good evening and welcome to the u uh March 27th 2025 meeting of the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission um we will uh call this meeting to order and begin with the pledge please United States of America to the republic
for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all are there any additions or deletions to the agenda no sir would you like to introduce our
new uh newest board member Mr law sure i don't want to steal your thunder but uh welcome to the board uh Mr law we appreciate your service and we look forward to a long tenure thank you look forward to that as well perfect um our
first order of business tonight is the election of a vice chair uh do I hear motions for the election of a vice chair yes sir i'd like to make a motion uh thinking outside the box uh Commissioner Lawler as a former county commissioner I
feel is very knowledgeable of what we face uh on a constant basis and I'd like to nominate Tommy Lawler is there a second i'll second that all in favor i I opposed
welcome no discussion no discussion sir long as it's amazing thank you all i I believe I do appreciate that our next order of business is the approval of two sets of uh meeting minutes uh the first is January 23rd
2025 i hear a motion to approve those minutes approve a motion to approve second second all in favor i uh very good uh and the second set of uh minutes is the February 20th 2025 and that was a
special call meeting um uh to approve those minutes motion to approve uh second all in favor i I Very good uh we have one agenda item um for discussion tonight and it is a
public hearing and it is uh 7750 Oslo Road reszoning uh 7750 Oso Road is the LLC uh it's um 7750 Oro LLC's request to reszone
approximately 3.73 acres from A1 agricultural one district to CH heavy commercial district um any uh declaration of expartite communications on this none would anybody who would like
to speak on this stand and be sworn in please do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you um staff presentation thank you Mr chairman tonight's presentation will be made by Cindy Thurman senior planner in the long range
division good evening board as was stated this is a request for A1 agricultural to CH heavy commercial the area to be reszoned is 3.73 acres of the overall parcel which
is 17.31 acres the parcel is located on the north side of Oslo Road just east of the new I95 Oslo Road interchange approximately 2,000 ft west of 74th
Avenue southwest this area of the county is characterized by a sparse mixture of agricultural commercial and industrial uses with the Indian River County landfill to the south across Oslo Road when we look at the zoning map you can
see here that the parcel contains split zoning of A1 and IL the 3.73 acres identifi identified for reszoning to CH is where the IL zoning boundary district ends and the A1 district boundary begins
the remaining A1 property will not be reszoned and will remain agricultural to serve as a holding zone here you can see by the future land use map that this property is located right in the middle of the red area
which is the commercial industrial node the existing zoning the A1 agricultural district is intended to provide for areas suitable for agricultural tree farming and the conservation and management of open space it's also intended to provide for
opportunities for residential uses at very low densities to provide alternate housing opportunities in the county to permit activities which do not detrimentally impact lands devoted to rural and agricultural activities if you look at the performance standards here or development standards for the two
different zoning classifications the existing and the requested you can see here the differences mostly in the minimum open space required ch the requested heavy commercial proposed zoning is intended to provide for establishments engaging in wholesale
trade major repair services and restricted light manufacturing activities provides for support services necessary for the development of commercial and industrial uses allowed within other nonresidential zoning districts reszoning request is
consistent with the commercial industrial future land use designation again that future land use node that sits in the middle of that big red the commercial industrial future land designation is intended to provide for areas for the development of industrial and commercial uses located in areas
with suitable levels of service and infrastructure for urban scale development located along major transportation routes and separated from residential areas you saw there its location very close to the new Oslo and I95 interchange and there is no future
lane use amendment change as proposed as part of this request because the CH is uh consistent with the commercial industrial feature landings designation all reszoning requests have to be analyzed uh consistent with chapter
902.12 subsection 3 items A through K item A is it in conflict with any applicable portion of a land development regulation staff can identify no conflicts with the applicable land development regulations for the requested CH in fact potential buffering
benefits from uses will be aided by this request item B unfortunately the location criteria of policy 1.43 uh cannot be met by this request because there are no railroad tracks located in
this location however we will point out that there are other higher intense industrial uses in this area such as the uh landfill on the other side of Oslo Road item C is a consistent with existing proposed land uses proposed CH
zoning is consistent with the existing as I just mentioned it is in the middle of the commercial industrial future land use node and no future use amendment change is proposed as part of this request is it in compliance with adopted county thorough plan yes it meets this criteria as it the property is between
the 74th Avenue Southwest and the new I95 Lo interchange is in close proximity would it generate traffic which would decrease levels of service as adopted we believe that all roadway segments within the area of influence would operate at acceptable levels of service under the
proposed CH zoning item F subject change conditions exist that warrant an amendment obviously the acreage has been limited for the request to the north middle portion where the uses allowed within CH district allow for this natural
transition item G would decrease levels of service establisher sanitary sewer potable water solid waste range and recreation decrease and the applicant may be required to pay connection and customary fees and more detailed concurrency review will be conducted
during the development review process and just remind everybody that this is a site that is is currently existingly partially developed as we look at the uh most highest intense use of the property section 910.07 of the land belt regulations
uh the size and area to be reszoned is just the 3.73 small portion of the site most highest intense use under the exist existing zoning would only be three single family but the most intense proposed uh we're just looking at an increase of
74,600 square feet of general manufacturing we go move on to item H result in a significant adverse impacts on the natural environment the subject site at 3.73 acres is mostly undeveloped more detailed environment analysis would be required when the subject site
development is proposed and determined result in the orderly and logical development pattern the proposed amendment does align with their commerce of plan and the surrounding land uses the conflict in is item J is it in conflict with the proposed public interest is in harmony with the proposed
interests of the land development regulations staff found no adverse impacts to public welfare and finds that the request lies the purpose and intent of the overall land development regulations item K any other matters that may be deemed appropriate in review and consideration of the proposed
amendment such as police protection fire protection emergency medical services it meets this criteria at all concurrency mandate facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use under the proposed zoning district so in conclusion the request of CH
zoning district is compatible with surrounding area consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the county's adoptive conser plan it is consistent with the county's land development regulations subject property is deemed suitable for the CH zoning it
can be supported by staff and staff's recommendation is that the planning and zoning commission recommend that the board of county commissioners approve this request to reszone the subject property from A1 to CH thank you Sydney um any commissioner
questions on the right Mark um just a couple out of curiosity why is this CH instead of IL i believe that the uh staff felt that it was more important to provide a a better transition so we wanted to take it a
step down instead of CH we went to the instead of IL we went to the CH so that the more intense uses would would not be right up against the A1 the agricultural okay i was just connect all
the proximity in the area um and the other thing maybe this is premature but uh since this appears to be under common ownership uh and maybe that's a good thing what
would be the access egress of this uh property i guess it wouldn't be landlocked if it the property lines are not changing unfortunately this property already has split zoning and we're not changing that that condition at all
there's no change in access at all okay now if it were to be sold um the access ingress would require an agreement nope there's no change in the property lines or parcel configuration
at all this is just the zoning well how would they get out so Mr much this is an existing developed site there's already a number of buildings on the property the reason why they're actually reszoning this small sliver is the very north building that's on the
site already is actually on an A1 zone property so in order to clean this up and make sure there's no title or any type of issues down the road they applied for a zoning district so that the use that they're going to be putting in this building will be allowed in that zoning category essentially the
buildings that are in there now all of them are in IIL except for this very north building so it was considered illegal non-conforming use but to make there be no qualms about it the request to reszone this was so they can occupy all of the buildings and not have any questions arise but the property is
already developed already has a driveway on road it's been used for a number of years now they're not proposing at this time to change the driveway or add any other buildings they may come back in the future but right now they want to just occupy the existing buildings that are there i think I only saw one in the aerial is
that right yes sir okay thank you Chip um because I I see this as kind of the the first step in some transition why is the request not to go to CH instead of CG
um because of the type of uh business that's going in there CG would not actually allow for manufacturing welding it's a business that creates telescoping towers and what they do is welding and putting pieces of metal together so that was more conducive for the CH than it
would be the CG zoning district would the potentially would the CG zoning and the rest of the IL could all then request to go to the CH um potentially they they could right now
what they wanted to do is keep that zone that they have now the IIL gives them more flexibility if they wanted to put you know more intense use in there um but the CH is sufficient for the type of business that they proposed looking down the road as far as far as that goes and
that's my concern because the CG can they go up to CH and the rest of the I go to CH and as opposed to it's a higher density than CG sure in the uh countyy's planning department is currently studying this section of Oslo Road we're
going through the Oslo corridor study as directed by the board of county commissioners we've had four workshops so far to solicit input from the public to to gauge their interest and what they kind of want to see this area develop as that interchange opens in another year and a half and we have two more
workshops next week but we're getting a kind of a good picture of what people want to see out there and when we receive that feedback we do a little bit more studying on transportation and and what other types of uses we want to see grow around this interchange we may see
the need for more commercial industrial we may see a more need for residential of a higher density we're just in the beginning stages of of examining this um and more is probably going to come out as far as what we're going to do with this section of Oslo and its close
proximity to I95 well and I appreciate what they're trying to do uh I'm just concerned about down the road for other people looking to piggyback on that which may not be as conducive i mean it's a local company that uh I'm familiar with and some of the people behind it and I know they've had to go
to a different county previously for some other things sure and and we've had some interest in some properties around here and we've sort of pushed a pause on any other types of reasonzoning requests in this area until that study is conducted until we see what that study really fleshes out we don't want to have
parcels reszone and then come back and the study shows it should have been something else but this is an existing business relocating from the city of Arrow Beach uh we understand they may be applying for an economic development grant uh the property is already developed with industrial type buildings
in there so it didn't seem a stretch to allow the Sony to go through at this point in time even though the study was going on but other interest that we receive we've sort of been holding them off until we go through this process because it seemed a little premature to bring that before this board until that's all the data has been collected
makes sense it makes sense that that's why we're only read potentially looking at the 3.73 acres not the entire parcel we're keeping the A1 in place for what's nonconforming um and just essentially you know that's that's what the
operations are happening there right now it's more correct and with AO and zoning being located north of this parcel as Miss Thurman pointed out our comp plan requires sort of a transition between industrial and low density agricultural properties and that's why we stopped it
at the midpoint just to cover that building and not take the whole parcel and it may be after the study is done there may be support for this parcel and the ones next to it to increase but until that t time comes we want to do this in sort of an incremental step
good any commissioner questions on the left i I've got one which might not necessarily pertain to this piece of property 82nd Avenue right now is that the road that's just I guess west of the commercial general property the
temporary yes it is is it going to stay that way or is it going to continue to go back to the old 82nd 82's going to be rerouted okay okay um if it continued where it was now with the new off-ramp your southbound ramp from 95 onto Oslo there'd be way too close of a of a
junction point there and too much of a conflict so the roads actually being rerouted to the east okay that's all I have anything else on the left any other questions all right this is a public hearing so I will um open the public hearing if you
wish to speak come to either one of the podiums state your name and uh your address please so we'll open the public hearing good evening uh my name is Len Shapiro i'm with Indian River Land Development i
have the parcel that's uh just norththeast to this facil to this particular reasoning um I was just curious about a couple questions whether they had gone over it or not um
regarding sound levels is it a 24-hour operation uh or is it is has that been looked into or where could I find out information about that uh we would like to bring the applicant's representative up to address any of the operational procedures of
this particular company i'm sorry judment for us to discuss these here oh we could wait to see what the gentleman's additional questions may be and then the applicant can address them so it's not a back and forth okay yeah yep okay so you know I'd like to know what whether it's an 8 hour
operation out or 24hour you know 724 or whatever um and what the DBA levels are at the uh at the uh boundaries um also is all the business would you know or with respect to the zoning is everything
that's being reszoned is the manufacturing of whatever this what this facility is doing is it uh all inside this particular building or are they using any outdoor uh land surrounding the property uh the
building and can they within that zoning situation mr chairman I I believe this business has been operating in downtown Bureau on Old Dixie 16th yes I would imagine if it's
pretty nasty you would know the city beach would have been raising some some issues about that but those are good questions i'm sorry c could you uh tell me again the name of the name of the firm or Alumna Tower yeah Aluma Tower yes i'm sorry could you say that one
more time please alum Ma aluma l U M A Ter Aluma yes okay and um so the answer to that question is with respect to I know they're building um mobile towers are those
going to be situated outside of the property as well uh for delivery or um some types of work and what what height are they i think the applicant will answer that question for you okay yeah do you have
any other questions Mr shapiro uh no that's it okay okay so anyone else want to speak if not we'll bring the applicant up to address Mr shapiro's questions good evening uh my name is Blaine Burkstresser with KMA Engineering
and Surveying representing the applicant for the property um first before I get into this question is just took a little brief history of how we got here so we've been working with staff on this parcel for a couple months now as you notice it's a parcel that has split
zoning with A1 in the back and industrial light in the front um per staff's request we have first wanted to go in for an industrial light for the whole parcel but we've worked with staff to create somewhat of a buffer between the A1's to
the north and that's where we ended up with the commercial heavy that just went I think about 20 ft north of the existing building so as staff stated we've been the whole reasoning for this reasonzoning was for the potential tenant that we have signed up for the
property um going off those quick questions um that the neighbor had so this business would be a standard manufacturing business there's no 24-hour shifts it'd be an 8 to 12 hour shift you know starting in the morning
time um all manufacturing would occur inside of the building you know some of the towers probably would be staged outside getting ready for delivery but all noise and manufacturing would occur inside of the actual structure there so
I'm here also here to answer any other questions you guys might have on the project questions uh commissioners on the right commissioners on the left any questions no guess not all right thank you okay yep
um anyone else uh we'll close the public hearing uh any additional commissioner questions no call for a motion motion to approve second um all in favor i I
oppose it passes u unanimously um any commissioner matters nope any planning matters um not for this agenda tonight uh we do thank your support for this uh business we think is going to be a real asset to the county and I want to again say thank you
Mr lawler thank you okay um any attorney's matters no sir excellent we're adjourned