PUD 25-0009

Asked about building height (35 vs 36 feet) and fence materials; supported the masonry wall as an improvement.

Asked for clarification on whether the wall/buffer is solid brick the full length along CR 209.

Thanked the Board and developer for cooperation and said the masonry wall means a lot to neighbors.

Asked whether the retail building would have rear entrances; the developer confirmed none.

Asked where the stormwater retention would be located; staff noted retention is under the parking lots.

Thanked the Board for keeping commercial development off the CR 209 side near his home.

Opposed the shrub-only buffer on CR 209 and asked for a substantial wall to protect residential neighbors from new traffic.

Not opposed to the business but wants a substantial privacy barrier, suggesting vinyl panels, along the residential boundary.

Said the conditions coming back for a vote were vague compared to what the Planning Commission discussed, warning the applicant would exploit loose language.

Recommended a six-foot brick wall along CR 209 for privacy and aesthetics, noting she has lived on her road since 1975.

Thanked the developer for making changes but worried about allowing both a medical marijuana dispensary and alcohol sales on the same site.

Asked what kind of fence or wall will separate the plaza from his neighborhood and asked for strong protection.

Urged slowing the project until DOT finishes the US 17 intersection work, and suggested a solid wall rather than landscaping alone.