[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] welcome everybody to our um July 11th regular City Commission meeting we'll call the meeting to order and Jennifer if you'll please lead us in the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance yes let us begin this meeting by taking a moment of brief silence and reflection and offering comfort and support and strength to the ESP family amen amen I pledge allegiance to the father of the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all thank you Jennifer all right we don't have any presentations today um so we'll move right on to Citizen input this is a time for anybody coming want who wants to come forward and speak to any item that is not already on the agenda if it's on the agenda you'll have an opportunity to speak to it at that time anybody okay we'll move on to our first first action item it's our first reading of ordinance 24-14 amending um site standards for houses and duplexes um to prohibit vehicles that exceed 22 feet in length or 8 ft in width from parking on a residential street or RightWay unless loading or unloading um Jennifer would you please read ordinance 24-14 by title only ordinance 20 24-14 and ordinance of the city of dunan Florida amending section 1052 7.1.1 point1 site standards for houses and duplexes of the city of Duneden Land Development code to prohibit to prohibit vehicles that extend 22 ft in length or 8 ft in width from parking on a residential street or RightWay unless loading or unloading providing for codification providing for severability providing for conflict and providing for an effective date that was ordinance 202 24-14 read by title only we need to speak okay excuse me excuse me excuse me we appreciate that we'll take care of that but point of order you you'll have your chance to speak um can I have a motion so moved second okay commissioner fry and I mean vice mayor fry and commissioner Walker thank you George and Julie welcome thank you pleas please speak close to the microphone we will do our best thank you mayor vice mayor members of the commissioner George Kenny on behalf of the Community Development Department I'm here with Julie Phillips our Code Compliance supervisor uh and we will uh provide you with a brief presentation certainly if you have questions after please let us know um there has been a growing number of issues in residential neighborhoods regarding larger Vehicles parking on what are considerably smaller local streets uh in many instances the vehicles are large enough to create difficulties uh for residents to safely navigate those streets uh typically local streets are not designed to accommodate larger vehicles on a on a more permanent basis in addition larger Vehicles can create site clearance issues uh and also tend to be aesthetically unappealing uh this ordinance adds a section to the right of way provisions of the Land Development code that will provide for the safer movement of vehicles and unobstructed travel Lanes specifically the modification would prohibit vehicles that exceed 22 ft in length or 8 ft in width uh from extended parking on residential street rights of away there is a Nexus um to the dimensions found in this ordinance provision particularly through the Land Development code and specifically related to parking space dimensions for stall length and width uh in addition the 4-Hour loading and unloading provision is also consisted with the same time frame available for utility trailers RVs Recreational Equipment and boats uh the LPA did review this ordinance uh and recommended unanimous approval on uh June 12th this past month uh and again Julie's here should you have any questions with her experiences to this in the field uh and with that I'm going to leave this presentation short and be happy to answer any questions so Julie what's been your experience in the field um lately we've been running sorry lately we've been running into um a lot of the cherry picker trucks that are stored in the street some food trucks decommissioned school buses um if you will semis and unfortun Ely our current um commercial vehicle ordinance does not cover that so I think it's much needed to make sure that these aren't on our streets okay uh questions for our staff no okay if I may sure were there any other were there any other um committees or boards uh that took a look at this or was it directly into the LPA goe only the LPA okay thank you okay anybody from the public wish to come forward and speak to this item okay seeing her hearing none uh maker the motion vice mayor um no I mean I think this makes sense and I fully support it okay commissioner walker uh I also fully support this I received several calls in the last several months regarding exactly what uh Julie is referencing and um I have to say that uh we've got some narrow streets here and we also have businesses that have been impacted by this so I'm fully in favor of it commissioner gal uh thank you mayor yeah I've had the same number of residents uh reach out to me as well so I'm I fully support okay commissioner Tonka I know this has been an issue for a long time here uh it's affected a lot of streets particularly in the downtown area but now it's expanding else elsewhere so I've seen it and and heard about this so thank you very much I'm supportive as well roll call vote please commissioner torga I commissioner gal I commissioner Walker I vice mayor fry I mayor Bowski I that motion passes unanimously there will be a second reading of ordinance 24-14 on August 8th um August 8th hang on one second that will be a short board that will be a short board mayor three members of the commission will be here yeah because we we won't be here that's correct okay okay um we have the first hearing of design review approval for the development of a mixed use project on the vacant property located at 265 Causeway Boulevard um this application Dr Dr 23-3 is quasi judicial and um we request that the City attorney Cowen remind everyone of the procedures that must be followed and ask the clerk to swear in all those who wish to provide testimony on this agenda item um does anyone need to disclose any experte contact for the record no Jennifer yes this is a quide Judicial Hearing in accordance with the um rules put forth by the commission there will be an opportunity where staff will provide a presentation and the commission will an opportunity to question the applicant will then be given an opportunity to provide his presentation and um can be questioned by the commission certainly if the applicant has any questions of the staff or staff your your microphone is not on okay I'm so sorry um if the applicant has any questions of Staff or staff any of the applicant they can direct that at the city commission the city commission will make sure those questions are responded to uh this is a quasa Judicial hearing so it is sworn testimony and with that the city clerk can swear in those wishing to testify today do you swear the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes yes okay George thank you mayor vice mayor Commissioners uh as reference this is application design review 23- 03 uh for 265 Causeway Boulevard uh just a little bit of background on the property itself uh it is located at 265 Causeway Boulevard the owner applicant is jmap Holmes Builder LLC Anthony pus uh the representative is Doug Anderson uh the land area within the project location is 1.05 Acres it is in a flood zone AE elevation 10 ft the land use plan is Coastal High Hazard area retail and services the zoning district is tourist facility and the existing use for the site is as a vacant property little bit on the project description uh the owner applicant is requesting design review approval to build a new mixed use development on the property uh the project will consist of four new buildings and other amenities uh that include a cabana and a pool uh the two residential buildings noted as building a and Building C uh will house a total of eight units each both uh buildings are I'm sorry four units each for a total of eight units uh both buildings are three in height with two floors of living area and a rooftop patio over ground floor parking Building B is a three-story mixed use building with four town homes and a 2255 ft Winery the four Town Homes will consist again of two floors of living area and a rooftop patio over ground floor parking uh the winery is also a two-floor uh operation including ground floor parking and a rooftop patio the final building is the four-story 7 room building with three floors of guest rooms over ground floor parking uh and I would just mention that this is a j Hotel project uh Annex if you will so the Jays are involved with this particular project from a property history perspective this property was formerly developed as a restaurant and lounge uh built in 1986 has a 6936 ft restaurant 190 seat restaurant uh and you can see it's it was uh had several names tied to it the Louisiana Seafood Company chatter and Restaurant and Lounge Blue waterers Grill in the vineyard it was demolished in 2005 and the property has remained vacant ever since uh also as part of the history um the commission may recall at least ones that were that were on the board at the time on June 4th of 2015 the city commission approved the final design review for application 1456 for what was called Arcadia Luxury Condominiums which was a 16 unit uh condominium development um this consist consed of a five-story building comprised of four floors of Condominiums over ground floor parking surface parking and swimming pool were also planned as part of the project uh this project obviously never came to fruition past actions and rearings this may look a little like deja vu because the commission has heard this uh this project actually recently um but going back to March 13th of this year the local planning agency met and heard the initial uh design re uh design review request uh and they uh reviewed and and unanimously recommended that approval subject to a few conditions which I think carried on to the commission uh last month in April or a few months ago in April the city commission then met at regular session uh also approved the the project subject to a couple of additional conditions and those I I'll kind of detail in a in a slide coming up here and then the applicant will expand a little further on how they address those those requests from the commission uh in May two um the city commission regular meeting the city commission then tabled this application and if you recall it it then went back through the full design review uh design review PL process and that's that leads us back to today and I'll and I'll talk a little bit about the action at the local planning agency this past month from a land use plan perspective uh this is a permitted use uh in the cha RNs land use uh it does include retail commercial transi accommodations and residential uh you can see in the table above that uh by breakdown of both floor area ratio and residential uh density that the project does comport with the total acreage of 1.05 Acres from a zoning District perspective this is Zone tourist facility or TF uh residential Town Homes H hotels and wineries are all permitted within the specific zoning category uh and again there's a table here just to show you what some of those dimensional standards are including the number of storage Building height front setback side setback and rear setback and how the project fits and you can see that they are typically under what those maximum requirements are for the most part um this uh this slide kind of represents a request that came out of the local planning agency to have a little more detail with respect to the the position of the project to the to the sidewalk along the Causeway Boulevard and you can see um through this there's kind of three dimensions provided um there's a 42-in high wall High patio wall that kind of frames the front side of the of the project um and you can see that the distance to the property line from that front wall is 3 feet with the distance to the public sidewalk at more than 8 ft uh then backing through to the project into the project area the nearest vertical architectural feature uh has a 5ft setback to the property line and more than 10 ft to the sidewalk and then the primary ground floor facade has an 8ft separation from the property line and more than 13 ft from the from the from the sidewalk and the and the reason the the local planning agency asked for this detail was there was a initial concern that it might be pushed too far forward the project might be pushed too far forward to the sidewalk but this alleviated those concerns from a compatibility standpoint uh there's a lot of uh backup in your uh materials that shows the analysis um but uh this is a three and four story mixed use development uh surrounding it are several buildings that are uh much higher in size and much more dense um so in a nutshell the uh uh the staff finds that this would be considered compatible with the existing building Heights and densities in the surrounding area neighborhoods and is therefore consistent with objective 2.9 and the future land use element of the comprehensive plan as you know uh there is a basically a check list for design review uh processes uh these are outlined here um I just kind of want to walk through a couple of them um and of course there's answers to each of them in your backup but just to hit on a few of the highlights uh the common open space this project is proposing 31% of the project area to be common open space for the architectural style the applicant will speak a little bit more to that but they have chosen Coastal vernacular um I would just point out also that the citizen participation plan was required for this project and was completed and that is uh uh provided as exhibit J in your backup uh and the traffic impact analysis uh just for everybody's uh knowledge uh generates 29 new Peak trips uh per day so a not consider that would not be considered a that would not rise to the level of a tier one through our Land Development code uh so just to very briefly touch on some of the uh issues that the commission conveyed to the applicant at the last meeting and how they uh how they were addressed um one of the requests was to deal with the potential on-site parking issues that may well arise in their proposed Winer use by adding more parking space or identifying more shared parking for the use the applicant responded by creating uh six Surplus uh parking spaces are provided for the hotel and Winery use 12 spaces are required and 18 spaces are being provided so in total the project site requires 30 spaces the applicants providing 66 which is more than a 50% increase and a lot of that is flex space that can be used for mult for whatever the various uses are on the site uh with respect uh number two the second request was for the applicant to reach out to pelis County uh to look at the existing driveway access they did that um the applicant as a result of those conversations has removed the entrance exit curb cut onto Causeway Boulevard from the project design so Vehicles will now enter uh and exit the site from Gary Circle uh and uh so there's no change needed obviously to anything out on the causeway itself including medians and and um any other kinds of improvements I would I just want to also Rec mention to you this did go back through design review and the fire department did have an opportunity to review that turnaround at the end and they are comfortable with the with the uh with the design as it is for for that for that drive or for that drive into the project uh finally number three uh the applicants were asked to break down uh the proposed rary use by floor uh you can see in that graphic that's exactly what they did with the ground floor at 621 Square ft second floor at 851 squ ft² the third floor uh roof access at 63 and the rooftop patio at 720 for a total of 2255 Square ft I will mention to the commission that that 2255 was factored into those parking calculations and is accounted for uh again some committee and LPA actions the development Review Committee uh reviewed this project on March 15 2023 all of the DRC comments and items have been addressed and are are addressed in the recommended conditions of approval the Architectural Review Committee uh reviewed the project on March 7th a formal review of the application took place on February 6th where the arc uh approved the design of the project with comments and suggestions all of which the applicants team have addressed uh the local Planning Commission then um in June 12 uh reviewed the application for a second time and again unanimously recommended approval to the city commission and did not have any outstanding concerns that they had through that first first round of reviews so with that all being mentioned staff finds that the application for design review is consistent with the applicable criteria and with the following standard conditions that we typically apply to all design reviews that's one that the applicant is responsible for meeting the minimum criteria of the Land Development code and for acquiring all other jurisdictional permits and approvals two construction plan shall be consistent with the approved design review plans and drawings and three that the design review approval shall expire in 12 months from the date of the city commission design review approval unless the applicant obtains infrastructure review approval and vertical uh building permits so with that Commissioners I will end my present I'm happy to answer any questions you might have okay um I have a note here a new note thank you Jennifer I'm looking at you now is the time for questions one at a time and do not give opinion until we've heard all evidence yeah that Jennifer um but I thought if I would just go ahead on behalf of all of us read you the E comments that we've received so that can maybe address what those questions were [Music] um they're looking for an explanation about the one entrance versus um the two um there's a concern I guess directing the additional commercial traffic onto a residential street um versus having the two entrance and exits and um there's also a question about dra drainage ponds so if you talk about the the removal of the second entrance yeah so it's my understanding that the county would not permit the second entrance onto the causeway um so the that was already there I'm sorry that entrance was already there yes but the county is going to require that they close that out okay um so I think because of traffic I'm guessing I I'll kind of defer to the applicant on some of the rational they had the conversation with them but um um I I know there were some concerns articulated with respect to stacking because now there is only a single entry Lane um but I believe the discussion was such that the trips were so di Minimus that there wasn't enough to Warrant any additional improvements so I think so like extending the median exactly because that that's also another question we received yeah so while the medians won't be touched on the causeway from what I understand because now that there's no access out there the it's my understanding that the county is suggesting there's no no work to be done in the causeway at all as a result of the project they don't feel that the stacking is going to be an issue that's my understanding okay and then the um drainage Pond there was a question about that yeah I underground drainage I'm assuming yeah I'm going to defer the applicant on that as well um I'm sure they I can't remember if it's a if it's a underground Vault or how they were managing that the drainage at the time I will tell you that it was reviewed by the DRC and our our storm water and Engineering division had a had had a review on on okay um I'll look to my colleagues for any other questions vice mayor so um George just can we be clear about between when we saw this before and now the exact differences yeah uh yeah so uh let me go back to that one slide because that might be helpful really the differences are kind of encapsulated here um the difference is there's no difference from how the how the construction is positioned it's positioned in the same manner it was the setbacks are the same the the dimensional standards are basically same the only difference is they just took that cut out of the causeway they just blocked it they just it's just it's just taken out right so it becomes kind of like almost like a te at the end and then the other um issues were to provide a little bit more parking for the winery so that's a that's a change there's some additional parking and I want to be I want to understand what that was the in the original how many spaces were they dedicating and now what are they dedicating in the original I believe they were dedicating I I let me see here or it was I don't recall the exact number uh vice mayor but it was they I think they are providing 18 additional spaces over what what was initially seen if maybe maybe the app to yeah maybe the appli could just because I know last time there were so many per unit so it wasn't really accessible parking for the winery so I'm sure Doug will clarify that yeah I might have that let's see all right while you're looking for that do you have any other questions no I just wanted to make sure I understood the differences and uh and we've covered the other one about the access point [Applause] just I've got the part yeah so the um yeah so commissioner from a parking standpoint uh it's 15 dwelling units are proposed I'm sorry 15 dwelling units are what would be allowed on the site 12 units are proposed and that count is at I want to say one point one .5 spaces per dwelling unit so the minimum required is 18 what's provided is 48 so the Surplus there is 30 spes we see that up on the screen what you're reading to us what she's asking is what's different from the last time we saw yeah I I I do not have that in front how many more spaces were added yeah I don't have that because even though excuse me even though there was Surplus before it was still dedicated to the town it was Private it wasn't going to be up you know somebody coming in there for the winery so but again if the applicant can do it we can wait for that but you did just say something I wanted to reiterate certainly to the public and and that is that this is below the allowable density for this site that's correct okay okay that's all I have right now okay um commissioner TOA questions thank you mayor I really don't have anything additional having read all of this and gone over all of this and okay seen it several times and and and realizing the differences commissioner gal questions yes thank you mayor I I know you just repeat this for me um George that the winery is in the same place I I didn't go back and look but yes I'm thinking it was some so it is in the same place okay and there is they're doing away with the curb cut but there is going to be excess out for fire if they need that fire has looked at it and they're confident they can turn around at at the backs side of the drive or if they can't they can go ahead and go through right it seems to me on that East Side There's an opportunity for them with a lock box too I guess there's a gate that they can open and go out on the east side and so I guess my question is is that's still going to have a curb to it they have to go through the grass and go down on the in the street to access to the causeway yeah there's there's no there's nothing that would suggest that they're taking that curb out so but I believe fire is comfortable with being able to get through as if they need to get through okay all righty um all other questions have been answered so thank you okay commissioner Walker no additional questions okay my questions um I'll leave for the um applicant uh would the applicant like to come forward and make a presentation hi do you have a presentation or do you want to just ask he's got a presentation I'm sorry what he's got my presentation okay gotcha yeah uh my name is Tim Gilpin representing sh Alli design the owner um Rod Coleman couldn't be here tonight so I'm speaking um I do have the full presentation we showed last time this is kind of a shter version just to hit kind of highlights for now that's fine um next slide please George so here's com our revamp site um to kind of touch on some of the things you were asking about the difference really is there is on that northeast side where the curb was removed due to County requirements we kind of went round and round with their engineering they insisted it go so we worked with our civil engineer to come up with this version of the site um that corner will be a backout for Community use public use but for the fire department you're correct that will be a lock box knock box um it's going be very similar to what you see at seate over here on not 19 across from edes so there will be a curb um we have to do some geotextiles support underneath the grass for the fire truck that ever did have to go through to go through but it would be closed and it would have a curb um we've added several bike racks to the site um parking wise um we did reconfigure parking calculations to include the rooftop which was a concern last time because it wasn't included um so that is included the winery requires six baces we're designating seven for it the hotel has seven rooms requires six spaces we're designating seven for it and then we have four additional Flex spaces that could be used by the hotel or Winery the remaining overflow spaces Are all uh residential spaces in the redesign we did gain a little more green space if you see over by the pool in the dog walk area they're used to be two spaces there those got relocated um so we have more green space there because walking area and surface area was a concern also in past conversations um and that's really the only changes to the project otherwise the rest of the site the architecture and the designs remain the same so okay so on on our questions from earlier yes um what was the parking before and what was what versus what it is today parking before was 66 we're still proposing 66 which we have a total of we're almost doubling the required commercial spots yeah I have one extra space for each designation and then four Flex we do have room on site for two more spaces if deemed necessary um but we thought the Green Space was more important than the the green space or the parking space sorry so you're saying you added four spots there's four designated Flex spots and add I know one the question is what was it before how many spaces did you add on this presentation versus what we saw in April none that's said we had 66 there's no difference in the parking it's just been rearranged and assigned because before there was confusion of who uses what spaces where and how can we make that stop happening I I don't he must have it must be on a time I'm I I no I shouldn't be on one but um okay so there's no additional parking no we have based on our concerns of the last meeting we clarified the parking and like I said we can we can add two but there was also concern about not having enough Green Space so it was a balance of parking or green and we decided have green space well I think the concern that was had been expressed for everybody was that the 30 extra are private and not accessible for anybody coming into the facility there some of those yes for the residential but we do have two Extra Spaces each for the winery and the hotel that are not required over code requirement and then we have four additional spaces over that so I have six spaces beyond the required amount of Bing can we go back to that the the the diagram that showed it because I was going to show you this this is this was the original oh and and you can see how they reconfigured those are two and now you got like three right along the winery and so it definitely helps because then the handicapped these were J hotels but now apparently anybody can use them sorry I'm looking at the I've got the other one pulled up I can see how you rearranged it to make more clarity um with where people can be because they're closer to the winery it's more understandable yeah okay and then the other questions that were had were the storm water storm water um we will be dealing below the driveway storm vaults so it's an underground ball yes so that's why the neighbors aren't seeing or people aren't seeing a pond yes the big pond cuz gotcha and then um I guess the other question was about um whether the county was willing to extend the median and they were not we we we tried presenting with the median extended we tried showing various pork chop options um and they they felt that the median was good enough they didn't see a traffic issue there is what you're saying they they didn't want they didn't want to add a traffic turning off of our project on the Causeway Boulevard that was no I'm talking about the median where they would turn left into Gary Circle yes of extending that median um because of stacking yes they did not address that to us they said that' be an internal review but they did not address the median change or Street change we were talking about our curb cut and trying to get that to work and then when they rejected it said we go to Gary Circle um we mentioned the median there and it was said they find the median adequate for the current traffic study okay but we're not talking about the same median we talking about the median where they would turn left off of The Causeway Boulevard on the same medium yes and that they do the county does not feel they need to make any changes to the road okay um okay I think that was all the questions uh the intersection could also I'm just reading the the questions that came in from the public traffic problems at intersection could also be R by okay okay uh I will go down this end questions for the applicant any questions for the applicant commissioner not at this time no commissioner no further questions R mayor no commissioner I have nothing okay thank you yeah I I can clarify a couple things that I think would be important what we what we've done with storm water retention lately is we have created a w a complete storm water Vault Under the parking Y and and that can be done several different ways so um the first reading that we had on this when we brought this forth the first time is your microphone on I think so can't hear you I think so just speak into speak into please um when when we had when we had the first when we came first uh to the commission with this project the main objections or the main points of clarification I think that that the applicant has worked out successfully with the county is as everyone knows Causeway Boulevard's an interesting thing because it's a city project but it's a county road yeah so the uh we also consulted with the Fire Marshall and the decision was made to keep the curb cut where it was with the county with having a surface underneath the the grass so if the fir truck had to exit that way they could and we we addressed all those things that were brought up by the commission the first time that we came forward so the county doesn't feel that the stacking is going to be an issue on no that we and we discussed that with them and um it went we we had several backs and forth with them because we want to make sure that we had every single item covered that was brought up to our attention from the from the first reading that we had so um that's where we stand on it and uh since we've gone through the LPA twice and we've come before the commission twice so I know that there's going to be a limited amount of Commissioners at the August meeting so I was wondering if we could give consideration to the project tonight as a final approval since it had come forward before okay thank you very much thank you for the request bet um okay public input anyone wish to come forward and give testimony to this project please come forward to the microphone and um give us your name and address for the record and you'll have 3 minutes by the clock right there okay I'm Howard Feldman I live at 2598 G Gary Circle which is directly opposite this new project uh a couple things first is the storm water runoff the corner of Gary Circle and the corway gets flooded whenever there's a rainstorm now is there going to be detention Pond or isn't there going to be one okay well excuse just give us your testimony I'll get any any answers to questions at the end of everybody's testimony okay the question is there retention because he mentioned the run off under the driveway secondly if the there's only one Road in and the other end is blocked all the water is then going to definitely run out on Gary Circle and this will be a really severe problem at that corner and there doesn't seem to be any uh alleviation of that in any way uh this is the main objection I can make I don't like the fact that there's no entrance to the warnery on the cway if you use your imagination someone driving down the caway sees a One V want to go into it what they got to do they got to go circle around the block come around the other way and zigzag back into the winery there's no there's all the other businesses along the causeway have direct entrances from the causeway why is this one different okay thank you okay anyone else wish to come forward and speak to this item anyone else okay um I'll see if I can answer the question okay hi give us your name and address for the record Sheila Feldman same address 2598 Gary Circle uh we heard that they were because it's a County Road or a state road the cway that they were planning to make G Circle one way does anybody know anything about that because if you are entering West Gary Circle you are making a left turn from the causeway headed towards Honeymoon Island it is almost impossible to turn left there when there is heavy traffic coming from the beach because that's where the roadway opens up to two lanes and people start to speed up going eastbound and we had heard that they were planning to make the street one way where the left turn would be on the west Gary Circle entrance which would be like suicide and this is something that needs to be clarified uh and also with the construction trucks and with delivery trucks coming into that driveway to have a two-way street is it's going to it may be a mess okay and also dangerous all right thank you you're welcome anyone else wish to come forward hi give us your name and address for the record Jim limpert uh 2598 Gary Circle right directly across the way there uh curious about about a couple of things first off um like she mentioned when it's busy on Saturday and Sunday during tour season whatever we can't even get to Gary circle from the causeway so many times I pull into the marina go around back around Gary Circle and all the way to try to get to my place or there's quite a long wait um that's what I was kind of curious about is is that the parking I really don't feel there's enough parking spots for everything what isn't considered is okay what about the workers at the hotel what about the workers at the winery where are they parking um sure doesn't seem like enough parking spots for workers and customers um also what what was really wrong with only having a rightand turn exiting the place uh on the on the East End um I know you don't want cars coming in that would be horrible people making leftand turns you know ac across the causeway going into the place next to the winery but why is there no just exit off to the right and only a right hand turn it just seems like here you got all these people everybody's got to come back out around the same place where they're coming in all you need is one garbage truck the way they have the dumpsters are all you need is one garbage truck there nobody's going anywhere um and what about extending the leftand lane going into getting off of Gary Circle I'm sorry getting off the causeway into Gary Circle that leftand lane is only what is it three car lengths long well you have more than three people trying to make a left now you've just blocked the left hand lane of the causeway of people going to Honeymoon Island um but that's that's it okay right thanks thank you anyone else wish to come forward okay um we did get some of these answers so the county themselves we don't have control over the causeway it's a County Road um the develop the developer met with the county and the county has said that with their traffic um proposal and don't forget there used to be a very busy restaurant here for many many years so they have those traffic counts too this is going to be much less traffic because it's you know not that busy um I'm sorry we um so the county has said no to extending that median because they don't feel the traffic will warranted the county has said they want to close the access to the causeway they are doing this on many of their roads because they don't um too many curb Cuts actually opens up for accidents so they want people coming in one way and going out one way and then the developer spoke about the storm water runoff instead of a pond they're doing an under underground box very common when you've got a dense um development so uh they have storm water retention it's just you can't see it it's underground so everything will filter to this underground box if you will um I'm assuming it will take care of any pooling that's happening on the corner yes absolutely and it will be reviewed by our engineering division as part of our infrastructure review process okay and uh I have not heard anything about Gary Circle being one way so uh mayor there was a request made to the traffic committee to make Gary Circle one way from I'm sorry there was what there was a request made to the traffic committee probably about six weeks ago but from who from a resident on Gary Circle Believe It or Not requesting that it go to one way uh we reviewed that and our our engineer came back and said exactly what they said that would not be a very so one of the residents on Gary Circle asked for that to be reviewed and then that was subsequently reviewed and denied because it would not be good for the for the streets so correct rest easy um and then I think the final question we heard was employee parking the parking standard includes that for parking that's correct employees yes it does yes it it accounts for square footage to include anybody that's patronizing the place and and the employees that would be okay purposeful okay um what I need is a motion in a second to approve well let's talk about this first there's been an ask because it's gone through the LPA twice and now to us twice if they can get approval on first on the first reading which according to our code we can do correct Jennifer that's correct both Jennifers that's correct so what is the will of the commission before I ask for a motion is everybody okay with that commissioner vice mayor yeah I think we've only done it once right um yeah and and it was under the kind of circumstance right yeah I think I'm okay y commissioner okay then can I have a motion and a second to approve this as final design review so moved second commissioner Walker and commissioner torga was that appropriate Jennifer final design reveal yes indicating you're waving the third hearing right okay commissioner walker uh really really no no comments except for the fact that um you know the the applicant addressed all of the issues that came out of our April 4th meeting and uh I think to the satisfaction of me and um questions from the residents so um that's what I've got okay commissioner TOA I agree with uh commissioner Rob in his comment and uh I think this is a a great project for that piece of property um prefer it over a restaurant but that's just my preference uh but but it it makes a a great place uh for not only not only our team to participate with uh with the other hotel but it's I think it's just a good rep and a good place and and great architecture thank you vice mayor yeah I mean again I think the um developers has been responsive to both the citizens and to us um with some of our concerns um the um the projects below the allowable density I I know residents that I've talked to over there really they're they'd like to see something there and and this is something that will look nice so um so I am supportive okay I'm supportive to am I I'm it right I got everybody did you get Jeff Jeff sorry you left me out sorry I couldn't remember that's why I was like wait who's next been kind quiet tonight anyway uh no just I appreciate the applicant the fact that we had some concerns on the the pre- reading I don't know there was a first reading with the prior uh application and they went back and they looked at it they talked to the county made some changes and uh that's the kind of applicant we want in D Eden that looks at our concerns and the fact that they didn't max out everything uh is appreciative uh and also the bike racks and so thank you very much for the bike racks uh thank you did I get everybody else okay I'm supportive too thank you very much for going through the the process the way you did um now we just need an update on when the restaurant in front of Hampton in is going to when it what's going on with that because it is directly related to these folks we put them through the ringer the last time because of that darn restaurant um so we have had some interaction with those folks they are moving forward but we' still working out some of the traffic issues before we bring it back to you all okay still happening right absolutely all right awesome roll call vote please commissioner g hi vice mayor freie hi commissioner TGA hi commissioner Walker hi mayor Bowski I and that motion passes unanimously thank you gentlemen thank you guys for coming at least your Street's not going to be to one way right no way no we just want to know yeah okay um we have application Dr 24-02 first hearing of design review approval for the development of a multif family residential project on the property located at 534 house Street this is a CLA judicial item um does anyone have anyone need to disclose any experte contact for the record okay um do you want to restate what a quasi judicial process is I will and then when commissioner Walker returns you may want to ask the exper I didn't even realize he wasn't there okay okay so um this is a quasi judicial proceeding as the mayor just explained the process will be similar to what you just witnessed with the last one which is the staff will provide its presentation commission can ask questions of Staff the applicant will provide their presentation and again commission can um ask questions of the applicant there will be an opportunity for public comment and of course um both staff and the applicant will be given an opportunity for rebuttal if the staff or applicant have any questions of one another they should direct those questions to the commission and the commission will find those answers okay um because this they you do need SW testimony um you will need to administer the oath the clerk he's not he doesn't need to be sworn do you swear the testimony you about to give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth it is thank you okay George okay to go commissioner Walker here he comes here he comes turning now cuz I have to step out too but I know what it's about so okay uh thank you mayor vice mayor again George k Department EXC one second just very quickly um with regard to exper a communication no okay okay thank you I'll be right back thank you uh again design request uh 24-02 this is design review approval for a project called Sunrise Town Homes uh the owner applicant is uh Mara hwot I hope I said that right and the representative is Greg Presby I know Greg's not here today but he has a representative in the uh audience uh who will speak on his behalf um the area as you can see as you can see from the aerial just to kind of situate you uh this is very close to our wastewater treatment plant uh to the West is Martin Luther King Drive to the South is H Street it's kind of a t-shaped property if you're familiar with the site there's an existing assisted living facility on the site um and um there is a duplex on the site and a single family residence on the site uh the area is approximately 1.22 Acres it is in flood zone X so it's outside of any flood zone uh the land use plan here is residential medium the zoning district is multifam 15 uh and the existing use as I mentioned is both residential and Assistant Living facility um with respect to public hearing dates this was heard by the Planning Commission on June 12th 2024 uh where they recommended unanimous approval first commission read is today July 11 uh second commission uh read is scheduled for August 8th a little bit on the project description uh the owner applicant is requesting again design review to build a multif family residential development on the property the property would consist of one new two-story building containing eight town homes uh in addition the subject property will be divided into two parcels and the division Line's hard to see there but it basically runs to the east of the red box that you see in the in the graph there from a property history perspective this is probably a little bit better map so you can see exactly what's on the site currently you can see the duplex uh in the upper left hand corner the single family residence uh closer to H Street and then the assisted living facility towards the towards the Eastern end of the property um the property is currently developed and again those structures uh consist of a uh 6658 ft 50 bed assisted living facility built in 1988 um a one two-story duplex and a one-story single family residents both of which were built in 1960 uh to make way for the new town homes the existing duplex will be demolished uh along with that small structure that you kind of see above the residence which is uh like a little storage building uh that we presume will also be demolished um but the AL the assisted living facility and the single family residents will remain as you look at the land use plan evaluation um this is again a project that did not uh utilize its uh entire density um but you can see the breakdown in the graphic provided um the residential Town Homes at RM is 15 dwelling units to the AC acre uh they're proposing eight dwelling units which would utilize about a half of acre uh the assisted living facility uh the maximum density for that is three beds per twell dwelling unit per acre and you'll see that they're proposing 21 beds so that's a reduction of the 50 beds that exist there which is needed to accommodate the new town home development um and then the residential single single family home one residence occupying 07 Acres so with a total site acreage of 1.22 Acres this this uh development will occupy 1.07 Acres from a zoning District perspective again some of the dimensional standards in the lefthand column you can see what the Land Development code requires as a permitted uh dimensional standard and then what is being proposed and whether or not the project conforms and as you can see as you work down that list from a minimum lot area standpoint it is larger than um what is normally required from a lot wh standpoint it complies lot depth uh number of Stories the max I would point out is five stories in this situation applicant is asking for not more than two stories uh Building height uh 50ft Max is permissible 24.3 ft is what is being uh proposed and then you can see the front side and rear setbacks as well and all comport with our requirements of our land development code oops s from a compatibility standpoint uh staff again evaluated the surrounding land and its uses on the whole the existing building Heights in the surrounding area are one and two story uh with a mix of uses ranging from low to medium density single family and multif family residential as well as some limited commercial uh and Municipal uses that being the wastewater treatment plant uh accordingly a two story multif family residential development at the proposed density on the property with the potential development patterns of vacant lands in the area would be considered compatible with the existing building Heights and consistent with our objective 2.9 in our future land use element working through some of the design standards uh again these are the provisions that are required from the Land Development code to be addressed as part of this process uh again just the high most obviously there's back up data each of these in your in your background information uh just to highlight a couple of them from a common open space p perspective 25% of the site is proposed to be remain as open space um from an off street parking perspective uh 21 spaces are required to accommodate the project and 31 are provided U so they are 10 in excess of what is required by the Land Development code uh from an architectural standard uh uh perspective this is outside of one of the districts that require one of our five architectural style but despite that the applicant chose to pursue a Craftsman uh style which uh they'll I'll show you some of those those renderings in a minute here and have them speak to that but uh they did pick one of our architectural Styles even though they were not required to um there was no citizen participation plan required in this particular instance uh and from a traffic impact analysis standpoint uh this project will generate nine peak hour trips in total um from committee actions uh development Review Committee did consider this proposal on application in December of 2023 all of the DRC re comments and items have been addressed or are addressed in the recommended conditions the architecture Review Committee heard the application in April 2 of 2024 uh where they approved the design of the project uh with some comments regarding landscaping and tree preservation plans all of which have been addressed uh prior to going to the local planning agency uh they did go to the local planning Agency on June 12 2024 uh and the LPA reviewed the application unanimously recommended approval to the commission uh finally from a staff determination standpoint um staff does find that the application 242 for design review is consistent with the review criteria for approval uh and would recommend uh along with the local planning agency uh approval subject to our standard three conditions uh those being that the applicant is responsible for meeting minimum criteria of the Land Development code and acquiring other jurisdictional permits and approvals as required uh construction plans would be consistent with the design review plans and drawings and finally design review approval would expire in 12 months from the day the city commission design review approval unless the applicant obtains infrastructure review approval and vertical building permits so with that I can answer questions regarding the code now and then we can get into the renderings if you like or we have the go finish your presentation okay at this point I would uh turn it over to the applicant talk about the renderings but just to very quickly show you uh some of the style the craftsman style that they're proposing this is a street view from the southwest um this is more of a a perspective rendering um you can you can see how those um units will be um position uh here's kind of a view with some elevation imposed into it this is a north and west elevation this is a South and East Elevation and you can see some of the front portion of the property in the detail uh this is a street view from Southeast perspective and a street view from a Southwest perspective and again that road that you see in the foreground would travel back into the the existing assisted living facility um so those are the renderings uh I'm certainly happy to uh answer any questions you might have of me on the on the code side and if you have questions about the architecture engineering they're they're here to to help out with that okay so questions for our staff just keeping in mind do not give opinion until we've heard all the evidence Vice may I was just curious uh what What's the alleyway issue they got talked about a lot with the LPA yeah thank you uh vice mayor um the um there is an alley that runs to the south of the project area um so we the LPA was concerned about how that alley was being maintained uh it seems like there's been a number of encroachments either coming up from the north from the residential side or from the south from this particular property um their final site plan shows a vinyl fence to kind of run along the top side of that alley so they would be pull if they had any encroachments in there they would be pulling those out uh when I when I passed that concern along our engineering division they responded by saying um that uh they would not want to vacate the alley necessarily because there might be some Utilities in there that are that are worth preserving but we might have to look at um clearing that alley out of any encroachments uh and we can do that through uh you know a regular operational means either Code Compliance or going out and talking to neighbors or whatever the case case might be to clear that out but there didn't seem to be a concern from our engineering division on um doing anything more than that can I ask a question on that sure over the years we've had a problem you're talking about the um yeah let me see the Ali where um are you going to a picture I'm going to try see if I can find it here yeah so it's um if you can see it kind of comes underneath the drive that comes off Martin Luther King there it's just underneath it and runs basically the length of that property to the I'm talking maybe I'm talking about something different when you look at the overhead shots trying to figure out what road that this is over here but it doesn't say I'm looking at Google Earth there's a road that dead dead ends yeah that's howl is it no howl howl dead ends and then there's a a big swath of property an that goes across the back of the Milwaukee yeah I'm talking about yeah Milwaukee um that's been a problem area for a long time a lot of kids hang out there a lot of stuff happens when we have big teen nights at MLK a lot of them sneak over there I'm privy to this information cuz my kid worked there so I know what's going on um so there is going to be then a dead end into this Milwaukee Avenue right away so that's not part of the project area but if that's something we can certainly look at that kind of I that's what I thought you were talking about was that alley I thought that that was the alley you were speaking of was that what you were talking about no I just there was yeah no all right then I'll I'll I'll Reserve that for When It's My ATT I thought I was jumping on something anything else no I don't have any other questions right now commissioner T the street where the street we're looking at is a private private Street private road which for the town houses the one yeah so it would be it would yes it would be a private Drive coming in and heading back back into it goes all the way back into the assisted living facil and that goes all the way back to the Assisted Living thank you that's that's all that I have okay so uh George just to clarify that so the entrance will not be from Howell you're going to have their own entrance from Martin Martin Luther King and has I don't know whether there's already a curb cut there or not but has it ever been used as an entrance before that we're aware of uh you know I'll defer to the applicant on that but I believe there's already an existing there a house there's a house there right okay so there is a curb cut but it's not the same right and and I just because of the the number of town homes that are going in there I is there any way that the applicant can redesign to allow the entrance to off of howl so we don't have one more curb cut on Martin Luther King cuz they it seems so close it's only a lot away and so I I don't I have no idea what that would do to the design but it just seems logical from a traffic standpoint from an aesthetic standpoint yeah I the the applicant might be able to answer answer that as part of his testimony commissioner I'm you know this we just we kind of are reviewing the design that was presented to us um so physically I know they've looked at it a lot from an engineering standpoint a lot harder right and just not to beat the alleyway to death but because I'm having a hard time understanding it as well looking at the picture that you currently have up there is it the difference between the red line and the white line yes yeah okay yeah if you look at it you'll when you look through it it's hard to see through it because it's it's grow it's it's got a lot of vegetation in it but you'll see certain fences you like there's fences in different areas within it who owns that alleway that would be the city the state does no the city city does m yeah that's okay okay all right that's weird all right that's all that I have thank you George my question has been answered thanks huh oh okay um okay yeah that whole Alleyway thing bugs me cuz I mean I no offense I just know how when we schedule maintenance M it isn't going to be maintained like a lawn service once or twice a year if we're lucky just saying so that seems problematic to me automatically when you're putting up a nice fancy new set of condos or town homes but even more concerning to me is the Milwaukee Avenue thing just is Dead ending into that area so when so people can't go through they have to turn around and go out yeah I don't know how far you can even get have to do like a three-point turn because none of our pictures show us what the end looks like it is heavily floats in heav vegetated so I'm not sure you can even get partially down that that road but but I'm asking the pictures that we've seen of the how does does it end it just looks like there's no picture that shows us How It Ends how what how the if you're driving in what do you what do you see ahead of you is it a fence is it a three-point turn for people to turn around I mean it doesn't say that yeah we didn't go down Milwaukee may we we we I'm not talking about Milwaukee I'm talking about when you drive into this new development mhm the dead ends what's there a fence point turn no the well yeah the parking lot for the assisted living facility would be the dead end for you can't get to you can't even see but the pictures we have don't have the assisted living facility on there it's it's it's the building that's on the far right of the top part of the tea if you talk about the I'm talking about the pictures that we have Tom Holmes Assisted Living if you mayor if you look at the aerial drawings excuse me civil drawings is that Assisted Living part of the applicant owns that too yes they yes the entire piece outlined in red is owned by the app so it includes a duplex a single family home and the assisted living facility if you look at exhibit e several drawings a second page it it does show you is that what you're showing me here Jeff I don't know I don't speak CD manager talk this is what he's showing no it looks like that exhibit e civil drawings civil yeah I don't I can't look I think maybe theant can help look at a picture yes civil I'm not doing civil I think the applicant can help us he's okay well it just I'm trying to understand what what we're budding up against and the in and out of here so there's the proposed site plan you can kind of see it the the driveway is on the south side of where the town homes would be and the assisted living facilities you can see kind of so I guess most of my questions are for the applicant cuz is there only one way in and out or is can it go through that's that's what I don't understand do you understand that it it can't go through to Milwaukee I don't know if you mean it not Milwaukee anywhere I don't know what I don't know how it ends I guess they get to the assisted living facility by way of howl mayor I'm sorry commissioner G I apologize but can canol I'm sorry and I will do that but I wanted to make sure I'm giving due respect to my own planner first he knows what's happening and I guess maybe he doesn't um okay don't pick on George I'm not picking on George okay applicant presentation please good evening mayor Commissioners can I jump right into the questions the city I think explain this very well um as far as meeting all the code requirements we've met with them many times we've been through the DRC The Arc the LPA I understand now we're here so if if there is a fence if you're driving east into the site it's a two-way street 24 ft wide so they can back out of their garages two ways there's a back out spot the only way the tow houses will access their living units is off of MLK so it's one way in one way out that's correct you can't go through that's correct there's a there will be a gate there with the nox box for the fire department and we met I think we've had three separate meetings with the fire department to talk about various ideas about circulation through the site and and we were all satisfied with this layout and when you say there's a lock box a lock box I'm sorry the nox locks box between the assisted living and the road is that what you're saying correct yes in case the fire trucks absolutely need to get through that way okay is this a private road yes does it have a sidewalk uh we require sidewalk we do have a sidewalk yes in between the building and the road okay correct normal size sidewalk 5 foot I believe it is 5 foot sorry we've been working on this for quite a while well yeah I just thought that at some point or another there was we were trying to avoid having private roads because we've been asked to take them over way too many times yes 5 foot sidewalk there there's it's going to be almost impossible for the city to have to take over a private road like this with the homeowners association um like the previous case you heard the storm water is going to be underground under the road as well so I'm just saying I've been here 18 years we have taken over our fair share of private roads Y and you know once once it's 30 to 40 years old sure the homeowners association and that falls apart which it happens all the time not not that yours is or not I'm just saying I I know we have tried to really steer away from the whole Private Road thing because yep cuz it's a problem okay open up I I can talk to the easement a little bit if you like as well so the easement um can we put that area back up George the one that had the red line where you could see the right so just south of the western most Red Line there in between the red line and the white line that is a public Alleyway when we first started this project one of the first questions we asked to the city was can we vacate that easement cuz right now nobody does anything with it it appears there are encroachments to the easement with our project any encouragements from the north side I don't believe there are any but they're going to be taken care of and we're going to put a nice fence along the south side of the property there so okay other questions [Music] John uh yes mayor thank thank you um yeah I guess the only question be is why do you choose the private Drive Entrance on MLK versus using because you because it all seems to be connected except for a fence so there's that existing house in that assisted living facility there if we if we didn't have an access under Martin Luther King I don't think the fire department would be able to get a truck through there that's the first thing that comes to mind um there is it's it's one way in to the assisted living facility on the east side and one way out I think going in a circle around the single family house that's there it's not conducive to I guess traffic flow okay and and I and I understand that but it seems to me the design wasn't built around those thoughts it was designed this way so was there a reason why it was designed this way and you didn't automatically go oh hey we've got an entrance to the AL through Howell why don't we just make that and you you chose to purposely not think that way and I'm just trying to understand I I don't I don't think we did I I think one of the issues is if getting a fire truck in and out if or another emergency vehicle if you have to access the far west side of the property there's no way for them to turn around and come back around and there's very there's a very small the driveway around the west side of the single family house is I don't think it's 24 ft wide okay and if if the fire department saw no issue with it would you rethink that or you're of of getting rid of the a on Martin Luther King yeah I don't know that the owner would have I don't think that really affects us but I mean it's it's less costly and we don't have to put a there there is a driveway there now in Martin Luther King there's a driveway and I guess they did see that on one of those drawings it'll might hadn't been accessed so a long time I'm just trying to eliminate as much drug traffic on MLK as we can y you know especially there were n nine peak hour trips and we are greatly lessening the beds in the assisted living facility so okay I was also thinking what could we do on Milwaukee make make that a through so we can go from low to but wouldn't it thinking for this project I don't think there's any I don't think there's enough room to get through all the way to Milwaukee from the site okay all right um how this is going to be an annoying question so I apologize for this but I'm thinking about the sustainability and um it just it drives me nuts when developers decide to make things solar ready as opposed to putting solar on it and so my question would be is if you can in a rough estimate guess um what is the difference between making something solar ready and not making it solar ready and what is that cost differential so that's a good question for the architect or the or the Builder I'm the civil engineer I don't know the answer to that question I'm not going to try to to guess I'm sorry I don't know okay all right thank you that's all that I have mayor thank you commissioner I don't have any questions okay so mayor if I may for commissioner G we'll have that answer for you by a second okay thank you thank you appreciate it appreciate it y all right now is the time for any public input on this project please feel free to come forward give us your name and address for the record and you'll have 3 minutes on that clock right there all right seeing or hearing none um can I have a motion to approve Dr 24-02 design review so move second commissioner torra and vice mayor frainy thank you commissioner TGA any final comments I do not I think it looks like a great project for that area and uh and I appreciate the work that went into that thank you vice mayor um agree with uh commissioner Tor um and thank you for keeping the height where you did so appreciate it commissioner you know born and raised here and I'm still surprised when a lot comes up like this that you had no idea that was it was even there so it's always surprising what we can do and what's there uh I am supportive of this so that's it thank you commissioner yeah I support this I I looked at this pretty extensively and when I see the checklist with all the checks going down I I think okay well we've done our due diligence and uh as part of this uh for that particular area I think this is a really uh a great project I'm support it okay I'm supportive as well I would like us to take take a look at that Milwaukee thing and try to figure out how we can do something with it that would at least benefit the community even if it's not a through Road um and keep it clean up clean because I I do know a lot there's it's it feels unsafe in that area and I think we could maybe make it a nice little walking area or something um mayor yes ma'am may I just want to and and this is kind of strange but this is city manag manager speak I want to apologize to commissioner G for interrupting him in the middle of the thought it was very rude I'm Sor he didn't even think about it apology accepted thank you she interrupts me all the time interrup I wait till the end of your sentence he lives in a house full of women you know he's interrupted a lot I mean let's face it well while we're apologizing I apologize for getting up before we uh started the EXP that's okay I had to go get a snack all right roll call vote please commissioner Walker I commissioner gal I vice mayor frainy I commissioner TGA I mayor balski I that motion passes unanimously there will be a second hearing um on design review 24-02 um for approval on August 8th thank you so we'll get that information prior to because it'll be a short board on August 8th as well yeah so if it's on the sustainability you don't you don't have to do that don't worry about it thank you okay we have the second reading of ordinance 24-15 stormw waterer utility amending section um amending chapter 78 for our storm water fees Jennifer would you please read ordinance 24-15 by title only ordinance 24-15 an ordinance of the city of Duneden Florida amending chapter 78 utilities Article 4 stormm water utility section 78- 171.5 findings and intent and section 78- 174 schedule of rates of the city of denan code of ordinances to revise the city's schedule of rates for storm water utility services to correct typographical errors and to revise the storm water management utility fee reduction calculation providing for codification providing for severability and providing providing for conflict and providing for an effective date that was ordinance 24 15 read by titled onlyon thank you can I have a motion to approve so move second commissioner go and commissioner Walker thank you Sue and Michelle I'm not walking out on you I'm going to get another snack Sue Bartlet Public Works director thank you very much for having us tonight and we um Michelle is going to talk to you a little bit about this is the second reading so you're very familiar with our um proposed storm water ordinance rate and um all the details but they are attached also to the agenda item and I'll let Michelle mono our environmental program manager speak to the ordinance good evening City commission and City Administration I'm Michelle Monaco the environmental program manager this is the second reading of ordinance 24-5 storm water utility our first reading of this ordinance was held on June 6 and passed unanimously by the city commission uh we have attached the storm water rate study report and presentation referen in Exhibit C and F um for the sake of the public I also wanted to mention that ordinance 24-15 amends section 78-1 174 schedule of rates for a monthly storm water equivalent residential unit rate as follows effective October 1st 2024 the eru would be $16.37 October 1st 2025 it will be $202 and October 1st 2026 it will be $23.87 um I also wanted to note that section 4 of ordinance 24-15 has been clarified since the first reading with respect to references to the code of ordinances in subpart a instead of the previously noted references of the Land Development code and subpart B this clarification is depicted in attachment B with highlighted texts as noted in section four of that document the City attorney has opined that section 4 is not being codified and as such the striketh through underlined and highlighted text in that document attachment B is provided solely to assist the codifier to make the correct revisions to that code um we are recommending the adoption of ordinance 24-15 our storm water utility and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have questions for staff no okay this is a public hearing anyone wish to come forward and speak to this item seeing or hearing none we'll come back to the maker of the motion commissioner gal uh no final comment be second reading okay commissioner Walker uh second reading I'll say the same thing I said during the first reading uh you know our infrastructure is uh is imperative and this is a very small investment and needs to be made and I fully support it mayor yeah I I totally agree with uh commissioner Walker and on top of that I think you know as we look at the next Penny level um Benny for pelis that there'll be some hopefully some opportunities take some pressure off some of these rates and use some of that money to help out the citizens but fully support it we have to do this it it absolutely is imperative commissioner Dro I um would say that some almost everything that was said here I agree with um I think one of the main things that I want want to make sure that we convey uh to anyone that's listening to this is that the storm water our storm water U plan is is really great word imperative it's imperative that we we put this in place it's also very important for us to attempt to utilize any money that we can from the state and from the federal and there's there's a lots of activity in this area right now and I know they're watching that so that will be helpful helpful to our residents as we round out and fulfill the requirements for a storm water plan thank you okay I'm very supportive of this um I agree with everything everybody has said ironically I just think back to you know how long I've been sitting up here and um when I first got up here the big Focus was storm water and flooding and um I think we spent I don't know $25 million in the first few years that I was sitting on here for 5 years maybe um so I'm glad to see this reinvestment to take on new areas of the community very appreciative to do that uh roll call vote commissioner Tonka I vice mayor frany hi commissioner Walker hi commissioner gal hi and mayor balski I and the motion passes unanimously thank you for all the hard work ladies appreciate you all right now we're on to an an voluntary annexation land use plan Amendment and Zoning District designation for 2075 Brady drives second reading um we're going to have one presentation but ordinance 24-12 is to rezone a property which is quasi judicial and therefore request the city clerk to swear in all who intend to speak do you swear the testimony you're about to get in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and not the truth I do okay does anyone have to disclose any expart contact for the record all right did you want to explain the quasa judicial thing again certainly can well no I'm not asking you I'm just making sure I'm covered you've added so many new notes to my cheat sheet I'm just making sure I didn't miss something no it that one wasn't on your to Che but um I know I thought it might have been missing no I don't if you have um I can I can real quick which is just it's the same process that we just went through in the prior hearings the staff is going to give their presentation then the applicant will be able um to give their application if verying the staff or appli presentation the commission has any questions and they're out first sorry and the public opportunity speak um with both the applicant and the um staff giving final rebuttal remarks and at this time we need to swear in any witness well we just did never mind I'm already see thrown off check on the Cupcake okay all you thank you good evening Kevin ner planner one this is the second reading of annexation application for the property located at 2075 Brady Drive uh the first reading was unanimously approved by the commission on June 6th uh the applicant and owner Mariam blam wishes to voluntarily Annex one acre property with a single family home into the city of deden the application consists of three ordinances ordinance 2410 for the annexation of a 1.0 acre property into the city of denan ordinance 2 411 will designate the property as a residential low on the city's future land use map and ordinance 2412 designates the property as agricultural residential zoning District following the annexation um the property is approximately 1 acre um located at the southwest qut of Brady drive and its County Road 97 extension nearby properties located within the city limits are to the north e and South the recommendation of the future land use for the property is of residential low which is similar to the land uses in the surrounding area um there you go and the recommendation for the zoning of the properties agriculture residential which provides an opportunity for combination of large lot rural residential uses and allows them to keep the animals staff recommends approval of the application and uh approval of ordinance 2410 for the annexation of the subject property in the city of denan an 2411 to designate the property as residential low on the city's future land use map and ordinance 2412 to designate the property um agriculture residential on the zoning map thank you if any questions okay any questions on any of this second readinga and mayor I'm sorry very quickly we didn't do the reading by tile okay um okay um annexation ordinance 24-10 Jenifer would you please read that by D ordinance 24-10 an ordinance of the city of dunen Florida annexing certain real property located at 2075 Brady Drive parcel number 24-28 d1500 0000 -12 0-01 0 0 with designated meets and Bounds in totaling approximately 1 acre into the corporate limits of the city providing for filing with the city or with the clerk of the court and providing for an effective day that was ordinance 24-10 read by title only okay can I have a motion to approve so moved second commissioner TGA and commissioner Walker anybody from the public wish to come forward and speak to this item seeing or hearing none any final comments on the annexation piece okay roll call vote please commissioner gal hi vice mayor Frey hi commissioner Walker hi commissioner TGA hi mayor Bowski I and that motion passes unanimously ordinance 24-11 Jennifer would you please read that by totle only ordinance 24-11 an ordinance of the city of denen Florida amending the city of denen land use plan as adopted by ordinance 20-10 on certain rural property following annexation located at 2075 Brady Drive parcel number 24-28 d1500 -1 120- 010 with designated meets and Bounds toing approximately 1 acre to assign residential low RL land use plan designation and providing for an effective date that was ordinance 2411 read by title only thank you can I have a motion please so move second commissioner Tor commissioner Walker anybody from the public wish to come forward and speak to the land use designation seeing seeing or hearing none any final comments nothing roll call vote please commissioner gal I vice mayor frainy I commissioner Walker I commissioner TGA I mayor Bowski I and the motion passes unanimously and we have ordinance 24-12 zoning designation Jennifer would you please read ordinance 2412 by title only ordinance 2412 an ordinance of the city of Duneden Florida zoning certain real property following annexation located at 2075 Brady Drive parcel number 24- 28-15 00000000 -120 010 with designated meets and Bounds in totaling approximately 1 acre to agricultural residential AR and providing for an effective date that was ordinance 24-12 read by title only uh mayor also um note that there was one change in with in particular with this ordinance from first reading second and that was that within the ordinance that identified um the other ordinance numbers it was ring on that being 2010 and or I'm sorry 2410 and 2411 those numbers have been inserted into this ordinance okay thank you can I have a motion to approve so moved second commissioner TGA and commissioner gal thank you you anybody from the public wish to speak to this item seeing or hearing none back to the commission any final comments okay roll call vote please vice mayor pry I commissioner Walker hi commissioner gal hi commissioner Toro mayor Bowski I and the motion passes unanimously and welcome to the city officially all right we have resolution 24-11 establishes a maximum millage rate Jennifer would you please read resolution 24-11 by title only resolution 24-11 a resolution of the city Commission of the city of denen Florida adopting the proposed millage rate for adorm tax revenue for fiscal year 2024-25 at a rate not to exceed 41345 Ms or $4.3 per ,000 of assessed property value providing for public hearing dates and providing for an effective date here of that was resolution 24-11 read by title only thank you can I have a motion to approve so move second commissioner gal and commissioner torga thank you welcome Lesley oh welcome I wanted to do the ease you know the Leslie and the Ashley good evening uh not a happy laugh I don't think come on we got to have a sense of humor at 7:30 at night uh Les Toler Finance director with Ash the Kimpton budget manager and this item is resolution 24-11 uh which is established in our proposed maximum millage rate for fiscal year 25 budget uh staff's recommending approval of this rate which allows the commission to approve this rate of 41345 Mills or any rate lower than that this is uh no increase from prior year and this rate of 41345 has been the same since 2016 so this will be our 10th year at that millage rate uh following adoption of this resolution 24-11 the attached forms in your Staffing and the first public hearing uh date location will be will be certified by the city and returned to pelis County Property Appraisers by 7:30 2024 to be included in the trim notices and as I mentioned there's three forms attached that will go to the state and the county uh want to mention that the total general fund reduction in Revenue in 2025 if the city did a a a roll back a full roll back rate a roll back rate is 3.79 70 and that would the the dollar value would be approximately 1,38 $7,000 in Revenue reduction that concludes our comments be happy to answer any questions thank you any questions for staff anybody from the public wish to speak to this item okay final comments commissioner gal anything no comments commissioner walker uh no comment vice mayor no comment commissioner TWA no comment okay I don't have any either uh roll call vote please commissioner Walker I vice mayor frainy I commissioner torka I commissioner gal I and mayor boski I and that motion passes unanimously thank you thank you sorry you had to sit here for an hour to wait for that it was pretty easy and then we have the proposed agenda for July 25th anybody have any changes for that no okay can I have a motion to approve so moved second okay okay commissioner TGA and vice mayor Frey all in favor signify by saying I any opposed motion passes unanimously anything else other than we're going to celebrate Rob's birthday so anybody's willing to join us back there all right we are adjourned thank you [Music] [Applause] [Music]