MEETING MINUTES – PDC Workshop on October 5, 2023

On October 5, 2023, the Consultant Team conducted a workshop with the Planning & Development Commission (PDC). The workshop’s intent was to inform the PDC of design concepts proposed for the Multi-Use and Employment Center IMA subareas contained and to receive input and direction on key decision points. DRAFT Comprehensive Plan and land Development Code amendments were provided to the PDC prior to the meeting. The PDC was not asked to make any decisions or approve the DRAFT documents, rather, confirm or redirect the Consultant Team’s approach. The following is a summary of feedback received at the PDC workshop:

Decision points:

1. Confirm proposed Uses.

The PDC felt there were uses in the Employment Center subarea that were too intense for an office park setting. The Consultant Team will work with County staff to ensure appropriate uses are proposed. (See additional comments on specific subareas, below.)

2. Confirm if Residential Single-Family-Detached (RSF-D) subdivisions should be permitted within the Mixed-Use and/or Employment Center subareas.

The PDC, generally, did not want to allow RSF-D in the IMA, since the intent was for more dense development to best utilize existing infrastructure and focus growth in the area. As one PDC member stated: “This is where growth was always supposed to happen.” Some PDC members were open to RSF-D off CR 486, at the periphery, behind higher density/intensity development.

3. Confirm if building heights should be reduced where buildings are proposed adjacent to RSF-D, either inside or adjacent to the IMA.

The PDC felt a six (6) story building height was too high and recommended reducing to a max four (4) stories.

Reduced building heights, larger building setbacks, and large buffers when a project is adjacent to RSF-D is positive for the resident that has been living in the area for years. However, there is a long-term negative consequence, as the early developers are at a disadvantage due to a reduced maximum development potential; subsequent developers that redevelop RSF-D lots have an advantage, since they don’t have the compatibility issue; and the overall max development potential of the IMA is significantly reduced.

4. Confirm if landscape buffers should be required where buildings are proposed adjacent to RSF-D, either inside or adjacent to the IMA.

The public expressed support for the three measures (lower building height, larger building setbacks, and large buffers) to ensure compatibility. Agreement of whether the combination of measures provide adequate compatibility in advance of the IMA approval will expedite the approval process when such cases arise. Certainty in the outcome if the rules are followed and a streamline approval process are great incentives to development.

5. Confirm proposed Thresholds:

  • 5 units,
  • 5,000 square feet, or
  • 5 acres

The public expressed concern about the thresholds and what that means for existing uses. The thresholds only apply to new construction. (See additional comments on existing uses, below.)

One PDC member recommended adding “Change of use” to the thresholds.

One PDC member suggested reducing the building square footage to capture some retail that typically looks undesirable.

6. Confirm whether a Mix of Uses should be required.

The PDC did not want to require a mix of uses, unless a single-use development exceeds a high threshold, such as 300 dwelling units or 100,000 square feet of retail space.

Currently, the DRAFT 486MU and 486EC LDC do not require a mix of uses for expansion of existing facilities or new construction. It is not recommended to require a mix of uses, since developers typically specialize in one type of use or another and developers typically right off the subordinate use to obtain financing.

7. Confirm Architectural standards should follow Town Center Plan Overlay’s Nonresidential Building Design Standards (LDC §3408)

Staff and the PDC did not feel the entire Town Center Plan Overlay should be applied. The intent is to use the Non-residential Building Design Standards (LDC §3408) only as a basis for architectural standards.


Additional comments:

• Review Process:

  • The benefit to the Planned Unit development is the opportunity for public input at the public hearing. A neighborhood workshop would serve the intent to receive public input better, as the applicant can identify and potentially mitigate public concerns prior to the public hearing process.

• Mixed Use subarea:

  • A PDC member questioned whether the Town Center concept was aligned with the current County demographic. Consensus was that the IMA will serve the County for the next 20-30 years and a Town Center development pattern is appropriate to meet future growth demands.

• Employment Center subarea:

  • A PDC member recommended removing the IMA portion south of Horace Allen Street all the way west, as it is already developed with large single-family lots.
  • The same PDC member also recommended replacing the Employment Center subarea with mixed use or all residential single-family detached, consistent with the current development pattern. Other PDC members felt there was merit to the Employment Center and would serve the County well in the future.
  • Access to the Employment Center was questioned, as residential roads could not be used, per Land Development Code (LDC) requirements. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will realign Knoll Road, which will provide nonresidential access to the subarea.
  • • Existing uses:
  • The PDC and public are concerned about the ability of existing uses being able to modify and/or expand existing structures. The intent is not to make existing uses developed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and LDC nonconforming because of adopting the IMA standards. The consensus was to work with County staff on language to meet the intent.


Attachments:

• Planning and Development Commissioner board member Bass’ comments with Consultant Team responses

On October 5, 2023, the Consultant Team conducted a workshop with the Planning & Development Commission (PDC). This document contains comments and questions from PDC Board Member Bass prepared prior to the workshop. Following each comment or question is a response from the Consultant Team.

Document: DRAFT FLUE Amendment - IMA Overview

• Policy 17.35.5 3rd Line – Change “Go Straight” to “Advance”

  • The term “advance” is more appropriate.


Document: DRAFT FLUE Policies 486MU and 486EC

• Page 1, 17.xx.3, 3rd paragraph – Better define items 1, 2, 3

  • These thresholds are clear and measurable and account for the variety of potential development projects. If a proposed development exceeds thresholds 1, 2, or 3 (5 acres, 5 dwelling units, or 5,000 square feet of building area), the IMA standards apply.

• Page 2, 4th paragraph – Should this go back to PDC since a topographic change could drastically alter the approved plan?

  • This exemption is for proposed site plan applications, not ones that have already been approved. The PDC is not part of the proposed review process. The intent is for County staff to determine if topography justifies exemption from certain design/development standards, such as cross access. The burden is on the applicant to provide convincing justification as to why the design/development standard is not possible.

• Page 2, residential lots – Is there a conflict between the first 2 and 17.xx.3 on page 1?

  • This has been resolved now that the PDC/BOCC directed us to prohibit new Residential Single-Family Detached units, unless permitted by the Land Use District and less than five (5) units are proposed.

• Page 2, Do we really want industrial near 486?

  • Industrial is not intended in the Mixed-Use subarea. Proposed uses for both subareas will be examined with staff and brought back for PDC review when proposed text changes are submitted.

• Page 4, Section 17.xx.6 – Better define items 1, 2, 3

  • These thresholds are clear and measurable and account for the variety of potential development projects. If a proposed development exceeds thresholds 1, 2, or 3 (5 acres, 5 dwelling units, or 5,000 square feet of building area), the IMA standards apply.

• Page 5, 4th paragraph – See second comment above [Should this go back to PDC…]

  • This exemption is for proposed site plan applications, not ones that have already been approved. The PDC is not part of the proposed review process. The intent is for County staff to determine if topography justifies exemption from certain design/development standards, such as cross access. The burden is on the applicant to provide convincing justification as to why the design/development standard is not possible.

• Page 5, Section 17.xx.7 – Believe section 17.xx.7 residential conflicts with 17.xx.6

  • This has been resolved now that the PDC/BOCC directed us to prohibit new Residential Single-Family Detached units, unless permitted by the Land Use District and less than five (5) units are proposed.

Page 6 – Why would I want a shooting range in this zone?

  • Proposed uses for both subareas will be examined with staff and brought back for PDC review when proposed text changes are submitted.

• Page 6 – Do the items listed under industrial really fit in with mixed Use? [This is Employment Center] Mixed use in my view is residential, light industrial, retail, office, etc.

  • Proposed uses for both subareas will be examined with staff and brought back for PDC review when proposed text changes are submitted.

• Page 7, Other commercial – Do we really want more car washes, gas stations, and storage units?

  • Proposed uses for both subareas will be examined with staff. These uses can be designed well and incorporated into urban environments. If there is a need, they should be allowed; this is a Suncoast Parkway interchange.

• Page 7 – Conflict between no outdoor kennels and vets with outside kennels.

  • Proposed uses for both subareas will be examined with staff and brought back for PDC review when proposed text changes are submitted.


Document: DRAFT 486MU District (Mixed Use subarea)

• Page 2, Section 2 – Better define items 1, 2, 3

  • These thresholds are clear and measurable and account for the variety of potential development projects. If a proposed development exceeds thresholds 1, 2, or 3 (5 acres, 5 dwelling units, or 5,000 square feet of building area), the IMA standards apply.

• Page 2, Section B1 – Should PDC review impact if topography causes changes (major) to approved plan?

  • This exemption is for proposed site plan applications, not ones that have already been approved. The PDC is not part of the proposed review process. The intent is for County staff to determine if topography justifies exemption from certain design/development standards, such as cross access. The burden is on the applicant to provide convincing justification as to why the design/development standard is not possible.

• Page 2, Section B2 – Why should this be granted? Applicant knows what is required.

  • The intent is to ensure views from CR 486 and Suncoast parkway are attractive. There may be circumstances that relief from the IMA standards presents a significant benefit to a development and does not contradict the IMA's intent.

• Page 3, Section A1 – Does this conflict with Page 2, Item D2?

  • There is no conflict. The thresholds in Section D.2 require adherence to IMA standards. Section A.1 is the maximum development potential for any project.

• Page 5, Development standards – Why measured from back of curb – won’t this result in buildings in right of way?

  • If the build-to line requires a building to be placed in the right-of-way, the building shall be placed at the right-of-way line. The benefit of measuring from the back of curb is so public infrastructure, such as sidewalks, are located within the right-of-way.

• Page 5, Section 2 – Should this be clarified that director cannot shorten block length?

  • A development can subdivide a block to the extent they feel appropriate.

Page 6, Section 3447.A – Does the Suncoast need to be included?

  • Buffers will be required along the Suncoast parkway as well as CR 486.

• Page 6, Section C1a – Do we want to specify screening type?

  • A measurable standard will be included for both the applicant and staff’s ability to review applications.

• Page 6, Section D4 – Raised island should be in conformance with MUTCD standards.

  • All proposed traffic control devices will meet the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) national standards.

• Page 7, Section F1a – What type of screening for employee parking?

  • Screening may consist of landscaping, fence, wall, or berm. The term “screening” will be defined with measurable standards.

• Page 7, Section F1c – Why not make interconnection a requirement rather than “where feasible”. Have a clean slate. This should be doable (cross access).

  • There are circumstances where it is not feasible due to extreme topography or required placement of drainage or utility infrastructure. The 486MU standards include pedestrian/bicycle connectivity as well. The burden is on the applicant to provide convincing justification as to why the interconnection is not possible.

• Page 8, Section G1 – Will DRA be used to calculate open space? Question answered by G4.

  • No, stormwater drainage facilities will not count towards the required open space in the Mixed Use IMA subarea.

• Page 8, Section H1a – Why are we offering 6’ – 8’ height, why not standardize with 8’?

  • The appropriate fence height depends on the use type and the end-users needs to secure the site.

• Page 9, Section 3a – Does the Suncoast need to be added?

  • Buffers will be required along the Suncoast parkway as well as CR 486.

• Page 10, Section V – Why are we letting DRAs for buffers? We aren’t using them for open space so why should they be used to meet buffers?

  • DRAs are only permitted if the buffer character is not compromised. This allows an efficient use of land, which increases the overall development potential within the IMA while ensuring compatibility with adjacent properties.

• Page 10, Section V1 – Why are we permitting above ground utilities?

  • The intent is to address existing above ground utilities. We will discuss with County staff whether existing above ground utilities should be relocated when new development occurs, which would be at the developers’ expense.

• Page 10, Section IV – Shouldn’t we control all types of invasive species?

  • This section addresses landscape buffers where vegetation retention is desired. Invasive species should be removed throughout the site.

• Page 11, Section 4 – Do we need to add Suncoast Parkway?

  • Buffers will be required along the Suncoast parkway as well as CR 486.

Page 12, Section b – I thought our standard landscaped islands were 400 sf.

  • Correct, the minimum landscape island is 400 square feet for both small and large non-residential projects. A minimum of 300 square feet is ample, 3' wider than a handicap parking space. We will consider revising the minimum to 400 square feet to be consistent with the existing code.

• Page 15, Section 3450.A – Why shouldn’t the project be brought to PDC even just for information?

  • The process should be streamlined, not include public hearings for information-only. Additional public hearings can be challenging to schedule, require advanced public notice, which adds time and uncertainty to the approval process. If the development application meets the code, it should be approved, especially projects that don't exceed the thresholds or request additional uses or density/intensity.


Document: DRAFT 486EC District (Employment Center subarea)

• Page 2, Section D – Clarify/Enhance Items 1, 2, 3

  • These thresholds are clear and measurable and account for the variety of potential development projects. If a proposed development exceeds thresholds 1, 2, or 3 (5 acres, 5 dwelling units, or 5,000 square feet of building area), the IMA standards apply.

• Page 2, Section G – 2nd line change “does” to “do”.

  • The term “do” is correct.

• Page 2, Section 3463. There are two Bs.

  • This scrivener’s error will be addressed.

• Page 3 – Why are we doing industrial? We have mixed use adjacent to this. Wouldn’t make for a nice overall area. IMA for 44 and Cardinal should be enough.

  • The 486EU’s intent is to create job opportunities and support business types that may benefit from proximity to the Suncoast Parkway interchange. The subarea is well buffered by the powerline easement and Suncoast Parkway, which is suitable for light industrial and office park uses.

• Page 4 – Don’t we have enough car washes and gas stations already?

  • Proposed uses for both subareas will be examined with staff and brought back for PDC review when proposed text changes are submitted. These uses can be designed well and incorporated into urban environments. If there is a need, they should be allowed; this is a Suncoast Parkway interchange.

• Page 5 – Check for conflicts, i.e. kennels outdoors for vets, no kennels outside allowed.

  • Proposed uses for both subareas will be examined with staff and brought back for PDC review when proposed text changes are submitted.

• Page 6, Open space – DRA included?

  • Up to 50% of the required open space may be DRA. The amount of minimum open space area is the same for both subareas. Since this subarea is nonresidential-focused, there is less need for open space to be used for recreation.

• Page 6, Section D1 – Fix small 2nd line.

  • Noted.

• Page 6, Section E3 – (RE: Maximum perimeter block length) Why are we doing this?

  • The maximum block length is for large-acreage sites that should be broken up for walkability. Projects under thresholds are small sites by nature. Therefore, they are exempt.

Page 6 – Remove Section 3467 B – Topography should not be a reason to change our goals.

  • The exemption is reasonable because extreme topography between sites can cause engineering challenges when trying to provide cross access. It is up to County staff to determine if the exemption is warranted. The burden is on the applicant to provide convincing justification as to why the design/development standard is not possible.

• Page 6, Section 3467 C1a – Define screened.

  • Screening may consist of landscaping, fence, wall, or berm. Agreed, the term “screening” will be defined with measurable standards.

• Page 6, Section C1a – Add Suncoast Parkway, see Section E1d.

  • Buffer and screening requirements will be added for parking areas along Suncoast.

• Page 7, Parking areas – Do Sections 1c and 1e conflict?

  • No, 1c is separating truck parking from employee personal vehicles; 1e is locating employee personal vehicles.

• Page 8, Section G1a – Screening – why give choice? The odds are developer will pick 6’, why not just require 8’?

  • The appropriate fence height depends on the use type and the end-users needs to secure the site.

• Page 10 – Why are above ground utilities okay?

  • The intent is to address existing above ground utilities. We will discuss with County staff whether existing above ground utilities should be relocated when new development occurs, which would be at the developers’ expense.

• Page 11, Section bx – is this an open-ended statement? Could this haunt us?

  • The term “screening” will be defined with measurable standards.

• Page 14, Section 9a – Why do we want this?

  • It is important to be flexible and to allow creative design. Signs may not meet criteria but are still appropriately scaled and enhance the development theme.


On October 5, 2023, the Consultant Team conducted a workshop with the Planning & Development Commission (PDC). The workshop’s intent was to inform the PDC of design concepts proposed for the Multi-Use and Employment Center IMA subareas contained and to receive input and direction on key decision points. DRAFT Comprehensive Plan and land Development Code amendments were provided to the PDC prior to the meeting. The PDC was not asked to make any decisions or approve the DRAFT documents, rather, confirm or redirect the Consultant Team’s approach. The following is a summary of feedback received at the PDC workshop:

Decision points:

1. Confirm proposed Uses.

The PDC felt there were uses in the Employment Center subarea that were too intense for an office park setting. The Consultant Team will work with County staff to ensure appropriate uses are proposed. (See additional comments on specific subareas, below.)

2. Confirm if Residential Single-Family-Detached (RSF-D) subdivisions should be permitted within the Mixed-Use and/or Employment Center subareas.

The PDC, generally, did not want to allow RSF-D in the IMA, since the intent was for more dense development to best utilize existing infrastructure and focus growth in the area. As one PDC member stated: “This is where growth was always supposed to happen.” Some PDC members were open to RSF-D off CR 486, at the periphery, behind higher density/intensity development.

3. Confirm if building heights should be reduced where buildings are proposed adjacent to RSF-D, either inside or adjacent to the IMA.

The PDC felt a six (6) story building height was too high and recommended reducing to a max four (4) stories.

Reduced building heights, larger building setbacks, and large buffers when a project is adjacent to RSF-D is positive for the resident that has been living in the area for years. However, there is a long-term negative consequence, as the early developers are at a disadvantage due to a reduced maximum development potential; subsequent developers that redevelop RSF-D lots have an advantage, since they don’t have the compatibility issue; and the overall max development potential of the IMA is significantly reduced.

4. Confirm if landscape buffers should be required where buildings are proposed adjacent to RSF-D, either inside or adjacent to the IMA.

The public expressed support for the three measures (lower building height, larger building setbacks, and large buffers) to ensure compatibility. Agreement of whether the combination of measures provide adequate compatibility in advance of the IMA approval will expedite the approval process when such cases arise. Certainty in the outcome if the rules are followed and a streamline approval process are great incentives to development.

5. Confirm proposed Thresholds:

  • 5 units,
  • 5,000 square feet, or
  • 5 acres

The public expressed concern about the thresholds and what that means for existing uses. The thresholds only apply to new construction. (See additional comments on existing uses, below.)

One PDC member recommended adding “Change of use” to the thresholds.

One PDC member suggested reducing the building square footage to capture some retail that typically looks undesirable.

6. Confirm whether a Mix of Uses should be required.

The PDC did not want to require a mix of uses, unless a single-use development exceeds a high threshold, such as 300 dwelling units or 100,000 square feet of retail space.

Currently, the DRAFT 486MU and 486EC LDC do not require a mix of uses for expansion of existing facilities or new construction. It is not recommended to require a mix of uses, since developers typically specialize in one type of use or another and developers typically right off the subordinate use to obtain financing.

7. Confirm Architectural standards should follow Town Center Plan Overlay’s Nonresidential Building Design Standards (LDC §3408)

Staff and the PDC did not feel the entire Town Center Plan Overlay should be applied. The intent is to use the Non-residential Building Design Standards (LDC §3408) only as a basis for architectural standards.


Additional comments:

• Review Process:

  • The benefit to the Planned Unit development is the opportunity for public input at the public hearing. A neighborhood workshop would serve the intent to receive public input better, as the applicant can identify and potentially mitigate public concerns prior to the public hearing process.

• Mixed Use subarea:

  • A PDC member questioned whether the Town Center concept was aligned with the current County demographic. Consensus was that the IMA will serve the County for the next 20-30 years and a Town Center development pattern is appropriate to meet future growth demands.

• Employment Center subarea:

  • A PDC member recommended removing the IMA portion south of Horace Allen Street all the way west, as it is already developed with large single-family lots.
  • The same PDC member also recommended replacing the Employment Center subarea with mixed use or all residential single-family detached, consistent with the current development pattern. Other PDC members felt there was merit to the Employment Center and would serve the County well in the future.
  • Access to the Employment Center was questioned, as residential roads could not be used, per Land Development Code (LDC) requirements. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will realign Knoll Road, which will provide nonresidential access to the subarea.
  • • Existing uses:
  • The PDC and public are concerned about the ability of existing uses being able to modify and/or expand existing structures. The intent is not to make existing uses developed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and LDC nonconforming because of adopting the IMA standards. The consensus was to work with County staff on language to meet the intent.


Attachments:

• Planning and Development Commissioner board member Bass’ comments with Consultant Team responses

On October 5, 2023, the Consultant Team conducted a workshop with the Planning & Development Commission (PDC). This document contains comments and questions from PDC Board Member Bass prepared prior to the workshop. Following each comment or question is a response from the Consultant Team.

Document: DRAFT FLUE Amendment - IMA Overview

• Policy 17.35.5 3rd Line – Change “Go Straight” to “Advance”

  • The term “advance” is more appropriate.


Document: DRAFT FLUE Policies 486MU and 486EC

• Page 1, 17.xx.3, 3rd paragraph – Better define items 1, 2, 3

  • These thresholds are clear and measurable and account for the variety of potential development projects. If a proposed development exceeds thresholds 1, 2, or 3 (5 acres, 5 dwelling units, or 5,000 square feet of building area), the IMA standards apply.

• Page 2, 4th paragraph – Should this go back to PDC since a topographic change could drastically alter the approved plan?

  • This exemption is for proposed site plan applications, not ones that have already been approved. The PDC is not part of the proposed review process. The intent is for County staff to determine if topography justifies exemption from certain design/development standards, such as cross access. The burden is on the applicant to provide convincing justification as to why the design/development standard is not possible.

• Page 2, residential lots – Is there a conflict between the first 2 and 17.xx.3 on page 1?

  • This has been resolved now that the PDC/BOCC directed us to prohibit new Residential Single-Family Detached units, unless permitted by the Land Use District and less than five (5) units are proposed.

• Page 2, Do we really want industrial near 486?

  • Industrial is not intended in the Mixed-Use subarea. Proposed uses for both subareas will be examined with staff and brought back for PDC review when proposed text changes are submitted.

• Page 4, Section 17.xx.6 – Better define items 1, 2, 3

  • These thresholds are clear and measurable and account for the variety of potential development projects. If a proposed development exceeds thresholds 1, 2, or 3 (5 acres, 5 dwelling units, or 5,000 square feet of building area), the IMA standards apply.

• Page 5, 4th paragraph – See second comment above [Should this go back to PDC…]

  • This exemption is for proposed site plan applications, not ones that have already been approved. The PDC is not part of the proposed review process. The intent is for County staff to determine if topography justifies exemption from certain design/development standards, such as cross access. The burden is on the applicant to provide convincing justification as to why the design/development standard is not possible.

• Page 5, Section 17.xx.7 – Believe section 17.xx.7 residential conflicts with 17.xx.6

  • This has been resolved now that the PDC/BOCC directed us to prohibit new Residential Single-Family Detached units, unless permitted by the Land Use District and less than five (5) units are proposed.

Page 6 – Why would I want a shooting range in this zone?

  • Proposed uses for both subareas will be examined with staff and brought back for PDC review when proposed text changes are submitted.

• Page 6 – Do the items listed under industrial really fit in with mixed Use? [This is Employment Center] Mixed use in my view is residential, light industrial, retail, office, etc.

  • Proposed uses for both subareas will be examined with staff and brought back for PDC review when proposed text changes are submitted.

• Page 7, Other commercial – Do we really want more car washes, gas stations, and storage units?

  • Proposed uses for both subareas will be examined with staff. These uses can be designed well and incorporated into urban environments. If there is a need, they should be allowed; this is a Suncoast Parkway interchange.

• Page 7 – Conflict between no outdoor kennels and vets with outside kennels.

  • Proposed uses for both subareas will be examined with staff and brought back for PDC review when proposed text changes are submitted.


Document: DRAFT 486MU District (Mixed Use subarea)

• Page 2, Section 2 – Better define items 1, 2, 3

  • These thresholds are clear and measurable and account for the variety of potential development projects. If a proposed development exceeds thresholds 1, 2, or 3 (5 acres, 5 dwelling units, or 5,000 square feet of building area), the IMA standards apply.

• Page 2, Section B1 – Should PDC review impact if topography causes changes (major) to approved plan?

  • This exemption is for proposed site plan applications, not ones that have already been approved. The PDC is not part of the proposed review process. The intent is for County staff to determine if topography justifies exemption from certain design/development standards, such as cross access. The burden is on the applicant to provide convincing justification as to why the design/development standard is not possible.

• Page 2, Section B2 – Why should this be granted? Applicant knows what is required.

  • The intent is to ensure views from CR 486 and Suncoast parkway are attractive. There may be circumstances that relief from the IMA standards presents a significant benefit to a development and does not contradict the IMA's intent.

• Page 3, Section A1 – Does this conflict with Page 2, Item D2?

  • There is no conflict. The thresholds in Section D.2 require adherence to IMA standards. Section A.1 is the maximum development potential for any project.

• Page 5, Development standards – Why measured from back of curb – won’t this result in buildings in right of way?

  • If the build-to line requires a building to be placed in the right-of-way, the building shall be placed at the right-of-way line. The benefit of measuring from the back of curb is so public infrastructure, such as sidewalks, are located within the right-of-way.

• Page 5, Section 2 – Should this be clarified that director cannot shorten block length?

  • A development can subdivide a block to the extent they feel appropriate.

Page 6, Section 3447.A – Does the Suncoast need to be included?

  • Buffers will be required along the Suncoast parkway as well as CR 486.

• Page 6, Section C1a – Do we want to specify screening type?

  • A measurable standard will be included for both the applicant and staff’s ability to review applications.

• Page 6, Section D4 – Raised island should be in conformance with MUTCD standards.

  • All proposed traffic control devices will meet the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) national standards.

• Page 7, Section F1a – What type of screening for employee parking?

  • Screening may consist of landscaping, fence, wall, or berm. The term “screening” will be defined with measurable standards.

• Page 7, Section F1c – Why not make interconnection a requirement rather than “where feasible”. Have a clean slate. This should be doable (cross access).

  • There are circumstances where it is not feasible due to extreme topography or required placement of drainage or utility infrastructure. The 486MU standards include pedestrian/bicycle connectivity as well. The burden is on the applicant to provide convincing justification as to why the interconnection is not possible.

• Page 8, Section G1 – Will DRA be used to calculate open space? Question answered by G4.

  • No, stormwater drainage facilities will not count towards the required open space in the Mixed Use IMA subarea.

• Page 8, Section H1a – Why are we offering 6’ – 8’ height, why not standardize with 8’?

  • The appropriate fence height depends on the use type and the end-users needs to secure the site.

• Page 9, Section 3a – Does the Suncoast need to be added?

  • Buffers will be required along the Suncoast parkway as well as CR 486.

• Page 10, Section V – Why are we letting DRAs for buffers? We aren’t using them for open space so why should they be used to meet buffers?

  • DRAs are only permitted if the buffer character is not compromised. This allows an efficient use of land, which increases the overall development potential within the IMA while ensuring compatibility with adjacent properties.

• Page 10, Section V1 – Why are we permitting above ground utilities?

  • The intent is to address existing above ground utilities. We will discuss with County staff whether existing above ground utilities should be relocated when new development occurs, which would be at the developers’ expense.

• Page 10, Section IV – Shouldn’t we control all types of invasive species?

  • This section addresses landscape buffers where vegetation retention is desired. Invasive species should be removed throughout the site.

• Page 11, Section 4 – Do we need to add Suncoast Parkway?

  • Buffers will be required along the Suncoast parkway as well as CR 486.

Page 12, Section b – I thought our standard landscaped islands were 400 sf.

  • Correct, the minimum landscape island is 400 square feet for both small and large non-residential projects. A minimum of 300 square feet is ample, 3' wider than a handicap parking space. We will consider revising the minimum to 400 square feet to be consistent with the existing code.

• Page 15, Section 3450.A – Why shouldn’t the project be brought to PDC even just for information?

  • The process should be streamlined, not include public hearings for information-only. Additional public hearings can be challenging to schedule, require advanced public notice, which adds time and uncertainty to the approval process. If the development application meets the code, it should be approved, especially projects that don't exceed the thresholds or request additional uses or density/intensity.


Document: DRAFT 486EC District (Employment Center subarea)

• Page 2, Section D – Clarify/Enhance Items 1, 2, 3

  • These thresholds are clear and measurable and account for the variety of potential development projects. If a proposed development exceeds thresholds 1, 2, or 3 (5 acres, 5 dwelling units, or 5,000 square feet of building area), the IMA standards apply.

• Page 2, Section G – 2nd line change “does” to “do”.

  • The term “do” is correct.

• Page 2, Section 3463. There are two Bs.

  • This scrivener’s error will be addressed.

• Page 3 – Why are we doing industrial? We have mixed use adjacent to this. Wouldn’t make for a nice overall area. IMA for 44 and Cardinal should be enough.

  • The 486EU’s intent is to create job opportunities and support business types that may benefit from proximity to the Suncoast Parkway interchange. The subarea is well buffered by the powerline easement and Suncoast Parkway, which is suitable for light industrial and office park uses.

• Page 4 – Don’t we have enough car washes and gas stations already?

  • Proposed uses for both subareas will be examined with staff and brought back for PDC review when proposed text changes are submitted. These uses can be designed well and incorporated into urban environments. If there is a need, they should be allowed; this is a Suncoast Parkway interchange.

• Page 5 – Check for conflicts, i.e. kennels outdoors for vets, no kennels outside allowed.

  • Proposed uses for both subareas will be examined with staff and brought back for PDC review when proposed text changes are submitted.

• Page 6, Open space – DRA included?

  • Up to 50% of the required open space may be DRA. The amount of minimum open space area is the same for both subareas. Since this subarea is nonresidential-focused, there is less need for open space to be used for recreation.

• Page 6, Section D1 – Fix small 2nd line.

  • Noted.

• Page 6, Section E3 – (RE: Maximum perimeter block length) Why are we doing this?

  • The maximum block length is for large-acreage sites that should be broken up for walkability. Projects under thresholds are small sites by nature. Therefore, they are exempt.

Page 6 – Remove Section 3467 B – Topography should not be a reason to change our goals.

  • The exemption is reasonable because extreme topography between sites can cause engineering challenges when trying to provide cross access. It is up to County staff to determine if the exemption is warranted. The burden is on the applicant to provide convincing justification as to why the design/development standard is not possible.

• Page 6, Section 3467 C1a – Define screened.

  • Screening may consist of landscaping, fence, wall, or berm. Agreed, the term “screening” will be defined with measurable standards.

• Page 6, Section C1a – Add Suncoast Parkway, see Section E1d.

  • Buffer and screening requirements will be added for parking areas along Suncoast.

• Page 7, Parking areas – Do Sections 1c and 1e conflict?

  • No, 1c is separating truck parking from employee personal vehicles; 1e is locating employee personal vehicles.

• Page 8, Section G1a – Screening – why give choice? The odds are developer will pick 6’, why not just require 8’?

  • The appropriate fence height depends on the use type and the end-users needs to secure the site.

• Page 10 – Why are above ground utilities okay?

  • The intent is to address existing above ground utilities. We will discuss with County staff whether existing above ground utilities should be relocated when new development occurs, which would be at the developers’ expense.

• Page 11, Section bx – is this an open-ended statement? Could this haunt us?

  • The term “screening” will be defined with measurable standards.

• Page 14, Section 9a – Why do we want this?

  • It is important to be flexible and to allow creative design. Signs may not meet criteria but are still appropriately scaled and enhance the development theme.


Page published: 03 Nov 2023, 04:31 PM