Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Mr. Fisher.

Here.

Okay. We have before we begin, I'm going to ask that everybody please turn their cell phones to vibrate or off, so we're not And we have no approval of minutes at this time and no old business at this time. So we're going to move to the first item under new business, which is VA two thousand five five, request for variances from Article five, Table five-one site dimensions to increase the max building area from 42% to 42% from the required 30% and to decrease the front yard setback from 25 feet to 15.5 feet for property located at 817 Starboard Avenue. Will we have a second?

Thank you, Chairman. The request before you is to transform a carport into physical garage attached garage. The request is from Article five table V1 site dimensions and allow a maximum building coverage of 42% in lieu of the required 30% and from article five table b one to allow a 15.5 foot front yard setback in lieu of the required 25 feet. City staff did send out public notice within five hundred feet of the subject property with this aerial map. The current zoning is MH2, Manufacture Home Subdivision, and it has a medium density residential future land use.

The applicant did supply this survey with the outline of the garage and the carport. The garage is 22 feet in length and 20 feet wide. And it extends over the existing carport currently. City staff did review within Article nine, Section Section 20 one-104D and found that the applicant could not meet all six of the non administrative variance requirements. City staff will be happy to go into detail on each of those points. City staff do not recommend approval for VA 2505 because the applicant could not meet all six of the criteria within Article nine, Section 20 one-100.04.

Okay. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing and ask if the applicants in the audience, if you want to say anything. Okay. Any public are you the applicant?

I'm the owner.

Okay. We need your name and your address for the record.

My name is Donald Jackson. I live at 817 Starboard Avenue. I'm the owner of the home. What I'm proposing is actually going to take five more feet away from the existing carport, which is 100 square foot of additional roof. Going to be three foot from the house, so I have some separation for fire safety and stuff like that. What I'm going to put in will be farther back than the house next door to me and farther back than the ones that were done in last May from here down the road at 802804, something like that.

803 Masthead, 800 Masthead.

Is that where it was? So this, what you're saying is not going to be approved?

No, no. I'm not saying that.

Oh, I'm sorry. And I've also was concerned about water runoff because I'm putting 100 square foot on that. I put pathway down each side with rocks in it to collect any rainwater. Actually, when it rains, it doesn't even go to the street now like it did before.

Did you guys have any questions?

Yes, I do. Sir? Excuse me. Administrative Just question. Did you have or get approval from the don't know whether it's

the Yes. I talked to them. I actually had to approve them to put my pathway in. And I talked to them about what I was doing. Their requirement is 25 foot from the McAdam. I'm going be 31 foot from the McAdam. So they see no problem with me getting

So they gave you approval?

Well, it's not a written approval because I haven't put any plans in yet. But they gave me a verbal, yes, they don't have a problem with it.

No, because I drove over and saw the site and I saw several garages down the street from either direction.

No, the one on the left on the same side as me, that's you can't even put a full size pickup in there. We'd like to stick it in the street. But our original covenants was 25 foot from the And then I think, I understand the city took it over after it was built. And that's when everything changed. Every time somebody does something there, we pretty much had to go through the variance process.

Sure. Okay.

Any questions?

That was the only question I had previously.

Okay. Thank you. My only question is probably more for Ryan. So whenever he puts in for his permit, is he going to have to provide HOA approval? Yes. Okay. I thought so. I just wanted to make sure.

We would ask for that in the building permit. Right. And then in one of the criteria, is it creating or continuing use that's not compatible with uses in the area. The Board has approved a significant number of variances in

Any other questions? Any other comments or questions from the audience? All right. I'm going close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve VA 2505. Second.

Chairman Kennedy?

Yes.

Mr. Andrew Kovic?

Yes.

Mr. Duane?

Yes.

Mr. Hatcher? Yes. Mr. Fisher?

Yes. Okay. Next item on the agenda is VA2506, Request for Variances from Article five, Table five-one, site dimensions, allow for expansion to a nonconforming lot, max build increase from 25 feet to 16 feet, and the side yard setback on the west side of the single family duplex from 10 feet to zero feet for a property located at 1202 Bond Street. Staff report, please.

Thank you. City staff did send out public notice within 500 feet of the subject properties using this aerial imagery. The applicant is requesting to allow a max building coverage of 32.3% in lieu of the required 30%. The applicant is also requesting a variance from Article five table V1 to allow a rear yard setback of 16 feet in lieu of 25 feet and a zero foot yard side setback in lieu of the 10 feet on the west side of the lot. The applicant is proposing to build a 12 by 37 screened in enclosure.

This is a nonconforming lot. So within the nonconforming lot section, the code does clarify that it is the planning and zoning board when there are nonconforming structures on nonconforming lots of existence that were platted prior to the existence of the land development code. There's another variance later tonight that the proper process is a variance through the board. City staff did review the request and found that the applicant could not meet all six of the criteria. City staff will note though that in the past at 12/01/1203, 12/04/1206, similar variances were granted in this area.

Thank you. I will open the public hearing and ask if there's an applicant in the audience if they want say anything. We don't have to. We just need your name and address for the record.

Hi. My name is Tommy Palmateer. I live at 1202 Bond Street. I've had a number of people stop by and curious about it. I'm a new homeowner, so this is kind of a new process for me. Basically, I just want to put a covering that actually meets my neighbor. We have a conjoined house. He's already got his backyard. He's got a screened back porch. And I have basically a concrete pad that goes all the way in the back of my house. It gets hot back there. I just kind of want to put a little covering to kind of go back to where my next door neighbor's is, and that's just about it. Thank you. If you have any questions.

These will your unit be right up to your neighbor's unit?

Yes. We're We're It's a duplex

No. I understand it's

a duplex. Yeah. So he's got like his goes out to the end of my pad except for his is covered in

screen. And

I just have a concrete pad. So yes, I'm meeting exactly where he is, not a foot more or less or anything like that.

The only reason why I'm asking is I don't recall in the past having this coming in front of I

know the neighbor to my left has screen porch, and it comes up about two foot to the fence. It doesn't bother me. I mean,

I can't I don't have on record

I here the guess my question basically is going to zero is is okay.

Zero is the side where the other I do pile know.

You're just going up to the partition wall. Okay.

I just want to clarify that.

But there will be space in between the two?

Yes. I mean, it's going to meet right up against us. We're connected by a wall, a firewall. And then I can even show you. I have a picture where his kind of sticks out. And I'm just trying to meet up to his and cover the back patio portion. And I've already got a concrete pad there. It just I figured it be nice to have a little covering on it.

I went to look and I couldn't

you couldn't even see anything.

You can't in the road, you can't see anything.

Yes. I mean, I'd be happy to pass this around if you need understand that.

I'm good.

Anyways, thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other questions from the Board? Public questions or comments? All right. I'm going close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

Motion to approve VA-two thousand five hundred and six. Second.

Chairman Kennedy?

Yes.

Mr. Andrew Kovic?

Of of Board Directors Table five-one, Site Dimensions, and Article three, Section 20 one-36.02 for the property located on a corner lot at 203 Eaton Road. Staff report,

please.

Thank you, Chairman. City staff sent out public notice within 500 feet of the subject property. Applicant is a little strange, so bear with me in this staff report here. So the applicant is requesting several variances the max building at 45% in lieu of 30%, allow a four foot front yard setback in lieu of the 30, allow a front yard accessory structure, and eliminate the exterior facade requirements. The reason this lot is interesting, it's a corner lot.

It's also a non conforming, grandfathered legally non conforming lot. So it is 102 feet in width and 90 feet in-depth. So under the zoning code, this property has setbacks and two sides. In R3, the front is a 30 foot setback. So he has a 30 foot on Eaton and a 30 foot on Edgewater Drive.

And then he subsequently then has two ten foot on the opposite sides. So the subject property is a grandfathered legally nonconforming lot and nonconforming structure that was built in 1973. And the original plan for this area was in 1893. Any law created prior to 06/17/1974 shall be considered legally nonconforming. So within Article VII, Section 20 one-seventy two-two, Nonconforming Structures, you're allowed to expand conformity as long as that the setback in the encroachment is not further exacerbated.

And then subsequently within Article eight, Section 20 one-seventy four-four, the proper process for grandfathering non conforming lots and non conforming structures should be to apply for variances from the planning and zoning board. So that just kind of gives you an understanding of why these requests are coming before you. So originally before the land development code existed, this lot was platted and a house was built. Under the current code, it doesn't meet the current standards. So the applicant is requesting to build this detached garage technically in the front yard, but on their side yard, really.

And that's why they're requesting the setbacks variances. City staff did review the application against Article nine, Section twenty one point one point zero four and found that the applicant could not meet all six of the criteria. Staff did note that the applicant could meet some of the criteria in here regarding the challenging part of kind of the lot is non conforming. It was plotted prior to the land development code. So applying those standards to basically a posted sample lot would be.

Okay. Thank you. I will open the public hearing and ask if the applicants in the audience want to say anything.

My name is Fred Peters. I live at 203 Eaton Road. And you say two fronts. As far as I'm concerned, that's my side yard. And it faces the back of Froggies. And my backyard faces Machetes Music, which are all business oriented. I'd probably get someplace to put my antique cars and toys, make the place a little cleaner and nicer. Question?

Yeah, I saw the property. I took actually some photos of it. I'm concerned the size, basically. Off of Edgewater Drive, you can have five foot. Is that correct?

Right now, I'm supposed to have

a 10 foot setback. You're looking for five. I'm looking for four.

The paperwork you sent out said four.

How is that going to impact the site on coming down Eaton?

The site line? Yes.

I was concerned about that. I'm really very concerned about that.

My son is in scuba class right now and I can park, so I've rounded this corner four in the last two days. I thought the same thing, Bob, but I don't think mean, it's a four foot high fence. It's already sitting there now and it's going to stick out well past what he's talking about. Don't think the sideline would be because that was my first thought with sideline. Coming around Edgewater, And it's weird

it's going to be you said 14 feet high?

Yes, sir.

The house is how high?

Fourteen, fifteen foot. I couldn't give you exact. I stood on the ground with this way.

It's not going to be It won't be any taller.

It's not going to

be the one that looks that I don't know how we happened on omission that

ended up being like a warehouse. Type of construction are you thinking about here?

I'm thinking about doing a Carolina prefab metal building up on that corner.

Aesthetically, Okay. We've been down this way. It's going to look like a warehouse.

It's going to be metal, but it's going be the same color as my house. I got pictures of other ones in the area that I can show you that you've put up that show up.

Let's see. I'm always concerned about if it looks is it going look like a warehouse, architecturally speaking.

Like we've got on Silver Palm?

Yes. Well, we've

got a couple there.

I don't know how the hell they have.

Is your fence coming down to construct this, the fence that's there, all that's staying? No, it's staying with the same vines It's growing going on the down. It's all staying. It's all staying? And then I read that you're going to remove the two sheds and the carport.

Please speak into the microphone.

I got an old carport

and shed and stuff in the

back and one along the fence.

Any other questions?

I'm just concerned with the four foot from the road. Well, more than that.

Yeah, it's way past because the fence itself is probably Yeah, six it's pretty good distance off of Edgewater already and then another how far off the house are you talking about? Roughly four to five foot. Any specific reason for 16? You're just trying to get a decent sized garage door in there?

How much your width? I have four cars.

Got

you. And 16 actually is tight.

Thank you. I have one more question.

Are you opposed to let's see, what you got? What's the house? That's 46 foot eight inches?

Roughly, yes. Do you want me to push it back further?

I was going to ask, I mean, you opposed to pushing it back a little bit? If you tell

me how far back you want

me to slide it back.

I was just going to say maybe match it to the back edge of the house instead of the front edge.

Okay.

Just trying to figure out how to get 14 foot of metal siding further away from the road. And I mean on the Edgewater Drive side, there's the fence has been overtaken by trees or whatever. Yes. So that will kind of disappear anyway. You're only going to see 14 feet to the crown. That means that the heel height is really going to be around 12, maybe 12.

The existing fence covers the site line. Yes.

I'd like to see that too, Chris. We

can make that a contingency. You. Thank you.

City staff will say too, it would probably behoove the applicant to move the structure back because he's going to have it'll be a little bit challenging. He won't be allowed to get a new driveway cut. So he's going to have to pull into his driveway and then do a little jog. So if you don't have enough room for the jog, it's going make it challenging to make that transition. So it probably would behoove the applicant to slide it to the back

line of the property so that

you can accommodate that job. Absolutely.

I wanted to go with a gravel driveway for drainage so it drains off better just so if I don't have any water problems.

Because this is not a full drive, so this would be?

Yes. Would he be allowed to bring the gravel out to the road or does he still have to hide into the side? Yes. Okay. Well, so to the back line of the house or do we want to say 10 feet off the rear or 15 feet off the rear so that it's actually even stepped back further than the back of the house? Mean, I'm just thinking about for you, like he's talking about navigate a car around there to make that corner.

I'd like to see a set of office towards the back.

And honestly, just try to get it as far from the front of the house as possible.

I'll form with the back wall of the house and come straight across right there. Does that work good for you or that throw back? Guys want to go

further back? Further back. Maybe do like a 15 foot rear?

Off the back.

Off the back property line? Yes.

Okay. 15 off the Yes. Back

did a 15 foot off the back property line. That's going to put you I don't have the survey in of the building would be about four feet north of the rear of the house.

So remember, he's got on his backs, he's already got a 10. He only has a 10. So where it says 102 on the north side there, that's only a 10 foot setback because it's considered land development code considers a corner lot to have The rear. So So he doesn't if 10 feet is enough for the board, then he doesn't necessarily need another variance for that rear setback if you're trying to push that back.

How does that sound?

I'm trying to follow you. What

he's talking about is because you have a corner lot. So in the code, you're considered Eaton and Edgewater are your front yards and then your side property line and your north property line

are your

side yards. You have a 10 foot setback on those two sides. So you can move the building to within 10 feet of your rear property line towards Cacheti. And you won't even need

a variance for that. All right. Right?

Now that I just said that.

Go ahead.

Right, Bob, you or me.

I'll go with you, but

right. Since you had all the discussion

you. Any other questions from the audience?

You guys have it figured out. I think. That's why I'm going to ask him to do it.

All right. Then I'm going to close the public hearing and I'll ask for a motion. Motion

to approve VA 2,000 Directors Board Board the 10 foot north setback.

That's good.

Yeah. And then the other ones are automatic.

Yeah.

I'll second that. I

did say contingent, not conditioned.

Sorry. It is contingent. I know.

Good job, Chris. Chairman

Kennedy?

Yes.

Mr. Andrew Komix?

Yes.

Mr. Drain?

Yes.

Mr. Fisher?

Yes.

Yeah. Mr. Hatcher?

Yeah. Good save. All right. Next item on the agenda is AR twenty twenty five-two two four six, request to repeal the citywide moratorium and the Florida Shores Building Permit Moratorium in response to the passage of Senate Bill 180. Staff report.

Thank you. So the governor DeSantis signed Senate Bill 180 on 06/26/2025. Senate Bill 180, Emergencies, prohibits municipalities from proposing or adopting any moratorium or construction or reconstruction or redevelopment of any property damaged by such hurricanes. The law additionally prohibits municipalities for proposing or adopting more restrictive or burdensome amendments to its comprehensive plan or land development regulations. In addition, the law prohibits proposals or adoptions of more restrictive or burdensome procedures concerning the review, approval, or issuance of a site plan, development permit, or development order.

The law is retroactive to 08/01/2024. Senate Bill 180 requires a municipality to prepare a notice for any adopted laws that may conflict with its provision and repeal said laws. So the city of Edgewater, the day after Senate Bill 180 was signed, received from the National Home Builders Association a letter requesting that the law that the two moratorium ordinances be repealed in violation of Senate Bill one understanding the legal parameters of law gives the city fourteen days, which precludes them if we respond that we declared the moratoriums null and void or for this matter under the guidance of Senate Bill 180. Any law, any ordinance that was more restrictive or burdensome would have to be repealed. And as long as you did that within the first fourteen days, it would prohibit them from filing suit.

And then you'd have to plan out the action you could go through the process to then appeal repeal those ordinances. So at this point, the city has declared its intent to repeal ordinance twenty twenty five-six and twenty twenty Four-sixty2. And we've declared them null and void. The two ordinances will be considered before the planning and zoning board before city council for a first reading on July 21 and a second reading on 08/04/2025.

Any questions? I'll open the public hearing. Anybody want to say anything?

Gina Holt, 1798 Hideaway Lane, Edgewater. I know this isn't question and answer session, but my question in the event that SB 180 is found to be unconstitutional, might be upheld in the courts, can we flip a switch and turn our moratorium back on? Or do we have to go through the whole process?

Right. If these are repealed and then the law is declared invalid, yes, the process would need to start from the beginning. There would need to be it would need to go a new moratorium, ordinance would need to go in front of planning and zoning, then two meetings for the front of the city.

That is just so wrong.

Would like to say something. As a newly appointed member of this Planning and Zoning Board, I want to express my formal opposition to the repeal of the city's previously adopted moratorium ordinances. While I recognize that the city council is compelled to act under threat of litigation due to the enactment of SB 180, I believe that such actions represent a serious erosion of our constitutional home rule authority under Article eight, Section two of the Florida Constitution. Let's be clear, this action is a direct requirement written into the law and not the expressed desire of the city council. I specifically disagree with the following section on page two of the ordinance draft ordinance.

And it reads, whereas the city council has determined that it is in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City Of Edgewater to rescind the temporary moratoria as more particularly set forth herein after. These moratoriums were adopted to protect the health, safety and welfare of our residents residents and to allow for necessary planning and mitigation following substantial environmental infrastructure challenges. The repeal under the state preemption sets a dangerous precedent for undermining local land use controls and decision making. I will urge the council to preserve all options available to it, including participation in a legal or legislative effort to overturn or amend SB 180. Direction to investigate this option was given to our city attorney during the council meeting on sevenseventwenty five.

I respectfully request that a statement be entered into the public record as evidence of continuing concern from the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the loss of municipal planning autonomy.

Thank you, Patrick. Well said.

Thank you. That is very well said.

Anybody else? No. I said it a

few years ago. Once again, this is a Tallahassee Tallahassee railroading something down us that we really don't want. I'm curious, Mr. Wolf, what kind of legal fight would it be if we just told him to

say the right thing. Well, I did reach out to an attorney. His name is Jamie Allen Cole. He was successful in getting an injunction regarding the law on Form six that would have required more financial disclosure for elected city officials. So in that case, he filed a student federal district court in the Southern District, and he also filed in state court in Leon County. And so he's trying to get a group of cities and counties together to challenge Senate Bill 180. And I have a call set up with him tomorrow. But it looks like his firm is going to send a letter to all the cities and all the counties trying to get them to join in litigation over that law. And didn't kind of

the same thing happen after Hurricane Ian? Didn't a bunch of cities get together to get that one overturned eventually? Knew they tried. I just couldn't remember if it ever.

They never got rid of those. We had it last year with Melvin.

Yeah.

And then they did it during Ian, the tolling. Oh, yeah. I read this.

The only thing I can say on

think in total there was four members between both House and Senate that didn't vote for it. Yeah. That's all

I got. Any other questions or comments? All right. I'm going close the hearing and ask for a motion.

What's the motion we're to do?

To approve the ordinance as written.

Motion to recommend

or not not. To recommend.

Can we recommend that it be rewritten to

I made a note in the ordinance. It was I

mean, it's not it's the ordinance says that it's to protect the citizens' health and safety and all that. And it's really only because it's in the law. It's the only reason we're doing that. So I think it should say that. But that's my opinion.

Make the motion. Well,

I make a motion on SP no.

AR. AR, long number.

Twenty twenty five-two 46 to rewrite the paragraph, to read that the repeal is due to the fact that it's written into law and not not in the effort to protect the citizens as it states now. I don't know if that's the right way to word that.

Don't That's fine.

I'll second that. You.

Patrick, you were the second?

No. Patrick,

yes. It's going to get confusing.

We'll have to separate.

Just to be clear, what the motion is what?

The motion is to for staff. Staff, this was a holdover from staff, which is typically in our ordinances because that's the police power to protect the public health and welfare. So on page two of the ordinance twenty twenty five-zero-eight, it says, whereas the city council has determined that it is in the best interest of public health, safety, and welfare, the citizens of Edgewater to rescind the temporary moratoria as more particularly set forth herein after. So city staff would rewrite this section to make sure that it's clear that the reason that the city is doing this is to comply with state law.

Not the best interest of city of Edmonds.

And that's what the motion

Chairman Mr.

The agenda is Development Services Director. Should be one more.

4E. SP2415.

Oh, he's not the line. There we go. Okay. I can read from the screen. Next item on the agenda is SP2415, request for major site plan approval for a proposed business park development consisting of two sixteen thousand three hundred and twenty square foot buildings at the property located at 2360 South Ridgewood Avenue. Can we have a staff report, please?

Thank you. City staff sent out public notice within 500 feet of the subject property. Mr. Fisher did note that city staff did not put that public well, we'll have to confirm this now. Did we put the public sign out or was it stolen?

We will still have to confirm that. I do know that staff did send out public notice about 61 individuals that we did mail to. The subject property did receive a BPUD rezoning through ordinance twenty twenty four-forty four 12/02/2024 for the first business park PUD, which was rezoned from Highway Commercial to that BPUD. The submittal is consistent with the master plan that was included between the concept plan. The original concept plan had the two buildings with the same layout and square footage.

There is a decrease in units from what was submitted in the concept plan to now. This is both a contractor flex space and commercial retail units nine, ten, nineteen, and twenty, which are in the front, are those commercial units. And units at the rear have the roll up doors with the ability to have warehousing. And the idea here was to hopefully create areas for small businesses to start their business and to operate out of having that warehouse component where they can then go and do the jobs. Two access points were originally proposed for the site at the conceptual plan during conversations with FDOT.

FDOT would not support an access, a right hand turn, which was in the southeast corner of this concept plan. So the proposal includes one access point through Oak Branch Drive. The city did consult with FDOT, the Stanley's consultants, who is the third party traffic reviewer in Volusia County. City staff did have the applicant revise their ITE generation trip to make sure that the trip generation was accurate. The city does follow the River the Sea Transportation Impact Analysis TIA guidelines that state a TIA is warranted when there is greater than 1,000 daily trips or 100 peak hour trips.

In this case, the city found that even after the revision in making the contractor use different land uses that it still would not trip the full TIA. There are some remaining comments regarding the dimensioning of a parking stall, landscape buffer of a 40 foot shrub, and then the six foot high vinyl fence. These are the remaining comments by the TRC. City staff do note that in the event that the remaining items cannot be resolved before City Council, city staff will table the item. City staff do think that the addition of a six foot fence, the mentioning of parking stall, and adding the shrubbery hedgerow is pretty minor in the grand scheme of the complete site plan.

Planning and zoning is recommending approval based on the remaining comments to be completed. This is the facade of the building, what it would look like from the front and the side. And then here's the landscape plan. City staff wrote this BPUD. And so this is using a different standard for the landscape buffer.

In the rear, there is 56 trees being provided and another 17 canopy trees. So these are very dense landscape buffers compared to what's in the original land development code. So I think we'll be a lot happier with the way this looks and feels adjacent to residential. And with that, city staff is recommending approval with the conditions that they satisfy the remaining comments.

Okay. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. The applicant want to address the board.

Good evening. George Miles. I'm representing Tri State Consulting Engineers or the engineer for record on this project. And we've gone through several iterations as far as redesign, trying to make everyone happy. And we ended up having to make the project smaller and smaller. And we did meet the one hundred year flood storage. So we are meeting the current regulations for storm water. And we are willing to to comply as far as six foot vinyl fence. There's also a telephone or a power pole that does need to get relocated for access to the city that we're going to note on the plants as well that we were discussing earlier. I don't see any reason why this project should be held up.

It's really in compliance with everything in the area as far as the plan. And having the landscape buffer, I think, it'd be really nice. And we were discussing earlier that making sure the vinyl fence was on the parking lot side just for the view of everybody's home out back, they're going to have all these trees look at and not a fence.

Questions?

The trees, I know we're talking about dense trees, but at the time of planting, are we specifying a certain diameter so that it's I don't want to say a mature tree, but not a shrub that's going to take twenty years to get there?

I thought I saw something.

A lot of times it finds it by the diameter Right. Right.

I don't remember if it was

don't

online. Here we go. Well, it does have or we hired outside landscape architects to take care of this side of it. And they are specifying different size gallon containers, different heights. Do have

One feet in height at the time of planting for canopy trees with two and a half inch DBH and eight feet in height at the time of planting for the understory And three gallon 18 inches shrubs.

So they're not going to be twigs? Twenty five year. Yeah, got you.

Okay. Are we getting something a little bit of size to get everything started early?

I just enough of these developments, especially the one across the street from my house, they just came back and planted these little tiny things and you're like, really?

Yes. Years, they look great.

Yes. You

get something that's ten or 12 years old, gives it a good start.

And then the only reason I'm this up because I know last month with the car wash, there was something about the warehouse doors facing US1. Everything

that's on the facing US front side has that. Believe it or everything I meets the

keep looking over here. Never mind. Got to remember the front, the commercial is yeah. The US 1 is south.

So that property is roughly five feet lower than the front part of it. So will that fence be five feet up? Will it be so you're only going to have six feet. It's a six foot fence.

There's a grading plan that's not being shown. We are doing quite a bit of fill on the property to bring it up and level it out so that that back section is going to come up several feet. And that's our intent. Everything will still drain. If we didn't regrade the lot to do storm water, there was no real effective way to do it. Everything was running to the back. So we regraded everything higher so that fence is going to come up several feet. Maybe it comes up four remember it was four or five feet

in the back.

It looks like if we put the fence on the back of the curb on the parking, you're at 15 there. And then if we put it on the ground the problem with putting it on the ground is I don't even know if the residents would really there would be almost no benefit because it's at Correct.

That's why I

mentioned it.

Yeah.

So actually so the fence on the back of the parking lot would benefit because you'll have those trees on the slope stacking up.

And then you have to plant trees around that, but you have to leave room for the lift station. And I just don't see access to that lift station. Should a truck need to get back there, would there be a way to make access through the fence from the parking lot?

I don't believe we did we put an access to the fence? No. Which we easily can be done. But I believe that the access is still there's an access on the backside of that. Correct.

Well, the only way to get there would be from Oak Branch Drive because there's a canal the north side.

Yes. And we have to leave enough room that that's not our land. I believe that belongs to the city as far as yeah, there's actually a strip there that we don't get to impede into. Yeah, it's not going be an easement. Think they own it.

It's an actual

Yeah, it's actually a parcel of land that we're not intruding on that is your access road.

Looks to me on that last picture that the fence is shown going around that lift station area. So it's kind of in a oh, is that not correct? The dark line going around the lift station?

I know the lift station The lift station comes out as a it's partially on our property, think, or fencing or something. But I do know

that So there is the aerial, the GIS, I'll say, is not as accurate. So I would go off of what their plans are showing on the survey. And it looks like the city did bump out. We must have bought that at one point for that lift station into their property.

It's just Yeah,

there is

room. City owns dedicated land that is for their access that we will not be interfering with. They'll still be able to drive down. So access will be granted either without a problem. If the city wants a gate just to be able to pull up into the parking lot versus driving down on the grass for, say, emergency access during a storm or something like that, I don't see that as being a big issue.

Well, and if you remove the power pole, then they can actually do that. I was just worried about the station being in an alcove and the fence wrapped around it and the accessibility there.

No. The fence is actually going to be to the east side of the power station or the lift station by eight to 10 feet, isn't it? I don't have the exact

It's a six foot fence. And I think what we were talking about today was running it on the backside of the parking in lieu of the backside of the actual property boundary because of the grade change and visual or the single family homes, having the landscape buffer be visual instead of the fence would be better.

There's a lot of lines on that page.

There is. There is.

So then I had one more question about the north side of the storm pond. I read somewhere in one of the notes about a slope stability to the north of that pond, mentioning equalized floodwaters during a major event. So the expectation would be that if the water grew inside the storm pond, the water outside the pond would be at the same level and it would keep it from washing out or pushing out. However, there's a canal there. And then although that land is lower, I think we'd be needing an arc should that get to be that way.

It's just a question in how does that statement fit that application in my mind? I just don't understand it.

Essentially, what it works, Stu, is that we're holding all of our water for a one hundred year storm event. That was the design purpose of doing the large storm water that we did. During an event such as like, for example, Ian. Ian was a major event. We had 24 inches of water dumped on everywhere in this county.

Everything flooded. In this case, if you had an event like that, if the canal came up, it would potentially even overflow into our pond if it wasn't already full. If it was full, then it could sheet flow over. The idea is we try to stabilize the bank to make sure you don't get water running through a bank. And that's why we used the retaining walls and everything we did in this to really to meet the current one hundred year flood plain makes it very difficult. It does create a lot of limitations on the commercial side and the residential side.

So just one more question. And the North Side Of West Wales is going to be as high as the stem wall of the south side of that storm pond or level to the parking lot or a little lower?

Believe I the think it's going to be lower than a parking lot by about a foot.

That's Okay. What I assumed in my mind.

Yes, it's really small, but you can see the contours rise here.

Look, they're all close. They get tightened Back

down to grade. And the overflow on the plans here is set at invert is set at 8.1 feet into the canal.

Thank you. That's all I have.

Any other questions? Thank you. Any other All audience right. I'll close the public hearing and call

turn turn

I'll

the

Chairman Kennedy?

Yes.

Mr. Andrew Kovich?

Yes.

Mr. Duane?

Yes.

Mr. Hatcher?

Yes.

Mr. Fisher?

Yes.

Okay. Next item on the agenda is Development Services Director's report.

Thank you. We are making pretty good progress. We have interviews this week for economic development manager. So I'm very excited to finally get to hire for that position. Really looking forward to that.

Some great candidates are applying. We're working through a number of site plans right now and a lot of other things going on right now at the city. We are working on several things. We're working on the City Hall site out on April, getting that going. We are working on an FDOT grant from Silver Palm down to 30th Street and Air Park there for a sidewalk extension with DOT.

So there's a lot of really great things going on at the city. Very busy. Very exciting opportunities with the appropriations we received from the governor and the legislature this year. So we're hoping to use that for a resilient Florida grant. Hopefully turn that $2,000,000 we have into 4,000,000 to kick off our storm water projects. That is all stuff. Yes?

So May I ask you a question? Could you clarify the storm water code, the subsection we were talking decision made on how that should be applied?

Yes. So they're based on when city staff did the comp plan change and the land development code change at the 2023, we started. Started, end of early 'twenty four April. Think of January we passed it, which went to a one hundred year storm event for the city. So it basically doubled the amount of water that a site had to retain, 6.1 or six inches to 13.1 inches of rainfall.

So it's a significant increase in storm water retention. One of those things that we did is there was an exemption section of the code. And city staff did not outline any exemptions. And as such, everyone has to meet the one hundred year flood event. We had a warehouse and a triplex, guava and hibiscus.

Florida to shores, platted. So city staff are planning to bring a text amendment to the land development code to allow for those areas in Florida shores that are already under that St. John's permit to the twenty five year storm to be designed to that storm since that is what the permit is for in that area. Now, as far as everywhere else in the city, that is unplatted US 1. Doesn't matter if you're little, tiny, small shop, or you're doing huge, massive.

Everyone's got to meet the one hundred year. And so this code change is really only recognizing the fact that those sort of B2 neighborhood business commercial properties properties are under that flat and they're under that storm water ERP permit. And that's why that exception is okay because that permit is at that twenty five year storm event. Now elsewhere in the city, we can't carve out that exception. Does Senate Bill 180 stop that now? What's the No, state because makes you it's easier, right? It's not

More restrictive. No, I meant our one hundred year.

No, because we had passed I was fortunately, Randy and I were very diligent when I first came here at the city.

And we passed that

almost immediately upon me being here. It was further back than the cutoff date that they had initiated. Fortunately there, we are fortunate that and we're one of the only municipalities, I think, at least in my knowledge, between Lake Sumter, where I've worked before, that does a one hundred year storm. So that is good for the public because it does offer that protection to them.

You. Anybody else? All right. Meeting adjourned.

Later time. Thank you.