2026-11-04 - Planning and Zoning Commission

01:24Welcome to the meeting of the planning

01:26and zoning commission. Today is

01:27Wednesday, November 4th. It's 9:00 and

01:30the meeting will now come to order.

01:33We'll now have a moment of silence.

01:38Please stand for the pledge of

01:39allegiance.

01:43>> I pledge algiance

01:45of United States of America and to the

01:48republic which stands one nation under

01:51God, indivisible, with liberty and

01:54justice for all.

02:00>> Madame city clerk, uh please call the

02:02role.

02:08>> Yes, chair. Um

02:11Aking

02:12>> here.

02:13>> Botana

02:13>> here.

02:14>> Estes

02:15>> here.

02:16>> Martin

02:17>> here. more.

02:20>> Senator

02:21>> here.

02:21>> Severson

02:22>> here.

02:23>> Six present, one absent.

02:25>> Thank you. Uh, next item five, changes

02:28to the agenda and adoption of the

02:30agenda. Are there any changes to the

02:31agenda?

02:34>> Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion to uh

02:36approve the agenda.

02:37>> I'll make a motion that we approve the

02:39agenda as presented.

02:41>> Okay.

02:43>> All those in favor? I.

02:45>> All those opposed.

02:48Agenda is approved. Next item six,

02:51approval of minutes. Everyone received a

02:53copy of the October 7th, 2025 meeting

02:56minutes. Uh they were included in your

02:58backup material for approval. Uh are

03:01there any u additions or corrections?

03:05Seeing none, can I have a motion to

03:07approve the October 7th, 2026 meeting

03:09minutes?

03:10>> Second. Senator.

03:13>> All those in favor. All those opposed?

03:16None. Motion approved.

03:21Okay.

03:33Next item is item seven, uh, business.

03:36None. Next is eight, planning and zoning

03:38commission public hearings. Item is 8A,

03:41ordinance 6026.

03:53Good morning. For the record, my name is

03:56Wyatt Daltry, playing team coordinator

03:58for the city's playing division. My

03:59credentials may be found at the city

04:01clerk's office. What we have before you

04:03today is or 60-26,

04:06which is a text amendment.

04:08Uh this is a proposed text amendment for

04:10two policies within the conservation and

04:12coastal management element of the

04:14comprehensive plan. The request within

04:17this ordinance is to amend a pair of

04:18policies 1.2.19 and 1.7.9

04:23which will revise permitting and

04:24planning review by removing references

04:27to a protected species affidavit that

04:29must be completed prior to development

04:31order completion and permit issuance. Uh

04:34this is in response to issues discovered

04:36through current procedures that we have

04:38today. Uh this amendment uh if adopted

04:41will result in greater permit review

04:43efficiencies and reduce uh review

04:45delays. Um kind of like a large scale

04:48future land use map amendment. Uh text

04:50amendments go through a prolonged review

04:52process with state agencies. Uh these

04:55are presented before you and then

04:57they're presented to council uh for a

05:00transmitt hearing which is different

05:02than an adoption hearing. Uh if council

05:04so deems it, the this amendment would be

05:06transmitted to state agencies for the

05:08review whereupon they take about a month

05:10to review the amendment and it comes

05:12back to council for final approval.

05:16The two policies in question strike

05:18through indicates language is to is

05:20proposed to be removed. Underline is

05:23language that is proposed to be

05:24included. And what you can see here is

05:26the references to affidavit are

05:28basically being struck out and replaced

05:31with an acknowledgement. So they're

05:33we're still retaining a requirement that

05:35a developer fulfill some acknowledgement

05:39of protected species. We're not getting

05:41away we are not getting rid of that.

05:45It's just that we're changing from

05:46affidavit to acknowledgement.

05:501.7.9 Similarly, you see the striketh

05:53through of affidavit to be replaced with

05:55acknowledgement.

05:58To conclude, uh this proposed language

06:00essentially is a housekeeping change. Uh

06:02this is not in conflict with any of our

06:04other policies in the comprehensive

06:06plan. Uh it's consistent with the city's

06:08goal of administering protective

06:09measures for protected species within

06:11Cape Coral. As a result, staff

06:13recommends transmitt of the proposed

06:15amendment. I'll stand by for questions.

06:18Thanks, Wyatt. Uh we'll now open the

06:21public hearing. Any members of the

06:23public wishing to speak, please use the

06:24podium to my left. Uh print your name on

06:27the sign-in sheet. Be sure to state your

06:30name for the record.

06:34Yeah, my name is Marie Kavanagh and the

06:37reason I'm here is I look through these

06:39things and I I don't understand the

06:42rationale of

06:44replacing affidavit with

06:46acknowledgement.

06:48Um, with an affidavit essentially uh the

06:53notary just asks the person presenting

06:56the paperwork, is that your signature?

06:57They say yes. Okay, hunky dory. Let's

06:59go.

07:01uh the signer has to appear but it does

07:04not require the signer to swear to the

07:06truth of the document contents. So by

07:09doing changing it to an acknowledgement

07:12you relieve the developer of verifying

07:16the ver signing for the veracity of the

07:20paper paperwork that they're presenting.

07:23Um

07:25uh affidavit is a written statement that

07:28is sworn to be true in front of a notary

07:31and it serves as a declaration of fact

07:33that the signer affirms those everything

07:36is true and the signer must take an oath

07:39regarding the truthfulness of the

07:41statement.

07:42Um

07:44and the uh in an acknowledgment

07:47the notary does not have to witness the

07:50signature. So, I mean, I don't know why

07:53you did that. It just lowers the burden

07:55at on our protected species. And um why

08:00would you take

08:03developers having to,

08:06you know, state the truth, verify what

08:08they're presenting is truthful.

08:10I don't think that's an unreasonable

08:12request.

08:14And those are it's in not only this um

08:20uh the ordinance 6026, it's also found

08:24in 61-26

08:27chapter 23 paragraph B of of section

08:3123-1.

08:33So I'm just really hoping that you'll,

08:37you know, put it back to

08:41an affidavit rather than an

08:43acknowledgement. It's a a firmer thing

08:45and I want to keep protecting our

08:47species.

08:50>> That's it. I got to finish signing in.

08:52>> Okay. Thank you.

09:00Is there anyone else wishing to speak?

09:02Yep. Thank you.

09:07>> Good morning, commissioners. My name is

09:08Judy Mitchell and I'm president of Cape

09:10Coral Friends of Wildlife. Our nonprofit

09:13all volunteer organization was

09:15established in 2001 to protect wildlife,

09:18especially the buring owls and gopher

09:20tortoise of Florida designated

09:23threatened species. Our all volunteer

09:26organization records GPS locations of

09:29burrows throughout the city and

09:31maintains them by cleaning, mowing, and

09:34trimming. This includes burrows on

09:37city-owned properties acquired through

09:39the $900,000 grant from the Florida Fish

09:42and Wildlife Commission. We received no

09:45city funding for this work. Last year,

09:47our members contributed over 13,000

09:50hours to the city.

09:53Ordinance number 6026.

09:56friends is deeply concerned about any

09:58ordinance changes that affect the city's

10:00comprehensive plan and its conservation

10:02and coastal management element plan.

10:05Changes intended to improve efficiency

10:08or serve other purposes often weaken

10:11protections.

10:13Wildlife protection in our city remains

10:15mediocre at best despite citizens

10:18repeated reports of violations.

10:21I have not seen the proposed electronic

10:23acknowledgement. I hope it retains the

10:26under penalty of perjury type language

10:28and the strength of a notorized

10:30affidavit.

10:32Today I speak for our city wildlife

10:34which cannot speak for themselves.

10:37Friends of wildlife gives them a voice.

10:40Our mission is to protect threatened

10:41wildlife and their habitat. Please help

10:44us fulfill that mission today. Thank

10:46you.

10:46>> Thank you.

10:57Is there anyone else uh wishing to

10:59speak?

11:00Seeing none, public input is now closed.

11:04I'll open the floor for commissioner's

11:06discussion time. Commissioner Estes.

11:08>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um question to

11:10staff. I too am concerned and would like

11:13some maybe explanation of the mechanics

11:16why going from an affidavit to

11:18acknowledgement. Well, first I would

11:19like to put on the record that our

11:21current affidavit process is not

11:23notorized.

11:24>> Is not what

11:25>> is not notorized.

11:27>> Can I understand the last part?

11:29>> No. The current uh

11:31>> the current

11:34the current format in which uh that we

11:36require developers to sign uh to sign

11:39off on protected species is not

11:42notorized.

11:45But it is a a sworn statement under

11:49penalty of perjury. I'm assuming

11:50>> that is correct.

11:51>> Okay.

11:53>> So why the change then from an affidavit

11:56to acknowledgement?

11:58>> I will defer uh to my colleague and

12:00depart and deputy uh department director

12:03uh Matt Grahambo for that.

12:06>> Good morning commissioner. It was

12:07Matthew Granbo, deputy development

12:08services director. I was going to get

12:09into more details on the very next item,

12:11but I thought this was a good

12:12opportunity to come up and and detail

12:14why staff is taking the position of of

12:16replacing the the affidavit with this

12:18acknowledgement. Uh so the city has

12:21transitioned to a digital permitting

12:22process. As most of you know, uh, all of

12:25our applications are required to be

12:26submitted online and the paper affidavit

12:29that are coming in uh, are commonly

12:31rejected not for environmental

12:33beneficial purposes, but due to things

12:36like um, you know, slight typos on

12:38addresses or um, names of property

12:41owners or names of contractors not being

12:43correct. It's a no value added process

12:45for our staff to review. we can actually

12:48get to the actual environmental review

12:50for these ground disturbing projects

12:52much more quickly if there's that not

12:54the requirement for that paper

12:55affidavit. How this would look um if

12:58approved, if recommended for approval by

13:00the planning and zoning commission and

13:01adopted by city council, is that on our

13:03digital permit application, there will

13:05be a new section to every ground

13:07disturbing application that would

13:09include all of the same information that

13:10is currently required on the paper

13:12affidavit and would allow our reviewers

13:14to more quickly do the environmental

13:16reviews. Uh with any type of endangered

13:19species uh regulations, time is really

13:21of the essence. Uh once an applicant or

13:23a property owner indicates that they're

13:25going to be developing the property,

13:26it's very important for us to be able to

13:28get into the actual substantive

13:30environmental review, we use uh our GIS

13:33database of all endangered species

13:36locations, burrows for gopher tortoises

13:38and burrowing owls, locations of eagle's

13:40nests. And so by avoiding the purely

13:43administrative uh review of a paper

13:46affidavit document and getting directly

13:48into that environmental review, we're

13:50able to use all of our GIS layers and

13:52all of our technology to be able to

13:54identify if there's going to be any type

13:55of conflict. That makes that regulatory

13:58process much more quick. Um it also uh

14:00allows us to reject permits based on

14:03actual locations of burrows within a

14:06certain radius of where the proposed

14:08development is much more quickly.

14:09typically between one or two days rather

14:12than a back and forth with the applicant

14:14about things like uh typos and addresses

14:16or scanned signatures. Um Mr. Daltry is

14:20correct. Uh per state law, there is that

14:22under penalty of per perjury double

14:24signature allowance that avoids the

14:26necessity for an actual notoriization on

14:29the document. Um, and we think that uh

14:32the changes that we're making here uh

14:33not only will make us more efficient uh

14:36but also allow us to focus on the

14:37substance of the review which is where

14:38the actual environmental benefit is with

14:40uh these two sections.

14:42>> Okay. If I could continue, Mr. Chairman,

14:44um I'm still not comfortable.

14:47Okay. So, with an affidavit, the

14:51declarant is making a statement that

14:54they are saying is true. Mhm.

14:55>> with an acknowledgement. They are merely

14:58saying that their signature is of their

15:00own free will. They're not acting under

15:02duress. I am more comfortable with a

15:05property owner or a developer coming in

15:08making a statement where they are saying

15:10that it is true that there are no

15:13tortoises, there are no owls on the

15:14property. I don't have that comfort

15:16level with an acknowledgement. So, is

15:20there a way to

15:23walk me out of this or tell me tell me

15:26something that's going to make me feel

15:27more comfortable?

15:28>> It's it's difficult to have a formal um

15:31affidavit in

15:32>> I'm sorry. Difficult to have what?

15:33>> A formal affidavit um where there's an

15:36actual um you know notorized document or

15:40notorized confirmation that the facts in

15:43any information provided to the city for

15:45review is true in a digital format. Um,

15:47we believe that where the where where

15:50the benefits are here are one being able

15:52to actually look into the specific case

15:54with our environmental review staff and

15:56planning more quickly. We think that

15:57there's a benefit to that uh rather than

16:00potentially a couple weeks of going back

16:02and forth where uh the contractor or the

16:04property owner may may be doing some

16:06initial work uh on the site. Um, and

16:09additionally, um, as I'll discuss in the

16:11next item, we are increasing the penalty

16:13or proposing to increase the penalty

16:15significantly from $500 to $3,000. So,

16:18we think that'll be a major

16:19disincentive, uh, for any applicants

16:21that are trying to falsify any

16:22information provided to the city because

16:24the risk of the penalty is is uh 12

16:27times it would be six times higher than

16:30it currently is.

16:31>> Okay, that's all for now. Thank you,

16:34>> Commissioner Batano. Yes, I have a

16:36couple thoughts on

16:38>> just I have a couple of thoughts on the

16:40subject as well. I kind of agree with my

16:42cl colleague as to the the the more

16:45enforcable part of the affidavit as

16:48opposed to the acknowledgement. uh and

16:50and I cannot believe that uh in this

16:56technological day and age that a way to

17:00uh electronically

17:02provide the same strength of law to an

17:06acknowledgement

17:07uh electronically as opposed to having

17:10to have a piece of paper that uh that

17:14there's no reason to do this. Uh, and

17:17uh, I would uh, I would say if if the

17:21only motivation is so staff can move

17:23more quickly, which is the gist of what

17:25I got of what your explanation was, as

17:28opposed to being sure that what we

17:30develop in this city is proper and right

17:34and doesn't endanger species and doesn't

17:37make a wrong decision with regard to the

17:39long-term business impact on the on the

17:42city. uh it's not worth rushing in my

17:46opinion. So I I would not be in favor of

17:48this proposed resolution.

17:54>> Thank you. Uh Commissioner Martin.

17:57>> Well, I'm all about uh speeding up the

17:59permitting process.

18:02I've got to speak against the transition

18:05from an affidavit to an acknowledgement.

18:11>> Okay. Mr. sanator.

18:14>> Okay. So, from what I'm listening is the

18:17penalties are still in place if they

18:19make a false statement as opposed to an

18:24affidavit in the acknowledgement. And

18:26then the next one we're going to do is

18:27we're increasing the fine. So if they

18:31make a false statement

18:34on the acknowledgement,

18:37is there the protection that we verify

18:41the information?

18:43>> So by including this acknowledgement

18:45within the permit application, you would

18:46actually have two separate avenues. Um

18:49not only um you know through our u

18:52burrowing endangered species ordinances,

18:54but also uh falsification of permit

18:56documentation is also illegal under

18:58Florida state law. So you could you

19:00could pursue two different avenues for

19:02any misrepresentation of information in

19:04the application.

19:06>> So if they say there's nothing on there,

19:09we're still verifying the property of

19:10the site.

19:12>> Yes. So there's an environmental review

19:14associated uh with ground disturbing

19:16projects like this. And so the affidavit

19:18is is part of the the current version of

19:21of the affidavit um that is submitted as

19:23an attachment to a permit application

19:25triggers an environmental review where

19:27you have a staff member that pulls up

19:29our GIS information looking at where all

19:31these um existing buroughs are. Uh we

19:34still send inspectors out um in cases

19:36where we're not sure. And so we think

19:39that um it's more important to get to

19:41that stage of the review as quickly as

19:43possible um and to get it in front of

19:44the subject matter experts in the

19:46planning division who review

19:47environmental um issues on a wide

19:50variety of developments within the city

19:52u more quickly um rather than to solely

19:55focus on um the you know truthfulness of

19:58the document. Um, you know, I think it's

20:00important to verify um the information

20:03that's that's being provided as quickly

20:05as possible and um having an

20:07acknowledgement um and have that be

20:09available through the digital permit

20:10application rather than an attachment

20:12where we have a lot of issues where uh

20:14individuals have difficulties uh

20:16uploading attachments in the system. It

20:18needs to be a specific file type. It

20:20needs to have all the uh information

20:22completed appropriately. Um we just

20:25truly believe that um the actual

20:27reviewers uh being able to look and

20:30review the situation as quickly as

20:31possible um in advance of the start of

20:34construction um is the is the real

20:35benefit here um as opposed to um

20:39attempting to verify the truthfulness of

20:41the document. We we always are checking

20:44um against our database um regardless of

20:46what what form uh the acknowledgement or

20:48affidavit comes into the city.

20:49>> Okay. Yeah, that's good. Um, I'm glad we

20:52keep the checks and balances. We're

20:53going to raise the penalty. So, I would

20:55be in favor. Thank you,

20:57>> Commissioner Estes.

20:59>> Thank you. I I I just see this is um

21:01taking away a second prong with an

21:04affidavit. The owner of the developer is

21:07making an affirmative

21:10under the penalty of perjury presumably

21:12that there's no habitat on the property.

21:18you destroy habitat or excuse me, should

21:20I say you destroy a um owl nest that's

21:26occupied, you destroy a a tortoise,

21:29that's a penalty.

21:31But at the same time, if you make a

21:34false statement saying that there is no

21:36habitat and when in fact there is,

21:38that's a second penalty. And I think

21:40it's important that property owners,

21:43developers understand that they need to

21:45be truthful with the city. And I think

21:49we better hold them to that obligation

21:52of truthfulness with an affidavit as

21:55opposed to acknowledgement. I mean,

21:56acknowledgement, all it says is you're

21:59signing the document of your own free

22:00will. I mean, it doesn't really do

22:03anything here, but the affidavit does.

22:06And I am very sympathetic to staff

22:08trying to speedline the process. I am

22:11not very techy. I can't even operate my

22:14phone half the time. I don't even know

22:15how to upload an app half the time. But

22:18I just spent three years in law school

22:20and um I'm not comfortable moving the

22:23change to an acknowledgement from an

22:25affidavit. I think the city can do

22:27better. I I hope they will. So I will be

22:29voting this down.

22:32>> Not others. I just have a question for

22:34the city attorney. If the U affidavit

22:39does not have a notary,

22:42is there any difference between that and

22:43the acknowledgement?

22:46Well, the acknowledgement by its by its

22:48own definition is just the fact that

22:50they executed. The whole point of having

22:51an affidavit is

22:55it's signed under penalty of perjury and

22:57it's notorized. That's that's what gives

22:59it its legal effect. So by not having it

23:01notorized is essentially just having

23:03them sign a paper. It has no real legal

23:06effect. You couldn't really pursue it if

23:08you really wanted to. At least not in a

23:10sense of of perjury.

23:14Okay.

23:16Well, my thinking is that if the uh

23:19penalty is increased significantly,

23:22um that's going to bring everyone to a

23:25little bit more honesty.

23:27And that's the way I view it. So, I

23:30mean, again, if you have a penalty

23:33that's stiff enough, it generally gets

23:35someone's attention, and I think that's

23:37where we're at. So, I would be in favor

23:39of this. Um, seeing no other lights,

23:43I'll uh m uh entertain a motion to

23:46approve uh ordinance 60-26.

23:50>> I'll make a motion we approve ordinance

23:5160-26.

23:52>> Do we have a second?

23:55Second.

23:58Uh,

24:00>> Mr. Severs.

24:04Okay. Uh, can we have the uh

24:10approval? Let's see.

24:12>> Atkin,

24:14>> yes.

24:15>> Batana,

24:16>> no.

24:17>> Estes,

24:18>> no.

24:19>> Martin,

24:20>> no.

24:21>> Moore.

24:23Senator,

24:24>> yes.

24:25>> Severson,

24:26>> yes.

24:27Um 33 motion failed.

24:31>> Okay, thank you.

24:35Next item is ordinance 61-26.

24:38Have staff take it.

24:40>> Good morning again, commissioners.

24:41Matthew Granboot, deputy development

24:42services director. Uh the item in front

24:45of you is uh the accompanying ordinance

24:48change uh that will accompany uh the

24:51comp plan amendment that was just

24:53discussed by uh Mr. Daltry here. Um, so

24:56I'm going to go through this really

24:56quickly because we just had this

24:58discussion. Um, so what this will do is

25:00uh replace the requirement for a

25:02physical affidavit uh to accompany uh

25:04ground disturbing permit applications

25:06and replace that with an electronic

25:08acknowledgement uh with the exact same

25:10information. Uh, additionally, uh, this

25:12ordinance would increase the penalty

25:14from $500 to $3,000 for violations.

25:19Uh so our our main objective here is to

25:22simplify the permitting process and be

25:23able to get uh these applications into

25:26environmental review more quickly. Uh it

25:28replaces the language of affidavit with

25:31acknowledgement in section 2312 and

25:33updates that fine to the $3,000. Uh as I

25:36discussed a couple minutes ago, uh all

25:39of our permitting processes are are

25:40conducted electronically. Uh what this

25:42would do is it would authorize staff to

25:44move forward with adding uh a new window

25:47in the permit application process that

25:49would be separate uh from some of the

25:51other information in the in the

25:53electronic permit application. Uh this

25:55would have a dedicated section where it

25:56would detail uh what our local

25:58requirements are and what FWC

26:00requirements are for these types of

26:01projects. um and to require the

26:04conducting of a visual survey um and the

26:08disclosure of any existing environmental

26:10spe uh endangered species on the

26:11property uh prior to the review and

26:13prior to the review the approval of uh

26:16any permit application.

26:19Um we are recommending approval. Uh the

26:21benefits of this would be to streamline

26:23the process uh enable staff to review

26:25these from an environmental perspective

26:27more quickly um while preserving our

26:29ability uh to verify uh if there are any

26:33burrows or other endangered species

26:35elements on the properties.

26:37Uh so the uh ordinance change is

26:39consistent with the comprehensive plan.

26:41Uh we believe that it does not weaken

26:42any of the requirements that currently

26:44exist. It just changes the changes the

26:46form in which the city receives that

26:47information. Um, and then it also, uh,

26:50updates the outdated, uh, penalty

26:52amount, uh, which is about one-third the

26:55cost of what a taking permit would be.

26:57Uh, so with that said, uh, thank you,

26:59and I'm available for any additional

27:00questions.

27:01>> Thanks, Matt. Uh, we'll now open public

27:03hearing. Public hearing is now open. Any

27:05members of the public wishing to speak,

27:07please use the podium to my left. Please

27:09put your name on the sign-in sheet. Be

27:11sure to state your name for the record.

27:14>> Yep. [clears throat] Excuse me. My name

27:16is Marie Kavanagh. Um, I agree raised

27:19the fine to $3,000, but I don't think

27:22you should remove the possibility of

27:24prison

27:27for these people for violators,

27:30especially if they're repeat violators.

27:32That should not come out of there. My

27:34opinion.

27:35>> Thank you.

27:37>> And same thing with the affidavit.

27:40Thank.

27:46>> Good morning, commissioners. Judy

27:48Mitchell, president of Cape Coral

27:49Friends of Wildlife.

27:52Thank you for considering an increase to

27:53penalties in ordinance number 6126

27:58regarding protected species, buring

28:00owls, and gopher tortoises.

28:03When penalties are lower than the cost

28:05of removal permits and contracts,

28:07violating the rules is cheaper than

28:10complying.

28:12To deter violations in today's business

28:14environment, penalties must exceed the

28:18cost of compliance.

28:20We propose a $4,000 penalty instead of

28:24the amount specified in this ordinance

28:27at this time.

28:29You will find that take permits from FWC

28:33take about cost about $1,900.

28:38Then you have an environmental firm come

28:40out, scope the site

28:43and uh basically crush the burrow. And

28:47that runs in the neighborhood of between

28:49two and $3,000.

28:51So I don't think a $4,000 penalty would

28:54be um too out of line on this.

28:58Anyway, thank you very much for letting

29:00us talk.

29:01>> You're welcome. Thank you. Is there

29:03anyone else wishing to speak? Uh, seeing

29:06none, public hearing is now closed.

29:10I'll open the floor to commissioner

29:12discussion.

29:16Commissioner Estes.

29:17>> Thank you. Um, question to the city

29:19attorney. Um, obviously I don't like u

29:21the change from affidavit to

29:23acknowledgement, but

29:26in light of the earlier vote,

29:31what would happen? And I realize this is

29:34going for to council, but what is the

29:36legal effect of if the commission votes

29:40to approve this item in light of not

29:43approving the previous item?

29:45>> Creates a conflict.

29:47>> Okay. I mean it references

29:50acknowledgement. So you just your

29:52recommendation is a four 33 fail. So

29:55it's kind of contradictory. So it' have

29:57to be resolved one way or the other.

29:58>> Okay. And then under Florida statute, is

30:02there a cap or a limit of how much of a

30:05fine that the city can impose in this

30:09situation where a owner

30:13>> uh well it it have to be

30:17it's arguably $5,000 per day for each

30:19day the violation continues to exist

30:21upon the property. Right. This

30:22essentially they're decriminalizing the

30:24violation, making it a code violation.

30:26Um, that's probably the extent of which

30:29you can probably do that, but this is

30:31nothing more than a decriminalizing the

30:33penalty provision that's associated with

30:35this violation. More likely than not,

30:37this will never be prosecuted by the

30:39state attorney's office. The only way

30:41this would get prosecuted by the state

30:42attorney's office is if the city of Cape

30:45Coral commence a municipal prosecution

30:47program. That's the only way it's going

30:49to happen. But for the state attorney's

30:52office to prosecute this, that's why

30:53they're doing it. Um because right now

30:56there's no real teeth arguably. So the

30:59only way we're going to do that is to uh

31:01create a monetary fine. Whether you go

31:043,000, 4,000, 5, 5,000, that's really up

31:07to you or up to the council, excuse me.

31:10Um but then you got to go chase that

31:11money. So or the city's got to go chase

31:14that money and that's normally by way of

31:17leans and then and then executing on the

31:19leans and so forth and so on. So this is

31:22really meant as a deterrent,

31:24right, to make it that much more scary.

31:27People are going to violate, they're

31:28going to violate it one way or the

31:29other. But there are those who are

31:32disincined to violate our laws. But

31:34there always going to be someone that's

31:36going to violate the law. It's just a

31:37matter of whether or not we pursue them.

31:39Hopefully that answers your question.

31:40>> Okay. Yes.

31:41>> I know it's a lot, but

31:42>> no, exactly what I needed to know. So I

31:45guess my question to the count

31:46commission is would we be willing to

31:50bifurcate this proposal here in a pen? I

31:56I don't have a problem raising it to

31:58$5,000.

31:59It's really up to the the city and the

32:01enforcement mechanism as to whether how

32:04much they're going to do. If it's an

32:06egregious um violation, then maybe they

32:09go after the 5,000. If it's something

32:11extremely minor, no owls were harmed, um

32:14they just mowed a little too close or

32:16whatever, maybe it's a thousand dollars,

32:18we give the city that flexibility. I'm

32:21still not comfortable voting from

32:24affidavit to acknowledgement. So would

32:28we the commission be willing to

32:30bifurcate this go for

32:33>> a motion? I it's not really a

32:35bifurcation. If you all wanted to, if

32:37you're an acknowledgement of the

32:39monetary increase and your

32:40acknowledgement of the PUD, I think

32:41they're adding PUD to this as well, what

32:44you would do is you would just make a

32:45motion approving the ordinance with the

32:48exception of removing the

32:50acknowledgement portion. And then that

32:52way the council will know. I'm sure Matt

32:54or Amy will let them know. And then that

32:56way you would be approving all the other

32:58amendments but for that notion where you

33:01you strike through affidavit including

33:03acknowledgement. And if you want to

33:04increase it to 5,000, that's where you

33:07would also modify that, too. That would

33:08be your recommendation. That would be

33:10your motion.

33:11>> So, so eloquently put, council, that is

33:13my motion to $5,000. I hope the city

33:16clerk got all of that because I'll never

33:18be able to refute.

33:19>> Yeah, it'd be it'd be a motion to

33:20approve,

33:22how are you guys calling it? Is it

33:23ordinance 61-26?

33:25>> Yeah. Motion to approve ordinance 61-26

33:28with these modifications increasing the

33:31monetary fine to 5,000 and not approving

33:34the strike through of the affidavit

33:37uh and and substituting for the

33:39acknowledgement. But other than that,

33:40you approve all the remaining changes.

33:43>> Thank you, council. That's my motion. I

33:45hopefully I'll get a second.

33:46>> I would second that.

33:48>> Well, let let's take the other comments

33:50first, then we'll come back to it. Okay.

33:53>> I'm sorry. Who was the second?

33:55Thank you.

33:56>> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Senator.

33:59>> Okay. So, I mean, I was in agreeing with

34:01that.

34:02I still don't see the big difference

34:04between changing from or why they would

34:07object to affidavit to acknowledgement.

34:09That's neither here nor there because by

34:13ordinance 20 or 6126 section 2315, we're

34:17adding teeth to everything. And I agree

34:205,000

34:22still might be a little bit low, but if

34:23that's the most we can go with, I mean,

34:25I would definitely want to support that.

34:27I think the fine should be substantially

34:29higher than the cost if they were going

34:32to do the work, which would be the teeth

34:34are discouraged them do it. So, I I

34:37would definitely be on supporting if we

34:39made that change to the ordinance. Thank

34:42you.

34:42>> Thank you, Commissioner Sverson.

34:45>> Yeah. Thank you. I I I'm hoping to get a

34:48little elicitation here on this whole

34:50process because I think what we started

34:51out the conversation was with

34:53developers. Now I'm wondering how does

34:55this have implications in terms of a

34:57neighborhood. A neighbor finds himself

35:01or herself with burrowing owls on their

35:04property and uh now this burrowing owl

35:07is protected. In order to eradicate that

35:09buring owl, it's going to cost them

35:12$2,500 $3,000. Is this is this encompass

35:16all of that?

35:20In other words, I'm getting the whole

35:22core of personal property rights.

35:25>> So, if you could

35:26>> Can you repeat that one more time? I'm

35:28sorry, sir.

35:29>> Does this apply to developers only or is

35:32this to residential

35:35individuals who find a burrowing owl on

35:38their plot? This is related to the the

35:40permitting process and documentation

35:42that needs to be provided during the

35:43permitting process. So, uh the affidavit

35:46that's only required for any ground

35:48disturbing permit application that is

35:50received by the city. And then

35:52additionally, um with adjacent property

35:54owners, um our burrowing owl and go

35:56tortoise regulations do apply um if the

35:58burrow is located on the neighboring

36:00property. So, let's say there's a burrow

36:02within five feet of the property line

36:03and they're proposing a shed that is

36:06designed to go into that back right

36:07corner of the parcel. Um, so in that

36:10case, um, they they would, you know,

36:12submit an acknowledgement that this is

36:15going to be within a certain radius of

36:16of a burrow that may not even be on

36:18their property. Um and then we need to

36:21do an environmental review to actually

36:22do measurements um through the site plan

36:25in our GIS layers to ensure that that um

36:28radius is preserved depending on whether

36:30it's nesting season or not nesting

36:31season. So that's how it would affect a

36:33property owner who has an burrow on

36:35their property but may not be pulling a

36:37permit or doing any work. Um it would it

36:39would be still to the property owner

36:41that is actually having the developed

36:43property.

36:46>> Okay. So I think I think Matt's answer

36:48is to everyone who submits a permit. So

36:51it's not just developers, it's anyone

36:53who submits a permit that has an impact

36:56on on wildlife species. Correct.

36:58>> Correct.

36:59>> Okay.

36:59>> Well, I I've got a question. Say for

37:02instance that burrowing owls go onto a

37:05property

37:06that they don't want them on their

37:08property and do they have to pay the

37:12fees to uh remove them then or what's

37:14the uh the prog what how's that happen?

37:23If someone if there is a homeowner who

37:25has burring owls that take up residence

37:27in their front yard and they don't want

37:29them there, then they would have to go

37:30through the proper permitting process to

37:32take that

37:35owl's burrows.

37:36>> Okay. Because I've had that question

37:38come up before and um

37:41>> say the cost associated with it.

37:43>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. But one one point

37:45of clarification that would be

37:46permitting through FWC, not through the

37:48city of Cape,

37:49>> right? Okay. Thank you, Mayor.

37:51>> Yep.

37:51>> And Mr. Chairman, that is not what's

37:54before us.

37:55>> Correct.

37:55>> If you have burrowing owls in your

37:57property and you don't want them,

37:59>> what we're doing here has nothing to do

38:01with that.

38:01>> No, I know.

38:02>> If like the city attorney said, if

38:03you're building a shed, right,

38:05>> then you become part of the permitting

38:07process, then this could kick in. But if

38:09you're just dealing with owls and

38:11tortoises overrunning your yard, that

38:14that's not what we're talking about

38:15here.

38:15>> Correct.

38:16>> Yeah. And I wanted to clarify that

38:17because that question always comes up.

38:19Thank you.

38:21>> Now, seeing more light, no more lights,

38:23I'll entertain the motion uh by

38:26Commissioner Estes to make the changes

38:28to uh ordinance 61-26 for approval.

38:34>> Entertain a motion and a second. We got

38:36it.

38:36>> That is my motion. We already had a

38:38second.

38:38>> We already had the motion in second.

38:40>> Okay. If you'll take the U attendance

38:43here.

38:44>> What was the motion?

38:45>> The motion is if you want to read the

38:48motion again. [laughter]

38:50>> I got most of it, but if you would do

38:52it, I greatly appreciate it.

38:53>> Yeah. So, it it's it's an approval of

38:56ordinance 61-26

38:59with the modifications of the monetary

39:02fine from 3,000 to 5,000 and also

39:05[snorts] the disapproval of the

39:08strikethrough of affidavit and the

39:10inclusion of acknowledgement. All the

39:12rest of the amend proposed amendments

39:15are acceptable to the planning and

39:16zoning board for this motion.

39:20>> Is everyone clear? Okay. Go ahead and

39:23take the vote.

39:25>> Appking

39:26>> I.

39:26>> Botana

39:28>> I.

39:28>> Estes

39:29>> I.

39:30>> Martin

39:31>> I.

39:32>> Senator

39:32>> I

39:34>> Severson.

39:35>> Hi.

39:36>> All eyes. Motion carried.

39:37>> Thank you. Thank you. Thanks Matt. Uh,

39:40next item is ordinance 50- 56-26.

39:44I'll turn over to staff.

39:53Good morning, commissioners. For the

39:55record, Amy Yearsley with the city

39:56planning division. My credentials can be

39:58obtained at the city clerk's office.

40:01What we have, as with the prior two

40:04ordinances, you're going to see a series

40:06of what are considered streamlining of

40:09the permitting process, uh, changes that

40:12we're putting forth in accordance with

40:14some of the direction we received from

40:15our city council with their strategic

40:17plan.

40:19So LDC

40:22section 5.1.6 is protection of easements

40:28this work. So the request today it's a

40:30city initiated amendment to section

40:325.1.6 of the land development code to

40:35remove the requirement for property

40:36owners to execute a record a hard hold

40:39harmless and indemnification agreement

40:41as a condition of permitting certain

40:44encroachments into pees. Every property

40:46in Cape Coral is a platted part of uh

40:49the city of Cape Coral subdivision does

40:51maintain a six-foot public util utility

40:54re easement around the outside.

40:57So again, this is to simplify the

40:59permitting process by eliminating what

41:01is a redundant hold harmless agreement

41:03requirement. Um removes the requirement

41:06for that hold harmless and the

41:08requirement that it is recorded in the

41:10clerk of courts. Just so we're aware,

41:14we currently require in the the

41:17protection of easement section that any

41:21improvement in the hold harmless in the

41:23in the public utility easement must be

41:27removed

41:28at the cost of the homeowner. So it is a

41:31risk that they take. It is currently

41:33codified. This is merely another piece

41:36of paper um that is put forth in order

41:39um to then be recorded. Again, we retain

41:43all of the protections that are in this

41:45in the protection of easement sections,

41:48the dimensional limits, the structural

41:50independence, um utility conflict

41:53prohibitions and maintain the owner

41:56owner financial responsibility.

41:58Staff is recommending approval. We find

42:01that this um will no will applicants

42:04will no longer incur recording fees or

42:06processing times associated with hold

42:08harmless agreements. Staff will no

42:10longer need to track, review or conform

42:13recording of the agreements for routine

42:15permits. And again, we preserve the

42:17protections that already exist in our

42:19code. some someone uh again if someone

42:22does build something in the pee that is

42:24permitted it is their responsibility to

42:27remove it when we need to get in there

42:29or another utility needs to get in

42:30there. We believe it's consistent with

42:33the comprehensive plan. It clarifies

42:35that the LDC itself is the operative

42:38source of the city's authority and the

42:40owner's obligation corrects an

42:42administrative redundancy. Again, we

42:45already impose the same substant of cost

42:48obligations and again, efficient

42:51customer service.

42:53I'll stand by for any questions.

42:55>> Thank you. Uh public hearing is now

42:58open. Any members of the public wishing

42:59to speak, please use the podium to my

43:01left, please print your name on the

43:03sign-in sheet and be sure to uh state

43:05your name for the record.

43:10Seeing none, public hearing is now

43:12closed. I'll open the floor for

43:14commissioner discussion.

43:18Seeing none, can I have a motion to

43:20recommend approval of ordinance-56-26?

43:24>> I'll make a motion we approve ordinance

43:2656-26

43:27>> and a second.

43:31>> Okay.

43:33Madam city clerk, please take the role.

43:37>> App

43:37>> I.

43:38>> Batana.

43:39>> Hi.

43:40>> Estes.

43:40>> I.

43:41>> Martin. I

43:43>> senator

43:44>> I

43:44>> Severson

43:45>> I

43:46>> all eyes motion carried.

43:48>> Thank you.

43:50Next item is item

43:5759-26.

44:01Again for the record Amy with the city

44:03planning division. Today you have a city

44:07initiated text amendment to section

44:095.9.5 of land development code which

44:12will remove the utility connection

44:14requirements for temporary construction

44:16trailers and field offices in both

44:18residential and non-residential zoning

44:20districts. Um this again is a process

44:24improvement that we are bringing

44:25forward. Um, this was something that was

44:28brought to our attention uh by our

44:31partnership with the LeeBIA of something

44:33that was taking causing extra delays in

44:36projects.

44:39So again, we're trying to simplify the

44:41permitting for temporary construction

44:42trailers and field offices temporary

44:44uses. Um, it removes there's one

44:47requirement that uh requires utility

44:49connection in these to potable water,

44:52sewer and electrical. Um, utility needs

44:55are operational decisions of a

44:57developer. Um, if they should decide

45:00that they want to connect to them,

45:01Florida building code will still govern

45:03the actual installations. Um, we retain

45:06all other standards. This is simply a

45:09striketh through of the utility

45:12provisions and staff is recommending

45:13approval. Again, applicants are no

45:16longer required to demonstrate or

45:18install codemandated water, sewer,

45:20electrical connections solely for LDC

45:22compliance. they will do it as part of

45:24their building permits if they choose to

45:26do this. Uh all existing requirements

45:29again stay as they are for these

45:32particular uh temporary uses and we will

45:36no longer need to review um connection

45:40standards that are better left to a

45:42developer operational uh planning and

45:44the Florida building code. If a

45:47developer wants to have a temporary

45:49construction trailer and they want their

45:51person to use a porta potty, then that

45:54is their choice.

45:57Again, we find it's consistent with the

45:59comp plan. It does not change any

46:01buffering setback compatibility

46:03standards uh and it protects our

46:06residential areas. Um temporary uses

46:09remain temporary. Again, the decision

46:11remains with the developer. uh corrects

46:14an administrative redundancy and again

46:17approves efficient customer service

46:21and I'll stand by for any questions.

46:23>> Thank you. Public hearing is now open.

46:26Any members of the public wishing to

46:27speak, please use the podium to my left,

46:30please print your name on the signin

46:31sheet. Be sure to state your name for

46:33the record.

46:36Seeing none, public hearing is now

46:38closed. I'll now open the floor to

46:40commissioner discussion.

46:45Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to

46:47approve the ordinance 59-26.

46:50>> Make a motion we approve ordinance

46:5259-26.

46:53>> Second, Estus.

46:56>> Thank you. Madam city clerk, please take

46:58the role.

47:00>> App.

47:02>> Botana.

47:03>> Hi.

47:03>> Estes.

47:04>> I.

47:05>> Martin.

47:06>> I.

47:06>> Mo. Senator.

47:08>> I.

47:09>> Severson.

47:10>> Hi.

47:10>> All eyes. Motion carried.

47:12>> Thank you. Uh, next item is AD. That's

47:15ordinance 62-26.

47:31>> Good morning, commissioners. For the

47:32record, Mike Stuvie, planning team

47:34coordinator with the city planning

47:36division. Uh this particular ordinance

47:39before you, ordinance 62-26,

47:42uh proposes to amend a couple of

47:44articles in the land development code

47:47and in particular uh article 4, the use

47:51table in article 4 to allow a heavy

47:53vehicle sales and rental use in the

47:56commercial zoning district as a special

47:59exception. This is a use that is already

48:03identified and allowed in a couple of

48:04other zoning districts. And what we

48:06would be doing here is to expand the

48:09range of that use to allow it in the

48:11commercial zoning district. Secondly,

48:14we're proposing to amend article five of

48:17the land development code by adding a

48:19new subsection that would establish

48:21special regulations for this same use.

48:24The reason we're here this morning is

48:26that uh this uh amendment was initiated

48:29at a relatively recent city council

48:32meeting that occurred back in September

48:34where uh the city council uh directed

48:37staff to add this use uh to the

48:40commercial zoning district and to uh

48:43develop whatever regulation staff felt

48:46were appropriate for governing this use

48:48and to bring it back for future city

48:51council consideration.

48:55city currently allows two uh vehicle

48:58rental uses and I think that's important

49:00that we sort of distinguish between

49:02those two and and understand what is

49:05actually covered under those two

49:07separate uses. The first is a light

49:09vehicle rental use and this use allows

49:13basically the rental of passenger cars

49:16and vehicles if you want to think about

49:18it that way. Technically, it allows the

49:21rental of vehicles with a gross vehicle

49:23weight weight rating of 10,000 pounds or

49:26less. And I'll get into that terminology

49:29in just a second.

49:31The second use is the use that we're

49:33talking about this morning and that's a

49:35heavy vehicle sales and rental use and

49:38that allows the sales and rental of

49:40vehicles with a gross vehicle weight

49:44weight rating that is over 10,000 square

49:47pounds uh or 10,000 pounds. So, this

49:50would involve uh the moving trucks that

49:53you're familiar with, the 24 26 foot

49:58long trucks that people often will rent

50:01to move their possessions from one

50:04location to the other after a a home

50:06sale. Now in terms of the gross vehicle

50:11weight rating that is simply the maximum

50:16total safe operating rate of a vehicle

50:20that's established by the manufacturer.

50:22So it is a known commodity. It's

50:24something that you can look up on on the

50:27internet. It is something that is

50:29available from the manufacturer. It also

50:32appears on the compliance certification

50:34label in your vehicle. I opened up the

50:37door to front door to my vehicle.

50:39There's that yellow and white label that

50:42appears to be defeasing part of my the

50:44interior of my vehicle, but it actually

50:46includes that information as well. And

50:49that rating is simply includes the empty

50:53weight of the vehicle plus any fuel,

50:56passengers, and cargos. That's what we

50:58use to distinguish between those two

50:59uses.

51:04The heavy vehicle sales and rental uses

51:07are currently allowed uh in two zoning

51:10districts as a permitted use in the

51:12industrial zoning district and in the

51:14commercial corridor zoning district. The

51:18proposal here would be to add this use

51:21or to allow for the expansion of this

51:23use in the commercial zoning district as

51:26a special regulation

51:28or with special regulations and as a

51:30special exception. Special exception

51:32uses do require the filing of an

51:35application with the city, a review by

51:37staff, and then they require approval by

51:40the hearing examiner. They do not,

51:42however, require that second step or

51:45approval by the city council.

51:49In terms of the special regulations that

51:52we are proposing uh in association with

51:55this use, I've summarized them here on

51:58this slide and they appear on the second

52:01to the last page of the ordinance here

52:03before you. Uh we're proposing that uh

52:06when someone wants to enjoy this use

52:08that the that the access to the site be

52:12limited to a major street when it's

52:14possible or practical.

52:17We would require a minimum sight depth

52:19of 250 feet for uh individuals that want

52:24to pursue this type of use. So that

52:26essentially equates to full block depth,

52:28if you will, 250 ft. Special regulations

52:32would also require rental vehicles to

52:34occupy striped sparking striped parking

52:38spaces on the site

52:41and rental vehicles would be restricted

52:44to parking in parking spaces that are

52:47shown on the approved site plan

52:49associated with the project. And lastly,

52:52uh the regulations would require uh a

52:56building permit or a certificate of

52:58zoning compliance to be obtained by the

53:00owner within one year after receiving

53:04special exception approval by the

53:05hearing examiner.

53:09We think there are several benefits

53:11associated with this ordinance. one,

53:13we're increasing development options to

53:16people with seizone property by adding

53:18another use that they could potentially

53:20enjoy.

53:22We would also potentially be allowing a

53:24small number of existing businesses that

53:27are currently operating in the sea

53:28zoning district to expand assuming that

53:31they can meet these new requirements. We

53:34believe the ordinance promotes orderly

53:36development. These regulations, special

53:39regulations were uh intended uh to uh

53:44contribute to sites that will be

53:46designed appropriately and will be

53:49managed well over time. And then lastly,

53:53there are site specific safeguards that

53:55we have put in place. The classification

53:58of this use as a special exception will

54:01allow the hearing examiner to impose

54:04reasonable conditions on the design and

54:06operation of this use when it is

54:09appropriate for that particular

54:11operation.

54:13Staff is recommending approval of this

54:16ordinance. Uh this uh ordinance of

54:20course will go before the city council

54:21and two public hearings will be required

54:24by the city council because we're

54:25actually amending our use table. And

54:27I'll stand by in case you have

54:29questions.

54:29>> Thank you. Public hearing is now open.

54:32Any members of the public wishing to

54:34speak, please use the podium to my left.

54:37State your name for the record.

54:40Seeing none, public hearing is now

54:42closed. I'll open the floor to uh

54:45commissioners.

54:52>> Commissioner Estes.

54:53>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh question to

54:55staff. So, you don't see any concerns

54:58about um this affecting the aesthetics

55:01of the commercial neighborhood,

55:03particularly where we find commercial

55:05neighborhoods that are ab budding

55:07residential neighborhoods going into a

55:11heavier use of rental vehicles.

55:14>> There could be potential impacts. Uh but

55:16we think that those will be mitigated in

55:19two ways. one by requiring a special

55:21exception to allow for a staff review

55:24and then a review by the hearing

55:25examiner. Again, there could be

55:27conditions imposed on the operation that

55:31might include

55:33buffering or screening, those types of

55:35things that can also impact residential

55:38developments. The other thing we think

55:40that will help uh promote compatibility

55:44not just with surrounding residential

55:47uses but even within or along commercial

55:52corridors are these special regulations

55:54that will sort of act as a sift if you

55:56will. Uh particularly that depth

55:58requirement. um that is going to be very

56:02uh im important we believe to prevent

56:05these operations from popping up on very

56:08small and narrow sites. And in addition

56:11to that, uh, one thing that we had a

56:15similar use, uh, prior to 2019

56:19that I think we learned a lot about and,

56:23uh, we had some operations that were

56:25approved that didn't have strip parking

56:28spaces on their site. We found that over

56:31time, people were parking in

56:33occasionally in areas that had been

56:35approved for customer parking. So these

56:38regulations um are in place to prevent

56:41the reoccurrence of those things from

56:43happening again all to provide for a

56:46more organized site and to ensure that

56:49compatibility exists.

56:51>> Thank you very much

56:53Martin.

56:54>> I'd like some of the regulations that go

56:56along with this but personally I mean at

57:00the risk of appearing ignorant I think

57:01we're good with what we got. I mean,

57:04[clears throat] we've got numerous

57:06facilities that rent these heavy

57:08vehicles, and my concern is that if this

57:12moves forward, we're going to have

57:15U-Haul, rider trucks popping up all over

57:18the city like car washes and storage

57:20facilities.

57:22Thank you.

57:24>> Any comment on that?

57:26>> No, I don't have any any comment. Um I

57:29will say that

57:31since 2019 that I am aware of um we've

57:35been approached by

57:38two existing um rental establishments

57:42wanting to expand their operations. We

57:44haven't approached by anyone that wants

57:46to establish a new rental business.

57:49Certainly that can change but um

57:52personally I don't think that we're

57:54particularly concerned about that.

57:56>> Sure.

57:56>> Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner

57:58Senator,

58:00>> so I'm looking at this and I know that

58:02we have U-Haul here in Cape Cole on

58:04Santa Barbara

58:06and for my first part, would that kind

58:07of give them restrictions on where to

58:09park? Because right now they store their

58:11trucks all over their location of their

58:13property. Number two is I know there's a

58:17Home Depot on Skyline that has heavy

58:19equipment which a lot of it is over

58:2110,000 pounds and they do park in public

58:25parking for customers. How does this

58:28impact them?

58:32So it does not affect existing

58:34operations because both of those

58:40uses were approved prior to 2019 when

58:45our code changed. Both of those

58:50establishments were approved by special

58:52exception. both the Home Depot

58:54establishment and then the the site that

58:56you mentioned there um along Santa

59:00Barbara. What these regulations do

59:04prevent is any expansion of those uses

59:08unless they come back in and file a

59:11special exception with the city and then

59:15have their request scheduled before the

59:18hearing examiner. So, and then paragraph

59:20E of 5-12-4 or D4 discontinuence. So, if

59:25they stop doing it for a year, then

59:28would they lose their special exception?

59:34>> That's how I would interpret this. So, I

59:36would interpret this in in two in two

59:39different directions. One is you get

59:41approved for a special exception

59:44and then you don't act on it within 12

59:48months. That means then that you've lost

59:51that entitlement. You can regain that

59:53but you've got to go through the process

59:55again. And then likewise, I would

59:59interpret this as as well is that if you

1:00:03have a special exception use

1:00:07and you begin to enjoy it and then

1:00:11you discontinue it for for 12

1:00:13consecutive months or more, you've lost

1:00:16that use. And then again, if you wanted

1:00:18to regain it, whether you're the current

1:00:20owner or a different owner, you need to

1:00:21go through the the process again.

1:00:24>> Okay. Thank you.

1:00:27Commissioner Estes to follow up with uh

1:00:30Commissioner Senator's comment. I would

1:00:33also assume that if they were to uh make

1:00:36some sort of a change in use, either

1:00:38expand operations or alter the

1:00:44site in some way, they would need to

1:00:46come back to the city as well as any

1:00:49legal non-conforming use would typically

1:00:52have to do. Correct.

1:00:54if they were making changes to the

1:00:56rental establishment use. And I want to

1:00:58make that distinction because uh we have

1:01:02in both of the examples that you had

1:01:04asked about,

1:01:06we have other uses that have been

1:01:10approved for both properties. One we

1:01:13have a large big box retailer and on the

1:01:16other one it's a it's a convenience

1:01:18store. So if they were making changes to

1:01:22the site and normally you would need to

1:01:24go through our site plan process to do

1:01:26that, but it was limited for example

1:01:29just to the convenience store and didn't

1:01:31have anything to do with the rental

1:01:33establishment. They could do that

1:01:35administratively.

1:01:37But if they were making [laughter]

1:01:38changes to their rental establishment

1:01:40operation,

1:01:43for example, we used to park our rental

1:01:45vehicles here. Now we want to park them

1:01:47over here. we want to expand the number

1:01:50of of vehicles. Uh we may want to expand

1:01:54the number of trailers that were

1:01:56previously approved for. Then that would

1:01:58require them to amend their special

1:02:00exception and then

1:02:01>> Thank you.

1:02:02>> go before the hearing exam.

1:02:06>> Any other comments? Seeing none, I'll

1:02:09entertain a motion in a second.

1:02:10>> I'll make a motion we accept ordinance

1:02:1262-26.

1:02:14>> Second.

1:02:15>> Second.

1:02:18Madam City clerk, please call the role.

1:02:24>> App.

1:02:25>> Botana.

1:02:26>> I.

1:02:27>> Estes.

1:02:28>> I.

1:02:29>> Martin.

1:02:30>> I.

1:02:30>> Senator.

1:02:31>> I.

1:02:32>> Severson.

1:02:33>> I.

1:02:34>> All eyes. Motion carried.

1:02:35>> Thank you. Moving along to item nine.

1:02:38Citizens input time. Now open the floor

1:02:41to citizens input. Any members of the

1:02:42audience wishing to speak, please use

1:02:45the podium to my left uh and state your

1:02:48name for the record. Uh minimum of 30

1:02:51minutes and three minutes per speaker.

1:02:56>> Marie Kavanaaugh. I just want to thank

1:02:58you guys. This was a very pleasant

1:03:00experience.

1:03:03>> Thank you.

1:03:05Okay, citizens input time is now closed.

1:03:09Uh any staff updates from staff?

1:03:16Just wanted to let the commission know

1:03:19that uh we have embarked, the city has

1:03:22embarked on our visioning for our

1:03:25parcels off of Burnstore as well as the

1:03:27academic village site and there is a

1:03:30public um poll that is out. It's

1:03:33available on Facebook um to look at the

1:03:36concepts that are being brought forward

1:03:38so for your public input.

1:03:40>> Thank you.

1:03:43Item 12, any member comments?

1:03:47Seeing none, item 13, date and time and

1:03:50next meeting. The next regular meeting

1:03:51of planning and zoning commission is

1:03:53scheduled for Wednesday, December 2nd at

1:03:569:00 a.m. in council chambers. And I'll

1:03:58now entertain a motion to adjurnn.

1:03:59>> I'll make a motion we adjourn.

1:04:01>> Meeting is adjourned.

```*