All right. Good evening. Good evening and welcome to the What month are we in? June to the June 9th um planning and zoning meeting. Um we will have invocation led by Mr. Keller and pledge
of allegiance by Mr. Galvin. Let's stand. >> Heavenly Father, we ask your blessing on our meeting tonight. Give us the wisdom to make good decisions for our city. We ask a blessing on all of our staff and what they do to help us uh and help our
city. Lord, we ask blessing on all of our citizens. Keep them safe, keep them well. A special blessing, Lord, on all our first responders. Keep them safe as they go about the job of keeping us safe. And last, Lord, we ask blessing on our military wherever they are in the world. Keep them safe and bring them
home to us. We ask all of this in your name. Amen. >> Amen. >> Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
>> Thank you. >> Roll call, please. >> Chair Lomneck is absent. Vice Chair Forges >> here. >> Member Keller >> here. >> Member Shakon >> here. >> Member Galvin >> here. >> Member Butler >> here. >> You have a quorum. >> Thank you very much. All right. Now
we're are moving to the consent agenda. Um, if unless you guys have any questions, can I have a motion? >> Motion to approve. >> Motion by Mr. Keller. >> Second by Mr. Shakon. >> Any comments? If not, let's vote. Motion to approve. Thank you. Um, old
building. I'm sorry, old business. We do not have any new business. Um, looks like we have 5068 Oair Street. the um looks like this is an annexation as well as a reszoning and
presented by planner Biz Bizier. Thank you. >> Everyone located Orange County locateds The area is vacant.
during the zoning also. I recommend also Perfect. >> Are there any question for staff? >> I I have one. Yeah. I drove by the
property today and I mean that grass is almost like reaching my height. I mean I know it's not an HO or anything like that, but any recommendation at all when someone's coming. I mean especially you have a presentation coming in today. You want to annex, you want you want to reszone, but you don't cut the grass.
>> Yeah, because it is on the dare street. I mean, everyone sees it. I mean, it really should have been sighted. Even the sign you put there last week is is basically you can't even see it. >> Okay. Is the applicant here? Guess not. All right. Well, we'll bring
it back over here. So, um, let's see. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to, uh, approve annexation AX03-26-01 of the 5068 Adair Street. Adair Street. >> All right. We have a motion for to
recommend annexation by uh, Mr. Keller. Um, I have a second. >> I'll second. Second by Mr. Butler. Any question? Let's vote. All right. Now, I need a motion for re for the reszoning of this property. Um
RZ260.301. >> Uh Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion a recommendation of approval for the reszoning of project number RZ26-003-01. Perfect. Can I have a second? >> Second.
>> All right. Second by Mr. Kron Kron. My apologies. >> Uh if there are no other discussion, let's vote. >> All right. Motion carries. >> Perfect. All right. Comments, any updates?
more items >> where >> you got you got the Walmart neighborhood. >> I don't I'm sorry. I got my cheat sheet over here. >> My apologies. Oh, here we go. Item two. Here we go. All right. Where's our project over here? Item two, we have uh where is it?
Over here. Oh, yep. Okay. Walmart um neighborhood marketplace sign variance project number U VR2602 printer is here. Hey. Uh so this is for the Walmart
neighborhood market located at 10738 Clarky Road for the proposed sign variance. Okay. So for issues, it is should the planning and zoning commission recommend approval of the variances to article 8 sections 8-6A and 8-6D of the land
development code as follows. There is a lot. A maximum sign height of 10'4 in for the north sign elevation. A maximum sign height of 7'9 in for the east side elevation. A maximum sign area of 459 square ft for the north sign elevation.
a maximum sign area of 159 square feet for the east side elevation, a maximum sign height of 1t6 inches for the north canopy sign, and then a maximum sign width of 22 feet for the north canopy sign. For background, the property is located
within the Okoy Village Center PUD with frontage along Clark Road and North Lakewood Avenue. And the proposed size of the building is 48,585 ft. Here we have the aerial photography of
the property. The lots have been aggregated since its um final site plan review. The surrounding zoning map again showing that PUD designation for the property and its adjacent areas. The future land use map showing the
commercial future land use. And so per section 4-9A of the land development code variance variances must exhibit meaning four different criteria. The first that there are special conditions or circumstances that exist that are peculiar to the property that
are not applicable to other properties. that the literal interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners, that special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, and that the granting of the variance request would
not confer special privileges to the applicant. So, here is the previously approved site plan for the neighborhood Walmart. Um, it is within a PUD. However, the PD doesn't um distinguish any different signage codes. So, it deferred to the
land development code. And for the land development code, the sign area is bit dependent on the size of the building and the frontage. So, because the building is up to 50,000 square feet and its frontage, it's allowed a sign area of 100 square feet and a maximum sign
height of 4 feet per elevation. So, this is what they submitted as their proposed signage package for their wall signs. Um, showing the signage along each elevation. And then it's a little bit small, but this just shows the details of the
dimensions and the square footages for each of the different signs. And this is for both the north elevation and the east elevation. Okay. So, based on what's has been provided, staff has determined that there are no special conditions or circumstances that exist that are
peculiar to the property. Like other um non-residential buildings within the city, they are all all subject to the same signage requirements and staff doesn't identify any special conditions or circumstances that would justify the significant increase in signage, copy
area, height, or width. that the literal interpretation of the regulations do not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties. Um because the property is a corner lot, they have the bonus of an additional sign on the other elevation.
So if anything, it gives them ample signage to have on their building. Um three, that the circumstances of the variance are the result of the applicant wanting an increase in the copy area, height, and width of all the signs. um and they are able of being compliant to
code if they reduce the proposed um sign the font size and the logo size and that for the granting of the variance would confer a special privilege onto the applicant. As I previously mentioned, other non-residential buildings are subject to
the same signage code and staff doesn't identify any justification for the increase in size. So with that, staff recommends that the planning and zoning commission make a recommendation of denial of the requested variances to article 8
sections 8-6A and 8-6D of land development code to not allow again those listed of the variance requests. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Yeah, I I think I have a couple of
questions because I'm I'm actually torn on this one. Sure. I the my my my original thinking is I tend to agree with staff's recommendation that we shouldn't agree with this, but I remember back in the day when I was
first got on the city commission, we landed up losing having um oh, what's the uh what's the Cracker Barrel? Because we wouldn't let them have the porch. And I know this isn't a porch. This is
signs, but I'm looking at it and my question is or I guess there's a few questions. One, are the signs just out on the main roads and not facing the buildings themselves that that the residents are in?
>> Yeah. So, the signs are proposed facing um sorry >> facing Clarka Koi Road and then North Lakewood Avenue. >> Lakewood. Okay. So, and then my second question is, is this
the standard sign that they have on all of their family markets? Like, if I was to go to the one that's out on 50 now. >> Yeah. >> Am I talking about the exact same signs? They're not looking for anything spe
special for us. Yes. Not special for what they do normally. >> Right. So, I did look at that. um Walmart and the size of the building is almost four times the size of this one. So the allowed copy area and height is almost proportionate to the building. So
that building was allowed a um signed copy area of 200 square feet and a height of eight. So it's appropriate for that size of the building. This one is a little bit under 50,000. So it's capped at the 100 square feet of copy area and four feet height.
>> Okay. Because like I said, my I'm torn on this one. One, I don't want to lose, you know, I don't want to give it to them because, you know, just because it's Walmart. At the same time, I don't want another Cracker Barrel where we lose a good
um client simply because, well, your sign was too big and they said, you know what, this is our regular sign. We're out of here. If if you're not going to play play nice, we're we don't want to play at all. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, I think that's the only reason I asked. >> They have submitted and have received
approval for their final site plan and they are under review for site work and building as well. >> So, okay. So, we're not we're not going to lose them. >> Okay. All right. Safe to say >> we're not going to lose them. Sorry. >> No, that's it. I I I only have I just
wanted to clarify. We're just talking about the sign that's on the building, not necessarily the monument sign because I'm pretty sure they're going to have another one, right? only the wall signs physically affixed to the building and I'll show you which ones they're >> Okay. No, no, no. I I saw that. Just want to make sure. >> Yep. Just the wall
>> because I know they typically have when Well, whenever allowed, they usually have a a one on the street as well. So, so that's not that's not going to be the one that we're >> Are you referring to like a monument sign? >> Correct. Monument sign. >> Yeah. That they're not proposing any monument signs. Just wall signage right now. >> Just just Okay. Just a wall sign. Okay.
Again, in my opinion, I think you can see a Walmart from a mile away. I don't care how big the sign is. It's the same color, same building, same size. So, I don't I would agree with staff um with the recommendation. Um anybody else have any comments? >> Okay. All right. Um looks like the
applicant's not here, but I asked for anyways. I I maybe they're they're on the phone somewhere now. >> They're on the phone. Okay. All right. >> Just open and close the public. Is it I think this is a public hearing, so you got to open and close it, right? >> Yeah. Okay. So, I guess we'll go ahead and close and close the public hearing, bring it back to us. So, if um if there
are no other comments or can I have a a motion to either recommend approval or disapproval for this for item number two. >> Uh, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we uh go with staff's uh recommendation of denying
the um increase in signage for the uh Walmart neighborhood market signed variance. >> Okay, I've got a motion to recommend denial by member Keller. >> Second. second by Mr. Mr. Kush Shakan. My apologies.
>> You get it, >> Mr. I'll get it. >> Yeah. >> If there are no other comments, let's go ahead and vote. >> All right. Looks like a motion to approve. Perfect. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> One last for you. >> That's right. No, I'm not gonna rush to
get out of here. We have a third one. Here we go. Okay. Here we go. Third item on the agenda over here. Looks like it's a text amendment to the land development code um creating section 4-13 to establish the regulations and procedures for certified recovery residence
residencies um presented by Mr. McFaren. >> Yes, sir. Good evening everybody. >> Good evening. Um, tonight I'm bringing before you an item on whether the planning and zoning commission acting as a local PZA or LPA should recommend approval for this proposed text
amendment amending article four of the Okoi develop uh land development code to create section 4-13 which it would be to establish regulations and procedures for certified recovery residences including a process for requesting reasonable accommodation
as required by chapter 2025 or um excuse me yeah chapter 2025-182. to um Florida statutes. So, a bit of background on this. Uh SB954 was signed into law last year by Governor Dantis with an effective date
of July 1st, 2025. Uh the purpose of this bill was really to require an opportunity or to require local governments to provide an opportunity for uh certified recovery residences to seek any accommodation uh from municipal
land use regulations, uh zoning district restrictions, distance requirements, buffers, um anything. Um now a certified recovery residence is defined by Florida statute as a residential dwelling unit. The community housing component of a licensed day or
night treatment facility with community housing or other form of group housing which is uh offered or advertised through any means including oral, written, electronic or printed means by any person or entity as a residence that provides a peerupported alcohol-free and
drug-free living environment. Um I just want to note that currently the city has no certified recovery residences within uh our city boundary. Um, as far as staffer can remember, we have never received an inquiry um, in recent memory
regarding a certified recovery residence. And in our own land development code, the only reference that we have to certified recovery residences is defining them within our own land development code. Um, if a certified recovery residence was seeking
to apply within the city, uh, we would be required to ask them for a local business tax receipt and they would undergo that process. Uh, they would maybe be required to go through our, uh, building and fire department for any kind of alterations that they were
looking to do to the residents. Um but other than that, staff has identified no process or restrictions that the city has placed specifically on certified recovery residences. So with that, um staff is recommending that the uh PCC
um recommend approval to the city commission for the proposed text amendment that would amend article 4 of the Okoi Land Development Code, which would create section 4-13, which is just to establish uh regulations and procedures that are
required by statute um for certified recovery residences that are seeking a an accommodation from the city's land development code um and required by this recent law that was passed uh last year. I'd be happy to answer any questions regarding the uh proposed ordinance.
>> All right. Question for staff. >> Yeah. So, so what what is the impact? >> Yeah. of this. >> Yeah. So this would just create a opportunity for if a certified recovery residence uh was coming into the city
and thought that our municipal code was too restrictive um it would create a process for them to request accommodation from any portion of our code that would restrict them. >> Okay. >> Now the city doesn't currently have anything in our land development code
that would further restrict somebody coming in asking for this. um staff is really bringing this before you and the city commission to comply with Florida statutes. Um we're required by statute to have this language in our land development code.
>> Okay. So we can consider have the discussions and >> Yeah. So, all this would be doing is making it so that staff now has a procedure that if if if in our land development code update that we are going to be bringing before you and the city commission for consideration in in
the future, if we were to enact any kind of regulations regarding certified recovery residences and any buffer requirements or restrictions on, you know, um minimum distance from schools, what have you. I mean, it could be anything. Um, this would create an
opportunity for those applicants to then come to staff seeking an accommodation from those requirements and it it institutes a process in which staff can take in those applications uh for that accommodation. We have a certain time frame in which to respond to the
accommodation request and then we would then uh go through that process with with the applicant >> and it's just to comply with uh Florida statute. Yeah, >> I I do have a couple of questions. >> Sure. >> Now, this
um statute goes to um city ordinances. Does it affect subdivision um HOAs that for I'm looking at the deed
title HOAs because what I'm looking at is if all of a sudden someone says, "Well, you know what? I want to put one in this subdivision which has certain requirements for what they can and can't do on the property." >> Sure. and they come in and say, "Well,
we're exempt from all that because this the state says so." >> Yeah. >> Is the state exempting them from that as well, or is the state just exempting them from the city requirements? >> Good question. So, this um to staff's
knowledge wouldn't affect those deedestricted communities. uh somebody wanting to establish a certified recovery residence would still have to follow the restrictions in those deed restricted communities. This is just for um seeking relief from any city
ordinances that the city wants to pass restricting these uh residences. >> Okay. And then the the other question was more of a technical one. What was I was reading this I noticed that it says SB 180 prevents us from adding this to
our land development code but then SB9 what is it 954 says we have to add it to our land development code. So how does that work? So, S SB80 uh the language in it to to my memory um restricts local
government's ability to adopt um ordinances or or codes that are more restrictive or burdensome. This is in fact the opposite. So, it's it's creating an opportunity for applicants to come in and seek relief
from say we did have any restrictions on these. it would be allowing them to come in and seek relief from those restrictions. So, we we as a municipality are still able to adopt uh updates to our land development code, especially ones that comply with uh Florida statute.
>> We at the time are or currently are restricted on adopting ordinances or or codes that would create uh more of a burden uh for applicants or developers. >> Yes. >> Thank you. That's all. Can we identify
any properties here at all or these are currently being used as a recovery as certified recovery residence? >> Um, so I did some research and according to I believe it's the Florida Association of Recovery Residences. Uh
there are no uh recovery residences that are certified with the state within the boundaries of OKOE. Um the ones that I could identify were in Winter Park, Orlando, and maybe some other places nearby, but currently there's none registered with
the state that have undergone that process in the city. >> So, and again, staff in my time with the city, I've I've never had somebody come in and >> have any questions regarding these. This is the first uh honestly when we came across this bill, it was the first time I had heard of certified recovery
residences. So, it's not something that we commonly get. Not to say that it couldn't happen. >> And and what and given that, can you give us an idea of what regulations you would plan to impose? I mean, give us an because I'd like to have an idea of where we're going with this.
>> Yeah. So, it would be stuff that we would consider in our comprehensive update to our land development code that we'll be bringing back before you and the city commission that staff is working on currently. Um, I can't speak to anything specific, but the things that come to mind, uh, based on other municipalities would be distance
requirements from schools. Um, with group homes, for example, we have, uh, distance requirements from other group homes so that they're not all clustered in one specific area. So, that's the things that come to mind immediately. Um, beyond that, staff would we'd probably have to do more research on
what other municipalities do um, and what other restrictions have been deemed legal. uh or compliant um that we because we don't want to create something that then creates an opportunity for somebody to come and challenge and create problems. >> Well, that's kind of where I am too
because I'm kind of like I have an idea of what is it that we are going to >> you know to add you know some ideas. I mean it is there an application somewhere that that we that we're doing this you know before we have to make approval. I mean it just it just doesn't
I'm not comfortable that it's here without having any idea of what is it that we are going to impose as regulations. >> Yeah. >> This is basically saying you have to follow the state law. >> Unfortunately this is >> but there will be limitation once we once we approve this be limitation for
someone who wants to apply. But what what what are they? I mean you mentioned distance from from school. How would this >> affect a school? >> Yeah. So that's that is something that we we definitely want to look at as a as a city. Um especially when we redo our land development code that we're
currently doing, but at this time this this ordinance is just to comply with state statute. It's it's just to ensure that there is a process in our code that allows for applicants to seek that kind of rel >> because we don't have it now. >> We and we have nothing for them to seek
relief from currently. >> Okay. And it's just to seek consideration >> which is probably why we don't have one in no fixes. >> They can't actually come right now. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. There's there's nothing. >> Very well. Perfect. >> Yep. >> Um >> so I mean we'll have these regulations
in place if if we were to approve this. We'll have regulations in place before we let um let someone come in and become a >> certified. Let's say this scenario happens. Um we the city adopts this ordinance which is to create an opportunity for applicants coming in to
seek relief from any ordinance that we have that they think they deserve accommodation from. It passes and it's adopted into our code. The next week we get an application for a certified recovery residence. Currently under our code we would have to just treat that as
a local business tax application. Um we have nothing in our land development code that specifically restricts certified recovery residences. Um and to um Vice Chair Forge's point, there's um stuff that we can include when we uh
work on our land development code update that includes buffering requirements um minimum distances from schools. Um but currently the city has not adopted and has nothing in our land development code regarding that. Got So >> should that though create the precedence
of what you accept as a city that that can be deemed reasonable and legal for this kind of u >> Yeah. Well that's something that staff we because we have never had these applications before. Um and honestly we've never looked into like what the
the case law I guess is and what the precedent is for what a reasonable accommodation is. We're not sure what the state or courts consider to be a reasonable accommodation um or what what precedent has been set because there's been none
in in the city. So >> yeah, >> basically right now if somebody applied for one, we don't have anything stopping them. >> Yes. >> That they would want to use this rule against because there there isn't anything to >> to say that yes, >> we we're not allowing it because of
>> there's nothing for them to seek an accommodation from. So there's no way to seek an accommodation because there's nothing to be accommodated from. >> Now again, >> as it stands at AOE today, >> when staff brings before you and the city commission our updated land development code, there certainly may be restrictions in that that someone could
come and seek an accommodation from, but at this time there's nothing in our current land development code. >> Understood. All right. Any more comments from All right. Let's open this to a public hearing. Anyone in the public? No. Anyone on phone, emails? Uh we'll go
ahead and close the product hearing bring back to us for a motion to approve or disapprove. >> Uh Mr. Chair, I I'd like to make a um motion and recommendation of approval for the text amendment to the land development code creating section 4-13 to establish the regulations and
procedures for the certified recovery residences. >> All right, we have a motion to recommend approval by um member Butler. Do you have a second? >> I'll make a second. All right. Second by member Keller. Any comments? Let's vote.
Motion carries. Now I can go to mis miscellaneous items. There you go. And rush this thing out and go back life. >> We have a workshop, sir. >> We have a workshop. >> Oh, yeah. I'm gonna drag this thing out. Let's have a workshop. There you go. Open space. There you go. Open space
workshop. Let's have a workshop. All right. We usually have those in the background, don't we? There we go. Okay. Continuing on our land development code uh subject. Uh here I'm going to talk about and this is just a workshop only. We'll come back in
the future about our imperous surface and kind of our open space requirements that are in our land development code. So, uh, the reason why we're doing this and bringing this to you, um, right now we actually have quite a few, uh, properties out there and subdivisions
that have a 50% impervious surface requirement. However, a lot of them have already built above that. And right now with some code violations or with somebody wanting to put something else in and seeing their neighbor already has that, we're trying to figure out a mechanism uh, to accommodate that. Well,
we're developing and updating our land development code or our update to the land development code. So, we're looking for a policy kind of as a stop gap right now um to kind of accommodate these uh residents that we have within the city currently uh that could and it seems
reasonable that we could go beyond that 50% imperous surface. So, we're going to look at kind of where we have it in the code right now um how it's kind of applied and options for the imperous surface that we may consider um as a policy that we can bring back at a later
date. So right now impervious surface is really the percentage of lot or land area that's covered um by non-grass or open space uh within a parcel. um the coverage of the lot which we'll go over within you have the coverage um which is
all either with the building coverage or with the driveway coverage that's all considered impervious surface but as you start talking about uh patios and pools that also gets calculated within the impervious surface and we check this with all uh permits also not just in the
development of the land so as they're coming in for a permit for say adding to their driveway or adding pavers to their backyard we need to calculate this impervious surface to make sure that they are under this 50% requirement in a lot of the subdivisions we have. A lot of the new subdivisions we've approved
actually has an impervious surface of up to 70%. So there's a little inconsistency in what we've previously approved, what we have in our code to what we've been approving right now uh through uh plan use developments.
Um, so really why we had this is to provide sufficient area for each building for landscaping and open space, protect vegetation, and make sure it was a sufficient recharge to the aquifer. But as we're talking about these subdivisions, a lot of this is counted into that storm water, making sure we're not flooding, making sure there's proper
accommodations, and a lot of them have drainage and utility easements around each parcel which to accommodate some of this. So, we're really not worried about so much of the flooding uh risk that could come into that um with the impervious surface. Um some things that are a little
inconsistent with our code that I found kind of interesting. You know, as we talk about impervious surface, uh things like pavers even they have pvious pavers are considered in the imperous surface. Uh I guess there is something I was corrected earlier today. There is imperous mulch where there are some
mulches that the water cannot percolate through all the way. Uh but there are a lot of synthetic grasses and turfs out there that are becoming more pvious. So something where our code and we're going to look to update that with our land development code. But these are just some of the inconsistencies that we have right now as we're trying to apply that
code to as people come in and wanting to expand their uh recreational use of their backyard. Uh how do we want to apply this? Um other things like an open porch. we would consider a porch or a covered porch as it jets out even if you had
grass underneath it would be considered impervious surface even though the water underneath it could percolate through. So again another kind of inconsistency as we're looking at how do we apply imperous versus pvious surface uh within our code.
Uh here's our table of permitted uses. Most of our residential our districts in our zoning have a 50% requirement except for that single uh two family which has the se uh 70% and as I mentioned before we have approved a lot of the recent uh
plan unit development subdivision plans with up to a 70% imperous surface. So at 50% and with a 40% building coverage that really only leaves you 10% to put a patio or do anything else with your backyard. And as you know, as you see a
lot of these pools and uh covered patios that does take up more than 10% of the remaining space if you only have a 40% lot coverage. So here's just a couple little examples. Um not telling you where these are because I don't want to call it
anything. Uh but this um unit right here, this house actually meets the 50% impervious surface with that very large open space backyard and front yard. This one does not meet the 50% impervious surface, though in the same
subdivision. In fact, they're neighbors. So, if the gentleman on the east side wanted to come in or or the family on the east side wanted to come in and put in a pool, we would have to deny that due to impervious surface, though, he could put at his neighbor and say, "How did they
get their pool in there?" So this is the inconsistency as we're trying to apply this and looking to correct this maybe with a policy as we look at the city as a whole in our land development code to see really what do we want to do in terms of impervious surface and these permits that are coming in.
So just to kind of cover where Orange Countyy's at uh Orange County actually has an impervious or open space of up to 20% so they can't exceed 80% impervious which is quite high. I'm not sure we ever really want to get there, but this is what this workshop is for. Um, we're
also single family detach is at 75%. So, a couple things that I wanted to discuss in considerations. The this isn't limited. I just wanted to throw something out and see what we uh think or where we want to go from this or even build from it. So we could increase our impervious surface to either 70 or 75%
uh for single family residential within subdivisions to comply with the existing kind of single family development as a policy. Uh something to move forward with for at this time until we can come back to you with our land development code update. Uh we can remove the
impervious surface requirement and convert it all lock coverage. uh instead of saying imperfect surface, we just need the lock coverage to be at a 70% and that will allow that flexibility of building and outside um 70 or 75 or something that I found in some other
codes um you know we could also keep the front yard set back uh so have an impervious surface for just the front yard because that seems to be a lot of the concerns for the neighbors is having somebody pave in your whole front yard. We don't want it all driveway. So do something as more of a requirement as the front yard needs to be 50%
impervious and let the backyard be whatever meets our setbacks. So that way you're not within that drainage or utility easement. You're not encroaching too far in your neighbors and let them dictate what goes on behind um their fence behind it. So these are kind of just three options I started with and
now let's open it up for discussion and see what everybody else thinks in terms of how should we apply impervious surface temporarily until we come back with a land development code. Well f first of all those are defined by
let's say science right so you you have >> we're doing the 50% because u to prevent flooding and other things so so there is a reason for it not just and and but I'm also hearing
>> aesthetics right yes so people may not want >> that so what is what will be the basis for it 50% or 70% or 80% So right now I think the 50% was a very um old standard that was done through subdivisions to have a lot more uh space in between and
a lot more open space without it being a very urban kind of uh subdivision. But what's kind of transpired over the years is especially during COVID is a lot more people wanted to spend their time outside. So we were having a lot of people coming in and expanding their recreational spaces or their spaces
outdoors. Uh that's where Orange County started increasing theirs and that's why theirs is much higher. In fact, they consider even pavers as recreational space in their backyard allowing some of that. Um a lot of these are in our already established planned unit
developed subdivisions that went through an extensive storm water and drainage uh studies. So it's not something where we're worried about um having a significant flooding concern. uh it's more so allowing since it's already well
kind of out there today. It's kind of correcting something that's already been maybe overlooked a little bit or um yeah and not having to go through and code violate somebody for not meeting their impervious surface when it seems to be working properly right now without any
issues. Now there are instances where we may want to take a look at it and say well you know what you are there is pro possibly a flooding here. Is there something you could do to mitigate some of that water and almost bring it down into the drainage ement so it doesn't encroach into your neighbor's yard if
one's higher than the other? These are things that we could look at on a case-by case basis and that's something we could add to this policy and so it's not just a blanket take everything away within this policy. Also, we need to look at each lot on an individual level for, you know, topography or just make
sure is there anything you can do to help uh make sure your your storm water or your weight washes to uh your drainage points within the subdivision. But a lot of them seem to be functioning fine. It's more of just correcting of if somebody comes in now with a permit and
we have to deny them on this claim, but they can point to their neighbor, which we're we're finding happening a lot more now. And plus, I think a lot of subdivision HOAs have allowed these things to go through and almost we're coming back after the fact with a permit
as we've seen some of these pergolas come up as people have expanded their backyards and we're like, whoa whoa, we didn't see a permit for that, but wait a minute, I already had that in for the last six months. You know, it's like, all right, well, is it really necessary? And we're finding a lot of times that it's not. and a lot of them are getting
away from this uh impervious and looking at more open space and on a new subdivision or some of these subdivisions usually the drainage is quite fine. I got a I got a question comment about let's say for example
we're going to use big numbers like if it's a lot that is two acres >> let's just assume 100,000 square feet if 100,000 square feet does that mean that you can put with the 50% rule you can put 50% of concrete or in previous correct >> that would be correct yeah
>> what about if 30,000 of that is part of a lake or up to a flood line what do you count the flood flood line up or the full square footage which is 100,000. >> So we would probably So you have to have a 25 ft buffer from the lake or the
flood line to make sure. So we could consider that pvious and you have the lake but you would still be allowed to do the 50% >> 100,000 >> on the 100,000. >> Um okay. Um, it just
I went through a scenario like that and I think it was >> that was the answer that was a different answer than what was given >> and that's why I'm kind of there's going to be houses that have this same scenario that could be backtracked. So, just like on some of our uh subdivisions
and peds, the one that came through uh as a townhouse, we considered we don't consider their uh storm water necessarily as open space unless you amenitize it. So, there they made a track around it. So, therefore, it's an amenity and an open space that they were
allowed to calculate within their calculations. So, I guess it depends on what it is and how it is. But if it's a say if you have a conservation tract in your backyard, it's not really buildable, but yet the water can percolate down into it. For us in this
case scenario, would we tell you that you can't put a pool there because you're only at you can only do 50% and that would be your entire lot coverage if half of it was able to be built upon. Here we're trying to relax that and say
no, you should be able to put a pool there because you still have enough impervious surface to meet the 30% requirement if we went to 70. >> Yeah. No, it just that that was a the question that I asked you was actually a personal
>> scenario that happened that they the answer was that it can't be the 100,000. It had to be from the flood line up. So theoretically, if it was I was only going to be able to use out of the 80,000 square feet, 50% of that would be 40
>> 40,000. >> So I would be eliminating myself the other additional 10,000 ft. Those are not the correct numbers. That was just >> just a round number so we can kind of go through that. So I never went back to look at if there was a something on
set in stone. But with this changing it to 70, we just got to make sure that we put it so that if somebody comes back and has a question like I just did, >> which one is the route that we're going to go out of the full 100,000 >> or only what the flood line
>> and upward >> that's a good question. >> And that changed me from doing a lot of things at at my house. That's why >> because it came from what you could build on for the lot versus what the whole lot covered had. Yes. >> You know, I like I think I like the last
proposal from your um >> Yes. The front the having 50% of the >> Yeah, exactly. Do whatever you want as long as you within a setback in your backyard. >> I kind I kind of like that. >> Yeah, because every >> because it it's if you stay within a setback, I think you will control flood
to your neighbors and what have you. Whatever you want. I mean, it's a backyard, >> you know. I kind of like that. The only thing is the idea now is imposing um you know the rule on the front on the front yard, not forcing people to have two car
garages versus three. >> Um you know what I mean? Because because we we we have growing families, you know, where two cars forces you have two car garage forces you have two cars on on the street. So, um, but I do like the idea of it's your backyard and
>> you just do whatever you want within your setback >> and that kind of theif 50% make sure you're not, you know, building too many pavers so you don't f your neighbors, you know what I mean? But stay within your setback. I think I think I like that idea. >> I'm trying to remember who which
subdivision it was that came to us. I want to say it was last summer we had was it two or three different people from the same subdivision. >> Forest Lake Estates. >> Forest Lake Estates. >> Okay. >> Yeah. They they were putting papers on the side of the houses to prevent
>> erosion. Yeah. >> But they but ultimately they were flooding >> flooding the neighbors. >> The neighbors pavers to to avoid erosion. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So with something like that, are I I'm wondering, you know, it sounds good
on paper, but if everybody does it, are we now getting to the point where we're going to flood oursel because everybody went up to 70% or everybody went up to 75% and now we don't have enough area for runoff because you know, one house
>> ch changes it. Hey, okay, it's it still works. >> Yeah. when everybody in the subdivision changes it. The subdivisions were built, if you will, for the way the runoff was supposed to be based on what the requirements were at the time. And granted, the requirements have changed
over over the years. But if you have an older subdivision which said, "Yeah, based on a 50% imperous max, we can have runoff like this and we won't flood." If now all of a sudden we say, "Well, you know what? You can have 70." Now you're
down to only 30%. Is that going to put those older subdivisions into a position where all of a sudden we start to see a lot of flooding and people are going to come back sort of like Forest Lake did with um Hey, our property is being flooded because
our neighbor put in pavers to stop their erosion. >> Well, correct. And they were and they were wrong for that because they they were not within setback because they were putting those pavers to their property lines >> and pushing the water through. >> Exactly. You know what I mean? So that's that would not be the same thing for this here. We're saying do whatever you
want within your obviously reasonably within your within the setback. These guys were just going from their houses to their property line with pavers literally flooding their neighbors. >> Yeah. >> So uh that's Yeah. That that was >> and that was that was definitely over the overboard because you were going
right to the the lines. they they went right to to your property line because they didn't like the erosion or or know how to control it. So maybe the concession behind that is we do the policy at 65% and then if they need to go above that >> get a variance >> they can come in with for a conversation
but if we're >> based on conditions yeah >> conditions >> and what about the the kind of materials is now they call materials that are >> that's what we need to go in and kind of put in this because you we're getting more of these artificial turfs that are pvious. there are more even pavers that
are becoming more purely. So this that's where our land development code really doesn't follow any of that or considered. So this is where we're looking at this kind of interim policy to help us through this as we're going through this land development code update and something that we can incorporate within it.
>> Um so within this policy we'll have those materials that are considered you know pvious to go along with what we're updating the percentage to be. Well, I kind again I like the third option over here. >> And I do like that third option. I'm just I like that. I'll
>> just be careful with the numbers so that >> Yeah. >> we don't >> we don't create a flood that didn't happen because our numbers were low. >> And also, let's not go back to one car garage. >> Yeah. Let's not, >> you know what I mean? >> But I mean, between the 40% building coverage and then you're only given that
10% that doesn't leave, >> right? >> I'm in the front line. Yeah. >> Yeah. because majority of us come home, put down the garage door, no one sees you. >> It's in the backyard. So, okay, cool. Any more discussion on
the um workshop? Project updates. What you got for us? What's going on beside Walmart? >> Well, um >> who wants a big sign that they don't need? >> Who wants um See, now I got to go back. Um, so
yes, we got a couple other uh developments underway between the Walmart. The next thing you should start seeing is across the street from the Walmart. Okay. >> We have that uh northwest sector should be coming in soon uh coming in front of you all. Uh which is a a couple commercial properties uh just right in
front in that AOE village center. Um, besides that, uh, what we have also coming to you and going in, we have a couple industrial, um, complexes coming in on AOAKA >> that we're starting to review. Uh, starting to see that um, actually
traction coming around the Pine Street and AOKA area. Uh, still getting some attention on some downtown properties. So, we're looking to see how those start coming to fruition and filling out our downtown. Um, besides that, uh, a lot of just people coming in and talking. Okay.
I saw some movements with that school down there. It looks like they they did remove that wooden >> wooden enclosure to a PVC enclosure. >> Yes, they did. OBT kids, they finally got that done. And actually the uh pad across the street right in within that >> uh is coming in for the building itself.
>> Okay. >> Um same with down there on Meguire Road with the Akoi Corners in the Target area one area. Okay. >> We should start seeing a building right there next to the uh West Orange crearyy and the movie theater. Oh. >> Uh, so they have a building permit in also. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> And um what's what's the big one?
>> City center. >> Ask for it. >> City center. >> I've got nothing on city center. >> No new investors. Nothing. >> Yep. No, we have uh no updates right now on city center. >> All right. Well, if if there are no no
more discussion, we might as well go ahead and adjourn this meeting. And it looks like our next meeting is July 14th. So, this means call journ.