Laserfiche WebLink
attorney Bruce Barkett [LDRA-13-12-01 / 20130900 -71480] <br />., [Legislative] <br />Mr. Boling reviewed the information contained in his morand m dated <br />November 1, 2013 and gave a PowerPoint presentation, pies of which are on <br />file in the Commission Office. He concluded with staff' ecommendatio that the <br />PZC recommend that the Board of County Com issioners (BCC) adopt the <br />proposed ordinance to allow drive-through and rive -up facilities in M xed Use <br />PDs. <br />Mr. Rednour asked how far th>106 <br />dential property had to be frorr� a drive- <br />through. <br />Mr. Boling responded tall did not propose a particular dista ce and <br />thought it might depend o e type of residential property and any buffering that <br />may be between it and a drive-through; so it would be design based depending <br />on where the reside 'al buildings were. <br />Vice -Ch man Brognano opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. <br />no one wisW to speak, the public hearing was closed. <br />ON MOTION BY Mr. Rednour, SECONDED BY Mr. <br />Stewart, the members voted unanimously (5-0) to <br />approve staff's recommendation. <br />Vice -Chairman Brognano read the following into the record: <br />B. Consideration of Amendments to Land Development Rec <br />(LDRs) Chapter 911, Zoning; Chapter 912, Sing <br />Development; and Chapter 974, Noise and Vibration Co <br />Regulate the Location and Sound Mitigation of Outdoor Me <br />Equipment in Planned Developments and Small -lot Sub( <br />with Reduced Yard Setbacks to Minimize Potential <br />Disturbance to Adjacent Properties. County -initiated. [Legis) <br />d since <br />ulations <br />e -family <br />itrol, to <br />;hanical <br />ivisions <br />Noise <br />ative] <br />Mr. Roland DeBlois, IRC Chief of Environmental Planning and Code <br />Enforcement, reviewed the information contained in his memorandum dated <br />November 5, 2013 and gave a PowerPoint presentation, copies of which are on <br />file in the Commission Office. He mentioned the Code Enforcement case dealing <br />with this issue had been resolved because the Respondent had agreed to keep <br />his outdoor electric pool heater off while he was out of the country and would not <br />turn it on when he returned until appropriate mitigation measures were taken. <br />PZC/Unapproved 4 November <br />F:\BCC\All Committees\P&Z\2013 —AGENDAS & MINUTES\P&Z-11-14-13.doc <br />I14, 2013 <br />158 <br />