under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> Let's do roll call. Lisa Colorado >> here. >> Warren Ber here. >> John Bouter absent. Alexa Bobo
>> here. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Alexandra, sorry. Uh Margaret Schneider >> here, >> Mike Miller >> here, >> and Lori McKinley >> here. >> Thank you. >> Okay, first thing on the agenda is
>> it's on, >> I think. Yeah, sounds like it is. Um the approval of the agenda and minutes, either or or both. We have a motion for approval of the agenda.
>> I move we approve the agenda. >> Second. A second. All in favor? I >> I. >> Okay, it's approved. And approval of minutes. We have a minute. Do we have And there was a minor change since the one that went out
>> from when we had the training move from behind the um the public notice or so that that way we didn't hold up the wall there while you guys were going through your training. I put it at I left it at
the wrong way. So I move that we approve the minutes with the correction that >> second all in favor I it's approved. >> Okay, moving on. I don't think we have
any disclosure of conflict for this topic and um move to unfinished business. I'm happy to. I love getting up and speaking. >> Good evening, everybody. >> Thank you, Dave. >> It's nice to see you. I want to know, does anybody know how much it rained
this afternoon? How many inches? >> A lot. >> A lot. >> I was in it, so >> fair enough. >> It felt like a lot. >> Fair enough. >> Yep. You're right. >> Yep. Um the first one is um it's for recons not reconsideration but we're going to we we continued the discussion on
ordinance 1710 and this is the ordinance that um we were have been discussing about how best to handle uh automobile rental facilities and at the last meeting um we decided to
make a few tweaks to the draft ordinance and the tweaks are really on page seven of 26 if you see that I won't go into the agenda item itself, the the the bulk of it, um because it was just the it's the same same information that we
provided last time. But on page seven of 26 are the changes that we made based on the board input. And that is um one of the board members suggested that we rather than just as a permitted use um we consider travel and car rental
facilities as a special exception in the CT zoning district. I think there was fairly I think there was consensus from the board on that. So the ordinance now includes that um um that a travel and car rental facilities are going to be permitted through the special exception
process. Um the other bullet right below that is when considering an application for one of these facilities, the added criteria will be considered or shall be considered by the board of adjustment. Um and as you recall, boards of adjustment are are involved in special
exceptions. So we added uh six criteria. Number of off- streetet parking spaces shall not fall below the required for the primary use. Number two, servicing or repair of vehicles is prohibited. We just don't want that to become we don't
want that turning into a uh uh a car maintenance or rent, you know, a maintenance facility. Uh that they can be unsightly and they're not great. Uh they can create a lot of um incompatible uses. Um, outdoor speakers, paging
systems are prohibited. And I added a few of these, so I I hope the board can certainly pull these off if you want to, but let's talk about that. A separate driveway access point for the facility is prohibited. And so what I was trying to do here is we just don't want a lot of driveway cuts onto a
onto a property. um that creates um automobile con movement conflicts and um it just it just adds it just adds issues to a site. Um if we can funnel everything through the existing access
cuts I thought was perspective that would be advantageous. Um we put some we put some limitations on the hour 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 7 days a week and then signage is limited to that allowed for the overall property. So didn't want proliferation of signage on the on the
property as well. So we limited it to what what's what's allowed by the primary use. Um and that's really it. Any questions on on the draft minutes or any of these new criteria or conditions?
>> Any comments? >> I have a question um on E4 B. E >> for >> B >> B. Okay, that's >> servicing or repair of vehicles is prohibited.
>> And then it says, should a car wash be utilized? It must be is it is it should a car wash even be allowed? >> That is that that it is allowed in other other locations that they allow these type of facilities, but that's something
the board can if if that's not something you're comfortable with, we can take that out. I mean it was just it's either that we can you know allow hand of vehicles. Um but what I'm trying to do here is I was trying to contain the
you know when I was working up in Canaveral new car washes had to do exactly what I'm suggest what what the staff is suggesting here. Should a car wash be utilized, it must be within a structure with a roof and include a water
recycling system pursuing a water uh plant by the city's public works director recycles and reuses at least 50% of the wash and rinse water. So, you know, if you do those, if you have handwashing, probably not going to happen what I'm
suggesting here. And also, you know, it's going to probably go into existing storm water uh inlets and grates in the parking lot. That's not you don't want a lot of that phosphate and that detergent getting into the city storm system because ultimately it's going to out
into one of our water bodies. Um so my my thought was if we could contain that through some type of a recycling system a treatment facility that would be good but if the board says we want any of that that's not be allowed on site that's fine as well. I was just throwing
that out there for a for um something to chew on. Personally, I don't like it, but that's my own. >> So, just because if the um if if if that was allowed to be, you know, they were
allowed to have a separate um I guess building I guess this would be or you know, roof to be able to have the car wash. Um is there a process by which they'd have to go through in order to be able to have that in the first place? What what would that look like? >> Yeah, that would be the city's building permit process. Okay. and they would
need to come in and submit plans um plans that are paired by licensed architect or engineer. They would have to be stamped signed and sealed plans which would be reviewed by the zoning and planning department by our city building official by our city public works department. So there's there's a
process an approval reprocess that all of our bill permits through. >> So make sure it's consistent with applicable ordinances. Did the the the parties that kind of initially asked about this being a possibility, did they specifically talk
about a car wash? No. At all? >> No. I'm just I was just trying to anticipate. >> I mean, it's a point. They're going to want to wash the cars or have them clean at least. I don't know if they want to wash them, but >> Yeah. Generally, these rental facilities do. >> Yeah. >> Um or they I mean, an option is they can
take them off site, but that burns gas, you know, that takes staff time. My other question, I guess there's not I don't know if there's one in that zoning area. There's not a car that I know of in Coco. I know there's the run
through right on I don't know what street that is. >> Yeah. Second Street. >> Is there >> There's one here in A1A, but that's not that's more of a one >> kind of. There's one on Second Street. Second and and beating Orlando and and Atlantic. >> Oh, yeah. That's right. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I mean, I just wonder if there's some semiconvenient one that exists that they could use. >> Not probably not semi-convenient. I'm wonder how you defend that. >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> I I suspect most of them do some kind of cleaning after you. I mean you that's the way it goes >> inside and out. So >> yeah, >> there any other we have Mike?
>> Yeah. Um I strongly endorse approving the additional driveway. We need maneuvers on Arman roads rather than more. So I think it's a very good item. I strongly endorse that. Any other questions? >> I just want to say all in all I think it
was a very uh creative uh a solid solution for what we sort of posed in our last meeting. Um I think you addressed a lot of those concern really in my in my opinion all of those concerns. >> Good. Thank you. Glad to hear that. >> I thought it was pretty thorough and kind of caught all the angles or things
that might you know >> well we try to do that as staff is try to gather all the input and put them into some sensible solutions. So thank you I guess that's unfinished business and
new business al together. >> Do you have a motion for >> well it would it would be a motion to recommend to the commission to approve the ordinance as presented. >> So if you want to amend your motion to capture that
If I can remember that. I move that we uh make this recommendation. Commission. >> Yep. Very good. >> A second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I have one opposed. >> One opposed.
>> Did you want to say anything? Okay. enough to pass and make recommendation to with one one opposed. >> I did just so we're clear, I did ask uh in future few packages and stuff that we
talk about the motion just so that we have something in front of us. And in this one um just want to make sure we all heard the kind of thing. is the planning board is recommending approval of 1710 as as recommended by the staff
to the commission. Okay. All righty. Do we have any staff reports? That's all old and new. Do we have any staff reports, announcements? >> Do we have any public comments? >> No.
>> Go over 17. You've got an item of business there. >> Oh, yeah. Sorry. Go back. New business. >> Madam, are you ready? Yes, I'm ready. >> Some more staff comments. Um this this
is an ordinance that is putting a little bit more meat and potatoes on our skeleton of board reviews and it's really specifically going to be for what are called quasi judicial reviews and this board has a number of them and our board of
adjustment has one as well. uh special exceptions. Um and so um I'm going to read just snippets of the background to kind of kind of create a um a context for our conversations. Um the citizens boards oftentimes sit in
a QJ or quasi judicial capacity when considering certain applications. And for purposes of our discussions tonight, we're going to be talking about special exceptions, which is a BOA um process, and then reszoning, which is the planning and zoning board is part of
that. Um, but you'd serve as a QA and a QA really aj hearing and and please Gary, jump in here because this is not my level area of expertise. >> Absolutely. >> But a QJ um hearing is basically the board, each of you individually are sitting in the capacity as a judge. um
you're you're considering input and testimony and that is provided at this meeting. Um and you may base a decision based on that input that testimony. Um and so it's really, you know,
discussions you may have had prior to the hearing or field trips you may have had prior to the hearing really shouldn't be considered. It's it's it's really what what's discussed in the hearing. Um and it is a heightened level
of scrutiny too. Um, so that's why right now our our code is it's just it it doesn't quite have the oomph that I would like to see in in in our process and our criteria because as you're sitting in judges as you're
sitting as a judge there there should be some criteria you you're looking at and you're considering when you're you're making a recommendation or making a final decision on on an item. Um and so and of not oftenimes but there could be
litigation that comes out of these hearings. Someone there's an agrieved party that doesn't like what the board decides. So it's nice to have some criteria and it just was some decision that we came up with and I I think this
criteria will help kind of build that that framework for the for the board and and and this board. Garrett, do you have anything you'd like to add to that? >> No, but uh out of what you just said, board last month at our annual training, and so I know it's fresh on their mind,
but um it's always good to have clearly defined criteria because then you know what you're applying the application against, right? And so, um, with that, I'm sure staff will, as more of these come up, integrate this criteria into their packages to you and and, uh, and
that way you can, you know, go down the list and say, "Oh, yes, the applicant did address this criteria because it's right here in my and then I can look in the application and see where it's in the application." Um, and so, uh, that's the best way to do it. And when litigation does come up, as you all remember from last month, the standard
is, is there some competent substantial evidence in the your decision? and it's in ST packet and it's in the application and you all discussed it because code requires that you must discuss it. It makes my job a lot easier. So, >> right and and and and Garrett exactly right when when and we do establish
these criteria then you'll they'll be the uh that's what our staff reports will be built around. So it should be very free should be very smooth flowing and we should address all of these issues and if applicant doesn't address the issues we'll bounce the application
back and say hey this is not a complete application you've got to address these issues um and we won't process that until we have a complete application. So um um as in my mind that's how it's supposed to work. So um so let's go
let's move on to exhibit A. Let's actually get into the specific criteria that we're talking about. And again, as I said earlier, it's going to really be focused on the special exception, which this board doesn't get too involved in, but I think it's important that you well, you you need to look at it because it's part of the land development code.
Um, and as always, um, the proposed new language is going to be shown in underlined font. So, let's talk about that. Um in D it talks about and and you know there are some there are some basic criteria in the code right now. So in
addition to that basic criteria that's that pre-exist the board consider the following criteria when evaluating a special exchange and in this case again the board is the board of adjustment whether the applicant has demonstrated that the request including density height scale and intensity hours of
operation designers these are all zoning and land use considerations revolving to make sure we've got compatibility. Compatibility is a big thing. We don't want to be we don't and as you rec as you know special
exceptions are just that they're not permitted by right. A special exception has an it affords a new level or layer of public input. The board will have a public hearing. The community can come out and speak to it. So um and these
criteria process those. So um number two, whether the proposed special exception will have an adverse impact on local economy. Number three, whether the proposed special exception will have an adverse impact on natural environment, including air, water, and noise pollution. Four,
whether the proposed special exception will have an adverse impact on public services including water, sewer, storm water, and surface water management, police, fire, and w all the public services that the city provides. And so when we're considering these special exception, we want to make sure that the
city services are in place. That's just another consideration for the board to keep in mind. Number five, whether the special exception and the related applicable traffic report provided by the details safe and efficient means of ingress and egress in and out of the neighborhood. Number six, whether the
proposed special exception will have an adverse impact on housing and social conditions, including unit types and price and neighbor quality. Number seven, the proposed special exception avoids significant adverse odor emission, noise, glare, and vibration impacts. And number eight, whether the applicant has demonstrated the special
exception has be designed to incorporate mit mitigative techniques and plans needed to prevent adverse impacts. So, it's just it's just an added layer of considerations. It's always good when you're when you're considering
something, it's always great to have a text and go through each one of them line by line to make sure that what's being looked at and considered you consider it. So, um, so it's just adding, like I said, it's just adding another it's just some meat and potatoes
to our to our ability to effectively consider these special exceptions by, you know, by the board of adjustment. So, any questions on any of those? I was just curious, what do applicants, what kind of instruction are they given
that does that lay out any of this kind of stuff or would that all be a new thing? Like I don't know what >> currently is currently they are expected to include in their request. >> Yeah, it's it's very it's very it's very thin what what they currently um what
they currently are required to uh submit. Um, basically it's it's I'm I'm just going to say it's very general language like compatibility with the city comprehensive plan >> with all the other stuff in the LDC and a comprehensive plan. I guess this is >> Yeah.
>> Like you said just another >> Yeah. And so what we'll do is we'll should this be approved by the city commission, we'll go in and modify our applications, >> our special exception application as well as our resoning application to make sure it reflects all of these things.
um and therefore the applicant will be required to to to address them. So yeah, Mike, >> I do have comments because I like this very much. I feel in the past um
it's important to determine whether something someone's proposing to build is an asset or an a liability to the community. the lack of definition of past favored the applicants over the citizens of Cocoa Beach. I feel we have
a say in what uh since we live here whether it's going to be an asset or a liability uh in general traffic flow and all the things that are out here. I think it's very important. >> Margaret, I love it. I think you you
especially in section 4-46D, you took what was formerly just a very ambiguous statement and and just really broke it down. I I don't think it could be broken down any more than you've done it. It's a it's fabulous. I love it.
>> Well, good. I'm glad to hear that. >> Yeah. Really good job. and and going going on is as as Margaret just said four 4-46 is for resonings basically and it it has I believe it has
all of the same criteria that we included in the special exception section. Um so we're just we're just saying hey those same issues those same concerns are going to have to be addressed for when someone comes in for a reasonzoning. We don't have a lot of resonings in this city. Um, but when we
do, these are, I think, very important considerations for uh this board to to keep in mind as you're evaluating something. >> And frankly, it'll be something that the uh city commission has to keep in mind, too. Um, it's it's it's uh you know
there I don't want to say it's fast and loose now because I I I don't think it is, but this will certainly root decisions and some really good good considerations. So anyways, that's really it.
>> Yeah, I I personally like it too. I just I I feel like anytime there's a it's not too down in the weeds, but enough where you can it's usually when there's a problem with something, you want to tie it back to something in writing, which again helps if there's an issue, point
to something that's a little more objective than just I don't like it, you know, kind of thing, >> right? >> A little of it, but I think a little bit is helpful to point to something. >> Yeah. I mean, as Garrett ear said
earlier, competent, substantial evidence is critical in in these decisions. And so, and these criteria kind of force us to create and discuss and and gather that competent substantial documents and excuse me,
evidence. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. My only comment would address is make sure the applicants know that that's part of what they're expected to address. Yes. >> Thank you, Dave. >> Yeah. Is there a motion? No, this one's
ready to go to the commission. So, is there a motion? >> Yeah, it would be a recommendation to the commission. >> Do you have a comment? >> You want Can I comment? >> Can you come up? This time I don't see >> you don't have to have say your name, but we do need it on on the mic.
>> Um, I just was wondering when we're putting these together, are we just putting these rules that other coastal cities have and are working for them or are we going above and beyond and like leading with like newer information and newer evidence-based stuff saying like
this will be more sustainable. these fees are going to be better for our impact fees instead of well this is what another place is doing like we can match that I think we should move forward like we should and like you said anticipate and make it you know a little even more
robust that's my comment >> thank you >> thanks >> okay so do we have a motion >> I'll move that we recommend the modifications to section 4-43, special exceptions and section 4-46
amendments to the zoning map as recommended by the planning staff. >> A second. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Approved. >> Thanks.
>> Good. Okay, now we'll move on to already said there's no staff reports and announce or announcements. >> Yes, no staff reports. >> Any other public comments? No. >> Can I say one thing? >> Sure.
>> Madam Chairman. >> Sure. >> This is just kind of a followup on one of our projects that this board approved here a while ago. The uh I just want to give an update on this drift. >> Oh yeah. >> Um we just got the final docu or approval sign off from one of our departments. So, we have officially ward
awarded site plan approval to the drift. >> Well, they have to come here. >> Yeah, that's right. So, they have to come to the plan board and we'll do that probably next month. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, so be looking for that. It's been a long time coming. >> Um, but they finally got the they
finally got the uh fire department and public works signed off on the on the plans. Um, as per our process, we'll bring it back here to the board and uh you'll make a recommendation and we'll take it to the commission for final approval on the site plan. So,
>> that one's the the next to the Mexican restaurant. That's 520. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Are there any board member reports, announcements? >> Can I I have just have a question. I'm assuming because I don't remember since
I've been on the planning board them coming before the planning board. There's a development I it's around N street south well south coming it's on Atlantic that's under construction now and there's a sign it's going to be
>> I don't know >> that empty lot that's on the city. >> I haven't heard anything yet on that. >> Well, they're doing some site work. I knew that they I have to double check, but I think they had some um storage there for dirt for a while and but I
don't remember seeing any kind of a plan yet from them or anything. >> Okay. So, I'm not going crazy. >> Yeah. Don't Yeah, but good good point. >> We'll go out there tomorrow and make sure they're getting away. >> Thank you for bringing that.
making a lot of progress on the big new >> every time I go by there it's like there's >> something right >> good to have that done >> at least the clanging isn't happening anymore >> yeah yeah
>> okay is that it any other comps right meeting >> thanks everybody Okay. >> Thank you.