So the floor is yours if there's anyone who would like to come forward and speak on anything that's not on the agenda tonight Okay, seeing none public participation is closed There is no old business so we'll move right into new business with Item A which is ZT-2-25 Text amendment to article five Review and give a recommendation to the city Commission on a proposed zoning tax amendment section 504.02, A dash to agriculture district of the city land development regulations. City staff, do you ever report? Yes, Mr. Chair. So the property owners at 1711 Martin Der Road purchased an existing wedding venue and because the wedding venue is not their primary residence a business tax receipt and a site plan cannot be approved. So to get some background on the current history there, back in 2017 as a conditional use for wedding venue in the A2 zoning district was approved and homesteading was a condition That was proposed during that text amendment by the original property owner who started the bending brand Bending branch ranch wedding venue and they also lived on site The current property owner and business owner live off site and the current site plan applications and the business tax receipts are pending based on required homestead condition. So this slide shows all the current parcels that are zoned a two agriculture in the city. Most of these parcels are along Pioneer Trail and Thermal Bay Road or their south of Page Avenue. The applicant for this text amendment is actually located off of March Day Road, which would be the piece of the far north on this map. So when venues are permitted as conditional uses in the A2 zoning district, meaning that if specific conditions are met, then it's considered permissible. And the current conditions include applicants shall be limited to a homestead residence living on the premises. Number two, the property shall be at least five acres and size. Number three, overnight stays or camping activities would be prohibited. The hours of operation be limited to the following periods. Thursday from noon to 10 p.m. Friday and Saturdays from 4 p.m. to midnight, Sundays to p.m. to 8 p.m. Also all artificial light shall be directed away from any adjoining properties. Also the applicant shall submit a parking plan showing the location of all the off street parking spaces, including information regarding the materials used for those parking spaces, and whether any additional landscaping would be installed. The parking plan shall be reviewed and approved by the planning and engineering staff. And the number seven, venues that provided 25 or fewer parking spaces shall require a major class one site plan approval if the proposed number of parking spaces exceeded 25 then a class two site plan would have to be required. And so the difference in this change is the removement of number one applicant shall be limited home stead residents living on the premises would be removed from the regulation. And what would be added to the regulation would be the last one which would be must meet the floor to fire prevention code unless determined by the fire marshal to be exempt from the fire code by the floor administrative code 69 A dash 67. So the plan department is recommended the plan is on board to give a positive recommendation to the city Commission to approve the proposed land development regulation amendments and that is a brief summary of the staff report Subtaining questions aboard members may have Thank you Any questions of city staff Bob why is the fire Marshall thing being taken out The fire Marshall part is being added in. Oh, it's being added. Yes. The only thing being taken out is The fire marshal part is being added in. Oh, it's being added in. Yes, the only thing being taken out is the requirement to be a homesteaded property. The first number one. Yes, number one's going to be taken out. Number eight's going to be added in. And then there will all be read numbered. So it'll still be one through seven. But just for today, we just want to show that it was different but that's going to be added to it. It's been a request about a farmer's we hear tonight in case you have any questions from the farmer's show also the applicants representatives here tonight as well. What was this an action that came up last year and then was withdrawn under some different format to accomplish the same thing? I believe there was an application prior to trying to do a variance to this particular request, but it seemed like the appropriate method for this type of application would have been a tax amendment to the actual code and not a variance to the code. Since it's a, be a variance to a use and we know we don't do variances for uses. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. Thank you, sir. Is the applicant or representative present and if so, would you like to come forward? And if there's anything that you would like to share or add to Land Development Resource Group on behalf of 140 North Beach Street day 100 Beach Florida on behalf of the owners Do you mind stating your name and address for the record? I'm sorry calling miles Land Development, Land Development Resource Group. I gave you my address wrong. 140 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida. And I'm representing Bending Branch Ranch. It's very hard to say. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Yes, I have one. I believe that the special use permit originally, and I'm trying to recall back from when this came up six months, six, eight months ago, at the adding, the advocate that time was originally added the fact that owner must live on premises. That's actually in the conditional use right now. Right. And that's what we're asking to strike that because they do live in your city, however not on site. So my question is, so you have a venue that ends at 10 o'clock. What's the guarantee something goes wrong at 10.30 when everybody's left? Oh no, the owners are there when any venue, when any activity happens with a wedding or... for how long to, I mean, just vandalism, fire, you know, some accident of some type. Well, that's the whole thing that we got with fire. when any activity happens with a wedding or for how long to, I mean just vandalism fire, you know some accident or some type. Well, that's the whole thing that we got with fire on this because we wanted to make sure because the fire was concerned, the fire marshal, and the new provision added in is going to ensure that somebody is on site until everyone's left. Everything's, I mean there's not like open flame, it's really a lovely place. So the owners will not leave property until everyone is gone and the owners come on site hours and hours before the people arrive for the wedding itself they're always on site for a wedding any other questions the applicant yes I do you all cook on there and you have kitchens or what? No, they have catering. Come on. Is the building sprinkler? No, and that's why the provision in the code for Florida Administrative Code and Florida Fire Prevention Code, I had wanted to add it into the text because I'm kind of wordy that way, and I added all the verbiage and staff felt it might be a little overkill that will just refer to the section of the code. God bless you. Does the owner have a specific liability function insurance for this particular use? Uh-huh, yes, sir. It operates as a business I would imagine all the requirements. They go along, they go along without our being fulfilled. It's not just. Heracic anulins, here's a barn, and anybody can come in and use it. Yeah, no, it's quite very lovely actually. I've actually been to one of the weddings out there. My father's an awesome venue, but I believe it was before the new owners had bought it. You should stop by. It's really lovely. You should stop by. Honestly, it is very lovely. Any other questions of the applicant? How many? Disad hole. That's going to be... It's really lovely. You should stop on that. I'm sure. Honestly, it is very lovely. Any other questions on the applicant? How many disaffold? That's going to be an occupancy number designated by the Fire Department. And that's going to be posted on site. I don't know that number. I'm sorry. But that's what it'll be here to. And there's a site plan that's been submitted with the showing the parking and egress and everything it will have to go through fire inspection and business tax receipt prior to them being licensed too. It just hasn't been able to... and it's been submitted with the showing the parking and egress and everything. It will have to go through fire inspection and business tax receipt prior to them being licensed too. It just hasn't been able to get to that point because it has to be approved here first as a use. That's why we need to just strike the homestead thing and add the fire thing. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, seeing none, thank you. I appreciate your time. At this time we'll go ahead and open up public participation a three-minute limitation be imposed the less otherwise granted by the planning zoning board So this is your time if there's anyone who'd like to come forward Saying none public participation is closed city staff. Do you have any further comments? I just want to cut up just case there's any other questions. Okay I think we're good Bob thank you. Thank you. I'd imagine the applicant has nothing else to add. Okay. Yeah. I just. Um. Farmers, would you like to come forward? Well, we'll go ahead and have you your city staff Good evening. My name is Steve Lane. I'm the city far Marshall We've got the Alping and I think this is almost two years total working on this and this compromise allows them to have their wedding venue continued operators has been and still meets and doesn and doesn't supersede any part of the state statute for agritors. So we felt this was the best way to meet that and still allow the venue to operate. We are still able to inspect it. I still set the occupancy limit for the property and so forth. So it's completely within state statute. Thank you. Any questions? Not a sir. Okay, thank you. Okay, a discussion and a question by the board. Any discussion on this item? Okay, seeing none, is there a motion to recommend approval of the requested amendment to the City Commission? Motion to approve. 2.5, 2 dash, 2.5, 2-2.5, requesting for land development regulation amendment to remove the homestead required for the wedding venue and to add the fire safety requirements in zone A to zoning district. Thank you do I have a second. Second. Stephanie could you please call the roll vote. Member Hodges. Yes. Member Hulvershorn. Yes. Member Cawsey. Yes. Member Bean. Yes. And Chair Weakcraft. Yes. On the motion to recommend approval to City Commission for ZT-2-25. We will have the whole set homeside requirement for a wetting venue and fire safety requirements in the A2 zone and district. The vote is five and beer zero. Opposed? I wish you the best of luck as well. Okay, we'll move on to item B, which is V-3-25 at 315 Falkner Street. This is the public hearing for a variance to allow a reduced side yard building setback on an existing single family parcel. City City staff, do you ever report? I do. We have applicant Mark Hurwall, 2801, Sunset Tribe, News Merit of H, representing property owner Mark Hall, 315 Faulkner Street, News Merit of H. They have three separate requests. One is to extend the existing north wall, the primary structure, the side yard, to the north, at a 2.1 foot setback. They also request to put a carport 2.1 feet from the long the front and the north side of the house on the west side going towards the front of the street along Faulkner. And then increase the height of a nonconforming structure, basically a portion of house that's already there there, which is 2.1 feet, because it's not conforming, not supposed to increase it. So this case, it's going up 18 inches. So it's technically an increasing of the nonconformity. And here's where it is on the street right there. You can kind of see some of the improvements in the house right now. Here's the current survey. You see I have it highlighted there at 2.1 feet from the side property line in the north there. And then here is kind of the improvements that are proposed going to be in the room there so you can see the eight foot going back behind that. That will be 2.1 feet from the side property line. And then the area that's marked 378 square feet, that being raised 18 inches and then along the front there basically that area that says concrete up to the fence line where it's got the dash lines that's basically a 26 foot carport right there those squares represent new columns that would support the carport right there. This is a shot down the side of the house right now. So if you can see it's 2.1 feet, it's relatively close. This is it from the street. So basically the carport would be coming out to, basically, the fence line right there. And then here there's an open shot of where the carport would be. It's supplied by the applicant. And I have a repeat in there. And this is kind of the backyard view of kind of what the proposing you do. So the roof line changes. The whole roof system comes out further, and then you can see it basically comes out. It raises, because that area flooded, they're basically elevating this whole area and prevented from flooding and put an addition on the house. And then there's another shot showing how it would look from the street once it's there. All right, variants we have a five separate criteria that have to be met. Special circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the applicants land structure we're building. I do not generally apply to the neighbor's land structures are buildings in the same district or vicinity. You know, I'm going to leave the applicant to represent their own side of this and I'm going to touch on ours. If you have any questions, I need one of them as we go through. Feel free to ask. But I know the house is already quite close to the property line. just relatively common in this area as it was developed prior to the establishment of our current LDR. That being said, the request is to add an additional combined 34 feet, eight feet of new house addition and 26 of carport 2.1 feet from the side property line. Thus it's accurate, you know, the house is itself non-conforming and dates back almost 80 years. But the improvements that are proposed aren't, you know, they're new, so I can't say that that's part of the whole existing character. So I can say that for the raising of the house section of this, they meet the criteria, it is there and they're basically just lifting it, but for the car port and the addition in the back, I can't say that that's necessarily met. that be strict application, the provisions of this LDR would deprive the applicant of reasonable rights, commonly applicable to other properties in the same district or may preclude a benefit to the community in general. This gets kind of a heavy on the math here, but the original section of the house is only 624 square feet. And the area proposed to be raised is 378 square feet, a combined of 1,000, two. So it appears, if and when the variances are approved and the construction completed, the house will be approximately 1,800 square feet. The proposed car park would add in a approximately 260 square feet of building coverage on the lot as well. There's also a 768 square foot detatch Car garage on the parcel. There's an alley that runs along the back. We could access the garage through there. So in some approximately 2,828 square feet of building coverage, below the max that they are allowed. There are houses and accessory structures that were built closer than currently allowed in the older areas of town, such as the subject property. Staff can support allowed the existing section of house to be raised, but can't find that it supports the other two proposed improvements. Therefore, we find that we basically cannot support two of the three variants requests. See, special circumstances and conditions exist that to not result from the director and director actions of the property owner, The property owner has to be satisfied if the president or past property owner created any degree of hardship that is a subject to the variance request. Again, as noted above, the variance request to raise the existing section of houses supported. However, the new construction we're having a hard time supporting that request. So again, we feel met for the raised section, but not for the additional carport. D, the granting of the variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes in intent of the LDR. Given that the improvements are all proposed behind a fence and won't be visible from the street, most of the fence is open, of course. There will be little impact to the public, however, setback requirements are in place without people to access and maintain structures, and a setback of 2.1 feet makes it quite difficult to not only maintain the structure, but even to build it wholly on their property, we feel that this one has not been entirely met either. And then the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege that is denied by the LDR or the land structures or buildings in the same district. I feel that granting the carport and new addition would be a grant of special privileges as there seem to be options that available that wouldn't require encroaching a full 5.4 feet of the side yard setback. So fortunately, we feel that it hasn't met all the variance criteria. I did put here for you if you're gonna make a motion on this and I could leave it up. The three requests are on the top and then our recommendation, which basically says as staff cannot support the car port and aid foot addition, 2.1 feet of the side property line, which is the number one and two, but recommends approval of variance requests to allow the existing section of the house to be raised, which is number three. If you do move to approve, we suggest that you put a decondition that everything be gutted and water diverted away from the neighboring property. Do you have any questions for me? Thank you. Any questions? The city staff. To make sure that I'm following you on which section of the houses to be raised, is it this small portion on the left that's 378 square feet? That is it. Yeah, I'll go back to that diagram here. Yeah, is this the area right there at the end of the driver? It says 378 at square feet. That's kind of basically, they're lifting the floor, so the water that flooded in won't be going into the house. And then just so the roof, still about roughly 8 foot ceiling inside, the whole thing's coming up. And you think that would create any detriment to the house beside it, what would run off from the roof, or doesn't appear to be gutted. We wouldn't request that it be gutted as a condition. I mean, it's already there. So in this situation, I'm kind of like, you know, we're talking about the historic integrity of the home. We could support that, but gutted. Any other questions in the city staff? I have a quick one for you, if you don't mind. The way I'm reading the code, just to make sure I'm understanding correctly, if the, I understand the car portion can't be pushed back, you know, three feet or so, that five foot requirement to get away from having variants, probably because of the vehicle size for how narrow it is. However, on the back half, if they pushed that new section just three feet from the north property line, then that entire new structure in the back wouldn't require a variance, is that correct? If it's less than five, it's actually supposed to meet the full seven and a half. It would be 5.1. Yeah, so the new stuff is technically supposed to meet the full seven and a half with setback. Because the other side of the house is actually closer than seven and a half as well. But you could maintain your line at five foot without a variance. But if it's actually less than five, you're supposed to actually meet the full seven and a half feet. So the five foot is not even an option. They'd have to go back to seven and a half. You could come up with anything that you want, obviously, but that's how we're the set of this supposed to technically meet the seven and a half foot set back. Okay have one question. When they were giving this proposal to you regarding the roof line, did you see anything that, as there are like a real set of plans that show that now the roof is going to be designed this way to slope the water away and carry back and was it a problem where it was dying down into the main house? I's the, we have a drawing of something other than that. They did not get any extensive drawings at this point in time, but the applicant is the builder. So he's here for any questions regarding that. Thank you. Okay, any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. Okay. Is the applicant here? And if so, would you like to come forward? If you'd mind state your name and address for the record and then share whatever you've made, like share with us. Yeah, hello everyone. My name is Mark Hurwald, 2801 Sunset Drive, New Sumerna Beach. And I'm Lorraine Hurwald, 2801 Sunset Drive, New Sumerna Beach. We have a couple of supporting documents I'd like to add into the evidence. One is a slight sketch which might help on the... You'd like to hand this over to Stephanie for us? Thank you. to Oops. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. We'll let you go ahead and continue. Okay. Great. I guess I'm elected to read the responses to you. Number one, the special circumstances which exist are peculiar to subject property owners land structure building do not generally apply to the neighboring land structures or buildings. In the same district and our response is that the property subject property is located in the R4 single family residential district and also in the designated historic district. Existing nonconforming setbacks are present as to the main residents which are not unique to the historic district. However, when the detached garage was built in 2000 nearly near the rear alley, running parallel to Faulkner, special circumstances were considered by the property owner to allow ample side yard access to emergency vehicles on both the north and sides set yards, which does not generally apply to neighboring historical land structures of building. This was an intentional placement to mitigate the existing non-conforming setbacks of the main house in providing adequate emergency access to the main house. And then strict application of the land development regulations would deprive the subject property owner of reasonable bribes, commonly applicable to other properties in the same district or may be able to benefit to the community in general. And our response was that the main residence was built in 1946, although that's not unique. The property owner is applying to improve and enlarge. This is a question. Custick here. Okay. Is there, so if you go this way, that's your second one right there. Take this and we'll see. Okay. I probably speed red past number one. and I should go back to that and see if there's anything that the board wanted to inquire about or that you wanted to add. Just make sure you're just speaking in the mic a little bit better. Okay thank you. Mm-hmm. And on number two, the main residence was built in 1946. The property owner is applying to improve and enlarge the substandard 378 square foot area, which flooded during Hurricane Ian as it is 18 inches lower than the main house. and we referred to the exhibits and the drawings. And I did just submit the wall section drawing to show that he's looking to raise the floor, which obviously causes the wall to raise. And that would impact the existing north wall of the 378 square foot portion. And then we're just asking for a minor eight foot extension of that wall just to make a symmetrical rear facing addition that could be raised to the same floor level as the main home. It's really important that aging in place is considered in making this all one floor level. And we feel that an eight foot extension to that residence is not major, it's minor at this point. The front of the porch at the home would remain unaltered and preserve its original historic features. And now the north side of the existing residence in response to the car port. In this area marked on exhibit a identified as a concrete driveway and gated from the street view. I don't know if anybody had a chance to go by and see the property but it is well maintained and the garage is, it's not a garage, the driveway is screened by a front gate. So really what we're asking for is just to place a couple of columns in there, it would still be open air, but it would cover an accessibility ramp for Mark Hall as to aging in place and accessibility, and it would not change the front portion of the house and it would preserve the historical character of the front porch. Excuse me. We're proposing to add a covered accessibility ramp entry door to accommodate aging in place, open air, etc. And I don't know, Mark, if you wanted to comment on the gutters. Yeah, you. And since the driveway is impervious concrete now, that adding the carport wouldn't cause, you know, any trouble with neither water retention. But I understand that you'd be, you know, water is always a concern coming off a roof. And even though we proposed gutters, but sometimes that water has to be, can't make it to a retention, because there's no slope there. And I would contend or propose doing like a leader underground to an exfiltration system, which would capture that water so it's not running off on that other people's property. And as to the second further that we submitted again if I didn't say it already the house is being well maintained and it's not been an obstacle for As many years as Mark Hall has lived there. He's been able to mo the grass and maintain that side. So we don't believe that maintenance is an issue at the 2.1 foot side yard setback. Or at least it's not insurmountable. The granting of this variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes and intent of this ordinance. The request is historically mindful and in keeping with another neighborhood property improvements, all of which were impacted by this ordinance. The current LDR and 2023 Florida Building Code requirements. The eight foot extension to the nonconforming 2.1 north side setback is a minor request that defines one intent of the variance process, which is to give relief to strict application of current codes and standards to an existing code revision created nonconformity. Did anybody have any questions on what we've said so far? Yeah, but I'll let you finish. Okay. Okay. Granting. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege that is defined by the LDR regulations. And I'd like to read a paragraph that is not in your packet, which clarifies this kind of fragmented response. And I'd like to put this in the record that the current LDR and the Florida Building Code 2023 were not in place in 1946 when this home was built. The variance process is to allow for summary from non-conformities and current code requirements, which would otherwise pose an undue hardship on a property owner and an endowly limit his ability to save rebuild and add on to an existing substandard addition. Did you have questions for us? Or you done with your presentation? Just to make sure. I've been here before. Before we go at this point. And this mark all wants to add anything. He may come up. Okay. I just asked to make sure we don't interrupt you. If you'd like to go ahead and ask your question. Yeah. There's so much here that it's hard to digest at all right now. This is all this, but so I'm just making sure I understand. So this is the building right here that you own, and you're wanting to carry this roof line up 18 more inches in order to carry the floor up off the grounds of the water that come in. And so you're going to carry this up, and then now it looks like here you're below the roof line, and then if I go up 18 more inches, which I'm just trying to do by the photograph, now you're going to be up in your water. If your water shoots, even if you put a gutter on, wouldn't it shoot over onto the other roof if it missed the gutter? Well, just to clarify, it's the wall that would go up 18 inches. We haven't actually designed the roof structure yet, but... the other roof of it missed the gutter? Well, just to clarify, it's the wall that would go up 18 inches. We haven't actually designed the roof structure yet, but as far as the gutter, don't they slope? Gutters slope to a leader or a downspout, which then would be diverted like marks that underground. So, the whole purpose is to improve what's there, right? There's no gutter there right now. You've got a would improve it but still if you have a roof line and you put a gutter on it and the water it doesn't go up like that it could shoot past it if especially if you have clogged or whatever. My thing is that I think you're really I'm okay with you kind of raising it up I've just lost when you want to go up and you're not changing that roof line. And if it was mine, I'd probably tell you to come back and try to bring some plans in a little bit better so we could understand all these different things you're trying to do. Because right now, I'm a builder and I'm trying to grasp what you're trying to do and feel good about it because I live in the historic area and I love what you're doing and I have gone by and seen the house and it is beautiful. But you're adding all these new situations that come problems and so it's just having a hard time jumping on the bandwagon here. Okay. Did you want to respond? Yes. Mark Hall applicant. Not here at my law office, they say, you know, you might know your address as well. Pardon me, sir. Your name and address. I don't even know. Yes, Mark Hall address is a 315 Faulkner and 124 Faulkner is my office. Okay. I'm not here as a lawyer. I'm here as someone who's lived here for 25 years in this house longer than 25 years. But Mr. Hodges, your point's well taken, and it may be a shed roof going to the east. We're not sure yet what the roof looks like. Right before the hearing, I went and talked to Jay because I read the recommendation of denial and frankly was somewhat surprised by it and it's what I would call a soft recommendation of denial and what I think makes sense is for us to come back with some plans. And he said, yeah, no problem, 30, 60 days, something like that. So we come back with some plans. I did want to give you a little bit more background though that if the board will indulge me in a few comments. I own both of these properties, 1951, the old doctor, Dr. Cunningham property at 124 Faulkner, and then this property I bought in 1996. This has been my homestead ever since. This has been my law office ever since. We were kind of joking around about the nonconforming structure that we're in here tonight. What is it why do people love this area so much? Because traditional zoning back when I went to planning school way, way back, traditional zoning doesn't apply. We're trying to put a square peg into a round hole basically. And that's why people love this downtown area. This is a small central business district on just in my house outside of this small town city. It's a city central business district. So I've been through a whole bunch of hurricanes living there for that long, but Ian was the one. There's 10 inches in the bottom of my house. And it was kind of interesting because I just had some toes surgery. And so I'm actually limping. And she points out, well, you're aging in place. So that's what I'm really trying to do here is age in place. And staff, you know, we're all kicking ideas around and trying to make this thing work. And the reason for the car port out front would be so that you could get in accessible, maybe even handicap accessible at some point into the back, into the house without having carry groceries, you know, through the rain. The request is simple, it's to extend that north wall eight feet. We could do what you're kicking around with, make it five feet, now staff is saying, no, it needs to be seven and a half, but this is one of those kind of 10 pounds in a five pound bag type problem. That's the beauty of these lots though. I grew up on a 50 foot lot. There were seven of us on that 50 foot lot back in the Detroit area. Not the same situation here, but I'd rather live in a two, two, than a one, one. I've lived in a one, one all that time. And I want to improve it. I want the sighting to match. I want the roofs to match. It'll probably be a shed roof off the back which solves the issue that you're talking about as a builder. As Mark Herwald's already pointed out the car port we're calling it a car port which won't even be seen except for the roof, whatever we do with the roof is already already impervious. And the request is underneath the 40% maximum lot coverage, which doesn't apply in a lot of other places right here that makes you zoning. You don't have that lot coverage. Traditional zoning doesn't really solve these kinds of problems without variances. So that's the whole purpose of a variance is for flexibility. It's what needs to be done here. It's why our city code has the variance process in place. It's what, as I think I've already said, makes this area so vibrant. and it used to be, I guess, before 91 or something. When we first started working the issue, the five foot setback allowance, he thought it was just you could extend existing walls, no matter what. It's been tightened up to a certain extent, which is understandable, because we're seeing, which would you rather have someone blow down the old historic structure or put up something else and we're really trying to make it work here. I'm going to live there no matter what, but if we don't make the improvements and I age out someone else might tear it down. But we're very willing to drop some plans. I think that's the way to go. that it probably I'm wanting a chevroof there. They're thinking maybe a Gable will just have to see so if that's what you're willing to do I think that's probably the best way to Treat this so that we can bring back some sort of sketch plans. Whatever you call them Real plans you call them, I'll bring back some sort of plants so you can see what I want to do. I'm sure you that I'm not telling you what to do nor am I saying that will fix the problems but it just will maybe help at least me understand where you're going with this thing and showing the roof directions of which way they're flowing the water Since you've already are so close because I did went by and look at the property and your roof Your property is to let's say two feet off the property line and then I noticed you had like a 16 18 inches of overhang so that puts you over like you're about six or eight inches away from the property line So that's well, which is a problem and so that puts you over like you're about six or eight inches away from the property line. So that's well. Which is a problem. Which is a problem. And so that's how that slope goes makes sense. I do want to point out though that both of the women on the south side and the woman on the north side, no opposition. So I think we'll work something out that'll make sense and it'll also make it so that we can then build on, you know, go towards getting some real better real plans and building it out. Well, just showing, you know, you don't need to show a full detail, but just let me show that part of the whole thing because that seems to be what's a big problem here. Plus, adding more on, creating more problem in which it opens the door for everybody to have a little bit of interest. Yeah, understood. And we're very mindful of the water stuff and we're already talking about some sort of retention, whatever ex-filteration, that kind of stuff that will make it so that it works and my neighbors are happy with what I wind up. Is your property, the one has the, it does have a four car garage on the back, two two car garages. No, it's a two car garage. It's 20, 24 by 32, something like that. Okay, that's it. Did you? Yeah, I saw, I drove around the alley and hoping I would have to back, back out and found out you could make. Well, it's really interesting because the Albuquart garbage truck goes in at six in the morning, even though they're not allowed to by the ordinance. But, you know, they go in about six twice a week. And, yeah, you do have the alley so that we, when the garage was put in, it's the fire concern. We've left, but the fire marshals purview, but if worst case Equipment could still get through to the backyard because of the the way we set up that back there So that's what I would like to do is just ask for a continuance for 30 I know it has to be to a date specific It's 30 30 days enough. Do you think 60 would be, I think June 2nd, which would give you? I prefer 60 myself. Is that better for you? June. Yeah, the June, whatever the certain date is. So at this point, that is your request. Postpone this for two more months. Is it June 2nd? Is that the date? If it's the first Monday and June. Yeah. Okay. Yes, June 2nd. Okay. So we can potentially look at that. We do have the rest of our process as far as opening it up to public participation. But I think we'll take that into consideration and have that further discussion at the end of that. That makes sense. So if that's your request, we'll move forward with that. Yes, we would like to continue this item to the June 2nd meeting to draw up some plans that will better show the request that's before you. Okay. If you don't mind me asking real quick, is there anybody else on the board that has any other questions for the applicant that you feel that needs to be brought up so that way they can address any issues? Yes, I do. Go ahead, sir. And I'm just thinking about the practicality of this and the idea to further develop your specific design and roof lines and so forth. Yes. Is the idea of keeping the 378th square foot building and raising the roof? Is that typically a cost saving thing? Use what you have there and build on and around it? I think some of that's a misapprehension. Pictures are worth a thousand word. We're keeping that north wall is what we want to do. And the rest of that structure Eliminated because we have to raise the floor up. Okay. It's basically a stem wall that we're preserving on the North side And that's so the north side not really cost not put more into your mouth at north side wall will be That CMU wall and now six and a half higher, whatever. Would the only thing that's left of that building? Well no, the west wall would also be kept. Those are blocks under the wood. And one of the advantages of maintaining the existing slab of the 378 square foot building that's there now is that the race floor would be a wood floor and this would be a concrete sub floor Under the crawl space so for that reason that footprint at 378 square feet has many different It has two different Potential uses and but also it matches what I call the cracker look for lack of a better term. The entire house, I mean I've got plastic lattice. I did a lot of this work myself. I grew up in construction myself, mostly concrete, but and it'll match. It'll match. I don't know exactly how we're going to do those treatments, but it'll be mindful of that. Is it your kind of idea that the entire new area, including the 378 square feet, and the eight foot extension, which is all shaped to the end of the wall. So you got 11, 1200 feet there, whatever it is. Would have a new roof structure? Yes, a new roof structure, but also it gives us a pallet, which is about 30 by 40 feet. It's 28 by 42 feet. Okay. It's a lot. What is from the back of the end of the 378 foot structure to the one story garage. Describe that, Leand, what is that now? It's all grass and it's what I'm calling the before. The relatively flat? Very flat and it was, it never flooded. It would get saturated during storms. I mean, there are lots of different theories on what happened, but yes, it's just grass at this point. In an earlier career, it was a home building. And if somebody came to me with this plan, I would certainly cost out, taken out the whole 378, regarding your losing part at Stemwall, bringing it north wall to 7 1 1 2 1 2 half foot, extending the building four foot further and across, because if you're addition right now, including that building is 28 by 42, is 1176 square feet. If the 28 foot dimension became 32, and the 42 foot dimension was reduced to 36, you would be set back seven and a half foot. You would end up with 1152 square feet. And my guess is, go reaction might be less expensive than what you're planning on doing. So I would just certainly look at that. You bet, and we'd certainly appreciate your input. And I still like the, if we have to go that route I've certainly like the five foot on each side set back better than going full seven and a half I just think from an aesthetic standpoint we'll see what the plans look like but we we appreciate your input it's I don't think this is a we're more in the ordinance mode so we could probably have your input if we if you like. Oh just something else to consider you know this is a big expense obviously. Yeah and the juices are flowing so we're we're wanting to come up with something that I'm happy with your the boards happy with neighbors and the community. Okay second question on the proposed car port in the front. Yes. Is the car park there now? Yes. And you talked about you needed room for a ramp to circumvent that 18 inches basically. Yes sir. You could still have a covered ramp as a much smaller projection of covered in the car space. Is that not true? I think the question is, could you? Is it better? Yeah, I could. Better question. Sure. And it's, we've been kicking that around about what it would look like. I mean, my personal subjective view is ugly. But I suppose it could be behind the fence. I beg your pardon. It's behind the fence. Yeah, but I mean, the roof isn't going to be behind the fence. Trying to make it blend in with the neighborhood. And if we have a gable roof this way and a shed or gable roof that way in East West. It'll just look better. So you're literally sending us back to the drawing board. And with some, you know, I'm back in ninth grade mechanical drawing class in my head. But we'll come up with something and we'll talk it over with staff. And maybe we can turn this into a neutral recommendation or recommendation of approval before it comes back to you Right. Well, I based upon the next one just to give it my honest feeling I don't know that I would be at all against raising a rule of finance 378 leaving a 2.1 But it's the rest of the stuff that concerns me adding on is all this stuff that's now taking advantage of conforming ideas but it's really not conforming right so it's that mixed about I get it and I think that and we've talked about this I mean we're friends they when I first bought this property they came in and said whoa the the tree out front is making your floor he almost two inches and we kicked it around and kicked it around. The arborist said the tree has to come down. I was like, the tree's the house. So Mark here said, Dodge off the one root out of three and maybe it'll live. Over 25 years later, it's still 29 years later, it's still alive. And then she said, why don't you just cut your doors? It's an old house. It's like the Tilton, Hilton or something. Why don't you just keep it going? And that's what we did. Otherwise, it's metal laugh. It's why people love this neighborhood so much and why are values. I mean, it's stunning to me in my real estate career what has happened here. Nice problems to have. It's not Detroit disinvestment going on. But sure, we'll come back to that. The car ports are more difficult request. And it's the column or columns understood. That's the more difficult part of the request from getting over the hurdle with the traditional zoning, the variance criterion that are in front of you. Okay, thank you. Any other questions in the app? I just have one. I appreciate you're trying to work with us. That's what we love. And but most, I want you to understand that going on the plans, I don't think we're hopefully we're not saying if you do the plans that we're all going to agree and everybody's going to go yay and everything spines so I but it just maybe would help us clarify some things in our mind to what we're seeing we understand. It's understood we don't even know we don't even know what we're looking at here. All right yes thank you thanks. Thank you. And if you guys don't know what you're looking at, then how can we approve anything as well, if that makes sense? Fair enough. And that's why kicking it around right before the hearing with Mr. Baker, as well. Oh, maybe we just need to kick this thing out to 30, 60 days, which is what we would like to do. Yeah, a discussion. not for the applicant but for the city staff. I have a different understanding of what's happening to that 378 square foot area now. You know two of those walls are coming down really only one is being left. Now does that keeping that one wall allow for the non-conforming or once they take those other walls down do they now have to have that whole area conform to the setbacks? Good question. It's over 50%. Two walls remaining. It would be the north and the north and west would be remaining. I'd actually probably have to defer to our building officials who's not here right now as we have to say on that one. Well Mark is this in a flood zone? I know that you did flood but is it within a flood zone because it's not an next. That Standard would apply if they're within a flood zone and the building official says if your repairs your Editions whatever it is cost more than 50% of the value of the home Then you have to bring the entire thing into compliance. So yeah, we would definitely have to check with the building official if if they could even move forward per That standard What to be a finer point on that miss Doster it depends on which zone and this is not X Which I understand is the one that you're referring to I'm not thinking of it off the top of my head either Yeah, we usually don't deal with the pressure That's correct. That's when that would be kicked in. If you're in a flood zone and you're improving more than 50% of the value, and that's usually worked out in our building department to determine that value and keeping track of the improvements that go along with it. I'm just not sure about your zone either. It definitely sounds like it would be a good recommendation. This poem, what we're talking about, kicking it out two more months, there's a lot of unanswered questions at this point it definitely sounds like it would be a good recommendation. Based on what we're talking about, kicking it out two more months, there's a lot of unanswered questions at this point that it sounds like staff and the applicant need to work out. Also, a main point for me is, this is still a quasi-judicial hearing. So we have to ensure that we're looking at the criteria, does it meet the criteria? Okay I would strongly recommend that when you're working with staff over the next two months, that you address those criteria to get it to a yes it does meet it. Because otherwise we can't technically approve it if we can't get there. So that's what I'm personally always looking at. I know that's what we're charged to do as members of the board. So I want to make sure you Understood that understood. Okay, so I think at this point if anybody doesn't have anything else I'll go ahead and open up the public participation and we'll keep rolling even if we're closing it out They're gonna post post phone it Make sure option. I want to verify that. I mean it is your option. Okay. We can do it now then you can do it now or you can hold it till the actual hearing when we will be voting. Yeah, the public. Yeah. OK. So if that's the case, can I potentially have a motion to continue this to June 2nd meeting? Yes, sir. OK. Can I have a motion? Can I have a second? Second. Who's got it? Okay. All right. Stephanie, could you please call the roll vote. Member Hodges. Yes. Member Hulvershorn. Yes. Member Cawsey. Yes. Member Bean. Yes. Chair Wheatcroft. Yes. The motion to continue. V-3-25. 315 full ministry to June 2nd, 2025. Planning and zone report meeting meeting. The vote is five in favor. Zero pose, emotion passes. Thank you. So it's been continued. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So I'd appreciate you clarifying that. I thought I had to go through the rest of it. So thank you. All right. We'll go ahead and move on to item C, which is A-2-25 at 2061 page Avenue. This is the review and first public hearing of a voluntary annexation, rezoning and small scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map. City staff, do you ever report? Yes, Mr. Chair. So the prop owners have requested a voluntary annexation, a small scale compens plan amendment and a rezoning from the Vluchia County Future Land Use designation of low impact urban and urban low intensity to a Vluchia County zoning designation and as Vluchia County zoning designation of R3 urban single fender residential and R3 parentheses Single Fender Residential with an A attached for the airport height notification zone To a requested city future land use designation of conservation and a city zoning designation of conservation with an A attached for the airport height notification zone So the site contains approximately 18.18 acres plus or. That's located on the south side of Page Avenue that's west of Corbin Park Road. The property was purchased by the city of Nuskwern Beach as part of the Turbo Creek Watershed Preservation Project and a declaration of restricted confidence has also been recorded on this property. So staff would recommend the plan is on board you positive recommendation to the city commission to approve the request at annexation. Small scale comprehensive plan amendment changed the future land used to city conservation and a rezoning to city conservation with an A attached for the airport high-flow location zone and that is a brief summary of this staff report subject any questions the board may have. Thank Thank you. Any questions or staff? I appreciate it. The applicant is... that is a brief summary of this TAF report. Subject any questions the board may have. Thank you. Any questions and staff? I appreciate it. The applicant is the city in this case. Yes. So we'll move to public participation. A three minute limitation will be imposed on this otherwise granted by the Planning Zone board. The floor is yours. Okay, seeing none, public participation is closed. Discussion and or questions by the board. Seeing none is there a motion to recommend to the city commission to approve the overall annexation request including the rezoning and proposed future land use. I move to recommend approval of the city commission for annexation application A-3-25. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Stephanie, can you please call the roll vote. Member Hovershorn? Yes. Member Bean? Yes. Member Cazzi? Yes. Member Hodges? Yes. And Chair Weakrow? Yes. Members to approve. 25 page avenue as a minute, the vote is five of pair zero On the motion to recommend approval to City Commission for a dash three dash 25 page avenue as a minute Those five appear zero pose the motion passes. Thank you. We'll move to item D which is v dash four dash 25 At 833 east 12th Avenue. This is the public hearing for a variance to allow a reduced side yard building Setback on an existing single-family parcel city staff do you staff? Do you have a report? Yes, I do. Another setback case here for you. We have applicant and property owner William Sumberville, 9100 Northwest First Avenue, Miami, Shores, Florida, requesting a variance from the LDR to allow a staircase to encroach six feet ten inches into the side yard and setback. So, this is the house right here. As you can see right now on the front there, that's Mr. Somerville on the left there. That is the door to the downstairs that is on the front of the house. And then as you can see, obviously there's a center staircase that goes up. Basically, there's no internal staircase getting you inside upstairs. So this is kind of what you're looking at here. As I said, front doors, and then you also have coming down there as a staircase that's been built that comes down in the back there. This is kind of how it looks from the street. It sticks out on the side and you see he's about as tall as I am Mr. Somerville. I think he's about six foot and that's the highest of staircases. The windows are low. I went through the interior of the house and I have to duck to go from room to room in the house. It's about six foot tall ceiling. So that door has been there on the second floor, I guess for about a hundred years roughly. And it had a deck that used to come out and wrap around in the back and a staircase then went down into the back yard. What he did was rebuilt staircase and just straight down. And you see it's behind defense. In this instance, the City's Historic Preservation Element 5B and COMP plan states that the city should look to remove obstacles to the rehabilitation use or reuse of historic properties, include but not limited to this are granting variances liberal to relation of codes and providing code exemptions for historic buildings. That's kind of what I also applied for the housing section of the house that he wanted to raise down the street here just now, but I think it also applies for this situation right here. Here's the criteria. Special circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the applicant's land structure or building. And did not generally apply to the neighboring land structures or buildings in the same vicinity. This is what Mr. Somerville wrote up. And again, notice house is about 100 years old, I think, a little bit longer. Quite a bit here. I'm going to let him go into the real detail on it, but I do agree that this is a peculiar house that's one of the oldest houses on the west side of South Atlantic on the beach side. The first floor ceiling isn't much more than six foot. It's a two-story house with no internal stairs connecting the floors. There are doors that are first floor and second floor on the front of the house and a second door off the side of the the house that you saw that takes you down to the back. The deck has been removed. I guess the neighbors on that side that had the deck actually kind of prefer this because before you could say the deck you're kind of looking down into their pool area right there. So this is just get out that door, go downstairs. B, strict application of the provisions of this LDR would deprive the applicant of reasonable rights commonly applicable to other properties in the same district or may preclude a benefit to the community in general. Given the design of this house, staircase, an existing door in the second floor of the house is a reasonable right. Look at this one being met. property owner special circumstances and conditions exist that do not result from the direct or indirect actions of the present property owner or past property owners. Again not satisfied if they created this hardship. This house was designed long ago and as a purported rich history I don't know if anyone read any of the case but it's supposedly a McCoy home you know who was the smuggler who used to get you know rum and everything else out of the Caribbean. It's supposedly a stash house for when they would bring things in through the inlet and they would store things here. So let's say it does have a peculiar situation, is doing what it can to preserve an interesting piece of local history. I'd look at this criterion as being met. D, the granting of the variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impaired the purposes and intent of this LDR. I think in this situation with the door that opens out in the space right now, I think that granting the variance will be a benefit to the public welfare and I think this one's being met as well. And then the granting of this variance will not constitute a grant with special privilege that is denied by the LDR to the land structures or buildings in the same district. Granged a variance would not be a special privilege as a situation described in the city's historic preservation element that was noted above and earlier. And I think this one is being met as well. It's kind of a strange situation with a door that right now just drops off to the ground below. So if you have any questions for me. Any questions, the staff? I do. On this door, you have any photos of where it was done before the show that there was least some steps going down or was there a permit poll? I have old, I didn't have them on this. But there were photos that you could find on Google images with a deck that went out and you just had some support beams under so you could probably walk through some beams, but then I said the staircase went down the back. Just went straight down off out of that door right now straight down. No, it wrapped around. Let me go back to this picture here. Okay, see how that back wall in a lower picture there? The deck wrapped around that whole back piece and the staircase kinda went down, I guess, near that lower window that you see. So the deck extended quite a bit. It wrapped around the one side and came across the back of the house and the staircase and came that way. So this is way less structure than it there than it was there before. I looked at it on Google Maps going years past and it was a huge deck that was in the back there compared to what they have now. I can't say positively but I think the post that you see in that lower picture are kind of where it was extending out to but he the applicant probably knows. Any other questions? Did this come into a problem with no permit or something? Well, he's been rehabbing the house for quite some time, but the staircase is technically a, is a, you know, it's close to the property line. So, it's required because the deck has been removed for quite some time. So, did he have permit for rehabbing or was it not required? He had a permit to rehab it and he put the steps in and I don't know if it was an after-fact catch that the staircases in the setback or what exactly happened in the building apartment. But right now he's kind of coming in for an after-fact variance to put the staircases there. you're showing right now the upper picture is the staircase on the right-hand side of the house or left-hand side. It's on the right side. Okay thank you. So that's kind of like the upper left picture that's the front of the house looking towards the back there. Then I zoomed in so you could see what the door should looks like on the side there. Do we have any letters from anybody in the neighborhood or with pride in here anything from anybody on this? Okay. But the applicant is here. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. Okay, is the applicant representative present? And if so, would you like to come forward? Yes, sir. You know, mind seeing your name and address for the record. And we'll let you have the floor. Yes, good afternoon. My name is William Somerville. My address is 9,100. Northwest, first Avenue. Miami Shore is Florida, 3-1-5-0. So, appreciate the overview of Jake. I think you did a great job kind of presenting the case here. So just to add on a couple of points here, we bought the house in, I think, on say July of 2023 to 1923 house. We fell in love with it. We wanted to maintain its its look and feel. And as much as I liked the deck when I bought it, the inspection report said it, you know, had a lot of issues and they recommended that we replace it. Everything we've done has been too cold with permits. Even the stairs, it was one of those things where we'll be plans for the stairs. We went back and forth whether we were going to do a deck or stairs kind of ran out of money, spent 18 months working on this lot more. Much larger scope than we anticipated to be honest with you. And so we scaled down the plans to do a deck. So I got a bunch of excess wood just laying there in the backyard and we ended up just doing the stairs. What else can I tell you? Speaking of mics, sir. Sorry. So this was the final step in terms of us getting to a final building was addressing the exit off that second floor door. And so we went with the stairs and we submitted the plans. They were approved and then later on it was flagged for variance. So that kind of threw us off a little bit, but we've been working through with Jake and the team there and The it's past the final inspection for the stairs The only thing holding us up on the whole building is this variance. So I think you know Presented a good case for it being a peculiar property You know everybody in there when we talked about the work, everybody's very happy that we're uplifting the house in the street and yeah I mean I had my neighbor who's right to that so when you look at the house on the right side where that deck comes out or where the stairs come out it comes right out to my neighbor Bill's yard there and he was very happy to hear that we weren't going to do the deck. So we did this there. So I think everybody's kind of happy. I don't know if there's other folks from the neighborhood. We did send out the letters. I think we've done everything that's been asked. So I appreciate the consideration, mercy, it to be honest, because it's been a long road with this property. Look at that. Take those that open. Hopefully move forward. So with whatever you submitted for a building permit were these stairs as built shown on those set of drawings? So this was the final piece. We have a building permit that initially was the kitchen, electrical windows and bathrooms, flooring. And then we expanded. And then you just got the deck was bad. So the entire deck was bad. When I go to put in this all came about when we went to put in the impact windows you know the deck was was nailed onto the structures we had termites we had we you know water intrusion the walls were you know we had to do framing inspections we have to do a lot so this is just a final piece of it but was it ever shown on any information drawings or sketches to the city for the building permit? The stairs. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. We have structural engineering plans that were approved. The inspection's been approved just the variance because it's close to my neighbors, which it was, we're actually giving that a little more space to our neighbor, you know, the deck went further on. We're real, you know, counting inches, not feet, but you know, they, it's less of an encroachment on his property. Any other questions at the applicant? I believe that this is your secondary egress for that top floor. You only have the front door and this door? That's correct. That's an important piece of the puzzle there too. Because it was brought up, Jake mentioned, after we had already built the stairs, and I never even thought of just closing it up and just not having that exit, but that's obviously a safety factor too. And then you have the peculiarness of the house, where the top floor doesn't connect to the bottom floor interior, interior spiral staircase doesn't make sense because the the clearance is so low. Any other questions? Okay, seeing none, appreciate your time. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and open it up to public participation. I have three minute limitation to be imposed on this otherwise granted by the Planning and Zoning time. Thank you. Okay. We'll go ahead and open it up to public participation a three-minute limitation Beimposed on this otherwise granted by the planning zoning board Your name and address please into the microphone Into the microphone There's a formal process to it There's a method. I'm way a Maxwell 831E's 12th Avenue. The neighbor directly adjacent to the house in question. My wife and I own that property. And this is the vast improvement the way it was. I do have a picture here of the existing deck, if you'd like to look at it. Sure, if you don't mind coming around. If you can see from this how far it extended into the... It even had a roof over it. It had a roof over it. And it was up to the before we came to life. We found out. Yeah, we'll need you to share that picture with us if you can. So, thank you. Maybe if you could email it to your neighbor and he can. The only thing I'd like to add is, I believe, the gentleman from the fire department mentioned that there was a fence. You got to go into the mic, sir. I'm sorry. Just lean in. Get up. Talk in the mic. Just get up close. Get up close get up close to the mic Okay, there you go. I don't live from the fire department mentioned when he gave his presentation that there was a fence between Before Mr. Somerville bought the property for summaries and the previous owner ripped out about a 10 or 12 foot section and and that needs to be replaced. It doesn't continue all the way up past the existing staircase. So if we could get that taken care of, that would be nice. We can work that together between the two of us, what we want to do. But I just wanted to make sure that that was on record. So that was correct. But other than that, that's a beautiful job and I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward at this time? Okay, seeing none, public. Go ahead. Okay, sounds good. So if there's no one else that would like to come forward, public participation is closed. City staff, do you have any further comments? Okay, I'd imagine the applicant doesn't have anything further. Okay, discussion and or questions by the board. I just like to say, I think in a sense of preserving historic properties, this is a very reasonable request. And when you put onto it the safety aspect of only one exit from the upper story, it makes almost an old brainer, if you've done. Concerned I have, though, is a building premillazation with this. And why it wasn't picked up earlier in the process, I've saved this person's aggravation. So I would, you know, some of what we could talk about then we get to our private stuff at the end of maybe maybe we should give a request to the building department to be conscious of these things a little more or something. Sure. It would be a part of the internal staff processes. Yeah, we'd be happy to talk about it internally with our other departments. Frequently, when a building permit is issued, they will put notes on them saying, approved, given, variance is issued by the Planning and Zoning Board. Or needs to be brought in two feet. But they'll still issue it with those notes on there. But I understand where you're coming from, that it is issued even though there's a note saying a variance must be obtained. So, we'll look at it and see what notes were put on there, as he said, and we'll talk to the building department about that process. Because we can understand the frustration from both sides. Yep. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay, if there is none, then is there a motion to approve the request of variance? I move to approve variant V-4-25 to allow a staircase to be located eight inches from the side property line. Do I have a second? Thank you. Stephanie, could you please call the roll? Seconded? Oh, you did. Okay. All right. Member Bean? Yes. Member Cazie? Yes. Member Hodges? Yes. Member Holfershorn? Yes. And Chair Weekraft? Yes. Only motion to approve V-4-25-833. East east 12th Avenue as the minute the vote is five in favor zero pose the motion passes thank you best to look to you sir move on to item e which is a dash two dash twenty five at twenty sixty one page avenue this is the review and first public hearing of a voluntary annexation rezoning and small scale conference plan amendment to the future land news map. City staff, do you have a report? Yes, sir. So the prop mailers have requested a voluntary annexation, small scale conference plan amendment and rezoning from Volusia County future land use category of low impact urban and urban low intensity and a Volusia County zoning designation of R3, urban single-fantil residential in princies one urban single fennel residential with an A attached for the airport height notification zone. The site contains a approximately 17.5 acres. It's located on the south side of Page Avenue west of Corbin Park Road. The property was also purchased by the city of Nusmorne Nubeach as part of the Termo Creek Watershed Preservation Project and a declaration of restricted covenants have also been recorded. Staff recommends that the planning zoning board give a positive recommendation to the city commission to a pretty requested annexation. Small scale compensator plan amendment changing the future lane used category to city conservation and a rezoning designation to city conservation with an A attached to the airport high condom location zone. This property is a sister property to the prior annexation and that is a summary of the staff report such any questions that the board members may have. Thank you. Any questions of staff? I'm saying none. Thank you for your time. We'll go ahead and open up to public participation. A three-minute limitation will be imposed unless otherwise granted by the planning zoning board. Seeing none, public participation. Discussion and questions by the board. Seeing none, is there a motion to recommend to the City Commission to approve the for annexation application A-4-25. Second motion. Thank you. Stephanie, could you please call the roll. Member Hovershorn. Yes. Member Hodges. Yes. Yes. Member Beane. Yes. And Chair Wheatcraft. Yes. On the motion to recommend approval to City Commission for A-4-25, the 2350 page avenue as in minute, the vote is five of the favour, zero votes and motion passes. Thank you. We'll move to comments or statements by members of the board. anyone have anything they like to bring forward. The only thing I was going to bring up if it's okay for the rest of the board members here, for our minutes process. I was wondering if it would be helpful at all whenever the agenda gets pushed out a week prior that the minutes be attached to the agenda as a supporting document just like the rest of the items. Absolutely. I was thinking if it's not ready for that next meeting then it just won't be included on the agenda because it is sometimes hard to get it at the last minute if that's okay. No, no, absolutely. Okay. We'll make sure it happens. Sounds good. Everybody else okay with that? Do you guys agree with that? I have an email on the agenda? Okay. And that's all I had. So report saying communications by the staff. We have no updates. Okay, thank you. We'll go ahead and adjourn. Thank you.