All right, let's call the the regular planning and zoning commission meeting to order for July 8, 2025. Everybody stand for the invocation pledge. Dear Lord, heavenly father, thank you for this day. Lord God, please bless our citizens. Please bless our first responders. Please bless our city staff.
Lord, please bless the folks in Texas that have uh that are having some issues right now with the flooding and whatnot. Lord, in Jesus name we pray. 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. Roll call. Chair Lomnik here. Vice Chair Forges here. Member Keller here. Member Shakone here. Member Galvin here. Member Butler here. You have a quorum. Thank you very much. All right. We have
to do annual elections. So I will take a motion from somebody to appoint a chair, please. I'll make a motion to reappoint Mr. Brad Lumeneck as our chair. Thank you very much. We have a a motion to reappoint Brad Lumnic as the chair.
Do we have a second? Second it. All right. We have a motion by current Vice Chair Forges and a second by member Shicone. If there's no other questions, let's vote. Thank you very much everybody. Now, we need a uh a vice chair, and I'm going to
hand this off to him for a second, and I'll go ahead and make a motion to re uh reelect chairman uh vice chairman Forges and I will second that. So, we have a second. So, we have a motion to reelect member Forges by
member Long Neck and uh second by member Keller. Yep. Good job. Ask the vote. Let's vote. You got a future investment, man. All right. Two years from now. Yeah. Uh
I need a uh uh approval for the amendments of the planning zoning meeting for June 18th of 2025. Motion to approve. Okay. I second that. We have a motion to approve by member Keller and a second by Vice Chair Forges. Let's go ahead and vote.
All right. The next thing on the agenda is we have the proposed uh planning zoning meeting time change. Uh if we do make a a recommendation for approval, it will still have to go in front of the uh the city council for their their
approval. But uh the motion of the board is to move the uh meetings from 6:30 to 6:15 to align with uh city council and other meetings. So, if that is the board's pleasure, I need a motion for recommendation for approval.
I make a motion to recommend starting time for the printing and zoning at 6:15. Thank you. I have a motion. Do I have a second? I second it. All right. We have a motion for recommendation of approval by Vice Chair Forges and a second by member Galvin.
Let's go ahead and vote. Rocking and rolling today. No old business, new business. 977 East Crown Point Road. Showers of Grace Evangelical Christian Ministries Incorporated. This going to be two uh pieces of business
for property annexation resoning from Orange County A1 Citrus Rural District to Cityville Koi RCE2 Rural Country Estates District. This is project number AX052506 and RZ25506
planer one Bazelar. Do you want to try one more time? Bellazer. Yeah. All righty. Good evening everyone. Tonight I'll be presenting on the Showers of Grace Church annexation and resoning for their property located at
977 East Crown Point Road. For issues is whether or not to recommend approval of the annexation from the county into the city as well as resoning of the property from county A1 which is Citrus Rural District to city of Akoi RCE2 which is rural county
estates district. Here we have uh some background on the property. Is located on the east side of East Crown Point Road and approximately 04 miles north of Palm Drive. It's a little bit over 9 acres large and it is eligible for um
annexation because it is adjacent to city properties, eligible for water services, reduces the amount of existing enclaves and it is consistent with the joint planning area future land use map which is low density residential. Here we have the aerial of the property
with the lot shown on the top uh zoomed in a little bit towards the bottom corner. This is the surrounding zoning map showing those abuing city properties to the east and the south. And this is the surrounding future land use map again showing that low density
residential designation. So as far as recommendations, the development review committee met on this item during its June 1st meeting and are making a recommendation of approval for the proposed annexation from Orange County to city of Akoi. um as well as a conditional recommendation of approval
for the proposed annexation from county A1 to city RC2 RC2 excuse me subject to the submitt of an off-site plan for the extension of a water man and in that it will have to include a fire hydrant and flushing apparatus and similarly staff
is making the same recommendation of approval for the proposed annexation from the county into the city as well as a conditional recommendation of approval for the reasonzoning uh subject to this middle of the offsite plan for the water extension to include a fire hydrant and flushing apparatus.
And that concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for staff? Yeah. Could you put the map back on again? What sort of businesses are nearby that church? Nearby the church. Uh mostly industrial sites. Um there is a church to the west
which is within uh city of Winter Garden. This is in front of city uh city furniture, right? It's in that side. Okay. Okay. All right, cool. Any other questions for staff, the applicant here? Uh, yes, they are. You guys want to say anything? You good?
We'll open up to the public. Anybody else want have any questions or concerns? If not, we'll close that the public bring it back into the dis. If there's no other questions, we're going to need two motions. So, we'll start with the uh annexation first. Uh, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion
to approve the annexation uh project number AX052506. Um does the the um stipulations go on the other piece. Correct. Okay. So, I'll leave it at that then. Great. We have a uh a recommendation for
approval uh by member Keller. Do we have a second? Second. We have a recommendation for approval by member Keller for the annexation and a second by member Shone. If there's no other questions, let's vote. All right. Now, we'll do the resoning. I guess Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion
that we approve we recommend approval of reszoning RZ2506 with the stipulations that um were approved by the um SER Ah, I got you. Sorry.
Is there a second? Okay, that's all right. We have a we have a recommendation for approval by member Keller with all the stipulations included and a second by uh we'll go with membersh again. So, if there's no
other questions, let's vote. All right. Congratulations. Okay. So, miscellaneous LDC workshop, we're giving you 15 minutes this time. I gave you 30 last time. You take as long as you need.
Well, there only six slides, so it depends on how many questions you have. Okay. So, just like before, Tori uh Parish and I will tag team. This is workshop two. Um hopefully we'll have another workshop in August, but
we'll see. We had planned on one extra item on here, but we're not quite ready for that yet. So tonight is just going to be on non-conforming structures and uses regulations, signage and vehicular and bicycle parking ratios and design.
So the first topic is non-conforming structures and uses. Um let me see my mouse. So non-conforming uses basically are separated into two major categories. They're either they're either legally non-conforming or they're illegally
non-conforming. So on the far right column, illegal non-conforming are um any uses uh of land or structures that were not permitted previously or not approved previously that were done without permits um you know or any any
number of things. Um they offer no there the city offers no grandfathering, no vesting. So essentially there are no protections for that structure under um law and the city can't actually ask the property owner to
cease the use or remove the structure. Then on the other side of that spectrum are the legal nonconformities. Um so there are uses that are legally non-conforming, structures that are legally non-conforming or a combination of the use and the structure. There's
also lots of records which I didn't include in here. It's it's that's pretty much straightforward. We're not changing those provisions, so we're not um discussing it here tonight. So, a use that's non-conforming but is legal is one that was lawful when that use came
into place um and it went through the proper procedures and got approval, but it's rendered as non-conforming legal when the current code um like this code change um makes that use no longer
an allowed use within that specific zoning district. or any amendments subsequent to the use being approved um that would make it no longer allowed would create a illegal non-conforming use. In terms of whether or not uh when it has to be brought up to code, our
current code says that if the use of land ceases for any reason for more than 30 days. The code currently requires that any subsequent use must meet code. So that's uses. Then we have structures. There are um structures that were lawfully existing at the time of the
passage of the code when that structure was designed, permitted, and constructed. But um it's no longer like if the code if if the building were demoed completely or what have you, then that and that building couldn't be built the way it was built when the code
existed, then that is a scenario where it's a legal non-conforming code. So, for example, if we have a building that meets the 20 foot setback, um, but the code some miles changes to a 30-foot setback, that building is a legal non-conforming structure because it met the setback requirements when it was
built. Um, the current provisions as far as when it needs to be brought up to code is if there is damage that's greater than 50%. So if a hurricane were to come through and the damage is 52% of the value of the building um then
reconstruction has to meet code. So then there's the combination of uses and structures where again same scenario uses and structures. It was lawful at the at the time but it's not lawful now. Um, in that scenario, the code just went on in a different tangent that says um
that the use and or use and structure um was discontinued or abandoned for four consecutive months or 18 months during a three-year period. At that point, then the use is no longer allowed and it has to any use going onto that site has to
be conforming and the structure has to be conforming. So there's all there's this broad um spectrum of when it needs to be brought in. Um based on the direction that we've received from senior staff upstairs is
we wanted to make sure that we made the non-conforming regulations stricter specifically in the downtown um and the mixeduse areas to try to get the revitalization going in the downtown. So what staff is proposing is for our
downtown and CRA mixeduse district is that if there's any changes in tenency like a suite in a building or changes in occupancy um the building or the building is sold there's a change of ownership then the non-conforming use structure premises or any combination
thereof needs to be brought up to code um to the basically to the greatest extent possible. So, for example, if the structure is non-conforming as to setbacks, we obviously can't make them demo the building and move the building back. That's not financially practical.
But we can make um recommendations, for example, um add architectural features to make the the site look nicer or the building look nicer, maybe add a protoche or something that brings more aesthetics to the building. um the site, for example,
if the parking lot goes right up to the rideway line now, then maybe a site modification will be take the parking back a little bit, put in some landscaping, heartscapings, things like that to help create that pedestrian public realm environment so we can piece it at a time.
I have a question. Yes, sir. So, I'm going to use uh BMG's building down at the bot at the end of the road as a as an example. the bookstore wants to move out, whatever, a
new tenant wants to move in. Now, will that, you know, if there's something non-conforming about that building, they'll have to make changes to the building. If they change a tenant, so we were told to be as strict as
possible. Um if the use is one where the use is allowed then um that could stay still remain a non-conforming structure if for example the code says you got to bring um the building has to be a certain distance away but as I mentioned
you we don't expect the building to be demoed because then now you're displacing the other tenants is to the greatest extent that we can start um dressing up the building for example that building there's that Mhm.
sorry the east the east facing wall um it's a big blank wall. Maybe that could be a place for public art. Uh or maybe some awnings could be added on there or um the height of the building could be modified to where it looks bigger or you
know some something along those lines. We're still working out the kinks to not kinks but the the specifics of the architectural standards. Um, my my problem with that is that's a sound building. Well, sound as it can be, right? And
I I don't like I I guess I I'm not a big fan of this strictness. Of course, we want people to change their buildings, right? I mean, it makes sense with the uh the blue building, right? Which before we change a use or tenency in that that
building needs to conform or needs to be I think DJ's auto, right? I mean, what if DJ's Auto wanted to change their tenant? So, if the the intent from the kickoff of the LDC update was that if the use is a use that we don't want to continue to
have in the city, like tire repair, auto sales, things like that, then the change of use or change of tenant could trigger that that use is no longer allowed. Um it's the intent was originally or it still is
to eliminate all the illegal nonconformities that are happening right now and there are all the code violations that are Yeah, I get that. But I think this is going to be considered almost a I wouldn't consider it a taking. But if DJ's auto wanted to retire and wanted
Steve's auto to go in there, that's a change in tenency. Mhm. And you wouldn't want to ch you you don't want to keep the use. The direction that we received from upstairs was yes. The auto sales um hasn't been allowed in the downtown core
since the downtown master plan was adopted by the city commission. So the intent at that time was to discontinue auto sales um in the downtown area. So that one it might have been a vested use
from 30 years ago. So Mr. Chair, if I could sort of follow up on your question too because I because I sort of have the same issue in the back of my head with Tennessee. So, and I don't know, maybe you can answer u
from a legal, but does this fall under the Kaufman law where they're going to tell you because you have a binding contract on that building and all you're doing is changing tend tenency that you're not going to be allowed. I mean, are we setting oursel up for a lawsuit
that we can't win? Yeah, I can't speak specifically to the Kaufman law, but I'm I'm I'm questioning that this I'm seeing a lot of challenges coming with this because you you know, you have people with businesses and property that all of a sudden are going to have to
Yeah. You know, Mr. Chair, if I make changes, I don't know if you should. No, it's it's it's I mean, it doesn't pertain to my building. Go ahead. It doesn't pertain to any of my buildings, but um it was brought up time ago from DJ's and my question is that it's going
to push investors away because that building at one point was maybe to be bought, but that came up that they they couldn't use that single use. It would have had to be completely changed. So, it pushed the investors away.
Is it just pushing investors who just want to do auto sales? But another way of looking at it is that that site might be pushing investors away who think find that that use is unattractive. Totally agree. But if there's a way for a private business to
continue to to lease out their building or their business and keep the same use, if they change the tenency, they wouldn't be able to do that. Maybe and not interrupt you. I'm make sure I understand what I'm talking about, right? Uh, and I'm just using that because it's a perfect example, but
DJ's auto says I'm retiring. Steve's auto says I want to come in. Steve's got to come get a business license. That changes the tenency. Correct. Okay. So, then that would if he has setbacks or whatnot, we know there's an issue with that area over there. So, I think that
would be a taking of some sort. I would defer to defer to the attorney, but I my understanding is it's a taking is is if the we the local government is depriving that property owner of the ability to develop or utilize that
property. You would be if you if you wouldn't let him have the way to re lease his property in the same use. You would be depriving him of his property. Mr. Johnson, do you want to weigh in?
Well, I mean, I think it bears some research is what I think it bears. So, I mean, I don't want to just speak off the cuff, but like I said, this just doesn't pass the smell test to me, and I think it's going to be open for challenges, but, you know, I think it's something I'll talk to city attorney Ardam and Geller
and we'll get back with you. I think the spirit of it works, right? I think there's there's there's things there that are there's abandon not abandoning buildings, there's buildings that have no occupancy. those those are the ones that you know need to touch this. But we need to make sure that you
know the the the the building all the way at the end that have tenants in it. There's probably some issues with that. You know the uh the the bookstore building this building. I mean want to make sure that we're not taking anything from current business owners
in some cases devalue the property. I get it. But they were there first. I don't get it. But if it's only No, I'm sorry. I don't No, no, go ahead. Go ahead. Well, well, particularly the part about it only happening during a sale. So, if you're going to sell your property and then
and then the buyer for the buyer, they have to update all these make all these changes. It's it's it is hurting your property value. Well, the sale is one thing for me. I'm talking about changing. Let's say DJ wanted to lease his building to another
auto sales group. This this would not let him do that. It stops him because it would change tenency. I think because the intent is to as an adoption by the commission to not allow auto sales. It's just like at some point
you got to phase it out if you continue to allow it. Jim's going to die sometime. Kathy will sell it. Just kidding, Jim. We can we can certainly bring the concern back with the discussion with the city manager's office and see you
know what direction they give us. We were just directed to be as strict as possible. Yeah. Okay. Let let us know if you'd like city attorney to do some research on that. Mr. I have a quick question. Um this is with regards to um
when use of structural or combination of structure and premises discontinued and been in for four months. What do you consider is abandoned middle of a property? Is it because the grass is too high or I'm sorry. I I I'm I'm over here where it says combination of use and structure where
it says um after the property has been abandoned for for four months then he has to they have to discontin use. But what do you consider is abandoned of a property? So that's existing language in our code. Now I would say abandoned is no one's occupying it. It's not occupied now. Doesn't Doesn't a homestead in
Florida can be out for more than for more than four months to keep their homestead? Business. Yeah. This this does not this does not specify it. Yeah. It's for that's for downtown CRA. Doesn't matter. This does doesn't have anything to do with residential.
It doesn't say that here. Most of the um construction in the downtown NCR are the ones that are problematic are the um the non-residential. Okay. I I'm just I don't see where it says non-residential. That's all. Maybe I misread something. Okay, that's all.
So residential, for example, is an allowed use. Um auto sales isn't an allowed use. Um auto repair isn't an allowed use currently in the downtown. So the other question I have is I don't
know how long DJs has been here if they were if their original approved use if that's still there or if it's the original approved use plus an evolution of that use that was never legally
permitted such as using the city's rightway. Um if though it's just like when you have a um a dog grooming place, next thing you know they start selling stuff. Next thing you know they start boarding and so they that property owner
is probably leasing up that space and the person looking to lease is saying, "Oh, the boarding facility is here. The retail display cases are here." So of course the use is allowed because the city approved the the grooming facility. But when in all actuality only the grooming facility was approved.
everything else just evolved over time. And if I I think I mean non-conforming use is nothing new. It's it's I think the question is the tenency versus change of ownership. I think is what is is what the issue is because Yeah, we can certainly look at change of
ownership is no big deal. Hey, listen, if you sell this building, you can no longer use it as such. But I agree with that. I mean, if you're selling the the building, right? Yeah. You have a way to tell people, hey, you can't make this an auto sales anymore. What if there's a tenant that's running
the business and you sell a building? I have an example. We get inquiries all the time from the mall for uses that are not retail. And so we have my opinion on that is that the mall is a DRRi. It's the old DRRi. The mall proper, the
building itself was intended to be C2 uses and retail. if we perpetually allow um schools or other things that aren't retail then and the now the mall knows before you sign your lease before you do
whatever go talk to zoning. It's kind of the same thing. Same thing with the plaza on the south side of Palm where it's leased and leased and then leased without contemplation and then they come to us and we're like, "Nope, sorry. That building was approved for manufacturing.
You cannot open your store there because the parking and the circulation was never contemplated for retail." So, it's kind of the same concept. They still, I guess, end up talking to zoning at the LBT stage. No, that makes I mean that's that's the the the the issue with the
blue building, right? Its use is such you can't make it a a nursery. You can't make it a a business, you know, a retail whatever because it has a certain use, but I hate to keep going back to it because it's right there and I can see it. That's car
lot. It's been there since the 70s, right? So, if he were to release it as a car lot, that's a change in tendency and that would be a taking in my opinion. But we can certainly bring that up and have
a conversation. Um, we're meeting with Rick again soon to talk about multif family standards. So, we can certainly bring that up. Awesome. I'll mention it to him. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so the other thing that we wanted to do is uh like well going back to that
real quick. For example, if it if the decision is to bring it to just a change of ownership, um, and if someone were to come in with a change of tenant, then maybe that tenant would be willing to at least consider a fresh coat of paint or
breaking or fixing broken aspects on the site, something to make it look more appealing as someone is walking their dog down the street. Definitely agree. You want to get rid of blight, but at the same time, you can't tell a a private business
owner what to do as long as they're in line with the code. Right. So, that's my um Okay. And then so in terms of the non-conformity provisions, we wanted to um consider making it the same time frame across the city instead of having
three different time frames or three, you know, so we have 30 days in one scenario and then 18 months for four or four months in another scenario. Um just making them all the same. Um 30 days consecutive of for use and 51% for
structures. Um there's also an existing provision regarding uh repairs. So it as it reads now is that if your repair is less than 20% of the assessed value then you can make those repairs without having to
bring the site to to standards in the so we're proposing to just keep that. So if your repair is excessive of 20% then you would need to make um meet the new code. Um so that's not a change. The other thing that we wanted to do is
consolidate section 4-11 which speaks to illegal nonconformities. And there's a section in there that I actually really want to talk about um with Mr. Johnson is that it speaks to um takings and conveyance of properties including the ones that are voluntary. It basically
says now that if someone were to voluntarily um dedicate property or through the taking what have you that doing so that that conveyance if that conveyance renders the property not meeting code
it's deemed an illegal non-conforming. In my experience in working with um rightaway takings or imminent domain cases with DOT, if the local government is doing the the taking through imminent domain or through some other conveyance, then there needs to be a cure of some
type. Our code doesn't read that. Now, so I wanted to at least discuss making that not an illegal non-conforming situation. Um, and then also just combining 4-11 and 5-10 together because there really
isn't the need to have non-conformities in two different sections of the code. So, that was one slide. I told you six slides was probably going to be a lot of conversation. I never I never bring things up. Look at there. I had to talk.
I I you know, I totally see the point. Um, it's just like mobile homes, right? If you continue like at Orange County, as long as the mobile home lot that's vacant is refilled with another mobile home within a 30-day or 60-day time period, they can
just repetitively repeatedly be replaced with an even older mobile home as long as it's a mobile home. So, it sort of perpetuates the inability for someone, especially if the code says that zoning district can only have mobile homes. it really doesn't allow for um redevelopment.
Signage is the next big one. And I know there's two slides on signage, but I also know that signage is also a very um controversial topic. Um so the changes that we're proposing, I did speak to Mr.
Geller about this. Um I didn't have time to talk to him about the non-conforming regulations part but in terms of signage in light of the fact that we are not we are required to be contentneutral signage can the way we see it in planning it's either a permanent sign or
it's not. So it's either permanent or it's temporary. So permanent signs were keeping the provisions on wall signs and monument signs. So the wall is either a fixed to a building or standing on the ground. So, it's either a wall or a monument. In terms of the different kinds of monument of wall signs, there's
signs that go on the building or the facade of the of of the elevation of the building or it's a sign that goes on an awning. Um, projecting signs like marquees and and whatnot. Window signs. Um, although there is prohibition on the
sticking of a window, a sign on the window. Um, and then for monument science, we're keeping the same freestanding, single tenant, multi-tenant buildings, and then directories. Those are the larger ones with greater square footage for plazas, shopping centers, and things like that.
Um, so in terms of the types of signs, we're going to keep those, but just grouping them as permanent. In terms of the requirement, the size, right now, we have in our table a maximum height of a sign and a maximum square footage. So,
as an example, in a 10,000 square foot building, someone can have a 36 square foot sign no taller than 36 inches. But if it's a 25,000 foot building, they can have um more than twice the size of the sign,
but the height only increases by a half of a foot. So, it it just forces the standard rectangular signs, which aren't always conducive if the building is narrow. um or if the building is tall,
the the architecture of the building. Um for example, there was a structure that had a nice height to the front elevation and the applicant proposed a large circular round sign which fit into the context and the scale of the building, but it couldn't be approved because it
exceeded the maximum height of three feet. Um so that sign didn't go forward. So we are suggesting that the sign size still stays as a requirement type still based on building square footage but the
height would just go away just to create some flexibility in the design of the sign itself. Materials we don't have any code provisions on the materials of signs. Um, I know that there have been some concerns about, you know, um, flimsy or not well constructed sign or
how the signs are, um, anchored to the the structures, things like that. So, we'd like to inst put in some installation methods requirements so that you don't see the physical anchors, but it's all behind the signs. So, we don't want any exposed um, anchors on
the signs just to add to the aesthetics. Colors. Um, we're not going to regulate what sign colors people have. It'll be something similar to what we were proposing in multif family colors as far as not being lurid or glaring or stark
contrasts and things like that. Um, some more as much as we can neutral colors. Um, understanding that there may be some push back. For example, Andy's custard is very bright signs, a lot of color contrast. Um, height of the monument signs, we're
still keeping it at 12. Um, I think there needs to be provision as far as the clearance height that I don't believe is in there right now. So, we do need to include that. Make sure no one bangs their heads when they're especially if we're going to be doing um marquee signs and protecting signs. We
want to make sure there's a an adequate height clearance. Um, something new that staff is proposing is plantings for monument signs. So right now there's nothing that says that you have to um make your monument sign more attractive. You can just go onto a site, pop in your
monument sign, saw it monument sign. Um there are other jurisdictions who that require um landscaping such as flowers, um ground cover, something like that to soften the edge of the monument sign. And then the number of signs per frontage. Um there's been some questions
on it's it's the way it's written now is a little vague like how many how many signs you get based on the number of frontages especially for multi multi-building um complexes where you have three or four buildings but only two frontages or two driveways.
Um, so in terms of the temporary signs, when you look at the current code, there's like a whole list of different kinds of temporary signs from garage sales to openhouse real estate signs, special event signs, grand openings, special events, coming soon signs, new
construction signs. They're all meant to be temporary. They're all meant to just be placed in one location and then when that event is over, they are supposed to be removed to help eliminate sign clutter. What we are suggesting since we can't read the sign to know what it's
advertising um we are suggesting that the temporary sign permit be tied to a parcel ID or an address um that the application sets a specific time frame for when that sign is up um tying it to the original construction. So, for
example, if the um retail plaza is already constructed, site completion is done, seals have been issued, someone can't go there now and ask for a sign face change and advertise whatever sale is going on in their
suite. We can't read the sign, so we can't know that it's associated with something that's offsite. bill to tie it to a specific location on the sign permit that has a specific date where they can rem they would have to remove the sign. They can ask for an extension if the construction isn't finished, of
course, but if the construction is done and every all the buildings are seeded, there's no need for that temporary sign to be there because technically it's meant to be temporary. Um, and then we also wanted to include a line item in the permit application
asking for the purpose and we would provide the list. For example, is it a community event, a special event, a um grand opening, whatever it is, so that when that event is over, presumably that sign should also, you know, be removed.
Um, and we're also saying that no phase changes are permitted once the project is complete. And then we're also adding some um the number of signs per frontage and also looking at the location of the temporary signs so that one site doesn't have two or three coming soon signs
whether they're legally permitted or you know installed overnight. Um those kinds of things. Any thoughts on this side? Yep. uh when we did when the uh downtown vision plan was done, right? There was a
lot of talk then about uh you know sign color, size, aesthetics to the building. Is any of that going to be written in the code to where it's we have lots of graphics and imagery that we want to include in the the final
write up. Um, and we're also looking at other jurisdictions in other states for their time- tested signs that, you know, when you go to a destination city, you'll see the signs fit into the context, the scale of the building, the roadway. If you have a posted speed of
50 m hour, you wouldn't expect to see a four square foot sign. You know, those kinds of things. But on the other side of that, if the if it's just a two-lane in the downtown area, you wouldn't expect to be asked to um for approval of a 54 square foot sign because it's like
it's like having a um 200 foot living room and a 120inch TV. It just wouldn't fit the context. But it sure would look good. My husband would not disagree with you. Mr. Chair, I got one question on there,
too. Um, and I don't know, since you said there's a second signage uh slide, it may be on that, but what about political signs and are we looking at a specific time frame for them to be those kinds of things? Like um, yes, that will stay because there's there's
some require legal requirements that are tied to that. So, we're not going to touch those. That was already done last year, though, if you remember. Well, I remember they did it. I just wanted to make sure they weren't changing it. No, not changing it. Um, just part of the land development code though, right? It is. It's in the temporary science
science regulations, but we're not going to change that as far as 90 days before, 90 days after their locations and things like that. So, that's already been done. Good. Okay. Thank you. Um Oh, I one other question if I may. What
about what about um like the sign at the school that that actually is a flashing sign and the MC's? Yeah. Are we going to allow those or are we still going to look? It has been an ongoing conversation with us and LCPS because it's not our right. Well, I'm just wondering about
with the rest of the city because I know in the past it's always been no, you cannot have them. The so that's on the next slide. The existing prohibited signs list will still stay the same. Um EMC's is one of those and signs with tantali tantalizing lights or strobing lights or exposed bulbs. Those are all
still stay as prohibited signs. Um we one of our um staff asked a question so I just I throw it in here is um the possibility of someone using a projector to cast their sign on a wall. Um I just
would propose that we add into the the EMC that that would include anything that would just be projected onto a wall via an electronic device or some other device because it essentially would kind of be moving or kind of be exposed. Um, so it's kind of new. Um, we haven't that
part I have not talked with Rick about, but it kind of makes sense where you wouldn't want someone's I mean for Christmas decorations thingies that's not signage. It's just decor. But if it's it's kind of touchy because like you don't know what it's for unless you
read it. But if it's advertising Macy's on a building here, you can't really know that it's Macy's unless you actually read it. But, you know, how do you It's something that we probably need to So, if we just don't allow the projection of
things onto a wall, that might get rid of that. Um, the exempt signs, um, we're proposing to include menu boards, parking direction signs, clearance height signs. These are all the things
that you would see in a like a um fast food commercial site where we have to sign off on all those permits for every menu board, every clearance height, you know, order here. Um those kinds of
things, you know, the height of the the arm of the in the in the drive-thru. So what you're what we're showing here in this upper right hand corner is that they would be exempt from the copy area. They would be still part of the permit
package because the building the vision and fire would still need to review it as far as the structure, the the installation and things like that. So it'll be permitted, but it'll just be exempt from the copy area. Any thoughts on that?
Okay. Um general sign standards, we're generally going to keep those. Um, I'm proposing that we add sight distance triangle for safety reasons. Um, because we do have a lot of instances where people want to put their monument sign as close to the driveway as possible.
Um, in some instances, if the angle of the driveway and the road is too acute, then even 10 ft from the rideway will still create a sight visibility issue. So, it may be that yes, you would meet the 10 ft, but if it's still blocking the the the driver's ability to look
left or look right, then maybe the sign would still need to be moved back some just to and it's only 25 ft from where the two property lines meet. Um, so we wanted to also be very clear on how sign area and copy area are
calculated. I don't know if you know this, but in terms of building um planning looks at sign applications for the square feet of the copy area. Um and then building uh I'm sorry, we also calculate the square footage of the sign for purposes of the application fee,
this the permit fee. Um we probably just need since we can't look at copia area anymore. It's just if it's letters, it's just a box. if it's, you know, a shape, it's, you know, the the area of a circle, you know, area of a triangle,
those kinds of things is what we would be putting into the code. Um, and then we also really need to look at requiring as part of the permitting process, maybe even as part of the site plan process, if a big development comes in and it's going to be a large site
with multiple buildings, maybe at that point we need to at least discuss with the developer of record of having a sign package so that we don't have to deal with individual um buildings or tenants coming in with
all non-matching monument signs. So for example, Okcoy corners is one where that was stated in the development agreement. So it had to be a comprehensive like one sign couldn't be vastly different from all the other signs that's in the plaza.
Um but Koi corners that was achieved through a development agreement. Um Tori and I think that it's a good idea to just have a signed package for that development at the initial stage of site planning so that any new person either buying the
building, leasing the building knows that their their sign needs to be as close to the sign package as possible. Um and then standards for the downtown area specifically. So looking at it from a scaled to context perspective in terms
of the size of the road as I mentioned the posted speed of the road um we can't control how fast people drive that's why we're using the posted speed uh the size of the building itself again with the 19inch TV in a you know a 19 inch 19
square foot sign to a giant building versus a giant sign to a small building. Um proximity to the viewer. So, if the the pedestrian is right there on the on the street, you don't want a sign that's like 6 feet tall, 3 ft wide, still meets
code, but you don't want it like right there in your face. You know, those kinds of things. Maybe it might be a nice um I don't have a Oh, right here. It could be something like this. If you can see my screen where it fits the scale of the pedestrian walking on that
path. So, as a pedestrian, you can walk along that path and still be able to read the signs. So, as I mentioned, we're looking at looking at jurisdictions that have time-t tested standards and requirements that are, you know, attractive. They're like destination cities. Um, so that's
signage. Any comments, questions on signage? Okay. Nope. I was actually expecting more questions on signage, so this is good. Did you expect any questions on the first slide? Yes. Okay, for sure.
Definitely was expecting questions on the first slide. That's why I asked you if you got your your Mountain Dew. Um so vehicle and bicycle parking right now, um we have a very short list of use
categories for our parking requirements. As we finalize the list of uses by the different zoning districts, we want to make sure that um categories of those uses are captured in the parking regulations as well. Um so we're looking at make sure that the list is expansive
enough to cover the list of uses and also looking at uh re-evaluating the parking ratios and also making clear what the guest parking requirements are. Um I think right now we only have guest parking for multif family and town homes. Um,
let's see. Uh, we don't have because we are going into like the mixeduse category, the mixeduse zoning, and we're pushing mixeduse development in the downtown. We don't have a standard for parking for mixed use or for guest parking in a mixeduse situation. So, we're looking at that. We're also
looking at um different types of parking designs and the materials that are used for the parking areas. So looking at standards for angle parking, parallel parking, compact on street parking, etc. You know, maybe looking at um if you're
going to have just cohesion in the site. So you wouldn't want concrete and then next to pavers next to some other material where you would wouldn't want to have a site that has concrete, asphalt, pavers, painted pavers, painted concrete. It just needs
to have some cohesion. Um and then looking at the um parking standards for shared parking. Um and then looking at possibly adding a maximum parking where
someone may want to have a use that only requires 20 parking spaces, but they feel like they need 50 spaces. And that's the argument that they will use to require more impervious area and a bigger storm water pond and and you know
all these other things. So um looking at max parking um looking at parking reductions right now the code just says that someone could present a parking study to the LPA to you all um for consideration as a and then re make a
recommendation to the commission. Um, we're looking at possibly having parking reductions based on proximity to trails, to public transit, um, or if the site has a greater internal trip capture. So, those are things that we may consider as
part of that calculation. Um or if it's next to like if it's a small development, residential development and there's Publix or whatever nearby that you they don't actually have to drive everywhere, then you know maybe they could have a slight
reduction in parking. Um and then we also want to put an emphasis on the parking placement and screening the parking so that you're not seeing like if you need a 100 parking spaces, the traveling public doesn't need to see 100 parking spaces. It needs to be
screened well and it's not necessarily thou shalt have three feet of screening wall. It may be um like a trellis design with some plantings or maybe it's a patio area because you know you we talked about having a requirement as one
of the requirements is a civic space on a new site. So maybe that civic space could be like a little picnic area, a little sitting area, a little cupboard area. So that is what draws the eyes and not the parking behind it. Um we have lots of examples of that. And
then we also want to look at evaluating alternative parking and ride share. So um there's a lot of use of lift and Uber now. So maybe looking at incentivizing drop off pickup zones as part of the design of the site, not just people stopping in the drive aisle, dropping
people on and off, you know, things like that. So trying to make it um efficient but also safe for the people who are getting in and out of these vehicles. Um, al also looking at dual purpose parking areas. Not all parking areas have to be striped out with, you know,
concrete areas. They could just be um, as we mentioned in the winter garden scenario where pavers can be in one direction for the stall itself and then a different paver material for the the demarcation. But if you're just covering that up with
tents and other things for like a community event, you won't even realize that that's parking for that specific use. Um and then looking at um encouraging developments that are like use in nature to actually have shared common areas. Um
so it may be an office complex next to a retail complex where evening hours the retail complex could use the um the office complex if the their hours are 9 to5 or something like that. Not requiring it but incentivizing it so
that we have less impervious area. Um, this is a new one. Bicycle parking. The code actually if I I think I have it. It just says the biking will be provided. Bike parking will be provided,
but it doesn't say how many. It doesn't say where. It doesn't say the design of the bike spaces. So, we are proposing um short-term parking and long-term parking. Um, short-term parking will be parking your bicycle for short periods, like you're going to have meet up with
some friends and go grab a sandwich. You'd like to be able to bike there safely. Um, park your bicycle there, have lunch, hour, hour and a half, two hours with your friends, get back on your bike, and ride home. Um, short-term parking is typically for customers,
patrons. Then there's long-term parking. So for longer periods, four, eight hours plus where it may be for the employees, um the tenants, um the residents, you know, mobile manu multif family apartment complexes ought to have nice long-term parking for bicycles because
we all know bicycles are getting quite expensive and just about everybody has an electric bike now and those are exceedingly expensive. Um and then uh looking at having criteria for where the bikes are placed or bike racks are
placed and the design. So a recommendation from a a consultant is to do away with the black um honeycomb or what is it called comb shaped bicycle racks. Um and then prohibiting certain bicycle rack designs
like the comb shaped one. So we have some examples here where it it yes it adds to the cost of the bike installation. But for example, if you look at this one here, um each one of these accommodates two
bikes. If the site were designed to plan for that, then they should already like plan on putting something there so that the when the bike racks are installed, all they have to do is bolt it instead of, oh, you're now calling for your planning inspection and I can't pass it
because you've got some dead trees and there are no bike racks. Now you got to order the bike racks, get the fastest one that you can get from Lowe's or wherever and then bolt it and it's just sort of out of place. Uh, I think I shared with you all before where the one
site had the bike racks installed exactly as it's shown on the plan, but the bike was actually on the grass. Like when you park your bike, the rest of the the bike is on the grass. So, we want to bring like landscaping and bicycle parking, pedestrian friendly design to
the forefront at the site design stage so that it doesn't become an afterthought when it's time for inspections. Um, this one I thought was pretty cool. I certainly not expecting this, but you know, if someone had the the means of doing this, um, you could
order some bike facilities like this. It's pretty cool. The kids would love it. Um, this one on the lower right hand corner, I've brought this example uh many times. This is a architectural sculptural piece for this plaza and all the bike racks are just circling it so
that people you don't see it here. This is when it was still under construction, but there are tables with um tents, not tents, um umbrellas here, and people park their bikes, go in here, get some sandwiches, and they're sitting and they're they they see their bicycles um
and they don't have to worry about someone walking away with their bike. And then this one is really, really cool. It's sheltering. So long-term bike parking as a requirement could be something that we could look at if it, you know, if they, let's say they're required two, um, if they provide four,
because if you, if you save by buying more, then that could be a reduction in car parking, for example. Any conversations on vehicle and bike parking? Yeah. Uh, one thing I see is glaringly
missing here are um, LSVs and things of that nature, right? especially for short-term parking, right? I call it an LSV instead of golf cart. But why don't we have any golf cart language in here? We um I actually started typing in
something for motorcycles. It could be something that's wide enough for um those types of of facilities. it wouldn't be something that would help reduce parking if, for example, the street speed is too high. Um, or the trail isn't available, you know, things
like that. I think that's a great idea about the golf cart because I mean, if you seen other cities, they they're using the full car size parking for one instead of being able to put two and then now you take a parking spot that could be needed.
Yeah. There are some communities that are doing um corral for those types of vehicles just like a shopping cart corral but it's a corral for parking multiple smaller vehicles um in one of those spaces. What the benefit to that for example in a
standard 9 by 20 parking space you can have it um be tandem to each other so they can stack in that way and then have less maneuvering space. But I mean, you do see other municipalities though that are starting to do
golf cart parking, right? Smaller uh smaller shifted parking spaces, especially in a downtown area, right? So, I mean, I would think in especially talking about short short-term parking besides biking, we need to have uh LSV
language, low-speed vehicle language, stuff like that, right? Because as we know the way that have changed, we don't have a golf cart statute, but we do allow LSVs per the Florida statute. So, we should take that into consideration with the the downtown CR area.
Um perhaps that could be something that is do we want to make that as a required parking scenario or that is an offset to reducing parking? I think both have to be looked at. Okay. Okay, I think both have to be looked at especially as you know I think LSVs are
getting more and more popular in this area right um so I think it is something we should look at both okay it could be that they could like um here we have compact standards right that could be something where the
compact space is small enough for an actual compact car and hopefully a big wheelie doesn't try to squeeze into it but that might be a size that could accommodate the LSVs M Mr. Chair, when you say required, meaning in areas where I said 15 minutes,
go ahead. He just elected me vice chair. So, uh, you mean in areas where those things are allowed? That would be required because if they're not allowed in specific area, why would you want a developer to put those things in there for? Well, we're
talking I mean we're I was talking most I said downtown in the CRA areas. Okay. Where they are allowed? Yes. Yeah. Because they're not allowed in your neighborhood. They are allowed in my neighborhood. Actually, I was going to say pretty much
most of the neighbors are allowed. Okay. If you didn't go see the last uh ordinance change, but you know. All right. Okay. Anything else on and an LSV is a lot on Orlando Avenue as well.
Um, but anyway, change that. No, thank you very much. We're good. Um, so that's it for tonight and then we're hoping to bring back to you in August the full list of permissible uses
and then the responses to your questions last time on the minimum living area and any and all your questions for this workshop. So that's it. Did a great job. Thank you. Thank you. It's a little longer than 15 minutes,
but that's my fault because I had a lot of comments. I actually anticipated a longer conversation on the non-conforming uses, but thank you. Thank you. All right, project status report. What do you got? Anything good? Anything? There's a lot of talk about a new
7-Eleven. Anything you want to say about that? There is a community meeting Thursday evening at the Lakeshore Center. Um, that's all I have to say about that. That's exactly what I wanted you to say. Thursday evening, what time? 61
6 7-Eleven where at uh there's a proposed 7-Eleven on Clark say Clark and Okcoy Vista. So um staff so staff has a presentation for that um community meeting. It's just
an information meeting from the city's perspective. Just basics of what was allowed in the previous the currently approved PUD. Um any trips um the impact fee credits that the site already has.
Um you know, we're not going into the city is not going into specifics on the size of the building, the parking, the parking, the layouts. There there is a site plan submitt that is that hasn't been fully routed for review. We only
just have the one sheet like there's no lighting sheet, landscaping sheets, irrigation, utilities, drainage. Those other sheets are have not been submitted. So staff has not even reviewed and provided comments yet. So the conversation on Thursday will not entail
any of the details of how the site will function or how it looks, the architecture of the building, anything like that. Um it's my understanding that the development team will have two boards. One is a board of the elevations
of the buildings um and then a um a general concept site plan over top u overlaid on an aerial. And I believe there's also one that's just a bigger picture of the concept site plan on top
of an aerial. Um there's no definitive answers um at least from staff's review perspective as far as the the specific location for the driveway on Clark or the one on AOY Vista. How far the building is from the pro the property
owners to the east. Um the traffic signal th those things are not what the city will be talking on. It may be something that um should Commissioner Oliver choose to discuss it that he may bring that up or the development team may bring that up. But that's pretty
much the gist of the Thursday meeting. Perfect. Anybody else have anything else for staff? Thank you very much. It was a great presentation. Everybody have a great evening. Thank you. Thank you.