##VIDEO ID:aQlYHrmzBpM## folks we're going to open the meeting here we're waiting on one of our members to uh to appear so we have a quorum so all we're doing right now is opening the meeting and we're going to sit here enjoy each other's company talks amongst yourself wh about pumpkin bread yeah yeah really real quiet so what do you have left what do you have left coup I think I'm gonna I think I might quit at the end of next year and then I'll have 18 months before 65 but I was I was looking at it go ahead what's he GNA do I don't know she's you know she's still working I just told her I said just tired I just don't want to do it anymore can I yes that's what I've gotten to I've got to the point where I was telling a friend of mine I said I've never felt like I just didn't want to go in right now i' rather do almost anything he's in the parking lot never that way no and part of it I guess in the old days it was it was mine so you wanted to go in you want to see this right now they really not my clients yeah and I kept trying to steer their attention to triway so they don't rely on me so I do disappear that was the whole point the whole point was so hopefully you have some take care of you when I'm going so yeah let's get the process rolling and is not an important thing yeah okay so I tried I tried yeah you know and I don't mind work work okay um I just I find myself think I got a favorite and then and then going in I just I just when bank I knew everything going on there I'm just gu go out and bring buiness that's all I do working of anything else and it's okay and they treat me good because they they've known me forever I've known them forever give their business started you stuff like that and they treat me like I'm was really weird yeah yeah sorry he did say that got your death my $256 yeah I go isn't there anything else I go how old are you said 60 oh you Survivor ask me a couple questions kind of course ask [Laughter] Corporation so they said yeah just bring certificate in your avoided check down here M 4 days I'm getting Social Security that's a weird feeling the first time you look in your bank C wow so I've been for 10 years and the guy who told me says what you do is you ride on her until you hit 70 and switch yours because yours are not maximiz so if you'd retire at normal age You' get 100% right if you're Tire 70 you get 138% okay that's you know that's a already and uh so yeah that's it's kind of been my deal is like and it was you she dies all of her Pion money shows up she had triple her Income Life Insurance all that showed up Y and not too long after that we sold the Farms another they CH for a while it was raining Cas yeah and I'm like this is weird is really weird yeah yeah and so and I told some time why are I want to do something yeah this isn't horrible of I'm not doing like one together we freaking midnight and then be there 7 o00 morning cying those out over yeah there he is there he is a day how everybody doing good are so far so good then I went across the bridge to come upstairs get there yes there you go so I was locked out I was locked out but I was luy apologies for making everybody wait all right ladies and gentlemen we're going to have a quum here tonight so if y'all please rise we're going to do the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all amen all righty if the clerk will call the role please St Schmid Scott steager here Mark bowling here Maria Mills Bennett Bobo fam Thomas Jordan here all right so that gives us a quorum at least tonight uh consideration of the minutes from July 18th any questions any comments Mr chairman I move we approve the minutes a second Motion in a second all those in favor please signify by saying I I those opposed motion carries move on to item number four here on the agenda it's an application for Second Amendment to the River Yard Master development agreement and conceptual development plans case number pza a-24 d006 Mr chairman I move that we approve uh the Second Amendment to the River Yard Master development agreement case number PR za- 24-6 second for discussion Motion in second Mr Burman hey welcome haven't seen you in a while Tim bman Comm development the uh proposal is an amendment to the River Yard Master develop agreement and conceptual development plan this item was approved um the MDA was approved last year and since that time Time Bristol has continued to work on their project um cost estimates refining the architecture um the site work working on various things there and during that time frame we discovered a few minor cleanup items that needed to be addressed in the MDA and we are bringing those forward here um to go over then so just what the proposed amendments are going to go through them briefly here and then we'll go over them a little more in detail then uh we're going looked at the site layout to adjust the location of commercial and multif family uses on the project um parking to modify the parking requirement for the multif family and um also state that all public parking will be located um on the uh surface Lots or parallel or Street Parking address the development requirements for the art house property um drive-through requirements allowed uses and some minor cleanup um to some text for consistency first this is what the current or the proposed uh concept plan is going to look like as you can see the area in yellow is where the multif family and parking garage will be the area in pink is where the commercial mixed use will be and the area in green is where the Waterfront Park is um as you can kind of see the comparison between 2023 plan and 24 there is about 1.4 acres added to Commercial and mixed use and um then we got a reduction in the overall multif family so that what that means is the multif family structure will most likely be smaller um when it basically get the final design there and this allows us more commercial area um development for more commercial area and also more surface surf parking to serve that commercial area um the park that you can see up at the top there um that the acreage for that has not changed that was 1.5 to begin with and has remained consistent through the project then um the other aspect is too is that the River Yard Drive which was um not centered kind of between Bridgewood and Herbert Street has now been centered there um that kind of pulling away kind of is better for terms of traffic flow in that area and that um were the major changes to the concept plan then um as to this kind of shows this again this is a draft of what the master plan um is still kind of work in progress but kind of sees what the different green blobs that we showed you there the pink yellow and green were this kind of puts it into context of what those buildings might look like in context in the parking lot again this is just a draft so this is not the final version um but this gives you a little bit more context as to what it could be look like in terms of the parking spaces and stuff like that and layout of the possible buildings and the other item discussed is the MDA is the parking ratio the parking ratio that approved for the multif family uses is set at 1.3 spaces per unit um since the further looking into the project and evaluating the number of one-bedroom units that will be built as part of this um multif family project the um request is to reduce that parking ratio to 1.25 overall when you look at what the anticipated unit count is for the building um that is essentially a reduction of about 13 spaces um but again as they indicated that their intent is here is to provide more one space or one bedroom one bedroom apartments than previously in there then which lends itself to basically that parking ratio being um requested then again we looked at the it um manual which is basically the engineering manual that you kind of look to for guidelines which is a standard used across the board here in terms of parking ratios for multi family project of this type and their ratio again Falls within the suggested um Range there so right in the middle of what that range is expected to be the other cleanup item in there is that the MDA originally stated that 300 spaces were to be provided for public use um the amendment does not change that requirement 300 spaces are still required what the MDA States is that those spaces would be provided either surface parking or um parallel or street parking then there would be no par public spaces in the parking garage they would all be on the surface or um on the street again it does not decrease the number that was originally um proposed or in the original MDA just more the location next is addressing a few of the um outlining properties here from the main parcel as you can see the out the art housee property which is at Herber and Ridgewood when we looked through that MDA it was not very clear identified as to what those permitted uses were for that property or the development requirements so what we've done is basically state that that parcel when it is developed will follow the requirements of the Ridgewood development district for permitted uses and we also follow all site requirements in the Land Development code when it is developed um the other aspect that was added here was the um drive-throughs currently in the Riverwalk overl District drive-throughs are not permitted with projects here we've basically indicated that um one drive-thru can be allowed on either the yart house property or the and the dve pest control property which is the property at the North End here right in front of the um Tiki dos parking lot then so that gives them the flexibility in terms of when they are basically developing those properties U most likely we anticipate those as multi-tenant buildings the ability to put one drive-thru um on that proper on that development site then the next item is related to permitted uses on the subject property this is the major kind of the the 10 11 acre property here the original list of use is allowed for office space to be put on the ground floor and Banks um one of the things that we're trying to um promote on the part of this project to have the experiential retail um basically you know restaurants breweries entertainment venues there um people that draw attract people there not kind of like the office or um Bank uses then so those uses have been removed as allowed uses um basically to kind of help bolster that um list make be strictly exper experiential retail um we did allow offices as a possibility if there is a second floor to the commercial buildings that you could have office on the second Flor floor but not on the first floor um and the last one there was some cleanup items in terms of text basically making sure everything was consistent between the concept plan in the MDA and also adding a um kind of just a time frame um to the MDA in terms of when it would expire if the project does not move forward um those are just standard things that are on all mdas and when we went back and looked at it we needed to make sure that was clearly identified in this and we took advantage when we were doing this amendment then so again the MDA amendment is just um number of kind of cleanup items there that have been discovered as we've been working with Bristol to kind of refine the project and um since we basically have got that point there we brought them forward as part of the MDA Amendment then so the applicant is here for any questions you might have and I'm here to answer any questions you have and uh staff is recommending approval of the MDA Amendment cool thank you Tim uh start with Stan any questions for Tim uh not right now Scott um I just briefly and apologize I was having some email problems before I was coming in so there's a a reduction in multif family parking garage and Courtyard and a slight increase in the Riverfront Park how much of the open space is being reduced by this do you have an idea well I me in terms of the the open space mainly on this project is really focused at that Waterfront Park there okay so that that acreage is not changing at all so no significant change in that it's just really shift from residential residential to commercial there and I think basically more of the um kind of the street parking area is going to expand it again to add on that then so but the key Focus was is don't decrease commercial and don't decrease Waterfront Park which they did with this plan so perfect that was my question he you all set then okay yes thank you Mark the drive-throughs yes let's talk about those um can you put your mic on push the button there we go thanks um the drive-throughs uh I know that several years ago there there was a strong deterrent for drive-throughs in this community in this area and now we're we're proposing to have two of them um one at the Art House and one at Dave's best control okay um why the change I think is that is that a Bristol request it was a request from Bristol then okay um but we have since when we've looked at this Redevelopment area as a way to help Redevelopment what we find that basically that D taste basically drive-throughs are needed to help the Redevelopment efforts we approved one for catfish comments across the corner from there and that led to kind of you know that being redeveloped with that project there I think basically we know that we've got requirements in here to make sure that the drive-thru is well designed so it basically is not kind of the main focus and and we're not going to have a situation like we have at Dunkin' Donuts there every morning we have requirements in the code that basically a lot make will make sure that basically that drive-thru is not what you see at Dunkin Donuts there currently there it's not appear Aesthetics appearance will not be an issue there um drive-thru function in terms of the parking lot and walkability we're able to basically incorporate make sure those items are preserved when we do the drive-throughs then so I think when that original prohib prohibited 20 25 years ago we did not have the measures in the code to basically um you know kind of get a better design with a drivethru since then our code has evolved and we feel confident that they can have the ability to do a drive-thru and still meet the need to that area then all right since you're not going to allow Banks um that that kind of leads the drive-thru to restaurants and coffee shops basically well the the bank was basically not permitted was just for the um the main parcel here okay it with the banks then okay yeah I don't want you discriminating against us poor Bankers come on now I think that that was more basically like we're trying to get that to be more the entertainment area so we want to kind of push the banks out to those out Parcels that would probably be better serve them the main focus was not having those types of uses in that main area and be more entertainment focused then okay and I know the study you said uh with the one-bedroom apartments uh is is less parking or less less cars that are be going to be parked there right um how accurate is that I mean it I know that there's an awful lot of times when the one bedroom apartment is is occupied by two people with two cars as opposed to one person with one car I think the the study when we looked at it too and overview of what Bristol's projects have in the past which they provided us basically showed that their in terms of their renting and how they Market these apartment complexes you know usually those One bedroomroom units are occupied it might be by two people but there is you know one car to one car on that then okay I think the other thing too is that which we finding out too is that you know certain people have different work hours too so you know if someone lives in an apartment they work nights you know that car is not going to be there at night then so that and then the person just basically Works days cars the day so that kind of offsets that way then too so that study kind of looked at the um work schedule also too you know there's a lot more Alternative forms of getting around Transportation um in terms of ride share and stuff like that than that um people are using that typically go with the mixed use development project okay you good I'm not good but I'm okay for now yeah good I I had questions about the parking too because uh yeah I was concerned about that and really what it is it's the what I would call the peak hour ratio is is people go to work and then they all come home so the cars are all sitting there overnight and that's that's when you really have to worry about how many parking spaces you have but uh other studies that I looked at basically said the it numbers generally are are way over reality that the the requirements they have are way over what reality is so I felt pretty comfortable about about that that ratio and we're going from you know the current requirement is 1.3 this is only going to 1.25 then so it's um a very minor reduction and I think when we looked at what the anticipated number of units there around 275 it results in 13 spaces yeah um on there then so leave 500s of your car somewhere else yeah so I I had a question about the numbers though because they they're they're saying that the um anticipated number of residential units will be dropped to like 275 but are we leaving the maximum number of units of allowed at 4 60 that's what the current MDA allowed then 460 then um but basically with this proposed development here that they've showing there they're anticipating about 275 but we're not you know decreasing that number just in you know it could be followed by another amendment then to add more residential down the road there somehow um so that's why we're leaving it open then okay so we're leaving it open in case they they want to come back and and put another build there they modify that way too leave it open then so we don't want to remove that density cap that's already there because that's been approved okay um the 275 is what they indicated to us as a possibility there so we kind of put that into the um agreement then you know to kind of show what that parking could be could look like then okay but but if they come back and say you know what we're going to put in 300 units that's the 1.25 is is still required so they re5 for the additionals I think when we looked at that basically if you did the 460 I think it comes back to 23 spaces difference then so it would be you know if they went in the middle there you'd be somewhere around you know in the teens then so right um yeah I thought I heard you say that only one additional drive-through would be allowed the one drive-thru per property per property okay I just want to make sure that okay and it would give them an option to it might not be developed but it gives the option to the one drivethru and I think you know like kind of we kind of put in there too you know I think Brendan he's in the audience here but we kind of put in the staff report there kind of that was one of the ones that we worked real hard with the developer there to make sure that it drive-thru but basically does not appear to have a drive-thru um you know in terms of how the site layout is and how it appears from the front in terms of the architecture of the building then okay yeah it was real interesting that that's the property you chose to show a picture of thought that was interesting anything else guys for for Tim uh anybody want to hear from the applicant sure come on well state your name address and sorry go for it for the record Jessica G Co off fir one Daytona Boulevard and Daytona Beach Florida um just a few quick points and thank you guys for being here tonight I know you guys made our quum possible um Mark wattz was going to come over but I told him to shelter in place and to land and I live here so it was easier um Tim always does a great job I think this is pretty much a cleanup as we shift from the concept plan level to actually engineering design where we say oh that drive aisle doesn't work there the access configuration and layout um I did just want to hit on a few of the topics raised in questions on the parking I think we've we've talked about the formula being the same as kind of the original approval at that time we had less one-bedroom units in the overall mix they were looking at we're seeing a market shift pretty much across the board where it's one space per bedroom um this is still above that but that's kind of where the developers are going in terms of what they see working based on their resident feedback um the open space I did want to not the park in this iteration gains 007 acres and so it does not decrease it increase just a tiny bit the resident is really the only area that lost acreage and it was sorted through the rest um on the drive-thru I think Tim had a great illustration on page six but I will I will pitch the Tail of Two Duncan because I know you mentioned Duncan being an issue but I think if you look at the Clyde and big tree Duncan that was developed later on that one has a drive-through in the rear um that is very unobtrusive Jimmy johnes has I think a dual one right there um and that functions really well um even in the the school traffic there where all the students are grabbing their coffee so I think that's kind of the the design concept U and then the mix of parking the original MDA was phrased and it's probably on me because I wrote it where we had 100 surface spaces and 200 garage spaces which meant that the 300 public parking could be read to require 200 garage spaces and now we're just saying 300 public spaces could be on the street could be in a parking area could be in a garage but we're just keeping it open that there's going to be 300 public um and on the demands I know we talked about about kind of the peak Demand Being at night for the residential which is thankfully the off peak for the commercial kind of experiential retail uses so those public spaces would then be open so with that I'm here for questions we've got Bobby ball for any engineering questions as well Stan start with you so something you just said that was kind of caught my ear so you're saying that right now there's probably going to be 200 spaces in the enclosed garage that wraps as wrapped by the building that was what was contemplated in the original concept design in the approved MDA we're revising it to now just say it can be 300 public spaces across the so we don't know right now there's nothing that they're willing to stand behind and go yep I'm building it like that yep okay that's that's what I was kind of asking and and in Concept in that parking garage structure um some of those would be for the unit tenants and some would be for the general public so you could pull in there to go to one of the new bars or something like that and if you couldn't find one the surface you might get lucky and find one in the structure when we went through originally we talked about how it could be that there was a restricted access if it was structured parking on the site or the residents would have a key card if it went up there I think this shift says it can be surface or garage um just based on what the final engineering layout is and so that would be the same concept all right that's what I was just trying to figure out is exactly where we were um Let me let me follow up on that CU that's not what that's not what Tim said and that's not what it says in the document here it says public parking spaces will be provided in surface parking lots or on street I took that to mean that they're not going to be in the garage and that's what Tim said and the parking section uh page four first paragraph are you looking at the staff report or the document itself staff report okay so the you also have the MDA Amendment and and it just says a minimum of 300 parking spaces will be set aside for the use by the public and so that's the controlling if we need to clarify but I think the flexibility is there in the document it's so what I read in the staff report is not accurate is that what you're saying then do we want to clarify I think it that is the intent of the current concept design it's just that the agreement is just clarifying that it doesn't have to be garage which would lend it to being the on street or what page of the MDA are you looking page four page four it's that last sentence in that parag P four number four 11 thank you the original MDA gave it option of all three this one B that basically could be there this one removed where it could go there and basically in our discussions of why the MDA was being proposed and that language was being recommended to remove the ability of the G the garage to have public parking spaces was the intent was to put them on the surface for the um the street then and again again we have plenty of surface parking and street parking too and one of the issues that we're running into is how do you control the who comes in the garage and who goes out of the garage then so if we can put more surface parking on the in front of the uses and in the street then and keep the surf keep the public parking on the street and the surface that the better design probably for a parking garage where you're mixing everyone then yeah yeah so especially if I'm a tenant I'm going to be quite upset if I don't basically the the intent of the change was to make sure that we have it on the the surface sufficient surface parking is basically providing the parking lots in front of the commercial or behind the commercial then right and then the residents would have their own parking garage which would be easier to control access points I think we even talked about this originally because we said that you could use the ground level right of the parking structure would count as it was surface parking for public and that the tenants would then just be the ones that would go up the ramp there was concerns with how that would work then and this kind of basically probably a better set up to kind of have separated yeah and the original one says 200 has to be in a garage that's the end of the reading and so this is saying that's not a restriction okay sorry Stan go ahead no but no that's that's the issue because it's like like I say if you're a tenant you're going to be a little upset if you can't find a parking space and uh that's the the general member of the public if they can get up in the upper levels and hey look at this I found a place to park that's going to cause some Conflict at some point in time so that's that's that is one of the things that kind of caught my eye right away it's like wait a second how's that going to work we're still in the design phase so they've got time to work out the exact details yes Scott uh so just to harp on parking because it seems like it's the subject of the night um fortunately or unfortunately I own property in Bay in new SMA Beach M um and two observations the idea of smaller units yielding fewer parking spot um sounds great in theory but it doesn't bear out in practice and so my observation of two very large apartment complexes built immediately adjacent to one of my offices is that all of the people when they come in to stay in their apartments at night spill out and park all along the street sure and so all of the street parking is taken up by Apartments and to the point where they would park in the grass if they weren't likely to get towed um that is also considered private property in Venetian Bay there and the owner of the private property has recently decided that they're going to charge for parking spaces there as well so if the same circumstances apply here as this is private property uh I would like to suggest that we get an applicant guarantee that parking cost will not at any point while this project is going on be implemented because that will immediately put your people in your apartments or your residential use in an inability to find an appropriate amount of parking especially if we approve 1.25 instead of 1.3 yeah and if you want to make that a condition we can talk through that with the applicant um and developer it's really interesting that you talk about the street parking because we see the same thing when you talk to Lasser and some of the transportation groups they provide information that based on studies just driving individuals think that a parking lot is full when it is at 80% capacity and so a lot of that too is that parking may be there it may be on the fourth floor garage or something like that and they don't want to do the circuit when they know there's an on Street commercial site um that's open so I've definitely seen that and I just think that 80% statistic is crazy because whenever we go somewhere now my husband will say there's no parking I'm like keep going yeah I'm just going with I drive by that almost every day five days a week sometimes six or seven small business it's it is it's an issue and so I can see that I think they built theirs on 1.2 because I think that was what was in the Pud originally and so this is slight you know 1.25 is marginally better but it very definitely is an issue and I think if you ever got to a place where any of that became paid parking at any point along the Continuum you now have residents who are going I'll park in the grass underneath of that tree before I'll pay $3 to park my car right it's amazing how Money Motivated people are that it that's it good Mark I'm good cool I'm good too perfect thank you very much thank you guys thanks Jessica pardon me uh any comments from the public any I wish to speak Robert come on up on down come on down commission members Robert rehagen 1425 Dex to Drive North Port Orange uh with regard to the U drive-throughs um Tim said that one per property and when I looked at the engineering drawings um it showed the arrow going to both these side properties but also to the main property and so um I'd like some clarification are they allowed to put a drive-thru in that main river walk property portion thank you area here if that's one two three Tim you want to address that I don't think that good observation well it's the three subject properties and the drivve just it's listed in the text of the MDA um there basically that the the art house property and the days Pest Control property what the those addresses the properties are allowed the ones that could have have the one drive-through possibility then um we can check to make sure that there's nothing kind of in the concept plan that an arrow an error Arrow there but to just in general essentially if there is a conflict between the concept plan and MDA the MDA would always take control so um there but the MDA states that just those two properties have the potential for one drive-thru each on each property then but again we'll go ahead and double check the concept plan and make sure there's no erron arrows um going to that main parcel there um before this goes counsel cool thanks Tim anybody else from the public seeing none we'll bring it back to the commission here guys you have anything else you want to cover on this any ideas no yeah the only thing I have is what's is we all tend to have brought it up is the parking and yeah I grant granted 1.3 to 1.25 is not that big a deal but uh boy it can create a real nightmare creates a nightmare for the property managers creates a nightmare for the tenants and the public and the businesses around there too everybody gets I know the discussion when you when you look there's plenty of studies and I'm sure that back up the idea of 1.2 or 25 M I get it like just watching it in practice and I'm seeing what's happened with this spillover and and they may be right that once you get to what 80% you go ah it's full let me park on the street but I know that when I drive home at 10:00 at night every street spot is full and they're parking on this sidewalks and theyve they're towing cars pretty consistently uh and now with this paid parking that's another thing that I I would really like to suggest that we have a guarantee that that will not be an issue at any point with this project anything else assume you're ready to vote uh clerk if you'd like to call the role we have a motion and second on this uh case Dan Schmid yes Scott Stager yes markk bowling yes Thomas Jordan yes passes what that four thank you very much all right moving on to case number uh pza a-24 00007 it's the First Amendment to Anglers Cove planned unit development master development agreement I get a motion I'll make a motion to approve it I'll second got a motion and a second on the case Tim get you again yes Tim Burman Community Development the um this is the First Amendment to the angler Cove MDA um just a kind of reminder what the property is this is on the um other side of the Dum lot Bridge everyone might remember this probably about eight years ago we did the MDA amendment to create a five lot subdivision over there if just on the other side I believe it's admiralty Club is the um the condo there then and there's uh five lots that were created here um recently back in early 2023 we had a building permit that was submitted along with the screen enclosure at the same time um when the building permit was issued it was in averly issued um with some additional walls on the approved um building plans that were going to be included as part of the screen enclosure um one unique concept on this one this is one that we're starting to see more and more in here in terms of private providers doing the plan review but then the city staff doing the accessory structure review um in 2023 we're starting to get into that we have since um had a lot more procedures in place to avoid this but there was basically the plan reviews were essentially done by a private provider not by our city building staff to review it them so really what the focus of our city staff was is kind of the footprint of the building making sure setbacks were met and the grades were done properly then um there the count the site plan or layout plan said walls to be provided in as by others uh but then the building plans which were submitted showed these walls which were 10-ft walls on the um I believe the south and west side of the pool deck then so when our guys looked at the plans for the for terms of setbacks stuff like that everything seemed to be right then we did not look in the plan review because it was done by a private provider already there for compliance with the Florida building code uh we have since learned that you check everything even if it's already done by a review um but that one got through um then when we were out there doing a site inspection here in summer of 2024 um I think it was like a or June or July then staff was looking at the grades and looked up at the wall and said this does not look right so we went ahead and looked at the plans and saw where basically that um issue occurred back in 2023 when we did the plan review then so um what the the intent is is as you can see here on the Aerials here is that these um the wall here which on the south side and the um West Side here are essentially 10 foot tall walls then and the screen enclosure will be another two foot of a screen wall on top of these walls and then you have a screen enclosure over the pool then so what we look to see is basically how does that fit into the definition of a screen enclosure in the code of screen enclosure for a pool basically is anything that has at least 60% on each elevation there of open screen um in this case with the two of screen being added to the top there that would only amount to 20% of each elevation having open screen then so the next step was to look at whether we could do a variance on that requirement unfortunately the screen room definition definition of LDC contains the open space requirement you can't do a variance on a definition the Land Development code so that is why we're bringing a MDA Amendment forward to essentially create a definition for screen enclosure um for this lot only here which would allow the screen closure to have 20% open space on each elevation um in terms of looking at the surrounding properties um in terms of its impact as you can see to the um South there is a um pretty dense vegetation of trees there uh that is to adjacent to a property that's outside the city of Port Orange but when you go there and look at it from side to side you don't see anything past that wall there so um the impact is minimal in terms of visual um to the South to the I guess it would be to the west of that property is a future lot to be developed um there with a single family home but there is um from the appearance then there's nothing you know different than what you kind of does not visually appear um you know out you know out out of place when that gets developed along with eventual landscaping that's on there then so um we don't think basically in terms of um approving this MDA amendment that basically this uh screen room that would have the 20% open space would be you know would not have any um basically ruin any visual characteristics or be really out of place then when you look at kind of the context of this home along with the other home that's built there um and would not impact the future homes that are built in that area then uh so staff's recommend recommendation is approval of the MDA Amendment so they went so far built 10 foot walls around their pool and they want a twoot screen and enclosure on top of their 10 foot walls right and again to we this since it was a private provider for both plan review and inspection we were not out there inspecting it either because that's the responsibility of the private provider to do which the contractor hired there so when my staff got out there it was initially when you know initially when the foundation was going in for the grades and then we were back for this meeting because as you can see they were getting close to being done with the house and that's when we discovered it so um it's one the work for workout with the private provider is basically trying to find these errors and at you know on there then but this one um you know like I said was one of the first ones we were working with there and it you know inadvertently got approved there and then just kind of snowballed from there okay um so we're trying to basically resolve the situation um you know with this amendment here and based off the surroundings of the property there um this basically something that basically canot be approved because it's not going to be impact any other the adjacent neighbors so so there's two remedies approve the amendment or make them tear down the 10-ft walls and put up a regular screen enclosure right but also got the issue too where I have an approved building permit for those 10ft walls okay anything else Mark no that's all I got Scott Bob Ross would call this a happy little accident we had other names for it but that was it doesn't look like it's doesn't look like it's going to be obtrusive on anybody else's property um I don't see where it's going to obstruct anybody's view or anything uh and we've discovered a potential law without any real consequence as far as I'm concerned and since we have put in place measures to basically make sure that even with PRI provider that we are looking at the plan reviews you know to avoid this situation I think it's great that we discovered it when it's not a huge yeah yeah that's oh my God you built what yeah it could it could be in a worse location we'll put it that way right anything else you've crafted this I'm sorry so you've crafted this so that it is just this lot correct because that's the thing you can see next is the next guy goes hey I want one just like my neighbor has well you can't do that um without going they have the right to apply for an MDA Amendment which I need discourage them with the cost um that's that's the only thing I see on this thing you hate to do these one one offs yeah but we kind of worked ourself into a corner on this thing MH so here we are what's what's the reasoning behind the 60% minimum is there safety reasons is there wi anything like that with for Screen Enclosures or screen rooms you could have um reduced setbacks then so basically a screen enclosure set back is 15 ft where your single family home structure itself with there might be 25 ft then so the screen enclosure I think is you know it's not living space so they you know and more kind of extension of your backyard then so they provide those um with that I think that requirement there the 60% is what they feel comfortable it won't become living space um on there then so that's where that came from on the on that one there's always fun doing those measurement calculations for people um but that's where that kind of came from in our definition um and that's kind of you know like I said if we tried to go the easiest route possible to try to remedy the situation it just kept on snowballing and right here we are got it makes sense why it's in the LDC not a available for a variance then uh good thanks anything else for Tim is the applicant here tonight oh we are the applicant on this one oh I'm sorry let go back and look gotcha ah now I got it now I got it so what do you got to say I I agree with what staff said staff all righty well then we're all set how about opening this up to the public anybody from the public wish to speak on this yes sir come on up state your name and your uh address please Dan malal Point SI Port Orange um what is what is that back on that property since they built it as a a property did they go it at 25 foot or they only at 15 there there's screen there this the the Thea better have the PowerPoint here this setback in the MDA we had established the rear yard setback was going to be um fifth or 20 ft then and this structure is set back 15 ft then so um there's only a 5 foot difference um on that one then taking advantage of the the screen enclosure rule yeah basically the screen enclosure I mean if again if they reduced you know down and got that 60% that could be located at that location then on that so they move the walls shorter and put more screen in or the other option if they would have moved the you know 5 foot closer in there that wall could have stayed at that location there um so the visual aspect has not really changed there from what could have been just 5T further away from the property line then okay thank you thank you anything else anybody else want to speak seeing them we'll bring it back to the commission anybody have any other dis other comments ideas no seeing none I assume you're ready to vote if you call the rooll for us please Stan Schmidt yes Scott steager yes Mark bowling yes Thomas Jordan yes passes all right moving on to last item here this is a Land Development code Amendment uh change Amendment sorry for case number DC a-24 00001 amendments to the Land Development code we have motion Mr chairman I move approval of case number DC m-24 d001 I will second motion and a second uh hey look who's up Tim Tim bman can got his glasses on now yeah CU I got 11 font here so this is something that we've been doing throughout the past probably 10 years now is essentially clean up items in the code as they kind of pop up and appear um this one kind of related to some recent code amendments that we had did on the impact fees and we started kind of working a little bit into this there and notied that there were some um text language that was conflicting with the new ordinance that we've approved for the impact these then so um there so the first amendment is to kind of clarify that and make sure that the references um in terms of what impact fees could be deferred to co um and how they are called properly and to add the correct um impact fees are added there and oo remov some references to fuchia County impact ordinances just in case they change their chapter numbers there our ordinance is correct by just referring to the bluch county then so that was the first amendment the Second Amendment is one that we have basically for the past couple years now the um developments that have occurred in mainly the Riverwalk area and the Downunder area and also Eastport too um we've been bringing forward and has been more acceptable um there and have been approved economic incentive agreements which have included waving development fees and building permit fees for projects that are built there that are targeted businesses um you know for Eastport it was the bong facility which is the manufacturer of Outdoor Equipment which um is getting ready to go under construction here soon in the Riverwalk area it was the um Olen homes um main office building and the um some of the recent ones there however when we started looking back that there were a number of projects that were kind of the ones that set the tone to basically come into that area and redevelop and at that time kind of using the economic assem agreement was not um you know used quite as much much then or advertised being used then and a lot of these projects basically have gone in since then have been kind of the project that have set the tone for future Redevelopment in there then so what this amendment would also do would be allow projects that have been developed over the past believe five years to request that so has to go through city council for approval and meet all the requirements to make the request and city council is the one that ultimately decide whether to approve or deny it but gives them the right to apply for it then um also to it requires that that business that got the co is still in business moving forward then so we know it's successful then um so this would apply only to those targeted businesses within the Port Orange Town Center CRA or the Eastport CRA um not outside the you know the there is not outside the CRA again it's more of a target for um developments there and the hope is that some of the developers that have developed projects there basically they can apply for this get this in possibly do Redevelopment on their site or Redevelopment within those cras for more projects in since they've been able to do them successfully so staff is recommending approval of the cleanup item and I'm here for any questions cool Mark no I agree with all of it good Scott I I think it's great I got couple of easy questions um is there a negative economic impact on the city in any way for by extending this do you see a larger number of applications and do you feel it's offset by the benefit of them we looking basically feel basically the um what we're giving back there is benefit the benefit is basically getting those projects redeveloped in the CRA improving the tax base and basically kind of getting that area up and redeveloped there so we see uh you know by having to get reduce or wave building per these we see the benefit and pace of the project that gets built there and the impact it has okay and it's Bud budgeted for anyway so it's not budget would this apply to Future cras what's that would this apply to Future cras as well for this these will be our own dinosaurs great right yeah yeah that's all for me Stan no I don't see anything here either other than how many fortun 500 companes are knocked on the door put their headquarters up there no Timmy I was the that was a question I had was uh six years seemed like a lot of time but it now makes sense you're going to go back and cover some of the folks that are already there but as you said it has to be the original the initial CEO business business yeah over there then so yeah I think the code said one year so that's where we added five years to it then which we've got six then so that's where we got that number there yeah yeah sounds good thank you uh anything from the public seeing as I figured out who the applicant is on this one no nobody from the public wishes to speak all right anything else from the commission on this one so ready to vote go ahead and call the rooll for me Stan Schmid yes Scott Seager yes yes Mark bowling yes Thomas Jordan yes passes 40 moving on to other business commissioner comments anybody have any comments uh looks like the storm is equal to Tampa or so and moving North and maybe we've seen the worst of it or just a little more wind so yay yay that's all I got hopefully next month we have a meeting so we have a reason to be here and my apologies for running through the sitting in the parking lot I really for some reason I had six in my head so my fault you thought you were I was Lally sitting there going nobody's here did they decide to cancel and not tell me and you didn't bring donuts uh I didn't I was eating cardboard pizza from 7-Eleven in my Jeep so yeah you didn't want that trust me I didn't want it nothing else uh staff comments Tim ello something to say doesn't have glasses on oh if you want to remind Stan or uh that basically that next month um it's pumpkin bread month so just want to put that on the record I felt like that was coming it's got to be after the 16th that's it all right we're all set a motion to adjourn some move so move thank you very much