Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

defend this in August. So, I'm doing the research right now. I'll write it up probably in the next probably write it up in the next month or two depending. It's the kind of research that keeps going until Yeah. done it all. Yeah, you you can put it off. It seems like it's never going to change every day something new comes out.

Okay. Uh time to call the meeting to order. And uh clerk, do you want to make a roll call?

Good afternoon, planning commission deputy city clerk Jennifer Falner. For the record, we'll go ahead and do the roll call and then because we do have some um public some quasi judicial public hearings on the agenda, would you like me to do the swearing in afterwards? You might as well do that. Okay, sounds good. All right. So, for the role, uh Tony Gray here. Patrice Petrick, I'll uh note Miss Petrick's absence for the record. Uh Robert Cif here. James Wilton here. John Rinders here. Charles Lewis here. Heather Kuffky here. And then we have uh Mr. Jan Dick sitting in as an alternate here.

Thank you. All right. So for the swearing in, anyone intending to provide testimony in today's proceedings, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in today's proceedings? Excellent. When you approach the podium, please remember to state your name for the record and indicate that you have been sworn. Um, and if anybody comes in afterwards that didn't get this swearing in, we'll just make sure we get them sworn in. Yeah, we might have to. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. Uh, will everybody stand 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. Thank you. Rachel, you got any announcements?

Okay. Um, I would just ask everybody quiet their cell phones if they haven't already checked them out, please. Um, our next meeting is, uh, Monday, March 23rd, if we have a meeting, right? So, anybody have any known problems with that? So, we can let the clerk know. Okay, cool. Um, next we have the election of chair and vice chair. Rachel. Oh, clerk. Sorry, Jennifer. No, sorry. Pop out of there. Okay, we're going to go over this pretty quickly just because I know most of you are familiar with it. Um, we do it every February at the um for an annual term for both the chair and vice chair that's elected by the membership of the board. the chairs and vice chairs can serve a maximum of three consecutive terms um before they have to uh move on to another member of the board. Um chairs are responsible for running them the meetings essentially being the drivers making sure we move through the agenda and that every item that requires action is disposed of before moving on to the next agenda item. They also um work with city staff to ensure that proper procedure and decorum are observed during the meetings as well as maintaining order. Um chairs are chairs

and vice chairs are required to vote on all motions unless a statutoily defined conflict of interest exists or if you have a um a bias or due process issued um specifically for a quasi judicial hearing. The chair or the vice chair may relinquish the gavl um to make or second motions because typically they don't do that. And the chair is also responsible for signing the approved minutes. Oops. Sorry, this thing is being a little laggy. Um so basically this just kind of gives you a rundown of um the basic procedure for running a meeting. Um important things to know if you are interested in being the chair. um make sure that at the beginning of the public comment section people know what the expectation is. Um public comments are limited to three minutes per individual. Clerk's office is responsible for keeping time on those comments. Um we also ask that the chairs work on keeping the discussions focused during the agenda items so that we don't get off topic and so that you all have um time to make your make your points but then also to take action. Um chair is also responsible along with city staff for ensuring that proper motions procedure is followed so that any motions made are properly made, seconded and voted on so that they are defensible. Um chairs, it's important that you announce the I and nay vote um for a result even if there is no even if nobody said nay, but please just make sure that you're stating, you know, motion unanimously carried or motion carried except for member so and so that it's clear for the record. under maintaining order. Um, this is kind of your basic secretary of arms, I guess you would call it, um, that you will assist city staff with doing so that the meeting can proceed in an orderly fashion and we get through everything. Use of the gavl is optional, but we do

encourage it because it does help kind of, you know, punctuate um, what you'd like to do. I think that might be the very last slide. Yes. Any questions um for those of you board members who have maybe not served as chairs or vice chairs before or um have questions about the procedure for what to do if you're the chair or vice chair? Okay. And I will note that because um the plan I I know that after this is when we have the board of zoning appeals and you all basically adjourn as planning commission and then come back as the board of zoning appeals. Um we are this election will take care of the chair and vice chair for both because basically whoever is elected as the chair for planning commission will just make them the chair and vice chair respectively for the board of zoning appeals. So we will not do this election process in the next meeting. But I just want you to understand that it will be for both of those boards. Okay. So if there aren't any other questions for the board um I will go ahead and open up nominations for uh chair. and nominate Robert Seaffort.

Second. Okay. I'd like to just say something to the board. I'm I I know you all a lot of you know this, but I will turn be turned off in July because we're going from a seven member to a five member board. So, I'm honored and would be glad to serve, but I just want everybody to know that ahead of time. So, thank you. So, Mr. Chair Cif, are you interested then in still being considered for this particular election? and then just the caveat that you have to do it again. If they feel I shouldn't then that's fine too. Understood. Okay. Thank you. Any other nominations for chair? All right. Seeing none, I will go ahead and close nominations. And um Mr. Cif, you are reappointed chair by affirmation. Thank you so much.

And then if you would like to um you're welcome to go ahead and run the nomination for the vice chair item. I'll entertain a motion. I mean not a motion, but a nomination for a vice chair. I'll nominate James Welton. I second it. It's been nominated. Second. I guess everyone in say nay. I mean yay. If you if you have any ask for any other nominations that's okay. Are there any other nominations for the vice chair? Hearing none. Everybody in favor say I. I. I. All right. Excellent. So Mr. Cifred and Mr. Wilton are our new chair and vice chair. Thank you very much and I will let you all proceed with your meeting. Thank you.

Thank you away from Look at his nose.

Um, this is the time where we have public comments and the public comments can be a general nature of anything that you have to deal do. But if you're here for the quasi judicial portion of the agenda, um, then your statements will have to be made again because they are counted as testimony. So if you were sworn in and you're going to be at the quas judicial, then um, you would not want to speak now. You'd want to hold your speak. the quasi if you want to know what's quasi judicial what's not um we have a list here uh the reasonzoning of the Magdalina lots which there's two or three there the vested right determination by the hls and the uh I think that's that's it there's three yeah amendment to chapter 26 and the vested rights determination so anyone care to speak. Uh make a couple of comments. You have three minutes to make that and we'll time you.

Those are the nonjudicial. Yes, these is a non-judicial time to speak. Uh second call. Anybody wishing to speak, please please approach the podium and state your name and your address. Hello. Uh Cindy Anderson, 2819 Bay Avenue. It is behind Magdalina. Oh, okay. Um, now we're having a a quasi judicial in Magdalina. So if you want to if you want your testimony, your your speech to be entered in as evidence, then you should wait until we come to that. Okay, you can speak. You can speak now, but I'll go ahead and wait.

Oh, okay. Yeah, that's that's what I'm trying to say. You know, it won't be counted. So, uh, this is third call for public speakers, non-quasi judicial. Seeing none, uh, we'll proceed. Uh, we're meeting as the planning commission and oh, we have to go over the approval of the minutes. Has everybody had a chance to read the minutes from our December 22nd meeting? Uh, if so, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes unless there's any additions or subtractions. Move to approve. Second. Been moved and second to approve the minutes. Uh, all those in favor say I.

Opposed? Carries unanimously. Uh next we're we're here as a planning commission and the first hearing is legislative uh application for SV12025 a request by Sentoshi Inc. property owner the vacate to vacate a utility easement between lots 1 through 4 and lots five and nine block 36 city of Tonagora according to plat thereof as recorded in flatbook one page 13 of the public records of Charlotte County Florida. Rachel you got the floor. Good afternoon board. Rachel Barry, zoning official for the record and I have been sworn. So this is agenda item 2 A. This is a request to vacate a utility easement that is located uh between the properties known as 207 Brown Street and an unadressed parcel identified as parcel 4123 06402011. When you look at an aerial image of the map, it appears there is still an alleyway um separating these properties. Um so that originally was our discussion with the applicant uh potentially vacating the alleyway. Through those discussions, uh we were informed that that alley technically had been vacated already in 1997. The resolution that is included in your staff report um notes that while they were vacating the alley, they reserved a utility easement in its place. Um since that time, the application has been sent out for staff review. We have received no objections from any other city departments and staff has no objection and recommends approval. And the applicant is here as well. If you have any questions for me first or we can bring the applicant up.

Anybody have any questions for Rachel? Okay. If the applicant's here, you want to speak, come on.

Good afternoon. My name is Frank Nater. For the record, I've been sworn in. Uh, and thank you, Rachel. I think everything staff has recommended and, uh, everything Rachel presented on is accurate. Uh we have found that the alleyway has been vacated uh as of resolution in 1997 and uh there's a utility easement that remained on top of that land. The utility easement is currently used for drainage which we we are accounting for on our property. Um and I'm here if you have any questions, please let me know. I I have a question. In in your uh statement, you indicated a a 5 foot and a 10 foot easement. I I want to make sure that you only know we're only doing the 10oot ement, correct? Yes. did have a five foot reference and I wasn't quite sure what you meant by that.

No, it there five foot is on their property but we include it in the correct yes it'll be the 10 foot. So there's no conflict. You're you're good. Okay. I just want to make sure I didn't want to have done have you come back and say, "Yeah, what about the five foot?" Yeah. Okay. All right. Any questions of the applicant? I'll entertain a motion to approve.

Oh, Mr. S. Oh, this is a legislative hearing, is it? You still have to do public comment for the specific public comment for these as well. Anybody uh anybody in the public want to uh address this closing this vacation of alley? We ask you a sec. Second time anyone to speak a third time. Anyone want to speak? Hearing none. I'll entertain a motion to approve. First, you got to close the public hearing. Oh, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Chuck, you were wrong about that. I'll entertain. I'm still staying on my bet. Okay. Okay. Everybody have a bad day. It's the nose. You know I see. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved.

Seconded. It's been moved and second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. I. Nay. Anybody want to say nay? Approved. Unanimously approved. Um so now I'll entertain a motion to approve this vacation or deny. I move recommend to city council the vacation of the utility easement. Second. Second. All those in favor say I. Oppose. May. It's approved. Seven to zero. Rachel, you going on number two?

Oh, let me announce it first though. So, next on the um on this agenda is ZA3206, a propos proposed amendment to chapter 26 article 3.4 and article 3.5 to allow for the possible expansion of the general single family and general multifamily districts and require multif family structures within the general general excuse me the general multif family district to comply with article 7 with exemptions. And this is This is the Magdalina issue.

Uh Carl Venge, urban design for the record. Uh partially correct. Sure. Um so this is the land development regulation text amendment for general single family and general multif family district changes. So with this um the current general single family district verbiage says the district is not intended to be available for future resonings nor is a means of expanding the boundaries of existing GS districts. staff is wanting to take away this sentence um along with section 3.5 which has the same verdict saying this district is not intended to available for future code amendments nor as a means of expanding the boundaries of existing GM districts staff wants to remove these sections um not only does it help uh us move forward with the Magdalena thing it also is required if the city wants to do any future annexations any future annexation of residential uh multif family or single family. We currently don't have a zoning designation for that. So bec because our current code doesn't allow us to expand what's already out there. So if the city finds itself in a situation uh where we need to annex certain properties that aren't commercial, um we can't do so without striking this purge from the current tax.

So this gives you more flexibility. That's what you want. Correct. Yes. Sorry. And staff is recommending approval of So if you have any questions here to answer Heather Ki uh so what brought about this need for change? So the Magdalina properties

brought this to our attention but it's part of a bigger issue than just these properties. So, like I said, if any future expansion of the city, we need these designations if we ever do. So, there's an enclave that's um I don't know the name of it, but it's the Port Charlotte area when you're going on 41. There's a huge enclave that's not the city. And if we were ever to have to take them over, we don't have the zoning designation to do that properly. So, we would have to do this then anyway. So, we might as well do it now so that we have this tool in our toolbox. But the immediate issue was that there was construction of a mistake by the city giving permits for three duplexes if I remember right in a single family area and this is to correct that and to provide you flexibility in the future.

Correct. So this is provide more than just this is a part of Magdalina but provide for something else. Yes, it does involve the Magalina properties. Does that answer your question? It does. So, everybody else on I have some questions. All right. I understand that they were given a permit and they started construction and then construction was halted and here are the pictures of what the units look like today. Been bothered. Yeah. Does everybody has everybody seen this? Heather, have you seen this? I think so. Go ahead.

All right. That's so they're just slabs. Last time I was out there, it was those they're just looks like walls and roofs and everything to me. That's a different parcel. You got Is this the wrong one? Yeah. Yeah, there are two parts of parcels. So, they're slabs. Yeah. So, no, they're there slabs. They are on stim walls. They're about five courses high. Okay. So, yes. You you saw stim walls, correct? Yeah. In a slab. All right. All right. And then they stop. Correct. Yes. Were they in as the way the permitting went, were they within code of what was granted to them?

So even if a permit is issued in violation, it's still the city's right to withdraw that and the the current zoning does not allow those structures to be there. I understand you can't have a gotcha moment. However, they were granted permission. They were told they were within their rights to go ahead and do it as long as they My question to you is were they building within the permit that was granted to them,

but the permit was granted for a certain zoning. So, yes, they were building duplexes. The the application says duplexes, if that's what you mean. They weren't building a structure they weren't um applying for, but the zoning was incorrect and that's what was found. So, yes, they were building what they said they were building. It's just the location doesn't allow it. Okay. It was my understanding that city council shortly after the election made sure that staff was given permission to grant them permission to go forward to finish the buildings. Are you aware of this?

No. Um staff so uh through the records that we have, it shows that they were told that they could reszone this. They were the applicant was supposed to initiate this when it first happened. That never happened. And so now we're here. Chuck, this whole thing will go away once we approve this. I I understand that. I I just want to make sure it doesn't have any I think I think what the city I think the city has the right to say we made a mistake and we're and they're trying to help them out. So that's that's all this is. I understand. Okay. Nobody wants a mot. Yeah. Right. Right. You know me Lucy the football thing. I just I'm trying to make sure it doesn't happen anymore. Yeah.

But I did have a question about that. And then even if they were getting permission to go forward with this, they still have to get SB one. Was it there's two other things to go state approval. They got to change the future land use map and then amend. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. So it's got to go before city council. No. Yeah. All of this will go to city like it's coming before us. The three parts of this will all go to city council. I

I just didn't think it was right. that they were given a permit. They were allowed to start construction and then then they had the pull the permit pulled and then it just seemed like city council gave them the green light after the election to make sure they'd go ahead. It just seemed like it was another six or eight months again and now they got to get state approval. That's another six or eight months before they get that state approval. We don't need to SB1 120 whatever that was for um improvements that are greater or not or however changed this is less than 50 acres so you don't have to send it off to the state if that's what you're talking about

Rachel Barry is zoning official for the record um so I believe what you're referring to there was direction at a council meeting oh goodness this was right after I started so it was right after the election where they directed staff to find a solution so it wasn't that they gave the applicant permission to move forward with construction at that time, but they said find a solution. Thank you, Rachel. I I knew there was some detail in there somewhere. I was 69 on Saturday. I'm getting old, but I appreciate you helping me out. Sorry about that. Are you good now, Chuck? I feel good. See? See how easy it is? Tony, anything from you? No, John. Heather.

Okay, I'll entertain a motion then. Motion to approve.

Oh yes. Anybody in the public wish to speak uh to this issue, please approach. So you didn't have to wait that long. Cindy Anderson live at 2819 Bayberry. On the building of this, there's woods also there. What is Is the plan for those to stay or to go? Miss Anderson, I'm sorry. Could you speak a little bit closer to the microphone there?

At at this property, there's also woods that have been there forever. Um, when I bought my house back in around 2015, I was told that the woods were protected, but yeah, they're not anymore. But that's what I was told. Afterwards, I've talked with I think probably the city and they said that they were not. So, what is the plans with the woods or planning on does that? So, I don't think the applicant's here. Um, unfortunately, it's at the discretion of the applicant. Um,

uh, if it's on the property of the the development, then, um, it's up to them what they want to do it. As long as they meet our standards, our landscaping standards, there's really not much we can do. Yeah. Explain to her what the that is because that is a very critical issue that would satisfy her. Maybe there are landscaping standards. I don't know them by heart. Um so, and there may be requirements that they keep a certain amount for buffering, but I'm not sure. Um it is residential. So residential um typically has the ability to to take out u more than they need to sometimes. But um it's up to the applicant. We don't uh we can just enforce what standards that we have. I don't think it's

Mr. And I can say one thing, Mson. When I built my house, they don't they give you points and there are so many points you have to have and I can't remember the number, but I know they give you very few for palm trees. they give you a lot more for oak trees or more trees that will remove carbon from the air and stuff. So, they they're they're pretty stringent and I think you'll be happy and we definitely encourage and and you could go you can go online and find out what that requirement is or go by city hall and they'll they'll help you with it. Okay. And more than the trees, there's a lot of there's a lot of animals that live in there also.

What kind of animals? Um, cardinals all the time. Every day seeing cardinals, woodpeckers, a bazillion rabbits, coyotes every once in a while, bobcat. Yeah. Uh, unfortunately, you know, we people are pushing out a lot of that, but doesn't bother the coyotes very much or the cardinals. They're all around my house. So, yeah, we are really pushing them out. And the flooding over there with the two storms in 2024, I think it was. Yeah. The flooding was like it has never been before. Yeah.

And there's canals on one side, there's canals on the other side on Bayberry and the opposite side. So with more building, I'm worried about the flooding getting worse. Well, I I I think you could probably speak to that. I know they they probably have the build to the FEMA rules to

So yes, um there are there are standards when it comes to development. how and also there's property rights if people want to develop even the vacant properties are there we can't stop them from developing um in regards to the trees it's my understanding they did receive a tree permit already when all of this process was going on the first time so we don't anticipate them removing a lot more trees um because we assume that that part already took place before um so we don't anticipate a lot of that happening again in regards to the flooding it would be looked at as any other development um and all of new development is to mitate fling as much as possible. So, whatever those standards may be, unfortunately, I'm not in the building department or CFM, so I don't have those on hand.

The flood, the federal government has set certain flood areas in different it changes. If you're close to the water, it may be 12 feet. As you go back, maybe 10, nine. So, if they don't build to that, then they can't get federal mortgages. And every buyer there is going to if they condo it to the duplexes, they'll want to get that. So, it will have to be built to the base flood level that's allowed by the federal government to get that reduction insurance. Does that help you?

Still though, with the building up and I understand like they'll have to build it to code and it'll have to be pretty high up, I'm sure, but my house and other people's houses have already been there. So if they're building theirs up more, I think it will just make it worse for everybody else in the area when it would flood. Yeah, I I know that that is sometimes a problem, but I built my house next to a neighbor and we had the land tilted so that it would hit between and drain out. So they they there are ways they can do that. I'm not saying I don't know what they're doing there. So ma'am, are you 2819?

Yeah. Yeah. And the the properties that um are being built at the duplexes are not directly behind you. They're off a little bit. So the properties directly behind you 2914 and 2920 aren't a part of this. It's right there though, right? It's Yeah, it's similar. It's next to um you know, two doors down. I think it's an empty lot and it starts behind them. Right. But they're here also and I think they feel the same way. They may have more to say on it though. Thank you. Appreciate it. Anyone else wishing to speak? Yes, ma'am.

Kathleen Newman, I've been sworn in 2511 Bayerry. Could you define high density residential? Hi What can I say? Edge. Thank you. So, highdensity residential is a future land use and it allows for anything over I believe 10 residential units per acre. 10 per acre. Mhm.

And are we talking about the highlighted n uh unit 9 10 11 12 13 14 and 15? Correct. So what is what is on three four and five? Those are already zoned general multif family. Okay. Is there any construction on these? I have no idea. It's not by department. Multifamily. General multif family. Thank you. How high does high density residential go?

Uh so high density residential is a future land use. It allows for the uh multif family and multif family can be excuse me I believe it can be 40 ft above BFE which is base flood elevation 40 40 and what does your blueprint show for for your lots 9 through 15. I apologize. I I don't have those. That's not my department.

So, you're looking for a variance and you just don't know how high you're going to go. This isn't a variance. It is a ordinance amending. Yes. From low to high. Well, right now this is the text amendment. This is just to allow this if this doesn't pass, this won't go forward. I just want to say for the record, I am opposed for this. Can you say why?

It's residential. Um, and the low density residential has always been that way. I am concerned with the flooding going into my property and I can't get an answer on how high this is going to go. I It could go 40t BFE. 40 40 feet. You talking about the the building itself? Yes. Multi that that just multi-residential just just for a reference. The single family zoning that currently exists there the uh height is 35 ft BFE. So there's a 5ft difference. So you're worried about how tall the building is going to be?

Yes. Oh, okay. Yeah. 30. Yeah. I think 35 ft is the normal, right? Where are the blueprints for the proposed building of this? I'd like to look at those. I don't I don't The applicant would have them. Um, Carl Bench, for the record, you could send a public record request to the billing department and they would be able to provide those for you. the blueprints. Yes.

But if it we're here for amending this, it seems like you would have these available in this meeting. Well, we're not really addressing the construction that that is addressed in the DRC and other other organizations. What we're doing, we're the planning commission, so we're we're addressing the zoning uh and the the future land use map and that sort of thing. So we don't really have control over that but they there is an organization called the development review committee which is made up of all the heads of all the various departments and they they have approved this unanimously. So I assume it it meets all the requirements. So you're saying Robert that it this is already approved.

No I'm not saying that. Okay. with this board. If this board doesn't approve the the change here, these three different changes that go together to make this, then it won't go forward. But it's still we're not the final decision maker. Do you understand that? It goes to the city council and the city council then will make the final decision. But they won't do that unless the DRC, the head of all these different departments, utility, engineering, uh, urban design, they approve it and then we approve it. If we if we approve it, then it goes to the city council for ultimate approval. Does that make sense? That'll give me time to look.

Yeah, it gives you plenty of time. Yeah. And and you can get those bu I'm I'm sure that I can they go to 40t on a on a duplex or they have to they're up to 35 foot. Well, a multif family structure is the zoning allows for 40. 40t. Okay. There you go. It probably would be 40 ft, but I apologize. So, there's already plans that are submitted. Um, we don't anticipate it being that high. Um, I don't I don't know the height off hand. Um, but I I I the height wasn't an issue with this before. Um, it was the zoning. Okay. And that's with the 35 ft. So, Carl, I can give you the dates as well.

This there is a house already existing on this one, correct? Yes. So, nothing. That's the conclusion of the public comment. I'm sorry. We're just getting a little bit fuzzy here. between what's the conversation with a staff member and what's considered part of the public comment for the meeting. So if you guys want to have that conversation on the record, you can, but I need to restart the timer. And if not, then you all can have to get Yeah, let me know when it's up. Well, is a little with the back and forth. I'm doing my best to start and stop it as needed, but it's really supposed to be an opportunity for the board to hear comment and then for the board to consider those comments during their discussion. Okay. Uh, next speaker who wants to please come up.

Um, my name is Mary Kim Castellano. I have been sworn in. I live at 2823 Bay. And Heather, could you look at the back of my property because it looks like the parcels, the seven parcels are going lot line to lot line. And like city. Um we have these beautiful woods behind us that are basically a wildlife corridor. We see all kinds of animals and birds. And is that going to be torn down or that's up to the future buyer? Well, I think I need a point of clarification. Are we t uh our proposed legislative amendment is for seven parcels. The Magdalina project is for three of those seven,

right? So while seven might be converted in development right now, are all seven in development or No, not to my knowledge. No, just the three. But they want to make it uniform so they're not, you know, single family multi and Okay. So 2823, you're um right next to 2819. Uh right now you back to one of those lots. As I understand it's these seven right here that includes this house. So, there's seven lots and who owns these four? I don't know, but I'm sure they've got notice, right, Rachel? They've been all given specific notice by mail from the urban design. Okay. So, does that

and no one's complained? Can Can we put this picture up? Oh, is that from the It's in my It's in my uh agenda packet. So, your house, ma'am, backs to um 2823 backs to an empty lot now. And that's not a part of the that's part of what we're approving to change to a high or we're we're seeking approval to change to a high density, but it's not currently a property that is in development by the the Magdalina folks.

I don't know. I mean, I don't know at least yet what's the question when this construction will start once the city council approves it which it'll go to city council when Rachel Sure. Well that's for the three that are already pl that already have the rest of it we have no idea they're schedu March 11th and March 25th. Okay, for the three that are already they have two readings just for this to move forward this process. Correct. Sorry about that. I was on the line. So they have two readings. They have a first reading and a second reading. So that's March 11th. And so you need to write those down if you want to say more to the city council. Thank you. The one that's listed as 12 is behind your property now.

Okay. That um it's there there's the three that are in development and then there's the two empty ones. The lower one is 12. So they're in the future. They're we don't know who owns them at least at this moment in time. We currently don't have anything for those other sites for development. We just wonder what's left alone. Okay. All right. Anybody else want to come up? Yes. Come on up, please.

We'll swear you in. Any anybody else that's just come in and hasn't sworn in wants to speak on these closet? Okay, good. Go ahead and raise your right hand, ma'am. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in today's proceedings? I do. Okay. And then just state your name for the record.

My name is Mary Sabahar. Um, we own one of the properties across from these, um, specifically one of the a couple of empty lots. Um, I'm I'm all for completing the eyes that are there now, the three um, properties that were started and I and apparently incorrectly given permits to do so. Um, I'm a little cons and yeah, I'm sorry that you guys live across that live outside of Panagorta and in Charlotte Park that they're going to take down those trees, but you guys can plant trees on your property to, you know, to get the wildlife to stay too because the new owners are going to probably cut down the trees because those lots aren't huge to begin with. Um, but I but there is a single family house there now. And one of the this one of the zoning the zoning proposal includes changing that to multi-unit. And I would prefer that it not be all multi-unit, multi-unit, multi-unit, but mixed, some single family, some um multi-unit because there are also two other complexes further down Magdalena that are in the build stage that appear to be stopped construction there too. Well, I don't know what the issue is or if they're just very very very slow. So, I would prefer that it be mixed and not all multi-unit. Um, but for sure, we'd like the things that are look like they're bombed out buildings to be allowed to continue and complete.

Thank you. Uh, Carl Bench for the record. Um, so the general multif family does allow single family housing. It also allows it with reduced setbacks. So, it's kind of a benefit if you want to build a single family home. Um, so it does allow for that mixed use and that's kind of what we're doing. Um, unfortunately, you can't zone, leave a space, zone. That's called spot zoning. It's illegal. So, you have to, it all has to be contiguous. It all has to connect. Um, and so that's why this finger kind of extends down. It doesn't stop those undeveloped parcels from developing. Um, they can be single family if they choose to. Anybody else want to speak? I I'm sorry. I have another question.

Yeah, sure. So, why those four then? Because it's connected to general multif family. If you follow this road up to the corner, there's already existing general multif family there. So, again, it has to be contiguous zoning, so it has to touch. So, that's why. And I see that there's four properties south of it. Yes. That are multif family or will remain single family? They will remain the same. Um, we looked into those properties to I mean, we should probably be talking about this at the reszone part, not necessarily at the text amendment part, but we get the questions done now. We won't have any.

Okay. Um, so we looked at those properties. There are not the one right on the corner, but the two next up from it, they're actually they wouldn't meet the minimum lot requirements. So, if we did change that whole zoning, we would have to do a text amendment to the lot requirement uh square footage to allow those to fit in. um don't know how they got split to the size that they are, but they are the way they are and right now they're existing. So, by us not touching them, we don't have to get into that mess. Thank you, Chuck. Any anybody else? Tony, John, you all good? All good. You guys all good?

Okay, we're through with the testimony. So, we'll I'll entertain a motion to approve or deny. Sorry. Can I ask one more question? Sure. Do we have to include those four? Yes. Okay. Because he's saying has to be a minimum size or a minimum number or it just has to be connected. Okay. Sorry. We'll need to do a motion for the public. Oh yeah. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Been moved. Second move and second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I.

Passes unanimously. Now I'll entertain a motion to uh approve or deny this this uh SV 012020. No, let's see. Get the right number. ZA ZA. Yeah. ZA ZA 03 2026. I'll make a motion to approve. And move to approve. Any second? I'll second. Then move the second to approve and all those in favor say I. I oppose. Passes unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you very much. But you guys will stick around.

Okay. Um next next on our agenda is um CP012026 Magdalina flu change. That's a future land use map change to accommodate what we just did. Okay. So, yes, Carl Bench for the record urban design. Um, and we are here to talk about the Magnolia Drive future land use uh change and the reason. So, this is kind of give you a location of the map. This was uh included in the legal ads to show where the site is. So, here's a little bit of history on the site. February 25, 2022, the building permits were issued for 2926 and 2930 and 2938 Magdalina Drive for development of duplexes. The current and the zoning then general single family 3.5 district does not allow for duplexes. September 22nd, 2022, seven months later, the error was discovered and a stop work order was placed on the site. Between December 29th, 2022 and August 26, 2023, there were there was numerous communications between the city and Mr. Bill Morgan, which is the contractor who owns the properties. And in March of 2025, staff was directed to move forward with the resoning of the Magdalina properties. And that's when we stumbled across the Texas number that happens. So that's what kind of and we had to go through legal. So it it kind of it did last a little bit, but we were waiting to make sure that we dotted all of our eyes and crossed all our tees before we

That's where

um so we get this is the the properties and questions um from your right number nine all the way up to 15 on your left. And we went ahead and did some density calculations for this so that it gives an idea of the people. So all of the properties 9 through 14, 14's already developed so we don't have to really worry about that. at 9 through 13. Right now, their max dwelling unit goes from one to two. So, that's how we allow the duplex. It goes by 10 dwelling units per acre. Each one of these lots are about from 9 to 14. Each one of those are about a quarter acre lot. So, that comes out a little above two. You round down, you get two units. the large one number 15 at the end that abuts an already existing general multif family zoning. That one can fit three units if they desire or any of these three vacant lots can do single multif family if that's or single family if that's something they wish to do. So here's a uh a map of the proposed zoning. Um, once again, the two lots by the corner of Magdalina Drive and Aiesta Drive, they would not meet the lot standard requirements for the GM10 district. So, the district was stopped at the proposed sites. Um, and if we were to include the whole side of the road to Magdalina Drive, it would require text amendments to allow this as I previously mentioned. So, it would be more more stuff to do in order to move forward. This is the proposed future land use and we have to change the future land use in order to be compliant with the comprehensive plan. So we change the future land use to highdensity residential and we change the general uh the zoning from general single family to general multif family to be in compliance. So the order goes text future land use zoning. So here's some comparisons. Um and we thought this is something that we should bring up to to kind of stifle some of the fears. Both uh single family and

multif family have the same front set back of 25 feet. And both uh the rear setback for a single family is actually 25 and a multif family. The rear setback is 15. And the max height, I'm sorry, I have these backwards. It's 35 ft for single family and 40T for multif family. And with this staff recommends approval of CP0126 and Z01 2026. You have any questions? Chuck questions back. Okay. No questions.

No question. Uh I know you have questions. Wait, I'll ask the other guys first. Any questions? Okay. Okay. Uh, so I think you know maybe some of the concerns we heard from the folks were that that's high density and I think I feel um better that I know that this has only gone from a one to a two unit or maybe a one to three on that end unit. Um, but couldn't one of those developers come before this board and ask for a waiver and and build some kind of So you can't ask for a variance on density. That's that's

okay. So, we've gone from um one to two, but there's not likely that we can go higher than that in that space. Thank you. That that encapsulates it. It's not. Any further questions? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Did it. So, move. Second. Move second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. Wait, we have someone. I'm sorry. I didn't see because I I don't think you test for public comment yet. Oh, you as board members. Oh, yeah. That's right. We did the last one. Okay. We we'll now have open open the meeting for public hearing.

Good afternoon.

My name is John Shallo. My wife and I are residents of Punagorta and own 2920 Magnolena Drive right next door to the abandoned duplexes and is one of the properties included in this resoning. The city staff report under uh property rights uh element which is policy 12-1-2 states that the city of Pagora recognizes and respects private properties rights and respects such rights and impact upon when the preparing the recommendations which they've already laid out as they recommend it. Um, I can tell you uh that no one from the city ever reached out to us and asked us what our concerns about this resoning were. And in fact, the only way we knew this was going through two weeks ago, we received this notification. I uh previously I've consulted with the uh former director of zoning, Lisa Hanning, back in 2023. She explained why construction was stopped next to our lot. She explained what had happened and what transpired and one of the options for the builder was a land zoning change which would also include our property being next door. I was infor I I informed her at that time we would not be in favor of such a change. At the city council in 2024 meeting, the then city attorney, Mr. Lavine, gave a lengthy opinion and stated that the property owner bears the responsibility to his to him known the zoning at the time he submitted for permit. He also opinioned that a duplex could reduce the

value of surrounding properties, which we agree with. Bill Morgan of uh Lewis Maguire Homes contacted us in early October 2023 in which he told us about the improper permitting with the city. He brought up the possibility of changing the zoning of his three properties with the addition of four other properties including ours. We explained that we purchased our lot in 2019 knowing it was zoned for single family residences and were not in favor of changing it to a multif family zoning. Mr. Morgan then offered to purchase our property so he would be able to have it in favor of the zoning changes. Mr. Morgan then offered I'm sorry I already read that. Uh he emailed us a sales agreement in which added verbiage that was not discussed in our phone conversation. He a he added that we would have to help him get the zoning changed and the closing would only happen after the city approved the zoning change. May I May I am I allowed to continue because this directly affects us.

Yeah, I'll give you a little bit.

Yeah, that's all I need, sir. Thank you. Days later, he called and asked why we didn't sign the agreement. We then asked, "What incentive do you have closing closing on the purchase of our lot once you have your zoning changed?" We felt that he could walk away, losing very little deposit, and we would be left holding a piece of property with a zoning that we did not want. We never heard from Mr. Morgan. Again, in this if this is approved without our consent, what guarantee is going to be made that these homes will be completed in a timely manner? Mr. Morgan's company has three other properties, two, three other duplexes in various stages of construction on Magdalena that have been stopped for some re for some reason and some time now. What would be what what is going to be done with those? Please do not violate our rights as property owners to correct the mistakes of the developer or the city. In concluding, we are the property owners of 2920 Magdalena Drive, parcel number 412213258004 and Adamly and are adamantly against this zoning change.

Thank you. No, don't go away. Okay. We have a right to ask you questions. Yes, sir. question. Um,

what date were you made aware by?

It was it was back in u when we when I spoke to Lisa Hammond, who I knew very well because I am a retired builder in Panagorta. Um, I asked her, "Well, why did this construction stop?" and she said, "Well, we have a little problem that we issued the permit improperly um to Mr. Morgan, who by the way is a licensed real estate agent or his his wife is." Um so, um that's when we first found out about it. And you know, it's my contention that everyone says, "Oh, well, the the builder, you know, the city's done the builder wrong." the builder should have known. I mean, as as many homes as I built in the city of Pagora, I knew what the regulations were and also I would make it a point to go to the staff meeting who looks at your development and they go through everything. So, it give them another layer to check to make sure everything's proper. So, to answer your question, that's when the first time we learned about it was back in 2023.

2020 My only uh question is um it sounds as if you would like to have some idea on a time frame of maybe some completion of the buildings that had been

Well, I I don't I don't know truthfully after dealing with Mr. Morgan. Um and there's a reason why he didn't contact the city back because he knew he knew that there was basically us that were standing in his way. we gave him the option of taking care of that and he backed away from it because he wanted to give us a contract that no one in the right mind would sign. So, uh, so you can ask Bill and you can get you can get a letter from Bill or his attorney saying, "Oh, yeah, we'll finish it." But what you know, if he doesn't if he doesn't finish it within a certain amount of time, what ramifications you have? Secondly is I don't want a multif family right next to the property we bought that was um residential zoned. I don't think any any of you sitting here would would would would be in favor of it personally. I might be wrong but uh I certainly am not.

So go ahead. But so so which I just I'm confused which property is your the you have a multi family property. Put that back up there. The number 12. Number 12. So, but put it up there so they can see it. So, these are single family. So, he owns one of these multi empty lot. Okay. So, if you look if you look at your it's probably on your screen. It is right here that number 12. So, we're right next door to the duplexes. And then I don't know if anyone's reached out to this homeowner just because they've been sent notifications. Some people don't like to come and speak publicly, you know. Um I don't know if they reach out to that resident that's a single family resident. Has anyone asked them what they what they think about this?

I think we did. Did Did you mail all those people? Every one of them been mailed. Well, again, so that's how you I agree. They they probably mail it, but but like I said, not everyone feels comfortable standing in front of people and saying, you know, we can't guess what they're going to unless they show up. We have to we have to deal with it. You can't. But in making in staff making recommendation, I think they should have reached out to people and say, "Hey, how do you feel? How do you feel?" doesn't have a home. So So you own the the single family behind the multif family. That's You don't No. Right. No. I Right beside it. You own the multif family? No, no, no. We We own the single family lot. Oh, the single family lot. Yes, we own the single family lot right beside the the construction. That's So he's talking about this. This is all multif family.

Are you're going to be reszone multif family from single family? Your lot is. We don't want that. I understand that. That's what you're talking about. You don't own the single family behind it. You own No, no, no. You own We own the property in Burnt Store Isles. What? Let Let me ask you a question. Wouldn't your property be more valuable as a multif family than a single family? Well, I don't think there's any. I don't know. I'm just asking. You probably do.

Personally, I say it it wouldn't be because now who would if I were to build a single family home there, who who wants to live next to a a a multif family home, a duplex? And besides that, from my understanding talking to someone I know in the city, that a lot of his properties, these duplexes have been sold to investors, so they're being rented out. So, would you want to have a a rented duplex right next to Well, you just built a home. Would you like to have that next to you? No, but they could do it. Well, if you're if you're zoned properly. But this when we purchased it, it was not. I live in the historic district and they can they can put a duplex right on any any location. We do. We do too. We do too.

Yeah. So then you know what I'm talking about. Yes. Like I said, we are residents of Quanagorta and have been since 2009. Yeah. Okay. Um, any other questions? I'll entertain a motion. Oh, wait. We got to close the public hearing. Anybody else to speak? hearing. I'll entertain a motion to close the phone. Oh, we got another one. All right. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Bonnie Shello and I have been sworn and I'll let you know I am one of those is not my comfort zone. I am very much beyond this. So, bear with me, but I feel like I need to stand up here and say this. uh too. Uh we do own that lot, 2920 Magdalina Drive, adjacent to those three duplexes that were erroneously issued permits in a single family residential area. Uh I want to state we do not approve of this zoning change. We purchased the lot as single family in a in a part of the road that is single family. If I wanted to own multi, I could have went around the corner and bought a multifamily lot at the time because there were a number of lots for sale at the time. We, as he stated, we received no prior notification of this. Absolutely no one reached out to let us know what was going on until, like you said, a couple weeks ago, we got that notice.

That's we don't feel it's right or fair. We are being asked to change our property zoning to rectify someone else's error. We did our due diligence when we purchased our lot. I mean, it's ultimately the owner or the buyer's responsibility. You have to know what your zoning is before you start to ask for permitting. Um, I mean, also in the city, I've read this is not the first time that someone has um had to take accountability for for their actions and rectify their construction error at their expense. I mean, it's unfortunate. I felt bad when the guy communicated with us. I talked with him briefly, Mr. Morgan. He did mention, yeah, he's not sure how it got overlooked, but he really kind of blamed the city about it and said the city had insurance that should help pay for this error, but that that didn't come through. So, um, again, what's going to guarantee that he is going to resume the construction next door to us if it's going to sit there? Uh, he's got a few others that are sitting. I don't know what the story is, but they're in multi- family zoning if if he's built them this far, but yet construction has ceased. So, um anyway, I think I appreciate your time and consideration. Can I ask you a question? But if he offered to buy your property, why didn't you put a why didn't you give him a contract and make it a condition um that if it was reszoned, he had to fulfill the contract?

So, I mean, I'm I'm getting way out of our responsibility. It's just a question. You're you're a knowledgeable man dealing with contracts. So, so repeat your question for me, please. said if if you wanted him if you're worried about him closing with you if he he entered into a contract, you could make it a condition that he has to close the contract closed if if he gets the zoning. Well, when he called us back and asked us why we hadn't signed and sent back um the agreement um that was proposed to him. Yeah, it was.

Yeah. And it's like I said, what are you trying to do? And he said, "Oh, oh, I wouldn't do anything like that." meaning that he would go ahead and everything's approved and then he'll just walk away from it. I I forget what the number was he put for his deposit, but sure. What a what a great What about 2,000?

So So it was a great deal for him. So he gets he gets to basically buy our vote and then walk away from the purchase of the uh the property. He didn't after that he did not respond back to us or contact us back. So, he had every opportunity to say, "Well, let me let me just take that right off. I'm going to buy your property. I'll close right now." Um, but he didn't. So, okay. I'll entertain a motion. Oh, wait. Got to close the public hearing. Uh, entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So, move. Second. Second.

Been moved and second to close the public hearing unless anybody else out there wants to speak. Going twice. Going three times. Okay, I'll uh take a vote. I've got I've got a question for the city. Um are there performance bonds that are required by these contractors when they start this? Uh I couldn't answer that. That has to do with the building department. Um I'm I'm urban design. I apologize. I don't have that information. Do you know Rachel?

Rachel Barry for the record. Um, I'm not aware of that, but if if it's leading to is there a way to make them finish construction, if that's the concern, um, if if the zoning change and the land use change go through and everything is approved, we'll give them six months to reactivate the permit. And if not, then we're going to open a code compliance case. Well, then we can make that as a condition of approval that he has to Yes, sir. It's been my experience that when these things go into violation like this through um when purpose withdrawal the performance bond is usually um not enforceable.

So um you can't condition the future land use or zoning. What about completion? Completion I mean these are started. It's so the zoning is different from the structures. You can't place the structures completion and the zoning. They're two separate things. One's a building and one's the property, right?

In the normal world, they didn't start construction, stop it, and then change zoning midstream while the construction's going on. I don't I think there's a way to make this applicable. And and And and I like the path you're going down, but I think it should be conditional. You know, if they're going to do that, I we can put anything we want on our we can put a condition on there, even though we Rachel, we can say we approve it, but we recommend two different ways. Um, I've seen it where conditions have been added and I've also heard that you cannot add conditions and so I would defer to

Well, we can add the condition and they can ignore it if they want. There you go. But will it I mean it's it's the city council getting what we think. That's even then would it do us any good though because if he just lets it lapse it won't do any good. It just that's it won't help the property owners. It's true. But the city will know where we're at. Maybe they will they can do it. I don't know. Hi. Um, Hank Flores, urban design manager. The only time you can kind of condition something is if the owner or the applicant or the we had the property owner profered the condition. Um, it's not really I see.

It's legal but not legal. Um, but he's not here so you can't really get a profit from it. Okay. Well, okay. Is this a question for Lecovich? Yeah, the Lecovich is not here. Can we table it? We can table it, but it's going to it's going to put everything far behind. So, no. Yeah. Well, we already have the uh set up in March council set up. Yeah. Who can who can who has that power to put that kind of constraint on the developer? The developer. Are you say again

the developer can put that constraint if he had an agreement with the board to do something if like I said if he profered something but he's not here. No, you can't. He got he's noticed, right? Yes. Know why he's not here. So make a suggestion. Can we make a suggestion or Yeah, I I think we can add a condition. It would be a suggestion and not enforceable, just so you know, because uh without his approval and the city council probably can't do anything without his approval, but he might he might um want to do something about it before city council meeting. A strong recommendation from this group to council, right? You can do that.

It's not maybe you won't call a condition recommendation. Okay. So, we can't really swing at that. We're just we have it. Yeah. But would it do any good? Maybe not. I don't we don't know. We don't know how the city council is going to do it. I don't mean with the council. I mean with the developer you might could walk away.

I think the point is is we've heard from the community two concerns. One that we were going to have high density um high heights. We're destroy the the community field and then the other one that they're going to leave it lighted. Uh while we know the first won't happen, we're limited to two um units per property on average. Uh and we add our strong recommendation and maybe like a chastisement about check your zoning before you start building, right? Uh that seems to be all we can do at this board or we can we can disapprove. We don't have to move forward with this. But doesn't that create blighting? I mean, you know, then we have three undeveloped partially developed properties.

Well, but I don't know that changes anything. Keep in mind this is a recommendation. So it'll still go before city council whether you recommend approval or denial. Right. Understood. But it's the the it seems that the builder would be in the if we dis if we recommend disapproval and city council goes along with that. The builder is still in the same position. He has three blighted lots and city can still take the same actions and say do something with these or we're going to act. Is that correct? And if he doesn't, then that's up to him. But whether we approve or disapprove this, the same outcome could happen from what I can understand.

Yes. You're you're just providing a recommendation to council for what they should do. Correct. But the sentiment of council was to fix this, wasn't it? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. But that was Did they have testimony that they have? No. They'll have this testimony at city council meeting. Right. But And it's there's no way to assure them. From what I've heard, the onus is on the owner, the property owner to make sure his own zoning's right when he begins the project. And he's not here and he didn't. Correct. So I I can't speak. I wasn't here. Right.

Um all I know is it was issued permits and then seven months later the error was found. Right. But the zoning was in established at the time the permit were was issued. Correct. So the zoning didn't change was the permit was bad, but the zoning didn't change. So the onus seems to me to still be on the property owner at the time to make sure through whatever means he's got available to make sure he's allowed to do legally what he's intending to do. And he wasn't. Is that correct? I can't speak for the owner. I

No, no, no. I meant in terms of the way the ordinances worked. So at the time at the time the permit was issued it was in violation of the ordinance. It was in it was in violation of the zoning. Correct. The zoning correct. But the city did approve it. I understand. I understand. But the two mistakes. The city's got a problem of its own. But ultimately from the property owner isn't a buyer beware. And I think legally you're probably right that that uh the property the the property owners probably couldn't go against the city. But I don't know which less of it is here.

Well and again that's not our concern. Our concern is whether or not to allow for the comprehensive plan amendment to reange to zone. I think we're all in agreement that forward with that. I think it's just this particular situation there needs to be some accountability or a strong recommendation from our group for someone but we can't control the builder right so under any circumstances regardless of what we recommend and even if city council did that the builder still can do what the builder wants to so Jim if the builder came back with a um some kind of timeline guarantee would that assuage your concerns what's a guarantee what if he doesn't do it

city's still in the same position where they issue a warning and then they go out citing for code violations and we're in the same position we would have been otherwise and I'm concerned about the fact that these people who bought a property Mr. Chair, I apologize for interrupting board members. If you could I cannot hear anything that you all are saying. I really need you guys to talk into the microphones. I appreciate that you're having a conversation with each other, but pretend that the person you're talking to is the microphone and everybody will hear you. Thank you so much. Our names, right? My apolog.

And if I can also add Rachel Barry for the record. Um, so regardless if the zoning and land use are approved or if they're denied, whenever the final action is taken within 6 months, if a building permit has not been pulled or reissued, code compliance will start a case. Um, that may not force anyone to do anything, but once it gets to code board and they start having fines rack up day after day, we only have to wait three months after filing that lean and we can foreclose on the property if it's not homestead. Okay. So, when you issue the building permit, that's there's a time frame that they have to execute it and you're saying we don't have we don't have any control. Nobody. It's just there.

Correct. It would expire after 6 months if they don't do any work. I understand. But if we if we pass the zoning change, the impact on the adjacent property owners doesn't change. That's correct. It is still modified their property right through something they had no control over and wasn't in existence at the time they bought. We we wouldn't be here, would we? Had the mistake not been been made by both the property owner who's trying to develop those three lots and the city for the reszone. Yes. Um for the text amendment, that was inevitable, right? That was going to happen. This just brought it to the surface sooner. Okay.

So, what happens if we don't approve this or if we recommend not approving? I know you just take it to council that you guys recommended uh disapproval. Disapproval. Yes. And then thereby guarantee that those properties don't get developed or don't finish. No, it depends what city council does. No. Well, negotiate more in that direction and then it'll depend on what the owner does. So, but he can't the builder cannot continue without this change. Right. That's correct. Yeah. Unless he changed the structures. Yes.

Look, I think this I think the city council is pretty well they're the ones that initiated this. It's pretty well that they're going to approve it. I I I really think what we need to do is suggestion is approve it or deny it, but with a strong recommendation that that the builder satisfy Mr. Alifo, if I said your name right, uh, as far as as um the construction time, I know he's worried about two things, the change in density and the construction time, but we can at least address that and our conditions our recommendation. All right. Because city council's going to do it. Yes, sir. I have one question.

Oh, I'm sorry. Closer. Um, Rachel, to your knowledge, has the builder's attorney ever reached out to to say anything or legally or Yes. Um, so not recently. I've just dived into the history of this. Again, I'm new to the city within the last year, so I kind of had to jump into what's going on. There were discussions between the city attorney and uh uh Mr. Wagner's attorney as well. Um, it kind of came to a halt last year and that's when it got pushed to where it's at. Got it. All right. So, Jim, they came to the same conclusion you're at.

Say again. Well, I like Bob's. I like what you said. I think we should move forward with that, please. I can't make that motion, though. Okay. Entertain a motion one way or the other, guys, to move it. You can make a motion. You can make a motion. You can make a motion. I make a motion to deny. Is there a second? I'll second. And a motion uh to deny this uh zoning this flip. I guess we're on the flip the flip the future land use map change. No comprehens.

Um excuse me. I think you have to provide reasons for denial if you don't mind. We do. Okay. So you're you're moving to deny um CP 01 2026. That's the one we're on, I think. Correct. That's comprehensive plan amendment and it's the it's the Flume amendment. It's the future land use map change, isn't it? No, you're on the Which one is that? 01 20 CP1. Yeah. I'm going take turn you to the page that we're on. 36 is where I am. 36.

A lot of pages here, buddy. Where's the language? Yeah, this is this is this is the future. Yeah, but it's what it really comes down to is they're changing the future land use map. That's this one right here. Rachel, we're just changing the future land use map here at this juncture, aren't we? Yes. And the next one is the reason. Yeah, the next one is the reason. It's just both presentations were together and the PowerPoint. Well, if we deny this, we there's probably no use going on to the second one, right? Well, again, these are recommendations. So, yeah, you should if you deny if you deny recommend recommending this, you can deny recommending the other one.

Um, but we probably still need to have that because again, you are recommending. It's a recommendation. And you're not approving or disproving anything. Well, you're you're you're doing you're you're recommendation is to deny CPO12026 amendment to the future land map. This is where it says it right there. No, I understand. Um Heather, if I may, it seems like it may be in our best interest to approve this, recommend approval of this and then on the next one, which is the the zoning itself. Correct. That one we would deny. that one. Right. Right. So, but that doesn't that make sense? I mean, this is

No, because if you approve the high density, then you would now make the current zoning out of compliance with the comp plan. So, they need to change together or they need to stay the same together. I understood. Yeah. I just was thinking, yeah, you can deny them both. Our concern get board approval. I Yeah. Okay. All right. I guess we leave it where it is. Okay. So, so what is the what is the number? Do you want to make recommendations? It's on It's on page 36 and it's Yeah, if you look at that, that'll help you out a lot. And it's um CPO1 2026. Sorry people, we have 137 pages to deal with today. So, we're trying. Hi.

Okay. Heather, I make a motion to deny CPO1 2026 Magdalina Drive city initiated amendment of the future land use map designation from lowdensity residential to highdensity residential for the reason that I've heard um considerable uh complaint from the surrounding residents um and from residents that would or owners of property that would be impacted and I've heard nothing from the uh developer as to why this should move forward. I've also not heard any um addressing of the resident's concern about uh the the trees, the the surrounding, the water runoff, the um uh pavement use or whatever leads to flooding. um

or property valuations or property valuations for uh the the impacted lots. Do you do you want to add in the density? He's concerned about the density and the completion of the construction. That's Yeah. Um there is some concern about the the properties or and also we've heard concern about properties with high density in um what was a uh single family residential area and um the builder's uh reputation for slow development or no development of existing lots of existing properties. Man, did you get enough over there?

I believe so. And if the board would like I'm happy to back that summary if it's helpful for you. Was that the motion? No, that that says motion. Now we're doing I'll second it. We probably did that all wrong. You know, you guys already had a motion second, but we clarified it already been moved and seconded and we just clarified the reasons the motion. So, okay. So, we have the same motion, same second on the table. All right. We've got a motion to deny. Uh yeah, I I would change one thing at the end. We don't know the reputation of the builder. We're relying on hearsay for that. So I would strike that from

those are just her her reasons for the Okay, I'll strike that too. I don't need to malign somebody. I don't know. Right. Thanks. All right. This this is um the motion on the table is to deny and it's been seconded to deny CPO12026 which is the amendment to the future land use map designation from low density residential to high density residential. Um it's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say nay. Nay. So it's six to one on the Yeah. I would recommend that the builder, you know, approach again with some of these concerns. Concerns address them.

Addressed. Well, the city council city, he's going to have a chance. This This is not a final decision. Remember that. And that goes to city council. Goes to city council. complainant aren't even resural.

All right, guys. But we we got to stay in order here. If you guys want to talk, go outside. Okay. So, we we got to continue. All right. So, here we go. The next the next item. Oh, did I announce it was 6 to1? I did. Okay. The next now we're going from uh we're going into the quasi judicial public hearings. 2011 Z1 2026 Magdalene Drive amendment to the district designation from GS3.5 to GM10. Page 60. This is just on three lines. Are we on page 60?

Let me see. Let's see. This is page 47. 48. Yeah. 47 48. All right. Hang on a second. I got this all written 48. Okay. I see I got it here. I can't find it. No, it's here. Oh, here it is. Right here. I got it right here.

Uh, yeah. 59 and 60. Page 59 60. Is that what you got? 48. Z1. I got 60 Z Z. Oh, Z1. Okay. Yeah. 47. You're right. I got the Z the ZA and found the Z01. What page you want, Bob? Um, no, we just did, let's see, 2026. No, we did the future land use. So, now we're doing the res. Yeah, now we're doing Z1 2026, right? Which is on page 47.

Okay. Do do we still need to vote on this or can we just pull it since it's no longer since you're a recommendation board? We need you to vote on it. Okay. Um public comment again. Um if you would like we can forward the testimony from the previous to this one. So everything that you said for the last one exactly can be the same for this one. You'll still have to do the public comment separate though because

ask for public comment. Well, first let me let me read read it into the record what we're considering. So, we're on page 47 Z012026. U next on the agenda is U Z12026 Magdalina Drive amendment to the district designation from GS3.5 to GM10. And um I'll open the public hearing. Okay, John Shalico for the record and I have been sworn again um I don't the direction that was going. My bottom line is I don't want my property resed. Okay, we are the land owner and I don't believe it's right that that that we're putting in the position because of the city made an error, the builder made an error that it comes down to us being the one that pay the price for it. That's the bottom up. And um I just want to clarify something that I served on on city boards for over 10 years. I chaired two. The last one was the code compliance board. So if this doesn't go through and the city the city um um council turns it down, correct me if I'm wrong, but uh the the board the the um code compliance board can issue um on this that they need to rectify the problem, which means tear it out. I'm sorry. tear it out and bring the property back to its original condition. And if they don't do that, then the city has authorization because it's not a structure that's lived in that they can go and tear it out and then file a lean against the property owner. But again, you know, I'm I'm sorry it sounds bad, but there is precedent in the city. I've seen it several times before where the city issued the prop the the permit improperly and they went back and forced the the developer or the builder to to

rectify the problem and bring it back into compliance. So, but thank you for your last vote. We appreciate it. Anyone else uh care to speak on this issue? No one wants. Second call for public speakers. Third call for public speakers. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So move. Second. Move in the second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. I. Carries. Unan. Now I'll entertain a motion. Oh, sorry. No, you shoot, man. If you want to say something. No, I'm just documenting. Just here to

Okay. Um, I'll entertain a motion to approve or deny Z12026. I get the right number. Sure. Yeah. Okay. I'll move to deny. I'll second it. And move the second to deny Z12026. Um, all those in favor say I. I. Oppos? Nay. Carry six to one. Same reasons as before.

Same reasons. Thank you very much. Thank you. So that's the three we have on that Magdalina issue. So now we go to uh the vested rights determination. Um do we have ZA? Oh wait, the LDR ZA1. Oh yeah, ZA12026 which is on page 59 there.

Good afternoon Adriana Gerie Plater One. Um so for ZA-01-2026 uh the proposed amendments to establish required procedures for the review and approval of certified recovery residences to comply with Florida statute 397.48715A. The proposed ordinance amends article three of chapter 26 to add certified recovery residences as a use permitted with conditions in zoning districts where residential uses are allowed. The proposed ordinance also amends article 4 to adopt a new section 4.42 42 certified recovery residences uh which establishes definitions, application requirements, administrative review procedures and timelines for processing requests. Uh it also includes provisions related to reasonable accommodation requests. Are there any questions?

Is this another example of the state shoving down our throats what we need to do? We don't have to answer that. I it's just, you know, this they can put that right next to any of our houses here. Yep. And you have people under recovery. I mean, I like to help those people out, but why in a single family residence? I don't know. But we do. We have any choice. We have to we have to do this statute. Yes, you do. Okay. Any other questions? No. Heather, you don't have Come on, Heather. Come on, Heather. I'm following. Come on, Heather. I think I'm good.

All right. Have No, do you have Okay. Um, we'll open the public hearing. Anybody here to speak uh for or against the recovery residences? Call a second time. Anyone speak to for the recovery or against them? Third call. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close. Second. It's been moved to second to close the public hearing. All in favor say I. I. I. Okay. passes unanimously.

All right, we're going to vote on it first. Oh, you have something to say, Rachel? Oh, no. Oh, okay. Um, I'll entertain a motion to approve ZA12026 certified recovery residences as required by the statute. So, move second. moved and seconded uh that we approve uh ZA12026. All in favor say I. President unanimously. All right.

Now we've got the last one uh which is the vested rights determination on page 69 of your many documents. This is a request. Um, so, so, uh, B, it's BR2205. No, that's it. That's it. Yeah. Vested rights determination of Kurt W. Havl and Dolores S. David who are seek to have uh, a pool behind. Oh, no. This is a Goldstein. Sorry. Yeah. Goldstein Street on properties 302 and 308 in Goldstein Street. Okay. Rachel. Rachel, go.

All right. Good afternoon, Rachel Barry again for the record. Um, so as summarized in the uh the caption that was on the agenda, um the applicant is seeking a determination of vested rights on the properties. So the applicant met with staff uh me personally multiple times um before purchasing the properties. Um that would be purchased April 2nd, 2025 and then the LDRs changed in July. And so after doing a whole bunch of research and stopping by and meeting after meeting, he could no longer build a home on these properties because the zoning went from uh it was TPGRE, so residential edge back to city center. The only areas in a city center district that allow single family is within the Bethl St. Mark overlay and this is not in that area. So as for the approval criteria, Uh so vested rights are all listed out in chapter 27 of the code. There are four approval criteria the applicant must demonstrate in order to find that um a claim to vested rights has been established. Uh one substantial good faith investment that they have you know spent considerable amount um going into the property reasonable reliance showing that they relied upon the code that was in effect. uh governmental entity action. Um so did something that the city did change what you can now do on the property. And then number four is public interest consideration that if the vested rights were um established and uh on the property that the proposed use would have no adverse public effect. The application was heard before the development review committee on the 23rd of last month and they unanimously

unanimously excuse me voted to find that vested rights have been established based on the above criteria. As for staff recommendation, we do have a few conditions that we would recommend with the approval. Um so one is just noting that it applies to these two subject properties 302 and 308 Goldstein. Uh, number two, future development would comply with all requirements of the zoning designation that was in place when he purchased the properties. Invested rights shall run with the land and that if the properties were reconfigured for some reason, like cut in half or whatever the case may be, um, that it would then have to comply with the code in effect at that time. And the applicant is here if you have any questions. Do you want to speak? Uh, applicant.

Yep. Oh, sorry.

Hello everybody. My name is Kurt Havl. I currently live at 301 Goldstein, right across from the two properties in question. Um, I have been sworn in. Uh, so a little bit of background here. Um, I built in 2024. My house was finished at 301 Goldstein. Um, I absolutely love downtown Panagora. This where I've uh planned to retire and be my last rusting ground, if you will. I like it so much that when the floods happened, my neighbor cross street unfortunately had no insurance. Um, the house is in disarray. The vacant lot was in disarray. So, I bought her out of both properties. It was a very long um tedious process because I had a lot of questions about what I could or could not do. Um approximately sometime in December of 2024, I met Rachel for the first time. I went in uh nobody that was there before when I built my house seems to be there. I had issues when I built my house um being told what I could and could not do and it was being changed literally on the move. multiple times, got through it. I was totally fine with it, but I had concerns moving forward if I was going to purchase this property. So, when I came to Rachel, we had some almost comical conversations where I would say, "Rachel, are you going to be here because you're the person I'm going to trust the most because everybody I know here seems to be gone." and I what I told her what I'd went through on my house and how many times things I was told one rule and then I was totally changed later in in midstream and um she actually comically said one of the times I don't remember if it was our first time we met our second time or third time or fourth time before I bought it she said I said I want to make sure

you're going to be here because you are the person that is is you're my backbone here and somebody that I trust and she said Um, I got a raise to come here and I bought a new car and I can't afford to leave. So, swear to goodness that was our conversation. And so, um, uh, I wanted to buy the property and I had multiple questions. I wanted to buy it so I could build a drive-thru garage um, enter off Goldstein, which would be the legal address, but there's an easement behind it between uh, that property and Dr. Margarass, the dentist, and wanted to see if I could do garages on both sides, my house would be built up even higher this time. And we went through everything and she said, "Yes, you can do that." And because the height requirement or uh rule allowed me to go up to 40 foot high, I don't need to go 40 foot high, but that was a great positive. I wanted to know how much of the lot I could build on because across the street, I can only build on to 60% of either driveway or home. She told me I could build up to 90%, which I actually think it's 80% now, but I could build up to 90%. So, it's getting better and better and better. I don't need 90%. But everything she was telling me was what I needed to hear, but it was actually even better than I wanted to hear. So then we found out that there was a building between the two lots because they're both different tax ID numbers that was never permitted, never inspected. Um had all kinds of issues with it back in the 1990s. So we could not get clear title to buy the property I wanted. So I was going to back out. I was not going to purchase the property. But then we found out that I could if I bought both that the building in the back was not historic in any way because it was built in the 90s that I could go through a process where

I filled out a thing called a certificate of appropriateness. Then I had to fill out a thing for permit and I don't know which one came first. It was one or the other and um to go through that process. So I decided to buy it and I would go through the process once I tore down the building that literally was like 5050 on each lot that then I could sell the lot, the vacant lot that I never wanted in the first place. But this way we could be done legally. So we got everything tore down. The next step was I had to uh do a thing called an engineering study that was requested for the house. And so I went and paid for that. Got that done. got that about five or six weeks. So then Dr. Margra was talking to me about his horrendous parking situation because his employees park up and down Goldstein every single morning. Cole Cluitwick from Hometown Title, they're always trying to get parking spots for their people. So on Monday through Thursday by 8:00 in the morning, our streets packed and they're both sort of fighting for places for their customers and or employees to park. So, he wanted to see if he could b buy part of one of the lots for me. I said, "You know what? I wouldn't mind that at all." So, we came in to see Rachel and I had the engineering study. I hadn't even opened the package yet from the engineer. And I said, "Let's go talk to this young lady named Rachel I've been dealing with." And um now we're into this almost a year. I had bought it like six months earlier. And at that time, I found out that I was no longer going to be allowed to do anything. I bought the properties for because she told me about the thing called the LDR changes. And I said, "Rachel, I don't even know what that means." And she said, "The land development regulations have changed." I said, "What are you tell?" And I was just I was stunned. I was baffled. So, this is where we're at today. Um, I do not feel I did anything wrong. I did I asked her so many questions. I was probably overanalytical. I probably

drove her nuts because I'm a real estate agent and I did do my due diligence. like maybe the previous person hadn't done did his due diligence, but I can only rely on if I go into the city and ask who I'm told to deal with. You know, um before when I built the house, uh uh everybody called him Schmidy, John Smith. I dealt with him. Everything on my house that I built on St. Andrews just went flawlessly. It was effortlessly. When I built this house, every time I went in, I was dealing with somebody different. So when I went down to this process here, I just really really I don't know if I could have asked any more questions of Rachel and you know what can I do, what can I not do and all of those things have not changed. What changed was the LBRs and I bought it as for residential property and now I'm told I can't build on it. So I have listed both properties for sale. The one has been listed and I have listings. I printed them this morning. The one has been listed for 254 days now at 308 Goldstein. I have had zero takers. The house I've had listed for 72 days. I've probably had at least 30 showings at the house. Nobody wants to buy the house once they walk in the house. They're like because there's so many limitations of what can and cannot be done. And it just seems like it's a constant moving target with the rules on here. I was told I couldn't tear down the house. Then I could tear down the house, but I have to wait 18 months. Now I'm under the understanding it might be nine months. But then if I get my vested rights that I only have two years to exercise building the property. So I'm my windows closing and I'm getting all these restrictions and none of these restrictions ever existed when I first bought the property in good faith. And um it just gets frustrating because the and then there might be an additional one-year

variance or something I guess that could do on the two years for our last email. So um it just there's so many moving targets. It's hard for a citizen to know what to trust and what not to trust. And all we can do is rely on the people that we're told to when we walk in. Here's who you got to deal with. And um I have over $300,000 in purchasing the property. I have almost $30,000 into the property. so far. And uh nobody's going to buy this property from me if it's if it's commercial property. Uh it's a 50 by90 lot. Who can build something on a 50 by90 lot? I don't um nothing's been built there in 21 years. That whole corridor has been 100% feudal since Hurricane Charlie. Not a single thing has been built up and down that road. Um the commercial building right across the street just got done selling and it took over a year to sell and it took far less than what it was listed for. Um, so I'm just asking to please have my my rights restored to what they were when I bought it. I swear to God, I did my due diligence. I did more than I thought that I needed to do. And I just feel like the rug has been pulled out from underneath my feet.

Thank you. I appreciate it. That's exactly why we have chapter 27, right? What's chapter 27? That's the vested rights. That's what you're here on. So, it is to protect people who bought when the old LDRs were in. Well, well, I should say the old the TPG and now the new ones come in. So, you're you're going to go you're going to be protected under the ones that were existing at the time you purchase.

Gotcha. And can I say another thing? Um I think I'm a pretty intelligent person, but when you read some of this documentation, I actually went in and she helped me. We sat down for three hours one day. It is sort of overwhelming to you like I can read everything that I'm reading. I I understand the meaning of every single word individually. The summation of some of these paragraphs and some of the bylaws are so overwhelming to a person. We have to rely on city because it's coming in and out so fast and it's a lot of uh HPABS or CAS and all these abbreviated things and codes and numbers and you try to use the website to go research it. It is so hard and even in front of you today there's so many indecisions like Hank Mr. Flores thinks one thing, the other gentleman thought something earlier. If it's confusing to the people working here, it's almost impossible for a citizen to make the perfect decision every time. And that has nothing to do with my case. I'm just telling you it is really complicated.

I hear your frustration. I understand. Yeah, we do. And we had a complete turnover. So, it was add to that and then then then they changed land development regulations. So, you got caught in the vortex of all those storms. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Um, thank you. Is anyone here to speak uh for or against this uh matter? Calling once, calling twice, public speakers, calling three times. Uh, move I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So move. Moved and second and second. Close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. I. Okay. Now, any questions of this man to that you guys have?

No, I'm You do have questions. I knew it. That's okay. We're glad to hear this. Yeah. No, I sure. So, it it you bought the property. Yes, sir. You worked with Rachel. Yes, sir. You had a plan. Yes, sir. Did you develop a Did you come up with a blueprint for a house that you were going to submit for a building? No, I'm basically almost going to duplicate my house now. I'm just going to take it over. I love everything I did, but I wanted to elevate it and do a drive. I understand, but what engineering have you done with the property yet? Well, I haven't done any. Okay. So, what does city staff did the city believe that he had invested rights in the property? Yeah.

Rachel Perry, for the record, uh, yes. Um he met with staff multiple times to ensure that a single family home was permitted. Um and that was the intended use. Um and now that it's back to city center, it's not a permitted use. All right. So you're going to build a house on the property. You are. Yes, sir. Okay. For myself. All right. I'm satisfied. He's got a house there now. He's going to tear it down and then I understand that. But he can't live in one is there. Just want to make sure. Yeah. Yes, sir. All right. Any of you guys have questions? Questions? Questions?

My question is actually for Rachel. In your recommendation um for the approval, it has the following conditions and limitations. Well, maybe it's for both of you. Um first of all, Mr. travel. I'm sorry you've had this horrible experience. And I think there's a lot of people in city council and these different boards who are trying to to um remediate some of those problems and I'm just sorry that you had that experience. Uh but number four, it says any reconfiguration of the subject properties from their original form when platted and recorded shall cause the vested rights to be null and void. Does that constrain Mr. have this intent to either build an elevated garage or partition the land for the the to sell part of it. No. So he could so there's two lots in question. He could sell each separate, but if he tried to divide one of the lots then then that would cancel out any vested rights that were in place and then it would just be city center zoning. Um, so he he then he can't do use part of it for parking for the property behind. That would be correct.

But he could sell it to them and they could That is correct. Would it wouldn't be residential anymore. It would be commercial use. Once he once he sells it, he gives up his vested right and now it's commercial. So the vested rights run with the land. whether or not a new owner is I would assume yes that a new owner is entitled to the code that is currently in place. Um I would defer an official answer to to our city attorney. Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure that that property I didn't hear you ma'am.

I just wanted to make sure you understood that the recommendation that's before us says that you can't reconfigure that second lot. No, Dr. Margar is he's totally out now. He didn't he

Yeah, he said, "Kurt, I'm not I'm not in this anymore." So, okay. Um, now, coincidentally enough, on the second lot, this was a very important thing that we've been emailing back and forth about. Um, one of my lifelong best friends since junior high in high school wants to buy the lot from he wants to retire down here, which I couldn't think of anything better. It'd be the greatest thing ever. He was ready, willing, and able to buy the lot from me. And then we found out that the vested rights might only last two years and he's not retiring for four years and he's like so I can't do that because he you know that he wants to build when he retires and moves down here. Yeah. So Rachel had said something about maybe a year extension that still won't help us.

I'm glad that was uh brought back up. I I meant to address that earlier. So at the time I was under the impression that council had already made a decision that any vested right application that comes to them they want to see a condition of if it's approved of two years um of effective time with an option to come back and request an additional year. When I went back afterwards and listened to the meeting they asked for staff to bring a future agenda item to update the code to make that a requirement with the vested rights applications. So, at this time there isn't a uh time limitation included with the conditions of approval. Um, but that's that's where it came from.

You good? Any other questions? No. Okay. We've closed the public hearing. Any um I'll entertain a motion for approval or denial. I'll make a motion to approve. Second subject subject to the conditions. Subject subject to the conditions. It's not the same as on here. Yes. Yes. Because number three she just said won't is no longer a condition. Rachel, is that correct? Rachel, is that correct? Number three condition you were striking. Which one? The number three condition for a period of two years. The requirement. Uh correct. Just to say um leave the uh the vested right sham or the land and then strike the rest. Okay.

So, there's only one condition then? No, there's three. There's three conditions. There's four, but one we're striking. No, we're striking part of it. So, three will read, "The vested rights shall run with the land." Period. Okay. And we have to include four. Um, yes, I put the Well, those are Oh, here it is. Those are staff's recommendations. Um, but this board can recommend any any conditions. My motion was to approve with those staff recommendations. Yes. I like the staff I like the staff recommendations. Okay. This one is three. That's what you said. Like that run with the land. Right. That's good.

And I have no problem with those because Mr. Do Dr. Margaret's not in the picture anymore. It's been moved the second to approve uh Z V let's see VR02205 a request by Kurt Havl and Goland David. Uh with the conditions as stated by the staff as as presented here. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. It pass unanimously. Okay. Thank you all very much. I appreciate your time. You're welcome.

All right. Next uh on the agenda is a quasa judicial public hearing D9205 request by Lawrence Anthony Hopkins and Chantal Hopkins property owners of a 15oot setback for a 50. We'll go to the next one. Oh, so you're going to the zoning board. You haven't closed. Oh, yeah. You're right. I'm sorry. Sorry. Um I don't Mr. Chair, I apologize. Sorry you had me a little confused with the agenda item. I've been confused the whole day. Um, regarding the next agenda item, the commission training. Um, oh, we wouldn't do that now.

I I would like to ask the board if um if you would be willing to to find a consensus to move that training to next meeting given the time constraints and the fact that you have something to hear as the board of zoning appeals. So, if there's consensus to do that, we're all good. Excellent. We'll move it to next month. Thank you so much. Okay. With that, you can go ahead and Well, I'm going to I'll close the uh planning with that. We'll close the planning commission agenda and move on to the board of zoning appeals agenda. And the first one on the first agenda is approval of the minutes from September 22nd and November 24th. Um it's been moved and do I hear a second? Second. Moved in a second to approve the minutes for September 22nd and November 24th, 2025. All those in favor say I.

I. All those opposed. Passes unanimously. is the first quasi judicial public hearing under the board of zoning appeals is V92025 a request by Lawrence Anthony Hopkins and Shantal Hopkins property owners of a for a 15t setback variance pursuant to chapter 26 section 16.10 Pontagora code to allow a 5-ft setback from the rear property line instead of the required 20 foot of a proposed inground pool deck and pool enclosure at 64 Sable Drive Panagora Florida. So they want to put a pool in that setback and leave five foot between them and see what is that right?

Rachel Barry is zoning official for the record and I have been sworn. So I have a couple updates or corrections. Uh first the slide that is I'm sorry. So very slight procedural issue. Oh here we go.

Sorry. Thank you. I apologize board. This has been a little bit of a confusing day. Um so Mr. Mr. Dick, you are correct. Since you are technically not an alternate on the board of zoning appeals, you do need to step down from the dis and we will reflect the attendance record for the board of zoning appeals that Miss Petrick um is absent for that meeting because unfortunately since you're not an alternate for that board, there's no authority to seat you in her place as the as the board of zoning appeals. So, thank you very much for being here for the planning commission meeting, you get to leave early. You can stay and listen to the front. Yes, you can. You're welcome to listen from the audience. You just can't be seated at the disaster. Thanks. Thanks for coming in. Nice to meet you. Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry, Rachel. Go ahead.

It's okay. Um, okay. So, I do have a uh an Oops, I have a typo on the screen. Um, they are not asking for a 20 foot reduction. It was originally a 15 foot reduction because the pool cage is allowed to be at 20 ft. So they were requesting a 15 foot reduction to leave it at five. Prior to the opening of the meeting today, I spoke with the applicants and their pool contractor, all all of which are here and you know can answer questions you have. Um they have already reduced the request um to a 13.5 foot reduction to leave a 6 and 1/2T setback. Um, so that's the the numbers may not match in the slides as we're going through because that was a discussion just before the meeting today.

How about the length? I'm sorry. Did it just do the width or the length? That would just be the distance from the seaw wall, but not necessarily the width. The length stays the same.

The width. Um, so on the screen here is just a location map showing where the property is and then the conceptual design that was submitted that shows the original request of a 5ft setback. So that would scoot closer to the house another foot and a half if approved. All right. So now the request is for a 13.5 ft setback reduction to allow a pool to be constructed 6 and 1/2 ft from the seaw wall instead of the required 20 ft. Um the applicant has uh provided um information from her doctor and this is a request as an ADA accommodation. Um staff has concern with the close proximity to the seaw wall um but may not be opposed to a lesser setback reduction. And as far as variances the eight approval criteria listed in section 16.10b 10B, there were three remaining criteria that had not definitively been found to be true and all criteria had to be true in order to um approve the variance. So those three were whether it's a hardship for the 15T I'm sorry 13 1/2 foot reduction. Um number four, would it be detrimental to public welfare? That's based on the concerns of the seaw wall integrity. And number five, is it the minimum request that's necessary? So if number five is true, if this is the minimum required, um then number two is also true, then it is a hardship. Um but we would still have some concerns based on the proximity to the seaw wall. Um if number five is not found to be true, then number two also is not. Number two also is not true. Um so those are the two items really that need to be discussed. Um and the applicant and their contractor here as well. Uh, so I'm sure they can help clarify those for us.

And if you have any questions for me other not other if not we have the uh the So staff didn't like a a 5 foot. Would they be happy with a six and a half foot? There are still some concerns. One second. There's a lot of pressure.

The city engineer also had a comment. All right. This is an email I received earlier. This is from Brian Clemens, city engineer. Uh, I do not feel there should be a reduction in the required setback. Our shortest dead man tieback design is approximately 19 ft from the seaw wall. Additionally, we will need room for seaw wall replacement when necessary. Furthermore is the fact that if the setback is reduced and there were to be a seaw wall failure, the structure is in closer proximity to the canal. While it is the responsibility of the homeowner to protect their property, it is always very stressful for all involved when a structure is threatened to be compromised by a failed seaw wall. That was from the uh the city engineer.

Wow. There's quite a ballet that goes in the ground and that rod goes that holds it. Yeah. Why don't you go ahead and speak into the microphone and your question if you have any questions of the pool. the guy. They're here so they can help you with Rachel's. They can present too. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Why? If you have a presentation, why don't you guys come up? Yes.

Good afternoon. I'm Lawrence Hopkins. I've been sworn in. I'm one of the property owners of 64. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Shantel Hopkins of 64 Saval. I have been sworn in. Steve Grogan, Tropical Pools. I have been sworn in.

So, Mr. Chair and members of the board, thank you for taking the time to hear our hear our story today. Um, I won't go into any further detail regarding the the specifics of the ask. Uh, I believe that Rachel very went through enough specifics there. We've already reduced that setback request by a foot and a half. Um but what we are asking the board for today is we're asking the board to approve the variance with appropriate engineering conditions or alternately alternatively to continue the hearing and direct a sightsp specific engineering analysis rather than to deny the request based on generalized concerns. I believe that we've built a a solid foundation regarding the ADA requirements for in support of this request and the the concern with the public safety is a valid concern by the city, but I don't know if there's any scientific or factual evidence to support this. So, we would request doing a site analysis

that that the city would the city would pay for since the city has brought up the concern of the public safety.

Would this be by an engineer? Is that what you're talking about? An engineering site? Well, that's that's what I think needs to be take take place because there are along Ocean Drive, along Sable, there's a lot of pools, not just a few, but many pools that have within that 20 foot range of the seaw wall. And currently, I actually have a seaw wall leak at this time on my lot without a bolt. Okay, that's it. Well, yeah, that's it. I'll stand for questions. I imagine there's probably a few.

I have a question for Rachel. Do we have uh is that true about there's other pools within a couple feet and have they had any problems?

Rachel Barry, for the record. Um, so yes, that is the case. There are handfuls of pools in the area that are within 20 ft of the seaw wall. Um, looking at the pools up and down Sable, I believe there was only one that was within 6 ft of the seaw wall and that was I believe it's 11 Sable um down on the corner and the home that was previously there with the pool was destroyed in Charlie and so they applied for a variance to leave the pool at the non-conforming setback when they rebuilt the home. um handfuls of others downstable. When I looked at when they were originally installed, it was back in the 70s, 80s, early 90s. Um so they very well could be grandfathered in. I don't know what the survey requirements were at that time. Um but yes, there's handfuls that do not meet the 20 foot setback.

Oh, are any of them this close to the seaw wall? There was only one that I noticed was within six feet of the seaw wall. Um it's it's really hard when you're looking at an aerial image because those property lines are just overlaid on top of a picture. Um but that one was was pretty obvious. Have you had have you had any other properties that have failed, Rachel, with uh with the seaw wall there and pool and a pool in the in that area that close? I'm only aware of two. Um, there was one on AIA. I believe that was in 2017. Um, so if the math is right there, that could be Irma related. Um,

Rachel, when was this 20 foot setback enacted? That is part of the special residential overlay and was included into the land development regulations, I believe, in the mid 80s. How long have you owned your lot, sir? Your Not quite a year, sir. Did you Did you know that that you're going to need a pool in there when you bought that lot? Yes. I mean, did you know you were going to have to violate the setback? We didn't know we were going to have to violate the setback, but we knew we needed a pool. Well, you you knew you had to put it in the setback because that's the only place you have because you

Correct. But we didn't know how far the setback was when we purchased the home. Okay. Is the is the canal wall the only concern of the cities? Is it is there any concerns from like neighbors about view or is this the only thing we're concerned with the engineering problem? I'm Rachel Barry for the record. I have not heard any concerns from other neighbors um and of city departments that reviewed the application. That was the only concern that was brought to our attention was about the seaw wall

and our all of our neighbors received letters to come to the hearing if they had a concern and everybody showed up. When I have a question for for the for the tropical pool guy. Yes, sir.

When when you put that pool in those dead men, you're going to have to you have what are you going to do with those dead men that are sitting 19 ft into that property that hold that seaw wall up? Um, normally we we try to abide by the 19 ft, right? But in this case, they're going to be on like a I think it's going to be a two core stem wall. So, it's already going to be about 2 feet up in the air. So, we're really only have to go down about 3 ft. And with the angle of repose on those uh tiebacks, they should be 10t deep right there where where the pool is going. So, you're saying it won't affect the dead men? Because But if you had to sever those dead men, that wall wouldn't last long. I'm sorry.

If you had to sever those dead men, that wall wouldn't last long with the pressure of the pool and the rain. Yeah. I'm I got hearing aids, man. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I need them. Yeah. 40 years in the fire service. It it it uh got me. So, what was he saying? What the chair said was if you severed the leads to the dead man, the wall wouldn't stay up. The wall should still stay up, but it wouldn't have the the uh protection of when it when you get the push against it pushing back, right? But the wall itself is going to stay up.

But that's that's where we have to be really really careful uh when we're digging. So we don't I mean we go out of our way to make sure all that stuff is right and if it's we'll repair it or have it repaired before we even continue to do it, you know, uh from that point. So, um, our guys have been doing this for a long time. They they, um, they're really good at at taking their time and not just going in and just digging and, you know, making a mess. So, so if I So, if I may, the uh, the intent is not to alter the structural integrity of the seaw wall, correct? No, not at all.

And those will those will be reviewed at at the permitting for building. So, what you just need from us is whether or not this um the ADA compliance fits this um this standard. No, what they want to do is they want to put a pool in the setback and you're not allowed to put anything in the setback, right? And so they're they're want to take the setback. It's 25 ft that their house is back now. So, they have 20 feet. So they they're they're want to put something in that pool that was the staff is concerned about the pressure and and push because they've had another one as you read about where they had but the city had to come in and put uh rip wrap to save the crack that they developed including and then and then it failed anyhow.

Failed anyhow. So, but at this point, he's just requesting for an engineer for the No, he he said if we dis if we before we disapprove of it, he would want us to table it. So, the city Why wouldn't you be responsible to pay that? Why would the city have to pay for that? It's your Yeah, it's your property and your it's it Well, that's because the city brought up the issue of public safety as a I'm going to say a counterargument to ADA. It's not a counterargument. It's one of the criteria that she listed that you have to satisfy to be able to uh allow this. And the question is whether or not you satisfy those criteria.

So, okay. Well, I would I would almost concur with that. Um because there's going to be an engineering work done during the development phase which I have to get done for a building permit. But first, I have to come here and get the easement Well, I understand, but that still doesn't answer the chair's question about paying for the the engineering study. It seems to be that should be done first

because we feel we've met the the burden approved through medical documentation, demonstration of no feasible alternatives and evidence of substantial hardship, but the city asserts a public safety justification. The burden shifts to the city to submit to substantiate, I'm sorry, to substantiate the claim with sight specific evidence. you have not provided us any sight specific evidence and ADA requires sight specific evidence.

Okay. With regard to that, I have questions about the credibility of your your medical uh testimony because he says in there that the proposed size of the pool is the minimum viable dimension necessary to carry out your therapy and you've come here today and said we're already willing to make a modification on that. So that would cause me to question the viability or the the veracity of your medical testimony upon which you base your entire claim for 88. He's saying that that's the minimum and you're saying we can do with less than the minimum and so I got to question his understanding and there's a number of other things in there. Um I don't know if he says there's no other options. I can't affect I can't imagine that there's no place in in in Charlotte County that somebody can't go to for water therapy if they need water therapy.

There's all kinds of fall risks. They don't offer therapy on a basis on the time scale that I am able to do it. Well, it seems you're going to have fall risks here. In fact, it even talks about unsupervised sessions. It does. So, so I don't know about your doc. Wow. Wow. Wow. So, first off, I don't think my wife's um mobility issues or health are subject for a public meeting.

I'm not questioning anything about her. I I have no Well, you just you you he's asking about the I'm talking about the credibility of the evidence you've submitted. We asked for a one and a half foot less because after speaking with Rachel earlier that if it we discovered that the cage was what was going to be set on the five foot mark. Mhm. and it would still be able to conform if we went back for the one and a half foot for the pool size that we need. I understand that that's the building. It has nothing to do with whether or not your doctor says that that's the minimum you can have

of the pool size and she's saying I've modified the pool deck. Yeah. The pool the pool is not going to be 6 and 1/2 ft from the seaw wall itself. Stays the same size. Yes, stays the same size. All right. The walkway around the pool is altered and the size of the cage is altered. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.

Yeah, there no questions. Um I guess I just want to clarify. Um Rachel, is this something you created? This one pager that you handed out? Oh no, that is And so you are asking us to um instead of either either approve it um and then if you're going to deny it, don't deny it. Instead ask that further engineering considerations are concerned.

Yes. Now, um Rachel, our city engineers said we should deny it, but have um are they have they reviewed the pool um recommendations from Tropical Pool or have we already looked at the engineering plans? My belief would be no. Um I don't know that we had those with the application.

Okay. No, this is just the uh survey and elevation certificate. I it seems to Bob Cipher for the record. It seems to me that this may be harmful to the city and the city might have to pay for rip wrap and then I I have actually seen property where the seaw wall fails. If your seaw wall fails and a lot of seaw walls fail, it ripples all the way back. I don't care if you have a 20 foot setback, it ripples all the way back. It just caves in because the seaw wall goes, the whole backyard goes. Yep.

Your pool's in that. I don't think this is a good thing for you. you're you're going to have to replace your pool and up there's been a lot of I mean the city how much does a city pay each year? How many miles of repairs? It's it's unbelievable. So you're putting yourself at risk and you're putting the city at risk. I don't see that this is a good good deal and we don't meet all the criteria. Right. There were three left to be discussed and that was um whether or not it was the minimum modification necessary. Um so the the 1 and 1/2 ft coming off of the pool deck still keeps the pool the same size and the applicant is asserting that that is the minimum size necessary. Um which that being the case would then make the other criteria true. Um

the hardship correct? Correct. Do you know if an engineer study would answer our questions? I am not sure as far as the construction and engineering side of things. Unfortunately, I'm not that technical. Obviously, we aren't either. That's why we're asking a suggestion for an engineering assessment to be made by the Well, that's what I was thinking that we table this. That's what he's asking for. Either if we we're going to deny it, then he wants a table. we can table this and the give the applicant an opportunity to come back with a a sightsp specific engineering analysis and then we could reconsider it at that time a detailed analysis because I think our only concern is that we

we have to look out for the city as well and our concern is that there's no liability potentially that's going to end up on the city because as you know taxes pay for seaw wall repair well and that's and and that is a legitimate concern and instead of speculating. I'm just let's say let's just get some experts in to take a look and see if it's a viable option for us. Yeah. So tableabling this and allowing you time to get your Yes. So tableabling this and allowing you time to get an engineering study would be an acceptable outcome at this point. Then you can come back and and present what you learn. And so Bob, how do we that? How do we make a motion? We just we just moved it from the table.

You can approve it, deny it, or table. It's fine. Did you use AI to generate this? It's good. I'm sorry. What? Did you use AI to generate this? I I used some of it to help me out a little bit. Good use today. I thought you I wish everybody would do this. Nice and clean. Mr. Chair, I apologize. You will still need to open it for public hearing. You guys haven't done that yet. Yeah. Well, that I Are we through questioning uh the applicant? Okay. Uh well, I don't I don't believe I'm looking through my notes. Just give me a second. I believe that the burden approved for the engineering study lies on the city due to ADA law.

That's not within our purview. I don't really know that. But so, but the city city attorney will address that. If that's the case, we have to deny it. Agreed. Agree. Agree. Okay.

Yeah. I I would uh encourage you all to to really make that case that um this is the only thing this is the only design that uh would relieve your hardship because right now that's not that's not as strong argue it's not as strong as it could be. And if you had engineering designs and you looked at a couple different models then you could probably make that case a lot cleaner. Um and then us denying it would be creating a hardship for you. And we want to seaw wall damage. That's the major concern. There's no way we can understand whether that's the minimum modification for you. We have no idea. We have no idea. So, okay. All right. Um, public hearing.

Yeah. Open the public hearing for anybody who wants to speak on this matter. Asking once, asking twice. Public hearing. Anybody want to speak? Asking the third time. Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Make a motion. Second. Moved in a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say I. I. I. Passes unanimous. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I didn't hear who made the motion to close the public hearing. Okay. Into the microphone, Miss Gray again. Yes. No, I make a motion. To close the public hearing to close the public hearing. And Rinders, I make a a second. And we've already had our vote in a So now you know. Okay. Can I make a motion to take? Yes.

I'm not sure my mic's on. Is my mic on? Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to table this pending the engineering study. I second. It's been moved by John and T and and seconded by Tony that we table this um this application until we have an engineering study to allow the the applicant to provide an engineering study. Okay. Applicant. Should we include an engineering firm agreed upon by both the city and the applicant? We can't tell. Yeah, I don't think so. Engineering credibility. They're licensed. All right. Engineers. Yeah. Did you get that? I believe so.

Okay. They got to come in. They got to locate the ballards. They got to There's a motion in a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. Well, approve unanimously approved to table this with uh until the applicant provides an engineering study that shows it's not a problem. Okay, last item.

Last item. We're going to be I got to do it. What? We got one more. Let me see. I get this right page. So, this is a request um D8 2025. A request by Bowman Consulting Group, LTD, applicant and agent, authorized by Michelle Miller, executive vice president of NNGP Corp. the registered general partner for NN Reed LP property owner for variance pursuant to chapter 26 section 16.10 10 Panagora code from multiple sections of chapter 26 pertaining to site and building design requirements to allow the construction of a drive-through coffee shop on an approximate 0.78 acre parcel located at 1225 Tamiami Trail, Pontagora, Florida 339. The applicant is requesting a variance from Panagorta code chapter 26 multiple sections including 310 G8 section 7.4 4 subsection A1, A2 A, A2 D, A2 E, A2F, A4 A, E11, and E12. That's a lot of variances. Okay. Um, go.

Good afternoon. Rachel Barry, official for the record. So, the property in question is located at 1225 Tamiami Trail. It is right on the corner of West Williams Street and Tammy. Um it is the other portion of the property where the Fifth Third Bank was recently built. So this is the um it's not a color rendering, but this is a uh conceptual design that was submitted with the application and um the applicant or agent may have some updated designs to show you. Um the graphic on the left, the east elevation, that is what would face TMiami Trail. And then the other picture is what would face, you know, into their property towards the drive-thru side.

Rachel, can I ask you a question to that while you have that up? Is this what the concern of number 11 and 12 where there is not uh windows and doors that would I mean this is this is facing our public. That is correct. Yeah. And and and so what would you want them to do? What would you have them do there? Uh, I know that the interior of the building is is not conducive to putting legitimate actual windows in. Um, and so the LDRs allow for faux windows in place where real windows are not feasible. So that's what you would want is a one faux window, two faux How many faux windows do you need? The code requires 50% of the facade. 50%. Mhm. Okay. So it's going to take a couple of them.

A couple. Okay. I I just want to stop you there since we have that have that visual.

All right. So, the request the applicant has requested a variance from nine design requirements. The property is zoned highway commercial. A drive-through facility is a use that is permitted with conditions. Said conditions are located in section 4.17 of chapter 26 aka the LDRs and the development complies with all of those conditions. Uh so the only requested variance is from architectural and design treatments. Uh the development complies with those conditions and they have a unique design. Um you know it's a company branding and so they are requesting um a little bit of relief from the code. The details of the request include a 70% frontage buildout requirement. That would mean that the length of their property fronting on Tammy Trail, at least 70% of it has to be building. Um, obviously with the nature of the structure, it does not meet that. But there is a storage facility connected by a solid roof connecting the two of them. And there's also going to be, I believe, a shade area extending even further over a customer seating area um on the other side of the building. and decorative walls, all of which combined together would exceed the 70%. Um, another portion of the request is similar massing and scale to surrounding structures. Um, there's a handful of structures that have been built there in the last 10 or so years, 10, 15 years, and they don't necessarily have the same architectural style. They don't necessarily have the same massing. There isn't a consistent look. Um, as far as overall scale, it does cover about the same area as other properties. Um, but the massing just doesn't it doesn't exactly match with the other properties. Um, architecturally compatible with

surrounding structures such as the treatments and materials. So, a lot of the properties that I noticed were either masonry or stucco. Um, if I'm not mistaken, this has metal sighting. Is that correct? Yes. Has it been submitted?

Um, and let's see what else. The U primary customer entrance facing the street is a requirement. This is a unique uh development where it's not necessarily pedestrianoriented. Um, in speaking with the applicant after the agenda was posted, um, there there may be some plans of adding a walk up window for customers to, you know, as they're walking down the road. uh the next 50% of facade being doors and windows and the distance between the doors and windows on the facade. Uh so those last two are the ones that staff was not recommending approval for

and that's sorry. So, so of all of these, it sounds to me like the worst the biggest problem is the front appearance of the front because you got a wall to take care of the 70%. You have um the mass is I mean it's it's not consistent anyhow. So, it's hard to hard to pin them on that. Uh the materials uh that's probably difficult too, but the and the primary entrance as long they have to have an exit. So they got to come in and out somewhere, right? So it's it's those number 11 and 12 if I remember right. That is correct.

So can't can't we address it? I guess you're up next. So I'm happy to jump in. Okay. Unless Wait, wait, wait. We got to ask you more questions. I've got a what about parking? Parking. They do have u parking proposed on site and for how many places? I don't remember the exact number. I want to say it's 11. It's a drive-thru. It is a drive. They have seating under the shade. Yeah, you can sit there. So, he's going to answer that when he gets Oh, I just thought it might have been part of the application. It is around 10 or 11. Seven. Okay. probably four of them are handicapped and they're they're actually required to put in the parking, too. Even though it's a mainly drive-through facility, they're they're required to have the parking.

Is there another one that uh it's a franchise? It's Is there another one like in Port Charlotte? Yeah, it's Seven Brew. Yeah, it is the one in Port Dunkin Donuts. No, it's next to Rita. Next forgets that it's right next to an existing coffee place. your place. And what the Rachel the entrance and exits are they from William Street or when you drive into this place, you're driving off of Tamiami or driving off of William? Um to enter the site would be off West William. Okay. The the driveway entrance into the site. Is the exit off of William also or Yes. And I believe there's also cross connection with the Fifth Third Bank property. Okay.

I know that. Yeah, I know there's uh like a road that goes all the way across behind Fifth Third. We need to see the plants on this. Yeah, that's not the right one. I don't know. I know that there's a paved road behind Fifth Third kind of that uh goes between William and McKenzie maybe. Do you have yours? Oh, yeah. Oh. Yeah, that'd be great. So, this will probably answer questions. Absolutely.

Looks like he does. I think he does. So this is this William Street. So they come in around the building next hour. Good afternoon everybody. My name is Elijah Basil for the record. I have been sworn in. I'm going to just place in a thumb drive. I have a presentation. Hello Drew Degan for the record as well. I have been sworn in. We are with uh 7 Crew Florida LLC who is the franchisee for the proposed store.

What Elijah is going to pull up here on the thumb drive is is simply just a PowerPoint that has most of the plans that you're seeing in hard copy just so we're all aware.

Okay. Um I guess just to go right into it, we'll breeze through some of this presentation to try to get into your questions, but just wanted to do a quick summary on the um you know, seven brew brand as this will be the first one. The city of Puna Gagorta, it is a drive-thru only coffee stand um you know, typically. So there will be texters who go to the cars and get those orders um you know, kind of mobiley on foot, similar to like kind of how Chick-fil-A might do it. So there's not a particular menu board where you order from. the texturers are are moving as is appropriate to get the orders as as early as they can, which helps streamline the the flow of traffic. Um, the first store for Seven Brewers opened in Arkansas in 2017 that was a corporate store. Um, it's now a a franchise and so we represent Seven Crew Florida LLC as I mentioned who um currently has about 65 stores total and I think we're right around 15 in Florida right now and really excited about adding one in Puna Gorda. Um, so I mentioned the textures, we talked about that. Um, and yeah, just we do note that, you know, it um, one of the things that, um, Seven Brew prides itself on is the barista experience. It's just, uh, if you go to one, you'll find, you probably hardressed to find anyone working a part-time job who's as happy as a seven brew barista. Um, they really enjoy their job. They enjoy their work and and I've seen that that really spills into the customer experience. So, just something we'd like to highlight. Um, so now we're just um, sliding through the plans. Here we can see the simple site plan. We are the northern portion. The the fifth third fifth third bank is on the southern side uh of the site grayed out. Um as you can see it's two drive-through lanes um and two places to pick up to help streamline that pickup process. We have seven parking spaces and then that enclosure on the end of those parking spaces is the dumpster. And then you will note, Elijah, if you'll scan the cursor across the right side of the building, we can see it's a little bit small there, but we do have that screen wall Rachel

mentioned on the north and south side of the building to create that continuous kind of, you know, continuous frontage of a structure. Um, and it's a little hard to see. We'll see it a little bit better when we go into the architectural plans, but there is the extended overhang on the front of the building, the north side of the building, which is a nonprototypical, but we wanted to add that in to create some area for seating as well as a covered bike area, which was added as a part of the kind of m uh variance mitigation to um just to make it a more of a pedestrian friendly uh um restaurant. And I just wanted point of clarification, Rachel mentioned the ability for someone on foot to order. That is true. it wouldn't be at the window. Those textters, you know, while they're getting orders from the cars, they could easily pop over to someone sitting at a picnic table or on, you know, on foot or on bike to take any orders from, you know, someone on any any vehicle or or lack thereof. Um, the landscape isn't in question at this variance, but we always like to share our landscape plan. You know, we know that's a lot of what makes a site aesthetically pleasing. So, we just wanted to show that we are meeting all the code requirements for plantings. And looks like we have a really nice buffer there along along William with some other, you know, good plantings in the on the site. Those are just the details. And so it's a a little bit hard to see, but we did want to show the floor plan as we'll talk about the option for spandrel glazing. If you just above that, Elijah, there you can see it's a little grayed out here. Let me drive right here in this region where my cursor is. It's a little gray, but you can see this is this is the side that will front Timmy Trail. So you can see not very conducive to transparent glazing with cabinets and coffee makers and shuts right here. Um but we'll talk about some solutions that we can maybe find instead. So this is a color elevation to go along with the elevation Rachel shared previously. I think it was one of our um earlier submittals. So that's why it's not shown in this presentation. However, um it's

it aligns with the elevation that you've already seen. Um, so this is the side that would fund Chammy Trail. Here we can see the kind of the lack of the glazing here. Um, this is our cooler building. We did go ahead and create um or propose to this would usually just be like an aluminum looking building, but we will have it match whatever we determine is um how we want to kind of have the facade of the building look. So the same facade as the building, I guess, is what I'm trying to say in a long-winded way. And then we can see our screen walls here and here. This is internal to the site here. So this would be where your drive-through is. And so you can see on this side the cooler is not screened. On this side the the cooler is I just scroll down. So just more elevations here. This is more the this is the kind of the front of the building. This will be facing the north and this will be facing the south. Um and our dumpster enclosure wall there. And this is that same elevation that you saw from Rachel previously. Um so I'll just scroll right through there. This is our covered bike rack that we're proposing um on the site plan we previously showed. And I say here for questions here, but I do want to go ahead and just I'll scroll right through because uh I do get the sense that we're probably looking for some more glazing and and Rachel and and we discussed that this morning. So, what I will show out is a couple examples for some other uh buildings here. This is a one of our stores in Tampa. This would be something similar to what we could provide in this at this location to meet that glazing requirement. You'll notice that it's not transparent because of the reasons I talked about earlier. And you know, I will throw out there um ultimately, you know, we'll defer to the direction of staff and the board. Um I know that the distance between doors and windows is one of the requirements, as is the 50% requirement. I think something like this is what's required to get up to 50%. Personally, my own just my own opinion, I think it's a little nicer if it wasn't just a straight line of glass and maybe if there's some glass, you know, some spandrel glazing, faux glazing that maybe wouldn't meet the 50% but might

give it a little more architectural character. But ultimately defer defer to staff and the board on, you know, y'all's opinion of what would be best for the city. So, with that, I think I'll open it up to any questions uh from the board or anything. The entrance and exit both I'll call it the alley for lack of a better term, but it's unnamed. It is unnamed. That would be Yes, that would be where you'd enter and exit from. We do have cross access with our neighbor to the south here. So, our our customers would be able to enter from William or Mckenz, right?

Yeah, I see. So, it sounds like um the two big things would be the the window or the facade there on the or the glazing on the side, but also um did you say that the building you're proposing is metal and not like the one you showed in Tampa, which would be um mason and brick.

That is correct. Um as as we have it submitted today, it is a different there are different facades there. I think this is mostly a function of this project has been with our group for a while. It kind of got started then stopped and then got started again. So I believe we're just working off of an older prototype that started that way. So what we do have what we could offer instead if the sub metal sighting is is not what the city wants to see. We did this is a prototypical um elevation of one of our other stores that we could definitely use. This is more of a masonry look. You'll notice this doesn't have the glazing. In our case, we would add to the glazing, but um we could definitely provide something like you see on the on the screen here,

right? I think that would um be much more appropriate for this location and flow with the rest of the community. I don't think the metal building would look I agree. I agree. So do I. I think the aesthetics is one of the primary concerns here. Yes, sir. That's what we're we're dealing with. So Lona otherwise like Napa. Well, we don't want that. Heather, um, can you go to this picture? It looks so different from the space that's available there. Uh, I mean, Fifth Third Bank,

is it potential that your aerial is from the old Fifth Third Bank that took up the whole property? Yeah, so that would make a lot more sense. They tore it all down and then red Fitford redeveloped on the southern a brand new building. Yeah, this sits right across from that crossroads. You know where is man? That's the only concern I had is that my realities didn't match. Any questions, Jim? No, I just um want to make sure that if if we decide to move forward with this, we have all these conditions down in terms of what is going to change aesthetically so that it would become less objectionable.

What do you what do you call that building that you just showed us from Tampa? What is what is that called? It almost looks like board. Oh, it's Yeah, I mean to be specific, it's a nichiha, which is just the brand of the siding. A nijiha. A facade. Niha would be N I C H I H A. Niha. Ni. Japanese. Niha. Niha. Nichi. It's called the Nii front. Ni. Niha is the brand. I mean I Oh, it's a brand. Okay. Also right here on this page if you wanted the words to read off. Oh, okay. Thank you.

Yeah. luchi style ribbed finish in in whatever desert beige or whatever you got. We don't need the color. I don't think are you okay with that? You think the staff would be okay with that? Okay. So So we'd want to maximize the glazing on the the exposure to Tammy. Well, there's a requirement 50%. That's correct. 50%. and then require the nichiha brand on the on the on the facing to Tamiami. And so are we um making one of the conditions to meet the full 50% along Tamiami for the glazing? I think that's Yes.

And could I possibly just I just don't want to overcommit. I want to make sure I understand the requirements. I know some places for a requirement like this it'll be 50% from 3 to 8 feet or something like that. Um Rachel, can you speak to those specifics? Can you pull the um the other picture back up? The one that had the different siding on it. This one? No, the last one. The last one? Yes. So, we'll measure um measure from here. So, uh this area here. Do I cut it off at this standing seam right here? all the way across. Yes. 50% of what that calculation would be

would need to be some sort of uh any type of glazing span would be included, right? So, we can include all of this, all of this, and then whatever else we would add. That is so that would be included. That is that a faux door there would The door is functional. It's a sliding glass door. But that's not what you're going to put in, right? You're going to put a functional door there. So, the door will remain. This will stay. This is glazing. This would stay. Yeah. This is actually like a signage like a poster advertising and we would use the rest of this area to add as much glazing as would be required to meet the 50%. Um

I still do have a little I mean we definitely want to work with the city. I still have a little pause for concern for reaching the full 50% um just based off of having to go to the full height of here. I do just want to remind us that I'm sorry. You know, it is this would be the look of it and I you know something like this might be I so might get us to 50%. I just worry that it would have to go even further down and just the aesthetics of it I don't love.

Rachel, is that is that square footage that you're talking about or just the the it's just the width? Right. So, the way that the code describes it is basically like the entire front wall of that building, 50% of that area has to be doors or windows. Um, so there's a lot of glass. You said doors and windows. Doors and windows. So, he could count the square footage of the little door, the big door, and the window there in the corner. Right. That would be part of the 50%. Yeah. Is there a number that you feel comfortable that you could Can you do 499?

Let me take a look at these dimensions really quick and see if I can't do some math quickly. But if you're concerned, we could do what we did last time, too, and table this to give you an opportunity to go back and make sure that you can comply with what we're talking about. That would be great. That's going to hold him up, though. I understand. But yeah, don't want him committing to You can't do because it's got to come back anyway. Charlotte is awful.

Rachel, is there a range we could use on this glazing? I know. And give them a variance to that. I would be comfortable with that to have a a minimum. What can you live with that you don't have to worry about? Let me do a little napkin math here real quick. Okay. And Rachel, this bu this side of the building has to be considered the front, not the side that's facing William. I believe the number is going to be 35. That is correct. Um their entrance is in and off of William. Correct. Right. Um so their address they're addressed off Tammy Yummy. Um and that is you know like the main

um corridor where people would be passing and so all of the frontage requirements would be on that portion of the building. Um, same with the 70% buildout is along TME. So, all of the the frontage requirements were along that same side. Could we could we profer to do 35% and make sure that we meet the six we have no no separation greater than 16 ft between any window or door include uh spandrel glazing uh with a minimum 35% glazing requirement along Tamiami. How about if we give you a ratio of 35 to 50%. Somewhere in that default a range range you can put more. You can't go over but under 35.

Yes. Because that's my intent. If I can go back and I see that you know 50 is is more feasible than I think then we would certainly reach that. I again I just don't want to overcommit. So much. Okay. So what you're saying is the niti brand naha nitchiha brand and the 50 to uh 35 to 50% glazing facing uh Tamiami Trail and no less than 16 ft between the glazing per code. Yes, sir. Okay. But we don't want to tell them which brand they have to use. NIA, right? They gave us that.

I I I I did throw that out. that there's a specific brand we do use, but just understanding the process that we're going through here, I would agree that it might be good not to provide a specific brand just for whatever reason our building manufacturer changes. Well, how do you go with just a a brick masonry facade? Brick facade. Faux brick facade. Brick facade. It will be it will be comparable. Well, I think a faux brick facade. It's kind of redundant because it's a facade. It's kind of implied. It's not actually brick. But yes, that is the intent. We're gonna have faux windows, faux doors, and faux sighting. And faux faux facade. Just faux you. Faux you. You. All right.

Well, I I I heard Chuck Chuck say that's a good idea. We could say brick facade in the Ni brand or comparable or comparable. Perfect. Yes. Okay. Um Okay. Uh the public hearing, we've closed that. No, we hear we haven't opened it. We haven't opened it. Oh, well, there's nobody here. Uh we Mr. Dick's right here. Yeah. Yeah. He wants to speak. You have anything to say? Calling once, twice, and three times for the public hearing. Hearing none. I move I would ask you to close the public hearing. Move to close public hearing. Second. Second. Been moved and second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. I.

Okay. Now I entertain a motion to uh on this quasi judicial public hearing for V8 2025. Thank you for being flexible. Thank you for see there or something.

I don't know what Rachel's up to, but she's up the center, so we're waiting on her. Just got to spell it out for us so we do it right. Rachel, can I tell them what you got me for my birthday? She's good.

Yeah, she's getting she's coming. She's good on the fly. She is. She's a She's a gator. Did you know that? She's a University of Florida girl. Yeah. So, the day I die, I don't know. She was born in Gates. What I heard from all of our testimony today is that we need to pay our staff more so they stay. Well, they can say that, but I'm looking for the police department, too. It might have been change of city council that cost a lot of people, but I'm not sure. Uh, no W. You're good. I'm sorry. No W just HA. I think two words probably, but that's okay

or comparable. So, and do we need would it be beneficial for us to note that the the minimum 35% doors and windows like that span rule is counted or is that in code already? Are we protected? Okay, great. You want to say foe or you want to say does it have to open up or No, nothing for me. Rachel confirmed it's in code that way. So, I feel good. Okay. Oh, just for you. I'll entertain a motion. Do we have a motion here? Not yet.

I'll read it. I make a motion based on the evidence of testimony presented at this public hearing for item V082025. I find that this request is consistent with the approval criteria in section 16.10B of the land development regulations and move that we recommend to the city council approval with the following conditions. One, there shall be no more than 16 feet between doors or windows along the front facade. Two, minimum 35 to 50% doors and windows on front facade faux or otherwise. and three external material shall be a brick facade in Niiah brand or similar and we are understanding that that the front is the part facing Tamiami Trail. Do I hear a second?

Second. Second. Move to second to approve V-08-2025 with the re recommendations or conditions as stated. All those in favor say I. I. I. Approves unanimously. We're close. 137 pages later. Nice work. Oh jeez. No, I was terrible today. Oh man. Thanks for coming. You're going to get it.