[A. Call to Order]
[00:00:02]
I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY TAMARAC TO ORDER FOR MARCH 2ND, 2022.CLERK, COULD YOU CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AND TAKE ROLL CALL UP? I'M SORRY, PLEDGE OF THE ALLEGIANCE FIRST. IF YOU WILL ALL RISE.
CLERK, COULD YOU TAKE CALL ROLL REAL QUICK?
>> DAVID MOUNTFORD WILL BE LATE, NIKOLE CLEARE IS ABSENT AND EXCUSED.
>> NEXT ITEM IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 1ST,
[E. Approval of Minutes]
2021 MEETING AS WERE DISTRIBUTED TO ALL THE MEMBERS.DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, OR CORRECTIONS FOR THOSE MINUTES? IF THERE ARE NONE, I'D ENTER TO A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
>> THEY PASS AN UNKNOWN [INAUDIBLE]
>> I WILL HAVE TO ROLL A VOTE. RICHARD HUGHES?
>> MOTION. MINUTES APPROVE PAST 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-0.
>> OUR NEXT ITEM IS ANY PLANNING BOARD DISCLOSURES TO ANNOUNCE? ANY NEW MEMBERS? I'M NOT HEARING ANY.
[Additional Item]
THE CITY ATTORNEY, SUBSECTION A, STATEMENT AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PROVIDED.>> YES, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
ITEM 3 IS QUASI-JUDICIAL NATURE.
AS A RESULT, THE STATEMENT ABOUT TO READ IS DIRECTED TO THAT ITEM, NOT TO THE FIRST TWO ITEMS, WHICH ARE LEGISLATIVE IN NATURE.
ITEM 3 IS QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE.
AS A RESULT, ALL PERSONS TESTIFYING BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD MUST BE SWORN IN ON THAT ITEM.
THE PETITION IN ANY EFFECTIVE PERSON WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, BRING FORTH WITNESSES, CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND EVERYBODY, ANY TESTIMONY.
ALL EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSON IS IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR BUSINESS, SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE, WHETHER SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW.
HOWEVER, IMMATERIAL, UNDULY REPETITIOUS EVIDENTIAL SHALL BE EXCLUDE.
STATEMENTS OF COUNSEL SHALL ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS ARGUMENT AND NOT BE CONSIDERED AS TESTIMONY.
COUNCIL FOR PARTIES SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION.
BOARD OF THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REFUSE TO HEAR ANY TESTIMONY WHICH IS IRRELEVANT OR REPETITIVE.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE MAY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLEMENTING OR EXPLAINING OTHER EVIDENCE, BUT IT SHALL BE SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF SUPPORTIVE FINDING.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE MAY BE PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL FOR AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST, PARTIES SHALL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPARE THE COPY WITH THE ORIGINAL.
PARTY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CONDUCT CROSS-EXAMINATION WHEN TESTIMONY IS PROVIDED OR DOCUMENTS ARE MADE PART OF THE RECORD.
GENERALLY, THE PROCEEDINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS.
THE PETITIONER IS REPRESENTATIVE AND MAKE A PRESENTATION.
PETITIONER CHOOSES TO MAKE A PRESENTATION SHOULD INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION IN EACH OF THE PETITION IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO OR BY THE CITY.
IN ADDITION, THE PETITIONER SHALL INTRODUCE ANY EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES.
THE STAFF REPORT SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO A DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST TO THE PETITIONER ANALYSIS, WHICH INCLUDES THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IF APPLICABLE, AND WHETHER THE PETITION DOES OR DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY CODE.
A LISTING THE EXHIBITS TO BE PRESENTED, A LISTING OF POTENTIAL WITNESSES, A SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND STAFFS AND BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS, THESE REPORTS SHALL INCLUDE SPECIFIC FINDINGS SUPPORTER OF JUSTIFYING RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL OR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
PARTIES WHO ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION SHALL MAKE THE PRESENTATION.
PARTY SHALL INTRODUCE ANY EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES, PARTIES WHO ARE ON OPPOSITION, THE PETITION THEN SHALL THEN MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION AND HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTRODUCE ANY EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES.
THE PERSONAL OBTENANT SHALL PROVIDE RESPONSES, AFTER ALL, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY TO ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDING AND FINAL PRESENTATIONS BY THE PETITIONER CITY STAFF, AND RESPONSE TO ANY TESTIMONIES.
AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE BOARD SHALL DELIBERATE ON THE PETITION THAT'S BEFORE YOU, NO FURTHER TESTIMONY SHALL BE TAKEN AND MEMBERS OF
[00:05:02]
THE BOARD SHALL NOT ASK FURTHER QUESTIONS OF PERSONS PRESENTING TESTIMONY.THE BOARD SHALL THEN DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED PROCEEDING AND VOTE ON THE PETITION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM G IS PUBLIC COMMENTS.
IS THERE ANYBODY ATTENDING HERE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS NOT PERTAINING TO ANY ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA? NOT SEEING ANYBODY HERE.
[Items F.2. & F.3. ]
WHICH IS NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR TEMPORARY ORDINANCE 2493 AN ORDINANCE THAT'S LIFTING ZONING IN PROGRESS BY ADOPTING CHANGES TO CHAPTERS 2 AND 10 OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC CODE OF ORDINANCE IS DESIGNATING SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS AS LEGISLATIVE MATTERS SUBJECT TO STANDARD PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES. STOP.FOR THE RECORD, I AM ANN JOHNSON, SENIOR PLANNER IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
THE ITEMS I WILL ADDRESS TODAY ARE TWO SEPARATE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THE FIRST IS ITEM 2493, WHICH PROPOSES TO LIFT THE CURRENT ZONING IN PROGRESS FOR SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS BY AMENDING THE TEXT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ISSUE.
SITE-SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE CITED AS QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS IN THE CITY'S CURRENT CODE OF ORDINANCES.
ADDITIONALLY, THE CURRENT CODE OF ORDINANCES CITES THE REQUIREMENT OF A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING TO BE HELD BY BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND ALSO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR SITE-SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS.
AS A RESULT, THESE PROVISIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE MATTER AND OTHER LANGUAGE CONTAINED WITHIN SECTION 10-5.4 OF THE CITY'S CODE.
AS SUCH, AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S CODE IS REQUIRED TO DESIGNATE SITE-SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AS LEGISLATIVE MATTERS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO STANDARD PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEGAL PRECEDENT THAT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE ISSUE, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 10-5.4U GOVERNS THE INSTITUTION OF ZONING IN PROGRESS.
THE CURRENT ZONING IN PROGRESS WAS INSTITUTED BE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER BY THE CITY MANAGER.
WITH THAT, NO APPLICATION SPORE SITE-SPECIFIC, SMALL SCALE, OR LARGE SCALE NAME USE PLAN AMENDMENTS WERE ACCEPTED OR COULD BE PROCESSED FOR A 150 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER.
THE ORDER WAS THEN RATIFIED BY THE CITY COMMISSION, WHICH BASICALLY MEANS IT WAS AFFIRMED ON DECEMBER 8TH, 2021.
AS A RESULT, THE CURRENT ZONE IN-PROGRESS WILL EXPIRE UNLESS LEGISLATION IS ADOPTED SOONER TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
AS I SAID IT BEFORE, THE CURRENT CODE OF ORDINANCES CONTAINS CONFLICTING PROVISIONS FOR THE PROCESSING OF SITE-SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS.
[NOISE] ALSO, IDENTIFIED ON THE SCREEN BEFORE YOU IS THE APPLICABLE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE LAW WHICH ALSO ADDRESSES THE ISSUE DESIGNATING SITE-SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AS LEGISLATIVE MATTERS.
AS A RESULT, THE CITY'S CODE IS BEING AMENDED IN A WAY THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THE PROCESSING OF SITE-SPECIFIC, SMALL-SCALE, AND LARGE-SCALE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS AS QUASI-JUDICIAL.
THE SECOND PORTION OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT WILL ADDRESS THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION COULD BE RESUBMITTED OR WITHDRAWN AFTER BEING PREVIOUSLY DENIED.
JUST SOME KEY COMPONENTS REGARDING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE QUASI-JUDICIAL ZONING DECISIONS VERSUS THE LEGISLATIVE ZONING DECISION.
QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE TYPICALLY LOCALIZED IN THEIR APPLICATION, AFFECTING A PARTICULAR GROUP OF CITIZENS MORE ACUTELY THAN THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
SOME EXAMPLES WOULD BE VARIANCES, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, SUBDIVISION PLATS, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
A LEGISLATIVE ZONING DECISION HAS MORE OF A WIDESPREAD IMPACT.
THESE TYPE OF POLICIES ARE MADE DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND USUALLY RESULT IN THE ADOPTION OF A PLAN, OR THEY IMPACT THE PUBLIC MORE AT LARGE AND MORE OF THE CITIZENS WITHIN A PARTICULAR MUNICIPALITY.
THE QUASI-JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SITE SPECIFIC LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT IS LISTED IN
[00:10:07]
THE CURRENT SECTION OF THE CITY'S CODE WHICH IS CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2-369.AGAIN, THE AMENDMENT IS BEING PROPOSED TO STRIKE SITE SPECIFIC LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS FROM THIS LIST OF QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS.
THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE MATTER.
IN ADDITION, TO ENSURE CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THE CITY'S CODE, THE AMENDMENT ALSO CONTAINS ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO AMEND THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE CITY'S CODE AS WELL.
SO CHAPTER 10, SECTION 10-5.2, TABLE10-5.1 WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN BEFORE YOU WILL CHANGE THE FORMAT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL TO STANDARD PUBLIC HEARING SO YOU'LL SEE THE STRIKETHROUGH IN RED ON THE TABLE AND THEN THE AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE TO REFLECT THAT IT WILL BE A STANDARD PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON THOSE MATTERS.
ADDITIONALLY, CHAPTER 10, SECTION10-5.4(B)(2)(F) SUBSECTION 2 IS ALSO BEING AMENDED TO STRIKE THE PROVISIONS FOR A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING TO BE HELD BY THE CITY'S PLANNING BOARD IN DECIDING A SITE SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION.
THEN, ADDITIONALLY, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 10-5.4(B)(2)(G), SUBSECTION 2 IS ALSO BEING AMENDED TO STRIKE THE PROVISIONS FOR A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING TO BE HELD BY THE CITY COMMISSION IN DECIDING AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.
SO THE SECOND ITEM IS TEMPORARY ORDINANCE 2494 AND IT ADDRESSES AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 10, SECTION 10-5.3.
IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE CODE ADDRESSES THE DEFERRAL, THE WITHDRAWAL OR THE RESUBMITTAL OF A LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AFTER BEING DENIED.
I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THE PROVISIONS HERE BUT BASICALLY THIS SECTION OF THE CODE, IT DETAILS THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AN APPLICANT MAY WITHDRAWAL AN APPLICATION, WHICH ESSENTIALLY HAS TO BE DONE IN WRITING AND ALSO ANY SUBSEQUENT REQUESTS FOR DEFERRAL SHALL ALSO BE IN WRITING REGARDING THESE TYPES OF APPLICATIONS PRIOR TO THE MAILED OR WRITTEN NOTIFICATIONS BEING SENT OUT FOR THESE TYPES OF APPLICATIONS.
ADDITIONALLY, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 10-5.3, GOES ON TO JUST TO GIVE DETAIL THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AN APPLICANT MAY WITHDRAW OR DEFER THEIR APPLICATION.
THE APPLICATION WITHDRAWAL AFTER AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW AGAIN CAN BE WITHDRAWN ANYTIME BY SUBMITTING A WRITTEN NOTICE TO CITY STAFF.
SO BEFORE I DELVE INTO THE SECOND TEXT AMENDMENT FOR SECTION 10-5.3(J)(5), I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT TO THE CODE.
AT THE JANUARY 24TH 2022 CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP, OUR STAFF PROVIDED AN UPDATE ON THE CURRENT ZONING AND PROGRESS INTO THAT AND SOME OF THE PROCEDURES THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED HERE REGARDING THE WITHDRAWAL AND RESUBMITTAL OF SITE SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS WERE DISCUSSED.
IN THAT DISCUSSION, IT WAS ESSENTIALLY DETERMINED THAT THE TERM TWO-THIRDS IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE TERM MAJORITY WHEN IT COMES TO THE REPRESENTATION OF THE DECISION MAKING BODY OF THE CITY'S BOARDS.
SO THIS PARTICULAR TEXT AMENDMENT IS REGARDING A TEXT CHANGE THAT WILL BASICALLY SIMPLIFY THE LANGUAGE IN THIS SECTION OF THE CODE.
AS SUCH, AN AMENDMENT IS BEING MADE TO SECTION10-5.3(J)(5)(B) SUBSECTION 2 TO REPLACE THE TERM TWO-THIRDS WITH MAJORITY THEREBY SIMPLIFYING THE LANGUAGE IN THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION.
[00:15:04]
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES IDENTIFY STANDARDS OF APPROVAL IN WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SHALL DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH AND PROVIDED IN THE INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM FOR BOTH TEMPORARY ORDINANCE 2493 AND 2494 ARE RESPONSES TO THOSE STANDARDS AS IT APPLIES TO EACH RESPECTIVE APPLICATION.AS A RESULT, THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN PARTICULAR, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OBJECTIVE 1, WHICH REQUIRES THE CITY TO ADMINISTER AND ADOPT APPROPRIATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS, AMENDING THEM AS NEEDED TO RESPOND TO THE CHANGING CONDITIONS.
SO THE CONDITIONS IN THAT MATTER WOULD BE RESOLVING THE CONFLICTS WITHIN THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS ITEM IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY STRATEGIC GOALS THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE BY ESTABLISHING POLICIES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE AFFIRMATION FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RULING.
THE CITY WILL ENSURE THAT APPLICATIONS FOR SITE SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE PROCESSED IN A CONSISTENT IN ACCURATE MANNER AND THEN ALSO SIMPLIFYING THE LANGUAGE AND THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES, WHICH IS ALSO ELECTRONICALLY AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
IT WILL ENSURE THAT ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ARE ALSO PUBLISHED IN A CONCISE AND USER-FRIENDLY MANNER AS WELL.
AS SUCH, THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 10, SECTION 2-369 ENTITLED QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS, AND ALSO CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 5, SECTION 10-5.2 ENTITLED SUMMARY TABLE OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES.
TABLE 10-5.1 IN ADDITION TO SECTION 10-5.4, ENTITLED APPLICATION SPECIFIC REVIEW PROCEDURES IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC CODE OF ORDINANCES TO THE CITY COMMISSION AT IT'S MARCH 9TH 2022 MEETING.
ADDITIONALLY, THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 5, SECTION 10-5.3 ENTITLED COMMON REVIEW PROCEDURES SUBSECTION 10-5.3(J)(5)(B)(2) IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC CODE OF ORDINANCES TO THE CITY COMMISSION ON FIRST READING AT IT'S MARCH 9TH 2022 MEETING.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> DO WE NEED TO OPEN THIS UP AS A PUBLIC HEARING NOW CITY ATTORNEY OR?
>> THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN FOR THESE TWO ITEMS. ITEMS NUMBER 1 AND ITEMS NUMBER 2.
NOT SEEING ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC HERE TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS TWO ITEMS AND BRING NEW MATTERS TO THE BOARD FOR ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
WHEN I READ THESE, I DIDN'T SEE THEM AS RELATED.
I READ THE FIRST ITEM FOR THE LIFTING OF ZONING AND ZONING THE PROGRESS AND THE CHANGES AS YOU DESCRIBED, FOR DROPPING THE QUASI JUDICIAL TO MAKE IT JUST A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CERTAIN ITEMS ACCORDING TO CASE LAW.
THE SECOND ITEM DIDN'T SEEM TO RELATE AND I'M STILL NOT CONNECTING THE TWO.
THE SECOND ITEM IS A RESULT OF AN UPDATE THAT OCCURRED AT THE CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP.
BOTH ITEMS ESSENTIALLY IMPACT SITE-SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN APPLICATIONS, SO THE OPPORTUNITY WAS TAKEN WITH THESE ITEMS TO ADDRESS IT HOLISTICALLY SO THAT THE PROVISIONS COULD BE ADDRESSED FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION TYPE.
>> SO THIS WAS A CONVENIENT OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAR THAT UP AS WELL.
>> CORRECT. RESOLVE THE CONFLICTS IN THE CODE, BUT THEN ALSO SIMPLIFY THE LANGUAGE REQUIRING THE TWO-THIRDS.
>> I CAN ADD TO THAT AS WELL AS ANDES IS CORRECT.
BUT SPECIFICALLY, AS ANNE SUGGESTED IN HER PROBLEM PRESENTATION,
[00:20:03]
THE CITY MANAGER EXECUTED ZONING IN PROGRESS IN THAT ZONING IN PROGRESS THE LANGUAGE READ SPECIFICALLY THAT STAFF WOULD BE REVIEWING NOT ONLY SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE AMENDMENT, WE WOULD ALSO BE REVIEWING THE APPLICATION PROCESS WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATIONS, SO WHEN THE UPDATE WAS MADE TO THE CITY COMMISSION, WE COVERED ALL OF THAT.THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF ONLY TO ADDRESS THE SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE LAND AMENDMENT, OF COURSE, BECAUSE THAT WAS AN IMMEDIATE ISSUE.
THEY ALSO ASKED US JUST TO CLARIFY THAT PROVISION.
THEY DID NOT RECOMMEND ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES AS A RESULT OF OUR PRESENTATION AND THE ZONING IN PROGRESS.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
ANY OTHER MEMBERS IN THE ORDER OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WAS THE CONFLICTING PROVISION THAT YOU REFERRED TO?
>> ABSOLUTELY. THE FLORIDA SUPREME CASE RULING ON THE MATTER DESIGNATED SITE-SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AS LEGISLATIVE MATTERS, SO THAT FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RULING STANDS.
THE CONFLICTING PROVISIONS IN THE CITY'S CODE IS THAT THE CITY'S CODE DESIGNATES THE APPLICATION TYPE IS BOTH.
THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES IDENTIFY SITE-SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AS QUASI-JUDICIAL IN ONE SECTION, BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER SECTION IN THE CODE WHERE IT IS CONSIDERED A LEGISLATIVE MATTER TO BE HANDLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COMMISSION, SO WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE THOSE CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? IF NOT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEMS 1. LET'S TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO DO THAT ITEM BY ITEM OR SHOULD WE DO IT IN TANDEM?
>> MR. CHAIR WOULD BE AND IF I MADE JUST AS A MATTER.
SO ANYONE ASKING AT SOME FUTURE POINT CAN SAY THAT WE FOLLOWED, WE GOT IT ALL.
I'M GOING TO READ THE TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE INTO THE RECORD, AND SO THEN THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A ROLL-CALL VOTE ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.
THE FIRST ONE IS, THE PROPER TITLE, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSIONERS, CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA, LIFTING ZONING IN PROGRESS BY AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE SAME TAMARAC CODE OF ORDINANCES ENTITLED ADMINISTRATION BY AMENDING ARTICLE 10 ENTITLED QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, BY SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 2, DASH 369 ENTITLED QUASI SHOW MATTERS AND CITY OF TAMARAC CODE OF ORDINANCES TO DELETE SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS FROM THE LIST OF DESIGNATED QUASI JUDICIAL MATTERS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 10 TO THE CITY OF TAMARAC CODE OF ORDINANCES ENTITLED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 5 ENTITLED ADMINISTRATION AMENDING SECTION 10 DASH 5.2 ENTITLED SUMMARY TABLE.
A DEVELOPED AND REVIEW PROCEDURES BY SPECIFICALLY MENDING TABLE 10 DASH 5.1 ENTITLED SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES, CHANGING THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT FOR SITE-SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A MINUTE AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS FROM QUASI JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING TO STANDARD PUBLIC HEARING AND AMENDING SECTION 10 DASH 5.4 ENTITLED APPLICATION-SPECIFIC REVIEW PROCEDURES BY DELETING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION TO HOLD A QUADRATURE HEARING FOR THE SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS TO ENSURE CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THE CODE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE FORD SUPREME COURT RULING, PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEPARABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
IF THE CLERK CAN TAKE A ROLL CALL OUT.
>> WE NEED A MOTION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT THERE WAS ALREADY A MOTION.
>> I'D HEARD ONE. DID ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> MOTION TO MAKE A FAVOR OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION PASSED 5-0.
>> MR. CHAIR. THE SECOND ITEM FOR YOU IS ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSIONERS, CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 10 TO THE CITY OF TAMARAC CODE
[00:25:01]
OF ORDINANCES ENTITLED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AMENDING ARTICLE 5 ENTITLED ADMINISTRATION BY AMENDING SECTION 10 DASH 5.3 ENTITLED COMMON AND REVIEW PROCEDURES BY SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 10, DASH 5.3 J5 B2, REPLACING THE TERM TWO-THIRDS WITH MAJORITY OF THE DECISION-MAKING BODY PERMITTED TO GRANT A WAIVER OF THE ONE-YEAR TIME LIMITATION REQUIRED FOR THE RECENT MIDDLE OF A SIMILAR OR SAME LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AFTER BEING PREVIOUSLY DENIED.PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEPARABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
>> IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM?
>> MOTION IS APPROVED IN A SECOND ROLL-CALL.
>> MOTION TO MAKE A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION PASS 5-0.
>> ITEM NUMBER 3 IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING AT DUNKIN DONUTS.
[F.4. TR 13753 - Dunkin Donuts - Site Plan Approval (Major)]
THE PETITIONER IS CARLOS LOZANO DESIGNATED AGENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER IN MASALA INC.THIS IS CASE NUMBER 11-SP-21 SITE PLAN APPROVAL MAJOR.
THE PETITION IS REQUESTING A SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING RESTAURANT OUT PARCEL TO PROVIDE A NEW DRIVE-THRU LANE FOR PROPOSED DUNKIN DONUTS.
EXISTING BUILDING WOULD BE MODIFIED AND DIVIDED INTO TWO UNITS.
SITE LOCATION IS 7001 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE. STAFF.
>> MR. CHAIR, BEFORE WE START, IF I CAN SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES.
ANYBODY WHO IS GOING TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM OR SPEAK TO THIS ITEM, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THE WITNESS HAS BEEN SWORN.
>> GOOD MORNING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY STAFF AS WELL.
FOR THE RECORD, I'M CHRISTIAN VANDEWALLE, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
THIS PROJECT THAT WE ARE FOCUSING ON TODAY IS THE DUNKIN DONUTS.
THE PROPOSED DUNKIN DONUTS LOCATED IN THE PLAZA TAMARAC, THE SHOPS AT WALMART, NEIGHBORHOOD MARKET.
CARLOS LOZANO, THE DESIGNATED AGENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER MASALA INC IS REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN MAJOR TO ALLOW FOR THE MATERIAL IMPROVEMENT AND MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING OUT PARTIAL STRUCTURE AND THE ADDITION OF A DRIVE-THRU LANE FOR THE PROPOSED DUNKIN DONUTS.
THE PROPERTY IS PROPOSING TO BE MODIFIED FROM A ONE-UNIT STRUCTURE TO A TWO-UNIT STRUCTURE, PREFERABLY RETAIL USES.
THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THEIR PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL.
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DISTRICT IS ELVIN VILLALOBOS, AND IT IS DISTRICT 3, EXCUSE ME.
THE ENTIRE PLAZA'S ACREAGE IS 20.748 AND THE OUTPARCEL IS LOCATED WITHIN THE PLAZA, WHICH IS JUST SOUTH OF CITY HALL, LOCATED ALONG NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE.
CURRENTLY, IT IS ADDRESSED AS 7,001 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE AND THE PLAZA IS EASILY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MCNABB ROAD AND NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE, ALSO KNOWN AS NORTH ISLAND ROAD.
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE ENTIRE PLAZA IS ZONE CITY MUN, WHICH IS MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD, CONCURRENTLY WITH THE BURNET COUNTY ZONING DISTRICT OF C1 COMMERCIAL, DUE TO A 1972 COURT ORDERED STIPULATED AGREEMENT.
THE PLAZA WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS AND VISITORS ALIKE.
THE PLAZA IS FRAME MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH, WEST AND EAST, WITH THE NORTH AS A CONTINUATION OF COMMERCIAL.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS CONSTRUCTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE ENTIRE PLAZA WHICH WAS BUILT IN 1987.
THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS A ONE-UNIT LEASED STRUCTURE WITH A BUILDING FOOTPRINT OF 3,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS 17 FEET.
THE CURRENT SETBACKS WILL REMAIN UNALTERED.
THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS 55 PARKING SPACES INCLUDING TWO HANDICAP SPACES.
THE PREVIOUS TENANT WAS NEW CHINA RESTAURANT WHICH WAS A DINING BUFFET AND THEY OCCUPIED
[00:30:03]
THE SPACE APPROXIMATELY FOR 20 YEARS UNTIL THEY CLOSED THEIR STORES.THE BUSINESS OWNER CLOSED THE STORES IN 2018.
SINCE THE CLOSURE OF THE PREVIOUS TENANT, THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN UNOCCUPIED.
FURTHERMORE, THE PROPERTY IS BORDERED BY A THRIVING LOCAL VEHICLE SERVICE REPAIR BUSINESS NAMED TOTAL CHOICE AUTO SERVICE CENTER AND IT'S LOCATED TO THE NORTH.
THE PHOTOS SHOWN IN FRONT OF YOU ON THE SCREEN IS THE FRONT OF THE BUSINESS, ALSO POINTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS AND THERE'S ALSO A PICTURE SHOWING THE BORDER OF THE RESTAURANT AND ALSO THE BUSINESS TO THE NORTH, TOTAL CHOICE.
THE PHOTO SHOWN IN FRONT OF YOU ARE THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT, PRETTY MUCH FACING FROM NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE AND THE PHOTO TO THE RIGHT IS THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT, WHICH IS SHOWING THE VIEW FROM THE PLAZA.
THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT IS LOCATED TO THE LEFT AND THERE ARE TWO MAIN POINTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS COMING FROM NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE.
THIS IS ONE OF THE MAIN POINTS AND LOCATED TO THE RIGHT IS THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT, WHICH IS A MAIN POINT OF EGRESS, EGRESS TO THE DUNKIN DONUTS.
JUST TO CLARIFY, THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT IS FOR ACCESS FROM 88TH AVENUE AND ON THE RIGHT, THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT IS FOR THE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE DUNKIN DONUTS.
THIS IS ANOTHER PHOTO OF THE BORDERLINE OF THE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR, TOTAL CHOICE AUTO SERVICE.
THIS IS A SITE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED BUSINESS OR THE PROPOSED UPGRADE.
AS SHOWN ON THE SLIDE, IT'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE BUILDING.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE BUILDING WILL BE SPLIT INTO TWO UNITS, ONE UNIT BEING 1800 SQUARE FEET FOR THE PROPOSED DUNKIN DONUTS AND ON THE RIGHT IS ANOTHER RETAIL SHELL, APPROXIMATELY 1,200 SQUARE FEET TO BE OCCUPIED AT A FUTURE DATE.
ALSO SHOWN ON THE SLIDE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW DRIVE-THRU LANE TO BE ADDED TO THE SITE.
WHILE THE NEW DRIVE-THRU WILL BE REDUCING AN ABUNDANT AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES SIMULTANEOUSLY, THEY WILL BE ADDING AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING AROUND THE SITE FOR AESTHETICS.
THE FULLY OPERABLE DRIVE-THRU WILL EXCLUSIVELY BE USED BY DUNKIN DONUTS.
THE SITE HAS MET ALL CITY PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND HAS ALSO RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE CITY'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT, TRAP TECH.
SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT IS A FEW OF THE FEATURES THAT THE SITE WILL BE, SORRY.
YES, NEW SITE FEATURES, SORRY.
AS YOU CAN SEE, WITH THE ARROWS POINTED AT IT, THERE ARE GOING TO A FEW ITEMS THAT WILL BE PROPOSED, WHICH IS THE NEW DRIVE-THROUGH LANE, MODIFY SECTIONS OF THE EXTERIOR FACADE FROM 17 FEET TO 21 FEET, MAINLY TO ACCOMMODATE THE DUNKIN' DONUTS, LOSE LANDSCAPING AROUND THE SITE.
A NEW LANDSCAPE ISLAND LOCATED ALL ALONG NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE, A NEW DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, WHICH WAS RELOCATED FROM THE REAR OF THE BUILDING TO NOW TO ONE OF THE SIDES, AND ALSO THEY'RE GOING TO BE ADDING NEW LIGHT POLES AS WELL.
SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU IS A PICTURE OR RENDERINGS OF THE ELEVATIONS.
WHILST THE EXISTING WEST ELEVATION ON THE LEFT SHOWS THE EXISTING 17 FEET HEIGHT.
THIS IS THE EXISTING, BUT IT'S SHOWING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE THE 1200 SQUARE FEET, WHERE VANILLA SHELL ROW EXIT IS IF YOU LOOK TO YOUR RIGHT, YOU WOULD SEE THE PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION THAT SHOWS THE NEW RAISED ELEVATION TO 19 FEET, SIX INCHES IN HEIGHT.
ALSO THERE'S A PARAPET AREA THAT DUNKIN' DONUTS IS PROPOSING AS WELL.
THAT'S NOT A RAISE IT TO 20 FEET, NINE INCHES IN HEIGHT.
ON THE BOTTOM LEFT YOU WILL SEE ONCE AGAIN FOR THE EAST ELEVATION FACING NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE, 17 FEET IN HEIGHT, AND ON THE RIGHT, THE SAME LOCATION THAT ARE GOING TO RAISE IT TO 20 FEET, AND NINE INCHES IN HEIGHT.
ALSO ON THE RIGHT THEY SHOW THE FRONT OF THE VANILLA SHELL,
[00:35:02]
WHICH IS 1200 SQUARE FEET.THIS IS ANOTHER PHOTO OF THE ELEVATIONS.
ONCE AGAIN, ON THE LEFT IS SHOWING THE EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION AS 17 FEET IN HEIGHT, AND ON THE RIGHT IS SHOWING THE PROPOSED 20 FEET, AND NINE INCHES IN HEIGHT.
THIS IS REALLY WHERE THE DRIVE-THROUGH LINE WILL BE LOCATED.
ON THE BOTTOM-LEFT, IT SHOWS THE NORTH ELEVATION, WHICH IS FACING THE TOTAL CHOICE AUTO CENTER, AND IT'S GOING TO BE 17 FEET IN HEIGHT.
THE 20 FEET, NINE INCHES IN HEIGHT IS SHOWING ONCE AGAIN THE PARAPET OF THE FRONT OF THE DUNKIN' DONUTS, AND THE 19 FEET, SIX INCHES IN HEIGHT IS SHOWING THE ROOF LINE LOCATED ON THE NORTH ELEVATION AS WELL.
SECTION 10_5.4H SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
A SITE PLAN APPROVAL CONSISTS OF PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF THIS SECTION THAT ARE INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE LAYER OF GENERAL DESIGN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS IN THIS CODE.
EXCUSE ME. THE CODE OF ORDINANCES IDENTIFY APPROVAL STANDARDS IN WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHALL DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH PROVIDED IN THE INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM FOR THE DUNKIN DONUTS, ARE RESPONSES TO THE STANDARDS OF APPROVAL AS IT APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT PETITION.
IT IS THE OPINION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THAT THE STANDARDS FOR THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL HAS BEEN SATISFIED.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN MAJOR THREE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S STRATEGIC GOAL NUMBER THREE, TAMARAC IS ECONOMICALLY RESILIENT.
AS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REDEVELOP AND OCCUPY AND OTHERWISE VACANT PROPERTY ALONG THE CITIES MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL MAJORS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING POLICIES OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE FUTURE LAND-USE ELEMENT OBJECTIVE 1, THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 1.4 AND THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 1.5, SHOWN IN FRONT OF YOU.
THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL MAJOR, TO ALLOW FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE ADDITION OF A DRIVE THROUGH LANE IN THE MU-N ZONING DISTRICT AT IT'S MARCH 23RD, 2020 MEETING.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
ALSO CARLOS LOZANO, THE ARCHITECT ON THE PROJECT, HE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM PLANNING BOARD. THANK YOU.
>> I DO HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU.
ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IN MY MIND, AS YOU READ YOU ANSWER THEM.
THE ONLY THING I DIDN'T SEE IS WHAT IS THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACE AS PROPOSED TO WHAT IS PROPOSED?
>> I CAN ASSERT THAT, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS CHAIR WITH THE WHOLE PLAZA. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WERE YOU ALERTED? BECAUSE I KNOW YOU HAVE TO DO.
>> YEAH. BUT IN BOTTOM LINE, WE HAVE NOT SAY 10 BUT HUNDREDS OF PARKING IS IN EXCESS, I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS WITH ME [OVERLAPPING].
>> BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THAT THE OLD RESTAURANT HAD 55.
>> CORRECT. YES. I'M SORRY, I RAN THROUGH IT.
SHOWN IN FRONT OF YOU, THE DUNKIN' DONUTS RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THROUGH, SO THE REQUIREMENT IS ONE SPACE PER EVERY 125 SQUARE FEET, AND THE SPACE THAT'S UTILIZED IS 1800 SQUARE FEET, WHICH MEANS THEY WOULD REQUIRE 15 PARKING SPACES.
THE LOCATION TO THE RIGHT, WHICH IS A VANILLA SHELL, WE'RE ASSUMING IT'S GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT OF RETAIL SALES.
WE ASSUME THAT IT'S GOING TO BE ONE SPACE.
USING THE CODE IT'S ONE SPACE PER EVERY 300 SQUARE FEET, SO 1200 SQUARE FEET IS THE UNIT AND THEY ONLY REQUIRE FOUR PARKING SPACES, SO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES THAT'S IN THAT PARCEL CURRENTLY AS 29.
THEY'RE PROPOSING 29 PARKING SPACES, PROVIDING ALSO TWO HANDICAP SPACES.
>> HOW MANY WERE REPURPOSED FOR THE DRIVE-THROUGH?
[00:40:01]
GIVE ME ONE SECOND. I'M SORRY.>> I'M ALSO ASSUMING IF THE SHELL IS BEING USED AS A RESTAURANT.
I MEAN, WHAT'S THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO FOR THE PARKING SPACES THAT'S REQUIRED FOR IT? BECAUSE WE HOPE YOU WILL BE RETAIL SO IT'S FEW PARKING SPACES AND FEWER.
>> I BELIEVED THAT THERE WERE 21.
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I WOULD GUESS 24 PARKING SPACES WERE TO BE REMOVED AROUND THE REAR ON THE WEST AND THE SIDE WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH ELEVATION.
IF I CAN SHOW YOU ON THIS PORTION.
THE PHOTO TO THE LEFT IS PARKING LOCATED ON THE BORDER WHICH IS THE NORTH ELEVATION, AND THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT SHOWS THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE, WHICH SHOWS PARKING THAT WAS IN THE REAR AS WELL.
BUT I BELIEVE THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE PARKING DUE TO THE ONE SPACE, DUNKIN' DONUTS BEING THE MAJORITY OF THE SPACE THAT'S UTILIZED, WHICH IS 1800 SQUARE FEET, WHICH THEY ARE USING 15 SPACES.
THEREFORE, 14 SPACES WILL BE LEFT, WHICH FOR THE 1200 SQUARE FEET, IT SHOULD PRETTY MUCH BALANCE OUT ITSELF.
>> I GO BACK TO WHAT I WAS SAYING.
WHEN THE PARKING IS ON THE PLAZA AND THERE IS AN EXCESS OF, I CANNOT WITH HERE, BUT IT'S LIKE HONDA AND 27 PARTNER'S SPACES. [OVERLAPPING].
>> I KNOW THE PLAZA, AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PARKING SPACES AND I KNOW IF IT WAS ALL YOU CAN EAT OR A BUFFET BEFORE WHERE PEOPLE SPEND LOTS OF TIME THERE, SO I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF PARKING.
I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF IT WAS EQUALLY ALERTED TO WHEREVER YOU SEE YOU'RE PROPOSING IT.
I UNDERSTAND. YES. INSIDE OF THE PRESENTATION, THEY HAVE AN ATTACHMENT SHOWING THE PREVIOUS SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY, SO IT WAS SHOWED THE 55 PARKING SPACES THAT WERE THERE [OVERLAPPING].
>> IS IT IN OUR BOOKLET? OR EXISTING VERSUS PROPOSE? NO?
>> I KNOW SOMEONE ELSE DID THIS CALCULATION, AND THAT'S FINE. [BACKGROUND]
>> THE ARCHITECT COULD PLEASE STATE HIS NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD?
>> YEAH. GARLAND LOSSANO ARCHITECTS, 2830 WEST STATE, 84 FOR LAUDERDALE 33312.
THE FACT THAT YOU WANTED TO CHANGE THE HEIGHT FROM THE 17TH TO THE 20, IS THAT JUST THE ROOF? IT'S JUST GOING TO BE ONE OF THE DOING?
>> NO, BASICALLY THE WHOLE REASON IS TO CONCEAL THE ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT.
THAT NOW IS EXPOSED AND JUST CHILLED BY WITH STRUCTURE.
MORESO CORE RENT IS RUNNING CODE REQUIRED THAT THE ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT TO BE CONCEALED FROM VIEW.
THAT'S THE REASON JUST TO BRING UP THE STANDARD OF THE BUILDING.
WHEN YOU ARE DRAGGING ON THE STREET AND SEE THE AIR CONDITIONING OR YOU DON'T SEE THE EXHAUST HOOD FROM THE KITCHEN OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> YES, STATIC AND JUST BASICALLY CODE REQUIREMENT THAT I SEE IT AS A COURTESY TO DO THE NORMAL CITIZEN.
THAT THEY DRIVE ON THE MAIN ROADS AND THEY DON'T SEE THE EQUIPMENT FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.
>> OKAY. NEXT QUESTION, YOU SPOKE ABOUT FUTURE USE OF THE OTHER WHITE, THINKING WAS 1800 AND WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT FUTURE USE OR IS IT UNDER CONTROL OF YOU GUYS? OR WHAT IS THAT?
>> NO, MA'AM. WHOEVER PROPOSES THE BUSINESS TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
>> WHERE WE 1200 SQUARE FEET ON THAT NEXT TO DUNKIN DONUTS IS MORE THAN WELCOME.
>> ONE LAST QUESTION. WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THIS ZONING?
>> SORRY, BUT I CAN'T FIND IT ANYMORE.
>> I'M SORRY. GIVE ME ONE SECOND, PLEASE.
[00:45:05]
FORTY FEET, THAT'S THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT.>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE AXIS AND IT WAS EXISTING TO THE EAST SIDE TO THE NORTH SIDE.
>> THAT APPEARS TO BE ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES ARE CROSS ASKED ACCESS EASEMENT THAT HISTORICALLY BEEN THERE.
IT'S INTERNAL TO THE SITE WHEN YOU GO IN THERE.
THIS DOESN'T SHOW IT WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE SITE PLAN. YES, ON THAT.
I'M GOING TO RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN THERE, WHERE TRAFFIC CAN GO IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S OFF THIS PROPERTY. FOLLOWING WHAT I'M SAYING?
>> THE ENTIRE PARCEL? THE ENTIRE PLAZA ITSELF IS ACTUALLY SEPARATED.
THE WALMART HAS IT'S OWN PORTION OF THE PARCEL.
THE ENTIRE LOT ITSELF IS 20 ACRES.
THIS OUT PARCEL IS APPROXIMATELY 38,000 SQUARE FEET OR 0.87 ACRES IN TOTAL.
BUT THIS PARCEL IS CONNECTED TO THE NEIGHBORS, WHICH IS CONNECTED TO THE REST OF THE PLAZA OUTSIDE OF THE WALMART.
>> THIS IS LEGAL ON ITS OWN, IT'S SEPARATE PROPERTY.
IT'S OWN LEGALLY DESCRIBED PROPERTY. THERE'S AN OUT PARCEL.
>> MY OBSERVATION I'M MAKING HERE MORE THAN ANYTHING IS THE AXIS INTO THE SITE INTERNALLY ON THAT DRIVEWAY TO THE RIGHT AND WHEN I CALL IT AN A NORTH OF IT, IT'S EXISTING.
BUT I SUPPOSE BECAUSE IT'S PUTTING THE BIGGER CENTER, TRAFFIC HAS ACCESS NO MATTER WHAT ANY PART OF THE SITE IS THAT TO THE HISTORY HERE?
THE PORTION OF WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS CURRENTLY, IF I CAN SHOW YOU ON THE BORDER PICTURE.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, THIS IS A PHOTO WHERE THE TREE AND YOU SEE WITH THE WHITE TRUCK.
CURRENTLY, TOTAL CHOICE IS UTILIZING THOSE PARKING SPACES.
HOWEVER, THE ENTIRE PARCEL ITSELF IS ONE.
THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY LINE WILL BE GOING IN THAT SAME LOCATION, TAKEN AWAY THOSE PARKING SPACES.
>> TO ACCESS THAT YOU'LL BE COMING DOWN THAT EXISTING DRIVEWAY PAST THE AUTO CENTER INTO THE DRIVE-THROUGH.
THAT'S THE WAY YOU WILL ACCESS IT FROM THAT SIDE.
>> I'M SORRY. YOU HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS WHERE, I'M SORRY, ON THE BOTTOM LEFT PHOTO, THIS IS COMING FROM 88TH AVENUE.
COMING INTO THE PLAZA TO YOUR RIGHT WILL BE THE DUNKIN DONUTS FIRST ENTRANCE, THE MAIN INGRESS AND EGRESS.
ALSO, YES TO THE PHOTO TO THE RIGHT, YOU WOULD HAVE ANOTHER POINT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS.
>> IT EVOLVES GOING PAST THAT AUTO STORE?
>> IT'S THE CURRENT CONDITION.
>> THE AUTO STORE HAS TWO THE GARAGE DOORS OPENED UP AND GO BOTH WAYS SOUTH AND NORTH.
I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE EXITING TO THE NORTH OF THEM THROUGH THOSE GARAGE DOORS BECAUSE THEY HAVE ACCESS THAT WAY AS WELL.
>> OKAY. TO THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED ABOUT FUTURE USE.
MAYBE IT'S LARGELY GOING TO BE MARKET-DRIVEN, BUT IT'S ALSO BECAUSE THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT HERE WHERE THERE'S A STIPULATION AGREEMENT ON WHAT CAN AND CAN'T BE DONE ON THIS SITE.
>> ALTHOUGH THE CITY HAS GOTTEN MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING ON IT, THE ZONING IN THE FUTURE USE OF THIS IS REALLY CONTROLLED BY THE AGREEMENT, ISN'T IT?
>> NOW, ISN'T AN AGREEMENT WIDE OPEN ON WHAT COULD GO IN THERE? I MEAN, ANYTHING UNDER COMMERCIAL CATEGORY COULD GO THERE.
THE 1972 AGREEMENT COVERS BUSINESS COMMERCIAL.
THERE USED TO BE B1, B2, B3, AND C1, WHICH HAS A WIDE RANGE AUTOMOBILE SHOP.
THERE'S AN ARRAY OF DIFFERENT BUSINESSES THAT CAN'T BE PROPOSED TO GO THERE.
WE WOULD, HOWEVER, CONCURRENTLY USE OUR CODE TO SEE IF IT FITS.
HOWEVER, YES, THE BROWARD COUNTY CODE DOES SUPERSEDE.
>> THAT MIX CHOOSE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD NOT CONTROL HERE, AND ZONING WOULD NOT CONTROL.
>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO ALSO MEET THE APARTMENT SPACES REQUIREMENT AS WELL.
THERE ARE CERTAIN STANDARDS THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET ON RN IN ORDER TO GET THE SPACE.
>> OKAY. LET'S SUPPOSE THEY COME IN WITH USE UNDER THE STIPULATION AGREEMENT THAT REQUIRES
[00:50:02]
MORE PARKING THAN WOULD BE PERMITTED OR THAT CAN BE PROVIDED ON THE SITE.IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT IT'S PART OF THE BIGGER CENTER AND THEY COULD SAY THERE'S SPACES JUST TO THE WEST OF HERE AS PART OF THE LARGER CENTER SO WE CAN MEET OUR PARKING LOT WE'RE THERE.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YES. THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THE SPACE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE PLAZA? THAT'S CORRECT.
>> I THINK THE BENEFIT OF THE RECORD IS THAT FUTURE USE ON THAT SPACE IS WIDE OPEN.
THE MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING CITY HAS IN PLACE THERE, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, WILL NOT CONTROL AND THAT TYPE OF ZONING TYPICALLY WOULD BE A LITTLE LESS OPEN THAN WHAT'S GOING TO POTENTIALLY BE THERE.
AGAIN, AN OBSERVATION, UNLESS I'M NOT READING THIS CORRECTLY.
>> UTILIZING A 1200 SQUARE FOOT SPACE, THERE'S NOT MANY BUSINESSES THAT CAN UTILIZE THEIR SPACE TO DO ANYTHING ASTRONOMICALLY OUT OF THE CURRENT PARKING STANDARDS THAT'S REQUIRED.
>> BUT JUST TO ANSWER YOU SPECIFICALLY, YES.
THE STIPULATED AGREEMENT CONTROLS AS IT RELATES TO ZONING AND THE USES THAT ARE PERMISSIBLE ON THAT PROPERTY.
>> BUT ALL THESE CONDITIONS APPLY TO ANY SPACE IN THAT PLAZA.
THAT PLAZA HAS COMMERCIAL SPACE, SO IF IT HASN'T BEEN A BRAWLING FOR 30 OR 40 YEARS, WHY IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM NOW? [OVERLAPPING] IF WE CLOSE THE DOOR TO THESE SPACE, THEY CAN'T TAKE ANY SPACE IN THE PLAZA.
WE'RE NOT CREATING A SITUATION THAT IS NOT THERE OR THAT HAS BEEN A PROBLEM.
>> TO THE POINT THAT I THINK THAT EVERYONE IS SPEAKING TO IS BASED ON CONVERSATION WITH MS. CALLOWAY, AND WHAT SHE JUST STATED IS THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT GOVERNS THE SITE PROVIDES THAT IT'S THE ENTIRE SITE FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING PARKING AND ACCESS, AND CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT.
SO THAT'S ALL SET FORTH AND THAT AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, IT MEETS ALL THE STANDARDS IN NOT ONLY IN THE STIPULATED AGREEMENT, BUT ALSO OUR PARKING.
BUT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CURRENT REGULATIONS GET APPLIED TO THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL, IT DOES MEET THE REQUIRED PARKING STANDARDS.
ALTHOUGH FOR MAY SEEM NOT A WHOLE LOT FOR THE ADJACENT SITE.
THAT'S WHAT THE COURT SAYS IS REQUIRED, THEY MEET THAT.
PLUS AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, ANYONE HAS THE RIGHT UNDER THE STIPULATED AGREEMENT TO USE ANY OF THE PARKING SPACES.
THE ENTIRE PARKING LOT IS USED FOR PURPOSES OF COMPLYING WITH PARKING REQUIREMENTS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE TO THE BOARD.
>> WILL THE FUTURE USE HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE CITY FOR FORMAL APPROVAL OR WILL IT BE ADMINISTRATIVE, HOW WILL THAT WORK?
SO IN THIS CASE, WE'RE BRINGING IT TO YOU FOR THE SITE PLAN BECAUSE THE STIPULATED AGREEMENT ALLOWS US TO DO THAT, THE SAME WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY FOR THE NEXT WAY FOR THAT SITE PLAN.
>> I'M SORRY. JUST TO ADD, I PRESUME THAT THE NEXT PLACE THAT WILL BE UTILIZED WOULD BE RETAIL SALES.
BUT IT CAN HAVE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF USE OR WHATNOT.
BUT I WAS JUST GIVING YOU AN EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER TYPE OF USE AND THE PARKING SPACES THAT'S REQUIRED BECAUSE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CHANGES DUE TO THE USE.
>> EVEN IN A WORST-CASE SCENARIO, AND I THINK ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBER ASKS ABOUT A RESTAURANT, WE KNOW IT'S 1200 SQUARE FEET AND SO WE KNOW THE CALCULATION FOR THE RESTAURANT IS 125 SQUARE FOOT PER SPACE.
IT'S A CALCULATION EVEN UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PARKING WOULD STILL BE MET.
>> I HAD ANY QUESTIONS. GO AHEAD.
>> IS THE [INAUDIBLE] GOING TO HAVE A SEATING AREA INSIDE OR IT'S GOING TO BE MORE PREDOMINANTLY TO DRIVE THROUGH?
>> BOTH. IT'S GOING TO HAVE SITTING INSIDE.
>> I JUST WANT TO ADD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIS BOARD, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE STIPULATED AGREEMENT FOR US AT LEAST HAS BEEN AN ISSUE, IS SOMETHING THAT WE TRIED TO FIND THE TIME TO
[00:55:03]
NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO TRY TO REMOVE.SO IN THE FUTURE DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF DEVELOPMENT, IS SOMETHING THAT WE CONSISTENTLY TRIED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO HAVE IT LIFTED BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THE BENEFITS ARE GREATER ON THE MIXED USE DESIGNATION THAT THEIR PROPERTY OWNER WOULD ESSENTIALLY GET SHOULD THEY LIFT THAT STIPULATED AGREEMENT.
SO IT'S A CONSTANT DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.
JUST TO ENLIGHTEN THEM ON THEIR BENEFIT IF THEY WERE TO HAVE IT REMOVED.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?
>> THIS IS A VERY WAY [INAUDIBLE] PROFITABILITY OR THE ABILITY OF THE GARAGE NEXT DOOR TO DO ITS WORK.
IT LOOKED LIKE FROM THE MAP THAT IT'S TAKING AWAY PARKING SPOTS FROM THE GARAGE.
>> NO, SIR. ALL OF THE PARKING SPACES ARE UTILIZED AMONGST EACH OTHER.
THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF ONE LOCATION TO THE NEXT.
SO PRETTY MUCH THE MODIFICATION OF THE DRIVE-THROUGH WOULD BE TAKEN AWAY PARKING SPACES, THAT'S CORRECT.
THEY ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE THE PARKING SPACES JUST TO THE WEST, IF NEEDED.
>> HAS THE GARAGE BEEN CONSULTED ABOUT THIS NEW BUSINESS? DO THEY HAVE ANY SAY?
>> CAN I ANSWER THAT QUESTION?
>> THE OWNER OF THE GARAGE BUILDING IS THE SAME OWNER OF THESE BUILDINGS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NONE, WE WILL JUST NEED TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD CITY ATTORNEY LIKE THE OTHER ITEMS BEFORE I VOTE.
>> NO. I THINK THE ITEMS ALREADY BEEN READ INTO THE RECORD BY JUST ABUNDANCES THAT THE APPLICATIONS REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE MODIFICATION OF EXISTING RESTAURANT OUT PERSON PROVIDE NEW DRIVE-THROUGH LANE PER PROPOSED DUNKIN DONUTS EXISTING BUILDING MODIFIED AND DIVIDE IT INTO TWO UNITS.
AT THIS POINT AND TIME WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHAIR TO OPEN UP A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
SEE IF ANYONE WANTS TO SPEAK, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND THEN ASSUMING YOU ALL HAVE HEARD ENOUGH, MAKE A MOTION AND DISCUSS IT, THEN VOTE ON IT WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT HAS MET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THAT THEY'VE MET THE COURT REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMEND THEM TO THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION.
>> WITH THAT, THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPENED AT THIS TIME.
ANYBODY ATTENDING WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION ON THE ITEM.
>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL IS ON THE FLOOR.
IS THERE A SECOND? THIS IS PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, CORRECT?
>> MOTION TO MAKE A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED BY STAFF, PASS 5 TO 0.
>> MOVING ON. WE HAVE OTHER BUSINESS UNDER ITEM, JUST ITEM I PLANNING BOARD REPORTS.
ANYBODY ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY REPORTS TO GIVE? WE MOVE ON THEN TO ITEM J, DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
[H. Director's Report]
JUST WANT TO REPORT THAT AT YOUR LAST MEETING,
[01:00:02]
YOU CONSIDERED THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT ITEM THAT WAS BEFORE YOU ON A SITE PLAN THAT THEN WENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION, AND SO I JUST WANTED TO REPORT THAT.ALSO WANT TO THANK THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE ABLE TO ATTEND THE IN-PERSON TRAINING.
JUST WANT TO REPORT THAT THAT WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE.
SO [INAUDIBLE] IS WORKING WITH JEAN BOLES WHO DID THE TRAINING, AND SO YOU'LL BE GETTING YOUR CERTIFICATE IN SHORT ORDER.
>> THANK YOU. THERE BEING NO OTHER ITEMS, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.