC Clubhouse and Sports Club Renovations Consideration of a Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Parkland, Florida, approving Site Plan Amendment and Community Appearance Board applications to allow for renovations and minor building additions to the Clubhouse and Sports Club within the Parkland Golf and Country Club (PGCC) community; generally located on the north and south sides of Trails End Boulevard between University Drive and Pine Island Road; providing for an effective date. Case numbers: SPA22-004 and CAB22- 003. ]

I SEE NONE. WE WILL COMMENCE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING. NUMBER 8A.

I WILL READ IT INTO THE RECORD AT THIS TIME.

RESOLUTION 2022 -- 028 PGCC CLUBHOUSE AND SPORTS CLUB RENOVATIONS. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND, FLORIDA, APPROVING SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD APPLICATIONS TO ALLOW FOR RENOVATIONS AND MINOR BUILDING ADDITIONS TO THE CLUBHOUSE AND SPORTS CLUB WITHIN THE PARKLAND GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB COMMUNITY. GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF TRAILS END BOULEVARD BETWEEN UNIVERSITY DRIVE AND PINE ISLAND ROAD, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

CASE NUMBERS SPA22 -- ZERO ZERO FOUR AND CAB22 -- ZERO ZERO

THREE. >> GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR PARKLAND COUNTRY GOLF CLUB.

IT IS A VERY NICE PROPOSAL. THE TWO GRAPHICS THAT YOU ARE SEEING UP TOP, THE TOP GRAPHIC IS THE CLUBHOUSE RENOVATION THAT ADDS DINING UP TO THE BALCONY SPACE.

AND THE RENDERING BELOW IS A BAR ADDED TO THE SPORTS CLUB AREA.

BASICALLY THIS IS THE OVERALL SITE OF THE COUNTRY CLUB AREA.

THERE ARE THREE GENERAL AREAS PROPOSED FOR RENOVATION FOR THE CLUBHOUSE. THE NORTHWEST SIDE, THE SPORTS CLUB, AND ALSO THE FITNESS CENTER WHICH IS ON THE OUTSIDE.

>> >> WOULD YOU BE KIND ENOUGH TO

PUT IT IN A MEETING. >> SURE, NO PROBLEM.

>> OKAY, BETTER. THIS IS THE OVERALL CAMPUS FOR THE CLUBHOUSE AND AMENITY AREA. THERE ARE THREE AREAS PROPOSED FOR RENOVATION. THIS IS A CLOSE-UP OF THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE CLUBHOUSE. THERE WILL BE ABOUT 2500 SQUARE FEET OF INTERIOR DINING SPACE ADDED TO THE NORTH SIDE.

THAT CREATES AN ADDITIONAL OUTDOOR SEATING AREA.

THE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA BELOW ALLOWS FOR A SMALL ARCADE ON THE SECOND FLOOR SO THERE IS WALK WAY SPACE BAR UP IN THIS AREA.

TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE GRAPHIC HERE, THERE IS A 1300 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE KITCHEN. THAT IS ACTUALLY A SNACK BAR WHERE YOU CAN COME UP AND GET SNACKS.

THIS IS THE CLUBHOUSE RENOVATION.

YOU CAN SEE THE RENDERING BELOW SHOWS THE SECOND FLOOR BALCONY

[00:05:04]

THE SECOND AREA PROPOSED FOR IMPROVEMENT IS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SPORTS CLUB. THE LARGER STRUCTURE ON THE TOP LEFT IS THE PRE-BAR OF ABOUT 1680 SQUARE FEET.

A VERY NICE ARCHITECTURE WITH OUTDOOR SEATING WITH ATV THERE AND DINING SPACE. THE SMALLER RECTANGLE TO THE SOUTH, IS 8630 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE KIDS PLAY AREA.

THIS IS THE RENDERING YOU ARE SEEING WITH THE KIDS EXPANSION TO THE RIGHT WITH THE PAVILION TO THE LEFT.

AND THE RENDERING BELOW IS THE SIDE VIEW FOR THIS AREA.

THE THIRD AREA FOR IMPROVEMENT WHICH IS MINOR COMPARED TO THE OTHERS IS THE FITNESS CENTER. THERE WILL BE A DOOR ADDED WHERE YOU SEE THE WHITE BAND. AND A NEW ENTRY INVESTABLE WILL BE ADDED TO CREATE A LITTLE GLASS ENCLOSURE THAT YOU WALK INTO BEFORE YOU WALK INTO THE SPACE.

THERE WAS ALSO AND THE PLAN SOME TALK ABOUT A PATIO STEP OUTSIDE OF THE DOOR. THIS IS THE RENDERINGS OF THE FITNESS CENTER AREA TO THE RIGHT.

THIS IS THE SIDE OF THE VESTIBULE AND ON THE LOWER RIGHT YOU WILL SEE THE FRONT OF THAT INVESTABLE.

AT THE DIAGRAM ON THE UPPER LEFT IS ALSO SHOWING THE TWO NEW EXTERIOR DOORS. OVERALL, THERE IS AN INCREASE OF 1600 SQUARE FEET. WHAT WE ARE DOING, A LOT OF THE SPACES BEING IN CLOSE UNDER THE EXISTING ARCADE AND NEW ONES ARE BEING EXTENDED OUT FOR THE ARCADE ABOVE.

OVERALL THERE IS AN INCREASE OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET.

BECAUSE WE ARE ADDING SOME SIDEWALKS TO GET ACCESS TO THE NEW LOCATIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THE DESIGN ( INDISCERNIBLE ) HAS REVIEWED THIS AND STOP FEELS IT IS A NICE PROPOSAL FOR THE COMMUNITY.

>> IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS SAY SO,.

>> WELCOME THE APPLICANT. YOU WANTED TO START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I WAS GOING TO SAY, IF ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT, ASK A WAY. IF YOU DON'T, WE WILL TO THE

NEXT PERSON. >> I THINK YOUR FACILITIES ARE

SPECTACULARS. >> PLEASE TALK INTO THE

MICROPHONE, INCLUDING ME. >> I JUST HAVE A GLOBAL QUESTION. I DIDN'T SEE THE PARKING SERVING THE FACILITY TO KNOW THAT IT CAN TO TAKE 5500 EXTRA SQUARE FEET, FOLDED INTO THE OPERATION OF THE BUILDING.

WITH RESPECT TO THE DECREASE, I AM SURE THEY FAR EXCEED THE OVERALL MINIMUM OPEN SPACE REQUIRED FOR THE PARCEL.

>> TO WHAT EXTENT, IT IS IN THE PRIVATE AREA AND EVERYTHING IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL BE

AMAZING. >> ONE THING I DID NOT PICKUP BOND THAT YOU MENTIONED, THE ABILITY FOR GOLF CARTS TO COME UP TO THE SNACK BAR AND GET STUFF.

IT'S AN AREA SO THAT IF PEOPLE ARE PASSING THROUGH AND NOT

[00:10:02]

>> WHAT I RECALL, THE BOX ON THE LOWER RIGHT IS THE EXPANSION.

SEE THE SLAP TO THE RIGHT, THAT IS WHERE THE CONCESSION WINDOW IS. YOU CAN SEE THE GOLF CART PARKING TO THE UPPER RIGHT OF THAT, I THINK YOU WILL PARK THEIR AND GO TO THE SNACK BAR. BUT I THINK YOU WILL DRIVE YOUR GOLF CART TO THE SNACK BAR WINDOW.

>> I DIDN'T PICKUP BOND THAT. >> WHAT ABOUT THE PARKING,

THERE'S ADEQUATE PARKING. >> THE OUTDOOR SEATING AREAS, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T EXCEED A THRESHOLD IT DOESN'T TRIGGER ANY

ADDITIONAL PARKING. >> I WOULD IMAGINE THAT RESIDENT

WOULD NOT HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY. >>

>> I ECHO DAVID. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR EXPANSION.

I MENTIONED IT LIGHTLY BEFORE. AND I WOULD LIKE MORE MEAT BEHIND AN ANSWER AT SOME POINT. ( INDISCERNIBLE ) THAT'S THE NEWSPAPER. IS THAT THE ONLY ADVERTISEMENT

FOR SUCH THAT WE KNOW? >> FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, A SIGN IS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY ON THE STREET FRONTAGE.

>> THE ONLY REASON I BRING IT UP IS BECAUSE IN TODAY'S WORLD IT FRUSTRATES ME THAT PEOPLE BEYOND THE PROPERTY THAT'S PART OF THE ENTIRE CITY. AND I THINK ANYTHING THAT GOES ON I THINK SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE WEBSITES, I MEAN, I GET SO MANY PUSHES FOR SOCIAL MEDIA, WE HAVE BEATS OR WHATEVER IT IS, I JUST THINK IF WE WANT MORE INVOLVEMENT BECAUSE I DON'T SEE PEOPLE HERE IT IS A POSITIVE ITEM AND I AM FORWARD IT.

I JUST GET FRUSTRATED WHEN I SEE AN ANTIQUATED WAY OF ADVERTISING SOMETHING SO MODERN IN TODAY'S WORLD.

AGAIN IT'S NOT THE PROJECT PER SE BUT THAT IS PART OF IT AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY ELEVATE AND COMMUNICATE, NO ONE

IS READING THE NEWSPAPER. >> I DON'T MEAN IT CUT YOU OFF,.

>> CAN I RESPOND? >> S YOU MAY.

-- YES YOU MAY. >> A GOOD OBSERVATION MR. ROGERS. THE CITY HAS A MEETING TODAY THROUGH GIS. WE HAVE BEEN EXPLORING'S PAGE THAT WILL SHOW EVERYTHING THAT WILL ADVERTISE THE DIFFERENT

PETITIONS AS THEY COME. >> I DON'T WANT TO IMPEDE ON YOUR OBJECT BUT IT'S PART OF A BIGGER ISSUE.

>> ANYTHING ELSE. >> I HAVE ONE FOLLOW-UP, THERE WAS A RECENT CHANGE IN STATE LAW IN LIEU OF PUBLISHING THE NEWSPAPER, IF THEY SET UP A SYSTEM ON THEIR WEBSITE BEGINNING NEXT YEAR YOU CAN ALSO PUBLISH IT ON THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE. THEY PROBABLY WILL CHARGE AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT SAVING CALLS AND DOESN'T DRESS FULLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUT IT DOES GIVE ONE CENTRAL LOCATION FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T SUBSCRIBE TO THE PAPER GO TO THEIR WEBSITE. I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT SO THE CITY COULD CONSIDER THAT AS WELL.

>> ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FOR THE STAFF OR APPLICANT?

[00:15:04]

>> GO AHEAD SIR. >> THE IMAGE YOU HAVE UP NOW, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A PARCEL LINE COMING THROUGH.

IT IS CONFUSING ON THE PLANS. JUST CONFIRM THEY OWN BOTH

PARCELS. >> THE ACTUAL CLUBHOUSE ARE ON TWO SEPARATE TAX PORTFOLIOS. THAT IS WHAT YOU SEE THE TO HEAR. THERE IS A PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THE GOLF COURSE OWNERSHIP AND THE CLUBHOUSE ON THE RIGHT.

>> OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS ON RECORD.

>> IF YOU LOOK ON SLIDE TWO THE IMAGE OF THE CANOPY.

IS IT A TARP OR WOOD. I GUESS I WASN'T CLEAR ON THE RENDERING OF WHAT THE OUTSIDE CANOPY WOULD BE, THE MATERIAL ON THAT. IT LOOKS LIKE A TARP.

TARP. >> SO YOU ARE LOOKING -- TALKING ABOUT THE CANOPY ON THE CLUBHOUSE EXPANSION SHOWN ON THE

TOP RENDERING HERE? >> YES, THERE'S A MENTION OF THE WOULD CANOPY OUT THERE, I WASN'T SURE.

>> THE UNDERSIDE OF THE ( INDISCERNIBLE ) PAVILION THE STRUCTURE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT, THAT IS WOOD UNDERNEATH.

THIS I BELIEVE IS CANVAS. THAT IS CORRECT.

>> ( INDISCERNIBLE ) FOR THE RECORD.

>> THAT WAS DAVID DEAS. THERE IS A CANVAS COVERING THEIR EXISTING AS THE INTERIOR SPACE EXPANDS THAT CANVAS HAS REPLACED

WITH A NEW AWNING. >> SO THAT IS A CANVAS NOT A WOOD AND THAT IS -- ALL OF THAT GOOD STUFF.

>> THAT WILL BE REVIEWED AT PERMITTING.

SO SAMPLES WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THE PERMIT REVIEW.

>> ALSO AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THERE WAS A NOTICE THAT ENGINEERING ADD A MEMO, INCLUDING A MEMO, WHAT WAS IN THE MEMO AND WHAT WERE THE COMMENTS FROM ENGINEERING?

>> THE MEMO FROM ENGINEERING HAD SOME MINOR CORRECTIONS OR STUDIES THAT NEEDED TO BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING

PERMIT. >> ANYTHING SUBSTANTIAL THAT WE

SHOULD BE AWARE OF? >> EXCUSE ME, STATE YOUR NAME

FOR THE RECORD. >> ALEX, CITY ENGINEER FOR PARKING. THERE ARE SOME OTHER MINOR DETAILS THAT WE COMMENTED ON THAT WILL BE PROVIDED, MINOR STUFF YOU WOULD NOT SHOW ON A SITE PLAN.

THE DETAILS AND CROSS-SECTIONS,. >> SO NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL.

>> NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL. >> I WILL BOW FROM AN ENGINEERING WATER QUALITY STANDPOINT, DID YOU LOOK INTO

THAT AT THIS POINT OR NOT YET? >> THERE WAS NO REPORT PROVIDED, BUT BASED ON WHAT WE SAW SO FAR, WE PROVIDED COMMENTS TO THE DESIGN TEAM. WHEN IT COMES TO FURTHER

DETAILS,. >> THANK YOU, ALEX.

MY COMMENTS ARE TO COME IN THE DESIGN TEAM AND APPLICANT.

IT LOOKS VERY GOOD. AND CLOSE IT TO COMMENTS AND OPEN IT UP TO SEE IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. I SEE NONE.

LET'S SEE IF THERE IS A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT WHICH I THINK ARE THE ENGINEERS

COMMENTS. >> IS THERE A SECOND PAIR.

>> ASHLEY, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.

(ROLL CALL). >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[8.B. Ordinance 2022-007: Amending Synthetic Turf Regulations Consideration of an Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Parkland, Florida, amending the City of Parkland Land Development Code, by amending Article 95 "Landscaping and Vegetation"; Section 95-1600 "Synthetic Turf" to modify regulations applicable to the installation of synthetic turf; providing for implementation, conflict, severability and an effective date. ]

>> ITEM B PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDING SYNTHETIC TURF REGULATIONS. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND, FLORIDA, MENDING THE CITY OF PARKLAND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 95, LANDSCAPING AND VEGETATION, SECTION 95-1600, 6

[00:20:06]

>> OKAY, ROUND TWO. WE ADD SOME SUBSTANTIAL DISCUSSION LAST TIME AND I HAVE INCORPORATED THE MAJORITY OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION. WHAT YOU WILL SEE HERE IS BLACK WAS THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE YOU SAW AT THE BEGINNING.

BLUE IS WHAT HAS BEEN ADDED TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTS OR CONCERNS. UNDER B, I BELIEVE ONE OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS WAS HOW BIG CAN THE TURF STRIPS BE HOW MUCH OF THE DRIVEWAY CAN THEY OCCUPY. SO WE PUT THIS ON 20% OF THE OVERALL DRIVEWAY SURFACE BRICK MAKING SURE IT IS DECORATIVE AND NOT THE PRIMARY. UNDER D, I AM SORRY.

UNDER D THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE TURF AND EXISTING LANGUAGE AND HOW WE ARE SEEING MORE PUTTING GREEN, AND MULTIPURPOSE COURTS. KEEPING THESE AREAS FROM MEETING THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE TURF IS MUCH LOWER. OKAY, UNDER NUMBER SIX, THE LANGUAGE IN THE CODE EXPLAINS RETARDANT, AFTER RESEARCH WE FOUND ALL OF THE TURF IS NOT PLAYMOBIL.

SO WE CHANGED IT TO NONFLAMMABLE.

WE ALSO REVIEWED SOME INSTALLATION STANDARDS.

WE HAVE A GRAPHIC TO GIVE YOU MORE INFORMATION ON HOW IT IS INSTALLED AND IT IS QUITE INTERESTING.

WE JUST WILL FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S SUGGESTIONS THAT WE DID REMOVE THE 4-INCH MINIMUM ON HE SOIL UNDERNEATH.

WHEN IT CAME TO PERMITTING, WE ADDED REINSTALLATION ALSO REQUIRED A PERMIT SO CHECK THE GREAT AND THE SLOPES.

G ABOVE, IT WAS JUST RELOCATED TO C SO WE COULD SET THE STAGE FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY STANDARD BEING DIFFERENT.

AND THEN I IS WHERE WE STARTED. THIS WAS THE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT WAS CAUSING THE PROBLEM WAS ISSUING CODE TO MOST HOMEOWNERS.

THAT IS THE CHANGE WE REVIEWED LAST TIME.

REMOVING THAT 10% CAP BECAUSE IT IS VERY LIMITING TO SEVERAL

HOMES. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WILL SEND IT BACK. >> HOW ABOUT, I DID NOT SEE IN HERE, ABOUT WHERE IT CAN BE INSTALLED, THE FRONT YARD OR BACKYARD OR THE HALFWAY. OR WAS IT ALL BACK YARD?

>> BASICALLY, I DID NOT CHANGE THE LANGUAGE THERE.

IT CAN BE INSTALLED IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD ONLY.

THAT WOULD MEAN THE SIDE YARD, DEFINED BY CODE IS FROM THE FACE OF THE HOUSE BACK. SO IT COULDN'T BE ANY FURTHER FORWARD THAN THE FACE OF THE HOUSE.

>> DOING OR DRIVING A ROUND FROM OUR LAST MEETING IT SEEMS IT IS VERY APPROPRIATE FOR WEST PARKLAND.

BUT HE SPARKLING, THINKING ABOUT THEM, WHAT IF SOMEONE ON THE RANCHES WANT TO PUT A ( INDISCERNIBLE ) IN THEIR FRONT YARD THAT IS ONE 100% SCREENED ON A THREE-ACRE PARCEL.

COULD THEY PUT SYNTHETIC TURF AND A PUTTING GREEN?

>> NOT IN THE FRONT YARD FORWARD OF THE HOME.

LET'S SAY PINETREE ESTATES, THAT HOUSE WILL BE BACK 75 FEET FROM

THE CENTER OF THE ROAD. >> THAT IS WHY I FEEL LIKE WE ARE SETTING THE CODE FOR THE WEST PARKLAND AND THE EASE PARKLAND AND ENTERING THE LARGER HISTORICAL LOTS WHERE THEY DO HAVE FULL SCREENING. YOU CAN EVEN SEE THEIR FRONT

YARDS. >>

[00:25:05]

>> THEY COULD APPLY FOR A VARIANCE BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVE A HARDSHIP. AS YOUR EXAMPLE ON A 3-ACRE LOT.

YOU PROBABY HAVE 3 ACRES ON THE SIDE OF THE REAR.

>> THAT PUTTING GREEN WOULD HAVE TO BE REAL SOLID.

AND RIGHT, EVEN IN THEIR IT COULD BE IN THE FRONT OF THE HOME. IF YOU GUYS ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT BEING TO THE FACE OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE PUT THEIR FENCES TO THE FACE OF THE HOUSE.

>> I THOUGHT WE SENT YOU CAN'T HAVE A FENCE.

ONLY ON THE SIDE OF YOUR HOUSE. MOST HOA'S, -- THE METER HAS TO

BE ASSESSABLE. >> SO, THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T PUT TURF OUT THERE, THE FENCING WAS THE ISSUE.

>> EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE OFFENSE THE TURF COULD COME UP TO THE FACE BEEN ANYTHING FORWARD OF THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE

NATURAL SOD. >> IT SEEMS LIKE MOST OF THE HOA'S THAT I HAVE DRIVEN AROUND ARE MORE STRICT THAN WE ARE, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WILL MONITOR IT.

>> THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THEM CYPRUS SAID, AND MILL RUN, THAT DID NOT ALLOW ARTIFICIAL TURF AT ALL.

THE OTHERS ALLOWED IT ON THE SIDE OF THE ART.

SOME OF THEM AT THE HALFWAY POINT OF THE HOUSE FOR THE SIDE YARD AND BACK FROM THERE. SOME WERE ALL OF THE WAY TO THE FRONT FACE AND SOMEWHERE HALFWAY.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE BESIDES DAVID

HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> I AM SORRY I WAS NOT HERE AT THE LAST MEETING. AND 95 -- 1600B WHICH IS PAGE ONE OF THE ORDINANCE, AND THE LAST SENTENCE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TURF STRIPS, I THINK WE SHOULD SAY TURF STRIPS AND PATTERN DRIVEWAYS MAY NOT EXCEED 6 INCHS IN WIDTH.

BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE WE ALLOW THE TURF.

>> THANK YOU. >> I WAS NOT HERE FOR THE DISCUSSION OF WHY THE 4 INCHES OF DEPTH WAS REMOVED FOR SOME GREAT BUT I READ IN THE MINUTES, THAT PATTY SAID SHE WAS GOOD, THAT 4 INCHES WAS GOOD. QUICKLY, WHAT ARE YOU FINDING THAT THE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMEND.

>> WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT, F THAT.

WHEN YOU RUN TO THE SIDE YARD, SOMETIMES THE STEPS WERE LESS ON THE SUBGRADE SO WHEN YOU GOT CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LIKE YOU WERE NOT 4 INCHES ABOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR.

IT MAY BE 4 INCHES IN THE CENTER OF THE LOT, --

>> MAYBE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING THE SUBGRADE IS SOMETHING THEY WOULD HAVE TO DIG OUT AND PUT BACK.

MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR OUR CITY ENGINEER.

HE HAS GONE OVER THIS AD NAUSEA HIM.

LET'S SAY SOMEONE HAS A VERY MUCKY YARD.

A SIDE YARD. AND THEN YOU PUT THIS TURF ON IT. IS THAT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM IF THEY DON'T HAVE A PROPER SUBGRADE ON IT.

WILL THAT IS ASPIRATE IT FROM THE SITUATION?

>> THE SUBGRADE IS ON THE SPECS FOR THE TURF.

IT SUPPORTS THE DRAINAGE FOR THE WATER TO GO THROUGH THE GROUND.

THEY CAN STORE IT WITHIN THE ROCKS.

SO. >> WOULD ARGUE FINDING MOST OF THE MANUFACTURERS ARE RECOMMENDING?

>> I HAVE NOT COMPANIES. BUT I THINK THE MINIMUM WE SAW WAS SIX. IT DEPENDS WHAT THEY ARE USING.

I THINK THEY RECOMMENDED FOR BECAUSE THAT WAS THE MINIMUM

THAT WE SAW. >> I RECOMMEND WE KEEP THE

[00:30:04]

I WOULD PUT 4 INCHES, PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THAT WAY IF IT IS MORE, IT IS MORE. THAT IS WEIGHT THE BUILDING INSPECTORS, DEFINITELY MINIMUM STANDARD AND THAT WAY YOU NEVER HAVE AN AREA WHERE IT IS NOT PROPERLY SUPPORTED.

>> AND.

IF POSITIVE DRAINAGE IS AVAILABLE, WE WOULD NOT TELL SOMEONE TO RIP OUT 4 INCHES OF DIRT JUST TO PUT 4 INCHES OF

DIRT BACK. >> LIKE IF I WANTED TO DO IT IN MY YARD, I WOULD DO IT TO CREATE AS I WANTED TO LOOKED UP.

>> I AM ASSUMING THE DIRT AND NORMAL YARDS IS NOT A SUBGRADE.

AT A MINIMUM WHEN YOU BUILD A ROAD YOU DIG DOWN PUT THE ROCK

IN, YOU PUT THE. >> IN LOVE WE HAVE FOR A TURF, THEY RECOMMENDED A 4-INCH SUBGRADE OF SOME RECOMMENDED MATERIAL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.

I DON'T KNOW THE MANUFACTURER -- BUT WE SEE THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE 6 INCHES THIS IS NOT AN AREA WE

WANT -- >>

SOME OF THE GRASS,. >> FROM THE PREVIOUS ONES, WE DECIDED TO GO WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION.

TALKING ABOUT THE DRAINAGE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MANUFACTURE.

>>

>>

>> SOME DESIGNS WILL BE DIFFERENT.

IF THERE'S NO FLOODING ISSUES. >> ANOTHER ISSUE WITH IS AN INSPECTION TAKES PLACE. THEY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR THE PAPERWORK, THAT IS WITH THE INSPECTIONS COULD BE BASED

ON, NOT THE ORDINANCE. >> WITH YOUR PERMITS ARGUE REQUIRING TO SHOW WHAT IS OUT THERE?

A SOIL ANALYSIS? >>

>> WHEN YOU SPEAK WOULD YOU MIND SPEAKING INTO THE MICROPHONE? WE WILL HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME WITH THE MINUTES, THANK YOU.

>> WE ARE REQUIRING DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED MATERIALS INCLUDING

THE DRAINAGE BASE. >> THAT WOULD BE THE PROPOSAL.

IF SOMEONE IS NOT PROPOSING, AND THEY ARE USING WHATEVER SOMEONE SUGGESTED, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS OUT THERE?

[00:35:02]

>> IT'S A SAMPLE BUT WE WILL NOT REQUIRE THAT.

>> JUST PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED MATERIALS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE SUBGRADE, DRAINAGE, BASE AND LEVELING.

THAT WILL BE PROVIDED TO US FOR REVIEW.

>> I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. I WILL DEFER TO YOUR REVIEW OF THIS. I DID NOT LIKE SEEING A MINIMUM STANDARD IN THERE AND NOT HAVING A CLEARLY STATE FOR MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION AND THERE.

I ASSUME ALL OF THIS REQUIRES SOME AGGREGATE.

BUT I WILL DEFERRED THAT TO YOU GUYS.

I KNOW WE HAVE HAD MASSIVE PROBLEMS WITH FLOODING ALL AROUND COMMUNITIES THAT WANT TO USE THIS TURF MATERIAL.

I WOULD HATE TO SEE US HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM.

IF THE BOARD DOES NOT WANT THAT, I AM JUST ONE GUY.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE 4-INCH MINIMUM.

WE HAVE HAD PROBLEMS I THINK IT PROTECTS THE CITY OF THE RESIDENCE AND I WOULD RATHER SEE A VARIANCE TO REDUCE IT TO TRACK TO INCHES IF THEY CAN'T PROVE IT BUT I THINK IT IS TO THE HOMEOWNER'S BEST INTEREST TO ADD 4 INCHES TO THE POSSIBLE

DRAINAGE. >> WE WILL GO BACK, WE WILL GET

A MOTION ON YOUR DIRECTION. >> WE CAN DISCUSS WITH THE QUESTIONS ARE WITH RESPECT TO THAT.

WE CAN HAVE IT FILTERED THAT WAY.

WE CAN COME UP WITH A DIRECTIVE. >> I THINK WE CAN DO A VOTE.

ON PAGE THREE OF FIVE, WHERE WE TALK ABOUT G1, IT CAN'T BE INSTALLED IN A PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

IS IT OUR GOAL THAT IF SOMEONE DOES HAVE A PATTERN DRIVEWAY THAT THE SYNTHETIC TURF COULD NOT CONTINUE ALL OF THE WAY DOWN TO THE RIGHT OF WAY BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE IN THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY.

>> ALEX, ARE THERE DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR THE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THAT?

>> THAT WOULD BE THE CONTINUATION.

IT WON'T REALLY AFFECT -- >> YOU COULD INSTALL IT?

>> YES. >> THEN WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE THIS DOES NOT ALLOW IT.

>> I THINK THAT MEANS PUTTING THE LARGER AREA IN THE FRONT

YARD AND THE SWELLS, ET CETERA. >> SO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A

PATTERN DRIVEWAY. >> THERE IS AN ITEM THAT SAYS THE EXCEPTION FOR THE PATTERN DRIVEWAY.

THE PATTERN WENT ALL OF THE WAY DOWN.

THAT WOULD BE RIGHT HERE. >> MAY BE WE COULD ADD IN ONE RIGHT HERE, ADD IN A PATTERN DRIVEWAY.

>> >> I GUESS I WOULD DEFER TO ANTHONY THAT WAS PRETTY INFINITIVE.

>> I THINK WE CAN CLARIFY IN G1. WE CAN ADD A CARVE OUT WITH RESPECT TO THE PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>> THAT IS IT. ANYONE ELSE?

>> ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS?

IS THERE A MOTION AT THIS TIME. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION.

[00:40:02]

>> I AM SORRY BEFORE WE DO THAT WE WILL OPEN THE ITEM TO THE PUBLIC, SEE NONE, CLOSES IT TO THE PUBLIC.

>> I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> A SECOND BY DEREK, CALL FOR THE VOTE PLEASE.

>> (ROLL CALL).

>> MR. CHAIR, WE DID NOT HAVE A VOTE ON THE ( INDISCERNIBLE ), LET'S OPEN IT BACK UP AND DISCUSS THAT SO WE CAN SEND A

DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMISSION. >> I THINK THE BOARD HAD ONE OPTION WAS TO JUST SAY PER AS REQUIRED BY MANUFACTURER INSPECTION -- SPECIFICATION. THE OTHER WAS TO SAY 4-INCH MINIMUM. I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE TWO

TOPICS. >> ARE WE ABLE TO BACK INTO THE MOTION AND ADD IT FOR THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS.

>> IS SOMEONE ON THE PREVAILING SIDE THAT WANT TO RECONSIDER.

>> DO WE ACTUALLY NEED TO. >> BUT MOTION IS DONE.

PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION. >> IF YOU WANT TO DO IT THAT

WAY, YOU APPROVE THE ITEM. >> I AM SURE THEY WILL HAVE OTHER ITEMS TO DISCUSS AMONGST THE ORDINANCE AND WE CAN MAKE SURE STAFF TO INCLUDE OUR QUESTION AND RECOMMENDATION OR SOMETHING THAT THEY MAY COME UP WITH, TO SUGGEST RECOMMENDATION.

>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE SEVERAL HOMEOWNERS

[8.C. Ordinance 2022-003: Creating Driveway Expansion Regulations Consideration of an Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Parkland, Florida, amending the City of Parkland Land Development Code, by amending Article 90 "Off-Street Parking and Loading", Section 90-520 "Location, Character and Size" to provide regulations relating to driveway widths for single-family dwelling units; providing for implementation, conflicts; severability, and an effective date. ]

>> PERFECT, THANK YOU. I WILL GO TO ITEM C.

ORDINANCE 2022 -- ZERO ZERO THREE CREATING DRIVEWAY EXPANSION REGULATIONS. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND, FLORIDA AMENDING THE CITY OF PARKLAND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 19, OFFSTREET PARKING AND LOADING, SECTION 90-520, LOCATION, CHARACTER AND SIZE. TO PROVIDE REGULATIONS REALLY NEEDING -- RELATING TO DRIVEWAY WITH FOUR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION, CONFLICT SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> WE HAVE BEEN SEEING A GREAT DEMAND FOR PEOPLE WANTING TO BASICALLY PAVE THE ENTIRE FRONT YARD FROM THE FACE OF THE HOUSE FORWARD, AND FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES OVERCOAT AS JUST A SIDE YARD DRAINAGE OF 5 FEET. AND LOOKING AT THE CODE THERE IS NOTHING ELSE THAT TAPS OUT HOW MUCH PAVEMENT CAN BE AND THAT FRONT YARD AS LONG AS YOU ARE MEETING THE REQUIREMENT ON THE REST OF THE LAWN. SO UNDER HERE THEY HAVE A 40% OPENFACE REQUIREMENT. IF YOU ARE MEETING THAT EVERYWHERE ELSE THERE IS NOTHING CURRENTLY IN THE COLD THAT PREVENTS YOU FROM PAVING THE ENTIRE FRONT YARD.

THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS THAT THE SITE PLAN DOES HAVE REQUIRED FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING. SO TRYING TO SAY, THE LANDSCAPING AS TO MAINTAIN -- HAS TO BE MAINTAINING YOUR FRONT YARD AND THE PARKING SPACES HAVE TO FIT A VEHICLE BECAUSE SOMETIMES, THEY ARE NOT DEEP ENOUGH IF THE HOUSE IS ONLY 15 FEET BACK. YOU CANNOT GET AN 18-FOOT VEHICLE IN THE SPACE WITHOUT CROSSING OVER THE SIDEWALK.

SO, WE ARE SEEING A LOT OF PERMITS PAVING SIDE TO SIDE ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

IT IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE AESTHETICS OF THE STREET, ESPECIALLY IF YOU GIVE ONE NEIGHBOR DOING IT TO THE NEXT NEIGHBOR AND THE THIRD NEIGHBOR ADDING ON.

THESE ARE FIVE QUICK REGULATIONS AND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE THE DRAINAGE ON THE SIDE IS MAINTAINED.

MAKE SURE THE LANDSCAPE IS MAINTAIN AND PUT A MAXIMUM ON HOW MUCH OF THE FRONT SPACE YOU CAN PAY.

FOR EXAMPLE LET'S GO THROUGH THE REGULATIONS.

SO ON LOTS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE, YOU CAN HAVE NO MORE THAN TWO ( INDISCERNIBLE ) PER UNIT.

THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO DO A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY, OR IF YOU HAD AN ACRE LOT TO DRIVEWAYS AND ONE FOR GOES TO THE BACK TO STORAGE OR RV OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE OTHER COULD GO INTO THE MAIN HOUSE. THEY WOULD BE LIMITED TO TWO

[00:45:01]

WHAT THAT MEANS, LET ME GIVE AN EXAMPLE LIKE A 60-FOOT WIDE, OUT IN THE WAGE AREA AT THAT LOT WOULD HAVE AN 18-FOOT DRIVEWAY ON THE 60-FOOT WIDE LOT. UNDER THE CURRENT CODE THEY COULD PAVE THE 50 FEET OF THAT WITH.

FIVE ON ONE SIDE AND FIVE ON THE OTHER.

UNDER THIS PROPOSAL IT WOULD BE MAXED OUT AT 50% OF THAT FRONTAGE. ONLY 30 FEET COULD CROSS FROM THE FRONT YARD THROUGH THE SWALE TO THE STREET.

THAT WOULD ALLOW SOMEONE WHO HAS AN 18-FOOT DRIVEWAY, THEIR OPTION, YOU COULD DO A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY.

YOU WILL STILL HAVE TWO ENTRANCES, THE SECOND DRIVEWAY COULD HAVE UP TO 12 FEET IN WIDTH AND MAX OUT OVER 60 FEET AND THAT WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE DESIGNED TO GET A PERMIT.

YOU COULD ALSO TAKES YOUR TWO-CAR DRIVEWAY TO EXPAND FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER UP TO THE 12 FEET WITH WITH A STANDARD VEHICLE. YOU COULD PAVE AN EXTRA LANE NEXT YEAR DRIVEWAY AND PICK UP PARKING FOR ONE OR TWO VEHICLES.

THAT IS KIND OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH THE NEW REGULATION WITH A TYPICAL 60-FOOT LOT. NO MORE THAN 50% OF THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD CAN BE PAID. REMEMBER YOUR REQUIRED FRONT YARD IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN YOUR PROVIDED FRONT YARD.

YOUR REQUIRED FRONT YARD IS FROM THE SETBACK, YOUR FRONT SETBACK TO YOUR FRONT PROPERTY LINE. SO, IN SAY PINE TREE ESTATES YOUR TREE ESTATES YOUR FRONT YARD IT'S GOING TO BE FROM THE EDGE OF THE PAYMENT TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, 75 FEET.

IT IS THE WIDTH OF THE LOT WHICH IS TYPICALLY 125.

50% OF THAT SPACE IS A LOT OF SPACE.

THAT SPACE, ON A 50 OR 60-FOOT LOT ON THE WEDGE IS ONLY GOING TO BE 15 FEET DEEP BY 50 OR 60. AGAIN YOU WILL BE LIMITED TO 50% OF THAT SPACE. THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY WITH FOR EIGHT STRAIGHT DRIVEWAY IS 12 FEET.

THAT IS WHAT YOU TYPICALLY NEED TO PULL IN AND HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO GET UP YOUR VEHICLE. FOR A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY ( IDISCERNIBLE ) WE HAVE 124 STRAIGHT AND 104 CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY. AND AGAIN REINFORCING THE 5 FEET MUST BE MAINTAINED FOR DRAINAGE. AND THAT WAS BASICALLY IT.

JUST THESE 5-6 SMALL REGULATIONS.

TRY TO GET THEM AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.

NARROW THEM DOWN IN THE WIDTH AND PUT A CAP ON HOW MUCH OF THE

FRONT YARD CAN BE PAID. >> CAN YOU QUICKLY DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE BEHIND THIS? I KNOW WHAT IT IS BUT JUST FOR

THE RECORD. >> WE ARE TRYING TO MAINTAIN SOME OPEN SPACE AND THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING IN THE FRONT YARD.

>> ARE MEANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF WIDTH OF THE CURRENT DRIVEWAY,

TWO CARS PARKING ON THEIR. >> STANDARD PARKING STALL IS NINE BY 18. WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR 18-FOOT DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF YOUR GARAGE IT IS PARKING TO VEHICLES

SIDE-BY-SIDE. >> AND THE ISSUE IS?

>> THEY HAVE FOUR BEDROOM HOUSES WITH TWO WORKING ADULTS AND 2-3 TEENAGERS. SOME HOMES ARE HAVING 5-6 VEHICLES AND THEY WANT TO ACCOMMODATE THEM ALL ON THE SITE. IT IS DIFFICULT WHEN YOU BUY A 50-FOOT WIDE LOT AND THAT IS 15-FOOT BACK FROM THE STREET.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THE ORDINANCE GOT STARTED, BUT THE GOAL IS TO ADDRESS THE DRIVEWAYS WHERE PEOPLE COULD EXPAND THEM.

>> I THINK IT IS FIXING A HOLE IN THE COLD RIGHT NOW.

>> RIGHT NOW WE WERE SEARCHING SEVERAL AREAS.

WE KNOW THIS IS A STATICALLY BAD FOR THE CITY BUT WHERE ARE THE RULES THAT WOULD PREVENT THIS. REALLY THE 5-FOOT FIVE'S QUAILS ARE IN THE -- BUT NOTHING MORE SPECIFIC THAT SAYS, YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR TWO-CAR DRIVEWAY GOING INTO THE GARAGE AND A LITTLE EXTRA, BUT EXTRA WILL BE BASED ON HOW BIG YOUR LOT IS.

IF YOU HAVE A SMALL LOT, YOU MAKE IT 1-2 PARKING SPACES FOR THE CIRCULAR DRIVE. THE LARGER LOT YOU WON'T HAVE A

PROBLEM. >> DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS?

[00:50:01]

>> I LOOKED YOUR WAY. AND I SAID DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS. >> IT IS SUBJECT TO HOA.

BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THAT, HOMES THAT HAVE DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS. TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE HAVE HOMES THAT HAVE DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK.

>> THERE'S GOING TO BE LIKE PINETREE ESTATES WON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS. WE HAVE AN ASSOCIATION WE ARE PRIVATE ROADS WE ALSO DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS.

>> WHAT ABOUT PARKLAND RESERVE? >> BUT THAT IS AN HOA.

>> NON- HOA. >> I THINK THERE IS ONE AREA.

>> WHAT ABOUT PARKLAND RESERV, THOSE ARE ALL PUBLIC STREETS.

>> WELL -- >> THIS IS NOT AN HOA ISSUE.

THE EDGE -- THE HOA'S FURTHER REGULATED AND THEY CAN.

>> BUT IT WILL BE SUBJECT IN THE HOA.

>> BUT THIS IS A NIGHTMARE FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.

ONE 100%. AND WILL BECOME A NIGHTMARE FOR ENGINEERING STAFF WHEN EVERYONE STARTS SEEING EVERYONE PAVING ALL OF THIS AND THE DRAINAGE IS GONE.

IF WE THINK WE HAVE PROBLEMS IN THOSE COMMUNITIES NOW, WE HAD IT IN NORTHWEST MIAMI-DADE COUNTY WHERE PEOPLE PAVED EVERYTHING, AND IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE NIGHTMARE.

>> MOST OF OUR COMMUNITIES, THEY DO F8 40% OPEN SPACE ON THE LOT BUT IT DOES NOT DICTATE WHERE THE OPEN SPACE HAS TO OCCUR.

UNFORTUNATELY WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS A NEED FOR PARKING.

THE HOA'S ARE NOT ALLOWING PARKING ON THE STREETS.

SO WHAT WE WILL BE LOOKING FOR IS IF YOU ARE GOING TO CREATE AN EXTRA PARKING ON YOUR SITE, IT WILL BE LIMITED TO HOW MUCH IS AVAILABLE. IF YOU ARE CREATING A PARKING SPACE IT WILL FIT A VEHICLE THAT WILL NOT HANG OVER THE SIDEWALK

OR THE SWALE AREA. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> WITH RESPECT TO, 9520B WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THE, WE ARE TRYING TO LIMIT THE WITH THE PARKING. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS LANGUAGE IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT. RIGHT NOW IT SAYS NO MORE THAN 50% OF THE LOT FRONTAGE MAY BE USED.

I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE A REFERENCE TO THAT THE DRIVEWAY WITH IS PERMITTED TO BE UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 50% OF THE LOT FRONTAGE. BECAUSE THAT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE, THAT IS JUST FOR THE WIDTH SO THEY KNOW THEY WILL HAVE A COMBINATION OF 12 FEET OVER HERE AND WHATEVER OVER HERE.

BUT THAT IS JUST THE WIDTH. >> CAN YOU GET A 10-FOOT ACCESS OFF OF THE STREET. THE PURPOSE IS TO ESTABLISH THE MAXIMUM WIDTH YOU COULD HALF OF DRIVEWAY FOR A HOUSE AND WE ARE DOING THAT BY SAYING IT COULD BE 50% OF THE LOT WITH.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IS WHAT IT IS.

>> IF YOU ARE IN A PIE SHAPE LOT , ( INDISCERNIBLE ) I HAD A PIE SHAPE LOT, NOT FRONTAGE WAS MAYBE 20 FEET.

IN MY ENTIRE FRONTAGE WAS MY DRIVEWAY.

AND I'M OVER 50%. >> WITH ANSWERING THAT QUESTION BY QUESTION WILL BE, IS IT NECESSARY TO ADDRESS AN ORDINANCE OR IN THIS ORDINANCE EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT PREDATE

THIS ORDINANCE. >> AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS THEY ADDRESS PIE SHAPED LOTS WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

[00:55:01]

THERE WILL PROBABLY BE A MINIMUM YOU CAN HAVE WITH SOME AREAS OF THE SIDE. IF EVERYONE WHO WAS ON A PIE SHAPE LOT WIDENED TO THEIR PROPERTY LINE THERE WOULD BE 0

DRAINAGE. >> I THINK WE WILL HAVE TO ADD SOME LANGUAGE THAT COVERS THE IRREGULAR SHAPED LOTS.

THIS WILL MAKE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE. I THINK IT WILL BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU MAY ONLY HAVE 30 FEET OF FRONTAGE.

PLUS YOU HAVE THE SETBACK. >> THIS IS ON CUL-DE-SACS OR

IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOTS. >> WE WILL WORK ON SOMETHING.

>> DOES NOT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN AN ORDINANCE.

>> WE COULD CONSIDER ADDING -- I WILL SAY EXISTING DRIVEWAYS WON'T BECOME NONCONFORMING AS A RESULT.

>> ANYONE ELSE? >> I'M SOME MORE.

WITH RESPECT TO THE 50 FOOD WITH, WHILE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SMALLER LOTS, 60-FOOT LOTS, YOU GO 30 FEET WHICH WOULD ALLOW A 20-FOOT DRIVEWAY AND A CIRCLE. AS WE GET TO THE 80-FOOT LOT, WE HAVE 40 FEET OF THAT WITH, WITH A DRIVEWAY ON ONE SIDE AND ONE OF THE OTHER. I THINK WE HAVE TO CAP THAT AT SOME POINT. NOW YOU ARE AT 100 FEET.

YOU HAVE A 20-FOOT DRIVE WILL APPEAR TO 25-FOOT DRIVEWAY BEER THAT IS TOO MUCH. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A MAXIMUM WIDTH IN THEIR. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

>> I THINK IT IS HARD TO PUT A MAXIMUM, BECAUSE SOME OF THE LOT WITH OUR 371ST -- SQUARE FEET. I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE WOULD COME IN WITH 180-FOOT OF PAVEMENT ON THE SWALE CROSSING OVER TO THE FRONT YARD. SO, ON A 100-FOOT LOT, I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED TO SEE A HOUSE THAT HAD A THREE CAR GARAGE, SO THAT PAVEMENT WITH WOULD BE 30 FEET JUST ACCESSING THE GARAGE DOORS. THAT IS ONE ACTUALLY LINK THAT MAKETH YOU TO EXTRA CARS OR A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY ON AN 80-FOOT LOT FOR EXAMPLE. THE DRIVEWAY --

>> THAT WOULD BE FINE. CAP THE 30-FOOT DRIVEWAY THIN

THE -- >> CIRCULAR DRIVE.

>> BUT EVEN MAYBE, IF YOU HAD A WIDER AND A DOUBLE THAT CAME OUT THAT IS PROBABLY OKAY. WHAT I AM TRYING TO AVOID IS PUTTING A STANDARD IN THAT WOULD MAKE IT ALLOWABLE TO PUT A RUNWAY, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A 110-FOOT LOT SOMEWHERE.

THEY WILL HAVE UP TO 5 FEET OF DRIVEWAY.

THAT IS OUR INTENTION. >> WHAT IF IT IS A FOUR CAR

GARAGE? >> YOU COULD PARK A CAMPER IF

YOU WANTED TO. >> IF YOU HAD A 12 CAR GARAGE SOMEONE WOULD HAVE A DRIVEWAY FOR A VEHICLE FOR IT.

YOU WON'T HAVE 12 PARKING SPACES.

>> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. JUST ON THE SIDE, WILL THESE ORDINANCES APPLY IN THE BRANCHES AND PINETREE.

I THOUGHT WE HAD A CHARTER THAT SAID BAUSCH SHALL NOT TOUCH THE ZONING OR ENACT ANY ZONING THAT IMPACTS THE RANCHES WITHOUT A

REPRIMAND HIM. >> THAT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION. THERE IS A CHARTER PROVISION.

[01:00:02]

I THINK IT IS THE PINETREE RANCH AREA.

SO WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT HOW MUCH WE CAN ENFORCE.

AND WHAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A LONG TIME.

I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE HISTORY BUT SUFFICE TO SAY WHEN IT WAS BEING PROPOSED, AND THE RANCHES AND PINETREE THEY WERE ADAMANT ABOUT THEIR PROVISIONS.

>> IF WE DO CHANGE THE CHARTER I WILL GIVE YOU THE LIST,.

>> I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS DAY.

>> 80% OF THE CITY BOAT IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> CHARTER PROVISION WOULD REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO TAKE

ACTION TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. >> THAT MIGHT BE A DISCUSSION

FOR ANOTHER DAY. >> I THINK WE'VE THEM AND ANYTHING ABOVE 100 FEET OF A LOT.

THAT WE DON'T GIVE ANYONE ELSE MORE THAN 100 FEET.

WERE TALKING ABOUT THE WEIGHT THE CITY LOOKS, THE WITH THE DEVELOPMENTS OCCUR. I THINK HAVING MORE THAN THE ACQUITTAL EVENT OF TWO TWO-WAY ROADS GOING INTO A HOUSE IS OVERKILL. THAT WOULD BE 24 FEET OVER HERE

AND 24 FEET OVER HERE. >> SMALL. BUT HAVE THREE CAR GARAGES.

>> THEY ARE ALREADY EXCEEDING THIS.

>> OF 40% COVERAGE, THE 50%? >> IF YOU ADD A 50 FOOT LOT WITH A GARAGE IT COULD BE SLIGHTLY OVER.

THAT IS WHERE THE NONCONFORMING LANGUAGE WOULD COME INTO PLAY.

>> BUT TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, I CAN'T BELIEVE THE PINETREE IS EXEMPT FROM THIS. YOU NEED TO BUILD A BRIDGE TOO

OVER THE CANAL. >> THERE MAY BE SOME 100 FEET,.

>> THAT IS NOT WHERE WE ARE SEEING THE PROBLEM.

WE NEVER HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DRIVEWAY, WIDTH OR LOCATION ON LOTS ABOVE 10,000 SQUARE FEET. IT IS THE LOT THAT ARE 50-FOOT WIDE BY 120D. THOSE LOTS IS WHERE WE ARE SEEING THE PROBLEM. IT IS NOT ON YOUR STANDARD DRIVEWAYS AND CERTAINLY NOT IN THE ACRES OF THE RANCHES.

>> I THINK THE STANDARD NONCONFORMING USE.

THE PEOPLE AT A 50-FOOT LOT. >> WITH THE 30-FOOT DRIVEWAY CAN'T MAKE IT WIDER. I THINK, THAT IS NORMAL.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS WHAT THIS IS.

BUT WHAT IT WILL AVOID, IF THIS ENTIRE STREET, AND ONCE ONE PERSON DOES IT, THEY COME THROUGH, AND I THINK WE NEED

SOMETHING ON THE BOOK QUICKLY. >> AGREED.

>> THAT IS WHY WE WANT TO MOVE THIS ALONG WITH THE RECOMMENDATION. WE ARE STRUGGLING, RIGHT NOW WE ARE HOLDING UP PERMITS FOR TREE REMOVAL ISSUES WHICH IS PRESERVING THE GREEN AREA OF THE FRONT YARD.

IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF AN ENGINEERING STANDARD.

ANOTHER SECTION THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE LANDSCAPING.

IT'S NOT A WEAK ARGUMENT BUT I WANT SOMETHING THAT DEALS WITH PAVEMENT. LIKE THIS IS HOW MUCH DRIVEWAY YOU CAN HAVE ON THE SMALLER LOT. MOST OF THESE, 50% OF THE FRONTAGE. WHEN YOU ARE IN PINETREE, THIS IS 375. THOSE PEOPLE WITH 50% OF THE FRONT YARD, THEY WON'T HAVE A PROBLEM MEETING THE STANDARDS.

IT IS WHETHER YOU WANT TO ASSUME THE WORST AND PUT A MAXIMUM ON IT. WHEN YOU DO THAT YOU HAVE TO SEE

[01:05:01]

IF YOU ARE GOING TO PUT A MAXIMUM ON IT.

THINK THAT IS THE ISSUE AT THE MOMENT.

THE MOMENT WE GET A 75-FOOT RUNWAY, I AM SURE WE WILL ADDRESS IT. WHEN WE ARE READY I AM IN FAVOR

OF MOVING THIS. >> OPENED IT UP TO THE PUBLIC.

>> SO, THE WAY THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN.

I HAVE SEEN SOME THINGS WERE AT HOME DEPOT, THEY HAVE TWO BY TWO CONCRETE PAVERS. IF SOMEONE MINED THESE PAPERS UP, CAN THEY SAY THAT IS WALKWAY AND IT DOESN'T COUNT.

I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE WIDENED THEIR DRIVEWAY, USING THOSE PAPERS.

>> I THINK THAT WILL BE A LITTLE SUBJECTIVE.

MY THEORY WOULD BE REVIEWING A PERMIT FOR THAT.

IS IT A VEHICULAR USE AREA, IT IS A DRIVING SURFACE.

IF YOU'RE DRIVEWAYS HERE AND THE WALKWAY IS 3 FEET AWAY IT IS

WALKING ACCESS. >> AND IT LOOKS TERRIBLE.

>> YOU CAN'T DEFER TO THE HOA. YOU CANNOT PREFERRED THAT TO THE

HOA. >> SOME HAVE BEEN SIGNING OFF THE ENTIRE FRONT YARD. WE HAVE HOA APPROVAL FOR SOME OF

THE LOTS. >> ALEX GO AHEAD.

>> PARKLAND BAY,. >> THE MENTION OF THE DRIVEWAY APSU FOR THE VEHICLE. YOU MENTIONED THAT.

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IN HERE? >> THE'S THE ORDINANCES TALKING ABOUT THE WIDTH OF THE STAR AND ACCESS TO A STALL IN EIGHT

DIFFERENT SECTION. >> WITH ALL OF THE GOLF CARTS IN THE CITY. YOU MENTIONED A SMALLER PIECE OF PAVEMENT. WHAT IF THEY SAY THEY WANT TO PARK THEIR GOLF CART THERE. WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO PAY THAT HATCH TO HAVE A LOW EMISSION VEHICLE WITH INSURANCE CRACKS

JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE. >> THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAD NOT

THOUGHT ABOUT. >> I WOULD SAY.

>> YOU WOULD PAVE A LITTLE. >> I WOULD SAY THAT MAY BE OKAY IF IT'S NOT BIG ENOUGH TO PARK A VEHICLE IN.

SO, A VEHICLE SPACE IS NOT BY 18 AND A GOLF CART, I WANT TO SEE SOMETHING SIX BY TEN, THAT A CAR WILL NOT FIT IN.

>> I LOVE THE ORDINANCE AND THE IDEA.

AND THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS FOR THE PIE SHAPED LOTS. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS THEM TO FOLLOW THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE, I WOULD BE

GOOD WITH THAT. >> I THINK WE DO NEED TO ADD A PROVISION FOR THAT. THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT.

>> I WILL OPEN UP THE ITEM TO THE PUBLIC IF THERE IS ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE AGENDA ITEM.

SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSER TO THE PUBLIC.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE CLARIFICATION AND A2B BACK REFERENCING, THE WIDTH, AND THE STAFF TOGETHER WOULD

COME UP WITH LANGUAGE. >> START OVER DAVID.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, IS THAT BETTER.

>> SUBJECT TO THE CLARIFICATION AND A2B TO CLARIFY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS DRIVEWAY WITH, A MAXIMUM OF 50% OF THE LOT

[01:10:03]

>> >> NOT CONFIRMING THE

CUL-DE-SAC. >> ARE YOU GETTING INTO THE

NONCONFORMING. >> THANK YOU.

IS THERE A SECOND TOO MOTION? >> MOTION BY DAVID PLEASE CALL

FOR THE VOTE. >>

>> TEAC (ROLL CALL). >> YOU HAVE MADE US VERY HAPPY.

[9. Comments from the Planning & Zoning Director ]

>> ITEM NINE THIS EVENING COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING AND

ZONING DIRECTOR. >> MORE COMMENTS.

>> LET'S SEE. JULY, IS NORMALLY WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR SUMMER BREAK. SO, WE WILL NOT HAVE A MEETING IN JULY AND WE WILL SEE YOU BACK ON AUGUST 11.

WE DO HAVE ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR THAT AGENDA.

WE MAY BRING TO YOU ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS, AND LET US SEE, WHAT ELSE. WE ARE WORKING ON A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS. WE WILL DEFINITELY HAVE A

[10. Comments from the Board ]

>> VERY GOOD, ANYONE ELSE WITH QUESTIONS?

>> I THINK I'VE ALREADY COVERED. DID WE OPEN THE TURF TO PUBLIC

COMMENT? >> WITH THAT BEING SAID IS THERE

A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT. >> MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>> THANK YOU. >> I WILL SAY THAT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.