All right, I'm going to call the planning and zoning board meeting for September 13th 2013 to order. Can I get a roll call please? Here, Mr. Duane here, Mr. Andrew Kobe here, Mr. Hatcher. Yes, Mr. Right here, Mr. Rainburn. Yeah Okay, before we move forward, I'm gonna ask that everybody please ensure that your mobile phones devices are please step to silent or vibrate. Okay first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on September 13th 2013. Did everybody have an opportunity to review the minutes? Wait that's tonight. May 5th. What's your man? May 5th. May 10th. Not bad. Let me let me let me start over. First item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the regular meeting from May 10th, 2023. Everybody have an opportunity to review the minutes. Okay, I'll ask for a motion. Make a motion to approve the minutes from May 10th, 23. Second. Bob, seconded. Second. Second. Second. Speak out. Can you hear me? Roll call. Roll call. Are we having any? Yes. Mr. Duane. Yes. Mr. Andrew Coveitt. Yes, Mr. Hatcher. Yes, Mr. Wright. Yes, Mr. Rainburn. Yes. Okay, next item on the agenda is old business of which there is none. First item under new businesses V8 2306. Recrease for a variance to allow a two-foot setback in lieu of a 50-foot main high water line setback into allow an in-ground swimming pool within three feet from the primary structure instead of the required setback of five feet for the property located at 21 Ellicin Lane. Can we have a second for you? Thank you for the record. This is Ryan Solstice interim development services director for the city of edge water. So the explanation by the benefit by the applicant is due to the limited area of the property, the applicant contends they cannot meet the required setbacks and are applying for a variance. In accordance to the section 21-100.04D, not administrative variance, the city of Edge Water's Land Development Code, in order to grant a non-administrative variance, the planning and zoning board shall make the following findings of fact. That the granting of the proposed variance is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan. That the granting of the proposed variance will not result in creating or continuing use, which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area. That granting of the proposed variance is the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property that the physical characteristics of the subject site are unique and not present on adjacent sites that the circumstances created the need for the variance are not the result of actions by the applicant, actions proposed by the applicant or actions by previous property owners. That the granting of the proposed variances will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes or intent of the land development code. Staff is gonna go through each item one by one with the applicant's response and then staff's response. Ryan, can we move the slides forward so that everybody can follow? Here is the subject property at 21 Pelican Lane and the next slide is the site plan provided by the applicant demonstrating the overall aspect of the survey with where the pool is and then the specific dimensions for said pool. So number one, while granting the proposed variance result in a conflict with the comprehensive plan. After review, staff has determined that granting the variance would result in a conflict with the comprehensive plan. This criterion has not been met because the comprehensive plan in policy 1.1.11, development adjacent to Escharine and Riverine Shoreline areas, says that we will provide a 50 foot lateral upland buffer from the mean high water line. Well granting the proposed variance result in creating or continuing use, which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area. The applicant's response, no. All areas in the 100-foot mean high water line are currently encroaching upon the 100-foot shoreline. Virtually the entire shoreline along the neighborhood encroaches on the shoreline buffer. Staff's response, no. Granting the variance will not result or creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses. This criterion has been met. Number three is to propose action the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property. The applicant's response? Yes. Pull will be engineered to meet all safety requirements. Staff's response? No, the applicant has reasonable use of the property through the house as a dwelling unit, with the supplemental features such as a boat dock and large outdoor patio in the night. After review, staff considers meeting step backs based upon parcel size, the reason for this reasonable use of the property. This criterion has not been met. Number four, are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites? The applicant's response? No. Others have been allowed to encroach on setbacks. Staff's response. The subject site is considered a conforming lot within Pelican Cove subdivision. This light in particular has an expansive secondary deck and covered patio that is not present in other properties withinve subdivision. This slide in particular has an expansive second-story deck and covered patio that is not present in other properties within the subdivision, that is made in the backyard, but has made the backyard, excuse me, that the rear backyard is basically unmaximized. He's maximized the use of his rear backyard. This criterion has not been met. Number five, are the circumstances creating the need for the variance? The result of actions by the applicant or actions proposed by the applicant? The applicant's response? Yes. Merely requesting a pool for the enjoyment of family, friends, and neighbors. Staff's response. The applicant or the prior owner decided to build a second story deck and first floor covered patio into the backyard within the parameters of the rear yard step back. The expansion of this deck and patio limits the remaining usable space within the confines of the backyard for permanent structures. And lastly number six, well the granting of the provost variance cost of central detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes intent of the land development in code. The applicant's response, no, or there'll be no detriment to the public welfare and may not meet the current code. It's a task response. Granting the variance will negate the intent of the land development code for establishing the setback. This criterion has not been met. Staff did receive the following comments from environmental services, economic development, both who recommended denial of the requested variance. Fire department had no comment. At this time, staff does not recommend approval of variance for application VA 2306 because all six criteria could not be met in accordance with section 21, that's 100.04.D. Thank you. I will open the public hearing and ask if the applicant is the audience. Okay, please come forward to give us your name and your address please. My name is Franklin Dale Kelly, the owner of the property at 21, Pelican Drive. Would I like to proceed? Yeah. But I like to proceed. Yeah, am I allowed to proceed? I do have some additional data to which I've made eight copies of, so it should facilitate everybody having the same data. Okay. Thank you. Basically last time I don't know if you all remember I had approached you all about this same exact thing and I guess the last meeting because the other one was canceled, one prior to this. So it was indicated to me from a couple of the members that probably some additional clarity was requested because they weren't sure exactly what I was trying to do. With that being said, the initial package that was given to you was produced, a lot of the data was by a pool company which I contacted after the last meeting, and they were able to diagrammatically show it there, and attendants to nighaturs any questions about that. With that being said, it appeared that a lot of the debate was the proximity of the pool to the home and the encroachment of basically the raw land there. I'll be it. I was inherited the property with that poor charty there. That's what it's there. And it's pretty structurally intergoal with the structure. The five foot thing which basically now is I've requested three feet. If you look at the secondary sheet that I have provided you with you all, because it's a circular nature of the two pools, the average footage that is away from the structure is 5.12 feet. In my opinion, I'm going to say the whole pool. It's, I mean, at any given time a a circle is closer to the structure, and you can see I went into great detail to kind of show that, that the five foot is being met. Another item is that I'm in Rochinawn, Florent, Fauna, the river, and all this other stuff. Right now it's dirt. You can see that at the, on the north end of my neighborhood directly in the same neighborhood and at the south end of the neighborhood There are pools. There are pools that with Patios with the full featured patios that go from the face of the home Solid all the way to the mean high waterline both properties do the same thing totally impervious And does it really matter where if. Totally impervious. And does it really matter if it's impervious as it really matter where the pool goes? So merely I'm saying that I am within the five feet of the structure, which was a problem that I understood as being not to code five feet from the home. I believe I've showed an intimate detail. It is 5.12 feet on average from the structure and very limited contact at 3 feet. Because of the circle. And basically, I am not messing with any vegetation and the mangroves of there will remain there. I'm dealing with dirt and existing papers right now, which I would remove. And if you all want some sort of impervious patio service, surface that maybe the blocks with the grass in them or what have you, I'd certainly be willing to, you know, hear that. But, you know, other neighbors just directly north of me, directly south of me, have went base of house to mean high water all the way to the river full on concrete, or the pool itself, which is basically impervious because it's this catching water. So with all that being said, I mean, I know the code, I know the intent, the world's not here for me to be happy, but in the reality of it is, I don't think I'm doing anything that's unheard of or a whore-bre request. I'm not touching anything. I'm not messing with fish while life. I'm not a tree, not a nothing. And so I merely request in a simple little minuscule pool. Okay, thank you. You can have a seat. Is there anybody else in the audience that has any questions or comments? Board questions or comments? All right, I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. In a motion. I'll make a motion for VA 2308. I mean, I'm sorry, the VA-8306 to be denied. According to the weather city, I just stated. I'll second it. Let's go vote. Should I be Kennedy? No. I'm sorry. Do you have a candidate? No. No meeting against this. Yeah. Mr. Duane? No. Mr. Andrew Covex was no. Mr. Hatcher? Mr. Wright? Mr. Duane? So can we do that again please? And I need to speak in a microphone because we need to make sure this is on record. Chairman Kennedy. No. Mr. Duane. No. Mr. Andrew Covex. No. I just want to clarify something. I made a motion to deny it. I disagree with that motion. That's why to deny it. I disagree with that motion. That's why I said no. You disagreeing with the motion? OK. My vote is yes. Mr. Hatcher. No. Mr. Wright. Yes. Mr. Rainbird. Mr. Wright. Yes. Mr. Rainbird. No. Okay. Next item on the agenda is VA2308. Recruits were variants to allow a rear setback of 20 feet in lieu of the required 50 feet setback. Eliminate the 15 foot vehicle backup area and eliminate the requirement of the dumpster enclosure for the property located at 2715 Guava Drive. And we get a staff report, please. Thank you for the record. This is Ryan Solstice, interim development services director. As I said before prior in accordance with section 21-104D, there are six criteria that the board must find in staff in order to recommend approval. With that being said, the first question is, will granting the proposed variance result in a conflict with the comprehensive plan? Staff's response, after review, staff has determined that granting of the proposed variance would not result in a conflict with the comprehensive plan, also 1.4.1 limiting development and utility service area states that the city will limit development activities outside of the adopted service area, boundary to encourage infill and sure the availability of services, policy 1.4.3 reducing limitations on infill and redevelopment. If necessary, the city may reduce limitations on infill and redevelopment if necessary the city may reduce limitations on infill and redevelopment activities consistent with land use densities indicated in this plan and situations that will not jeopardize public health safety or welfare. This criterion has been met. Well the granting of the proposed variance result in creating or continuing the use which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area the applicant applicant's response, no. All a join property match what I am proposing. And on the next slide here, we'll see the site plan for this property. Staff's response, no. Granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses. This criterion has been met. Is the proposed action and minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property? The applicant's response is yes. Stast response? No, the applicant has reasonable use of the property by conforming to the step backs within the B2 neighborhood business zoning district. This criterion has not been met. Are the physical characteristics of the subject's site unique and not present on adjacent sites? No, all adjacent properties are similar, according to the applicant. Staff's response, the subject's site is considered a conforming lot. The parcel meets the minimum lot square footage, the minimum lot with, the minimum lot depth. This criterion has not been met. Number five, or the circumstances creating the need for the variance, the results of the actions by the applicant, or actions proposed by the applicant. The applicant's response, yes, need variance to fit proposed building. Staff's response, yes, the applicant is proposing a structure that does not conform to section 21-59.02 able V1 in the city of Edgewater's land development code. This criterion has not been met. And lastly, will the granting of the proposed variance cause substantial detriment to public welfare or impair the purpose intent of the land development code? The applicant's response is no. Staff's response. Yes, granting the variance will negate the intent of the land development code for establishing setbacks. This criterion has not been met. Staff did receive the following feedback from city departments. Environmental services did recommend approval of the requested variants. The requested variants does allow in-field development to be consistent with neighboring properties. The fire department did not have any comments. At this time, staff does not recommend approval of the variance for application VA 2308 because all six criteria could not be met in accordance with section 21-100.04D, not administrative variances. Thank you. I will open the public hearing and ask if there are any questions or comments. Please come forward. I need your name and your address, please. My name is Carol Barnum, and I live at 706 Furn Palm Drive, which is behind Guava. So it backs up to where the development is. So do you do anything else? All right. So as far as the setback, 20 feet instead of 50 feet, we went through this when they were doing the property right behind our house and unfortunately it was approved and it looks like it's caused a lot of erosion of the area that's the road for the right by the canal. And I would ask that you do not approve this shorter setback and that the properties along there don't just automatically keep getting more area ignoring the original setbacks. That's number one. And number two, I don't know if you're aware of it, but the lot on 27, on Furnpom, 2712 is a vacant lot that is adjacent to the one that is going to be developed. So if you're driving down Furnpom, you're going to see whatever is back there. Because they can't live owned by the city. So they're probably, I don't know if they're going to do anything with it or not. But if they don't have a fence there, which they're asking not to have a fence around the dumpster. Whatever a dumpster is going to be an eye sore for whoever is going down that street or where lives on the street and it could lower the property values. So I'm asking that minimally require the developer to have the six foot fence along the rear property line. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? I want to question Tell me, are you putting the clock? Yeah, the timer's not up because I don't see the time of going. You're fine. Because I see it here. I don't know why you don't see it there. Can I say something real quick, George? I need your name. Robert Clinton, 4210, Liza Clinton Road. With the first case that you heard, your answer is kind of confused me and the property owner. If you'd clarify these a little bit, when you do vote, which way it's going. Okay. So the motion was to deny the variance for the pool to be installed I Disagreed with that because I feel like he has a right to put a pool in his backyard if he wants to so I voted no on his on the On the variance to be denied Yes, there was a court there was enough votes enough no votes a 4 to. The way I see it was a four to two vote basically to say yes. That's why it is. In this case, it would be opposite. That's why it doesn't. It does not. It very rarely goes that way, but that's why it's confusing to people. Can I clarify? Okay. I will monitor. Yes, as long as we can keep. I will monitor. Yeah. Just a point of interest. My concern was the two foot from the water line. That was my concern. That's what happened last time when we could make the association. It is a soul pool. Well, if we stick to the topic, I'm sorry. I just want to ASC question. Is the applicant here? Do we have it? Do we have it a wait a time? Do we have a wait a time? I'm going to have the monitor. I'm going to have the monitor. OK. Are there any other questions or comments for VA2308 from the audience? Board questions or comments? Is the applicant here? That's a negative. Okay so 2308 VA2308. So we need your name and your address please. I'm six, some foot showroom, 601 McKinsey Road Lake Helen. I'm the contractor of the project and part owner. We've just finished three projects, identical to this. We had finished one earlier, probably about a year earlier. I think butch fry built a couple in between us, so we're just continuing on down the road like we had originally done before the setback. You know if you take that away that almost makes it unbuildable because it's pretty skinny lot. So more than happy to put up a fence we were putting up strawberry to fence to give some privacy between the houses behind us and the property that we're building on. Well my my question was this. Can we go back to the survey or the site plan? So the variance request is for a 20 foot in lieu of the required 50, but the site plan indicates 30.2 feet. So why are we doing a 20 foot rear setback instead of a 30 foot setback? I'm not sure if can't answer that question. Okay, that was my biggest question. And then am I correct? I know this is kind of further down, but this is that same structure for those where they've got that maintenance buffer behind the lines. So the reality is we've got even from his property line, there's what another 50 feet to the back of the firm palm. Probably that's 15 feet. There's a 15 foot easement that runs behind these parties. Yeah, it's got a canal that runs back there. Yeah, we've had this issue on the same road. This is justice. Your variance was approved one time, and it just expired, correct? Is that the right one? No, I don't have the thing that I was gonna try. No, that was butch fry. Okay. That was butch fry and we actually took up on that in America. He retired. Okay. And we finished his, but he started. We finished. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? So clarification of 20 or 30 foot setbacks there. They're asking for a 20. So what's the plan? And the site plan indicates they have an extra 10 feet. So. All right, any other questions or comments? The judge, Judge, could you a question that you just asked issued 28 day of August 2020 for this one? Yes, sir. Okay. So we already had, we've already been through this once with this piece of property. It just expired because he didn't get a chance to finish building it before the, before the variance expired. Correct. Okay, I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. I'll make a motion to approve V8, 2308. Second, Rainbow. But could I ask a question? Oh, sorry. Getting back to the fence that the woman had requested or asked, and the gentleman just said, they're willing to do the fence. Is that something that needs to be put in the motion? Are you willing? OK, so let me amend. Motion to approve VA 2308 with the addition of a six foot privacy fence along the rear. Second rainbow. Chairman Kennedy. Yes. Mr. Duane. Yes. Mr. Andrew Cove. Yes. Mr. Hatcher. Yes. Mr. Wright. Yes. Mr. Rainberg. Yes. OK. Next item on the agenda is VA2309. Request a variance to allow a 20-foot rear setback in lieu of the required 50-foot setback. Eliminate the 15-foot vehicle backup area requirement. Eliminate the dumpster or closure requirement for the property located at 2611 Guava Drive. Staff report, please. For the record, this is Ryan Solsis. This is a very identical just for a different property on a long guava that the applicant has applied for for the very same things. Staff will go through the findings that proposed use is for 50 by 46 foot, 2300 square foot steel building warehouse. So will the granting of the proposed variance result in a conflict with the comprehensive plan? After review, staff has determined that granting the variance proposed variance result in a conflict with the comprehensive plan? After review staff has determined that granting the variance would not result in a conflict with the comprehensive plan. As I cited earlier policy 1.4.3 reducing limitations on info and redevelopment that the city may reduce limitations on info and redevelopment activities consistent with the land uses and densities. So long as it would not jeopardize the public health safety or welfare, this criterion has been met. Well the granting of the proposed variance result in creating or continuing a use, which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area. The applicant's response, no, all adjoining properties match what I am proposing. It's that response, no granting the variance would not result in creating or continuing a use, which would not be compatible with adjacent uses. Here is this subject site plan. It was just a replica of the other one that the applicant is proposing the same type of building as well. And the lots are the same size. This criterion has been met. And then my staff report, you'll see all the different and the lots are the same side. This criterion has been met. And then in my staff report, you'll see all the different variances that have been granted along Guava Drive. Is the proposed action, the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property? The applicant's response? Yes. That's response. No, the applicant has reasonable use of the property by conforming to the setbacks within the B2 neighborhood business zoning district. This criterion has not been met. Number four are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites. The applicant's response is no. All adjacent properties are similar. It's a response. The subject site is considered a conforming lot. This criterion has not been met. Number five are the circumstances creating the need for the variance to result of actions by the applicant or actions proposed by the applicant. The applicant's response, yes, need variants to fit the proposed building. Staff's response, yes, the applicant is proposing a structure that does not conform to section 21-59.02 of the City of Edgewater's land development code. This criterion has not been met. And lastly, will the granting of the proposed variance cause substantial detriment to public welfare when pair the purposes intent of the land development code? The applicant's response is no. Staff's response, yes, granting the variance will negate the intent of the land development code for establishing setbacks. This criterion has not been met. Staff received the same similar comments from environmental services which in which environmental services recommends approval to request the variance as cited before that the variance would allow for infield development to be consistent with neighboring properties. Fire department did not have any comments. Staff does not recommend approval of variance for application VA 2309 because all six criteria could not be met. Thank you. I will open the public hearing and ask if there are any comments or questions. Let's come forward and give us your name and address. I'm Luke Tinklepa. I live at 2706 for on Palm. And I would think it would be nice to have a make sure that we keep defenses going on back there just like the other one that you just did. I'm afraid that once you allow people not to have defenses and everybody is going to let them go and you know that could cause issues. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Or comments or questions? Same applicant. I'm going to ask for a motion. All right. Motion to approve VA 2309 with the addition of a six foot privacy fence along the rear. Chairman Kennedy. Yes. Mr. Duane. Yes. Mr. Andrew Covex. Yes. Mr. Hatcher. Yes. Mr. Wright. Yes. Mr. Rainburn. Yes Okay, next on the money agenda is VA2310 request the variance to allow a class a rare landscape buffer and a class a side yard landscape buffer in lieu of a class C landscape buffer for the property located at 403 South Ridgewood Avenue. Can we get a staff report? Yes, thank you. The proposed use at 403 South Ridgewood Avenue is for 450 square foot drive-through coffee shop. The request before you is to allow a rear-class A landscape buffer in lieu of the class C landscape buffer. So number one, we're granting granting the proposed variance result in a conflict with the comprehensive plan. Again, citing policy 1.4.3, reducing limitations on infill and redevelopment, staff believe that this criterion has been met. Well, the granting of the proposed variance result in creating or continuing a use use which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area. The applicant's response, no the property lies on Ridgewood Avenue a commercial corridor. Staff's response, no granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing use which is not compatible with adjacent uses. As noted by the applicant the properties that front along US Highway 1 are predominantly z zone B3 highway commercial. The intended use is compatible with this zoning designation. This criterion has been met. Is the proposed action the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property? And before you is the site plan proposed by the applicant. The applicant's response? Yes, the lot size requires these buffer reductions to develop this infill type project. Staff's response. Yes, the applicant is proposing a 400 square foot building with associated drive aisles for the operation of a coffee shop. The subject property has a single family residence to the west and north, creating a hard ship to meet the 50 footfoot setbacks and corresponding class C type landscape buffer 30, 40, or 50 feet. This criterion has been met. Are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites? Yes, the lot is particularly small according to the applicant. Staff's response. No, the subject site is considered a conforming lot as the B3 highway commercial zoning district only regulates lot with. The land development code does not regulate the lot depth nor does it establish a minimum lot size for the B3 highway commercial zoning district. This criterion has not been met. Are the circumstances creating the need for the variance the result of actions by the applicant or actions proposed by the applicant? The applicant's response? Yes. Circumstance of creating the need for the variance the result of actions by the applicant or actions proposed by the applicant. The applicant's response, yes, undeveloped land proposes to build a new 450 foot, square foot building, viable for a drive through service. It's that's the response. No, when the city rezoned a significant number of properties on Ridgewood Avenue to highway commercial, existing single-family homes existed. The landscape buffer requirements are based upon the use of property, not its zoning designation. With that, this criterion has been met. Will the granting of the proposed variance cause substantial detriment to public welfare or impair the purposes intent of the land development code. The applicant's response, no, the variances will still allow space for well-kept landscape buffers, and as I understand it, we'll have little, if any, impact on land development codes. Staff's response, no, granting the variance will not cause dredge to men to the public welfare. However, it will negate the intent of the land development code for establishing step backs. This criterion has not been met. Staff did receive the following comments from the Environmental Services Department. Environmental Services does recommend approval of the requested variance. Your requested variance does allow for infill development to make use of a long time vacant commercial site. The fire department had no comments. Staff does not recommend approval of the variance for application VA 2310 because all six criteria could not be met in accordance with Section 21104D. Thank you. I will open the public hearing and ask if the applicant's in the audience. Just give us your name and address please. Hi, my name is Carlos Ardela. I own the property on the west part of this development, this proposal. And I have, you know, it's going to be 10 feet, a virus, a virus, you've been. So it's going to be very difficult. You know, you are going to have noise, cars. It's very, very difficult. So I really oppose this development here. So it's 10 feet. 10 feet is nothing. I don't have any buffer there. So I will be hitting all these noise cars everywhere. And also all the orders. So this is no, no, no physical. So what's your address against her? It's one way, so to place. Okay, so on this map that would be on the west that would be the north part and on the west part. Okay when the east part I'm sorry the east part right there. That's appropriate. Okay. Thank you. I need, I need you to give us your name and address and please speak into the microphone. Absolutely. Michelle Sanville. I'm at 102 Merrimack. I'm on the northwest corner of that property and. I have a zero lot lying. My house is grandfathered in. I just spent a fortune remodeling it and every bit of traffic at the backside of that building will be shining your headlights in my bedroom window and the house to the east and the west of me and myself, we all have dogs, so they're good bark day and night, depending on what the hours are. And I'm also concerned with where the dumpster will be and if that'll create a smell. Okay. So, you know, it's going to be a, it would be a nice to have a coffee shop. However, I think it's going to be a very tough with their hours to start so early. That's going to create an issue. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is the, is the applicant in the audience? I'd like to speak with the, I'd like to hear from the applicant please. Hi Tim Lumas, 5 and 9 Canal Street, New Smyrna Beach. I'm actually not the applicant, I'm the applicants real estate agent. I wish I could be here tonight, but they currently live in Washington and business kept them from being here. There, it's a family owned business to actually run one right now in Washington. And I know that they will want to work with the public. They not only would be a great addition to the business community, but also the local community as well. In regards to the residents. We do understand, but it is a commercial piece of property. We're not asking for a setback on the building, any kind of adjustment on that. We're asking for an adjustment of a landscape buffer to allow for employee parking and a bypass lane. So, it's their goal to inhibit, you know, not to make anything more difficult for you guys as the property owners that are nearby and their hours currently are 5 a.m. to 6 p.m. Okay, so. Thank you. Ryan just want to clear we're not eliminating a landscape buffer. We're just moving it in a little bit. Correct. Sorry. Correct. Instead of the class C, what they're requesting is a class A, the landscape buffers in the land development cove give three options. Each of those options come with different widths. And the wider you get on your landscape buffer, depending on which classification you're in, the less plantings you have to do, and then in addition, different landscape buffers require walls, some do not. And that is also based on the width, walls or fences, I should make that. So this is a request for a narrower one to utilize the site in order to meet the bypass lane in the parking. Is there a venture requirement in this one? In the class eight that they're requesting no, but that is a condition that you could. Okay, I'm sure that they would have no issue with putting a fence up to protect some of that white if that was necessary. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other audience comments or questions? My name is Dr. Christopher Murphy. I have a medical building at 107 Miramaq. any given business day, that's a lot of traffic on the Southwest corner, you have the convenience store and a gas station. And I know people making a U-turn, which is a common thing. And people making a left turn, it's a safety issue. You have a grandma school down the corner of a convenient store. And my other concern is not just the traffic and people coming to a stop to make that turn and then to exit. It's going to be a real issue for moms and dads to drop off kids. A lot of traffic. Not just my patients and the residents in that area. The other issue is they talked about parking lots and that means asphalt, if I'm not correct, has stormwater been considered? I know that's a big issue nowadays. I don't know if that's, you know, in the permitting process that's got to that level and without doing any research, I think I'm skeptical that they would get past that issue. And with everything being especially the homes next to it. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the audience? Or comments or questions? Just addressing the questions the gentleman just asked about storm water. Wouldn't the environmental services have clear that? That's what that looks like. Yeah, and Mr. Coslow would have looked at that. We don't have the complete set of plans submitted yet. As they wanted to see if the variance would be granted before they went and got engineered plans, but Mr. Claus low is capable enough to make that determination. Absolutely. That's how I feel too. Thank you. Can we go back to the site plan slide? I just and my question is I don't see it's on here so my assumption is like where would the dumpster be? It's not really identified where the corral would be or is it just gonna be behind the building? Any idea there? I'll let that happen. Yeah. To my understanding I guess the trash routes, the route goes behind there I guess there's a dirt road there. I think it's a turquoise there. So the trash would be placed on the other side of that fence that gets put up. They don't have a lot of trash, it's not a food business, it's just a drive-through energy drink, coffee shop, it's a 400 square foot, it's not a lot of trash whatsoever. So we're not talking waste management, we're talking edgewater utilities or water waste. I believe so yeah, whatever's going to be easiest and make this work. I mean, either way, whatever's going to be easiest. Okay. So yeah. At the pre-application meeting, you can speak to this. Due to the volume, which was not as the applicant's agent had alluded to, staff did recommend they would just probably need a typical trash mobile trash can. Not a dumpster. Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Need a Pocosky live on Miramax Street. So they will have access to Sunt and back. That back road is a private road that goes back Is what he's saying for trash? I thought there weren't supposed to be able to access that back road at all Can you speak to that? As when we had the pre application meaning from my understanding that's where the trash would be picked up is on that portion of the right of way off of sudden place. So then would they put up fence all across that back line then? That's going to be our that's that's the discretion. I believe that's going to be our recommendation so they would have to have a gate there to be able to allow somebody to get through to bring the trash cans out and bring them back in. Right so there'll be a one on the north and on the east side fence. Depends on the recommendation. My question is if you go to the other map where they show you can show how it turns in there and goes around. I think that's going to be a very dangerous pulling spot. I mean, when you're coming down Route 1, when I'm going down and I'm going to turn into Mayor Max Street, which is the next road, North, people are right on your, on your about trying to come around into Mayor Max Street. That's going to be very dangerous, especially if the cars, if there's nine cars I think fit and they're not all in, you know, I think it's going to say it. Nine cars. I can't remember what else I was going to talk about. Guess that's it. Thank you. Robert Clinton, 42, 10, lies the Clinton road. The lady before me alluded to this. My office is over on the beach side of South Cosway and Starbucks there the same way with Chick-fil-A here in H water. This shows nine cars and I can just picture that bridgewood in the morning. Those cars going out into the ridgwood for several blocks. Yeah, this city needs to realize this might happen. And with this law, there's no way you can do like Chick-fil-A and wrap the traffic around the building. Thank you. So yeah, we can fully understand that. Unfortunately, we don't have control over how people drive. I mean, if I see a drive through lane, that's full. I don't stop in the middle of a highway. I just drive around or I find a different place to get coffee. There's other options available. I think that no matter what the business is, whether that be a doctor's office or a real estate office, if, I mean, if someone's going to, the chances of someone stopping there in the road is just the same as anywhere else, I don't think it should limit someone's use to their commercial property. Thank you. Other comments or questions from the audience? Board comments or questions. I guess the only question I do have for class of clarification is if we talk on east side or east side and north side. Are there all three sides? We go back to the drawing, I mean to the picture. East and north. East and north. That's what I feel. I'm going to back to LA. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. I make Michelle Sanville I'm at 102 Mayor Mack and if they do offense on the north side of the property How far is that going to go because like I said when I bought my house it was grandfathered in and I have a zero lot line so if they put a fence and I'm going to have like six inches when I open my window like is there any setback for the fence on the and I'm on the very north east corner so are you where the arrow is? Yes. Okay. Um, it's probably going to be pretty close. Okay. Um, if they skip a fence, the like for the width of my house and do the landscape all the way to my property can they just make sure they do enough vegetation there to not have all the headlights in my window. So what I would recommend is that if this gets approved and it starts to go into construction that you speak with the owners of the property to express your concerns. And like their agent said, I'm certain that they'll be amenable to working with you to make sure that it's in everybody's best interest. Okay. Thank you. Would there not be opportunity in review of the site plan, the final site plan? Absolutely. Yeah. I'm going to come up again, guys. So I do understand like I'm gonna come up again guys. So I do understand like I'm from here too. I know. Yep. Commercial sorry. Commercial development is not so I'm addressing the not you guys my best. Yeah. Please. I'm sorry. So a lot of people are against commercial development. I understand I was born and raised here as well. These and I had heard someone in the back say oh good luck talking to the owners. These are a good family, it's a family owned business. I don't think there will be any problem with putting up the right type of shrubbery or whatever it takes to keep the lights going out of your window. You did also say that you had a special, you were grandfathered in on something. So all we're asking is to be able to use a commercial property for use. It's a really small lot and we'll do everything that we can to make it just well to the other houses and different uses in the area. Thank you. Thank you. Well, there's going to be a problem because you know, I my proper team the living room is right there Where there's the orders are going to be where all the traffic is coming and it would be just probably Couple of months somebody is going to step on the accelerator instead of breaks and it's going to land on my Living room so there is no Any type of fence any type of protection. So I'm concerned about that. I only have 10 feet. So it's not going to be too much space to step on the brakes. I mean, this is in the noise. The noise is going to be up and probably what time? 4 5 a.m. until well, 10. With all the orders, red there. Yeah, that's right. I'm going to say. Just see what happened is that the rear of the property is basically the front of the property. So I'm going to have everything there. That's my main concern. I mean, it's going to be continuously, depending on how the business is going to do? Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. I make a motion to approve V82310 with the stipulation that offenses put up on the east side and the north side fence slash shrubbery that would be appropriate for the addressing the issue that we just discussed. Is that clear enough? Yes, second. Chairman Kennedy? Yes. Mr. Dwayne? Yes. Mr. Andrew Covex? Yes. Mr. Hatcher? Yep. Mr. Wright? Yes. Mr. Rainatcher. Yes, Mr. Wright. Yes, Mr. Rainbird. No. Okay, next item on the agenda is VA2311. Request a variance from the land of element code to allow a 20-foot front setback in lieu of the required 25-foot setback for the MH2 zoning district and request a variance to allow a maximum building coverage of 50% in lieu of the allowable 30% for the MH2 zoning district for the property at 603 starboard avenue. And we have a staff report please. Yes, for the record, this is Ryan Solstice, interim development services director chairman. and Services Director Chairman, the applicant and myself had a discussion. Number letter A does not need to be considered tonight. Staff overlooked on the site plan due to the dimensions not being fully detailed, but later became evident when he sat down with the applicant that only B would be needed tonight. And with that. What say in what's B? A is to allow a front yard setback of 20 feet in lieu of a required 25. It turned out after looking at the site plan in more detail that it did meet the 25 foot setback. So the one to be considered tonight is to allow a maximum building coverage of 50% in lieu of the allowable maximum building coverage of 30% for the allowable maximum building coverage of 30% for the MH2 zoning district. Do I need to start over? No, sir. Okay. With that said, the explanation by the applicant is that he would like need a carport inside while covered for safety reasons. With that being said, staff will go through the presentation. This is the aerial image of the subject property. So we'll granting the proposed variance result in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Again, staff have cited policy 1.4.3, reducing limitations on info and redevelopment. Staff believe that this criterion had been met. Well, the granting of the proposed variance result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area. The applicant's response is no. Staff's response. No, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses. This criterion has been met. It's a proposed action, the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property? The applicant's response is yes, it is the bare minimum. Increase of lock covers to cover the sidewalk from the car port to the door. Staff's response, no, the applicant has reasonable use of the property by conforming to the setbacks within the MH2 manufacturer'sm Subdivision 50 Acre zoning district in accordance with Section 21-52.02 Table V1 of the land development code. This criterion has not been met. Are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites? The applicant's response is no. The fast response, the subject site, is considered a conforming lot. The parcel meets the minimum lot square footage, the minimum lot width, and the minimum lot depth. This criterion has not been met. Are the circumstances creating the need for the variance the result of actions by the applicant or actions proposed by the applicant? The applicant's response, they are proposed. Staff's response, yes, the applicant. The applicants response they are proposed. Staff's response yes the applicant is proposing a structure that does not conform to section 21-59-02 able V1. This criterion has not been met. And lastly will the granting of the proposed variance cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes and intent of the land development code. The applicant's response is no. Staff's response. Granting of the variance will negate the intent of the land development code for establishing setbacks. This criterion has not been met. Staff did receive the following feedback from the city departments in environmental services. The subject property is in edgewater landing. The existing home has several additions including an expansion of the concrete driveway apparently to park a golf cart. Well, it's not clearly stated in the application. Environmental services understands the applicant intent to install a new car park covering the golf cart parking portion of the existing driveway. It is not clear from the provide materials what code is not being met and therefore requiring this variance. The recommendation by the environmental services was that no recommendation could be made because the environmental services department was unclear by the request. Fire and economic development did not have any concerns. Staff does not recommend approval of variance for application VA 2311 because all six criteria could not be met. Thank you. I will open the public hearing and ask if there are any comments or questions. I'll need your name and address please. Dennis McCarthy, I reside at 603 Starboard Ave. That's my property. I've already got a car port there. I'm looking to put a better roof on it because it just don't like the way it looks. And I figured why not run it along the side of the house? It would just look better. And would cover my sidewalk. I don't see who it's hurting. And there's no drainage problem. I mean we've gone through hundreds of storms. The water drains. You guys have any questions? Yes. Did you submit this request to the ACC? I think I did. I talked to Jack Shufstall this morning, and he said you submitted a request to enclose the car board as a garage, which they did approve. Yes, but they have not heard anything about what extending the carport. Well, that's part of that's part of the garage. Staining the carport. Not according to him. Yeah, it's the side of the house. I know exactly what you're talking about. I did it to my house, but ACC has not approved what you're proposing here. Well, they're like, they're in the next step. Don't we usually require that before we approve? We can we can I don't can we can we can we can improve it. You're not getting approval from the architectural review order that architectural control whatever it is. Okay. I have a question. Are you going to put a new call for it? Because it says you will unclear what the paper works is. I want to put it clear what you're doing. Sorry. I want to put it clear what you're doing. Sorry, I want to put another roof on better roof on the existing carport. Yes, and add additional and make it bigger. And have it go off the carport. Have it go off the site. So you're going around. Yeah, you want to put it all the way to back to the door. And is that covered by that section B on the request? Brian? Correct. Section B covers the amount of maximum building coverage you can have on this type of lot within the zoning designation. So what he is proposing to do, he's covered by that. Correct. Correct. It's an expansion beyond the 30%. Wasn't clarified. Please. Correct. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other public comments or questions? Good evening, civil McCartney. 712 navigators away. I'm here on behalf of the edgewater landing HOA. I'm currently president of our HOA. My only concern kind of took the wind out of my sales about the setback. I'm glad that was resolved and that's not going to be an issue. But what Paul was saying was correct. The ACC should have been the first stop. So they would understand the scope of the prime minister. and that's not going to be an issue. But Paul was saying was correct. The ACC should have been the first stop, so they would understand the scope of the project and could make the necessary recommendations and approvals. They did make application, however, it wasn't clear to the ACC, the scope of the work, and I guess some things changed between the time they made the application to what they're looking to do now and it has since expired. So they need to reapply to the ACC with the full scope of what they'd like to do. And we'd like to see that happen and maybe this could be tabled. I'm not sure how you guys do things here but table it and after it goes to ACC, goes to our processes then readdress it with the homeowner, see if the variance is required. If legal, I don't have a problem with approving it. So, I would recommend that we give it a conditional approval based on whether or not you approve it as the Homeowners Association. And just for a point of clarification, and the record, can you tell us what ACC stands for? Architectural Control Committee. Different neighborhood. We have eight ARCs. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have an ARC. Any other public comments or questions? John 0718 navigators away at water landing. One of the things you need to be concerned about is as development occurs in this community there may be more HOAs than they currently are and with HO, as you probably know, there are restricted deeds, there are regulations that are legal regulations as we have through our ACT Act Actual Control Committee. So I'd ask you to be cognizant of the fact that although you have six criteria under normal conditions, I think it would put criteria that cannot be overlooked when you're dealing with HOAs is whether or not the HOA has a language which governs the property development, or the home that's on the property, as ours does. So I think it's smart for you to defer this pending HOA approval through the ACC committee, but that's the first step before anything could come for discussion. But keep in mind that as communities develop here, you will have more associations with documents that you need to be aware of and consider as maybe one of your criteria if it's appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Board comments or questions? I'm going to close the public hearing and ask. I have a question because I'm in an H.O.A. And if they have language that says that God don't let it do it, it should even come to us, right? They don't have language that says that. That's Mr. Wolf. Right. The city does not enforce H.O.A. governance and restrictions so that's really a separate issue. So it's up to you guys. I'm just one member of this board but my recommendation is to save the home under the trouble of having to reapply and come back here again. Oh, I agree. Make it conditional that it can only get approved by the planning and zoning board if it gets approved by the ACC of the H-O-A. Okay. If we approve it and they don't approve it, that's amongst them, though. Well, that's true. Then it doesn't get approved. So the why do we even go through all of this? So he doesn't have to come back here in another three months and see us again. Right. We're just trying to. We're trying to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to It should be reapplied to you for City approval. Thank you. Thank you for your info. We understand what you're trying to say. I'm closing the public hearing. Please make a motion. Yeah. I make a motion to approve VA 2311 conditional on approval of the architectural control committee for as well. Second. Chairman Kennedy. Yes. Mr. Duane. Yes. Mr. Andrew Covex. Yes. Mr. Hatcher. Yep. Mr. Wright. Yes. Mr. Rainbird. Yes. Next item on the agenda is VA2313. Request for variants to allow class A landscape buffer yard of 10 feet in lieu of class C landscape buffer yard of 30 feet for the eastern and northern property line, butting single family residential lots as described within Article 5, table B4 buffer yard classifications for the property located 601 North Ridgewood Avenue. That report, please. Thank you. The request by the applicant is to have a self-service ice machine and a food tour court without door dining. The applicant explanation, the hardship by the applicant is that the lot is L-shaped and the eastern portion of the site is only 50 feet wide. With that being said, staff will go through the six criteria again. We're granting the proposed variance result in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Again, staff have cited policy 1.4.3, reducing limitations on info and redevelopment. Staff believe that granting the variance would not result in the comprehensive plan, and this criteria has been met. Well, the granting of the proposed variance result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area. The applicant's response, no, parcel has frontage on Ridgewood Avenue which is commercial. Staff's response, no, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses. This criterion has been met. It's to propose action, the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property. The applicant's response, yes. Buffer yard from residential substantially impedes buildability of site. Staff's response, yes. The applicant does have reasonable use of this property along the L shape due to the 50 foot building setback and they're required type C buffer yard, which is required to be either a 50 foot, 40 foot, or 30 foot landscape buffer on the north and east property boundary. This criterion has been met. Are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites? The applicant's response? Yes. Lot is an L shape with only 50 feet of width. Staff's response. The subject's site is considered a conforming lot, although the lot would be rendered 50% unusable if the applicant complied with the land development code in this L shape area. This criterion has been met. Are the circumstances creating the need for the variance the result of actions by the applicant or actions proposed by the applicant? The applicant's response, no. Purchase L shape plot had a pre-application meeting prior in no buffer yards, were mentioned. Staff's response, former staff at the pre-application meeting did not indicate that the applicant would not be able to utilize the L shape portion of the property with a commercial use. As a result, the applicant proceeded forward with the purchase of the lot, and a variance is required to waive the type C landscape by from the 50 foot building setback. This criterion has been met. And lastly, will the granting of the proposed variance cause substantial detriment to the public welfare, or impair the purposes and intent of the land development code? The applicant's response? No, will not cause a detriment to public welfare. Staff's response. Granting of the proposed variance will not impact or cause detrimental effects to public welfare. However, granting the proposed variance would negate the intent of the land development code. This criterion has not been met. Staff received the following feedback from city departments. The environmental services department apine that after reviewing the sub-mittles for the subject variance to the reduce or eliminate the eastern buffiar, I believe the request is reasonable. Environmental services does not object to the requested variance. Fire and economic development had no comments or concerns. Staff does not recommend approval of the variance for application VA 2313 because all six criteria could not be met in accordance with section 21-100.04D. Thank you. I will open the public hearing and ask if the applicants in the audience please come forward. Give us your name and address. Names Timothy Coonley. I live at 3154 Eels Grove Road, Edgewater, Florida. Okay. The reason for the variance is as stated. Like you said, previous to the purchase of the property, I went to the TRC meeting for our conceptual plan. They approved everything, so it would be all good to go. So I proceeded with the purchase. I mean, they're looking for variance. Yes. Questions? Food trucks like different kinds of food trucks in and out or more of like a permanent food truck thing like you see in some of the more populated areas. Not permanent. They would come and set up in the morning and leave in the evening. Okay. Not a lot to it. The parking lot is under 4,000 square feet. There's not a lot in pervious ground. We can drive any other questions. Not yet, but don't leave. Any other audience questions or comments? My name is Bonnie Venable. I'm at 104 Sanchez and I am on the north end of that. That looks like you're going to be putting food trucks right up against the property line because you're not forcing that buffer to come back. If you're shortening that buffer, it's going to come right up against the property will lead on the north side. There's still going to be 10 feet. No, so I'm saying you would do a variant. But if you made it the 50 feet, then they wouldn't be as close to my house. So if those things are running all day, don't the food trucks run or have some kind of a motor running and making noise and carrying on? If they're there We'll let the applicant I Come up every time I got to do the tim and all that stuff. We know who you are now just okay, so I answer your question Sir if you could step up to the mic please so an answer to your question on the proposed plan we will be putting a sub panel so the food trucks can run on electric and there'll be no noise. So no generators. right at the beginning, that edge of the property. Because you wrote that, you want 10 feet. Always. Correct. You slide up your table. Good evening. I'm a small again. I'm a 109 East tap avenue. So I'm on the property that's on the east side of this. I have a concern with the noise, but I also have a concern regarding any trash and noise being, I'm sorry, not just from the normal conduct of business, which is people in general. They get loud carry on sometimes not always. That's it. Oh yeah, trash. Trash would be a concern. Back to the applicant. The trash would be city trash. Don't intend on having dumpsters. It would be the same thing just like your regular city trash. There won't be Lady ass hours of operation it would be probably from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m Trying to shut down before someone goes down, but Correct Stone goes down, but correct. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the audience? Board questions? Just a question do we need to consider or the East, East, Southeast corner and to the northeast corner, offensal on that line by the house. Might that be something that, would that be included in the buckle we have to add that? So I would turn me on those properties. There are already privacy offenses. Okay. On the east and north property. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Great. Any other questions? Are close to public hearing and ask for a motion. Make a motion to approve VA 2021 3 second. Chairman Kennedy. Yes. Mr. Duane. Yes. the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the plan to allow a class C landscape buffer with a width of 30 feet without a wall in lieu of a class C landscape buffer within buffer yard with a width of 30 feet with a wall for the property at 2830 high-bescaged Can we get a step report? Yes, this is Ryan Solstice for the record interim development services director. As you recall earlier during the hearing alluded to the differences in the landscape buffers between the widths, certain widths requirements when you choose a class C landscape buffer and you go with a 30 foot width, it does trigger that footnote number two, which would require a wall or fence at that point. The applicant here is requesting to do the 30 foot, he can meet the classy landscape buffer outright, but he's requesting a variance from doing the wall, so just to make sure that's clear before the board. The explanation of hardship by the applicant, the site design constraints, pond area buffer, plantings, setbacks, and parking requirements. There is a 15 foot alleyway that abuts the rear property line. There will be a total of 50 feet of separation from the residential property to the proposed building setback line on site. Proposed development will meet the landscape requirements of a 50 foot buffer yard. So with that being said, staff will go through the six criteria. Will the granting of the proposed variance result in a conflict with the comprehensive plan? Again, staff have cited policy 1.4.3 reducing limitations on infill and redevelopment. Staff felt that this would not be in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Staff are this criteria has been met. Well, the granting of the proposed variance result in creating or continuing use, which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area. The applicant's response, no, there are existing nearby properties with similar uses, such as Anderson performance heat and air and new shutters and blinds window treatment store. Staff's response? No, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing use, which is not compatible with adjacent uses. This criterion has been met. Is the proposed action the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property? The applicant's response is yes. Staff's response, no, the applicant has demonstrated he can meet the Classy Buffer Yard requirements. However, it is requesting a waiver from the wall screening component of the LEN scape buffer. This criterion has not been met. Are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites? The applicant's response is that the surrounding sites share similar characteristics in which developed sites do not have a measuring wall for screening. The neighboring property to the south has a chain link fence with plastic slats. The fire department to the north has a vinyl fence. Stas' response is the subject site is a consider to conforming what this criterion has not been met. Number five are the circumstances creating the need for the variance to result of actions by the applicant or actions proposed by the applicant. The applicant's response? No. To comply with the requirements of the land development code and meet all other site constraints such as parking requirements, drainage, etc. The admission of a wall would aid in ease of site design and allow the project to meet the landscape requirements under Table V5, Class C for a 50-foot buffer yard. So in this case, the applicant is proposing to do the plantings of a Type C buffer yard for the 30, the more intensive one, the 30 foot here in this case. So staffs response, the APKIN is proposing a 30 foot landscape buffer, but is suggesting they would meet the planting requirements of class C landscape buffer 50 foot, which is more intensive than the 30 foot buffer. The APKIN would provide a wall for the 30 foot landscape buffer. This criterion has not been met. And lastly, will the granting of the proposed variance cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that the property that abuts the rear property. There will be a total of 50 feet of separation from the residential property to the proposed building setback line on site. The proposed development will meet the landscape requirements of a 50 foot buffery art. Staff's response, granting the proposed variance will not impact or cause detrimental effects to public welfare. The granting of the proposed variance would negate the intent of the land development code though. This criterion has not been met. Staff did receive comment from various city departments, environmental services stated that after reviewing the semittles for the subject variance, I believe the request is reasonable, depending on the type of use for the performed in the building. Environmental services does not object to the requested variance. By any economic development did not have any comments or concerns. At this time, staff does not recommend approval for variance for the application VA 2314 because all six criteria could not be met. Thank you. I will open the public hearing and ask if there are any comments or questions or if the applicant is in the audience and you want to speak. Joe Pellerin, 189 South Orange Avenue, I'm the engineer record for the project. I can ask if anyone wants to speak but just want to let you know I'm here and he kind of covered it all. We were looking at the land development code and the 50 foot buffery art is the requirement, which is why we provided 35 feet instead of the 30 foot to get that 50 foot buffer from the residential lot line. So if anyone else. So so am I correct? Basically, he's wanting to trade off more strict landscaping requirements for not doing events. I'm not doing the masonry wall. Correct. He's essentially proposed doing more plantings in lieu of doing the masonry wall. But he still needs to, despite him providing more plantings, he still needs to reply for the variance or the wall. Right. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was clear Can I ask you for a clarification of the plantings when we talk about plantings? What are we talking about specifically? So depending on the buffer yard the shorter and width you get on the buffer yard the more plantings or linear Both so the land development code does call for trees per 1500 square feet and then shrubbery and that's dictated per linear square feet. And shrubbery to grow and become a fair area. Yes. Okay. All right. A living wall. Yeah. I just want to make sure I just want to clarify that. I'm like a landscaping germ. Oh. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? All right. I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. A motion to accept or approve VA 2314 second. Chairman Kennedy. Yes. Mr. Duane. Yes. Mr. Andrew Covey. Yes. Mr. Hatcher. Yes, Mr. Wright. Yes, and Mr. Rainbird. Yes Okay, we're gonna take a three-minute quick recess So we can a bathroom break basically so if you got to go now go. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Run. Okay. Okay. We're going to rejoin the meeting. The planning and zoning meeting for September 13th, 2013 is now back in order. Sure. Okay. Next item on the agenda is AB 2302. Request for abandonment and vacation of a portion of Indian River Boulevard. And we have a separate place. Yes, for the record, this is Ryan Sol, which changed the alignment for Indian River Boulevard from a direct west direction to a northwest direction and tied into the new Williams and Boulevard right of way. The applicant is requesting the vacation abandonment of a portion of Indian River Boulevard to realign the entrance for the Deering Park development. With that said, the applicant did receive approval from the technical review committee however with the following department comments. The city attorney did have comments at the time on September 6th. We did receive a revised legal agreement that Mr. Wolfe did have the opportunity to review and is satisfied with said legal agreement. On the next slide here, you'll see where this realignment is going. It's to change the entrance to the proposed subdivision. Environmental services did have a few concerns. The some of those concerns whereas the language within that said Eastman Agreement and legal document for the realignment regarding the city's wells that document that Mr. Wolf did review did satisfy those criteria and those conditions and the environmental services department did have questions about the Hawkscape property because he did not wander and are into eminent domain again. Mr. Storch did provide us with those deeds demonstrating that there was a land swap done and that the city would not have to gauge domain. With that, that believes that the proposed abandonment and vacation is substantially consistent with the comprehensive plans, plans, goals, objective policies and the city of Edgewater's land development code. vacation is substantially consistent with the comprehensive plans plans goals objective policies and the city of edgewater's land development code. At the time of writing this staff did recommend conditional approval however since then we did receive all the necessary documentation and Mr. Wolf has reviewed it with that being said staff does recommend approval of AB 230. Hi, for the recommended music and storage. And as you can tell, there are a few things we had to take care of. Address please. I feel like I live here. There's a few things we had to take care of. Address please. I live here. There's a few things we had to take care of. I can do that 42 20 boys get 42 20 boys got camp road. We have to keep it on the up and up. That's okay. I just have to figure out which address on that. Okay. But the as you can tell the reason why we did this is because if you recall, when we adopted the, uh, during part of North of plan, PUD, it was based on the fact that Williamson was now had this sweeping right that would eventually go down and connect to Maytown at some point in the future. And so the idea was that you had to now bring, uh, Indian River Boulevard up and the old right of what we had provided to you before, which we actually gave you, was based on the previous plans. So this is now the new plan. There will be an agreement to dedicate this new right of what I to you that will connect to Indian to Williamson. And, but if I remember correctly, the terms of the Deering Park North agreement require us to build that road first and then dedicate it. So that's what we're doing. This by taking care of this vacation as well at this point, it also allows us to complete all of our permitting because there was right now there was an issue as the fact that the edgewater owned a piece of the land that we're permitting and an edgewater did not want to be a permitting. So it's just it's cleaning up some issues and I really do appreciate staff working with us and Aaron working with us to help solve the problem. Thank you. Thank you. I do have one question from Mrs. George. I remember going back when this whole big meeting, there was another gentleman, I believe his name is Sanchez. The gentleman I was going to do the water slide, the way he's going to go to. Snowden. Snowden, yes, that's the- I remember there was a big discussion that night of anything traffic wise it His property can is involved in this no, okay. No actually this yeah, I do that's the Hawks gate piece Yes, okay, and we're working closely with Snowden. That's why we were able to trade the properties Okay to deal with those issues as well my understanding is the water park is still on track And so that's moving forward that will be in this will not have any interference whatsoever with the water park is still on track and so that's moving forward that will be in this will not have any interference whatsoever with the water park entrance. Okay. Yes. Thank you. I know several years ago when we were talking about the Deering Park North thing I think part of this whole Williamson connection thing was we were still waiting on new summer utilities to try to figure out where they actually wanted it. They they ever figured that out? They did, I helped work that out too. Uh, we were able to work out a deal in an alignment where the Tilties Commission actually dedicated or worked out a deal to dedicate their alignment. So we now have the dedication agreed to all the way from Pioneer Trail where Williams it ends through two part property owners, one is shell point which I also represented and worked out those deals and that's going to be dedicated probably within 30 days. And then the UC which will be dedicated soon, there's a couple of things that have to be done but that will be dedicated. And then this last piece, which is a piece that's so important to Edgewater, is a piece from 44 to 442, that alignment agreement has been approved by the property owner and, which is us, and by the county. And so that will be dedicated as soon as the permitting is done. Okay. So it's been a big project, as you can tell, but it's so important to the city of Edgewater to have this alternate north-south roadway, especially if something happens to the interstate. So that's what we're looking at. And was there not a traffic circle discussed in this? There is. There is. As you can tell from this map right here from this plan. The new any river boulevard goes into the traffic circle. Okay, which is a traffic circle between any river boulevard and Yes, okay, and Williamson and then from there it goes into the town center Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Just with an abandonment, do we approve that or just recommend approval of the council? So every recommendation besides the variances, or variances is going to be a recommendation to a motion to recommend a favorable recommendation to council. As Mr. Storch alluded to, we're not doing the dedication yet, which activates it and makes it become a public right away. Part of that agreement is we want them to build. Okay. Okay. Oh, close the public hearing and ask for a motion. Motion to send a favorable recommendation for AB 2302 to City Council. Second. a favorable recommendation for AB 2302 to City Council. Chairman Kennedy. Yes. Mr. Dwayne. Yes. Mr. Andrew Covex. Yes. Mr. Hatcher. Yes. Mr. Wright. Yes. And Mr. Rainburn. Yes. Next item on the agenda is AB 2303 request to abandon vacate and relocate a 10-foot utility and a 15-foot drainage easement and to vacate emergency access easement on the call to sack at Massey Ranch Boulevard near 1040 Flying M-Quart. Staff report, please. Thank you for the record. This is Ryan Solstice in-trimmed development services director. This is the subject property on the screen in front of you. The applicant has requested to relocate a 10 foot utility and 15 foot drainage easement. The next slide here of that sort of site plan showing what is being proposed to be done. The intent here is to allow for the expansion of this lot in this cladded subdivision to allow for the expansion of this lot in this plated subdivision to allow for the purpose of the massive range, full of our, or a massive range subdivision is to allow for airport hangers and single family homes on one single property. So in November of 2022, John Massie filed for a minor's lot split and lot combination to add additional land. That was retained by John Massie from Masssey Ranch Air Park Unit 1 subdivision. The additional land was combined with the Lot 22 of Massey Ranch Air Park Unit 1 subdivision to allow for a larger buildable area due to the substantial stormwater and conservation easement within the eastern portion of Lot 22. The existing utilities within the cul-de-sac of Massey Ranch Boulevard called the existing western property line of Lot 22. The applicant is requesting the move, said utility easement to the western line of the new and expanded Lot 22. The applicant is requesting that drainage easement be moved to the southern portion of the newly created law 22 just north of the 70-foot taxi easement. The applicant is also requesting that the 20-foot maintenance easement be placed within the 70-foot taxi easement. The applicant is also requested that the 20-foot emergency easement be vacated. Staff is receptive to the abandonment vacation relocation of the utilities on site. The environmental services department did have some concerns regarding the utilities on site. Environmental services did recommend conditional approval of this request at the time of this publication based on the fact that the applicant must determine that their proposed abandonment will include the city's water main within the Massie Ranch Boulevard right away or the proposed utility easement adjacent to the Massie Ranch Boulevard. And the applicant shall endure to determine whether any underground utilities will be included within the right away or adjacent utility easement through placing a design locate ticket with Sunshine Onecall services. City staff also received comments from the Defire Department which had no comments. Staff believes the proposed abandonment and vacation is substantially consistent with the comprehensive plans goals objectives and policies and the Cities of Edge Auders land development Code. Staff recommends approval of AB 2302 subject to the recommendations made by the Environmental Services Department. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing and ask if there are comments or questions. Or comments or questions. I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. Motion to send a favorable recommendation City Council for AB 2303 subject to the following conditions follow the recommendations. Oh, pinned by the environmental service department in this staff report. Second Rainer. Chairman Kennedy. Yes. Mr. Duane. Yes. Mr. Andrew Covex. Yes. Mr. Dwayne. Mr. Dwayne. Mr. Andrew Covex. Mr. Hatcher. Mr. Right. Mr. Rainbird. Next item on the agenda is SET2301 to approve the major site plan for two industrial buildings for 291,830 square feet on 27 plus or minus acres. And we have a step forward. Yes, for the record, this is Ryan Solstice. On the applicant has filed for a preliminary flat as well as a site plan Staff is still reviewing the preliminary plan. Their quest before you tonight is to consider a major site plan on 27 plus or minus acres out of a total developer property of 83 plus or minus acres. Upon full build out, the proposed industrial park will have over 1 million square feet of industrial buildings. The subject property is within the city of Edgewater Stura restriction and has a future land use destination of industrial. The subject property is within the City of Edgewater's jurisdiction and has a future land use destination of industrial. The subject property is bound to the amended and restated industrial planned unit development that encompasses all the properties within the park town industrial park. The proposed development is well within the standards of the park town Industrial Center PUD. According to the Park Town Industrial PUD, the maximum pervious surface area can not exceed 80%. This proposed site plan does not. It has an impervious surface area of 48% and is providing 52% open space. On this slide here, you'll see the proposed site plan. City staff are in receipt of all the required documentations for the preliminary plan and site plan. City staff are in receipt of all the required documentation for the preliminary and site plan approval. The applicant has provided a transportation impact analysis, an environmental assessment, the surveys, the master development plans, all appropriate record cards, sunbiz verification for the LLCs and deeds as well as the application. Construction plans, drainage report, geotechnical reports, easements and covenants, landscape and irrigation plans, and photometric plans. Staff is recommending approval of SD-2301 upon the condition that the applicant satisfies all criteria prior to City Council. City staff provided the following TRC comments to the applicant on September 1st. With that being said since this has been published, we did receive the resum middle from the applicant prior to this coming to before the board. Staff sat down as a pre-application with the applicant to line out when dates, when we would need those resummittals. When staff would provide our comments back, I'd be happy to say that staff and the applicant have both met those deadlines so far. With that being said today, I did receive from Randy Cazlow that he was based on their resummental, that his comments all had been satisfied. And with that, staff do recommend approval of SD 2301 for the major site plan at Space Coast Industrial Park at Park Town. Hi. Up for the recommendation to Clint Storch, 420 South Nova Road, Daytona Beach, Florida. And just to the tail. The last one was my home. But the bottom line was that this is, this is something that's really important to city. I mean, and it's so important. It's been a dream of the city to start having part town have their industrial areas and industrial basin here at this is a major investment in the city. And I've got to tell you, I can't tell you how much I appreciate how hard staff has worked on making this happen. It's not been easy, there's been a lot of hurdles to overcome. But staff has done everything they possibly can to make this happen, which is why we're in the position we are right now. So if you have any questions regarding it, that's fine, but I got to tell you this is just something like a thing that you've been after for a long time and I didn't think I'd ever see. Thank you. I want to stop light at Park Town and Park Avenue. With the build out of this, it's looking more like a necessity. George knows what I'm talking about. And that's fine as long as not a requirement for us. That would be county, right, George? Uh, because of Park Town. I think actually it's DOT. I think it is. Which is why we don't have a stop like that. Because the one the Lyman College lets out for lunch. Forget it. So so city staff did work with the applicant. You'll notice here that on the yes, on the left hand side, Dale Street, the applicant is going to provide this right of way here, this future connection. The city is anticipating to use our impact fees and our fund to build a secondary road in Park Town to provide a secondary access completion of this project. So that there's better. And that would come out of where now? It would come out on to. Dale. Dale. Yeah. Originally it was going to be Pullman Road. But then when to Lyman College bought up everything they severed off that side. Right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. All right. I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. Motion to approve or recommend favorable. Recommend. Motion to recommend SD-23-01 to approve the major site plan. Second. Second. Second. Thank you. Chairman Kennedy. Yes. Mr. Dwayne. Yes. Mr. Andrew Covex. Yes. Mr. Hatcher. Yes. Mr. Wright. Yes. And Mr. Rainbird. Yes. Mr. Wright. Yes. And Mr. Rainbird. Yes. Okay, the next item on the agenda is AN2302 CPA2303 and RZ2302 request for annexation rezoning from Volusia County A3 to city of Edgewater rural transition RT. And for a small scale comprehensive plan amendment from Volusia County urban load density to city of Edgewater load density transition for parcel ID, 842-4-0-0-0-0-0-0-7-0, generally found near Clinton Cemetery Road. Dr. Gortley. the city of Ed water and I apologize that I did not separate these out but they are all one essentially one in the same as far as being considered. So the subject property is located within our inter-local service bound. So we have a lot of evidence that we have to take into account that we have to take into account that we have to take into our own community. So we have to take into account that we have to take into account that we have to take into our own community. the city of Edgewater and Volusia County. The applicant did not request a zoning designation or future land use designation. The applicant would like to process a minor lot split and build two homes on the two respective parcels once the lot split is complete. Should the city be willing to annex and assign it as a zoning designation. The applicant would like to process a minor lot split and build two homes on the two respective parcels once the lot split is complete. Should the city be willing to annex and assign it as zoning designation and future land use designation. Staff felt that the rule transition. A zoning category as well as the future land use category for the subject site from the Luscia County Urban Load Density to rural transition, which allows only for one dwelling unit per acre. And we felt that in this enclave here, the properties on this aerial image to the north of this subject site are kinda in an enclave of unincorporated Lucia County properties with that lower zoning designation while the properties to the south are in the four units per acre and the future land use with an RPUD. And staff has received an application for those subject sites. With that being said, the owner just wanted to make sure that agricultural uses could happen on the site. And so we felt that this was the appropriate future land use designation and zoning category. The minimum lot square footage is one acre. The minimum lot width is 100 feet. The minimum front yard setback for the home would be 40 feet. The minimum rear yard setback would be 40 feet. The minimum side yard setback would be 25 feet. The rural transition zoning designation, according to Article 3 of the land development code, would allow for the following type of residences, manufactured in mobile homes, modular homes, or single family. Staff did receive one public comment, one phone call from a member of the public with questions regarding the application. Concerns were raised by this individual that the application could place two plexes or multifamily style residential units. Staff told the individual that the proposed zoning in future land use would be restricted to the above, mentioned types of residences in addition to the density. So the applicant is requesting, is going to request a lot split to divide the seven acre piece into two, three and a half acre pieces. This has been reviewed by the TRC and all comments were satisfied by TRC members. With that staff does recommend approval of AN-2302, RZ-2302, and CPA-2303 to send a favorable recommendation to City Council. Okay, I'll open the public hearing and ask if anybody has any comments or questions? Board comments or questions? I just have one. How do you get to this profit? You need a helicopter or what? I just have one. How do you get to this property? Oh, sure. I mean, do you need a helicopter or what? So there is an easement that this was one of the things I was holding up this application for a while. The property owner did supply me with a survey indeed or this easement that allows access to Clinton Cemetery road to the subject property. So there's something there that is it in place? Correct. It is. The easement's in place. There's just not a road there now. Correct. Because I'm looking out for you. That's cool. I know there's a train tracks. Oh, we got a full road. Okay. That was my question because I'm like, is there a platter of easement? Yeah. Yeah, I see. We got it. Thank you. I want to make sure. Okay. Robert Clinton 4210 lies a Clinton road and the current chairman of the Clinton Cemetery Association. This is owned by a family member. He has a cousin and as long as he's just going to put the two houses on it, me and the people in the cemetery have no objection. It's the it was our fear that it would be put in as you know multi-family duplexes and triplexes and such. There are a lot of lines. We just can't have that in there. Okay, thank you. Thank you. My only question, so, and I dealt with this on my own piece of property on Volko Road, so there's a flagged wetland that cuts this easement right in half. So how are they going to actually build a road over a flagged wetland that cuts this easement right and half. So how are they going to actually go to road over a flagged wetland? So as long as the heat, so this was the kicker wire also put them in real transition. As long as there's only two houses going to be there, the road doesn't need to be improved. So it'll literally just be a good road. Yeah. Okay. Because the number of trips, it's not going to trigger. I'm not going to make them build that road and prove a road. I mean, that would be godly expensive. So oh, no, I know. I had to put a driveway over one. So are they still going to have to get state of Florida FDEP? Yes. In this case, it'll probably be the letter that says they don't need it, but it's still expensive. Correct. So, okay. Any other questions? I'm a close public hearing and ask for a motion. Make a motion to send a favor of recommendation to City Council for AN2302, CPA2303, and RC2302. Second. Who's the second? Bob. You haven't heard my voice, though. You did it at the same time, and you're not speaking up very that. It's my microphone, my wife's from Tellamin'F is six months. OK. Chairman Kennedy? Yes. Mr. Duane? Yes. Mr. Andrew Covex? Yes. Mr. Hatcher? Yes. Mr. Andrew Covex. Yes. Mr. Hatcher. Yes. Mr. Wright. Yes. And Mr. Rainbird. Yes. Okay. Next item on the agenda is RZ2115 to approve the rezoning request from Volusia County V6 A3 and A2 to the city of Edgewater mixed plan used mixed mixed used planned unit development M U P U D. Can we have a staff report? Yes, for the record, this is Ryan Solsis. The proposed use of the subject property is for a 468 unit apartment complex with four commercial out parcels. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property to match the future land use of mixed use. The property has already been annexed into the city of edgewater. However, at the time of annexation and large scale conference of plan amendment, the county zoning was retained. Something that staff is going to work on in the future to make sure that that does not happen again. A traffic impact analysis was done at the time of the large scale comprehensive plan amendment. Bullish accounting did approve the TIA on March 16th, 2022. The road segment analysis as well as the intersection analysis demonstrated that the adopted levels of service for the adjacent roadways and intersections would not be degraded. The traffic analysis did show that the project would require road improvements in the form of right and left turn lanes into the pros development. The subject property is 96.2 plus or minus acres. It currently has a zoning designation of Volusia County agriculture a three as well as Volusia County commercial b six. The subject property has a future land use destination in city of edge water mixed use which allows up to 12 units per acre in a floor to area ratio of .5 for the commercial intensity. City staff has worked with the development team to craft the following MUPUD attached within the staff report. The MUPUD will limit the density to 8 dwelling units per net acre while the mixed- use flu future land use does allow for 12 dwelling units per acre. The project shall not exceed a residential unit count of 468 units. The development is providing three story walk up apartments with a maximum height of 40 feet. The maximum building coverage is restricted to 25% in the multi-family development within impervious coverage is 65%. The applicant is meeting the parking requirements of the land availablement code, which is 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit in a 5% provision for visitor parking. The development does meet the land development code's buffer requirements outright. The development is also preserving 24 plus or minus acres of wetlands, which you can see on this next slide here, which is their site plan, proposed conceptual plan. The four commercial out parcels have a maximum building coverage of 35%, and a maximum pervious coverage of 80%. The allowable uses within the four commercial out parcels are restaurants, retail, quick service restaurant which I threw in hotels. City staff did request and received from the developer in the agreement the following items. The first one was requested by the chief of police or license plate readers at two points of ingress in egress, which will be provided by the developer. The development at the request of planning and zoning is providing a recreation area as well as a playground in addition The development will provide a six foot stabilized path with three dogway stations around one of the water retention or detention ponds In addition trash cans shall be provided at each amenity location a Request by the fire chief was that the building shall be limited in height to 40 feet with the third story windows shall not be greater than 35 feet to impact the cities ISO rating because the city does not currently have a ladder truck for some reason no one wants to buy us one. With that being said staff did receive all of TRC comments. All of them did recommend approval with that. Staff does recommend approval of RC 2115 and staff does recommend that the board send a favorable recommendation of approval to City Council. Thank you. I will open the public hearing and ask if anybody has any comments or questions. Good evening everybody. Jessica Gaul, a Cobb Cole offer, 149 South Road Avenue in Daytona Beach, Florida, down the road from Berlin. I am here on behalf of the applicant to just answer any questions you have. We've been going through this process with staff for about two years now, so we're excited to be to this step. On the wetland piece, I think it's really interesting. In the multi-family pocket, we're preserving right about 91% of the wetlands on site, so you see those limited impacts. And then you see impacts to the flood plan that will be compensated for on site along 95. Like Ryan said, we're below the allowable density and the land use and we're going through the PUD process because Other than your employment center PUDs are really the only compatible zoning district with the future land use and so with that here to answer any questions Thank you Questions I just have one so I'm looking at the map Because the map I have is black and white. This is better. This project I'm looking at 442 now. To the east it'll be up to almost Cal Creek Road. Correct. There is a sliver of state-owned land, but in our property, Cal Creek. And then, traveling west around the gas station. All the way to almost 95 service road. Correct. Okay, so I'm gonna get that out of my head. And the gas station they didn't want to sell. All the way almost 95 service work. Correct. Okay. Get that in my head. And the gas station they didn't want to sell her. No. $1 more per gallon. I know. The gas station. Only the NSL. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other questions? I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. Motion to send a frail recommendation to the City Council for rz2115 Did you hear that? I did thank you second rain bird rainbird. Thank you Mr. Rainer Chairman Kennedy yes, mr. Duane. Yes, mr. Andrew Covix. Yes, mr. Hatcher. Yeah. Mr. Wright. Yes. And Mr. Rainberg. Yes. Thank you. Okay next time on the agenda is RZ2305 to approve the rezoning from a city of Edgewater B4 tourist commercial to the city of Edgewater R1 single-family residential staff report. Thank you Chairman for the record. This is Ryan Solstice in trim development services director. They're proposed use on site here is for a single-family home so the applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property to construct a single-family home. The existing use of the property is a single-family home and the B4 tourist commercial zoning district. The use of the house is currently non-conforming. The applicant has recently purchased the property and tends to apply for a demolition permit and subsequently build a new single-family home. The subject property, despite having a B-for a tourist commercial zoning designation, has a future land use designation of low density residential, which allows for up to four units per acre. The low density residential does not allow for commercial uses. It appears that one point the city did initiate a rezoning of several properties in the immediate vicinity near 205 Boston Road to B4 tourist commercial, the spur commercial development along the riverfront. However, a concurrence small scale comprehensive plan amendment was not processed changing the future land use from low density residential to commercial. As such, the subject property surrounding 205 have been subject to a destination non-conforming uses and structures. The low density residential future land use solely allows residential development. The request to re-zone the property from B4 tourist commercial to R1 is compatible and appropriate for the subject properties based upon the future land use designation. Staff did receive comments from staff, the Environmental Services Department, said that after reviewing the semidels for the subject zoning amendment from V4 tourist commercial to R2 low density residential and Environmental services did not offer any comment on the proposed change economic development. However did recommend denial. Economic development stated that the property has been a fish camp for years with a BTR certificate of use. The change in zoning will adversely affect the use of properties to the south of West of 205 Boston Road. The properties next door to the south, 2001 South Riverside Drive, and in front at 1915 South Riverside Drive are currently owned by ASCII Development LLC and are up for sale to build the approved Marina Project with Docs, Marina, Restaurant, and fuel. With that being said, staff is recommending approval of RC-20305 and is recommending the board to send a favor of recommendation to City Council. And this is because the future land use was never changed for this subject property. So you can't build a residential house there. So right now the residential home is technically non-conforming in the zoning designation but the future land use which dictates what zoning category should be there staff never changed it when they came in to do spur commercial development here. And with that being said, the request to rezone it, the APC and did request R2, staff felt that based on this area, R1 was the more appropriate zoning designation because of the adjacent zoning categories along the river here. Almost all of them are entirely R1 and we thought that was the most appropriate. Thank you. I will open the public hearing and ask if there any comments or questions. Good evening for the record. McRagger love to 15 Northeola Drive or land at Florida. The hour is late and you have a talented planning director here so I won't go through a full presentation or anything. I will say that this is a little unusual. So if you do have questions for me, please ask. And I will answer. But I do think that Ryan laid it out well, kind of what the situation is on this property. Thank you. Questions? Are you involved in the building of the Marine or the restaurant? No, sir. I I'll behave myself. Okay, thank you. I can have you want to buy the property? Isn't this the property where they had that lady? Yeah, that's the property that they just bought that right away. That's the house they bought This was the last time we had a three-hour meeting. She's gone. Okay. She sold it. They ran her out of town She sold right now, but they ran her out of town basically Don't get me started on that. Okay. I'm blissfully ignorant on a lot of the history year apparently Oh, this little stretch of road is crazy. Okay. Any other questions? Comments? Concerns? All right. I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. Make a motion to send a favorable recommendation to City Council for approving RZ2305. Thank you. Chairman Kennedy. Yes. Mr. Dwayne. Yes. Mr. Andrew Covex. Yes. Mr. Hatcher. Yes. Mr. Wright. Yep. And Mr. Rainburn. Yes. Thank you. Next time on the agenda is development services directors report? so I'm happy to announce that I have Accepted the position full-time to be the development services directors starting October 3rd For the city welcome aboard sir. I'm very excited That mean very excited to be here very much looking forward to I've been really happy to get to work on some of these PUDs, to get us some of these amenities. And I'm really happy to with the staff I have. And hopefully we're going to get staffed up here soon. We're going to keep working on that. And I really appreciate your flexibility with the next special meeting on the 27th and tonight's long agenda as well. Just one quick question. What's your name? The last time you saw several through the minutes. The variance is several on Guava. And I know you had said you were going to look into that and maybe change something that could avoid that going into the future. Is that something that is possible? Yeah, so after the number of variances tonight where you heard again and again the class seed landscape buffer is an issue this year alone. I think we've done about 12 or 15. It's clear that that is an issue and variances should be unique cases. If it's a continuing issue with the city, it's something we need to look at. So one of the next steps is I'm going to hopefully propose in the next coming months some text amendment changes so that we're hopefully not issuing variances nonstop for the same thing. Thank you. If I could couple that just a chairman's report, which I never make, but we have seen consistently over the last several meetings, recurring themes of things that are coming up that shouldn't be coming up. So I just want to go on record stating that I do feel like development services director, the city manager and the city council need to all collaborate to figure out how we can update our land development code so that it's not so antiquated so we don't keep seeing these same things over and over and over again. So especially that stretch of road. one part that's actually got like the 15 foot, then a canal, then another 15 foot on the child like a hundred feet in between. You know, technical and cow. And a couple of those businesses that we had to deal with tonight with, they were asking which really, very could have been easily handled internally. Yeah, absolutely. Any other, you, you, you, just one request. That first gentleman with the pool, I think he left here thank you yeah I know I know I'll pull up miss I'll go into the office I'll call mr. Kelly myself actually that was my my question I wrote it down on here so the motion was to deny it. Correct. Voted no against the motion to deny it. So that mean it gets his variance. Correct. Does that mean we voted yes to allow it? Yeah. It's confusing because it's a note. Yeah. You voted no to do. Yeah. That's how you vote on the ballot. No, I mean, technically, we voted no to deny it. Hopefully in the future, we maybe just stick to the yes, mean. Hopefully in the future we maybe just stick to the yes me So he's gonna be informed that he yeah, I'll give him a call this evening. Thank you. You're making very happy I know because he's probably pretty up Okay, we need to join