[1. Call to Order]
[00:00:12]
>> EVERYBODY PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> ROLL CALL PLEASE. >> JORDANA GOLDSTEIN.
FABIO RODRIQUEZ AND VICE-CHAIR AND MURRAY KAPLAN.
[4. Approval of Minutes]
IS THERE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR APRIL 9TH, 2026.>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION. >> I WILL SECOND.
>> MOTION BY TODD, SECONDED BY ÚDEREK.
CALL FOR THE VOTE. >> JOEL KAPLAN.
>> YES. >> CHAIR MURRAY KAPLAN.
>> YES. THANK YOU MOTION CARRIES, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES CARRIES -- ZWEIG.
SEEING NOBODY IN THE AUDIENCE CLOSE IT.
[6. Comments by the Chair]
COMMENTS ARE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY AND WELCOME TO LUBA,[7. Approval of the Agenda]
WELCOME. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THIS EVENING'S AGENDA FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING, A, B, C, D.>> (INAUDIBLE). >> IS THERE A MOTION FOR THE
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. >> MOTION.
>> MOTION BY JOEL. IS THERE A SECOND.
SECONDED BY JORDANA. CALL FOR THE VOTE.
>> ANONYMOUS. >> CALL FOR THE VOTE.
>> DEREK BIXBY. CHAIR MURRAY ZWE GIFT.
[8.A. Ordinance 2026-007: Administrative Platting]
>> YES, VERY GOOD. NOW OPEN PUBLIC HEARING, 8 A, JUST FOR THE RECORD WE'LL HEAR THESE INDIVIDUALLY.
JUST TO CONFIRM. >> YES, MR. CHAIR.
>> ALL RIGHT PUBLIC HEARING 8 A ORDINANCE 2026-007 ADMINISTRATIVE PLATTING. IN ORDER DANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND, FLORIDA AMENDING CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 30 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES AND ARTICLE 45 PLATTING AND SUBDIVISIONS TO PROVIDE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF PLATTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 177.071 FLORIDA STATUTES, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND EFFECTIVE
>> THANK YOU. THE FIRST ITEMS CONSIDER TONIGHT ARE ITEMS THAT EFFECTIVELY THE STATE IS REQUIRING US TO CONSIDER AND PASS. SO THE FIRST ITEM BEFORE YOU WILL BE PLATTING, THEN THE NEXT TWO ITEMS THAT ARE ALSO STATE MANDATED. WE'LL GO THROUGH THESE.
LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AT THE END.
THEY ARE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD FOR THE MOST PART, AND LIKE I SAID UNFORTUNATELY DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH DISTRESS HOW WE WRITE THESE ORDINANCES. WE'LL START WITH PLATTING.
RECENTLY THE STATE AMENDED THE PLATT WILLING PROCESS THAT THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES ARE REQUIRED OR ALLOWED TO FOLLOW.
SO THAT WAS A REVISION TO CHAPTER 177 OF THE STATE STATUTES AND WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO GOING FORWARD THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE APPROVAL PROCESS. IT HAS TO BE ADMINISTRATIVE.
THIS IS INTENDED TO MAKE THE PROCESS FASTER AND EXPEDITED FOR THE DEVELOPERS. UNFORTUNATELY THOSE WILL NO LONGER COME BEFORE YOU, NOR THE CITY COMMISSION.
SO THAT'S WHAT THE STATE IS TELLING US WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
WE DON'T GET TOO MANY PLATTS IN THE CITY.
NOT LIKE YOU WERE SEEING A LOT OF THESE.
IN THE PAST THEY WERE COMING BEFORE YOU AS WELL AS THE CITY COMMISSION. SO THERE IS TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WE HAVE TO AMEND ACCORDINGLY. AS PART OF THAT PROCESS I MENTIONED THESE ALL BECOME ADMINISTRATIVE.
THERE IS NO ACTION BY THE PNZ OR CITY COMMISSION AND CERTAIN TIMELINES AND ACTIONS THE STAFF HAVE TO TAKE AS WE REVIEW AND
[00:05:03]
PROCESS THESE APPLICATIONS. HERE'S THE PROCESS THAT WE FOLLOWED BEFORE. AS YOU CAN SEE AT THE BOTTOM WE DID THE IN TAKE DRC AND THEN WENT THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS. THE CONCEPT OF THESE TWO ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES AND OFFICIALS, THE TOP TWO BOXES.HAVE TO DESIGNATE THESE TWO FIGUREHEADS ALMOST, THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY IS WHO IN-TAKES AND REVIEWS THE PLATT, AND THEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WHO SIGNS OFF ON THE PLATT. VERY TECHNICAL IN NATURE.
THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT WILL BE DESIGNATED AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY. SO THAT WILL BE CARLOS, PLANNING, ENGINEERING, WILL CONTINUE TO REVIEW AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR DRC PROCESS, AND THEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AT THE BACK END OF THE PROCESS WOULD BE THE CITY MANAGER OR NANCY. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT SIGN OFF ON THE PLATT AT THE END. TECHNICAL REVIEW REMAINS THE SAME. GETTING ALL THE VETTING AT THE STAFF LEVEL, BEING REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH COMP PLAN AND LDC. THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGES IS HOW THAT GETS APPROVED. I MENTIONED THERE IS SOME TIMELINES THAT WE ARE HELD TO. DO HAVE THESE NEW SEVEN DAY ACKNOWLEDGMENT STEP ONCE WE DO THE IN-TAKE ALMOST LIKE A SUFFICIENCY REVIEW. HAVE TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT THEY ARE MISSING AND WHAT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE, ONCE THEY DO THAT RESUBMIT AND GO THROUGH THE STANDARD DRC PROCESS.
FORTUNATELY OR UNFORTUNATELY DEPENDING WHETHER YOU ARE THE APPLICANT OR COUNTY, MAINTAIN OUR TWO-STEP RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNTY. THE PROCESS KIND OF LOOKS LIKE A BOOK-ENDED PROCESS. YOU START AT THE CITY LEVEL.
ONCE THE CITY HAS GIVEN ITS PRELIMINARY APPROVAL WHAT WE CALL IT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THEN YOU GO TO THE COUNTY AND COME BACK FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
THE FINAL APPROVAL IS DOTTING IS, CROSSING TS MAKING SURE NOT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES AT THE COUNTY ONCE THE COUNTY GETS INTO THE PROCESS. IF THEY WANTED TO CHANGE DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS OR SOMETHING ELSE THROUGH THEIR REVIEW PROCESS, WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT IT'S STILL CONSISTENT WITH OUR REGULATIONS AND OUR COMP PLAN AND WHAT WE APPROVED DURING THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL. AND THAT -- HERE'S OUR PROCESS HERE. DOTTING IS, CROSSING TS AT THE BACK END AND SUMMARIZING WHAT CHANGED, WHAT STAYED THE SAME.
BUT ESSENTIALLY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS WILL SAVE YOU A COUPLE OF REVIEWS ON PLATTS GOING FORWARD.
LIKE I SAID WE DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH LATITUDE HOW WE CRAFT THIS ORDINANCE BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU DO HAVE
>> I HAVE DONE THE OLD WAY. DONE THE NEW WAY.
THE NEW WAY IS BETTER. >> JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLATT AND SITE PLAN, SITE PLAN SOMETIMES COME IN WHEN THERE IS NOT A PLATT THAT'S BEEN
COMPLETED, IS THAT CORRECT? >> ANY PROPERTY THAT IS REQUIRED TO PLATT OR AMEND, SITE PLAN APPROVAL WOULD BE CONTINGENT UPON RECOMMENDATION OR APPROVAL OF A NODE AMENDMENT OR PLATT.
>> WHO REVIEWS THAT BECAUSE THE COUNTY DOESN'T TYPICALLY REVIEW
THE SITE PLAN. >> THE SITE PLAN LIES WHOLLY WITHIN THE CITY. IF WE ARE PROCESSING AN APPLICATION IT'S NOT UNUSUAL TO HAVE A PLATT AND SITE PLAN MOVE TOGETHER. IN THIS CASE THE PL AT WOULD HAVE TO BE RECORDED OR NOTE APPROVED AND RECORDED AND THEN THE SITE PLAN WOULD BE CONTINGENT OR HELD BACK IN ABEYANCE UNTIL THAT ACTION AT THE PLAT LEVEL IS TAKEN.
>> DONE ELECTRONICALLY NOW I BET.
>> A LOT OF CITIES ARE MOVING THAT WAY, THAT'S FOR SURE.
>> I GOT A PLAT SIGN OUTSIDE SOMEBODY'S DOOR AT THE COUNTY WAITING FOR THEM TO COME TO WORK BACK IN THE DAY.
THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. IS THERE A MOTION? BEFORE WE DO THAT, EXCUSE ME, AGAIN +FOR THE RECORD, I DON'T SEE ANYBODY -- DON'T SEE ANYBODY HERE FROM THE PUBLIC, BUT I WILL OPEN UP THE AGENDA ITEM TO THE PUBLIC IN CASE SOMEBODY E-MAILED OR CALLED OR WROTE AND SEEING NONE I WILL NOW CLOSE IT TO THE
PUBLIC AT THIS TIME. >> MOTION.
SECONDED BY DEREK. CALL FOR THE VOTE PLEASE.
[00:10:01]
[8.B. Ordinance 2026-008: Residential Compatibility]
CHAIR MURRAY ZWEIG. >> CARRIES.
THANK YOU. READ 8 B INTO THE RECORD.
ORDINANCE 2026-008, RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF CITY OF PARKLAND, FLORIDA, AMENDING CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE 20 GENRAL PROVISIONS TO INCLUDE FACTORS FOR ASSESSING COMPATIBILITY OF ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND MEASURES FOR MITIGATING POTENTIAL INCOMPATIBILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 163.3194 (7), FLORIDA STATUTES, PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL, CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND RECERTIFICATION, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. KATELYN, UP AGAIN.
>> CAME OUT OF HOUSE BILL 399, PERTAINS TO DETERMINING RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY. AND THE PROCESS THAT THE CITIES HAVE TO GO THROUGH IF YOU WERE TO DENY AN APPLICATION BASED ON THE CONCEPT OF COMPATIBILITY. WE DO HAVE TO HAVE THIS LANGUAGE IN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
YOU WILL SEE CHANCE CHANGES TO OUR FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AS WELL AS AN EXISTING SECTION IN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT COMPATIBILITY AND THE LANGUAGE THAT IS REQUIRED, REQUIRED TO BE ENSTATED BY JANUARY 1 OF NEXT YEAR, WHY WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS AT THIS POINT.
SO WE'LL GO THROUGH WHAT THAT MEANS.
LIKE I SAID VERY TO PUT THIS IN OUR COMP PLAN AND LDRS.
HAVE TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND WHAT KIND OF FACTORS CAN BE CONSIDERED WHEN DETERMINING RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY. ON TOP OF THAT, IN ADDITION WHAT AN APPLICANT COULD POTENTIALLY DO TO MITIGATE INCOMPATIBILITY.
SO THIS IS ALL -- THIS ALL COMES INTO EFFECT WHEN AN APPLICATION IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR PROPERTIES THAT HAVE THE SAME FUTURE LAND USE AND THE SAME ZONING THAT ABUT EACH OTHER.
SO THINK OF AN R-3 LAND USE WITH AN RS-3 ZONING THAT'S BUILT OUT, AND SOME PORTION OF THE CITY, THERE IS A VACANT PROPERTY NEXT TO IT THAT HAS THE SAME LAND USE AND SAME ZONING.
YOU CAN NO LONGER USE CERTAIN CONCEPTS LIKE YOU WILL SEE IN THE STATUTE OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER OR NEIGHBOURHOOD FEEL AS A REASON FOR DENYING A PROJECT.
IT HAS TO BE MORE SPECIFIC AND NUANCED IN TERMS OF HOW THE STAFF IS DETERMINING COMPATIBILITY AS OPPOSED TO THESE MORE AND MORE FIXED THERMOMETERS MAY HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN RELIED ON THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS.
>> (INAUDIBLE). >> AT LEAST CAN'T DENY SOLELY ON
THAT BASIS. >> IS IT JUST DIFFERENT WORDING
OR MAKING IT HARDER? >> LET'S GO THROUGH.
LET'S GO THROUGH AND GET TO OUR...
>> LIKE I MENTIONED AMENDING EXISTING POLICY IN FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT WHICH TALKED ABOUT COMPATIBILITY BUT HAVE TO ADD THIS LANGUAGE THAT TALKS ABOUT WHAT ARE WE CONSIDERING WHEN WE ARE DETERMINING WHETHER A PROJECT IS OR ISN'T COMPATIBLE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAME THING BUT YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR MITIGATION MEASURES. WE AMEND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 21.90 WHICH TALKS ABOUT COMPATIBILITY.
JUST HAVE TO SUPPLEMENT IT. THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT THE ORDINANCE INCLUDES THAT THE CITY COULD CONSIDER FOR DETERMINING COMPATIBILITY, IS NOT A LIMITING LIST, ON THE SCREEN HERE.
THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS FROM DENSITY TO THE LOT TYPOLOGY, MEANING THE LOT SIZE AND LAYOUT, THINGS LIKE BUFFERING AND SETBACKS, THE HEIGHTENED SCALE.
SO WE HAVE A PRETTY HOLISTIC LIST OF THINGS THAT WE CAN CONSIDER. AGAIN, IT'S NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST. THERE IS OTHER THINGS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO DETERMINE COMPATIBILITY.
BUT THESE WERE THE GENERALIZED LIST THAT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH IN TERMS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.
AND THEN MOVING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH AS WE KNOW IMPLEMENTS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME OF THESE MITIGATION OPTIONS. THE MITIGATION OPTIONS AGAIN ARE NOT COMPLETELY LISTED OUT, NOT EXHAUSTIVE.
GIVE EXAMPLES WHAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR MITIGATION AND THEN WE ALSO DO HAVE TO NOTE SPECIFICALLY AGAIN THAT COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND NEIGHBOURHOOD FEEL CAN'T BE A SUFFICIENT BASIS ALONE TO DENY A PROJECT ON COMPATIBILITY.
SO IN SUMMARY, AGAIN, WE HAVE TO INCLUDE THESE FACTORS WITHIN
[00:15:01]
BOTH THE COMP AND THE CODE SO THAT'S WHAT'S CHANGING.ABILITY TO EVALUATE PROJECTS HOLISTICALLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE ISN'T CHANGING. MAINTAIN OUR ABILITY TO REVIEW FACTORS IN COMPLIANCE WITH REGS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
JUST NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC ON A DENIAL GOING FORWARD.
IN TERMS OF THIS APPLICATION'S PROCESS MOVING FORWARD, OBVIOUSLY IT'S HERE BEFORE THE BOARD TONIGHT.
GO BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION. THEN IT GOES, BECAUSE THIS IS A COMPRHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT IN ADDITION TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, GOES TO THE STATE FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT AND COMES BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION BEFORE IT WRAPS UP ITS PROCESS WITH THE STATE WITH 31-DAY REVIEW PERIOD.
THEN WE HAVE TO RECERTIFY FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AT BROWARD COUNTY. A LITTLE BIT OF A TIME CONSUMING PROCESS WHICH IS WHY WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD THE AMENDMENT NOW SO IT CAN BE IN PLACE FOR JANUARY 1ST.
AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH LATITUDE ON THIS ONE.
TELL US PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE HAVE TO INCLUDE IN TERMS OF THE LANGUAGE AND WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T CONSIDER.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU GOT THEM.
>> SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND LIKE KATELYN SAID, IT'S
STATE MANDATED, SO... >> I'M GOOD, THANK YOU.
>> ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, LIKE MONOTONY, SECTION OF MONOTONY IN CODE, THAT'S GENERAL -- WHAT'S DETERMINED AS MONOTONOUS.
>> ANTI-MONOTONY PROVISIONS. >> IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS PRETTY BROAD. THINGS IN OUR CODE CURRENTLY THAT'S SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, CAN'T HAVE TWO HOUSES THAT ARE GARAGE RIGHTS WITH THE SAME ELEVATION AND THERE IS VERY SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF WHAT AND HOW SOMETHING CAN'T BE DONE.
THAT'S SITE SELECTION. THAT'S DOWN THE ROAD FROM THIS.
>> THAT'S SEPARATE AND THAT WILL REMAIN.
WE ARE STILL ALLOWED TO ENFORCE THAT.
>> THOSE THINGS WE SAID. >> RESIDENTIAL LAND USE RIGHT NEXT TO MY ADJACENT PROPERTY. I HAVE A RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.
WE HAVE THE SAME ZONING. WHY DENYING ME BASED ON THE
COMPATIBILITY. >> LIKE THE KEY WEST COMMUNITY.
THE KEY WEST COMMUNITY. IN HERON BAY, WAS IT.
WHERE IT WAS THE SAME -- DIFFERENT WHERE FINISHES OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE RESIDENCES. THAT WAS A BIG TO DO.
THAT WAS BIG ISSUE WHICH WAS APPROVED.
OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOTION BY JORDANA. JOEL SECOND.
CALL FOR THE VOTE. >> JOEL KAPLAN.
>> YES. >> CHAIR MURRAY ZWEIG.
[8.C. Ordinance 2026-009: Water Supply Plan Update]
>> YES. MOTION CARRIES, THANK YOU.
I WILL READ IN ITEM C ORDINANCE 2026-009, WATER SUPPLY PLAN UPDATE. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND, FLORIDA ADOPTING THE CITY OF PARKLAND TEN YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN UPDATE AND AMENDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT TO REFLECT THE AMENDED WATER SUPPLY PLAN, PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
KATELYN. >> THIS IS OUR LAST STATE REQUIRED UPDATE THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT TONIGHT.
BACK IN 2024, IN SEPTEMBER OF 2024, WATER MANAGEMENT UPDATED THEIR SUPPLY PLAN. AND AS A MUNICIPALITY REQUIRED TO UPDATE OUR PLAN WHENEVER THEY UPDATE THEIRS.
AS YOU KNOW WE DON'T PROVIDE ANY CITY-OWNED WATER OR WASTEWATER FACILITIES. SO THIS EXERCISE IS LARGELY ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATING WITH OUR WATER SUPPLIERS AND UPDATING SOME FIGURES AND PROJECTIONS, POPULATION NUMBERS AND MAKING SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS UPDATED IN THE REGIONAL PLANS ARE CARRIED OVER INTO OUR PLANS. SO THERE IS NOTHING REALLY SUBSTANTIVELY THAT CHANGED BECAUSE WE DON'T PROVIDE OUR OWN WATER. BUT THIS IS MOSTLY JUST AN EXERCISE IN CONSISTENCY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CARRYING OVER MORE OF THE REGIONAL GOALS AND TAKING THE TIME TO UPDATE SOME OF THOSE FIGURES AND DATA THAT'S WITHIN OUR PLAN.
SO AN OVERALL SENSE, THE WORK PLAN HAS TO ADDRESS THESE TYPES OF THINGS, PROJECTED DEMAND, YOUR SUPPLY SOURCES, WHERE YOU ARE GETTING YOUR WATER FROM, HOW MUCH YOU ARE PERMITTED FOR, THE TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT YOU WILL UNDERTAKE IN THE FUTURE IN TERMS OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE MEETING
[00:20:02]
THAT DEMAND, AND THEN IMPORTANTLY, FOR THE REGIONAL AREA HOW YOU ARE CONSERVING AND RE-USING WATER.AGAIN, SINCE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE OUR OWN FACILITIES, WE ARE NOT PROVIDING IT, WE LOOK TO THE SERVICE PROVIDERS LIKE COCONUT CREEK, PARKLAND UTILITIES. WE HAVE PROPERTIES STILL ON WELLS BUT COORDINATED WITH THOSE OWNERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DATA THAT WE UPDATED IS ACCURATE.
SO THESE ARE THE TYPES OF REGIONAL CONDITIONS AND FACTORS THAT ARE LOOKED AT IN THE REGIONAL PLAN.
SO YOU PROBABLY HEARD ABOUT SALTWATER INTRUSION AND THE AQUIFERS AND WELLFIELD PROTECTIONS, ALL OF THESE GOOD TYPES OF TERMS UP ON THE SCREEN ARE THINGS THEY ARE CONSIDERING IN THE REGIONAL PLAN, AND JUST GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE UPDATING OUR GOALS TO BE CONSISTENT.
SO AS PART OF THE WORK PLAN UPDATE, WE ADOPT OUR WATER SUPPLY PLAN THROUGH OUR INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT THROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT SO FOLLOW A SIMILAR PROCESS.
I WILL RUN THROUGH THE SLIDE AT THE END IN TERMS OF APPROVAL.
WE ARE JUST UPDATING THE ADOPTED DATE WITHIN THE POLICY 4.3.3 WHICH IS OUR INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT THERE.
WE MAINTAIN THE PLANNING PERIOD AND THE UPDATE CYCLES ALREADY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THOSE DON'T CHANGE.
JUST UPDATING THE DATE REFERENCE.
AND IN TERMS OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS THIS LOOKS FAMILIAR FROM THE LAST ITEM THAT WE CONSIDER, THIS HAS TO GO UP TO THE STATE AND BACK TO CITY COMMISSION FOR SECOND READING.
SO THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A TIME PERIOD IN BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING, BUT OVERALL THE APPLICATION PROCESS WILL GO TO COMMISSION STATE BACK TO COMMISSION AND THEN IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE. WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. BUT SINCE WE DON'T PROVIDE OUR OWN WATER MOSTLY JUST LOOKING FOR COORDINATION WITH THE SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UPDATED BASED ON THEIR INFORMATION.
>> TWO RELATIVELY SIMPLE QUESTIONS.
YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER.
I DID SCROLL THROUGH EVERYTHING. I FOUND THE POPULATION NUMBERS A LITTLE INTERESTING. KIND OF GREW A LITTLE BIT.
BUT THEN DECADES FROM NOW IT DECLINES.
SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS INTERESTING.
I DON'T KNOW WHY. DECLINED NOT TREMENDOUSLY, EITHER DECLINE OR SMALL INCREASE.
WHEN THEY DO THAT, THAT'S TAKING IN EFFECT EVEN UNDEVELOPED LAND THAT COULD POTENTIALLY GET DEVELOPED IS THAT HOW THEY GET THOSE NUMBERS. NO? LIKE HENDRIX FORM, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S CONSIDERED.
>> I SEE THAT WE GO FROM IN 2025, 39, ABOUT 45, 49, 53 AND
57 BASED ON THE HOUSING. >> MAYBE I READ THE NUMBERS
WRONG THEN, I'M SORRY. >> A LOT OF STRIKE THROUGH AND UNDERLINE, SO COULD BE CONFUSING.
>> ONLY OTHER THING I THOUGHT OF, I LIVED IN THE AREA FOR MANY, MANY YEARS AND NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT UNTIL GOING THROUGH THIS, OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T HAVE OUR OWN WATER, AND I DON'T KNOW, IS THERE A STRATEGIC REASON WHY WE DON'T? AND IS THAT -- DOES THAT PUT US AT A STRATEGIC DISADVANTAGE OR RISK, ESPECIALLY AS WE GROW THAT LARGE TO NOT HAVE OUR OWN WATER AND RELYING ON OTHER MUNICIPALITIES?
>> IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR A LOT OF THE BROWARD CITIES TO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN WATER SUPPLIER OR FACILITY.
A LOT OF TIMES THEY WILL PARTNER WITH NEIGHBOURING CITIES IF THEY DO OR THE PRIVATE ENTITIES. WE ARE CERTAINLY NOT ALONE.
I'M SURE COST EXPENDITURES AND THINGS HISTORICALLY THAT WENT INTO IT. NOT UNIQUE NOT HAVING OUR OWN SERVICE. I WOULD PROBABLY SAY FEWER CITIES HAVE THEIR OWN WATER THAN DO.
>> THANK YOU. >> PROBABLY ARGUE THERE IS PLUSES AND MINUSES TO HAVING YOUR OWN WATER UTILITY AND NOT
HAVING YOUR OWN WATER UTILITY. >> I HAVE MY OWN WATER UTILITY
EXCEPT IF THE POWER GOES OUT. >> OBVIOUSLY, WHEN PARKLAND WAS FOUNDED, PROBABLY 99% IF NOT ALL WAS ON WELL AND SEPTIC, RIGHT.
I'M JUST THINKING AS WE DEVELOP, THE PENDULUM SWUNG PROBABLY TREMENDOUSLY THE OTHER WAY. I'M JUST CURIOUS.
I WORKED FOR A CITY MANY YEARS AGO.
AND WE ACTUALLY SOLD OFF THE WATER TO THE COUNTY.
SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW THE STRATEGIC REASONS WERE.
>> EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE. >> I KNOW IT'S EXPENSIVE.
BUT ALSO YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER YOUR OWN WATER SUPPLY AT THAT POINT. THANK YOU.
>> ANY QUESTIONS. >> NO QUESTION.
>> MY ONLY QUESTION BECAUSE OF THE WAY THIS IS PRESENTED I WOULD MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT SINCE IT'S CURRENT, EVERY CITY IS HAVING TO ADOPT THE SAME STANDARDS AND UPGRADES TO THEIR
[00:25:06]
ORDINANCES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, IS THAT ACCURATE?>> YES. WHEN SOUTH WATER FLORIDA UPDATES WE HAVE TO UPDATE OURS, COUNTIES AND REGIONAL PLANS AND GOALS
THEY ESTABLISH IN THEIR PLAN. >> AS DO OTHER LOCAL BROWARD
MUNICIPALITIES. >> EVERY BROWARD MUNICIPALITY IS REQUIRED TO UPDATE THEIRS. ALL IN THE SAME BOAT.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECONDED BY.
>> I WILL SECOND IT. >> CALL FOR THE VOTE PLEASE.
>> CHAIR MURRAY ZWEIG. YES, THANK YOU.
[8.D. Ordinance 2026-010: Modified Parking Standards]
I WILL READ D, ORDINANCE 2026-010, MODIFIED PARKING STANDARDS. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND, FLORIDA AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 90 OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING TO MODIFY DIMENSIONAL PARKING STANDARDS AND RELATED VEHICULAR USE AREA INTERIOR LANDSCAPING STANDARDS, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY AND CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. KATELYN.>> BEST FOR LAST. END ON A HIGH NOTE.
NOT STATE MANDATED BUT TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR AWHILE AS A CITY.
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AS FIRST STEP FOR PNZ AND THEN CITY COMMISSION FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ALTHOUGH BEEN DISCUSSING THIS FOR AWHILE NOW AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL AS WELL.
SO JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND ON OUR EXISTING STANDARDS, SOME OF YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR, EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS ARE A MINIMUM OF TEN BY 20 SPACE AND RESIDENTIAL PARKING MINIMUM OF 9 BY 20 SPACE. AT THE ADA LEVEL, THE SPACES ARE TWELVE FEET BY 20 FEET BUT OBVIOUSLY ALSO HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH FLORIDA BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS, IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE STANDARD PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS, THIS IS PRETTY OVERSIZED WHEN YOU GO AND VISIT OTHER BROWARD COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES, WHEN YOU LOOK THROUGH THEIR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THEN ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE NONRESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACES, THE TEN BY 20 IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN A LOT OF THE OTHER CITIES STANDARD SPACES AND EVEN MORE SO FOR CITIES THAT ALLOW FOR COMPACT SPACES.
ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN IS OUR EXISTING LANDSCAPE ISLAND STANDARDS. SO THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS LIVE WITHIN THE OVERALL PARKING LOT. THE IDEA TO BREAK UP THE STRINGS OR ROWS OF THE PARKING SPACES. FOR AS STET PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE BUT ALSO DRAINAGE PERSPECTIVE.
MAKE SURE WE GOT SOME GREEN SPACES OUT THERE AND ASPHALT AS WELL. CURRENTLY THE REQUIREMENT LANDSCAPE ISLANDS ARE NO FURTHER THAN EVERY -- ON AN AVERAGE OF EVERY TEN SPACES. CAN GO FURTHER THAN TEN SPACES AS LONG AS ON AVERAGE ACROSS THE SITE NO MORE THAN EVERY TEN.
SO WHAT ARE WE PROPOSING? WE ARE PROPOSING SOME DIMENSIONAL FLEXIBILITY IN VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES.
WE ARE LOOKING AT PROPOSING A MINIMUM OF 9 BY 18 STALL FOR WHAT WE CALL ELIGIBLE PRINCIPAL USES AND THOSE ARE LISTED ON THE NEXT SLIDE. BUT I WILL GIVE YOU A SNEAK PEEK. THOSE ARE GOING TO BE BASICALLY SCHOOLS, EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND PLACES OF WORSHIP. SO IT'S NOT A WHOLE SCALE, WHOLESALE REDUCTION ACROSS THE BOARD FOR OUR PARKING SPACES.
ALL THE SHOPPING CENTRES. ANYTHING THAT ISN'T A PLACE OF WORSHIP OR EDUCATIONAL VOCAOING TO STAY AT THE TEN BY 20 UNLESS THEY CAME IN FOR A VARIANCE.
JUST LOOKING AT THOSE TWO USES FROM TEN BY 20 TO 9 BY 18.
BUT IMPORTANTLY STILL SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF AND AT CITY COMMISSION DISCRETION. JUST BECAUSE YOU ASK FOR IT ON ONE OF THOSE TWO USES, THE SCHOOLS ARE THE PLACES OF WORSHIP, DOESN'T MEAN YOU AUTOMATICALLY GET IT.
STAFF HAS TO LOOK AT IT AND MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION BASED ON FACTORS LIKE DRAINAGE AND OVERALL AESTHETICS.
AREN'T THINGS WE ARE WILLING TO FOREGO IN EVERY INSTANCE AND WANT TO MAKE SURE STILL MEETING OUR OVERALL INTENT FROM OUR BOARD PERSPECTIVE AND FROM A DRAINAGE PERSPECTIVE.
TO GO HAND IN HAND WITH THAT, WE ARE ALSO CONSIDERING ALLOWING FOR A TRANSITION FROM THE PAVEMENT AT FRONT TWO FEET OF THE PARKING SPACE TO LANDSCAPE. SO I WILL SHOW YOU WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE ON A FIGURE ON A SLIDE COMING UP.
[00:30:01]
BUT ESSENTIALLY AT FRONT -- AT THE FRONT OF THE PARKING STALL AS YOU PULL IN, WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE A WHEEL STOP, THERE WOULD BE A CONSIDERATION AND ALLOWANCE FOR THAT TO BE REPLACED WITH A CONTINUOUS CURB, AND HAVE LANDSCAPE IN FRONT OF THAT INSTEAD. SO FUNCTIONALLY YOU DON'T LOSE ANY DEPTH. BUT WE DO GAIN AREA AT THE FRONT. AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE, WE WOULD ALSO PROPOSE TO INCREASE THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND SPACING TO GO ALONG WITH THE REVISED DIMENSIONS, AS PARTICULARLY AS IT PERTAINS TO THE WIDTH.BUT AGAIN THAT DOESN'T COME BY RIGHT.
THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDATION BY THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE ARBORIST AND ENGINEER AND AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COMMISSION. SO HERE IS THE SNEAK PEEK THAT I PROMISED YOU. THE ELIGIBLE PRINCIPAL USES AND LIKE I MENTIONED, THIS ISN'T BY RIGHT.
YOU DO NEED THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, DISCRETION OF CITY COMMISSION. THERE IS A COUPLE OF OTHER KIND OF PROTECTIVE BARRIERS ON THIS. THE PARKING THAT IS POTENTIAL TOLY BEING MODIFIED HAS TO SERVE ELIGIBLE PRINCIPAL USE ON ITS OWN FEE SIMPLE PROPERTY. SO IF YOU ARE A CHURCH IN A STRIP CENTRE OR IN A SHOPPING CENTRE, WHICH YOU MIGHT SEE MORE IN OTHER CITIES, NOT SO MUCH IN PARKLAND, YOU COULDN'T HAVE SHARED COMMON PARKING SPACES TO HAVE A CHURCH WITHIN YOURPEN- SHOPPING CENTRE BECAUSE THOSE ARE SHARED FOR OTHER USES THAT AREN'T CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE PRINCIPAL USE.
FOR SINGLE USE PROPERTIES MEANING YOU HAVE GOT ONE FIVE ACRE SITE WITH A CHURCH ON IT OR FIVE ACRE SITE WITH A SCHOOL ON IT AND NO OTHER USES. HERE'S THE FIGURES AND PROGRAMS THAT WILL HELP EXPLAIN THIS HERE.
SO ON THE LEFT WE GOT THE EXISTING STANDARDS, THE TEN BY 20 PARKING STALL FOR NONRESIDENTIAL WITH WHEEL STOP TWO FEET IN FRONT OF THE BACK OF THE STALL.
ON THE RIGHT IS WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE, IT'S JUST A STANDARD ALTERNATIVE 18 FEET OF OVERALL DEPTH, 16 FEET AHEAD OF THE TWO FOOT WHEEL STOP SETBACKS, SO YOU HAVE GOT THE BACK OF THE STALL.
YOU HAVE GOT TWO FEET FORWARD OF THE WHEEL STOP, AND 16 FEET OF USABLE DEPTH BEFORE YOUR WHEELS WILL HIT THAT WHEEL STOP.
SO THAT GIVES US OUR 9 BY 18 THAT WE ARE PROPOSING.
AND THEN THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE I WAS EXPLAINING, FUNCTIONALLY, AGAIN, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. YOU STILL END UP WITH THE 16 FEET OF PAVEMENT. IT'S JUST WHAT HAPPENS FORWARD OF YOUR FRONT TIRES ON YOUR CAR. INSTEAD OF BECOMING -- INSTEAD OF IT JUST BEING KIND OF THIS ALMOST WASTED ASPHALT SPACE, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GAIN MORE OF THAT AREA AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT TRADING THAT WHEEL STOP FOR THE CONTINUOUS CURVE AND THE PAVEMENT FOR THE LANDSCAPE.
THIS DOES TWO THINGS. WHILE RETAINING THE FUNCTIONAL DEPTH AND USABLE AREA, IT REDUCES TRIPPING HAZARDS BECAUSE THOSE WHEEL STOPS OFTENTIMES BECOME -- THEY CRUMBLE, AND THEY END UP IN DISREPAIR AND CREATE TRIPPING HAZARDS BUT WE ALSO GAIN THAT PERVOUS AREA. WHEN YOU LOOK THROUGH ALL THE COUNTY CITIES, MORE CITIES THAN NOT HAVE SOMETHING CLOSER TO 9 BY 18 RATHER THAN 10 BY 20 FOR RESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACES.
A LOT OF THEM ALSO HAVE THE CONCEPT OF COMPACT PARKING SPACES WHICH ARE EVEN SMALLER. THIS ISN'T AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST BUT WANTED TO PUT SOME UP ON THE SCREEN SO YOU CAN SEE.
CORAL SPRINGS ACTUALLY REQUIRES THE 16-FOOT STALL WITH TWO FOOT LANDSCAPE OVERHANG BECAUSE THAT PERVOUS AREA, IF YOU ARE DRIVING AROUND IN THE COUNTY USED TO PARKING IN SOMETHING MORE LIKE A 9 BY 8. PLACES THAT YOU HAVE DRIVEN TO SHOP OR GO OUT TO EAT. LIKE I SAID CERTAINLY EXHIBIT EXHAUSTIVE. MORE CITIES THAN NOT CLOSER TO THAT 9 BY 18. MOVING ON TO THE SECOND PIECE OF THIS, THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND, AGAIN, I MENTIONED THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SPACES TO GO -- TO COINCIDE WITH THE INCREASE -- THE DECREASE IN THE REQUIRED WIDTH OF THE PARKING SPACES. INSTEAD OF AN AVERAGE OF TEN, AVERAGE OF 15 SPACES, AGAIN SUBJECT TO THE LANDSCAPE ARBORIST AND CITY ENGINEER DEMONSTRATING THAT THERE IS NO
[00:35:02]
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON DRAINAGE OR STORMWATER RETENTION AND HOW THAT ALL OPERATES, DISCRETION OF COURSE, AND NONE OF THIS IS BY RIGHT WE JUST ESTABLISHED THESE TWO ELIGIBLE USES THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THESE REDUCED SIZES AND THIS HELPS US PROVIDES THE DEVELOPERS, PROPERTY OWNERS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES WHILE INCREASING PERVOUS AREA AND GENERALLY MAINTAINING CONSISTENCY WITH THE SURROUNDIN% COMMUNITIES THAT WE ALREADY DRIVE IN AND FAMILIAR WITH. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM AS WELL.>> JUST ONE. SO THE OTHER CITIES THAT YOU MENTIONED, THEIR CODE IS THAT STRICTLY FOR RESTRICTED USE LIKE SCHOOLS, OR IS THAT JUST ACROSS THE BOARD OF THE COMMERCIAL --
>> THEY DON'T LIMIT THEIRS IN THE SAME WAY.
THAT'S JUST GENERAL NONRESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACE.
>> WE WOULD BE MORE STRINGENT. >> NOT DOING THE WHOLESALE REDUCTION. ALL SHOPPING CENTRES 10 BY 20 NOT THOSE TWO USES WILL BE 10 BY 20.
MOVING THE NEEDLE A LITTLE BIT BUT NOT QUITE AS FAR AS THE
>> LIMITING TO THE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND HOUSES OF WORSHIP. IS THERE AN ISSUE WITH THE AMOUNT OF PARKING. IS THAT WHY WE ARE CONSIDERING -- IS THAT A PROBLEM?
>> SO WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HELP THOSE USES THAT HAVE HIGH TRAFFIC FROM THE CHURCH PERSPECTIVE, GENERALLY HIGHER TRAFFIC BUT ON A LIMITED NUMBER OF DAYS.
SO DON'T WANT TO ADD ALL THIS INPERVOUS AREA WHEN USING ONLY ONE OR TWO DAYS A WEEK, FROM THE SCHOOL PERSPECTIVE WANT TO MAKE SURE PROVIDING THE WILL NOT LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT'S EXPECTED IN PARKLAND CERTAINLY SO THAT WE COULD GET MORE STUDENTS PARKED ON SITE. WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT PARENTS
WANT. >> BACK OF STUFF THAT'S FINE.
I THINK THAT'S GREAT. CITY WITH TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF LARGE SUVS. I HOPE DOESN'T ADD MORE CHURCH ACCIDENTS AND SCHOOL ACCIDENTS, DINGS.
THANK YOU. >> FUNNY YOU SAY THAT, THAT WAS GOING TO BE TOWARDS MY COMMENT ABOUT THE ALTERNATE PARKING STALL. I'M GENERALLY IN FAVOUR OF IT, BUT IF WE MANDATE THAT THERE IS SHRUBS AT THAT CURB, IT'S GOING TO RENDER IT USELESS, RIGHT, THAT EXTRA TWO FEET WILL BE EATEN UP BY SHORT SHRUB THAT'S 18, TWO FEET TALL THE LANDLORD FROM WHOEVER OWNS IT NOT GOING TO MAINTAIN, AND FRANKLY COST MORE FOR CHURCH TOSS MAINTAIN AND SCHOOLS TO MAINTAIN AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WHAT OUR LANDSCAPE CODE, WHEN IT COMES TO A SCHOOL, IT'S A DIFFERENT STORY IF BROWARD COUNTY OBVIOUSLY. WITH OUR LANDSCAPE REVIEWER BE MODIFIED TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT TWO FEET TO SAY GRASS THAN A SHRUB.
IF YOU LOOK ON THE VVS PLAZA -- CVS PLAZA IT'S HORRENDOUS.
I GET WHY DON'T LIKE THE CURB. PEOPLE TRIP OVER THEM ALL THE TIME. I THINK WE HAVE ALL SEEN THAT.
SMALL SHRUBS MAKE IT HARD TO SEE AROUND CORNERS AND ALL FOR DOING AWAY WITH THEM AND HAVING PEOPLE PUT GRASS.
>> TWO FEET FORWARD INSTEAD OF THE LANDSCAPE OVERHANG HAVE TO BE FREE AND CLEAR OF STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COUNT TOWARDS ANY REQUIRED LANDSCAPE OR OPEN SPACE. IT'S ESSENTIALLY GOING TO BE
>> LANDSCAPE REVIEWER WOULD DEFINITELY COORDINATE.
>> IF IT DOESN'T COUNT. YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
I'M GOOD. >> DON'T WANT PEOPLE DOING DOUBLING UP AND SAYING THESE TWO FEET COUNT AS OUR PARKING SPACE BUT ALSO TOWARDS OUR EVERYBODYIOUS.
>> DID YOU SAY UP FOR CONSIDERATION FOR SOME TIME.
>> BEEN DISCUSSING IT CONCEPTUALLY WITH THE CITY COMMISSION ON AND OFF DURING SOME OTHER DISCUSSIONS OVER THE
LAST HANDFUL OF MONTHS. >> (INAUDIBLE).
>> HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD TO THEM AS A FORMAL ITEM.
>> COULD YOU MEAN TO OF QUICK QUESTIONS, COUNTRY CLUB, PARKLAND OR HURON BAY, RESIDENTIAL BUT WITHIN CLUBHOUSES THOSE ARE TREATED AS COMMERCIAL, ARE THEY NOT.
[00:40:05]
>> CODE PROVIDES FOR THE CLUBHOUSES AS WELL SPECIFICALLY.
FIVE, SIX YEARS AGO WE SPECIFIED IN A CODE UPDATE THAT THE CLUBHOUSES WERE PARKED AT 9 BY 20 AS WELL.
>> ANYTHING THAT AFFECTS THE ADA REQUIREMENTS, I WOULD JUST WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION. >> YES, WE DID WORK WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REDUCTION IN THE DEPTH WAS ALLOWED. SO ADA IS PRIMARILY CONSIDERED -- PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH THE WIDTH.
SO GOING TO THE 18 FEET FOR THE DEPTH WAS NOT AN ISSUE BASED ON OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH BUILDING AND ENGINEERING.
>> JOEL. DID YOU MAKE A MOTION.
MOTION BY JOEL. IS THERE A SECOND.
>> THERE IS NOBODY IN THE PUBLIC.
>> THANK YOU. ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU.
THERE ARE NO PUBLIC PRESENT, SO OPEN AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. NOW I WILL CALL FOR THE MOTION.
JOEL AND DEREK SECOND. NOW PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
>> CHAIR MURRAY ZWEIG. >> YES.
[9. Comments from the Planning Director]
THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME WE'LL SEE IF ARETHERE ANY COMMENTS FROM KATELYN? >> I DO HAVE ONE COMMENT IN SPEAKING WITH THE CITY CLERK, WANTED TO REMIND YOU THAT STARTING IN OCTOBER, PROBABLY AROUND THE SECOND WEEK OF% OCTOBER, BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR PAPERWORK TO SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATIONS TO RENEW YOUR BOARD INTEREST, IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SERVING AGAIN. THE CLERK LET ME KNOW THAT YOU CAN GET THE UPDATES AND STAY UPDATED ON WHEN THAT COMES OUT THROUGH PARKLAND ON TAP IF YOU ARE NOT SIGNED UP FOR THAT.
PLEASE DO SO. I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO STAY UPDATED BASED ON MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CLERK.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, REACH OUT TO ONE OF US AND WE CAN GET YOU THAT INFORMATION IF YOU ARE NOT SIGNED UP.
BUT IMPORTANTLY,S THAT SHORT WINDOW FOR YOU TO DO THAT PAPERWORK. SO IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO BE SIGNED UP, KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR THE PAPERWORK AND GET YOUR APPLICATIONS IN WITHIN THAT COUPLE WEEK TIME FRAME.
BECAUSE THAT WILL CLOSE SHORTLY THEREAFTER.
IT'S NOT OPEN FOR A SUPER LONG PERIOD.
SO YOU DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE GETTING THAT AND GETTING IT IN IF YOU ARE INTERESTED AGAIN.
[10. Comments from the Board]
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM ANY OF THE BOARD.
ONE COMMENT. LIBBY DID A WONDERFUL JOB TODAY.
THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> I MOVE TO ADJOURN. >> MOVE TO ADJOURN.
>> SECONDED. >> I'M SURE WE ARE ALL GOING TO VOTE. LET'S DO IT.
>> AYE. >> YES.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.