Are you able to hear me? >> Yeah, we can hear you now. Lost. There you are. >> I can't hear you guys. >> All right. Can you hear me? >> Okay. 6 o'clock. Let's get started here. Jeff can work that out. This planning
zoning board meeting for July 14th, 6 pm. Call this meeting to order. Start with the pledge of allegiance, please. To flag the stand, indivisible, with liberty, justice.
>> Thank you. Roll call. >> Chair Shore, >> present. >> Member Suchi, >> present. >> Member Vasquez Martinez, >> present. Member White present and seat 4 is vacant. >> Okay, we have a quorum.
Any additions, deletions, or modifications to the agenda? Hearing none. Okay. Agenda is approved as written. Need a motion for approval of the
minutes. Are there any comments, questions on the minutes? No. >> Oh, you don't have one. >> Oh, >> there's a They printed one for you. >> Can he does he know?
>> There's one at the front desk. >> Oh, get it. >> Yeah, I came and got mine this morning. >> Um, it's probably like a >> Zoom. >> All right. No discussion on the minutes. Can uh get a motion to approve?
>> I make a motion to approve. >> Get a second. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion by Cassie, second by Arlene. All those in favor? >> I. >> Motion passes 40. Public comments. Do we have any public
comments? Okay. Hearing none. Next item on the agenda is the appointment of chair and vice chair. At the last meeting we did a temporary appointment of me as chair. So now we need to do a formal appointment of
somebody as chair. >> Make a motion to act Robert as chair. >> You said I've got a motion by Cassie, second by Arlene for me to be chair. All those in favor? I >> I
was there anybody else that wants to be chair? Okay. Opposed. Uh hearing none. Motion passes 40. Vice chair. We need a vice chair. Um I motion that Cassie be the vice chair.
>> Okay. I can do that as chair. Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. All right. Got a motion for Cassie by me, second by Lisa. All those in favor. >> Hi, >> Cassie. I didn't hear you vote.
>> Okay. Just want to make sure. >> You sure you want? >> She said yes. All right. Motion passes 40. We now have a vice chair and a chair till >> till uh a April, I guess, is when we do the
>> Yeah. >> the switch. Okay, next item is Groves Medical Center. Uh >> Jeff, did you want to go over quasi judicial hearings first before I start? >> Yes, there are a couple items on your
agenda uh that are quasi judicial in in nature. Um and I recognize that uh for some of you this is the first time you're going to be participating in a quasi judicial proceeding. Um
so the quasi judicial proceeding is that everything that you're going to make your determination on is based on evidence that has been presented to you. Um I supplied you with a copy of article
20 which is our quasi judicial hearing process. Um, and the first thing that I wanted to go over was exparte communications. An exparte communication is any oral or written or electronic or graphic
communication um with one of you from somebody who is talking to you about this particular item on the agenda. Um, typically people think of that as
the applicant and I know that um, in this uh, in one of these cases, Miss Vasquez took advantage of the opportunity to meet with the applicant. Um, that is something that you would have to disclose, but it doesn't only
apply to applicants comm uh, communicating with you. Um it applies to meetings that you may have had with staff on the the subject, meetings that you might have had with members of the general public. Um and the idea is that
those exparte communications and that just rem means communications that took place outside of the hearing. Um they are all right. Um they are legitimate. That's something that was legitimized by the passage of uh in the town of passage
of 202408 which I think is also at your your places so that you are able to engage in these communications but before participating in the deliberations and the first thing that you go over is you state whether or not
you have had any exparte communications with respect to that individual item. Now the um these kind of hearings are um based on evidence that is
presented to you. Um the burden of proof is on the applicant. Um and there will be a brief introduction of these items generally by the um town staff and then it is the applicant that presents the
material to you. they have um that you have a staff report. You can rely on the staff report as as evidence. You can rely on the testimony of um the individuals and experts who may testify
before you. Um one of the first things that uh we will do is we will swear in all the witnesses that are going to potentially testify on this so that it is sworn testimony that you hear. Um and if you look at
the um uh it is 120 um 40 um item H the highlighted area. It simply states that all decisions by the board shall be based on evidence presented to the board, including but
not limited to the materials in the agenda, backup, testimony of all witnesses, any documentary or demonstrative evidence and visual aids presented. Each board member shall weigh all the competent material and relevant
evidence presented given each piece of evidence the weight the board member sees fit. After deliberations, you'll take a vote. Um, and you can approve with conditions. Um, you can approve it with as presented. You can deny the
application. You are a recommending body. You are not the absolute decision makers on this one. Your recommendations get um submitted to the council and they become part of that record. Um what you are
going to try to do and what we would um encourage you to do is to take into consideration only evidence that relates to the matter before you. And the matter before you is not the product or service
that is being presented. It is um the land use site plan um issues. And if you've got questions as to what the standard is that you're supposed to be viewing this against um you can ask
staff um and you can ask the applicant to demonstrate um that they have met their burden. Your determination is whether or not they have met the code requirements for the relief that they are seeking. that being the approval of
the matter in the cases um where they are asking for waiverss or varants that they have demonstrated that they have met the burdens that are imposed by the the code on them. Um so with that,
the first thing that we should do is swear in um all witnesses who um are going to testify on this matter. Um and if you'd like me to, I can swear them in.
>> Yep. >> All right. And anybody who is going to uh to testify um concerning these items um if you could stand raise your right hand
and do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in these matters is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Okay. Um, I have a difficult time seeing the entirety of the audience, so I'll
trust the uh chairperson that folks stood up and um uh were uh uh were sworn properly. If you have any questions about the procedures, um you can address
them uh now to me or to Karen. Um and uh as I said the the first thing when you get on to um this initial item is for each of you to declare whether or not you have had any exparte meaning
communication about this uh particular item outside of the the hearing process. Jeff, I got a question. Drove by and looked at the site from the road. Just did a drive by looking at what's there.
Is that exparte? Um you are you are able to to go and do a site visit. My recommendation to you is that if you have done so um that you
um advise uh the applicant and the public that you have done so as a part of your partake >> driving by the site not getting out of your vehicle looking at what's there is considered a site visit
>> I would think so. Um, >> okay. I just wanted to clarify that because >> Yeah. to to be on >> You all drove by the one thing on the way to uh town hall today. So, >> I just want just want to clarify. >> Yeah. And and and the reason the reason
that you want to disclose that is the the observations that you made, even if it was a driveby and you didn't, you know, step out of the vehicle, they may influence that may influence your perception of um the the site and the
application. Um and so the best course of action is to advise people of of that. Um, and so that if you ask a question, um, you know, and this is totally hypothetical on on my part, if
you said, "Well, you know, there's that huge tree in the middle of your site." Um, and and that was made evident to you by the um by the driveby. That's the kind of thing that folks will want to
know so that they can respond to your frame of reference. Thank you. >> Anything else? We're ready to call up the first applicant. There's no further questions. You can call the first applicant. And as I said,
with respect to this first item, if you have, each of you should indicate at this point in time whether you have had any exparte communication um with respect to the matter. I drove by the site. Anybody else?
>> He drove by. >> We all drove by it. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Any communication with applicant or public? >> No. >> Okay. Think that covers the exparte.
>> All right. So chair, if you'll permit me to um generally how this is going to work is that the town will make a very small presentation just general summary of what's before you. Then it is the applicant's opportunity to explain to you. We do have PowerPoint presentations
for them to go through and explain to you as Jeff has indicated why they feel they meet the code requirements. Um so the first matter we have before you is gross medical center. What we're asking is we provided resolution 202649 and 20263.
So this is the property as you all um noted. It's 3.43 acres located at an address of 13475 Southern Boulevard right next door. Um it has commercial designation. So it's commercial low is its designation. The
request before you tonight are two. One is a site plan amendment and basically that is to authorize a master sign plan. Master sign is a comprehensive approach regarding all signage that's located on the site. So that's wall signs, building
signs, monument signs, uh travel signs, anything that has any language that could be defined as a sign should be included in regards to the master sign plan. In particular, they are asking for new wall mounted sign, door signage, and
then construction and update of two monument signs. So that's the first request, a site plan amendment to create a master sign plan. The second is a variance request, and variances are deviations from the existing zoning code. So, in other words, the zoning
code does not allow the applicant to do what they're requesting, but there is this path of authorizing a variance to allow them to do it for the reasons that they will justify tonight. The variance request is a monument sign. It's monument sign A, which is not located by
a driveway. How we got here, because this is not a new construction, the other matter you have tonight is new construction. When this um building was approved, it was approved as a single building. And if you look in our sign code, the single building did not have a
driveway location requirement, but they have multi-tenants now. So, as a result, we have to evaluate it as a multi-tenant building and that required it to be located at a driveway. So, I wanted you to be aware that's the reason why the variance is before you tonight. The
standards, as Jeff has said, the site plan amendment is under section 15520. And there are four items you need to determine. Does the request conform to the approved plat? Does the amendment is it consistent with the comprehensive
plan? Does the request conform to the uldc? And does the request conform to the water control district regulations? These are all outlined in the staff report provided to you as uh the applicant has justified their position
or has provided forward what their position is. Whether they justified it, that is your decision tonight. The second one is the variance request which is section 150-020 which is five items they need to be able to justify. One is is it the variance
unique to the property in question? Was the variance not self-created hardship? Does the failure or does the inability to get the variance deprive them of reasonable use of the property? Is the request the minimum variance? And then
is the variance in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the code? For this particular matter, we have reviewed all the signage that has been requested. All the signage is in compliance with the ULDC. So, what that means is that if you were to u make a
recommendation of approval and the town council approves it, then they would go to the building permit stage and we've already reviewed it for the building permit stage and they'd be entitled to build what they have requested. They're not asking for anything different than what the code requires other than for the location of monument sign A.
Any questions before we go? Okay. All the materials that the applicant has submitted is in your packet along with the resolutions as well as the um as well as the staff report. With that, I will ask the applicant to come to the deaf and uh to
the microphone podium and go ahead and provide um your support of your petition. batteries. >> There you go. >> Yeah. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Um, good evening. Sorry for that. Uh for
the record, I'm Brian Czechus, principal planner, um I plan and design. I'm here this evening with these requests that Karen Gardner Young laid out for you um for resolution 202651 variance and uh 202652 for the site plan
amendment. I'm uh I'm here on behalf of my uh client, Mr. uh Michael Porter who's the u uh president of Groves Medical Plaza LLC uh and uh our sign professional sign company that's working on these signs
ASI uh bank. Uh our specific requests uh for you this evening are uh to ask for your recommendation of approval on to town council uh to uh modify the shape of an existing approved monument sign um which is monument sign name. We'll we'll
we'll show you where that is. construct a second uh monument sign which was previously approved as part of the original approval for this site uh and that we're act we're activating now um on F road and add a new uh building
signage and window door signage as uh Garter Young laid out uh got to talk about the approval history because that's critical to why we're asking for the variance tonight. This plan, the plaza next door, was approved in 2006
uh by the board of county commissioners. It was a county site. So, it confirmed it conformed to the county's regulations 20 years ago. Uh fast forward 26 20 years later uh and um uh nothing's
changed. Uh that site was developed. The monument sign that's out on Southern Boulevard at the corner, it's been there for 20 years. Uh this is what that plan looked like 20 years ago when it was approved. You see the three highlighted areas. Those are the areas of impact for our application today. Majority of which
are just the site plan amendment for the master plan. But uh the one the one variance is included in th those three circles. So why are we here? The need for the uh entitlement request. Um, in 2025, the building brought in a new
medical tenant, uh, a national brand, Humanana, the Conviva Senior Primary Care, uh, division of Humanana. Uh, and because they, um, they cater to senior population, they're asking for more identification signage to help the older
folks way find themselves to the site and to the actual suite within the site because it's a multi-tenant building. And with this application, there's no intensity increase, no new driveways, no new parking, no u additional uh entitlements. It's just truly signage to
help folks get to the site. Uh just to look uh quickly on the screen, the areas of impact. Number one in red is where the we're asking for the variance for the modification of that existing uh monument sign. Number two in blue along F- Road is the construction
of the previously approved but not constructed monument sign, but we're treating it more like a wayfinding sign. It's not going to look like the one at the corner. It's smaller and it has different information on it. Again, we want to make sure that we're sending people to the right driveway and not to the cross access. And I'll speak to that
in terms of the site. And the last two items, three and four at the front of the building, building signage facing Southern Boulevard, and door signage at the suite. This is the master plan that we've submitted and will go on the record for in terms of one, the um
uh um building uh the monument sign A out at Southern and FO. uh sign two along F- Road at the driveway uh that um connects to the the
property to the east. That connection's never been made, but we built it on our side, and if it ever gets built, we'll have a position on this side to tell people go this way to get to the offsite or continue on to our parking lot in the
rear. Very, very much wayfinding signage to get the people to go in the right direction. And the third part is the um building sign at the front of the building facing Southern Boulevard. I'm going to show you each one of these. I'm going to go through them really quickly. So,
monument sign a uh again uh this sign has been there for 20 years. Uh it was approved at the intersection of Southern and uh um Fro in the FDOT swale. We um we're not moving it. All we're doing is
we're improving the existing sign by making it look more like the building. We're putting a little bit of architectural treatment on it and we're adding some of the tenants. So again, when the folks come out, they're going to see the name of the of the Rose Medical Plaza for the overall center and some of the key tenants and that'll help
them understand that they're at the right site. Um, this is the one for the variants. Monument sign B was approved on the approved plan in 2006. It was just never constructed. We're now asking to construct it. We're creating it more as
a wayfinding sign. As you can see, we'll have arrows directing people where to go. Uh, and we'll always have a position set aside for the future cross connection to the property to the east. Uh, as we've been required to build it, driveways there. It just at this time
for the past 20 years and up to today, the connection doesn't exist. Um, the building wall signage very straightforward. Um uh the there was no wall signage approved with the original site plan as uh Miss Gardner Young had indicated. It
was a single tenant building at the time. It's now a multi-tenant building. And um in terms of putting a sign up for Konviva to get the folks to come to the right part of the building, they're asking for one sign above their suite entrance and uh it's in full compliance
with the sign code requirements for size, height, letters, no lighting. It truly is for daytime use for folks driving to the site. Uh, and this is what it would look like. It's going to be above the door for their bay at the west side of the building. The last component was uh door signage
at the suite itself. We are asking to have uh standard signage with hours of operation, telephone number, the name of the suite. Uh we're allowed six square feet. We're only using 2.6 square feet. So, we're in full compliance with the um with the the LDRs for signage. Uh and
with all of our requests, we believe that we're in full compliance with the rural Vista guidelines. Um we uh we've adhered to these guidelines as part of developing the signs. Uh especially with adding the architectural elements onto the existing sign. It's just a big
concrete blob with couple columns on the side. Doesn't relate to anything. At the end of our application, it'll actually have elements that look like the building. So that we think is is an advancement of the sign in 2026 compared to what's been there for the past 20
years. Uh and uh the trademark protected wall sign uh uh will also meets all the size and area requirements and location requirements for signage. In terms of the variance standards, there's five standards by which we have to meet in terms of uh asking for the variance for
sign A. Again, when it was approved and constructed 20 years ago, there was no multi-tenant regulation. So, our variance complies with all of the standards of for variances because we didn't create this. It it came through the t coming into the town and the
town's regulations differing from the county's regulations. this variance will allow that sign to continue to exist where it is today where it should be out on the corner uh and um and bring it into compliance with the 2026 land development regulations of the town. So
with that, pretty simple. We're asking for your recommendation of approval on town council. I'm here to answer any questions you might have and I did do a site visit when I drove here and drove right past. Thank you. Um, just to follow up, just to let you
know, a copy of the resolutions uh were both provided to the applicant with conditions. Again, you have the ability tonight to approve as presented, to approve with conditions, or to deny. Uh, and the applicant has reviewed the conditions that were um proposed by
staff. You can add to those, you can change them. Um, and I believe I will ask the applicant on the record to indicate that they have no objections to the conditions as included in both of the resolutions. We have no objections to the conditions as they have been put into the resolution.
>> All right, time for our discussion or questions for the applicant, I guess. Uh, >> well, >> how do you want to do this? Who wants to go first? I've got my opinions. >> You want to go? >> Chairman Shore. >> Oh, sorry. Yeah, let's do the light thing. I forgot about
>> I think Jeff wants to say something. Go ahead, Jeff. Uh, Chairman Shore, I was just I'm I'm not sure if any members of the public are are there. Um, but this would be a good time to open up uh for public hearing and offer them the opportunity to comment or testify with respect to
this matter. >> No, public comments. Is that what you're saying? >> Yes, he was asking. >> Yes. Yeah. Any public comments? Thank you, Jeff. Okay. Hearing seeing none. Okay, Lucette, you start and then Cassie.
>> Good evening. Um, so I wrote my little note here. >> I say Groves Medical Plaza has developed and maintained the architecture in accordance with our rural environment. The building is surrounded by many trees
and a beautiful natural landscape. I drove by the building on July 12th, 2026. Unfortunately, the building nor the sign facing Southern Boulevard can be seen. I drove Southern Boulevard and F Road.
While driving Southern Boulevard, I could barely see the building. While driving F road, I could not identify the building as a medical plaza. During our first planning and zoning committee meeting, our peer Cassie Sushi
mentioned how the building blends beautiful beautifully with our rural area concept. If 13475 Southern Boulevard Gross Medical Plaza complied with the rural aesthetic
required, we should help them have their building be more visible. to the request of site plan amendment for approval of a master plan of a master sign plan and variance approval for addition of a new monument sign on F
road a modification to an existing monument sign um from Groves medical plaza I will vote yes >> message um I have
outline. Can I pass this out? And also the actual section 15020, which is the requirement criterium. Oops. >> I don't have four copies. here >> while I talk.
>> So the the issue before this board is whether the applicant has met the legal burden required to justify a variance under section 15020. of the town rules and regulations of
Florida applicable law. The evidence presented while well well written in my opinion in this presentation does not demonstrate an unnecessary hardship as outlined in 15020. Instead, it demonstrates a desire for
greater visibility and improved marketing. Florida law has long distinguished between hardship and convenience. They've said that they have held precedent that increased visibility, better wayfinding, and enhanced commercial exposure are
business preferences and not hardships. They have consistently held that a variance cannot be granted simply because it would provide better visibility, increased convenience or greater economic benefit.
So I guess my question is why was this brought forward? because and was any of the judicial precedents reviewed before this was brought forward. >> So the answer to the first question is every applicant has a right to bring forth their application. So that again
is up to you to decide. Again the staff report tells you what the standards are. Staff did not render an opinion one way or the other. Okay. So, I did some research, extensive research, and I tried to put it in a little outline so you guys know where I'm going cuz I
write all over the place. >> Um, Florida appellet courts have ruled repeatedly under different case law that a variance is an extraordinary remedy and it's not a tool to improve a
property's profitability, visibility or marketability. and they outlined in multiple cases different reasons of why it does not qualify as a variance. Florida courts. They've ruled and they've rejected variances for increased property values,
improving business profitability, obtaining better visibility, increasing customer traffic, making development easier, marketing, owner convenience, design preference, correcting poor planning, or self-created circumstances.
Now, why does this matter? How does this apply here? Because in the applicant's own narrative, they state that they're requesting a variance is needed because it would provide better visibility, improved way finding, clearer sight
identification, and safer access. It is the courts have already de deemed that those are not hardships that are depriving of this property of reasonable use. It's already operating as a current building. it already has approved signage
and those are not reasons to prove a variance. Those are listed in case law. So my question is going through all these things which I pointed out and based on Florida law
I don't feel that they have met the substantial burden of proof of a hardship and if that's the criteria in our own ULDC codes and based on judicial precedence how can we I don't think they've satisfied that
their request in my opinion better reflects a request for increased profitability, marketability, things like that. So, if you want to discuss >> Yeah, if I may. >> A chance to talk and then I'll give my
opinion. >> Oh, no, no, go ahead. Go ahead. >> No, go ahead. Go ahead. >> Let us finish. Yeah. And uh then you have more >> Yeah. >> angles. If I if I if I think about it, uh if you people can't find the building, I would think that that's a
truly a hardship, you know, and uh we are dealing with an aged population and I know how difficult it is when I'm trying to find something and the only reason I find it is because I own a Tesla and it drives it right there. Okay. So, you know, these old people are really having a hard time getting into
the building. I mean, like you said, when you drove by it, the foliage is great. It matches our our rural structure. It looks great, but we need to have some identification markers there. So, to me, I think it is a hardship for them that they can't they
don't have good signage or enough signage or have the correct things on the sign that match what's in the building. So, you know, if he has to represent it as a hardship to make it work, but, you know, I don't I don't think that that's
a reason to not improve it. >> Okay. So, we'll each go once and then let him ask questions and do another round. >> My thoughts are anytime I'm, you know, faced with a variance,
something that our code says one thing and the applicant wants to do something, I try to think back and say, okay, why did we have this code in the first place? And what has changed between then and now?
And most of these codes were to keep our town a rural town to limit the commercialization of the town everywhere. Not just Southern Boulevard, everywhere. And part
of that is the reason you're only allowed one sign at the entrance. If you want to improve the entrance sign and have all your information on it, you know, with who's there, you know, I
support all your building signage, all that stuff meets the code, but I don't support an 8 foot tall, 11 foot wide sign that runs perpendicular to Southern Boulevard when people at ERO are looking
up Southern Boulevard and there's this huge sign now that is going to partially blocked their vision for Southern Boulevard. I didn't even realize going through the agenda that the sign is there. I drove by today and saw, you know, because I thought, okay, Southern
Boulevard is their address. They should have something on Southern Boulevard and you have it. You have an address sign on Southern. So, that was part of your original construction. Makes sense. People can see that, you know, on Southern, but I would not approve this
big sign on Southern Boulevard. The codes the code for a reason in my opinion and I see no reason to vary from the code regarding the sign at the entrance of the building. Everything else meets code. The door signage, the conviva sign on
the building, all that is great, but I'm not for approving a second sign on Southern Boulevard. Let the applicant speak and then we'll >> I have one. >> Yeah, Jeff, did you want to say something?
No, I was just going to comment um on uh board member Succi's uh um item. The the section 150-020 on the consideration of variances is
exactly consistent with um Florida law. Um, and your role tonight is to be a factfinder as to whether or not they have met all of these conditions. Um, and I it sounds to me like uh some of
the people are having trouble with um item A that there's something special or unique about this property um that would not apply to other properties in the same zoning district. what's different
about it? Um, that's a question if that you're not satisfied um with at this point in time, you can ask the the applicant um to address. It is their burden to show you that they have made
the case that there is something unique about the property um that would justify uh the relief that they are seeking. My light is on. >> Yeah. Let's let the applicant uh explain
anything he wants to and then we'll do a second round here. >> First, I'd like to um discuss regarding better like with one. Uh I I'd like to first speak to uh board member Soi's uh
comments. Um you know uh we're not asking for anything in terms of intensification of the you the of the use. We're not bringing in more of something and and and asking for a variance to assign uh to to uh enhance
our business. This is about safety. I said it a few times. I want to make sure that we're clear. It's it's it's Kviva's it's it's Kviva's senior primary care. So no signage is not good. Signage is
good. All the stuff that meets the code. Everyone seems to be in agreement with the variance and the special uniqueness of this is that it was approved 20 years ago in the county and your code changed and when your code came into being when we came in here we're we weren't compatible to it. This is just a cleanup
item. It's not even asking for much other than having the improvement to the sign that Mr. Chair, you say to yourself so yourself, you didn't even see it on the way in. I didn't see it the first time I came to the site because I couldn't see through the trees. I
couldn't see that sign in the whole the FDOT swale. So the variance is not to ask for an egregious we want more business. They're a medical office use there. This isn't this isn't a target. We're not going to have an alet sign all
night long advertising target. It's there during the day to help way find people to the site. The state may have, you know, uh disapproved variances for, you know, better you more business or business opportunities, but not for life safety. And I think that's the heart of
this request. We're talking about seniors going to a site that don't shouldn't be driving and looking at their phones or looking at a map to get to a site to make sure they're going in the right direction. Anything to help guide them to that, that's our goal with
this application. So, life safety is the highest order in planning in any uh or in any ordinance with the state. I'll take life safety over your um um issue with business development. This is not a business development application. It's a
wayfinding uh um improvement application. So that's that. In ter Mr. Chair, you said it yourself. I agree with you. The sign's out there. It's been there for 20 years. You can't see it. So that's the point. If we raise it three feet and put hedges
around the base, it'll be the exact same size-wise. We didn't even increase the size. You're saying bigger sign. It's three extra feet to get it out of the hole with shrubs around the base. There's no difference in size. So, I don't want anyone to think we're asking for more. We're not. We're asking for
the same thing in the same location. Pop it up a little bit. Put some shrubs around the base and make it prettier, look like the building. And that way, people who see the sign, they may not even be able to read it. But when they see the little roof on the sign and they see it's painted the same color as the building, when they see the building, they'll know they're headed in the right
direction. This isn't This is the easiest application I've ever put together because the request is so minimal. The signage above a tenant on a building, no big deal. It doesn't even light up at night. So, we're not advertising overnight either. It's during the day
when people are driving to a medical office from 8 in the morning till 5 at night. So, I would hope that the board could see the importance of providing for the senior elderly people in your community and from other places coming here because this is a national tenant
that's come to your town and they've spent the money and put the time in to come here to serve your people. And what are we going to do? Kick them in the teeth and not give them signage to be able to show the town we're here and we're and we're serving you. So, I'm
hoping that this plea of mine helps us get this in a more favorable position moving forward. Thank you. >> Okay, Lisa, you were first. >> Thank you. So, this is a medical plaza.
This is not a restaurant. It's not a club. It's a medical plaza. And I wish that you're using the words safety. I wish that that argument would have would have been presented in writing as the b
as the proof of burden like something around that language that could have been written. Um so we would have it in in writing because you're absolutely right. Um I see it as a matter as a as a matter of safety.
Um, if there's no signs, you know, how how is it that you get there? It's going to help the public. It has nothing to do with marketing. This has nothing to do
with trying to make more money or profit. This is um a multi-tenant building where I saw also that you have a child care center. >> Correct.
>> Yes. >> How is it not reasonable to have signs that are visible from Fro and Southern Boulevard? I don't understand. guessing. >> I think you're missing the whole point.
Okay. I'm reading your I plan design. The words that you are using are not applicable to what Florida law has deemed why a variance could not be determined. It has to be a hardship and the hardship arises from the physical
characteristics of the land and be significant that the direct enforcement of the code uh deprivives the owner of the reasonable use of the property. The property is already being reasonably used. You already have approved signage.
You're already operating and uh you have and it's already been developed. So in your own words, you're writing what the Florida appellet and supreme court have already ruled are rejected for variances. So in this ex
exact way it's written, what you're using is in violation of not only our ULDC and and that's what I'm at. It has nothing to do with what this is businesses, you know, seniors, kids, whatever. Your proposal in its written
form is not strictly adhering to the ULDC to Florida applicable laws. And you may not like what the rulings are in the courts, but they clearly wrote a list of what they rejected. And what they rejected was in his own words on his
paperwork, he said invisibility. Where's the paper? In the I plan design page 20, he said the proposed improvements are intended to enhance site visibility. Florida courts have consistently
rejected variances for obtaining better visibility. That's the same. Did you listen to J? >> The point is the point is the proposal in its current written form violates Florida law and the ULDC. What I'm
reading >> it says in the your statement that it could be a problem with the land. So this sign is in a swale is it not? >> It is >> and it's sinking. >> You don't need a variance.
>> So you can raise it and correct. >> We can't we can only raise it if we have a variance. This variance will assist us with respect to raising the height of That's your that's going to have to be your your fight is that the land is creating a problem where your disability
>> it needs to be rewritten. >> I would like use my written my spoken testimony today to add the word safety which we implied as part of the wayfinding part of it. It may not be in the actual text of the piece of paper you're reading, but it's in my testimony today. And that was the basis of this.
We didn't have to spell out every word. I guess we did. Not a problem. But this doesn't invalidate it. We're not again we're not going against uh uh state or court rulings. Every jurisdiction has the the legal right to provide for
relief from their code if it's if it's appropriate, if it's applicable. I think we made the case that we have the right kind of user who needs that kind of relief to help the general public. Public safety, community benefit, no impact to the residents because it's not
facing any residential zones. It's facing Southern Boulevard. It's all sight centric. And this is not a state court statute fight. This is a request to the a local planning board and a local community to grant relief from
their land development regulations. There's no issue here with this the courts. If it went up to a court appellet level because people sued, yeah, fine. Maybe they maybe they denied him in a court of law. This is the court of law. this this board in the town in
the town council. There's the the in fact this is this whole line of argument isn't even applicable. We do variances in every single jurisdiction that we do planning in. I don't know that's hundreds around the state. You're saying that they're all being illegal because because the courts are deemed illegal.
No, it's not. If they went and they fought it at the state level or fought it at court, sure, that's the rulings. But this is not a court of law. This is the town of Lockxahhatche Groves planning and zoning board and that's your authority to be able to grant or
dis or or not grant that request. That that simple. There's no some there's nothing more complicated than us being here saying is it appropriate to put the signins we're asking for for medical office use that serves seniors. Thank you.
>> So the code allows you to put sign A at the entrance the monument sign. You just want to put an extra sign on Southern Boulevard. The code says you can put that sign that labels all the the
different uses for the facility. >> Hey, don't interrupt me. Don't interrupt me. That's what the code says. You can put that monument sign at the entrance. The entrance is on F road. Correct. >> Correct. And we are putting a sign at F
Road to to the code to the the new sign that was previously approved 20 years ago is going to be built >> on on F road. We're not asking for a variance for the second >> but you're not going to put list conviva and everything on that sign. It's just going to say entrance.
>> No, it it is a wayfinding sign conviva >> on F road >> cross connection to the site to the east. Maybe another tenant. We have multiple positions. We can only go by what you provide us in writing here. And here's a picture of a sign that just
says Grove Medical Plaza parking. That's the sign that's going on F-ro. There's nothing on there about Kviva or any other tenants in the building. >> If we want to put another position on there, we can put multiple positions on there. If the board says that that's not
appropriate, then we won't. But I'd like to be able to put it there so they know where to go to Kiva. That's the point of the signage. And we have the crossroad and the cross access which we're saying we have a position for. It'll always be on there. So if it ever activates to the east, they will be recognized on that
sign. So we're sending people down the right driveway to get to the east. >> If if that road ever comes to fruition, >> we built it. >> Come on back. >> We built it. >> In my opinion right now, that's not years ago. We built it. >> That road is not in the discussion in my opinion. >> Great. >> Because it goes nowhere. Um, but I won't
support a second sign on Southern. I think it takes away from the intent of the sign code, which is to keep this town rural, limit the amount of signs, but yet give you the ability to put
enough signs to operate your business. And I feel monument sign on FOD that it allows you to do. Yes, >> you already have an address sign on Southern Boulevard, which you couldn't do if you were to build that building today
for our code, but you already had that. So, I think that's a lucky thing. But, but I don't support changing that sign, but I support, you know, putting your monument sign on FRO. And I don't know if it's appropriate to
ask the question, VIP kids, a tenant in a medical plaza. >> Yep. >> That doesn't sound like a medical use. >> It's a less intense use. It's a use that's allowed within the office. Um, it's allowed by right within that zoning
district. That's one of their tenants that have been there for a while. Um, it's just it because it's not more intense. They're allowed by right to go in as a tenant and they have been there. I can remember this building coming before council
with um Calerie Judge office staff losing their building on seminal Pratt not having a place to go. Council made a special exception to allow general office in this building.
It was not medical related. So they did a special exception for calorie judge to go in that building. So, is that something that carried through the change? I thought that was specific to them. I'm just surprised to see a daycare there. That doesn't sound
like medical to me, and I don't understand how that can be used. >> I can't answer that question, Mr. Chair, both the history of calorie judge and the application from 20 years ago. >> Okay. All right. Um but
>> um what's to prevent them from making those portable stick them in the ground signs and now put a hundred of them out front of that building saying what that building is so people can see it and do we want that in our town >> code what
>> Yeah. Well, how many people do that? I mean, look around our town. >> Yeah. >> And so you can battle one way or the other. I mean, you have to think about it. >> I think it's it's prudent to give them a sign that people know what it is.
>> I agree. Give them a sign that code allows on a road. I just don't approve a sign on southern. >> If we're going to put a sign anywhere, I'd rather have it on southern than else. >> So, let me I have a question. First of all, they're already approved for a sign. >> They're already operating. They already
have signage approval. They just didn't build it. Okay. My question to you, um, I guess Karen with it, um, they have a sign, they said it's sinking. Can they raise it? If it's sinking, what in their original site plan says they can't raise that sign because it's sinking.
>> So, >> they'd have to look at the measurement because they're only allowed to be a certain height measurement, even if the ground is sinking, because obviously there wasn't that intent. So I think what the applicant has said is that based on our code he the existing sign would not be permitted to be raised
because it would be beyond our height limitation. >> He said yes. I need to clarify too because in this current written form is what I'm saying now had you done a different project but in this current written form we may not like what's out
there rules and regulations but all my research show it does not qualify as a hardship which violates our own uldc by the rules. Now if it's rewritten differently of the reasons why but you clearly put your reasons in there which
were outlined in my research. Um, you know, you didn't put any of the other reasons. Clearly, there's no hardship. Um, I guess maybe finding out if that sign could be raised. You already have an approved sign you mentioned that you didn't even build yet. You already have
signage. What is different that you already have? Is it because you now have a different tenant and you're trying to make it more easily visible? >> Yes. >> Okay. which is one of the things we can't that's a that's one of the things
you cannot use to get a variance. So maybe if this thing was rewritten, maybe to suggest raising the sign. What is the original site plan? Cuz none of us up here have any issue with the the project, the way it looks. I've even the building is one of the really best
buildings for rural. But when we start overlooking rules and rulings and things that set precedents in our town and we can't do that, we were presented with a packet of information and clearly by the packet it has it clearly does not um it
does not uh meet the legal burden. You did not meet the legal burden in my opinion whether you like it, anybody likes it or not. the rules are the rules and the legal burden it h has to be met. And what we were told in the beginning is it's the applicant's burden of proof.
Nowhere in this does it say uh the hardship was created because we have to you know protect the seniors or whatever. I didn't do any research on that. It was clearly in his own words. It's already written. If you go to page 20 he puts his own words in. So the the
packet in front of me was written that way and that was the research I did. Um so I think the best question would be either to to redo this and what you're asking for um whether it's the second sign and maybe see if you can just do without any violation from the original
approval of the signs which is already approved and sitting with the property. Can that sign be raised because it's sunk? Those are my suggestions. But I wanted to clarify this. You know, you have to we have to justify and find out if you have satisfied the legal burden of our
uldc and any other Florida applicable laws that apply because that's what we're here for, not because we like something or not. >> Okay. I think uh we know how we feel. This is we're going to vote on a recommendation to council and then
council will get this and then uh we'll go from there. So, I think it's time for a motion one way or another here. >> I make a motion to deny resolution 202651. My question is Karen, can we add
something in there that they can like come back and see if they don't need a variance for their existing signs, their existing um things that have been approved, or do we just deny it completely and then make a recommendation to council? How does that
work? I would do it the the latter rather than the former. I mean, give them direction yes or no today. Again, you're recommending body so it doesn't preclude it from going forward. Uh so, and then just have them um obviously the applicant has heard some of the um
objections and hopefully they can correct some of those or address some of those before they get to the town council. >> Okay. So I make a motion based on the packet that we were presented and what
was presented in the packet to um deny >> uh resolution 202651. >> So 26 I'm sorry 202651 is the variance. So I just want to make sure we're all together >> that we're doing it right. You do
variance first and then you do site plan and we'll get into that. >> Yeah. So you're so it's a motion motion. Yeah, >> we got a motion, a second discussion, Jeff. >> No, I was just going to say as I understand the motion, it's a motion to deny based on a failure to meet the
standard set forth in 155020 for variance request. >> Yes. Correct. >> Did I make the motion correctly? >> Yes, you did. >> Yeah. I just wanted to clarify that my understanding of it. Yes. >> Okay.
All those in favor? I >> I >> opposed. >> Okay. Motion fails 22. >> Correct. So the next would be then resolution 202652 which is basically the master sign plan.
>> I'm sorry. Did you >> Well, the the motion failed. >> It was a motion to deny and it failed because we're in a 22 situation. Um, is there an alternative motion that is
um going to be presented? A motion to approve. A motion to approve with conditions um with respect to the variance. >> Well, I was going to say motion to approve as it is varian section 150-020
and um for the site plan amendment. Motion to approve. Okay. Motion based on >> Can I say something else? Uh >> motion's a motion. We get a second. We'll move on. This isn't >> under the discussion. >> No, under the understanding that even
though safety wasn't um written or presented as a burden of proof, he did um spoke about it here in this um room. >> Okay. Got a motion by the second. Second.
All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. I >> All right. Two two. Jeff, what do you want from us? >> We're done. >> Well, it at this point in time, I think that's the recommendation of the um of
the body uh that uh you are conflicted with respect to the variance application. Um, and so two of you were in in in favor of the variance and two of you were opposed. Um, we only have
four people. So, uh, why don't we move on to the site plan and see if there's um, consensus on that. Um and remember that you are not the deciding body, you are the recommending body and your
recommendations will um be forwarded to the council. So they will hear from both sides. >> So on resolution 2026-52 it pres in its present form it includes the monument sign that was part of the
variance. So if the desire is to approve the master plan as the master sign plan as we've indicated is in compliance except for that monument sign A, I would make a suggestion that you make it as a condition of approval to exclude the monument sign A because the master plan
otherwise I you know can be potentially approved by you because you have it had nothing to do with the variance that you previously discussed. >> Make sense? Explain that again. Yeah. >> So the the master sign plan is including all the signage as proposed by the applicant. >> The building
>> the building the door sign the monu both monument signs. Okay. Because that's what they presented. However, this board has already voted at this point. There's been no approval for the the variance. So what I'm saying is you shouldn't
include the variance item in the master plan because you didn't approve it. But you shouldn't but you still can consider approving the master sign plan just without the item that was the var the subject of the variance. >> Did that help?
>> Yeah. >> All right. Make a motion. >> Yeah. I make a motion that we approve it. A minus the Yeah. >> Monument A sign. >> Okay. >> Y >> I'll second that. >> Okay. >> Discussion or we >> Yeah, we can discuss. We got a first and
a second. And this is to approve all the signage minus the monument A sign on Southern. >> Okay. So it monument B sign was already approved. They just not dis constructed. Correct. >> Has never been built. Correct. >> Yeah. That meets our ULDC. That's at the
>> correct. Correct. >> Yes. >> Any more discussion >> and um >> and then and then it would be the door sign. >> Correct. >> Yeah. and >> which is already approved >> sign over. >> It's not approved already. New signage.
>> It's all new signage and it's in that plan >> only because they're asking for the wall sign, the convey wall sign which is new. They're asking for the door sign which is new and they would be asking for the monument B. You're approving the design
because they have the location approved. They're just coming in with what the design is. >> Correct. And this would be a variance based on the same criteria. None of those variance. There's no variance. Not a variance. Just an approval. >> There's just approval of the master science plan. Okay.
>> Any more discussion? All those in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> opposed. Speak. You speak into the mic. No hand signals, please. >> I guess opposed because I didn't find any oppos No. Um explanation needed
>> Robert remember that I'm new on this so I can I will kindly ask you to >> when we >> be patient with me >> trying to help you understand how >> but do not interrupt me like that in front of people I don't appreciate that
>> can't talk to you in private so when it comes time to vote >> you can be more polite and professional please >> it's all I'm asking thank you >> okay that is that thank you sir >> thank you very much members of the board. >> So, this matter will go in front of the
town council at the August 2nd meeting with the recommendations included from this um board. And Jeeoff, anything else on this matter or are you good? >> No. Move on. >> Okay. All right. So, we go to the next
matter on the agenda, which is the Panda Express resolution 202649, resolution 202650, and ordinance 202603. And on behalf of the town is our town consultant, uh, Caitlyn.
Um, if we could have exparte communication on this one. Um, I if the board members would identify whether or not they've had exparte communication. >> I've had none. >> Anybody to express?
>> I I I didn't I didn't >> Sorry Jeff, I didn't hear what you're saying. Sorry. Um it this is the time uh to identify exparte communication. Um I know for example uh Miss Vasquez that
you met with the applicant. Nothing wrong with that but you should indicate that you met with the applicant. I think there were staff members there as as well. Um and I don't know whether or not you've had any further communication with anybody on this particular application. >> Um
>> yes that is correct. I met with the applicant in the building and I have we haven't had any further communication after that >> and then um if we could >> the exact date but I I don't have that written down.
>> No, that that's all right. Um Miss Succi, have you met with anybody on this application? And and remember, as I indicated, it's not just the applicant that we're talking about. It's members of the
public who may have, you know, um come up and said, uh it's either the greatest thing since slight spread or it's the worst thing, um ever, um or you know, those kind of communications are what you are to to disclose. So,
all right. And chairman, have you met with anybody? >> No. >> I think that's the the disclosures. Um, and one other thing, and I apologize. Uh, um, were all the
all the folks that are about to testify on this matter, uh, were they sworn in earlier? Yes, everybody stood up earlier. Jeff. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair, if I may. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
>> Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Caitlin Forbes with Complete Cities Planning Group, Town Planning Consultant. The applicant before you tonight is Panda Express. They have four different development applications for review uh within the Grovestown Center Pod B, which is generally located
between the existing Culver site and the dental office site. The subject site um for tonight's applications is approximately 94 acres, just less than one acre. Um they're seeking approval of the following applications. a master plan amendment to revise the list of the
permitted waiverss um within the Gross Town Center um PUD as well as to update the master plan drawing itself to reflect the proposed um development including the reduction in the total remaining square footage uh within the overall PUD. The second and third
applications are together as the site plan and the master sign plan. Miss Gardner Young previously explained the concept of the master sign plan. It's essentially all the signage on that specific site except in this instance um it is just for Panda Express. It's not signage outside of Panda Express within
the Grovestown Center um district overall. It's just their on-site signage. Um the site plan does include approximately a 2700 square foot fast food restaurant with a dual drive-thru lane. There's three waivers for consideration. As I mentioned with the master plan application, they're
updating that list. Um the three waiverss pertain to a reduction in the parking stall size, an increase in the permitted distance of the loading zone location, and a reduction in the facade um landscape screening along the northern portion of the building. Um
there's additional architectural elevations that they would like to present for your consideration. So you'll see two different iterations of the architectural elevations. one that was initially um submitted for staff review and approval and a second uh set of architectural elevations that provides slightly different design
concept um that they'd like your feedback for. The last application uh pertains to variances also relating to signage in this application and those variance requests pertain to the number of signs, the types of signs and um the
size of the signs. Staff does recommend approval of the application subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and the draft resolutions and ordinance. This applicant is here to present their application and provide additional information for your feedback.
>> Good evening. >> Uh I'm Aaron Moore, CPH engineers architect and engineer planning consultants for Pant Express. With us today we have representatives from the owners group and the uh future owner of the lot itself. So uh Kaylin thanks for the
introduction. This is basically what you just mentioned that the items for discussion tonight are the master plan and PUB amendment uh the site plan and waiverss and variances associated with both of those. Uh that is our site plan. Uh
we'll talk a little about that a little later. That works great. All right. I'm very visual, so you see a lot of pictures in this one. Uh, I think everyone here kind of know what we're dealing with, but it's an overall look at the Town Road Center. We are that little yellow sliver there in the
frontage along Southern. Everything in red is the I believe the next phase or future already approved or processing approvals for a hotel and future development. And just comparing it to uh the actual approved PUD map there, you can kind of see where we are between parcels B and D
on the original PUD. And you can see everything else around us has been built out. Everything to the east is going to be in the future. So just setting the stage for where we are actually in real space. A brief entitlement history here on the site. Uh this PUD uh was originally
brought to the town in 2011 was approved. That's what set the commercial office and uh congreate living framework back in 2011. Over the last 15 years, we've had approvals that did uh reconfiguration of the pods, updated master plans. Uh there's equestrian
tract plat was updated for conservation easements. Uh there's also PD revision Y last year that was completed I believe for the hotel which was a change of use and then just recently been for council to get a specimen tree removal
conditioned approval for the development of the property we are talking about today. So long story short, the PUD already exists and is established of commercial framework. This application updates pod B to accommodate the site plan that we're talking about today with associated waiverss the master sign
program while preserving continuing PD conditions prior conditions not specifically modified tonight will remain in effect. What our applications are not asking to do, we are not changing any existing lang intensity or proposed language intensity.
We're no no changes to permissible uses. Now, we're not going to be requesting for non-p permissible uses. No request to reduce the landscape or tree mitigation requirements, but that's very important to this town. And no additional traffic concurren concurrency is needed. The trips are already
allocated in the approval for town grows center with the county and the city. So, here is a site plan. It is a 2,614t building uh for Panda Express restaurant. Uh we will be doing interconnection access off of Avocado. This is the missing cog of the access
easement between the dental place uh with that just opened up and Culver's and everybody out to our west. So that will be completed with this action. That ement will be recorded. Uh we have 28 foot drive which is actually pretty healthy. Most places have a little less than that. That does
accommodate some of your larger vehicles they have in the town. Uh the cross access includes also pedestrian access from the rightway of Southern. So there is an ADA path. So whatever you're on a scooter, crutches, it's it's an ADA path taking you from Southern through the Pan
Express site past the front door. And there is a marked sidewalk access to both lots east and west. From there, you can go to the other parts of the pod as well. There is a uh excuse me there is a pvious paver uh on the site that is to
help with the impervious area. There's some localized flooding we understand this should help that. There's also exfiltration which also alleviates some of that pain. Tree mitigation is going to be completely done on site. We know that is again big big topic here. So we did get the tree mitigation calculations
back from the town the town's arborist. So everything is going to be located onsite. We have to go offsite to make room for the trees. And then we have a 30% impervious surface which is what is required. This is just a explanation of our uh PUD master plan amendment. Uh basically the
topics we're updating master plan and tabular data which Kayen already mentioned. Waiver authority. We have waiverss uh in the uh PD as well. We'll be going over those specifically in a second. And then continuing conditions. The city will carry forward this. Everything else is enforcement with the
city. Nothing changes. You're not giving up anything that you're going to be able to control. Approval criteria for the comp plan consistency. Uh we are consistent with PUB. That's what we're doing the master plan update for for the uh allocations. Make sure everything's going to be documented and updated with the pan
express site plan. ULDC is conformity with exception of the waiverss and variances that we're going to discuss in a minute. The PUL flag consistency is consistent with everything that's been done already. Traffic, we just talked about the traffic is conformed with uh
the existing allocation. I believe this brings us up to about 66% on your trip allocation for the entire center. And then the public facilities mainly by the county water, sewer, electric, gas, solid waste, drainage documents, all that will be approved with final permitting.
Okay. Waivers. Three waivers here. First waiver uh is ord section 95025 for parking dimensions. This is an allowance to reduce the depth of parking from 22.5 ft to 20 feet in
some of the parking stalls. Not all of them, just the ones that were needed. Uh, this keeps I'm sorry, I can't read that part. But the dimensional consistency with other Oh, thank you very much. with the other ground rose town center
lots and adjacent lots. Thanks, Karen. A lifesaver. Waiver 2 is uh to ULDC section 95075. This is a loading zone not exceeding 30 ft from the building. We'll go into why that's going to be required because of some of the other things we have to fit on the site is a very narrow site. So, we had to squeeze a lot into a very
narrow package. Um, so now we're 51 ft. We'll explain what that does, but it does allow for safe access to the building from the service uh deliveries. Uh, there'll also be done offsite, so there should be no conflict with the customers or employee staff that are out there. And the waiver
three is for uldc section 85-055.B.2. Uh this is a foundation planting along the frontages of the building. Uh through our reviews, it was determined that uh we have frontages on both the south and the north, which I think is new to this lot from some of the other ones. Uh but the north one, we could
only fit 35% of the frontages to be landscaped in the foundation planning. There are other plings north of it, uh which is consistent with others, too, but we just couldn't get it right against the building. and you'll see why when we look at the site plan. So those are the waiverss. So this is the first one. This is for
the parking dimensions. Everything in blue, we are requesting to reduce our depth from 22 1/2 ft to 20 ft in depth. The width still stays the same. But since we are squeezed left to right or east to west as you're looking at this, sharing the access road with the dental
plaza, uh we don't have the room to fit everything in without eating up other landscape buffers uh and several other domino effects with the other variances and waiverss that would be required. Uh 20 ft is sufficient uh for most cars. A lot of other towns and places have a 20
foot parking stall. Uh that is pretty standard. It is also what Culver's has on us. Not that that means anything, but every one of their perpendicular parking spots have the same dimensions as do about half of the dental plaza. So, this is very consistent with that entire row
parking up there. Uh you'll probably ask why we can't accommodate the 22 foot depth on the top and that is because there's a required landscape buffer on that side as well. So, that's why we have to maintain that and still maintain the cross access.
So total there is 17 parking spaces, two online order pickup spaces, they'll be reduced in depth. Uh the two handicap spaces will be reduced also they'll still say 14 ft across to 20 and that is still meeting ADA compliance. The town's handicap requirements are actually more
stringent than ADA. Uh so that is not in question here. And then six parking stalls and then two drive-through waiting areas will maintain the ulc minimum distance dimensions of 22 and a half by 11. Waiver two. Uh this is for the loading zone. You see the loading zone there in
blue. Uh it also doubles as the access to the trash enclosure area. Uh this is this is going to be difficult for us to to get any closer. Uh not because we can't slide it, we can't make things run left and right, but with all the utilities in the back, there's a
transformer easement, electrical easement that we have to fit back there with the parking and the required impervious surface we have to maintain is 30%. If we push that any closer to the building, uh we would be exceeding that impervious surface, which is a big no no. Don't want to do that. Uh and
this doesn't affect anything operationally or safety wise. It's just a couple of feet. It's well lit and it's a pave path of access to the back door which is where services. Waiver three is for the it's technically it's additional interior open space requirements but uh the part of that
that we're trying to uh get a waiver really from is for the north elevations foundation planting requirement. Uh we need 16.7 linear feet uh on both elevations the south and the north. We can only accommodate 13.2 feet. So
that's 3.5 ft short of the frontage that we cannot put vegetation on. Uh the reason is because we have utilities meters. There's oil tanks back there that have to be serviced. You can't do that through landscaping. Uh the storage closets out there. Uh there's there's not really other ways we can work around
it. We we would love to. Um we just can't make that particular thing work with make the building wider, but that's not going to work either. Uh we will like to point out that uh most places have like a aggregate know they they take all the elevations and they do a full percentage. Uh we don't have the
opportunity here. Each one is based on its own merit. The one on the south elevation on southern which is a more public facing one does have 87% it's 36 linear feet of the 41 ft uh covered in foundation planting. So that one is uh
much better than the north side. And then variances and we've heard about variances already tonight. So variance one uh section 90-045A this is secondary sign size. Uh this is a for the menu boards specifically which
are larger than the listed permissible size by code. Um but we'll talk about these separately in a second. Um so we'll go through them real quick. Variance 2 is 90-40B. as the operational signs are not
expressly listed. Um, this includes the order canopy units, wayfinding sign, clearance bars, uh, drive-through waiting sign, and online pickup signs as shown. We'll show them on the site plan. You'll see in a minute. Essentially, these are for operational safety, uh,
and basically avoiding conflicts in the site. Again, with this very narrow site, when you're coming down, you you'll see, especially, we're talking about where you have the drive-through arrow pointing. Uh if you go the wrong way, you can kind of be trapped. You might come trying to go in the driveway the wrong way. Uh so there's there's some
trying to make sure people don't get hurt, make sure people aren't getting hit by cars. It's it's uh we'll see in a second here. Variance three, uh same code. Uh this is a number of secondary signs. uh this is allowed to uh proposed
number of signs shown on the site plan very very much tied to the variance two so we'll go through those separately in a second variance one size of menu board code uh the maximum allowed is 12 ft yeah 12 square feet uh they have a
three panel sign here it does not the code does not include the support does not include the frame it includes only theformational parts of the signs uh they have I don't know about you guys. Every time I go to a fast food place, I roll down the window and the first thing I do is I lean my head out the window
because I I'm not that old, but I still have a hard time seeing them all. So, I'm I'm always doing that. And uh this town is generally older than I am. I think Joe would fit here. And uh it you got to be able to see the sign. I don't know how many times I looked at a sign.
I kind of look at the different prices. They always have the big order sign and then they have a smaller print down below and try to figure out the prices. What's the best deal? If you have 10 kids like I do, it's tough to do. Um, we want to make sure people are getting through that queue quickly. Um, the last
thing we want to do is then we have more queuing than we need. And you'll see that later, too. The last thing you want is someone stacking up the line because they're taking forever to order and then we have seven cars stacked up and you start blocking operations that or cross access. That that's something you don't
want to do. The types of signs we're looking at uh for secondary signs is that clearance bars. Uh clearance bars are important. Uh there are awnings on the building. There are elements on the order canopy to prevent know people getting weather on them, rain, sleep, stuff like that.
When you come down, if you don't have a clearance bar, which is beyond industry standard, you're going to have conflicts. Sometimes they'll hit the bar and that's great because that's a little cheaper, but you don't want them hitting the building. That damages the property, damage the trucks, cars, whatever. Um,
so those are the clearance bars and like I said, it's pretty industry standard industry standards up and down southern even in the town of Loxa Hatchee already. Uh, order canopy boards. Uh, again, those are you got to have a point of sale, right? You got to make your order. Uh, so basically you have something that blocks and shields you
from getting storm, rain, wind on you, and that way you can go to the speaker and make your order. Those are typically right next to your drive menu board. Um, so you can see it's kind of angled at you. directional. Uh the drive-through sign, we'll look on the next slide where it's positioned. As you come in off
Avocado, if you don't make that right and go to the entrance of the drive-through lane, you are going to be circulating through the dental place, dental office site, which shares our access road, across the front on Southern, and then back through the Culver's and then back around again. Um,
and potentially, and we've seen this happen, unfortunately, that people take a right into the drive-through lane and they come the wrong way and you're face to face in traffic, and that's that's a big issue. Parking signs, uh, parking signs are or it's funny called parking signs, but
they're actually not allocated parking spots. So, you have drive-through waiting signs. Uh, those are basically when you come through and you have your your family packs. So you have your questing infants done and you have like a whole bunch of hands you need to buy food for and to get your family packs and it takes them you know five six minutes to get the walk fried up and get
the rice all done all the noodles. You don't want to hold up the queue again. We got to get the people through the queue or else you start packing things up. So those are spots that located right outside the exit of the drive-thru and allocated for those two spots alone. And then online pickup. Online pickup is uh kind of the the new sensation of the
the times right after COVID. everyone's doing uh Door Dash and Uber Eats. Uh so for operational safety so that they are not homeing with customers and not getting around and taking up um pri priority spots, parking right in front of the doors, they are given spots by
the back door dedicated for them to come in and get a quick access. It's on a shelf with a bag and a name on it to get in and out. The number of signs uh we are asking for sec 11 secondary signs. There's also six traffic signs and three ped pedestrian crossing signs which are not shown on
here because of uh I'm not sure why because they're safety signs or traffic signs. Um this is this is consistent with everything around uh and we're trying to eliminate any potential conflicts with people and cars. I that that is that is
the one thing that when you're going through these drive-through places complex with children walking around in cars, especially when you're carrying a big bag of rice, it's hard to see. People are running around and people tripping. That's what you don't want to see. So that D4 sign is our drive-through sign. You come in off
Avocado. Uh we actually did not want to put this there to begin with, but we actually were were after talking with staff, we thought it was the safest thing to do. So, when you're coming in there and you don't go straight down to the front of the building, you make that immediate right-hand turn and go left into the drive-through lanes. Uh, it's
the quickest way to get there and avoids any conflicts with any sidewalks uh that you don't need to conflict with. Uh D1 is the uh clearance bars. We have two drive-through lanes, so there's the clearance bars for each one. Uh those are associated to protect all the
infrastructure uh that's required in the cells of of the drive-through window. Uh D2 and D3 are the order confirmation boards which are basically required for any type of drive to service. Uh and then you have D3 which is the menu board which again accompanies the orderboard.
You can't order what you don't see. S1 and M1 are on here because it's part of our sign package from AGI the sign vendor. Uh M1 is the monument sign that's located out in the swell. It's made in front of Southern. Uh there's nothing that we're talking tonight that would preclude that from being built.
That is per code. S1 is the building signage. Originally, we had two signs on the building, but again, with correspondence with the staff over the last year, uh we've basically reduce that to the allowable one signage to the south. Uh and I think we're we're pretty
happy with that. D6 are those online order digital signs. Those they're they're back there. They're by the transformer and they are by the back door so they can get closer access to the online order section of the store and get out and not intermingle with the customers. Again, if you go into a store
and you got someone on the phone from Uber and he's got like 15 orders, you don't want him sitting there hitting people, walking around people or cutting through people, knocking people over. That's it's uh good to keep them separated for just operational and for safety reasons. Uh, as uh mentioned by Caitlyn, we do
have a brief little story here about our building. And if you ask the right questions, Joe will come up here and give you a much longer story, so we'll try to keep this brief. Uh, the Pan Express prototype is right there on the top left and the bottom. That that is what we originally
submitted. That is uh their standard. They spent a lot of time developing that brand identity. Uh, it's a very expensive store. They keep building it because they like it. Uh, and they're they they it looks really sharp. It's really nice. I think everyone here thinks it looks nice, but it definitely doesn't look urban or rural. It looks
very urban. So, they do come off the prototype in certain instances. That top right hand picture there is a site that we actually did up in Orlando uh open last year doing gang busters. It was a Boston market. Um, so they will come off the prototype, but when they do, it looks like this, which is completely, if
I may worse, more unaligned with the robust guidelines than the other the standard one. uh flat parapit, very up and down, very urban, very downtown kind of feel. Not what you guys are looking for. So through this process, we have come through several iterations. Uh this is the one that was in your packet. Uh this
is the proposed nonypical pan expressi grows to accommodate to better align with the robust guidelines. Uh we ended up with a a hip roof element which is the closed uh cone on the tower there. Uh the mansered rooftop in L of parapit.
So instead of that flat wall parapit which is specifically said is a bad thing to do in the real vista guidelines, we put a manered edge on it which which has been a very common treatment to a lot of the buildings here in Lockxa Hatchet. Uh we reduced the visual emphasis on the prototype elements uh specifically the color red.
Red does not scream uh rural. >> So we took as much off it as we could. We took away the moon gates. There are elements on the doors and everything else. There's trelluses with back lit red LEDs. Uh on this particular building, we actually took them out. We still have the red trellus in the back
and we still have the red panda sign and that was it. Uh we have uh window treatment which is called muttons which I really didn't know until last week what that word meant. Uh and awnings. So put the awnings on because that is very classic bill. I think everything up and down southern and not southern in
lockahhatche has awnings on it. Uh they did horiz. We added defense. That's also very common here. Horizontal banding. So, this is typically an ephus building. So, it's just basically a white canvas kind of like you no different from Stuckco. Uh they did put a horizontal treatments
on there to make it look like sighting. Uh that's more of a rural feel. Lighter stone base, gooseeneck lights. Uh so, Panda typically has every lit element as an internal cabinet, which is not allowed. So, everything is being externally lit as requested through the
ULDC code. Uh we put the gooseeneck lights on there because again that was a preference uh from the town. And then we also removed the Lockxahhatche Groves panda from the panda statue. You see that cute little guy sitting there in the landscape island. Typically they would have panda and big red letters with the
town that the panda is in Lockach Groves. But since that is signage we end up taking it off and so we'll just have the mama and baby panda sitting on that blank uh black uh cube. Okay. Well, just real quick before back here see too. You see in the back there
you have the closet and the doors and and the cabinets and that's what you're not seeing there are like the electrical meters, the disconnects, the gas meters, all that stuff has to go back there, too, which is why we can't get that foundation plank across that whole building. We're just 3 ft short. So, we did our best to accommodate it, but uh with all the stuff in the back of the
building stuff to do. So, this is an alternative building design uh considering the the Panda brand awareness, but mostly for the improved alignment with the Rubista guidelines and the existing architecture around Los Angeles groves. We spent quite a bit of time driving around through the town and seeing what's here. We I have pictures of every single commercial thing on Southern looking at every single thing
they've done, the fences, the awnings, the roof treatments. So, we did some homework here. Uh this has recently gone back through the Panda corporate design system. Uh they have approved this. We think it actually is more in alignment. Uh would be more favorable to the town. Uh, so it be very interested to hear what you guys have to say. This has the
man repair that we had the other one that has a gable farmhouse metal roof, metal awnings that removes all red elements from the building. So those red elements are completely gone except for the panel logo itself on this building. Uh, also with the goose neck light on it. Uh, and this is presented tonight by
the applicant for consideration by the board for hopeful recommendation of approval to the council. So with that said, I will uh try to be let it be brief. I that was brief but I will go ahead and let the floor go back to the B members.
>> All right. Thank you. Comments. >> Can you go back to the I think it was the first slide. I was writing something down and >> Yes, ma'am. One second here. >> First or second slide was the little chart. Sorry, >> I didn't get the last thing written. No problem.
>> Uh, no. It was a It was like a chart right before that. There. one. Keep going. One more. That one. >> That's okay. Comment. >> I have >> I have one question.
>> Mhm. when we um well I was I've always been under under the impression that it's going to be one lane driveway. Are you having two lane driveway or one? >> It is a two to one driveway or not driveway drive-thru. It's a two to one
drive-thru. >> Okay. So, two lanes, two drive-thru. >> No. Yeah, it's two lanes with two orderboards and then they they combine into one lane next to the building. >> Okay. Okay. just for Okay. >> Yeah.
Yeah. Um you said several times due to the sites of the site the limitations of the the site. >> Yeah. >> Why you're asking for all these variances. So you're asking us to ignore our code so you can wedge this
into a small site is is basically what you're asking. Um that's that's hard to do. And the double drive-thru this is you totally blowing the sign code out of the water here on this one, man. Because 12
square feet was our max. I mean, we went toe-to-toe with Dunkin' Donuts and Wendy's and here we are, two of them at what, 29 square feet or something? I forgot the the number, but more than double the allowable and >> I believe that's right. extra ones. And
you know, I can remember, you know, I sat on this board seven years ago when one of those came through and I was trying to understand why the size limitation. I remember doing some research before going around measuring other signs and
and I thought some of it was the visual somebody walking by a sign and having the ability to see them a little smaller sign you would have less chance that somebody's going to walk from behind the
sign and and uh have an unsafe situation but you know I could never get a definitive answer on worded 12 square feed come from. >> I'd be curious to know that too because that that's about as small as I have ever seen in all the years I've been
doing this. And it's and I understand why it was probably written before you guys really expected any kind of commercial development down that road. >> Well, it's purely tied to commercial. It's a drive-thru sign. Yeah, >> it was just, you know, trying to maintain a roll atmosphere, not being overwhelmed by signs. >> Well, I don't think it specifically says
I mean, it says a secondary sign is it considered a drive-through sign is considered a secondary sign, but it doesn't specifically say it's a drive-through sign. I didn't see any variances for lighting. I thought that was one of the variances was lighting. Did I miss it? >> No.
>> You're not asking for variance in light to the lighting? >> No. >> We took off all non-compliant lighting. >> I could have sworn I read that. >> Okay. >> So, we we've gone through several iterations. I think five different
iterations with staff to whittle this down the best package. Cassie, turn your light on. >> Okay. I'd like to start by saying that my comments are whether this project fits the vision of Lockachi Groves that we've spent years creating for our town
center, not just whether it fits in a permitted commercial envelope. Um, this is not about Panda Express being a good business. This is not about anybody liking Panda Express's food. >> It's it's not whether the building's been modified. It's not even if it can
physically fit on the site. The real question is whether this development taken as a whole reflects the principles that make Lockahuchi Grows different from other communities. It's not simply about whether this project can be engineered to meet amended standards because we know it doesn't meet the
current standards. That's why you're here, >> right? >> Okay. It's about whether it advances our vision, our character, and planning principles our town has worked to establish. I recognize that you've made changes and I appreciate that uh the effort went in. However, um I believe that the staff
focused too much generally on technical compliance and gave less consideration to the broader planning question. Um as I read through this application, one thing stood out. It's not just the one waiver or the one variance. It's the
number of them being asked cumulatively. And I need I would like the people up on the board to think of it as a cumulative because one isolated is not a big deal. One sign now we're looking at 11 signs.
So keep that in mind. And I want to leave with this question. Has this project adapted to fit Locks of Hatche Groves or is Lockxahhatche Groves being asked to adapt its standards to fit this
project? And should these standards be waved in the first place? And I have an outline. Can I >> because I talk a lot. This will kind of make where my mind goes. >> Yes. >> Just an outline of what I'm going to
talk about. >> I'd like to these are my concerns. So I would like to go to eat through each variance and we're discussing I just kind of gave an outline of the variances and what you're asking. So the first one reduced parking stall dimensions. So
what I tried to do is I tried to put in what the variances are the purpose of our code and why it exists because some of these I'm like what is a loading zone? I had to do research on it. And then I wanted to look at some concerns, historical town division con um vision
and compatibility issues on it. So the purpose of our uh parking stall dimensions, they were established to reduce conflicts between vehicles. And this might be boring. I'm sure you've already done this with the site plan, but it was it helped me understanding it
again. So just bear with me. um improves pedestrian safety, provides maneuvering room adequately and reduces congestion. Historically, Lockachi Gro has emphasized spacious development patterns rather than maximizing site intensity.
While smaller parking stalls may meet engineering objectives, they reflect a more urban, more intrusive approach to site efficiency rather than the open, less intrusive development pattern envisioned for Town Center in Lockache Gross.
The Panda Express site occupies occupies 0 94 acres accommodating 2700 square ft of a restaurant, a dual drive-thru, parking, loading, landscaping, storm water, and internal circulation. I feel by reducing these parking
dimensions and making smaller parking spaces, it suggests that they're trying to take all of that and compress it to fit into this desired corporate model prototype onto this relatively small site. So, they're asking us to wave the
rules of why we have those in place. So, let's look at uh number two, extended loading zone distances. I knew nothing about this till I researched it. The purpose in our code loading requirements were intended to ensure delivery vehicles can safely access commercial
building without interfering with customer circulation. Basically, so they're not, you know, butting heads and they're separate. Historically, the town center concept emphasized functional commercial development integrated into a rural setting. It never envisioned maximizing
every square foot of a parial parcel. My concern is the waiver indicates that the loading area cannot meet normal distance requirements because the site layout constraints. Once again, they're trying to compress all of that into a relatively
uh site too small site which may lead to increased interaction with delivery trucks and custom vehicles. We'll never know until we see it built. But those are my concerns. Lotsi growth. Um, so let's move on to um
where am I? I lost my spot here. Sorry. Um, a site requiring operational waiverss. This is my concern. Um, to accommodate the layout tells me that the design is driven more from a franchise model than the site's rural context. That's a concern of mine. Let's go to
number three. Reduce facade landscaping screening. The purpose in our code with landscaping and facade screening is to soften building mass when we look at it. To reduce visual dominance, so we're not just the commercial building isn't
dominating the site, but the landscaping and the facade screening is. To screen parking lots, to reduce appearance of pavement, and to create a more natural overall appearance, all closely aligned with our town's rural Vista guidelines.
the development. This is a concern. The development states alternative screening treatments are being proposed which will meet the intent of the code. One of the central themes of our rural vista guidelines in my research showed that
landscaping and when we were talking about our pillars, do you guys remember our pillars? And one of the big things landscaping should dominate the view rather than the building or parking. By reducing the required facade screening, it may result in more visible payment pavement, greater visibility of
corporate building, increased visibility of drive-through structures, and a more suburban appearance. Now, I know from a business standpoint, that's all the stuff that a business wants. But does it fit into the rural into the rural vista guidelines and the vision for town center and town lots? The codes are here
to serve a purpose. Even if the proposed alternative treatments satisfy the technical intent, it's reasonable conclude that the alternatives will not achieve the same visual outcomes as original code requirements or the applicant wouldn't be seeking the waiver
in the first place or alternative treatments. Let's go to number four, sign variance. The purpose of our sign is to not simply regulate signs, but ensure that the signage supports the town's rural character, protects public safety, and
remains compatible with the comprehensive plan and development. Historically, Lockachi Groves has sought to avoid an urban commercial quarter dominated by corporate branding instead of a more rural vista. guidelines have
been sought after to favor modest signage, integrated architecture, and reduced cluttering. My concern is the applicant has requested variances for numbers assigned, and I didn't get the number, but I think it was 11 >> 11 secondary signs,
>> types of signs, larger menu boards, amounts, and sign sizes. The development application explains that these changes are necessary to accommodate signage typically associated with Panda Express prototype development and to help provide adequate circulation and
wayfinding. Now when you look at each one and it goes back to the word I used in the beginning cumulative each sign by itself a pedestrian sign isolated by itself is not is a singular thing but when you
cumulatively put it together now we're looking at 11 signs some larger than our sign ordinance um allows. Let's look at the larger menu boards. purpose was to protect the town's character and compatibility, not merely to regulate business advertising and
minimize commercial visual impacts. Historically, Boxeti Groves has strived to protect the town from visual blight, laying lights, neon fixtures, all while preserving the unique rural character of the town. My concern is these menu
boards are a functional component of a drive-through restaurant. We know that, but they are also large, highly visible structures, and the applicant is seeking a variance to change the size of them and make them larger.
Larger menu boards increase visual intensity, introduce additional structures to the site, reinforce and focus the view on the drive-through character of the site. For our town who is seeking to maintain a rural visual environment, larger menu
boards directly conflict with the town's goals of minimizing commercial visual impacts. Number six, additional sign types. The the application seeks approval for different sign types that exceed what is permitted in our town. The application
states these signs are part of the standard Panda operational model. Put this into perspective and look at the whole instead of the individual. Each sign may appear minor but together can increase the visual prominence of the commercial development.
So the larger question is not whether each individual waiver or variance can be justified. We need to look at the cumulative effect of reduced parking dimensions, modified loading standards, reduced pod facade and landscape
screening and expanded signage in is that continually does that continue to reflect the growth center concept in the rural vista guidelines or instead does it move this development towards a more typical suburban urban corporate
commercial road model. So those are that's how I broke it down and I took each one and that was my concern was not the individual but the cumulative intensity on this project. Um I don't think um and it's for this
reason I don't believe this application demonstrates a consistency with our world vista guidelines the comprehensive plan and the original town center vision. Sorry that was longwinded. >> Oh, thank you. >> But it was a lot of stuff. >> Yeah.
>> So, even though the issue of the of having a dual drive-thru is not into question here, I just want to make an opinion. Go back to that and make an opinion. Um, I don't understand why this plan has a
dual drive-thru. And I was doing a you don't see those anymore. Um, so I did a little research to be a little bit more explicit and um I found that double drive-thrus um
might help speed up uh speed up services. And during the early 2000s, it was called innovation, early 2000s. However, in general, um, fast food architecture has moved past that.
That is not architecture innovation anymore. Double drive-throughs are notorious source of traffic congestion, customer frustration, and fender benders in Florida. The system is designed to split and take order simultaneously
before merging into a single lane, which frequently leads to merging confusion, cutting in lines, and aggressive road rage incidents. Florida hightra fast food hubs like McDonald's, Chicken Fillet, and Starbucks often struggle with these
layouts, leading to several shared experiences, an issue among drivers. merging anxiety and disputes could be a problem. Property damage and crashes, public and legal concerns where the
frustration is so widespread that the double lanes are a frequent topic of debate in local community groups with some drivers actively avoiding certain restaurant to skip the stress altogether. Legal and traffic experts note that
these designs often exacerbate road rage and increase of road parking lot collisions. Like I said, it's not modern architecture and it's not innovation. And I'll give you my own experience and example. I
used to live in Tamarak, Florida. I took Commercial Boulevard West to Turnpike every morning at the corner of Commercial Boulevard and University Drive. There were there is they might still be there a McDonald's. This building had two lane drive-thru. Almost
every morning there were accidents. They end up closing one and kept the other one. I love that you're using, you know, your advanced technology. You talked about fancy advanced technology for your food ordering signs.
However, my recommend my recommendation to you is keep it simple. Um, I don't know if you may know the city doesn't have a police contract at this point. Imagine having a car accident within
your premises. it will take about an hour or more for a police officer to arrive. So again, my suggestion is to keep it simple when it comes to
consider considering having a dual drive-thru. >> Thank you. Okay. >> Um, as far as the signage goes, is there a way to paint the information on the ground like drive-thru for your Uber
drivers and those instead of having the sign stand up? Can you have it just where the the signage is on the ground? So, this gets you out of having all of those signs potentially. Um, I know some people like
the the concrete block that sits in front can just say Uber parking or pickup delivery people or whatever so that as the people drive in they can see that sign but then it's not standing up in a visual sign. So maybe that could reduce some of your signage requests to
a smaller number. If you go to a single drive-thru, then you have one order sign, right? and you only have to have one sign for the height requirement. So, that reduces a lot there. And then maybe if you're on the single drive-thru, you
get more space to go back to your original parking or, you know, that might alleviate some of that. So, just a thought, but maybe some of the signage instead of being up and what everybody is so opposed to in our town is all of that, you know, kind
of looking you and staring you in the face. If it was down on the ground, it might be better. >> And you're specifically talking about know people that are already on site having to see the signs. >> Yeah. You know, like I I'm saying like, you know, you have your you're talking about those signs that say, you know,
pickup orders are here for internet. So maybe you can just have those signs marked on couple of spaces on the ground. You don't need necessarily a sign up. >> Then um you're still going to have to have your entry and which way to go, you know, so people don't get confused. But
if you do the one single lane drive-thru, then that that stops a lot of that confusion because that is always kind of a a bottleneck type situation. And I know even the Chick-fil-A in front of um Home Depot used to have the dual
lane go to one. Now they have two completely separate lanes. They changed that. So they got a bigger site plan out of it and made dual drive-thru lanes. and they have their people just hand carry the food to the second lane. So,
um that's another way. But, you know, that might reduce a bunch, you know, from 11 signs that might take them down to five, which is a lot less, you know, half. That's a concern. I like the design of the building. I think they did a good job of making it
fit our rural community, taking away the very, you know, modern approach to it. >> And that's not bad. And I think it's a good food, fast food operation as far as it's at least more healthy than fried food in our community and that's it. So
at least our our community gets a deal with better choice of a meal. But other than that, you know, it's it's just part of the course of everything moving. >> What do you think? If if I may just uh for clarification, I certainly
appreciate all the the thoughtful problem solving and I think you do get to a good point about reducing the vertical impact um with the uh change in signage. But just to clarify, it would still be considered signage if it's on the ground or on the wheel stop. So the the number of requests may remain the
same, but it certainly reduces to your point the vertical and visual impact um to some degree if they wanted to consider an alternative design. But just to uh clarify, it would likely still be the same number but perhaps different uh impact visually. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> That's why our panda losses lock sign. >> Yeah. Another thing on the parking is we have a lot of trucks in town. That was another reason for the larger parking spaces in our ULDC. >> And uh if you did eliminate one of those lanes, you would eliminate half of your
small parking spots. You could probably move your loading zone in, do more landscaping. You probably wipe out half of these requests if if that was an option. We can't tell you how to run your business. We can
only tell you whether we support it or not. Big picture, you know, right? We're just doing one vote on this. We're not breaking these down into individual. >> It would be one vote per resolution or ordinance. So you would have one vote on the ordinance for the master plan
amendment, one vote on the combined resolution for the site plan inclusive of the master sign plan. Your site plan does include the three waivers. So there's to your point, there's not separate votes on each waiver. It's all rolled up into that one resolution for the site plan and the master sign plan.
And the third vote would be for the variances. So, the one vote on the master agreement, where does that end in our agenda? They seem to be all meshed together here.
>> Yeah. >> And it's kind of, >> you know, because it seems like the master agreement >> is that on page two >> is approving some of these variances. 12. >> If I look at page 22, >> so in the in the master plan ordinance
amendment, they're requesting basically the inclusion of the um waiverss as permissible considerations. There's a section in the existing ordinance um section H I believe that says the town council may consider the following waivers. And so that's basically
establishing what you can consider. And then through the site plan resolution, you would um make your recommendation to approve or deny those specific waiverss. But the way the original ordinance is structured, it and it limits what you can even consider in the way that the
language is. >> That's where I saw the lighting and the curb stops. >> Yeah. So other pods and other properties have requested those types of variances. So because the ordinance applies to the PUB in general, all 90 acres, >> you got to add the list. approving that
gives them the ability to ask for that variance. >> It kind of sets the framework for them to make the request through the following resolution. >> Thank you. That wasn't inherently obvious to me. >> And and you may have seen um there might have been still some stuff in there because honestly staff worked very very
hard with the applicant to remove some because they actually had more requests I think that we kind of eliminated down. So um that might have been at one point they might have been looking for something. I'm not saying they did. So again, you know, we're just trying to make it as minimal requirements altering
from the code. >> This is what we would >> Yeah, DRC identified 14 waiverss and seven variances after our original submittal >> Cassie. Um this application as a whole is highly is
highly intensive commercial intensive and everything that I researched on the historical aspects of our town and the visions of the town center and the objectives and the pillars and everything we've discussed we pull away from that highly intensive commercial
thing. It's an awful lot of stuff trying to shove into 0.97 acres. It's not fitting. That's why these all these waiverss are trying to be you know you went you had 14 now you're down to 11. >> Um
>> you're trying to >> three not 11 >> three. >> Thank you. >> Well, I'm sorry. Three. I'm but you I'm sorry. The signs all the signs and everything went down to three. I apologize. But the intensity of these waiverss and the picture that it's going to I I don't see how this demonstrates
that it's consistent with our rural Vista guidelines, our comprehensive plan, or any of our original town center visions. Um and uh I I would like to make a motion to deny the master plan. >> Can I say a few things before that that's all?
>> Yeah, go ahead. >> Um yeah, it's a tight site. We we don't control the site. we could build on it and I understand what you guys are coming from. I really do. Um, but this isn't different than anything else that's out there right now. We if you drive around there, that's exactly
what's to our east or to our west and there are signs up and down those all those out parcels and I don't think any of them had to go through this process if I understand correctly. Uh, this this is uh the double drive-thru is
not going to change whether or not how many people come to the store. This is estimated to be a $3.5 million store. That's going to give a lot of tax base to the county, to the city, and one drive lane or two drive lanes isn't going to change that. All
it's going to do is fit more people through one lane. That's why the queuing is added to what it is so we don't have issues with stacking back in the cross access even on the north side. >> Yeah, that is code required from the city.
So, go back to this a second there. So, that on that north side there, uh, if you you just got to get it's like a funnel, right? You're trying to get people through the funnel. And I understand with the modern two-lane drive-throughs, but they're not really two-lane drive-throughs, but they're two order points. Go to one drive-through land,
they split them. McDonald's and notorious for this, you got two right there. They have two cars and go right back together. I've been mad. I wanted to fight someone one time. It's frustrating. Get down my things and get my McDonald's before me. uh they've spent a lot of time in their prototype design team inside design standards to make sure that this is
done. In fact, they tweak it every time there's an incident. This is the culmination of 10 years or more of refinement of their standards and we go every year. They go out there and refine it. Sometimes if there is a safety issue discovered, they make the fly on the change and this is the culmination of
what that is. Uh I don't know, I've not heard of any records of any accidents in their drive-throughs. Um, but I do know they if they had an issue, they would definitely address it on the site or as far as squeezing things in uh for
the parking stalls. We we we can't add any more depth and still maintain what we have there. Even if we got rid of the drive-through lane, we'd still have to have the access come all the way up and down there. Um, we might
get four or five or we could get the full 22 and 1/2 ft. uh which is not what was across the streets on the shared drive aisle. Uh and we did take in consideration very large trucks. We ran F250 king cabs
through these parking stalls to make sure they would fit without any conflict because we know that's what the town expects. We can't do horse trailers. We tried that. That doesn't work. I'm sorry. That probably never comes to the site. But we did run the King Cap 250s and make sure they did work in the park installs. Um,
as for there's another point here. What the Oh, um, you mentioned that we meet and come a long way to meet tech standards except for those three waiverss and three variances we're requesting tonight. I don't think you're going to find anyone else that can develop the
site and meet those unless it's going to be something like coffee, Starbucks, or Southern Brew or something really small like that, which is highly intensive in traffic. If you you those things are 90% or greater, some of them are 100%
drive-thru uses, which means they're not coming to sit. They're not coming to come inside a nice, beautiful building. They're coming to get their coffee and run and cing traffic and not not staying for doing anything. So, you're talking about trips and stacking. Those things cue I've seen, we do some of them. Some
cues are like 45 cars deep. They will be a double drive-thru, there will be a triple drive-thru, and they'll be able to fit it on there, but it's going to back up everything into the access. So, you got to consider that, too, because I don't know if you can develop this lot for something unless you're doing that
small of an 800 or 1,000 foot building, typically prefab building. They put it on there, they build it in 90 days, it's up and they start selling waccinos from dawn to dusk. So just consider that that there's no alternative really to feasibly use this site. Again, we didn't we didn't make as
narrow as it is. It is a very narrow site. 0.9 acres isn't the problem. It's the width. It's about 100 feet across about 100 feet across. That there are no QSRs 100 feet across. You go around the
states everywhere you're looking at coffee or any single lane oil change. That's what you're looking at to use a site this narrow. >> All right. >> I know you have a motion, but we need to open it up to the public.
>> Yes. Any public comments? Thank you for reminding me. Okay. You got a motion. Okay. So, you know, it's very important for this board and
the community. And I know who mentioned it. Well, it's all up in that down southern. Just because there was a decision was which was not compatible in the past doesn't mean that we need to change it. And you said it um you know, we have to
basically embody the original vision of Town Center. What is the Town Center vision? Does anybody know? It's basically a commercial district that reflected the unique identity of Lach Bros. And I don't think anywhere in that did we envision maximizing every square
foot of land parcel. And just from your own statement, you basically said there's no alternative. This is being driven by a franchise model and this is it and this is what's going to go in. >> So I go back to my original question.
Has this project adapted to fit Lockxachi Groves? Or is Lockachi Groves being asked to adapt its standards to fit this project? And I don't think it has. So with that, I'd like to make a motion to um deny what's the first one 20263.
The master plan with all the waiverss. >> 202650. Right. The resolution is 03. Which one is the one with the master? Yeah, that's what I'm >> 202650. It's ordinance 20263.
Is that the master plan? >> 26-xx. It's 03 now. >> It's 03. Yes. >> 03. Okay. >> We can make the motions, take the vote, and then make our recommendations. >> Okay. Got a >> I like >> motion to
>> deny ordinance 2026-03. >> Is it 03? >> Which is the modifications to the master plan >> and all the waiverss? >> Well, it's just a modification of the master plan with everything that's >> okay
>> lined out and underlined all the new stuff. Um, is there a second? >> Three is hearing. None. Motion fails. Remember, this is a a master plan that
it lines out and gets rid of a lot of stuff that was completed. It's it's an update of the master plan. Then it just gives somebody the ability to ask >> for something. So page 22 is where they have the ability to ask
for a waiver if we approve this master plan. Doesn't grant anybody anything, but the rest of this master plan update is showing all the things that have been done. There's a lot of lineouts on
things that uh were in here that the Grove Town Center was required to do that they did. So it it cleans that up, >> Cassie. >> But ultimately ultimately the decision is
the town council. >> Yes. >> We are we make our motions and our vote recommendation to them and then they take our recommendations. But it's not we're not denying. >> No. >> Yeah. Remember we're doing we're doing three votes here. First one's the master
plan which they're cleaning it up. They're getting rid of stuff that's already been done. Then they're asking for the ability to ask for three new EU waivers. So >> the waivers and then it's clean up.
>> Yeah, there's a lot of things that are marked completed completed that have already been >> and the the marks for completion were done when the hotel came through largely. Um there may be one or two but most of these that were marked completed were done um through the amendment that
was uh part of the hotel's application. They had been completed at that time too. So there's they're stricken and just left for reference. Um but primarily the section H is where they're adding the additional uh requests for
the waiverss to be considered. And then the second component of the master plan amendment, the drawing itself, updating the tabular data to show the draw down from the pool. So the I might have gotten this confused. So um the master plan is to allow them to build on that
pod, somebody to build on it, right? Not to allow them to build on it. They already have the entitlements to build something on that property. The master plan amendment is twofold. There's section H that says what the town may consider for waivers may consider and there's certain waivers that are already
listed. So in order to be able to grant a waiver, you have to amend this section H that says what you even may consider. Right? So it sets the foundation for what you could consider down the road through future applications. So they're adding um the three waiverss for the uh
parking stall size, for the loading zone distance, and for the uh landscape screening along the facade. And then um the second part of the master plan amendment is the drawing itself. You'll see um what looks like almost a site plan in your backup. And that shows kind of the highle umbrella development
allowances across all of the different pods. And all they're doing there is drawing down from the pool of the x number of square feet that they're allowed to build across the entire PUD and showing that they're drawing down the 2600 and change square feet um for
their uh proposed pod there. So it's basically just reflecting their site plan and marking that as a a restaurant. >> So they divided all the waiverss into different motion uh different uh um resolutions. Correct. Because the first one is parking stall landscape and
>> there's there's not separate resolutions for each waiver. The waiverss are all included in the site plan resolution um which is resolution uh 2026-50 because you can't approve the site plan
without the waivers. So it's all part of >> So the 2026-50 is all the waivers. >> It's approving the waivers, right? And >> all the waiverss that we discussed and all the issues and now they >> Yeah. And your motion could be to approve one or two waiverss and not the third or however you know someone wanted
to make the motion. could take our motion and then make a recommendation that if it was to come back to make it less intensive. Is that >> I think you you would want to include the direction in your motion and Jeff can jump in if for example if if you
felt that um one of the waivers wasn't appropriate. you could make the motion to approve the site plan with um waiverss one and two excluding waiver three because my concern is the intensity and it's all being compressed
in one and we're being asked to just forget about it and that's my concern and if the recommendation could be make it come back and make it less intense and less compressed and fit more of our community rather than a corporate model franchise model drive it more for our
community. None of us have a problem with the Panda Express. None of us have a problem with the restaurant, the food, whatever the issue. The issue is that I'm having is the intensity and the fact that you're compressing all of this onto less than an acre of land. And that takes away from the our rural Vista
guidelines, um our concept and objectives of our town in our comp plan. So my question would be, and I know that was long-winded, I apologize. If we make a motion to however we vote, we'll say to deny it and we can make a
recommendation in there to make it less intense, which leaves them to come back that there's room that they could come back and present it to council or do we just make a recommendation after we make the vote to council that we would like to see I'm I'm not sure less intense
model, less commercial model. Is am I on the right? makes more sense and it's clear for staff and the applicant if you include specific direction in your motion. Um including you know if if possible you know reducing a specific waiver eliminating this adding that the
more direction you can provide to staff and the applicant is better. >> All right. >> Yeah, that was one of my questions. When you say Cassie less intense, can you give some examples of what do you really mean less intense? Is it that you don't
like the fact that the parking spaces are being reduced? You don't like the fact that they're going to be too many signs? You don't like the fact that they have a dual uh drive-thru? >> Well, I think it was kind of >> all of it.
>> Well, I I kind of was kind of I tried to explain it all. So, basically, when we talk about the parking, if you're adding more, first of all, we're a rural community. We have trucks and and that was one of the reasons they had but now you're trying to add smaller parkings. So you're trying to crunch them all in.
So where's the big truck going to park? Over by the hotel. >> So you're adding more into a small space. >> But they said that they they did take into consideration the king size truck and it still fits within that spot. >> So it's not going to fit a dueling with a horse trailer behind it, but it's
going to fit a big enough truck. So, it's not like he's making compact car spots that we can't park our normal vehicles in. It's still a decent size spot, >> right? But >> is that really want to complain about? >> No, I I put it all accumulative on this
thing. So, if we talk about that and the smaller parking that basically has the feeling that you're it's constraining everything. That's what the look it's. It's more urban to me. Okay. instead of our rules which take into the bigger parking spaces which uh is more rural
because there's less you know um let's just say what was the other one on the first one uh landscape >> so the landscape one landscape was to take away the um the um >> foundation planting on the north front
>> the landscape and the facade which one was that was number three >> yes the third one >> it serves a purpose basically to um the landscape then would dominate the site. And we talked about this and that was one of my big things in the pillars
having the developments integrate into the landscape and not the other way around >> and if we eliminate or lessen that I feel that we're basically then having more corporate models dominating the site the building models which was never
the the vision the original vision. So that's that one. And then the loading zones. The loading zones I only went through with the purpose. It was one of the difficult one. Um, that one you probably could, but I just would want to make sure that it was integrated more
into it and it wasn't just trying to that one was I only saw one type of thing. So, it's that one I could probably recommend that stay, but the other ones create more of a to me more of a more with less area. That's what I
see. Does that make sense? >> Makes sense. Um, >> if I may, I >> I'd caution >> Can you Go ahead, Jeff. >> Um, I'd caution the board on trying to to do a redesign. Um, you can make you
can make your suggestions. There's no question about that. uh the applicant has acknowledged that the difficulty um operating in this site is the the width that they have to to work with. Um, and I think if
if there was one thing where you could say, "Oh, this is the item that um would allow me to approve um if we can eliminate that condition. If there would be consensus on on that,
that's fine." Um what I heard from Miss Succi um was she is pointing out what the applicant has pointed out trying to squeeze things
into this into this site and she's not comfortable with that and has articulated her reasons for it. Um, and you know, if the if if her she made her motion uh and it was to the
um it was to the the master the master plan ordinance. But if her motion is really directed to the site plan when that comes up for a vote, um your your rationale can be just that
rather than trying to sit here and um give give design uh criteria to uh to the applicant. They've they've looked at this hard. They've massaged it. um the the sense that uh I think the applicant
gave was you know we've we have worked on on this. So if there was one element that you know would be clear to everybody to say well if you took that away um whether it was
the drive aisle or whatever it happened to be um that might be some direction but your job at this point in time is to determine whether or not uh to recommend to the council that they approve these
things based on your understanding of their compliance or non-compliance. with uh the town's code. Um and obviously anytime anybody asks for a waiver, um
they are admitting that um they're not within the strict confines of the code and they need they would like some relief. Um and you can make your recommendations one way or another. Um I just don't want us to get into, you
know, a redesign of the site at this point in time. Well, Jeff, I'm confused on this update. Maybe you can explain to me on page 22 or no, 172 where this specifically is saying
pod B3 asks for this waiver. Why are you narrowing it down to a specific pod? This should be a generic waiver that allows any >> future pod to ask for. Is that not the purpose of the master plan?
>> They're more specific um to that exact pod so that if another applicant comes in, they would have to amend um to also request the same um type of uh waiver. So, it gives the town actually a little bit more protection in the way that it's
written um and that it's specific to B3. So, if a pod to the north came in and wanted that waiver, they'd have to make the same type of amendment and request can write it however um >> okay, >> however it's needed, but they actually tailored it and narrowed it a little bit more than um just kind of leaving it
open for everyone to use. You'll see there's references in some of the uh waivers above to pod TC. Um so there's and pod G. So there's >> existing waiverss that are also limited by pod, >> you know, ask us to vote on the same
thing multiple times. I mean, I can't vote yes on this master plan >> because unfortunately that's the way that it's written. >> I don't support the resolution. So >> So that's why if you vote conflict for me to say yes here and no there, >> right? So that's why we're doing it in
this order. Uh okay, vote on the master plan ordinance. If you're not inclined or in favor of the waivers, then you're likely not in favor of them when you get to the the site plan inclusive of the waivers through that resolution. >> That's 03 is the master plan,
>> the ordinance 2603. >> Make a motion to deny the master plan >> 202603. >> Okay, I'll second the motion. Any more comment? This is where you talk about if you want
to explain why you're going to vote. We set you on what I'm talking about. This is where we have a discussion after the first and the second. So, >> okay. All those in favor? I >> I >> opposed. Was there four eyes? I guess hearing none.
>> Do we do we need a roll call? Because what was there was there clear affirmation one way or another? We need to have that. We can't. >> Madam clerk, >> Jeff, um I say it's complicated. I'm very confused because when I met with
them, I thought that the master plan was approved. So why is it that we why is it that we are going over that when in reality are the variances that they're asking for into question? I don't I
don't understand. >> Um there is an approved master plan. they are seeking um additional relief and in order for them to request the additional relief they need to amend the master plan. I think that's the simplest
way I can can phrase it. I don't know if Caitlyn wants to >> take another shot at it, but >> yeah. No, that that's a good explanation, Jeff. There's a limiting section of the ordinance that accompanies the master plan. So if you
think of the master plan as two parts again the ordinance itself which is the text and then there's the drawing. So in order to request the waiverss there is a a limiting component section H of the ordinance which is the text part one
we'll call it of the master plan and that lists all the types of waiverss they may ask for. Right? So currently there's four different waiverss that are approvable for the uh council to consider. You're not approving them. You're just adding them to this list of
things you may consider. >> Okay? >> So for them to even ask the town for it, you have to update this list under section H of the ordinance and say we would like to even be able to request these additional waivers. Okay. Now, in
the land development code, which is the the the zoning code, there's a whole section that says here's what you can apply for um as a waiver, which is different than a variance or different criteria. And there's that's pretty open-ended. There's a lot of latitude in
what they can ask for in the waiver. So, what they're asking for um in terms of waivers is permissible under the land development code. can ask for it, but because there's this other limiting component in the ordinance that says you can only ask for these four types of waiverss currently, they have to expand
that list to now the seven potential waivers. And then through the next action through the site plan um resolution, now they're teed up to be able to make that request because your master plan ordinance says yes, you can ask for a waiver of one of these seven
things. And then you would either grant or deny those um those waiverss through that vote because those are specific to their their pod in their application. >> Okay. So I'll make a motion to approve. >> We have we have a motion. >> I can do the same.
>> No, no, no. We're the final vote on this. >> Okay. So >> yeah, there was the there there was a motion and at least two affirmative votes. We need to make sure what uh the other folks whether you
voted for or against this. So I think a roll call vote is probably inappropriate >> and and it is it is okay. All of these items relate to this singular ultimate application.
Um so uh they need all these things to occur in order for um the application to be ultimately approved. Um and uh then the
master plan amendment uh sitting alone doesn't because it is specific to their application doesn't really do anybody um in the future much good. So, it's okay to vote
on all these items based on this very particular application. >> Okay. Madame clerk, can we get a roll call vote? >> Yes. So, what I heard was Vice Chair Sushi made the motion. >> No. Do just call out each council member
and board member and they'll give you a yes or a no. >> Gotcha. >> Chair, the motion. Read the motion again to deny. >> What was the motion? The motion is to deny the master plan request master plan amendment as presented. Okay. >> So vote yes would be to deny. Vote no
would be to approve. >> Yeah. >> Um chair shore. >> Yes. >> Vice chair Suchi. >> Yes to deny. Right. >> Yes. >> Member Vasquez Martinez.
>> No. >> Member White. >> No. Yes. Motion fails. Two two. >> So I >> Well, we need that fifth person. >> Yeah. So if if you if somebody wants to
to try a motion to approve >> um you can you can consider that or or approve with conditions. You can make that motion. Yes, I I'll make a motion to approve um
master plan 202603 >> with condition to the variance. Yes. >> No, this is specific to master plan. >> But there are staff recommended conditions >> with no condition. Then >> would you want to include the staff recommended conditions of approval in the ordinance?
There's a there's a handful um in the ordinance primarily pertaining to the fact that all of the previous u conditions remain in effect. They'll pay cost recovery and things like that. >> I think I read all that. I didn't see anything that triggered to me. So >> So inclusive of staff recommendations.
>> So you're making a motion to approve resolution 2026 >> ordinance. Ordinance >> as presented. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Got a motion set. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Second by Arlene. All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. I >> two two. Okay, we'll move on to the resolution. >> So the the next resolution um would be the variance
>> 49. >> Um that's correct. 202649 because you can't approve the site plan without the variances. So it does include the master sign plan. I make a motion to deny 202649. >> Second.
>> Motion by Cassie, second by me. All those in favor? >> 202649. What page is it on our agenda, Kaylin? Are you >> I'm scrolling to find where they have that on.
Um, >> this is 20 2021 18 course I can find it now that I'm looking for it. >> I've got 202650, but I don't see 49. >> 49. I got the signage.
49 variant >> for the signage. >> That's right. >> 49 is for the signage. >> 49 is for signage >> and the parking space is the first one. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And what's the number for that one? I
can >> 03. >> That was 20263. >> That's the one we Okay. >> We just voted on. This one's for all the signage, the waiverss for the signage. somebody who doesn't decide depend on
how they're going to fit the stuff into the property. So I mean you may be reducing that based on whatever option >> where's it at in our >> it's not there then
>> that's not good. Yeah, >> there's materials in here. I'm going to go ahead and pop this hydra. You need one. >> No, no, no, it's not in there. >> Help me understand the difference
between 50 and 49. 50 is the whole site plan. 49 is specific to the variances which is Yeah. And that's strictly pertaining to signage on site. 50 is the site plan inclusive of the master sign plan. The
master sign plan as presented would require approval of the variances. And also within 50 is the waivers as part of the uh site plan package. >> Oh, so the waivers aren't variances. is the
>> correct there's a distinct big >> they're different many okay >> two distinct um processes >> waivers are just >> yeah different criteria for waiverss >> because in the m >> I already got theution from his slide
>> okay they took me off the screen >> was a good slide >> yeah 50's waiver okay so 49's very all right makes sense now thank Mhm. >> This is practice for when it goes before council.
>> Yeah. >> And Kayla, this may be out of order, but let me know. Would there be any entertainment from anyone a member of the board that would want to go back to 20263 and make a motion for approval with conditions
>> with I'm not sure once the motion's failed if how many times you can revisit it? Uh >> we can it would it would require somebody on the prevailing side um which in this
case would be somebody who voted against um the motion um because it failed. Um, and if you wanted to propose a condition or a modification to a
condition um that might sway uh one of those two people um you could give it a try and if they are uh if they accept that uh then
one of the two people who voted against um the approval um could uh could bring it back forward. The only the only conditions that you two would agree to would be making
the footprint >> less intensive and um not >> there's there's not >> Yeah, >> you sign it twice.
>> Well, yeah. And >> I mean like we talked about reducing the the um the drive-thru to one lane whether they could do that and then >> we finished this motion back. Well, he's asked us if we want to change. >> Can we do this motion first?
>> What? Everybody read this. Make sure we understand it here. I >> think there was a motion in a second if I heard correctly on the um >> on the variance resolution. if we can if
we can finish the vote and the roll call on that and then if there's a desire from the uh board to revisit the motion per what Jeff explained for the master plan ordinance can move forward with that if Jeff you agree with that. >> Uh yeah, I thought this
>> I thought the concern was that they wanted to identify where it was in the package and um did somebody get them the copy of the resolution? >> Yeah, we just got it. Okay. >> Right. So, we have a motion on the floor
to second. So, do we need you want to do roll call? What car? It is your decision on how you want to proceed. >> I'm going through this to to see if this stands. >> Gotcha. >> Because I don't see
>> Yes, it's described in exhibit A. So the motion is to deny >> a >> 2026 09 04. >> That's that's the motion on the floor
>> that you just handed up. >> So this resolution references >> more specifically describing exhibit A. >> Exhibit A is the location map and exhibit B is the project narrative that's in the um agenda packet. Okay, I'm trying to find exhibit B.
>> Exhibit B is in your agenda package is the project narrative, >> but the resolution doesn't reference exhibit B. >> It's the there's a a cover sheet um that explains that it's the project narrative which is included in your agenda
package. learning here. This is much more confusing than it needs to be. >> It's written right here what it's doing. >> Whereas the variance applications, do you want to delete it? >> No, I want to know where the reference
is. All All the reference on here is a site plane. This the only thing on here. >> Where is the variance between? >> There's nothing on here. >> This is the menu boards, the number of
boards, the additional items. as regulated by >> so this whereas where it describes it that's >> that's in maximum size increasing the number additional signs okay so there's no details in the
resolution it just references that it's uh pertains to increasing the maximum imum size of menu boards, number of menu boards inclusive additional sign types. So there's no reference in that resolution on the actual documents in
the agenda >> that show you the sign types and everything which is >> the master signage. So, so the variances as explained by the presentation was the number of permitted signs which board
member has >> discussed, >> the size of the menu boards and then the type of the signs that are being provided. >> Those are the three things that are under the variance request >> which is listed right here. >> Yes. And the sign package and the
project narrative are in your agenda package. >> Yeah. I was just trying to >> project narrative starts on page 150. >> It's on page 124 in our agenda. >> Okay, that's where it has the resolution number. Okay.
124. Okay. Thank you. Got a motion and a second. Motion by Cassie, second by me to deny
or not approve resolution 202649. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> I opposed none. Motion passes 40. >> Okay. Okay, now we've got 202650
which is in our agenda. >> Didn't we already do that? >> We already did that. >> No, you haven't. >> No, you haven't done that when you >> Oh, we didn't do >> Yes, we did two. >> Did we do 50? >> No. >> Yes, >> you have not done 50. We did >> 2603.
>> We did 03. >> Did the master one which was three? Then we did >> 20263 >> ordinance ordinance 20263 was the master plan. >> So now we have resolution. >> You just did the resolution 49.
>> Resolution 50 is I had it here. >> I had it. >> 202650 includes the site plan with waiverss and the master sign plan >> which includes the variances. deny 202650.
>> You made a motion to what? >> To deny 202650. >> I'll second that. >> Got a motion. >> Master plan. >> That's the master plan. >> There it is. Turn right to it.
>> Hold on. It should be page on page 144. Here it is. >> We got a motion to second. Any comments? >> And when >> the only way you can make recommendations is to approve it with
considerations. You can't deny it with considerations. Correct. >> You can deny it, but you can give um your opinion as to why you're denying it, which It could lead to potential changes based upon why you're designing
it. >> You're right. You don't do a denial. Unless I'm wrong, Jeff. You don't do a denial of the conditions. >> I tell you, they said had a great synopsis of the double lanes and the road rage. >> I mean, that I've been there. >> I haven't had the road rage, but
>> I was hoping they'd hurry up and take my order so I could be next. concerns from the town, you know, about what what the main thing that they want you to do. And I think before you go to town council, you need to consider those
because you're going to meet the same group there. You know, there's going to be >> yes, >> to one on that board. I think that's more closed than open. Here you have a 22, but there you're going to have a three
to package. >> So, you know, you're going to have a rougher time when you get out in front of them as far as trying to comply to what the Lockxahhatche Groves standards. >> Yeah. No, no one wants to make a motion to approve with a whole lot of
conditions. Yeah, that's what I said with a whole lot of conditions like reduce the footprint, make um you know, I I think I I personally I don't think the size of the space matters too much to me, but I would like to see some trees planted or something to try to
buffer the concrete again. So, if we could have some foliage there, that might be better. >> I don't know. >> Well, my suggestion would be you have a motion in a second on the floor. So my suggestion is to vote on that motion and then once that's done then you can then
whatever you feel >> my understanding we wrote the motions. >> All those in favor of denying 2026-050 say I >> conditions I there's no conditions in the motion.
>> Is there a second? Sorry I just >> Yeah, I second. >> Yep. This is just a as written >> denial. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed.
Opposed. Anybody opposed? Or zero. >> Now we make recommendations. >> Now we make recommendations. >> So I mean heard, you know, I mean, are there any questions that you have from us? Jeff, I
>> I'm just I I just wanted to make sure is I understood that that uh that motion was approved for nothing. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. So, the matter's been denied. >> The recommendations we had was just to
reduce the site plan, you know, to make it not so packed and to try to maybe go to the one lane instead of two if that is possible so we can get some more space. That's all. And make it less. And then the signage, you know, like we
talked about if if the signage is on the ground instead of standing up, maybe that would be an easier way for them to feel that it's not so in your face, you know, and I know it's still the same sign approval, but it may just be a little bit easier on the eyes for the
the crew that you're going to face next. >> I understand. I appreciate that. I know like like one thing we're talking about the foundation planting and know how how can you make that work and know how everyone else did well everyone else put that trash enclosure and they put it way up on the alocotta right away right
>> that's what everyone else has done that that's allowed by code too so we we kind of felt and our mo is to keep that trash enclosure for two reason right next to the building one it's safer safer distance for trash employees late they're going out late at night sometimes after closing get the trash out uh and secondly it does kind of
block that So we would have not that trash encoder way out the corner like you have at the car wash and you have a Culver. It's way out there in the corner lot. It's barely covered. Some of those headers like knee high and some of those ones. So we had it right next to the
building. And that also solves a lot of our spatial problems because you can also have your drive-thru or your delivery area through there. Your trash enclosure double that space up so you don't have to waste space with a trash enclosure on the back end. Um, so that that's that's one reason why we couldn't
meet that code and that alternatively put that trash enclosure way in the back end, which I don't think we want to do, but technically that would meet code and take the waiver away. So, might be something we have to consider. Um, we are overparked, so we we could also potentially eliminate spots altogether.
Um, we'd have less parking, but I don't think it's going to be any better. Uh, we'll have to see if we can make that work. angle parking circulation, the things we're going to investigate to try to eliminate those waiverss. Um,
>> outdoor seating. >> So, we we have to discuss that. That is not on the plan. This was something that we discussed very recently with uh the operations and and the uh design team at Panda Express. Uh they are very outward reaching. They're very happy to engage a lot of they want people to see it.
That's why the building looks so pretty on the inside, which isn't part of this package. Wish you could see it. Um, but we did talk about including benches uh along southern along that walkway, the 88 path, the sidewalk went up and down to the building from the rightway. We think it makes sense. People coming in
going to Panda, they're not going to walk with a bowl of rice, right? You don't that's not something you do. You don't walk around. You have food. You sit down and eat it. Let's have a bench over there, put some trees over. We considered that, but it would have been an even later ad than the alternative site plant or elevation. We didn't want to spring that on you, but that has been considered something we would do as
well. Uh we've also considered uh this >> building design that you came up with was nice, but that should show landscaping because you're just showing a building with all concrete. You know that final and I know it's a new >> render in that you you know recently did
it >> that should show landscaping. You should >> try to get more and not get a variance for less. That's just my opinion >> into the envir to the landscape. Did you get the direction you were looking for on the alternative
architectural packages? You presented two. I think you were looking for some feedback about whether to go with one versus the other. >> Yeah, we never got to a uh a recommendation on on the sign on the building. I always say it was not actually one of our resolutions. I was hoping someone might bring it up one of the uh the conditions. Uh if you thought
that last elevation we provided you was >> Yes. >> more in line with your understanding >> said uh >> less intense, >> right? or something. >> But it just showed concrete and building. >> Yeah. >> You know, >> plants. >> Try to show as much bunch lands. >> I was thinking you could put trees on
the roof and then you could get >> We're not kabas. >> We're not park up on top of it or you could sit and eat your rice bowl. Right. >> And then we will go I guess we'll have to take this back and we'll go back to the draw board when we obviously really
do appreciate everyone's consideration and time. I know some of you spend a lot of time looking at this for for several hours, I'm sure, and investigating. So, I really appreciate everyone's time. Um, it's a thankless job sometimes that you guys do. So, appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> We're sorry.
Get it. >> All right. Any uh >> insight. Yeah. >> Committee member comments. >> Um, yes. Me personally, um, I like to see business like yours succeed.
I know that loahachi is a little different. >> Um, but it doesn't mean it can't be done. It's going to be possible and today you show that you're open to listen
to our concerns and we appreciate that a lot. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Jesse. General comment. Um, just what Lette said, we're not against it, but it comes back to will you adapt to bitlocks
at your groves or do we have to adapt to fit you and I think you've got the general idea. All of us were residents. We have no problem with businesses and that just we don't we have rules to protect our town. We worked really hard to do that. There have been some bad
decisions, but I definitely like that you guys are moving forward your designs, things like that. So you definitely Thank you for the hang. >> Okay. >> Was that a general? >> Um
>> yeah, staff's got to do a better job of organizing this agenda. There is so much fluff in here. I mean, for this thing to be 200 and I don't know how many pages.
I mean, all the different when they acquired the property and all that backup. I don't understand why that's in here. And, you know, cuz uh and there's got to
be a better way to organize it. And uh you know to not even have the resolution here is a a big uh big fooa. That's not expired word, right? That's just a >> No, that's sorry. I heard it once. But uh and you
know, you said I'm sorry earlier. You know, I've been on the board a while, so I'm trying to move things along, but you're you're learning now how the process works with the motions and the second and then the discussion and then the votes. And so,
>> I forgive you. I don't hold grudges. >> We're getting there. >> Say, I forgive you. >> And the fact that it's two to do, it just is what it is. And uh it's it's nothing good or bad for anybody. Uh hopefully
we'll get that fifth person soon and uh we won't have two to two ties because uh that's the reason you have an odd number but you know it is what it is and any other comments from staff or Okay, meeting adjourned. Thank you. >> I make a move. Do we have to make a motion or
>> Oh, we need a motion to adjurnn. >> Do we need a motion? >> Okay, sorry. >> I make a motion to adjurnn the meeting. Is >> there a second? >> Arlene second. >> Thank you. >> All those in favor? Hi. >> I didn't know that.
session. Mhm.