Official Minutes of MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. March 17,2017

Transcription

1 Official Minutes of MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CALL TO ORDER: The Marion County Board of County Commissioners met in a joint workshop session with the Land Development Regulation Commission in Commission Chambers at 2:04 p.m. on Friday, at the Marion County Governmental Complex located in Ocala, Florida. INTRODUCTION OF WORKSHOP BY CHAIRMAN CARL ZALAK, III Chairman Zalak advised that the joint workshop was scheduled this afternoon with the Land Development Regulation Commission (LDRC) regarding Land Development Code (LDC) Amendments. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of our Country. ROLLCALL Upon roll call the following members were present: Chairman Carl Zalak, District 4; Commissioner David Moore, District 1; and Commissioner Michelle Stone, District 5. Vice-Chairman Kathy Bryant, District 2; and Commissioner Jeff Gold, District 3; arrived shortly after the meeting commenced. Also present were County Attorney Matthew G. Minter and County Administrator Mounir Bouyounes. Also present were the following members of the LDRC: Chairman David Tillman, Vice Chairman Robert Stepp, Christopher J. Howson, Richard V. Busche, Bernhard W. Stalzer, and Alternate Member Rodney K. Rogers. Members John Rudnianyn and Jonny Heath were absent. Chairman Zalak noted that both Commissioner's Bryant and Gold will arrive shortly. He advised that one is held up in traffic and the other is in a meeting. It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk is in receipt of a 6 page Agenda; a 6 page Draft Executive Summary; a 4 page new format document; a 27 page document relating to Section 1, Article 5, Division 3 Floodplain Overlay Zone; a 7 page handout regarding Article 4, Zoning - Table of Contents; a 46 page document regarding Division 2, Zoning Classifications; an 18 page handout relating to Article 4, Zoning; a 37 page document relating to Division 3, Special Requirements; a 2 page document regarding Section Off-site signs; and a 1 page document regarding Section Tree trimming and tree removal permit. OPENING REMARKS - David Tillman, LDRC Chairman LDRC Chairman David Tillman yielded the floor to Mr. Martsolf. STAFF PRESENTATION - Sam Martsolf, Growth Services Director Growth Services Director Sam Martsolf advised that the first of two public hearings will be held next Wednesday, March 22, He stated the second public hearing will be Book W, Page 229

2 held on Tuesday, April 11, Mr. Martsolf noted the LDRC completed their first and only public hearing on Wednesday,. March 15,2017 and recommend going forward. He stated there are a couple of items that are up in the air that they knew would be addressed today. Commissioner Moore out at 2:06 p.m. JOINT DISCUSSION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS I. Article 5, Overlay and Special Area A. Flood Plain Ordinance Revision Mr. Martsolf briefly commented on how this process was started. Staff found out this year that the Floodplain Ordinance needed to be updated to match the model Ordinance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), so they backed off the April 11, 2017 date and started mid-january to get to where they are today. The Floodplain Ordinance change is the primary, most important thing, if nothing else happens through this process, as the 19 th of April is the Federal deadline. If the deadline is not met there will be consequences in regard to the county's status with FEMA. The Ordinances have been separated in the handouts presented by staff in case the Board wants to approve one portion and not another. The remainder of the Amendment is something that has been hanging around for 2-1/2 years from when the department started with an amendment to change the entire zoning classifications countywide, but have since backed off of. Commissioner Moore returned at 2:07 p.m. (Ed. Note: This matter was again addressed later in the meeting.) II. Article 4, Zoning Classi'fications A. Format revision (Table of Uses versus "One Sheet") Mr. Martsolf advised that he is on his third Planner, who has gotten them where they are today. He noted that unfortunately staff found out a few months ago that the format he was assured was okay with MuniCode, was not. Mr. Martsolf referred to the new format handout, noting what is seen today is very similar to this, but is exact in content. The difference is what is before the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is an example of B-2 (Community Business) that includes everything that was stricken through and added (underlined) from the existing Code, which is in chart format. Mr. Martsolf stated it looks like there is a lot there, but it is not. The chart format brought things in and duplicated what was already in the list, or it was listed in a lower classification, which by this Code is already accepted as a permitted use. In other words, you will see at the very top under section B. Permitted Uses, includes everything that is a permitted use in B-1 (Neighborhood Business). He clarified that if a use is listed here that is included it B-1 they are stricken through. LDRC Chairman David Tillman noted Drugs is listed under permitted uses. LDRC Recording Secretary Vanessa Angello, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Technician Analysis, Growth Services, advised that it is being corrected to Drug Store. Mr. Martsolf stated staff knew it had the floodplain and schedule, but also had medical marijuana; however, it was unknown how urgent it was to get something adopted a couple of months ago. What staff is presenting today is the formatting amendment and the amendments that were suggested, which are very limited for residential, commercial and industrial zoning classifications; a re-write of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section; a change to the Sign Ordinance in only one area. He noted the Board would not Page 230, Book W

3 see all those pictures as they were also an issue with MuniCode, as well as having other Code names like Yamaha, etc. in the LOC. Chairman Zalak questioned from a resource standpoint, why those items cannot be included in the Code whether or not it is acceptable to MuniCode. Mr. Martsolf stated they will be removed from the adopted Code. Commissioner Stone out at 2:11 p.m. Chairman Zalak asked if some law dictates doing it that way. Mr. Martsolf advised that it is a formatting issue. Chairman Zalak inquired as to how to fix the format. Mr. Martsolf stated staff can bring the signs back with pictures. He advised that a consultant is working on the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) in regard to developing the formatted form-based requirements and noted his preference is to wait and bring that back to the Board as one. Commissioner Stone returned at 2:12 p.m. Chairman Zalak stated it is proven that less mistakes are made over time when there are graphics along with the word picture. He noted the whole purpose of this is to try to make it as easy as possible to use and provide examples so that when people read the Code they know what to anticipate and expect, especially if they are not professionals. Mr. Martsolf stated he would have suggested not bringing anything forward in regard to signs until all that was worked out, except that he wanted to add the portion in regard to billboards in agricultural zones. He advised that he wanted that section to be adopted with this amendment. Chairman Zalak agreed. Mr. Martsolf stated staff will be back very quickly with the CRA suggestions in regard to architectural standards and everything there. He stated if it is the Board's preference he can put the sign section back together for the public hearing; however, that was not shown at the LORC public hearing. Chairman Zalak advised that he is okay with staff taking time on the issue, but does not want this to look like a big textbook without any pictures, graphs or charts. He stated if it is a formatting issue then they need to determine internally how to get the formatting right so that they can be included. Chairman Zalak expressed his interest in waiting to make sure it is done right. It was the general consensus of the Board to concur. In response to Chairman Zalak, LORC Member Richard Busche opined that the pictures are helpful, especially in applications. He advised that it is his understanding that the problem is with someone going online to look at the LOC they will not have access to that formatting. Chairman Zalak noted that if it is online then the county should be able to upload those pictures and put a link in that section. Mr. Martsolf stated they can do that; however, the current problem is that it is in this presentation format which does not work. Once everything is converted to a Word format then staff can include pictures at a cost of $10 per picture. He clarified that it is a cost that will need to be budgeted. Commissioner Gold arrived at 2:15 p.m. In response to Mr. Busche, Chairman Zalak advised that he would like to include as much of the illustration package throughout the Code, as it will make it that much more effective. Mr. Martsolf concurred, noting it will make it easier for Code Enforcement and others to have a diagram. Chairman Zalak inquired as to what it means to the Board today from a decision making standpoint. Mr. Martsolf stated he needs to waylay the sign portion of Article 4, which is a separate portion, with the exception of the one line at the end under off-site advertising that includes the billboard issue in the agricultural area. Book W, Page 231

4 Chairman Zalak advised fellow Commissioners that one of the things he and Mr. Martsolf have been running into is with people placing a billboard or sign on their home site (i.e., farm or something similar) that has nothing to do with the actual business at that location. He commented on someone who owns agricultural land on CR 315 advertising a truck junkyard on a large sign; however, the business is not located on the property. Chairman Zalak stated they wanted to include something in the Code to say that is not the best place for a sign, or to at least require going through the Administrative Process. Mr. Martsolf concurred. Mr. Martsolf advised that takes care of what is coming before the Board in regard to Article 4, noting Article 5 is the Overlay Zone, which includes the floodplain changes as mentioned earlier. Article 6 is another one-liner in the tree section, which deals with having to go through a process in order for utility companies to remove trees from the rights-ofway (ROW). Chairman Zalak clarified that Article 6 addresses utility companies, noting as part of their maintenance, they cannot lop off the top of a tree and not take it all the way down. Utility companies should take the tree all the way down and then grind it to finish the job and make the ROW look decent. Mr. Martsolf advised that takes them through the format revisions and into why the LDRC is present this afternoon. B. Residential Zoning Density/Design L Standard Zoning versus Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning Mr. Martsolf commented on the first sticking point in the residential section. Chairman Zalak inquired as to how exactly they are going to go through this package. Mr. Tillman noted it has to do with how much the Board wants to hear. Chairman Zalak advised that any changes need to be addressed. Mr. Tillman stated there are some things they want to talk about that are somewhat different than direction given by the Board. Mr. Tillman noted one of the specific items is in relation to minimum lot sizes. Chairman Zalak stated the Board will want to talk about that, as well as any big changes in regard to the zoning classification itself. He questioned whether there are any recommended changes in regard to zoning classifications; for example, any changes from B-3 (Specialty Business) to B-2, B-4 (Regional Business) to B-5 (Heavy Business), or any substantial changes in regard to any of those business classifications. Mr. Martsolf advised that the only change he can recall is that they moved golf carts and low-speed vehicle (LSV) down to B-2, as that is where staff has had many Special Use Permit requests, noting there are a lot within the county that are operating illegally. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf advised that staff is not permitting them without a Special Use Permit in B-2. Mr. Tillman clarified that in the B-2 zoning classification they will not have to come to the BCC for any reason, as it will be done automatically. Mr. Martsolf stated staff will not let them display in parking areas if those parking spaces are needed to meet their parking requirements. Chairman Zalak noted that is a generic statement, as most of the time what he sees is them parked in parking spots or in the ROW. Mr. Busche questioned whether they are talking about selling them or actually parking them. Chairman Zalak stated they are talking about selling golf carts and LSVs. He commented on a small shopping center not far from the area near On Top of the World (OTOW) and Oak Run where the golf carts and LSVs are either in parking spots with balloons or something on them or in the ROW by the sidewalk. Chairman Zalak asked if that will still be okay or if it is something that needs to be addressed. Mr. Tillman Page 232, Book W

5 stated they are not allowed to use a public ROW as their display, but it is not specifically addressed in the Code. Chairman Zalak opined that is not a big deal, as Code Enforcement will take care of that issue. Mr. Martsolf stated if you are permitted by right to sell golf carts it is assumed that some display will be outside. He noted golf carts are one of the other things, other than boats, that are allowed in the B-2 classification. Motorcycles, cars, sheds, mobile homes, recreational vehicles (RVs), etc. are all in B-4. ~I In response to Chairman Zalak, County Administrator Mounir Bouyounes advised that no changes need be made, as Code Enforcement will take care of the parking in ROWs. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Tillman suggested they first look at the floodplain management item since it is a priority. Chairman Zalak recommending taking it by order of importance and questioned what section they are in. Mr. Tillman referred to Section 5.3 Floodplain Management. Mr. Martsolf advised that the primary thing that happened here was the new model Ordinance, which requires that the county pull everything out of its current Code that is required by the Florida Building Code. He advised that staff has done that to FEMA's satisfaction, which meant moving some things around; however, nothing changed in regard to the intent or character. No changes were made in relation to the duties of the Floodplain Administrator. In regard to variance procedures, Mr. Martsolf noted the LORC appropriately pointed out the Board of Adjustment was probably not the best board to hear variances to the floodplain and the Development Review Committee (ORC) would be a better choice. Chairman Zalak inquired as to how that would work with the ORC hearing floodplain variances. Mr. Martsolf stated it is the same way as the variance process works for the Board of Adjustment if someone wanted an adjustment to their setback or something similar. An application would be made, noting staff can make a floodplain variance application for ORC, as it does not happen often. Mr. Tillman stated the reason for requesting that modification is because the ORC is made up of people who are supposed to be experts in that field and should be the type of people to make that decision rather than laypeople who sit on a variance board. It was the general consensus of the Board to concur. Mr. Busche clarified that since floodplain variances will be heard by the ORC then appeal rights will be before the BCC. Mr. Tillman stated other than the Model Ordinance that was the only thing the LORC requested be done. Mr. Martsolf concurred. Chairman Zalak questioned what needs to be addressed from a FEMA perspective. Mr. Martsolf advised that FEMA wanted everything out that is duplicated in the Florida Building Code. Mr. Tillman clarified that FEMA felt it is more enforceable to put their language in the Florida Building Code than it was to have them in a local land development regulations. FEMA put a lot of their regulations in the Florida Building Code and no longer wants them to be part of LOCs so there is no potential for conflict. Chairman Zalak asked if all of the data that the County Engineer's team has done is being used to establish flood hazard areas or if it is the older FEMA information. Mr. Martsolf advised that it is the newer data staff helped to establish through their studies that is being re-adopted in April, He noted the advanced floodplain study is available for the county to use; staff is able to talk to people about it and are able to show them, as well as helping people who are not in the floodplain know that they are in an area that has been studied and known to be low with the potential to fill up during a storm. Book W, Page 233

6 County Engineer Tracy Straub, Office of the County Engineer (OCE), noted there is a slight difference. She advised that what will be adopted in April of 2017 are the regulated FEMA floodplains. Chairman Zalak inquired as to the differences in the regulated floodplain and what the county has. Ms. Straub stated the FEMA floodplain is where OCE has been mapping and modeling for over the years, which has been submitted to FEMA for acceptance. OCE staff has not mapped the entire county, but have mapped wide portions. In April, 2017 they will be adopting the latest change, which mostly impacts the City of Ocala and the southwest portion of Marion County that is the regulatory FEMA floodplain. OCE has done a lot of modeling on areas outside of the FEMA study work from the watershed management plans, which is the work that Stormwater Engineer Gail Mowry, OCE, manages and oversees. Staff has made a conscientious choice to not always proceed forward with moving to FEMA flood mapping. She opined that FEMA flood mapping is an insurance business and the county wants to help people know how to properly build. OCE has a lot of good information that is not necessarily with FEMA and is not being regulated from FEMA, but is in staffs hands to help guide people. Ms. Straub noted that is touched on in another section of the Code, under Article 6. She clarified that this only covers the regulated FEMA floodplain that OCE staff does. Chairman Zalak referred to page 4 of the floodplain management handout and inquired as to what exactly is said in Section G. Inspections, which states: The Floodplain Administrator shall make the required inspections as specified in Section of this section for development that is not subject to the Florida Building Code, including buildings, structures and facilities exempt from the Florida Building Code. The Floodplain Administrator shall inspect flood hazard areas to determine if development is undertaken without issuance of a permit. Mr. Martsolf stated the Building Inspector is inspecting the location of the property, what the base flood elevation is, the fact that they get their Elevation Certificates turned in and are properly filled out stating they are elevated to the code required height. Throughout the process the Building Department, through the Florida Building Code, looks at construction of the structure to make sure it is flood proofed, if needed; has the right flood openings, etc.; that construction of the material is correct for being in the floodplain, along with the elevation; and all the lowest supporting members, all the electrical stuff (i.e., air conditioning units, pool pumps, etc.) is elevated, and are all inspected while onsite. Chairman Zalak noted that after that, the Floodplain Administrator, which is Mr. Martsolf, is going to establish with the Building Official the procedures for administrating documents and asked if they will have to bring the proof to him and how that works in the Building Permit process. Mr. Martsolf stated it is automatic, noting they are reviewing the permits anyway and staff lets them know that it is in the floodplain and it is reviewed as such. Once the Building Department signs off on it, Growth Services has access to the permit. The Building Department and Growth Services both have access to the same thing; the Building Department has access to the Elevation Certificates and where the benchmark is placed, as well as everything else on the site. He noted it adds a step to the process since they have to get a surveyor out to establish the elevation sometimes. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf stated the surveyor is on the contractor side of things, noting they have to do a survey to get the elevation from the county's known benchmarks to their property to ensure construction. LDRC Alternate Member Rodney Rogers stated there are 2 steps in regard to the Elevation Certificate when the property is in a flood zone, noting one is generally based on construction plans and then a follow-up Certificate to assure that it was built to a certain. Page 234, Book W

7 elevation. The flood zone elevations are determined by FEMA on the maps or by the county's Floodplain Manager in certain areas of the county. Surveyors gather that data and fill out the Elevation Certificates accordingly. There are 2 steps to the process to ensure that it is going to be built that way and that it is in fact built that way. Commissioner Bryant arrived at 2:32 p.m. Chairman Zalak inquired if this will fix some of the problems that have occurred in Silver Springs Shores and other areas where the subdivision itself did not have a good stormwater management plan to begin with. Mr. Tillman noted that typically the mistakes that are seen are in areas that are not mapped and have a poor layout design. Ms. Straub stated the changes the Board is looking at today in Article 5.3 are specific to the FEMA Flood Maps that are officially recognized. The work for Silver Springs Shores and other places around the county are not governed by this Article, but are flood areas that staff has identified, which are addressed in Article 6. She noted that staff has gotten better; they are still mapping and areas are under mapping, but opined that they still need to work on that language some more. Since they are in the Code revisions then staff can begin to tighten that language up some more. Ms. Straub advised that Growth Services has access to ace's data, so they are communicating and talking things through, but are not yet in a heavy enforcement position. Chairman Zalak stated if a flood zone is not recognized and the county knows it needs to be built to a certain level is the county making them build to a certain height? Mr. Martsolf advised that the county is requiring them to build to a certain height. However, if they push it back, the county gets an Affidavit from them acknowledging they are in an area that has been mapped by the county and there is a potential for them to not only flood, but to be included in any future map revisions. General discussion continued. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf stated the Amendments are separate. Mr. Martsolf noted he failed to point out that in Division 1 the most important thing in this amendment is that they are going to adopt the electronic zoning maps, which means they will no longer be amending the paper zoning maps each month. Chairman Zalak inquired as to any legal issues. County Attorney Matthew G. Minter stated he is not aware of any legal issues. ii. Standard Zoning minimum lot reductions (size, setbacks) Mr. Martsolf commented on the minimum lot sizes and straight zoning (page 4:13) found in the Division 2, Zoning Classifications handout, under Single Family Dwelling (R-1) District. Mr. Tillman stated the LDRC was looking at minimum lot sizes and suggested atone point in time to go down to 55 foot wide lots. The reason for that is because of densities being talked about, which are typically medium density residential that cannot be developed at 4 dwelling units per acre (du/a) with the larger 80 to 85 foot wide lots. He stated it was discussed at the LDRC public hearing where he explained that 55 foot wide lots would be tighter than anything the BCC would want to see. The LDRC talked about potentially going down to a 60 foot wide lot as the minimum lot size for those zoned R-1 through R-4 (Mixed Residential) without having to come before the Board for a PUD. A 60 foot lot will push development down to 3 du/a, which is not anything intense. If someone wants to go under that then they will have to come in with a PUD. Mr. Tillman advised that the LDRC felt a 60 foot wide lot, with a 6,000 square foot (sf) lot minimum, is reasonable. Book W, Page 235

8 Commissioner Bryant noted they have had this discussion before and the last time they had this discussion the Board was in agreeance with keeping the lot size at 85 feet. She inquired if the LORC is saying with 60 foot lots they will still only get 3 lots per acre, but with 85 foot lots you also only get 3 lots per acre. Mr. Tillman stated 85 foot lots equates to about 2 to 2.5 lots, depending on the soil characteristics (i.e., good soils and small stormwater ponds), which somewhat increases the lot yield. Typically, if they are doing a layout they are not getting anywhere near the 4 du/a that the land use allows. The LORC wanted to push those numbers up some. He noted that just about everything that has been brought to him is where people are wanting to squeeze the lot sizes down and not wanting to go with the full 85 foot lots. Commissioner Bryant stated they therefore get to come before the BCC. Mr. Tillman agreed, but noted they are PUOs. He opined that there is some reason to lower the lot size so that not everything has to come before the BCC. Mr. Tillman stated 60 feet is not an unreasonable lot size when they are trying to yield some density, noting they are still only talking about 3 du/a. Commissioner Bryant expressed her preference to leave it as it is currently and make each one come before the BCC. In response to Commissioner Moore, Mr. Tillman advised that the subdivision he is talking about does not have water and sewer, but have wells and septic tanks; however, the lots he is addressing will be required to have water and sewer. Commissioner Moore expressed his preference for the PLIO process where he can see how the development looks. Mr. Busche addressed lots with a medium density residential land use designation, as well as a zoning classification that tells you that you are at medium density, but with a minimum lot size that is inconsistent with those designations. He commented on having a more straight forward Administrative type subdivision layouts that are consistent with the zoning and have services, drainage, correct ROW, etc. Mr. Busche stated there is no residential developer, few and far between, that want to develop lots at 85 feet wide in a medium density setting. He pointed out that the lot sizes are inconsistent with the land use designation and zoning classification. In response to Commissioner Gold, Mr. Busche commented on the PUO process, which is more of a specialty subdivision product. He stated people do not know what density will be allowed or what the buffers are going to be until the BCC meeting is held the PUO process, which is very uncertain for a project that may just be more of a straight forward development plan on a 40 acre tract. Mr. Busche clarified that under this scenario, unless someone wants to do lots that are 85 feet wide, which is kind of inconsistent with a medium density project, then they will have to do a PUO product and come before the BCC and request approval. Mr. Rogers noted that a lot of subdivisions in Marion County have winding roads around trees, etc. using the topography and when roads are curved it results in pie shaped lot lines and cul-de-sacs where the lots are squeezed down. There was a recess at 2:51 p.m. due to a technical issue. The meeting resumed at 2:59 p.m., with all members present. Mr. Rogers commented on giving more flexibility to the planner/designer to use more curved roadways, which the smaller lot sizes will afford. Page 236, Book W

9 Commissioner Bryant inquired as to how many parcels of land are sitting out there that already have the land use and zoning to develop without having to come before the Board for a zoning or land use change that this change would actually affect. Chairman Zalak interjected that the question is for parcels with medium density residential land uses. Mr. Martsolf stated staff can generate that number. Chairman Zalak asked if staff thought it is a significant amount. Mr. Martsolf opined that there is a lot, but does not know if it would be significant, noting there are probably more lots out there that might still be agriculturally zoned that have a medium density land use that would be coming in seeking an R-1 zoning classification as opposed to a PUO. He stated staff can have those numbers available at the first public hearing. Commissioner Bryant expressed her concern with what has come before the Board of late in regard to land use and zoning changes, as a lot of them have been very contentious and there have been instances where going through that PUO process was better for the surrounding communities. Only because of the way that Marion County has grown and developed in the last several years. She advised that her biggest concern is that there might be something sitting out there that may have something around it that this could adversely affect without going through the PUO process. Chairman Zalak commented on lowering the lot size to 65 feet or 70 feet. Commissioner Bryant inquired as to the minimum needed to get to where the LORC was trying to go. Mr. Tillman advised they will not be able to get 4 du/a, even at 60 feet and opined that 65 feet is the minimum. Chairman Zalak stated no matter what they will lose lots if they do not come in for a PUO. Mr. Tillman concurred. Chairman Zalak stated he does not want to lower it so much, but does want to lower it enough that it makes sense; however, if someone wants a more significant amount of units (e.g., 50 to 100 more) then they will have to go through the PUO process. Mr. Busche stated that is more reasonable, noting most of his clients are asking for 60 foot by 110 foot (60'x110') sized lots, which is a 6,000 sf lot where a 4,000 sf house can be constructed. General discussion resumed. Commissioner Bryant stated she is willing to consider the 65 foot, but would like to know the answer to the question asked earlier. Mr. Martsolf questioned whether the Board wants staff to bring the projector at the public hearing, noting the projector and screen was used at the LORC public hearing and the text could be seen very clearly. Chairman Zalak stated it was up to staff. Mr. Martsolf referred to the chart shown on the overhead screens showing 4 du/a, which is assuming 25 percent (%) is taken out for infrastructure for 6,000 sf lots: at 80 feet wide lots are 102 feet deep; 75 feet wide is 109 feet deep; 70 feet wide is 117 feet deep; 65 feet wide is 126 feet deep; and 60 feet wide is 136 feet deep. General discussion resumed. Chairman Zalak inquired as to staff's recommendation. Mr. Martsolf stated that in order to get the density the lot size will have to be reduced. He advised that staff is currently using the PUO process to make sure the specific elements are included in the subdivision. Mr. Bouyounes opined that from staff's side they are comfortable continuing with the PUO process and did not come up with a minimum lot size. He suggested limiting that regulation to certain areas within the urban growth boundary (UGB), at least to start just to see how it works going forward. Book W, Page 237

10 Commissioner Bryant questioned how much of an acre is eaten up by roads, drainage retention, etc., when planning for a new subdivision. Mr. Tillman advised that about 1/3 rd of the acreage is for infrastructure, etc. Commissioner Bryant stated 70 feet by 100 feet (70'x100') is a 7,000 sf lot; multiplied by 3 equates to 21,000 sf, noting an acre is 43,560 sf, which should leave plenty. Mr. Busche stated that assumes that all the rest of the shape remaining is a perfect square that all of those lots fit in, noting efficiency is lost. He noted there is a lot that goes into getting that layout to produce that density and opined it would probably be more appropriate to study a couple of neighborhoods for overall acreage versus overall density. Chairman Zalak inquired if the Board wants to have staff study and come back with a recommendation on a lot size that is a little smaller than 80; or set the lot size at 70 today. Commissioner Moore stated he would like more information. Commissioner Bryant advised that her preference is for staff to study it a little bit, as well as know how many subdivisions are already sitting out there that have the land use and zoning, and the locations before making a final decision. Commissioner Stone commented on the need to have a recommendation that is consistent with the current zoning. Commissioner Gold questioned how much more efficient it would be for a 65 foot lot width. Mr. Tillman stated it takes 3 months out of the process if they do not have to come before the Board for a PUD. He noted the zoning is not consistent with what people are told the zoning classification is. Mr. Busche volunteered to send staff a couple of subdivisions with simple counts to aid in the study. Chairman Zalak advised that he wants staff to set the lot widths at the higher threshold and those below that need to come before the Board through the PUD process. He stated he wants to see better architecture and better subdivisions in general. iii. Maximum heights versus setbacks to adjoining uses Mr. Martsolf opined that to accompany that it is a proportionate reduction in the setbacks, mainly the front and rear. He noted the depths of those lots will shrink significantly. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf stated some people still need to fit a pool in the backyard, noting the suggestion was to reduce it by 5 feet in the front, down to 20 feet and 10 feet on the rear, down to 15 feet setbacks. Chairman Zalak opined that the buffer or that spot is not as important, internally, as it is in making sure whatever they are up against is buffered well. Chairman Zalak noted staff will bring that back. Mr. Martsolf concurred, noting it is consistent throughout the residential classifications. iv. Manufactured home replacement in R-4 (Mixed Use) Zoning Mr. Martsolf noted the change in the R-4 zoning that was discussed (page 4:16). Chairman Zalak opined that is where you have a structured home on R-4 you are required to put it back, correct? Mr. Martsolf concurred, noting if there is a site built home in that mixed residential zoning classification then the only thing that it can be replaced with is a site built home. Chairman Zalak questioned whether the Board had any issues with this. No one voiced any opposition. (Ed. Note: This matter was again addressed later in the meeting.) Page 238, Book W C. Commercial Zoning

11 i. Setback reductions Mr. Martsolf commented on the reduction that was sought in any of the B classifications. In response to Commissioner Bryant, Mr. Martsolf stated he is on pages 4:21 and 4:22. He noted this will also have to be changed in Article 6, which is a reduction. For instance, if a commercial use was going up against a permitted and existing industrial use a Type "B" Buffer would be required, which is a 20 foot width with a wall. The LORC is suggesting this be reduced to a Type "E" Buffer, which is 5 feet wide with no wall. Chairman Zalak inquired as to why. Mr. Tillman stated the existing use is Industrial and if someone is coming in with a commercial use, they know what they are moving in next door to and if they want something more intense then they can do it themselves. He questioned why the county would require the commercial, which is a less intense use, to put in a bigger buffer in an adjacent industrial. In response to Chairman Zalak, it was the general consensus of the Board to agree. Mr. Martsolf advised that the LORC is suggesting, in the same chart, that the higher classifications of B-3, B-4 and B-5, RC-1 (Rural Commercial) and RAC (Rural Activity Center) regarding an Industrial going in next to a permitted ROW to reduce it from a Type "0" Buffer, which is 15 feet with a wall, down to a Type "C" Buffer, which is 15 feet without a wall. Mr. Tillman advised that is simply because it is being put up against a roadway. Commissioner Bryant inquired if that is just a roadway ROW. Mr. Busche noted the Code says if you are going to build something like FedEx on a County Road it has to have a wall around it, which he opined is not appropriate. Commissioner Bryant concurred. Mr. Busche clarified that it still has the same width buffer and plantings; the only thing the LORC recommended changing was the wall. Chairman Zalak commented on development in Marion Oaks and noted it will create a problem if something like FedEx comes in next to those units without a wall. Mr. Busche noted there are still setback buffer requirements. Chairman Zalak opined that it will not provide an adequate buffer for the residential with that little bit of roadway. Mr. Busche noted that would be something of a very specific nature. Chairman Zalak concurred, noting it was something that is coming up. Mr. Busche stated in that case the property line would also be about 200 feet away from the back of the residential lot. Chairman Zalak noted that in theory, the roadway itself may cause them to have a wall on that side. Commissioner Bryant inquired as to how to address this, thinking about that specific case. Mr. Tillman stated the McGinley property will have to have a buffer adjacent to the residential. He noted all that Industrial property will have to have a buffer, which will include a wall. Chairman Zalak advised that is not true, in this particular case. General discussion resumed. Chairman Zalak inquired if the LORC considered changing the types of walls, such as from a block wall to a pre-fabricated wall. Mr. Tillman stated a pre-fabricated wall can be used. The LORC felt it was appropriate for the ORC to look at and make the decision as to whether or not a wall should be required, as well as the type of wall or fencing. General discussion continued. Senior Planner Chris Rison, Growth Services, commented on other locations where this could become a potential issue. He stated one of the factors that might be of consideration is what is across the ROW from that particular use. If there is a residential area across from it then there needs to be a wall or an alternative proposal to go through ORC for a waiver consideration. Mr. Tillman stated that certainly makes sense and noted that can Book W, Page 239

12 be added to the Code to make it dependent upon whatever is on the other side of the ROW. He opined that the multi-family is questionable. Commissioner Bryant stated they should not distinguish between multi-family or single family, but leave it as residential. Chairman Zalak clarified that it will go to ORC for a waiver. Commissioner Bryant advised that the wall should be left if there is residential across the ROW. Mr. Tillman noted they can go before the ORC to request a waiver, as it is in the LOC. Commissioner Bryant concurred. In response to Chairman Zalak, it was the general consensus of the Board to concur. Mr. Tillman referred to an earlier discussion in regard to mobile homes in R-4. Chairman Zalak clarified that if someone has a site built home in R-4 today they can only replace it with a site built home, not with a mobile home. He noted there are multiple locations where someone has torn down an old house or something else and then brought in a mobile home and people felt it has deteriorated the neighborhood. If there is an existing single family site built home on the property it needs to be replaced with a site built home. Mr. Busche stated a mobile home that has been destroyed can be replaced with another mobile home. He opined that the thought was if a mobile home was destroyed it had to be replaced with a site built home, which was of concern. Mr. Busche commented on mobile homes being allowed by right in a zoning category. Commissioner Bryant noted mobile homes and site built homes are allowable uses in R 4 zones and questioned how you can tell someone they cannot tear down a house and replace it with a mobile home. Mr. Tillman clarified that they are talking about putting in a Rider advising that a site built home cannot be replaced with a mobile home. Mr. Minter stated that seems inconsistent with the overall classification. He noted they cannot be treated differently; for example: if a site built home is torn down it cannot be replaced with a mobile home because of the Rider; however someone could put a mobile home on a vacant lot next door. Mr. Minter stated if it is an allowable use then it is an allowable use. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Minter opined that if the county does not want mobile homes in a particular category then they have to be totally excluded. Chairman Zalak advised that they are not picking and choosing, but are saying that once it is done it is locked in. He noted there are a lot of R-4 areas that have site built and if people start tearing those homes down and putting in mobile homes it can totally destroy an area from what it was, which is not a good plan. Mr. Minter opined that perhaps it is the wording, with what is being called a Rider. He noted he has not seen this before, but based on findings that the Chairman is talking about if the county specifically describes what is permitted in this zoning classification and articulate something to the effect that a property owners selection of the type of residence that is initially constructs has an impact on surrounding properties and therefore, if they choose to put in a site built home to begin with then that will in effect be the zoning for that specific lot, which will forever be for a site built home. Mr. Tillman noted a mobile home could be upgraded to a site built home. Commissioner Bryant suggested looking at areas that are zoned R-4 that have site built homes and change those lots to R-1, with notification to the property owner, which will solve the problem. She clarified that it is only for those properties that already have site built homes. Mr. Tillman noted the zoning could be changed to R-1 even for those properties with mobile homes, as they would be grandfathered in. Page 240, Book W

13 LORC Member Berne Stalzer inquired as to the objective. Chairman Zalak stated his neighborhood is a good example. If multiple people put in site built homes regardless of whether or not it is on waterfront property, and other areas that are a mixture of site built and mobile homes. Like most lakes in Florida there is a plethora of site built and mobile homes, but typically over time more people go from having mobile homes to constructing site built homes, which occurs over multiple generations. Then newer residents are coming in, through inheritance, etc. and are tearing down the old camp house or smaller site built home and bringing in multiple mobile homes so that the neighborhood starts going the other way, which they are trying to prevent. Mr. Stalzer stated making the zoning classification R-1 would eliminate the addition of mobile homes to a particular area. In response to Mr. Tillman, Chairman Zalak stated he is not trying to do away with mobile homes, but it is unfair to the neighborhood to replace a site built home with a mobile home. General discussion resumed. Mr. Martsolf noted there are zoning classifications that prohibit manufactured homes and mobile homes. He stated he does not see what the difference is to not allow someone with a site built home to replace it with a mobile home within that district. Mr. Martsolf advised that a modular home looks just like a mobile home, but is considered a site built home. He opined that it can be done through the Code as currently written. Mr. Minter stated he will work on the language with Mr. Martsolf and bring it back. Commissioner Moore out at 3:43 p.m. ii. Maximum heights versus setbacks to adjoining uses Mr. Martsolf referred to page 4:25, which is the heavier zoning classifications of B-3, B-4 and B-5. He noted 1 residential unit is currently allowed per shop or store for the residence or security. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf advised that RVs are not permitted, noting this would be a residential unit either above or behind the store; in B-2 zoning classifications. He noted the Board has seen Special Use Permits for RVs and security residences in the higher zoning classifications; however, this is proposing to permit it by right. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf advised that a lot of the commercial designations and the employment center designations have a residential density allowance that was approved in He stated there are a lot of folks who need to have security. In response to Chairman Zalak it was the general consensus of the Board to concur. The higher zoning classifications of B-3, B-4 and B-5 the LORC recommends reducing the front setback from 70 feet to 40 feet to match the B-2 front setback designation. Chairman Zalak advised that he is okay with that, except for B-5, as that classification is too much outside storage. He stated they can ask for a modification, but does not want to give it to them by right. Commissioner Moore returned at 3:45 p.m. Commissioner Stone stated it is reasonable for B-5 only. Chairman Zalak voiced concern with a lot of stuff that can go on there, noting the BCC may not want it to be 40 foot, on road. He inquired if the LORC had any discussion about that. Mr. Tillman stated they did not discuss those intense uses. He opined that there are a few very specific ones that you are wanting to see that have that setback, noting anything in the Code can go through the Variance process, which is what ORC and the BCC get to see. Book W, Page 241

14 Mr. Martsolf stated a typical commercial development requires a 15 foot buffer, then has a parallel access requirement of 24 feet and if there is any parking it is well over 40 feet to start with so it will really push stuff behind businesses potentially and is the only downside they ran through. Chairman Zalak opined that from a B-5 perspective, because of what is allowed in that classification, it is better to go through the Variance process than allow it by right. It was the general consensus of the Board to agree. Mr. Martsolf referred to the Industrial section, which starts on page 4:35, noting they have already addressed the changes in the buffer, but there was a request to reduce the setback to 40 feet for both M-1 (Light Industrial) and M-2 (Heavy Industrial). Chairman Zalak noted they are up against one another and inquired as to the plus and negative of this. Mr. Martsolf stated it is the same request as the buffer. Chairman Zalak referred to page 4:40, which talks about the I-C (Industrial Complex) M 1, M-2, R-1, development standard setbacks for the front being changed from 70 feet to 40 feet. Mr. Martsolf stated the I-C, M-1 and M-2 are all proposing to reduce the front setbacks from 70 feet to 40 feet. Chairman Zalak inquired as to what can be in between there; the classifications that could be a negative, noting this is for the front setback, not side-to-side. Mr. Tillman advised that LDRC did not see the purpose behind the 30 feet of extra space. Mr. Martsolf noted 20 feet will be landscaping and a wall if it is not changed. Mr. Rogers opined that if the building is allowed to come closer to the front it would provide the opportunity for more of the outdoor activities behind the building rather than in front. It was the general consensus of the Board to agree. Mr. Martsolf stated the buffer is proposed to be changed to the same as the Commercial; up against the ROW it was reduced from a wall requirement down to 15 feet of landscaping. Chairman Zalak clarified that was unless there is residential on the other side of the street. Mr. Martsolf concurred, noting it will be the same caveat. Mr. Martsolf noted the same provision for a security residence in both M-1 and M-2, which permits one security residence, noting no RVs are permitted. Chairman Zalak passed the gavel to Commissioner Bryant, who assumed the Chair. Commissioner Zalak out at 3:51 p.m. D. PUD Regulations & Provisions i. Process Mr. Martsolf referred to page 1 of 18 (Article 4 - Zoning handout), noting there are a couple of areas where there was quite a bit of conversation. He noted a height restriction was added within 100 feet of a residential zoning classification, which starts on page 7 of 18, line 16 - (b) Dissimilar Uses. The setback and height requirement with a nonresidential structure was discussed at great length. Commissioner Zalak returned at 3:53 p.m. In response to Chairman Bryant, Mr. Tillman clarified that any type of PUD use adjacent to a residential use the 100 foot setback only allows going to the maximum height of the adjacent zonings maximum height. For example: If a residential development is next door that had 40 foot for their maximum height that is within the first 100 feet within the PUD boundary then the PUD can only go to 40 feet. The building is allowed to step up after that 100 feet and any building outside that 100 feet is allowed to go up to whatever the height restriction is within the PUD. This will limit someone coming in and getting a PUD requesting a height of 80 feet and then building right against the line; putting an 80 foot high building on top of a residential unit and is basically protection. Page 242, Book W

15 Chairman Bryant returned the gavel to Commissioner Zalak, who resumed the Chair. Chairman Zalak inquired if that is what is allowable or what is built. Mr. Busche stated it is what is allowable, which is different. 'He stated 40 feet is typically the maximum height in all residential. Mr. Martsolf noted the important caveat in there is that an alternative development can be proposed and what they were struggling with was after a couple of the mid-rises they got, the Board challenged staff to go back and come up with a typical type of buffer that would buffer a particular height. Chairman Zalak stated a vertical buffer was the challenge. Mr. Martsolf stated that was challenging, but if someone wanted to encroach on that 100 feet with something that is taller than what is next to it, they would have to provide that typical and buffer consideration in order to get it; otherwise, they will have to stay out of the 100 feet. He noted he cannot imagine that some of the Industrial and Distribution type uses would encroach on the 100 feet; however, some were looking to go to 80 feet in height. Chairman Zalak noted those are not in the PUD process and asked if this is specifically for PUD. Mr. Tillman stated it is specifically for PUD. Commissioner Bryant inquired as to what can occur currently. Chairman Zalak stated they can do whatever the BCC allows them to do. Mr. Tillman opined that the BCC could still allow something different. Commissioner Bryant disagreed, stating because there is nothing in the Code now, then the BCC can say no. She asked if this wording will automatically allow this. Mr. Tillman opined that whenever a PUD comes before the BCC it give the Board full carte blanche to make decisions, even if this criteria is in place. Chairman Zalak opined that it is a better planning tool. Mr. Busche noted it creates a reasonable expectation on a development applicant. General discussion resumed. Commissioner Bryant commented on the Board's responsibility to protect those people who are already there, noting she does not want to give a developer an advantage to come in and change a single family residential area. Mr. Tillman advised that the maximum height criteria is an added restriction that is above and beyond what currently exists. In M-2 (straight zoning, not a PUD) the developer would be able to go to 50 feet, even if there is an adjacent 40 foot height maximum criteria, which could be done within 25 feet of a residential use. He stated this is a more onerous restriction in any and every single case. Mr. Busche clarified that this will encourage people to keep their buildings more than 100 feet away from the adjacent property. Mr. Tillman elaborated on Mr. Busche's comment to include, "or a more intense buffer". In response to Chairman Zalak, it was the general consensus of the Board to agree. Mr. Martsolf referred to pages 12 and 13 of 18 in regard to internal capture, noting staff got what it wanted. He noted the language is basically what has always been in the Code. If you have a certain amount of residential units then you can automatically have a certain amount of Commercial and that Commercial is intended to be internal for capture within the subdivision. Chairman Zalak inquired if that is still inside the PUD. Mr. Martsolf advised that is in the current Code, noting they do not see it a lot and was the discussion with the LDRC; the viability that is really usually dependent upon being available to the public, which is not what that provision was for. Someone can still ask for a Commercial land use with the Book W, Page 243

16 PUO. He referred to the Commercial at Ocala Ranch, which is not internalized because they are getting a Commercial land use. Chairman Zalak advised that he does not want to remove the architectural standards, noting the preference to enforce those standards on a PUO. Mr. Martsolf stated it is understood and is why it is included here. Chairman Zalak stated he wanted applicants to actually start turning in the architectural standards with the PUO. It was the general consensus of the Board to concur. Chairman Zalak advised that he does not want staff to accept PUOs and move them forward unless the architectural standards are included. Mr. Busche stated the question his clients would ask is what are the architectural standards? If they have to turn in architectural standards, typically there are some governing regulations that say you have to have so much articulation or so much wall, glass, etc. Chairman Zalak asked if the LORC wants the county to come up with some of that from a PUO standpoint. He stated he would rather do that than leave people in the dark, noting some type of form-based architectural standards can be included inside the PUO. Chairman Zalak opined that the BCC is asking that they tell them what the development is going to look like. Mr. Tillman stated he appreciates the freedom to at least be able to pick something himself rather than meeting some criteria for form-based Code. Chairman Zalak directed that some type of language that will provide a picture of what the development is going to look like. Mr. Tillman advised that the Code says the applicant will turn in something that says what it is going to look like. Chairman Zalak inquired as to what staff needs to make sure the BCC gets a picture and whether this is the right language. Mr. Martsolf opined that it is open enough that is someone has an idea that they are not going to do multistory, single-story, roof pitch, etc., noting there is enough wiggle room for staff to work something out with the applicant. Chairman Zalak advised that he does not want to see a rendering for some type of house and then they build something completely different, noting he wants it to be in the ball park. Mr. Rogers noted a lot of the architectural standards are more geared after the Commercial inside the PUOs rather than the residential. General discussion resumed. Mr. Martsolf noted the issue is with having more speculative PUOs coming through than people with a plan. Chairman Zalak stated he is okay with that, noting the need to have certainty to enforce what a developer said they were going to do in the 'first place, even if there are multiple owners. Mr. Busche noted the PUO can always be revised. Chairman Zalak concurred. General discussion continued. ii. Open space Mr. Martsolf noted that they settled on 20% open space. Mr. Martsolf referred to the Division 3 - Special Requirements handout, noting he only wanted to address one item. Chairman Zalak inquired if it is the parking of RVs. Mr. Martsolf stated he can go back to that, if the Board so desires. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf stated originally it was parking in the side or rear yard; however, they came to the conclusion that was very problematic, countywide. He noted a lot of people cannot get the RVs in their side or rear yard and park in the driveway, which is where they have off-street parking provisions in the Code for personal Page 244, Book W

17 use. Mr. Martsolf stated it can be done, since it is done in other places, but Marion County is just so diverse that it would be hard to apply. Mr. Tilliman commented on people pulling their RV to their front yard to load up for vacation and a neighbor calling Code Enforcement to complain. Chairman Zalak inquired as to what if the RV has been there for 90 days, a year or more? Mr. Martsolf noted the Code has a provision for abandoned and junk RVs that is very clear. He clarified that the RV will have to be serviceable. Mr. Tillman advised that how the Code is currently written allows RVs to be in the front yard, but not blocking the sidewalk and 10 feet away from the ROW. Chairman Zalak inquired as to what they are trying to accomplish. Mr. Martsolf stated they are establishing a standard where there is not one; it will provide regulations as to where RVs can be parked. In response to Chairman Zalak, it was the general consensus of the Board to agree. Mr. Rogers noted there are standards. Mr. Martsolf advised that was all stricken through. Commissioner Bryant referred to the bottom of page 4:61 under B. Parking of recreational vehicles, noting the standards have been stricken through. Mr. Martsolf addressed Parking of commercial vehicles (page 4:68), noting the weight was raised from 10,000 pounds (Ibs.) to 16,000 Ibs. He noted that particular weight coincides with the middle Class IV of the Medium Duty cars and trucks found in the vehicle identification for the Department of Transportation (DOT) Classifications and the towing industry, as shown on the overhead screens. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf agreed that it is a pretty high weight class; however, it takes in a lot of the work trucks the county is seeing now. It also allows additional service trucks, which will help Code Enforcement. He noted the City of Ocala still uses 3/4 ton and the county had 1/2 ton for a while, which was a disaster. Mr. Martsolf advised that Code Enforcement and the City of Ocala are agreeable. Chairman Zalak questioned tow trucks, noting he thought it was only for on-call vehicles. Mr. Martsolf noted that ended up being a problem. Mr. Tillman stated this weight class will allow the smaller tow trucks, but not the bigger ones that can pull RVs, etc. Mr. Martsolf advised that trucks are getting bigger and heavier, noting Code Enforcement wrestles with the 10,000 Ibs. In response to Chairman Zalak, all Board members except Commissioners Bryant and Stone agreed. Commissioner Stone expressed her preference to keep it at the 10,000 Ibs. In response to Commissioner Bryant, Mr. Martsolf stated tow trucks are closer to and over 26,000 Ibs. Commissioner Bryant stated she is agreeable with the change. General discussion continued. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf advised that the larger flatbed tow trucks will not be allowed, except by Special Use Permit. Mr. Tillman commented on gross vehicle weight ratings and gross vehicle weights, noting that 10,000 to 16,000 gross vehicle weight vehicle can carry a load up to 25,999 Ibs.; it can be tagged up to that much weight. Anything over 26,000 Ibs. goes into the next classification of Class 5 vehicles. Chairman Zalak advised that the BCC is talking about the weight of a vehicle empty, which cannot be above 16,000 Ibs., not what it can carry. Mr. Martsolf stated this will replace current language, which still allows the 26,000 lb. tow truck and ambulance. Book W, Page 245

18 Chairman Zalak suggested Commissioner Stone spend some time with Mr. Martsolf prior to the public hearing. Commissioner Stone stated she will get with Mr. Martsolf. Mr. Martsolf noted the other significant change is that the 3 hour layover was reduced to 1 hour, which was an issue with Code Enforcement. Mr. Martsolf stated another significant change is on page 4:69, which addresses where to park commercial vehicles on larger agricultural lots. Parcels of less than 5 acres will require a Special Use Permit. He noted a list of standard items (a) through (i) to comply with in order to apply and go forward with a Special Use Permit request to the BCC. Mr. Martsolf referred to (2), which is 5 acres or greater, which allows up to one commercial vehicle, as a Temporary Use Permit through an Administrative process, where one shows they are consistent with those same (a) through (i) items. Parcels above 10 acres in size are allowed one additional trailer and by a Temporary Use Permit by the Administrative process, which has a reduced set of criteria from (a) through (i). Chairman Zalak questioned whether Mr. Martsolfwould issue the Temporary Use Permit. Mr. Martsolf concurred, noting it will be done administratively. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf advised that he will take care of where they park, buffers or any other additional information that needs to be taken care of for that vehicle. He noted a list of criteria is provided. In response to Chairman Zalak, it was the general consensus of the Board to agree. Chairman Zalak cautioned staff to be careful with Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) roads. III. Article 4, Signs A. Off-Site advertising signs (Billboards) in A-1 (Agricultural) zoning Mr. Martsolf referred to Section Off-site signs (2 page handout), under what is typically the Billboard Section in the A-1 (General Agriculture) classification. The parcel has to meet the following criteria: has to be comprehensively zoned and includes Commercial or Industrial uses as allowable uses; and reasonably accommodate Commercial or Industrial use under the future land use map (FLUM), which is straight out the statute for State Roads. IV. Article 6, Technical Standards and Requirements A. Division 7.5 Tree Trimming and Removal in Public Right of Way Mr. Martsolf referred to Section Tree trimming and tree removal permit (1 page handout), which requires coordination with the Landscape Architect through the ROW Permitting process. In response to Chairman Zalak, it was the general consensus of the Board to agree. V. Pending Amendments & Moratoriums A. Medical Marijuana (Ed. Note: This matter was not addressed.) B. Small Cell and Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) (Ed. Note: This matter was not addressed.) C. Florida Legislature pending gambling legislation (Ed. Note: This matter was not addressed.) Page 246, Book W