Thanks everybody for being here. Start with the pledge of allegiance, please. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for
all. I take a moment. >> Thank you. Amen. >> Okay. If everyone has had a chance to review minutes, I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes from last month. >> I'll make a motion to accept the minutes from last month. >> Excuse me. We need to do roll call first. >> Oh, my apologies.
>> Here's so fuzzy. >> Only my second time. Can you please call the role? >> Stan Schmidt. >> Yes. >> Scott, >> yes. >> Here. >> Thomas Jordan >> here.
>> Okay. Quiz kid. I don't know. It's right here in front of me that says that I'm supposed to do that, too. Um, okay. So, I have entertained or I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes from last month. >> Make a motion to accept the minutes from last meeting. >> Second. Take a roll call from meeting minutes.
>> No. >> Vote. >> We can just All in favor? >> I. >> Anyone oppose? >> No. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Um, we have one agenda item this evening. Can I get a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve case
number DCAM-25-00005, LDC amendment chapter 17, section 29. Second. >> Uh right here. >> Good evening, Tim Burton with community development. Okay, this is a um >> code amendment to the land development code. A little bit different than our
typical um code amendments that we bring before you. This one is mainly just for a specific area within Port Orange Center. It's called the PCA area. It's about 1,21 acres. I'll probably call it 1,200 because we'll simplify with it, but just to get the total acres there. But this
area is located on the west side of Port Orange. It's west of I95 and of course, you know, east of Tamok Farms Road and below the FPNL Eastman and basically above Royal Palm subdivision there. So that's the um property that this code the text that we're reviewing tonight
applies to this specific area only within Port Orstead. So just want to give a kind of context of where this is in here. Then um this really started a planning exercise back in 2001 2002. um resulted in the adoption of the zoning district in 2002 along with the
community westside future land use amend our designation for that property there and that established a number of parameters on that property which still exists today and are not changing with this code amendment. So, I just want to kind of briefly go over those because those were adopted in 2002 and are still in place and will not be changing. And
um on so they've got a max overall density of that whole entire area is four units per acre which results into about 4,84 dwelling units are permitted within that area. Then um it does allow for higher densities to be in there um as long as basically that overall cap is
maintained. And um that is noticeable in a couple of developments that have already occurred out there where we have some residential subdivisions which develop two to three units per acre. Then you have you know the white palm apartments and springs which develop at 12 units per acre. So the overall is allows for that increase density in
areas then but at the end of the day when this is done developing we have to be at that four unit um cap per acre then. And of course staff does track that as we go through. So, um, that will be, you notice as we get closer to buildout, we'll be able to say when they're getting close to that and monitor that. Then, um, also too, it
does require development pattern requirements. The central town center, um, there um, higher intensities near I95. It does require the residential map buildout, a mixture of uses by percentage. Again, that was established in 2002 and is consistently maintained
as we do development projects in Port Orange in this area that come in. those are tracked to maintain that we're within those percentages and those still are in place then. And the last item is a transportation is a daily trip cap for this entire area at 62,600
average daily trips is in the comp plan that basically we have to monitor again when we have traffic studies that's all documented and tracked. Then that is not only in the comp plan and the zoning document but that's also in an interlocal agreement that is between the city and county that was approved back
in 2002. So there's a lot of documents that were approved back then which set this parameters up here um on there including like we've mentioned that code amendment for that area. Um and again with anything that was developed you know 20 25 years ago over the course of time we've looked at it and basically
there needs to be some changes and updates to it. Then um it has allowed for the development of about 400 acres um in Port Orange here mainly the residential subdivisions which I think we listed those in the staff report. um Coina Cove, Corin Plantation, West I
think Westport Reserve along with the multif family there and some commercial um that has come online then. So there has been some development in this area. It's mainly the southern portion and it was within the neighborhood and workplace district. Um the other districts that are here um to the north
here in that pink area which is vacant, those areas are mainly the community and again the work workplace district. um as kind of the development trends have in this area have gone in terms of the industry and kind of the job producing areas there those have more gravitated
toward the I95 um I4 corridor basically due to transportation needs then so this area that we have here which go ahead and get down to the next there sorry this is what the current district map plan is here it shows this long area here as basically being for office industrial um commercial industrial uses
here as kind of 25 years ago the plan was that would develop with the uses that you see kind of along the the Amazon and the services up along I4 the I95 corridor that is not the way the market's going. So basically the property owner is looking to kind of
relook at the vacant portion here and basically kind of align it with kind of the market trends for hopefully for the next 20 years for continued development in that area then. So what we have here is the proposed changes that are identified in that text change that we have and um it kind of
includes a couple items here. The first part is the update to the figure which shows the pods which can be developed and basically results in the workplace district which is kind of more of the industry commercial aspect of it. then being reduced by about 241 acres and
being replaced by um the community district which is more of a residential district but also too allows for commercial to be developed within it too. And then of course there's the west town center um which is supposed to be a mixeduse um project area about 100 acres
um with basically both retail commercial or commercial um residential office that is still intact in that area and actually the way it kind of works out basically increases overall two acres from what it originally proposed to be then. So that's the the main part in
terms of the shifting of kind of the general uses that are allowed in that area. Then um while we were in there working on it with the applicant, there was a number of outdated code references and duplicate code references that were in there. Um we basically removed those. There's a lot of things where reference
codes other sections of the land development code um that were not correct. So we basically just got rid of those because when you're reviewing a site plan and it meets the code requirement, you're naturally going to go to chapter 15 for signage. So we did not have have it listed again. Same
thing for parking. did not need to have it listed twice, you go to the parking chapter when you're doing a site plan. Then we want to do that to keep basically reduce the duplicate and also too if any code changes are made then then you don't accidentally forget to change it in one other section then which done in the past. So we're trying to make hopefully Penny and I are trying
to streamline it for the next group to come on here so they're not wondering what we were doing. Um design standards and permitted uses were consolidated again to reference the LDC just to make it more efficient. Um we did provide stop sorry we did provide some more design flexibility for the west town center that's again the
mixed use project that's more kind of a denser area and a lot of the requirements that we have in our code are more for kind of you know the single use sites end this is going to be you know commercial with residential and office kind of combined together. So we knew we needed a little bit of
flexibility in there um for that type of development to come in here. So we built that flexibility in there. So when that project is brought forward, it provides us some um flexibility to make sure we get the the project we want in that area. Then uh also too, it allows for within the community district only,
which is the blue area. It allows for the subdivision open space that's required. The applicant could allow that to be placed outside the subdivision, but within that um but that would have to be through a separate agreement with the city. So if they this just kind of
sets the framework to allow that option, but in order for it to be acted on, they still need to come before city council with a separate agreement to show where they're transferring that open space to on there. Then so all this does is set up the framework and then of course the actual action will still have to be
reviewed by staff and brought forward for final approval. And then the last item is the the request by the applicant to um reduce the minimum lot width in the community district from 50 ft to 40 ft. They have been working with various home builders
and that is one of the things that the home builders have, you know, inquired about for the type of model homes they want to put in there is a 40ft lot versus a 50ft. The lot width is the only thing that's changing. The minimum lot area of 5,000 square ft is staying the same. So basically we're just getting a
narrower lot but deeper lot then and that allows for basically you know the flexibility in terms of h housing style model style then which developers are looking for that to kind of change up the way the neighborhood looks then. So that is proposal that would only apply to the community district and the reason
why we're only applying the community district is because that's the only one that still needs to be developed >> um on that. So that is also listed in the um proposed text amendment changes. And this is just showing the map again here. Um, just to kind of highlight the major areas where we're changing is this
area right here kind of between McInness and 95 is going from the workplace district to the community district. Um, this area where the west town center is here was prior was the um workplace district and then you've got the residential here which used to be
where the west town center was then. So um the west those were the the major changes on that map then and then again a lot of the text amendments in there were the cleanup items there and then of course the last one was that lot width requirement um being requested to be changed from 50 to 40 for the community
and uh staff has reviewed it. Um again we've worked with the applicant by going through the text changes there and staff is recommendation is approval >> and the applicant is also here to further discuss their request. I want to tell you it was a long reading
a good bit of information. Um >> I think they took longer to explain how we got to here. >> I I appreciate you doing that because you gave a lot of >> versus the actual like the text amendment. I was like this is the onepage text amendment but then it's got seven pages of history. So >> well thank you very much for the very thorough explanation because it was like
I said it was a lot. Um questions for Tim Stan. I know you just explained that uh builders seem like they want the 40 foot width rather than the 50 foot width lot and I I personally just have a real problem with that. Um you know we've got
those out in uh what is it? >> We recently >> south the town here >> we have some in Meline Commons which just got approved. >> Yeah. And we've permitted a number of single family homes that have been built and constructed on those lots and they've been able to meet all of our
requirements there in terms of, you know, setbacks, grading, etc. And so, um, we've been able to, you know, work with developers on, you know, getting that type of housing model into that lot. >> I remember we had to, uh, redo the setbacks at one point in time because
the new, more efficient air conditioning units were shorter and fatter than the old ones. So now you had >> did that was in I think in in Wood Haven then part >> that was in Wood Haven I think. Yeah. >> And that was you know again too I think basically that was they had indicated
that the housing product that they had initially planned for that subdivision had changed then. So that's what kind of there. Then I think the intent here is that you know the app can explain more here too is that they would be letting these homeowners know ahead of time that that's a lot with requirement so they can make sure they're designing their homes to fit that then. But they can
further give more information as to why that request has been made. >> Well, I mean you pretty much explained what it is. I I'm just telling you my personal feeling. I don't like it. >> Uh that doesn't make doesn't make it right. It's just my personal feeling and that's it. because, you know, when you're facing the marketplace, you're
trying to sell these houses, you got to make it to where more more people would want to buy that particular model house. And I get that. Um, the other thing, and this is just a picky thing, which I've been known for, is I know I didn't have all my stickies on this time. Um, way
way way toward the back, uh, like on page 39, we were talking about >> 39, >> whatever it is. >> Yeah. 36 34. >> You're supposed to guess somewhere. It's >> on one of those pages. >> Just guess. Get back there for ways. >> 36 36.
>> We talked. All right. So, the first issue. >> Come on. >> Tell them the page. >> So, I just found it because I had to scroll through all these. Um, so if you look on page uh 35, we talk about we have to make all these
different agencies aware of what we're doing. And they talk about the Valuchia County MO. Is that still NPAO or is that TPO now? >> That is the TPO. >> TPO is turned to NO. >> Right. So, one thing that we were kind of cautious on that one is that this is
also language that is per listed in the VGMC resolution that we had adopted and also to the comp plan. So, basically we were keeping that same because we did not want to contradict other documents then. Right. >> So, that's why there but yeah, we you know a lot that's why we try to not put the agency's names in here because we
know we changed there. But you are correct that that is no longer the um MO is actually the blue flagler. Um >> right >> they've changed the name like five times. So >> I was gonna say it's been a while. >> I think like when we did the comp plan basically we kind of made a generic term there then for that reason then.
>> But yeah that just caught my eye cuz I'm going looking at all these agencies and you're going okay FDOT transist district 5. I guess we're still there. We haven't been redistricked on that have we? >> No. >> Okay good. It's not not not legislative redistricting,
>> but when we do these annual reports, we do they are sent to the correct agencies, >> right? >> All right, that's it for me. I'll let somebody else know you for a while. >> Okay, Angela, >> I'll build on that one subject so you don't have to
switch pages. But um that traffic studies based the future impact traffic studies based on information from 20 2001 correct? >> No what that was is that when that code was done basically the code was written was basically so when they started doing
development they had to do the basis traffic study then so yes back in 2002 basically it was done on what was there then every year since then we've had to do we have to do continuing monitoring reports then. So when we do the continuing monitor report we are reporting on actually what has been
developed then then so as property develops we continue to update that then >> okay so this analysis will be based upon the future land use map designation of the property as of June 25th 2020 2001 >> right that was the initial when
basically when >> so you just update that we're redlining something shouldn't you redline that no >> that was a requirement on there then this is bas that helps tell the past history of those too. >> Okay.
>> Okay. But in terms of so you know 24 years ago when basically the code was in place then that was kind of directing them to do that first initial study then and they did do that then to get that basis and then we continue to update >> I wanted to get rid of a lot of this
stuff but Penny wouldn't let me and I got scared I got >> she is the boss >> and I got scared after asking so many questions I just stopped doing that too but I had some questions too on that >> well she has an intimidating Yeah, >> she's standing over you in your desk. >> Yeah. So,
>> her small stature is >> I mean it does go for it. >> It does seem like that like the you know the data that we're going to use should probably reflective of what's there. The data was it was the data was used to collect a basis there which we created
on it then and we continue to monitor that area because we have that trip cap which we have to truly monitor then >> and we collect data every year to make sure that we are within that trip cap and under it then so we do continue to collect the correct data and we are accurately updating that there that was
just to get the basis then >> okay >> and we continue to collect the data to make sure that we do not exceed that trip of like 62,000 there. I think we're at 20,000. >> Yeah. >> Um on there then. So um and you know we've got on there. So we continue to
update continue to update the reports to make sure that we are staying within the limits there that were established. >> Let me clarify something. So when you say that you mean you take new numbers from the latest traffic manuals. Every year we have traffic studies for all the reports that for any development there
and basically at the end of the year we do a study and we take that data from those traffic studies that have been approved >> by Valuchia County right city staff um you know the transportation engineering engineers and we add that to that there and we >> so the numbers say that it used to be
1.5 trips generated by a certain uh dwelling unit and now the new numbers say it's 1.8 that 1.8 8 is what you use to count against that trip. >> We use the the numbers at that time and typically the numbers are getting less than. So in the early the early you're using the latest
>> we're using the latest data. That's what I mean. >> Yeah. >> We're not going back to you know traffic stud from 2004 and updating it based off you know trip generations. We're using as they come in we document them and carry forward that way. >> Yeah. You don't even have to say anything. You got three heads behind you
all bob. >> All right. I have another question. the I didn't have a chance to review the interlocal agreement because I didn't even know it existed. So where can I find that just >> we can provide that to you. The basis of that one is talks about the property um
being you know it will be all that property will be annexed in the port orange at that time and essentially that interlocal agreement also to documents the trip gap then which is the same number that we used in the comp plan and the zoning document.
So this is in Port Orange now or it will be >> there is a portion of it that is outside Port Orange. >> Okay. >> And we are process of annexing it in. >> I think this I don't think we have a map shows that then >> but but you can kind of see the dash port orange boundary line here on on
your screen there. >> You see like the orange and pink dash line. >> When you're talking colors might as well be talking to my cat cuz >> all right >> I'm color blind. There is a dash. >> There's a portion north of >> you can see the dash. Okay.
>> When I was on the school board, they used to I used to drive nuts cuz they started off using a stick to point it out on the map >> and they went the laser pointer. I go, "Yeah, I got nothing." >> But that is outside city of Port Orange, but the interlocal agreement says that that will be within Port Orange area. We actually in the process of annexing it.
And while it's outside the city of Port Orange boundary, it still has Port Orange future land use and Port Orange zoning on it then. So the annexation is just the last step in terms of this planning exercise that was started 24 years ago >> and there's nothing that would get in the way of that like that's an automated
like it's happening >> we're moving forward on that right now. >> So the interlocal agreement is between Port Orange County >> and the county nothing with the city of Daytona Beach. >> Okay. >> They have their own one that they get to monitor. >> Right.
>> And one last question. Um, you said staff keep track of the overall density. Which staff? >> Me. I'm planning. >> I'm even planning. Okay. >> Handy dandy Excel chart. Um
>> for real on that then basically as the projects come in to you know the review then basically we track everything from the you know the unit count there the acreage um everything you know tracked in there the square footage and you know and adjust it accordingly as the projects move forward then to make sure that we're keeping that in there then um
because there's going to get to a point where you're get close to those there. So when the project projects come in a pre-app meeting there, we have to be warning people, hey, you only have x number of units you can develop there. That's going to eventually happen. So we want to make sure that we, you know, constantly tracking that to make sure we have the latest updated information.
>> And given the numbers you put for so far, we're well within that buffer range. >> I mean, I'd like to sit in a lawn chair because I think it's a bunch of malarkey, but it actually counts because when you're sitting in it, it seems like a lot more
than that. Well, I was I was just gonna say so Angela if that uh >> Do you have any more? >> Yeah, please do if you I'm not trying to shut you down. >> Um no, I mean he I I emailed Tim beforehand because of the one I had
another question about like mix the uh multif family and senior housing like how those units get counted but they get counted as a unit. >> Correct. >> Right. Um, and then yeah, the only other thing which I thought was a little weird was
the red line of the limitations because it seems like you'll quickly exceed quickly get to your allowed 4,800 if you put in more multif family. >> Well, yeah, I think with the multif family that for the workplace district
the there is that limitation on the um kind of the distance requirement that we have in there from the commercial or the pavilion. So when you measure to the pavilion, basically that senior housing is pretty much at that last part then then. So the other two parts of the workplace district which are still
vacant then are outside that half mile then. So even if they wanted to put multif family, it would not meet that criteria then at that point then. So um >> kind of self-restricting based on how the boundaries are set up, >> right? >> Does that make sense? >> Okay, that's it. >> Are you sure? >> For now.
>> I'll come back if you need something. >> All right, >> Tom, tell us about how the traffic studies run. been down that road already. >> A hard time because I know that's one of your things. >> Pun intended. Yeah. Yeah. I you know what can I say? Now I want to ask a couple questions, Tim. Maybe not not
directly related, not an issue really, but it talks about the required land use mix >> and the residential is 35 to 60% and it goes through commercial industrial mixed use. Are is that just acreage? >> Acreage. >> That's what I calculate. So technically the maximum residential could be like
720 acres is what I calculate from 60% of the 1201 or whatever it is 1,200. Okay. Um the interlocal agreement is that strictly is that does that strictly deal with the
parcel that's not in Port Orange right now? Does it have anything to do with land that's on the I guess east side of 95 west of >> basically just the >> just inside >> area to bring that in there and that trip cap for that area. >> Okay. And then
going back to um there's a section here about admin allowing administrative approval >> of alternate block lengths, sidewalk layouts, driveway setbacks, building orientation standards. So, does
that mean they could change the driveway setbacks just by going through your office essentially? >> Yes, but that's only into that West Town Center District. And again, >> just in there. Okay. >> In there. Then again, that's supposed to be similar to kind of what we saw with the Bristol development in terms of what
they were proposing at Riverwalk. That mixeduse concept where we kind of talked about that >> that they're, you know, your typical driveway setbacks that you see at the Target lows are going to be different with that compact development then. So we wanted to provide that flexibility in there. Again, while it's just not
automatic approval, as staff, we'd have to be feel confident that is the correct way to go and safe. Then right, if >> we decided that we don't think that is we don't agree with that, then then they would have to come before through a variance or a code amendment then. So um it's not an automatic guarantee. It just
gives that staff the flexibility to make a decision. And you know typically we do that you know safety is the key and we kind of look at is it the right way to go on there then so just want to make sure it wasn't an automatic approval on there was um it was provided just to give that flexibility. >> Yeah >> but has to meet you know what we feel is
comp or comfortable with approving. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm good for >> where's Robert? I might need his bike to get around town. >> Yeah. Where is Robert? Uh, >> it's two. >> I kind of hope I was kind of hoping we
were done building residential. >> I mean, it make it all makes sense to me. I just am dreading the traffic. >> I mean, the under the old the current setup that it has too, they still have the ability to build residential then. So, um, it's not that we're adding
>> more residential in this area. It's just more of just allowing it to spread, you know, >> throughout the area then. It still has that residential cap there. Um, so I think it's, you know, important to know that it's not an increase in residential in this area. It's just more of reshifting kind of the colors on the map. >> The trip counts are already included in,
you know, Williamson. And >> yeah, >> it's not overloaded >> except for one little area. >> That area overload when we're on it. Hey, >> if you're going to talk traffic, you're talking to the wrong guy here. The other thing too to point out too right there with you which we didn't kind of hit on here because on it established is that
it does establish the road network in there and maintain that and does show the eventual connection of Meline Avenue out to Tamoka Farms Road. >> Yeah. I noticed >> and the eventual the crossover on 95 then. So I think with the Meline connection to Tammoka Farm Road that gives you another access point out of that area which currently does not exist.
>> Farms Road is my secret getaway. >> So don't be saying it out loud. >> Don't tell nobody. >> It's it's going to have to be. We will review those and we the traffic study, but that would give you at that point essentially four points of access out of that um you know of that area then. So that will help disperse traffic
that way too. >> So the poor folks at the north end of Tamoka Farms that ISB are all screaming about. >> Yeah. Yes, that's true. >> You know me, I just like blank land. Doesn't matter. Make sure you specify that not to
>> um one of my questions was already answered so I think I'm good. >> I think >> very right. >> She reserves the right >> I reserve the right I'm back at it like me. I have I still have a question about this vehicle trip
>> number. >> Yes. Because in the comprehensive plan >> future land use >> the maximum vehicle trips and that was based on the how they divided up this 1,200 acres. >> Yes.
>> Right. Now has that changed how that how that was divided up? I mean that was basically the future land use at that time is what was listed in there then right which they used that to help basically the uses that could be developed under the future land uses
>> that's how they got to the 62,000 trip >> that that when the future I mean in terms of those that are listed there those categories those no longer exist on that property it's just a single colored plan community west side future land use designation >> so all those designations that are
listed the urban you know the office transition the four to eight units per acre at 2 to four. Those colors basically are not on that property anymore. It is just one unified color, one unified future land use. >> The plan commercial, the plan commercial west side.
>> I get that. But this the 62,000 is based on that. Shouldn't we revisit the 62,000 based on not doing this plan? like over 800 acres is not a 0 to4 unit per
acre lot. >> Right. >> What is the 62,000 calculated based on? >> It is calculated based on >> I think >> I think are you I don't >> I'm just going to take a stab just because I I think I I'm trying. So that
was like freezing in time what that land was in 2001 and 2002 when this was initially being done and at that time all the agencies involved the county DOT everybody said when this develops as the planned community when you adopt all this stuff through after the interlocal
and the land use amendment and the zoning you can't they don't want you to have more trips than what's currently on there now. So they kind of froze in time the trips that were allowed based on the land uses that are listed there. That
was what was in place in 2001 2002. They kind of froze in time and said >> these land uses today will generate this many trips. When you change the land use to plan community, you're not allowed to generate any more than that. >> Right? >> So that's why we're not changing that language because it's the background
data to how we got to today. I don't know if that helps. No matter what you put in there, >> same no matter what. >> It's a fixed number. If you increase, >> it's the background date. It's just background data and analysis >> that got us to where we are today. >> Thanks.
>> Did that did that same clarify? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Additional questions for Tim other than the ones Maria is holding in advance. >> Um I do. >> Yes. Was it the city or the applicant
that wants to like remove language about um what what's prohibited within each section? >> That was we looked at that as a city and basically no other zoning district we identified was prohibited. It just lists what's permitted by basically you know
there. So that was just general cleanup. not seem clean. It seems unnecessary in there. And when you're a staff member looking at a code, you want to basically make it, you know, as efficient and less. >> So when you remove some of those those prohibited items, >> they're still prohibited.
>> They're still somewhere else in the code. >> No, somewhere else. >> We don't list in our code anywhere what items are prohibited. We just list what's permitted. So if you came in, if it says, you know, >> but you left like no adult entertainment and workplace, that's prohibited. There's certain requirements on that.
>> I mean, if you're going to get rid of all the prohibited Okay. It's Sorry. Can you finish what you're saying? >> Yeah. So, I mean, we didn't need to have, you know, pro prohibited, you know, mobile homes. I mean, it's not a permitted use then. So, that was cleaned up. The adult entertainment, that was a there's a specific Florida statute that
we had to revise on that one. That basically is why we left that in there then. So, >> so effectively if it's not on the permitted list, they would have to come in and say, "Hey, can we do this?" >> Yeah. It's not on the permitted list, they would have to basically do a code amendment to add that add on the permitted list for us to allow.
>> So that Yeah. That so it was just general cleanup. >> Okay. >> Yeah. No, in any of the other standards and zoning districts, we have community commercial, the residential, it only lists the permitted uses, does not list what's prohibited. >> Anything else?
Uh, so I my only question, you've kind of cleared this up already. When we change the lot lines from 40 feet wide to 50 feet wide, we're not increasing density. We're just saying that line that lot can be 40t wide. But you're not saying, "Oh, now that it's 40t wide, we can put in >> 5,000
>> 100 more residents or 200. >> You're still at that that you're keeping the square the square footage of the lot the same." >> And also too, the overall area of the lot is staying the same. They have to reconfigure how they basically do the design plans then because they've got longer lots versus when it's 50 then. So >> is that one of the deals where you have
rearrange your garages >> in that district >> an alley down the middle and then >> the community district does allow for that then that is a possibility and I was saying I hate the idea I wouldn't live in a neighborhood that was that narrow but I get it. You're not you're simply changing the type of structure. >> Well, if you need a roll of toilet paper just ask the guy next door.
>> I see just wave salt. Uh, the only other thing I have is I'm offended by the fact that 2001's 25 years ago. I just want that on the record somewhere. >> I would like to agree to that. I second that motion. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Thanks, Jim. >> Uh, Jessica, would you like to come up
and the applicant? >> Good evening. For the record, Jessica Gow firm one Daytona Boulevard in Daytona Beach, Florida. Um, I don't have much to add because I think staff did a fantastic job. Like you said, it's a long read. Um, a lot of interesting stuff going on here. Um on our side, just a little bit of background of how
this code amendment came about. Um and is that this property is a holding of the Crossy family. So think the ballparks, think the overall planning of Williamson back in the day. Um and this is kind of the largest piece left in terms of a master planning effort they have been doing for decades. You say 2001 was not too long ago. We've got
some postclosing agreements um with that family that go back decades before that in terms of where Williamson was planned for eventually and how that got constructed. Um, so when we look at this corridor, we are really looking at it as a focus and intention of what this corridor looks like from a roadway, a
recreational area, and kind of overall development. As staff noted, originally this was kind of pictured as the industrial hub. Um, what you have seen actually developed out here is pretty low density residential development. And so I think if we did a survey of those existing residents today, they would say
we do not want a large industrial project and truck traffic on our local roads. Um so as that has shifted we've kind of looked at what the mapping looks like and how this will be oriented in the future. Um one of the key pieces that brought this forward is that we are currently discussing with the city the dedication of 75 acres of property in
this area for the expansion of that existing crossy park. Um so that was contemplated when the city went through their master planning for the park bonding. Um and we've been talking about it for about two years now in terms of what that looks like. So at the core of this project um our vision of it is that
there will be a park facility. That's why you see that change in the town center district so that that town center abuts the park. You get a really great community activity and activation there. Um and the roadway that was originally planned when this first came through I think Willow Run has right away dedicated for a corridor over the
interstate and out to Shuns. Um as noted by Tim that will not be Willow Run in our current design. You can see in the updated plans that will be the Meline extension. And so what we did again a postc closing back in the day um is we set up the potential expansion of Meline
through what is now in Daytona Beach the Walker's Green site that was you know is being developed. So that corridor remains there are other crossings across other of the family holdings that maintain that corridor and that will come in that will connect McInness up and Crossy up and over to Tamoka Farm to
create that access circulation. Um, so really what you see on the design, especially touching on the 40 foot lots, and we understand some people love them and some people hate them. My best friends live in a town home. I live in two and a half acres. I don't want a town home, but some people do. Um, in
this corridor where you're going to have a town center and you're going to have a park, you can have apartments and you can have town homes. Um, that 40 foot really helps to create that transitional stagger from dense housing types to lower density. And so what we see is some really great rear loaded products.
um along the park front and things like that that we would love to experiment and see out here. Um it's just a a fantastic new feel that we don't see a lot of in Port Orange or Valuchia County. Um that would require that compact lot and we're talking to builders about some of those designs and we think as long as you have the
architectural standards and treatment, it would be a really beautiful area. Um that is the reason for that request. The overall pockets, I think we talked about the open space, the Meline and Willow Run. want to make sure I'm hitting on everything you guys brought up. I will
say the NO is just a general term for municipal planning organization. So, as long as it changes names, that still remains as the key. Um, and we do have a lot of interlocal agreements even with Daytona on Utilities here. So, we've taken all of those into account. So, with that, we're here for questions.
>> Let's go the other way, Maria. >> Yes. So, you actually brought up something I was thinking about, totally forgot about when you asked me if I had a question earlier. Um I'm also on the parks and wreck board and we have been trying to get a piece of this property for a very long time
for soccer fields etc. So you're when you're talking about the park that you want to build >> is that part of the property that we're looking at that we want soccer fields yada yada yada is going to be part of the sports complex. So where you have
the existing park facility now about 75 acres directly around it is planned. That's what we own um for dedication. We are working through the details of that agreement with the city at this time. The school board also owns 25 acres. Yes. >> Um and we are trying to wrangle them into the discussion as well.
>> Well, they I thought they decided they weren't going to build there. >> Okay. I thought so. I thought that's what I heard last night. >> I will not speak on their behalf. Yep. Um, so, so I I guess I just want to make sure that the land we need for parks and
wreck based on the bond that we have that we want to build on, we're not going to be losing that. >> Correct. This does not change that. That is the plan. >> That's what I wanted to know. >> I'm good. >> Are you sure? >> Maybe. >> Tom, >> I'm good. Thank you very much. Angela,
>> um, is there any kind of planned like for public transportation within your >> No, >> sidewalks, bicycle trails, all of those are regulated by the city code. Nothing specific. I think the town center has specific details about how you're supposed to activate that core for
pedestrian activity. Um, but nothing like a a fun rail line or a trolley or anything like that yet. >> Or like ebikes have their own lane. Can ebikes have their own lane somewhere? the town of the road. >> Yeah, >> golf cart paths. We've seen it all.
>> Yeah. Right. >> Um, no, I don't have any questions. Thank you. Of course, >> so I was thinking about this more. So, we're going from a 50 by 100 foot lot >> to a 40 by 125 basically is what it
mounts to. >> And we won't be increasing the number of lots because the space is still there. Now you got to just jiggle those around into the into the map area where you can squeeze these things in. >> Um,
and I think the uh development down in New Smur family days or family Yeah. it >> because they've got that town park in the middle of that. >> And those are all backloading in their garages. >> So that would be similar. Although I
think that's a wider lot is my guess. I think those are still 40 feet. There's a number of subdivisions where road is in the middle and the alleys are on the sides for garage access. We've got a couple neighbors like >> I mean those look great if you ever go down there and see that. I mean that whole thing was really well thought out
and they did a nice job on it all bit. >> So um that's just the whole thing. Now, the other thing that we don't have the crowd here tonight, uh, but is the storm water >> cuz we've had a lot of people visiting us about storm water lately and the
impervious coverage and get all this kind of stuff. Um, are we still allowing, this might be a Tim and Penny question, are we still allowing enough area to adequately handle the runoff from these lots? and do we have to have
uh some storage ponds and then pumping and all that kind of stuff we're having to deal with right now. And that may not be something you've >> worried about, but uh >> I think we're all worried about it. >> You're going to get an earful of it because as soon as you start mentioning building houses, you're going to have
all of our friends will be here again. >> Yeah. And what I will say is that, you know, this change doesn't impact any of the the current stormwater regulations. And so when a development comes in, they will have to prove that they meet all of the standards that the city has for storm water and treatment. Um I will say that from the overall planning
perspective, the uses that are were originally contemplated in the PCA district um were pretty intense. We see that trip cap, we see the overall spread of commercial industrial um about 50% of it is currently developed and we're at a third of the potential development. So they're coming in under. Um, and when
you look at single family development, I know that a lot of people say that's more homes, it's more footprint. Um, but typically those have, you know, a lot coverage of 35%. Um, industrial developments are usually hovering around 80% of impervious. And so when you're looking at the shifting of uses, at the
end of the day, I think introduction of more residential uses than kind of large industrial buildings probably reduces overall impervious. But it this has to be tested when site plans or plots come in and they'd have to meet all of the requirements. Because one of the things that we talked
about in here, I can't find the page on this one, but we talked about um common usage. And one of the one of the statements in here is that storm water retention could be counted as the common usage. >> Okay. And that's I don't know if that's going to be uh going to take a little
bit of sales to the public when we start talking about that because right now everybody's got their tail in about storm water and you've seen this and if you followed the city council you've seen what's going on with them. Sounds like Tim wants to speak up. >> Yeah. The on just on on this one. This
is just establishing a lot with requirement. They would still have to go back design it. We're not changing any of our storm water requirements. No state requirements. They still have to meet all those. The common use there basically is talking about is open space there. Typically in a subdivision other subdivisions, you have to have green
space and then you'd have a pond that in this case you can count that pond as your common open space. And so you're still required to put the correct size ponds in there. Nothing in this code changes that at all. >> Right? Because we're we're still at the 30,000 foot level. We're not down to
site plans and all that kind of stuff. Right. >> The zoning >> and that's going to be at some point in time in the future. >> All right. I just want to, you know, make sure because this is one of the things that you will get questions about and we will all get questions about too. Um, so that's why I'm just asking at this point in time. I think that's
enough for me to >> anything else pop up ahead. She >> other than I am so happy this is not apartments. Well, it doesn't say that. >> You don't want single family.
>> And they were the limitations are removed for the 13% and the 7%. >> Mhm. >> The limitations are removed. >> Thank you everyone. How many? >> Thank you. >> Discussion.
>> Well, again, this is the 30,000 foot view. Okay, there's a long ways to go before any dirt gets turned out there to build anything. Okay, so from this standpoint, the only thing I don't like is I don't like the 40 foot lots. But again, that's me. I'm not trying to sell these things.
>> Um, and these folks are and they're willing to say, "Yeah, we can sell them." I I I think for me the density part, if you're not saying 40 foot lots because we want to put more houses in, >> I'm okay with how the people who want to sell the houses or develop the property want to develop the house and if they
feel like they can sell them, great. >> Yeah, we can only get >> it wouldn't be my preference if I was moving into the neighborhood, but there seems to be an appetite for that. >> Um, so I'm not I wouldn't get in the way of that as long as the density as long as not asking for more people to be on the road, >> right? Okay. >> Which is which is what we're not getting
any more lots. >> Exactly. >> We still have the lot limit. So, we're okay on that. >> And I do appreciate Stan you sort of clarifying for the record the notion that we're not discussing storm water right now. That will all have to be addressed and they haven't asked for any changes to anything that currently exists. >> And if they did, that would have to
happen at a later date. But what we've seen is some of the people get excited and they ignore the fact that we're looking at a 30,000 foot level. We're not getting down to the weeds yet. And that's the thing that I keep wanting to bring up is like, hold on, just wait. We
got to get down to where we start actually doing the site plans. I'll say one of the hardest things for me is hearing about traffic density and then sitting in the traffic. >> That's exactly. >> So, I just heard this really great report today and I'm not feeling it from the seat of my pants while the car is
running and I'm stopped underneath the 95. But we have to go by the facts and the data that's in front of us and not for the one or two hour windows from time to time when we're frustrated and hoping your air conditioning is working. >> And soon we'll have soon we'll have the new relief valve to the top of us.
>> That'll be awesome. >> We'll see. >> We'll see. >> I'm not convinced. >> Maria, any comments? >> Um I think I'm good. But I do have one quick question for Tim now that I think about it. What is speaking of traffic and and the flow of all of this? What is
going on with Yorktown Extension? >> Is it I mean we keep talking about it going all the way through. Is that not going to happen? >> That that is still in the plans. >> Still in it. >> Yeah. I mean basically at this time >> just curious I mean there there's property that still needs to be developed in that area. I believe that we have you know agreements on that then
and I think at that time when that property there develops then that's when Yorktown Boulevard extension would be looked at but >> Okay. I was just curious when we want to have additional comp. >> It's still shown on the comp plan as a basically a future road connection then on then so it's just not in the you know
construction stage at this time. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I was just curious. Yeah. >> Hey Tim, how common is it for an applicant to actually redline a land development code? Is that common? >> Yes. This is >> that's how you this is basically there's two kind of ways you can do a code amendment. is staff initiates code
amendments which we've typically seen here but also too anyone can basically submit a code amendment to us and basically as part of the application they submit their red line or the changes to us said we've recently had that this one um we've had a billboard
one a few years ago then >> um there you know we don't get a lot of uh code amendments from an applicant then um but we you know they are they that's the process then if they they're submit the application we tell them to provide the straight through and underline so we can review it then and then we typically sit down with them and
kind of go through it and you know and make changes as needed then but it um it is you know they are allowed to anyone can make a request to change the code. >> Okay, thanks. >> Thank you very much Tim. Um public comment >> still something is wrong.
>> Robert, where are you man? >> Yeah, he wasn't at parks and rec. >> Someone has checked on him though, right? He was at oxygen at the city. >> He was at the city council somehow slighted that he's at. >> I know it's at least we've seen him because there was a time there where he
missed a couple meetings. I was thinking maybe somebody needs to do a wellness check and just see how he's doing, but uh he's he's here. >> He didn't bring him bread. >> Yeah. >> All right. Hearing no public comment. Are there any other discussion from the committee? Nope.
>> Hearing none. Can we call the role? >> Stan Schmidt, >> yes. >> Scott Stagger, >> yes. >> Angela Luk, >> yes. >> Murray Mills Benet, >> yes. >> Thomas Jordan, >> yes. >> Okay, passes unanimously.
>> Us. >> Very much for that. >> Go us. >> Maria, would you like to make some additional commission comments? >> I would not. just thank you to the staff for putting up with us and um these reports I mean they are a lot to read
but you guys do an amazing job on it and we truly appreciate it. It answers all the questions I think I'm going to have when I read the title and then I read through and I'm like oh okay okay so it definitely makes it much easier for us. >> And I would echo the same thing Tim you answered questions I didn't know I had.
So I I truly appreciate the thoroughess with which you went through that because there was there was a lot. >> So thank you very much for that Tom. >> I would agree 100%. Thanks guys. That's it. Angel. >> No. Thank you. >> Stan, >> you're looking good. >> Okay. >> Staff.
>> Staff comments. >> Just we want to go home now. >> Public comments one more time. >> Hearing none. >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Okay. >> Second. Anyone want to?
>> All in favor? Now you're ajourned. Thank you.