e e e e e e e e e e e order and rise for the pledge and a moment of silence I pled algi to the flag of the United States of America to the stand na indivisible andice for all amen can a roll call please here here Thomas Jordan here I'm here and a consideration of minutes make a motion to approve the minutes second all in favor say I I I any opposed all right item number four on the agenda application for variance of 6220 Fox Haven Court case number V c-24 d001 one I will entertain a motion make a motion to approve case number VC d24001 second Kenny hi good evening penel crw planning so the property owners um are requesting a Varian to be able to reconstruct the existing Dock and boat house and generally the same location um according to the applicant as you saw in the applicant's letter of request as well as um some of the photos that they provided um in in the exhibit there um the current dock is deteriorating um with regards to the pilings and the dock framing which is underwater during High Tides so the the first part of the variance is regarding the boat house height Our Land Development code has a maximum height of 12 feet um which is lower than most of the other communities in our area um and so originally the permit came in they were looking at 18 ft we've worked with them to get that down to 15 ft um so we feel like this is the minimum variance that would be necessary in order to reconstruct the dock um and keep it out of the water during high tides and still provide that clearance um under the roof of the boat house the next part is regards to the terminal platform area um again our code has a maximum of 160 Square ft which again is is significantly lower than what other communities in the area as well as DP allows um really what they're requesting is just an additional 15 Square ft um for that triangle piece um over here on the North side um and it's really to provide kind of a safe area to be able to access the the utilities the Water and Electric at the dock there the next part is regarding the setback um the existing dock actually doesn't meet the the setbacks required by code which is 25 ft um what's proposed is actually providing more of a setback than what's currently out there right now they've kind of shifted it to be able to provide 19 ft um and 25 ft on one side it would not decrease the access um which is the reason for having the step access provide that access for for the boats for neighboring boats um so it wouldn't decrease that or or create any kind of um negative impact to any of the adjacent properties So based on the findings that are in the staff report staff is recommending approval um I will note that after doing the research and looking into this um from this report we are probably going to be looking into doing an upcoming code amendment to update our doc sighting requirements as well um which is why we felt comfortable recommending approval for this variant so um the applicant is here and is able to answer any questions you may have questions for Penny Stan so my understanding what I understand you're saying is that because some of our current code or zoning is is a little bit inconsistent with some of the other ones around us that that's one of the reasons why you're happy to consider this so it it just makes sense um after doing the research and looking what other communities have and based on um based on the the data as far as where the tides are and and mean high water line and and what other communities who have updated their codes because of those reasons have looked at it it makes sense to update these standards these are very old standards from like the 80s um and so it just it seems like it makes sense to to provide consistent standards um that other communities have as well as that just based on the conditions that are out there that would still provide the intent of what we were trying to do with the requirements and the code but also provide um um just a rational kind of regulations for for people to follow the tides have changed a lot since the so I guess one of the things I was thinking about is I know we're looking at this particular case but also with what you brought up and I talked to Tim uh last week after the chamber or the city commission meeting um is this something where you're also looking to this group for guidance as far as going ahead and and reviewing some of those things so we can get a more uniform uh set of of requirements on these docks which group are you referring to well my understanding is like you say we've got different different uh setups than what neighboring cities and the county and the does so are you also kind of hoping that we'll say hey why don't you go ahead and take a look at this so you can bring our regulations more current with I don't really think that's up to us no we're just voting on this tonight well I understand that's why I said I know we're looking at just this one particular case and I get that I I mean we generally look at as we're doing any code Amendment we're gen we generally look at you know what other communities that are in similar situations as us have as a comparison not that we want to base our standards on them but just as a comparison of of what others have I mean it's something we that's standard practice for when we do amendments yeah as far as you know this particular code I I think that you know they're proposing makes sense what you guys as a staff recommends makes sense so I don't have any real problems with that okay Tom no I'm glad you said that uh you're going to be looking at changing these because they really do need to be updated yeah but that's really the key so I'm good Lance where is the mean high water mark established from and when is that just an elevation number that is already given to us as far as uh the elevation I believe it changes I don't have a clear answer it's something that would I believe be updated we're talking about a height of a certain footage and it's based on you mean high water mark but based on when and what because you know here's my thing honestly I don't believe it's high enough uh what they're proposing at 15 ft because in the last year we've had three King Tides as we would call them and it's added two or three feet of water to everywhere and I would just hate for us to go in there and again I'm just wondering what does the height what does the height do what does the height affect it seems like every other neighboring area has the 15 ft and I'm just saying you're not going to be able to put a very big boat in there at 15 at 12 feet and try to say you're going to be out of the high tide and I'm just talking out loud on that they they originally came in with a request for 18 um we were able to work them down to 15 but Daytona norand allow 18 ft um from where from the mean high water okay and how is that established what I guess what I what I'd want to know that's all so I if we have I mean okay I think we've got the data that's on I it's just a number I think it's a you know it's a number given to you yes yes it's a survey number I'm sure it's going to change as time goes on with sea level rise but yeah so it's at the pleasure of the the commission if you want to approve something higher than that we were able to work them down to 15 to provide the minimum variance necessary but I think they would prefer to have 18 ft if that's something that you would consider can I piggy off of Lance for a second what is the purpose of limiting the height I think historically um it was more of just like a visual kind of from joining properties from a joining properties yeah that's what I figured but I didn't know if there was anything I did not understand but you know like I said there are a few communities that go to 18 um I'd welcome to hear what the count what the commission's thoughts are on that as we do work towards up dating the code what you would like to see apply Citywide anything else Lance no I'm good for me now B yeah I wondered about the 18 ft as well and uh you know what was the purpose of that and then on the other side of it we're on the west side of Rose Bay you know the bridge limitations you know are a problem for any big boats in that area uh you know I I you know I figured well you know 15 ft seems adequate you know based on the limitations but um you know I did wonder about the 18 ft as well the um I I saw that this was uh last time this was revised was in 1991 M and I think the water levels have risen a little bit and uh looking at the photos seeing the electric lines underwater uh race is a pause for me um you know going out on that dock seems like quite a hazard so certainly uh in view of that I I would you know would be no Greener so I'm I'm good with it uh do we want to hear from the applicants sure come on up thanks P applicant app please say your name and address good evening thank you madam chair members of the Planning Commission for the record my name is Colleen nichan I'm the property owner at 6220 Fox Haven Court um I wanted to thank uh staff for working with us through this uh permit request and as uh Penny had mentioned our dock is deteriorating it's over 25 years old you can see in the photos the pilings four of the four of the six pilings that support the roof structure don't even touch the ground anymore uh there's actually a a a piling that was driven next to it that's uh supporting it those are starting to deteriorate uh the pilings themselves above the decking surface there's a couple photos in uh the agenda packet that shows that they're fraying they're discolored the bolts are all rusty the uh straps that hold the roof structure down are are rusting out uh some of the photos you can see where the water line hits the dock on the decking and on some of the pilings themselves and keep in mind that's kind of the average of where it hits uh so 50% of the time it's higher when we do have those King TI um and even sometimes on just general high tide days that aren't necessarily high tide the dock is underwater there's a couple of photos in the agenda packet I do have some other photos to show if if you'd like to see them as well like on different days and those are tides that are not associated with a storm event um and you could tell that because we have all of our deck furniture out the plants the boats there when a storm's coming in all of that stuff is gone so so that's you know during tidal days um when when The Tide is High there's probably about a 4ot swing between like a low tide and a high like the average low and the average high tide there um so when it does get low it it you're able to see kind of the underneath and as you had mentioned um the the electrical lines in the conduit that feeds the electrical to the dock is underwater um during the average high tide um so we initially came in working with our contractor he recommended uh to raise the dock to 18 ft um to be able to pull the the uh dock out of the water but then also with regards to uh putting in a boat lift um the new boat lifts that they have they he likes to have at least a 10ft clearance between the decking and when that boat starts and then on top of that you have um you know the hip roof structure and we would trying to get the uh the dock at least four feet out of out of the mean high water so that way when it does fluctuate the framing that's under the decking sits about 2 feet under the decking so so everything would be under the water so that's originally why we came in with 18 ft um upon the review of the permit when it was discovered that you know we couldn't exceed 12 that's when we worked with staff to try to get the minimum required our doc contractor does not recommend us going below the 15 ft um so that's why we came in with the 15 ft uh in regards to the setback um as Penny mentioned currently the dock on that side is about 17 ft uh from that property line we can't really shift the dock over because we have mangroves on the west side so what we're doing is we're actually keeping it connected to the shore at the same place and then just angling it ever so slightly so by the time you get out to the end of the dock about 55 ft you pick up two additional feet from that side property line there's also an email uh support letter from our neighbor on that side has the neighboring dock on that side that uh supports the variance requests as well um in the agenda packet there's also a photo that kind of shows the straight on of four docks in a row um so it shows the SE operation of the docks out there as they exist all of the docks access um straight on none of them come in from the side um you know and right now there's about 50 ft from our dock to the West which currently we don't have an issue with the setback and there's about 63 ft when measured on Google Earth from the dock to the east which is where that that setback variance is being requested um if there's any questions I'd be happy to answer those any questions St so on the I think what you're talking about the last picture on the amenda package or the agenda package where you're seeing the four properties had on um so is is um are the Neighbors at the 12 or 15 foot Mark or where are they at so the neighbors are about 12T so probably with the old code yeah all of these dos in here were built around the same time right around ours was built around 1999 they're all built around the same time um I also want to point out that there the vegetation that's there I mean when we look out our our back property we can only see a part of our dock we can't see any of the neighbor dock um the last um portion of our property is conservation easement um so there's it's heavily vegetated within that area somewhere in your text also you mentioned there's mangroves out there is that that's not an issue now it's not an issue now and we're not um we're not looking at Shifting the dock so that would not be an impact Tom no I I I appreciate the keeping the mangroves and not touching those those are critical I see too many people messing with it and it doesn't need to happen I have no problem with 18 ft on on the on the height other than that I'm good with it Lance no I have nothing B how deep is the water there uh it varies depending on the tide um it's probably about 4 feet at the end of the dock during the average high tide at the end of the dock 55 ft straight out correct yeah okay good fishing right out there isn't it it is yes those mangr especially uh thank you so much have a seat so if if the if it pleases the board to extend this to 18 feet what does that take from us we need a motion to amend a motion to amend the the agenda the case whatever change okay are we thinking that's what we want to do gentlemen I'm good with that I don't have any problem with it I'm okay with it myself Stan yeah I'm fine with it too so do we want to amend the motion and second it and then we can I'll make a motion to amend my motion hold on I just want to clarify that um just remember that there are there's three parts to the variance so um that we're just you're just amending the the one request for the height correct yep exactly yes yes I'll make a motion to amend my motion to allow the height for a boat house uh change it from 15 ft to 18t do we need to State the case number Tracy is that why you're looking at us no I don't believe so no I'll second that okay so comments just clarification so the way it's now the the recommendation or the motion was for a 12 foot and you want to go to 18 is this no the recommendation originally was 12 it was going to go to 15 right now we're going 18 we're going to 18 all right that's fine make sure comments from the public anyone no Okie doie I will um You can call for a vote Dan Schmid yes Bennett yes sure Lance green yes Thomas Jordan yes motion so is that the only vote you have to take or we got two motions that was on the was that that was on the amendment now we have to vote on the original which is all three you want to do comments from the you want to do discussion first oh again yeah I didn't think anybody's G to stand up go ahead anybody we're good I you're on the vote now man approve yes yes yes yes Thomas Jord yes thank you awesome motion passes on that one we are good to go have a thank you so much all right item number five MDA Amendment Seventh Amendment to the Clark Professional Center and wedding chapel planned commercial development and master development agreement case number P RZA -24 d001 I will entertain a motion make a motion to approved case number P RZA a-24 00001 thanks for having really good numbers now yes better than all the zeros we us have second good evening pel Cru planning so the proposed Seventh Amendment only applies to this property here um highlighted in pink on the left at 5120 Riverside Drive the prior sixth amendment that was um that came before you guys not that long ago um actually had approved the former um house that was located on the property to convert into a bed and breakfast um after that sixth amendment was approved and they got in there and and and tried to start do some of the work it was determined that it was financially not feasible to to do that because of um it was a historic structure and trying to do all the improvements necessary to bring it up to a codes were just it just wasn't feasible so in 2023 that house was demolished um they still would like to move forward with the bed and breakfast concept and they've come back with this SE seventh amendment to take a kind of unique approach to that um instead of doing a bed and breakfast in a single structure doing it through smaller Cottages um with the same uh unit count that was originally proposed in the in the house that was previously there um so the use doesn't change still a bed and breakfast just in a cottage complex type of um layout so this has been reviewed by the staff development Review Committee there's no outstanding technical comments and staff is recommending approval the applicant's here to answer any questions you might have questions for Penny Stan right now Tom yeah Penny down in the uh I guess in the actual document here it has the addition deletions and changes in there so on the the second page I don't know what page it is does page section B I guess it would be I can't tell it talks about bed and breakfast in shall mean a house or portion thereof but then it it has uh that's the additions it does say the operator of the in may live on the premises so is operator Define who is that person is that a specific individual who's allowed to live there that's a pretty standard um allowance in the Ridgewood area for somebody who's like the manag of the facility okay M all right and that's that's actually allowed just for for anybody who's interested um any property along Ridgewood that's Ridgewood development has that provision for an owner occupy um an owner or manager of a business to live on the property it's kind of special to that area oh sorry wait wait sorry sorry good deep then back in section eight uh number eight I'm sorry believe me wrong here G number I I guess it is one um talks about the commercial access M so it says no commercial use access other than those uses specified in paragraph should be permitted from Riverside which mean I obviously get they want commercial stuff to come in from from uh from Ridgewood there but it says set existing driveways shall be blocked so they're going to close off access on those roads do you know on those entrances I'm not sure what they're they're they're talking about the existing no that's not changing this is existing this is text from the overall six sixth amendment yeah the only thing being added for the bed and breakfast is that sentence that's underlined okay that basically doesn't change from what was previously approved that the bed and breakfast can access from there um and then any ancillary deliveries okay cool what I Hadad else I'm good zoning on this is commercial correct yeah yes so that whole area that you see here in the blue is all part of the Clark Professional Center and wedding chapel PCD planned commercial development has it always been commercial um there's been parts of it that have been added and rezoned over time okay and will this I mean the purpose of the bed breakfast is to provide facilities for wedding parties and members and attendees yes that's the main I mean the applicant can probably speak to to that that's I think the main intent um I'm sure they could probably allow if somebody wanted to rent a cottage on their own to do that but their intent was to add to the to the wedding facilities that are out there and services that are offered it's not going to be like an Airbnb no it's a bed and breakfast but but theoretically yeah yeah I mean I'll let them speak to their business model as far as how they're going to do their rentals yeah but I mean would allow that that kind of yeah we don't have restrictions on that in the MDA that's all thanks can we hear from the applicant please good evening uh Joey posie 420 South Nova attorney for the the land owners and the applicant and uh uh just wanted to briefly say that you know Penny's pretty much covered it all and you know the this is the Clark family I know that we've done a few amendments over the years coming through here with this project and um you know I think Penny hinted on the head where really we're just reconfiguring what would otherwise be a bed and breakfast and the individual Cottage concept makes sense and now that you don't have an existing structure there that you can have a centralized location to do all of what would be common in a bed and breakfast but at the same time have the Cottages so if you get folks for that are there for the wedding chapel or you know take advantage of the facilities that that that's the goal and you know to be transparent that it does technically not restrict the the use of it by the public but at the same time it's the same family that owns it so uh you know the goal is to try to facilitate and accommodate those those wedding guests and uh to utilize the facility because you know if you can get everybody there and then you know get them using all those facilities and say hey well before fish closed it would have been hey go down to fish but um it be something new it'll be something new exactly so that that's the goal here so uh other than that it's fairly simple it's a quick check change on that end to get these folks rolling and I know they're excited so uh but uh you know the Clark family's been here for ages and you know you guys know who they are and if there's anything that they can speak to they're happy to and if there's anything I can do to help you know always here to answer questions so questions Dan Tom I'm good Lance no no okay thank you very much any other comments before I take comments from the public I just think it's a nice little project I really do I think it' be cute I think it's nice for the nice for that area anybody else comments from the public we have a lot of public tonight so surprised nobody wants to talk but it's fine Robert's got a list he's represen Robert's not even standing up you know it's a good project um hearing no comments from the public there's no further discussion I'll take a roll call yes yes yesen yes Thomas yes motion passes thank you so much job all right item number six application MDA Amendment 10th Amendment to the master development agreement for the Crystal Lake planned unit development case number pza a-24 d002 pardon motion you need a motion I yes please make a motion to approve case number P RZA a-24 z002 second Tim bman Community Development look at that we get Tim I get to do one of these every year and I pick the easy one um we get to do this is an administrative um MDA Amendment this property is currently owned by the city of Port Orange and what we're doing is assigning uses that are um allowed on the property that would be commercial industrial and Industrial Zone District on this property it is consistent with the current future land use of Warehouse industrial the property has had the warehouse industrial future land use for over 20 years uh we are just assigning those uses that are compatible with that future land use designation for this property um about two years ago the city our Planning Commission did the same similar for the property toward the East there Crystal Lake Business Park um so we're just kind of following that model this property is also going to be marketed for sale um so this basically assigns as uses which allows ows us to Market it for sale with specific uses allowed on the property then so staff's recommendation is approval here for any questions I'll start the other end B thank [Laughter] you uh how big is that parsel about eight and a half acres eight and a half acres and uh uh I see zone for motor vehicles does that include recreational vehicles currently the only thing is is Recreation and basically so it would be you know a ball field um a soccer field it could be possibly for what kind of you know that type of use then but that's what the current use is but we're looking to do the industrial uses to be consistent with future land use okay what does that mean that could be you know manufacturing warehouse storage distribution would be those uses and that is consistent with the future land use Motor Vehicles motor vehicle like sales storage sales yes storage is a permitted use in those two zoning districts okay thank you Lance no I got nothing H I'm good thanks St looking good you're good any comments from the public nothing man it's like crickets out here tonight not going to answer your [Laughter] email all right we have a first and a second no comments from the public any further discussion no I'll um take a roll call yes yes uh nice presentation yesen yes Thomas Jord yes all right awesome commissioner comments Bo um no nothing um just uh happy to be here and and uh participate and see the growth and development of our Our Town our city and uh proud to be a part of what B said you suck at that Tom no thanks staff because they they take care of so much stuff in advance get it get it set up for us properly and we're really that makes life easier for everybody thanks s ditto staff comments come on man come on you must have something nice to say about robt you got anything we just said nice things about you don't you have something nice to say about us there you go any public comments anything to say Robert yes come on up and talk to us Robert do got to come all with extra Drive man Commissioners Robert reinh 1425 Dex to Drive Port Orange um with regard to this last uh issue um I had hoped that somebody from Faith would be here because I invited them and because I would like to see this property become affordable housing and you know just the last uh council meeting they they passed they passed a consent agenda item about the annual action plan for the Community Development block grant and in that the city makes a promise that they're going to combat market trends to prevent access to affordable housing and the City of Port Orange continues to strive to create environment where existing affordable housing is supported and has provided guidance through several several City policies to Foster the development of additional affordable housing and you know they make a presentation every year I guess they have to report every year and they year after year they keep saying uh there's no uh property in Port Orange that the city owns that they're willing to commit to affordable housing and I to me this is an ideal op opportunity to make affordable housing and it backs up to a um a mobile home park and so that's my concern thank you you okay all right no other comments from the public no other commissioner comments make a motion to adjourn second we are adjourned right