Practice English Speaking&Listening with: City Commission Regular Meeting 10/27/2020 6:30PM [Part 2]

Normal
(0)
Difficulty: 0

continue to the november 10 2020 meeting

next item up is eight c these are related to uh we got three

items cd and e they are related to the property at 1990 mayport drive

so the attorney will read these ordinances a second time by title only ordinance number

9920 an ordinance annexing into the city of new smyrna beach one plus or minus acres of

property located south of turnbull bay road west of canard street south of mayport avenue addressed

as 1990 mayport avenue providing for redefining boundaries of the city designating the property

within commission zone three providing for public hearing provided for required filings providing

for collecting ordinances providing for several ability and providing an effective date ordinance

number 120 an ordinance of the city of new smyrna beach amending the comprehensive plan changing the

future land use designation of one plus or minus acres of land located south of turnbull bay road

west of canard street south of mayport avenue dressed as 1990 mayport avenue from volusia county

rural to city rural providing for amendment of the associated compensation maps to show the area

incorporated into the city providing for public hearing providing for conflicting ordinances and

providing an effective date ordinance number 10120 an ordinance of the city of new smyrna

beach residing one plus or minus acres of property located south of turnbull bay road west of canard

street south of mayport avenue addressed as 1990 mayport avenue from volusia county a3a

transitional agriculture airport overlay to city a3a transitional air agriculture airport overlay

zoning district providing for conflicting ordinances providing for severability and

providing an effective date okay we'll now conduct a second reading in quasi-judicial public hearing

in accordance with city code 2147 if anyone has any expertise communications disclose on this

item now is your chance to do it we'll start with the vice mayor anything to disclose none to the uh

commissioner sacks i have none commissioner mcgirt commissioner hartman all right we'll first hear

from city planner uh mr mathen um samantha if you would state your full legal name your educational

professional background do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be

to treat the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you my name is robert george mathen jr

i have over 29 years in different public public sectors for the last 19 years with the city of new

smyrna beach i've held the positions of permit technician zoning technicians and associate

planner and i'm currently the senior planner for the city of new smyrna beach okay it's any

member of the audience with the commission wish to question him on his professional qualifications

any objections to qualifying him as an expert witness being no objections he's determined

to be an expert in the area of land development qualified to give opinion testimony mr maithan are

you familiar with the ordinances number 99 100 and 101 regarding the property at 1990 mayport avenue

i am familiar with all three of the applications please state whether it's consistent with the

city's comprehensive plan and share your recommendation all three applications are

consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and staff recommends approval thank you you remember

the city commission wish to question uh or the applicant wished to question mr michaels yesterday

hearing none will not hear from the applicant or any uh witnesses that would like to speak to this

item anyone wish to speak to this seeing none any members of the public seeing none uh we'll

now hear from closing remarks there are none um all right second reading of public hearing

is closed we'll now consider ordinance 99-20 do i have a motion to adopt or when it's 99-20 so move

second motion by commission mcgregor second by commissioner hartman city clerk your feud colorado

commissioner mike eric yes commissioner sacks yes vice mayor colony yes commissioner hartman

yes mayor owen yes thank you okay ordinance 120 do i have a motion to adopt

so much exactly uh commissioner mcgurk made the motion commissioner sachs i heard second

city clerk should kill the world police commissioner sacks yes vice mayor colony

yes commissioner hartman yes commissioner yes mayor owen yes thank you and ordinance 101-20 do

i have a motion to approve second commissioner hartman second by sac city clerk feed colorado

vice mayor colony yes commissioner hartman yes commissioner mcgirk yes commissioner sax

yes mayor owen yes thank you i'm hearing a ring over there i don't know yeah he's working on all

right eight f ordinance 103-20 this is resolved 16.7 acres from r2 to residential estate and a2

agriculture this is a down zoning remember for uh i just want to point that out every time you may

this is the first time i've ever seen it it's probably the last time the first time

ever yep that's right uh so the attorney will read these ordinances a second time by title

um just for the record the comprehensive plan has been sent off to the state so that second

reading won't happen until we hear word back from them but the rezoning is on for tonight and the

effective date is hinges upon the comprehensive plan amendment but we can go ahead and handle it

tonight okay ordinance number 10320 an ordinance of the city of new smyrna beach rezoning 16.7

plus or minus acres of property located north of pioneer trail west of north glencoe road east of

blue ellis street addressed a 647 luella street from city r2 single family residential and re

residential estate to city a2 agricultural zoning district providing for conflicting ordinances

providing for severability and providing an effective date all right gentlemen same thing on

export a uh vice mayor anything loose goes on this one uh none city uh sorry commissioner of sacks

nothing to disclose commissioner nope nothing i have none also mr nathan you are still under oath

uh are you familiar with the uh ordinance and the uh regarding the property located

at lowell street 647. i am familiar with the application please state whether it's

consistent with the city conference of plan and share your recommendations on this property

this application is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and staff recommends approval

okay what do you remember the commission or the applicant wish to question mr mathema's testimony

seeing none we'll now hear from any members of the public or witnesses that would like to speak

on this item seeing none come forward we will now close the quasi-judicial and public hearing and

uh the city commission will now consider ordinance 103-20 do i have a motion to

adopt ordinance 103-20 yes i'll make that motion second and i want to make a

i need to amend i did actually speak to someone who lives nearby this property i was calling to

confirm that i was actually reading it correctly and the person wanted down zone okay so anyway

clarification on some experts either all right um so we had him we had a motion by vice mayor

a second by commissioner mcgurk city clerk if you'd call the roll police commissioner hartman

yes commissioner mcgirt yes commissioner six yes vice mayor clooney yes mayor owen

yes thank you uh ordinance 103-20 has been adopted thank you 8 g 105 20 second reading public hearing

which would designate the new smyrna golf course golf club of course a local landmark

city attorney read this a second time by titan london ordinance number 10520 an ordinance of

the city of new smyrna beach establishing the new smyrna beach golf course located at 1000

wayne avenue as a historic landmark in the city of new smyrna beach providing for public hearing

providing for conflicting ordinances providing for severability and providing an effective day

okay mr nathan do you have a report uh yes mr mayor it's the goal of the historic new smyrna

beach preservation commission to designate at least one property each year as a local landmark

this year the commission nominated the new smyrna beach golf club

course to be designated as a local landmark at their september 16 2020 meeting their vote was 7-0

the new smyrna golf club course was designed by a famous golf architect which is donald ross mr ross

has designed close to 400 golf courses including the famous pinehurst number two in north carolina

this course was designed in 1947 was one of the last courses designed by mr ross ms ross passed

away in 1948 and was inducted to the world golf hall of fame in 1977. the first downholes were

open to play in 1949 without a final completion of the course in 1956. the local landmark designation

would be for the course itself since it's tied to mr ross the structures located on the property

would not be included since they were constructed at a later date and would have no tied to mr ross

in august 2018 the club is listed as a partner on the florida historical golf trail

and the application has to meet at least one of the criteria to be eligible for this designation

since the application meets six out of eight criteria staff would recommend the

city commission to designate the new smyrna golf club course as a local landmark due to

the history and architectural value to the city and that's the subject of my report

thank you bob it's the public hearing any members of the public wish to comment on this

item seeing none will close the public hearing do you have a motion to adopt ordinance 105-20

i would like that motion uh to make that motion and i do have comments

if it's seconded all right second we have a second go ahead commissioner vice mayor

uh as was stated this is based on the uh the fact it was designed by a very prominent person

and as a person who does play golf and was out there earlier today

i could testify that each golf course designer has particular things that he includes in his design

and this course has all those features we may think of it as a a simple municipal course

that's not really that great in length or size and pretty compact but some of the features that

were designed in there make it a quite difficult course to play so uh i think this is well deserved

okay we had a motion we had to say good question so this just is the

course itself and doesn't necessarily include the buildings or the structures

that is correct it's just the course itself okay so this would not hinder any type of maintenance

issues or or buildings uh that needs to be either torn down or replaced or built

it's just the course and the layout of the course and the design itself thank you

okay i wish i had as much

time to play golf i tried to play one time it was hard so you'll have to come out sometime

what's that yeah once once one of us is no longer the commission we can we can do that

all right we had a motion we had a second city clerk feed color roll please commissioner mckirk

yes commissioner sachs yes vice mayor colony yes commissioner hartman yes mayor owen yes thank you

all right item eight eight thank you bob uh second reading quasi of a public hearing ordinance would

approve a second amendment to the ocean gate pud master development and conceptual development plan

we will now uh so the attorney will read ordinance 10720 a second time

ordinance number 10720 an ordinance of the city of new smyrna beach amending the ocean gate

pud master development agreement and conceptual development plan authorizing the mayor to execute

the second amendment to the ocean gate commerce center master planned unit development agreement

providing for a public hearing providing for conflicting ordinances providing

perseverability and providing an effective date in accordance with city code section 2147 b2

a request has been made for any written communications related to this item and all

responsive records have been submitted to the applicant and the city clerk

if anyone has any ex parte communications or site visits or expert opinions to disclose now is the

time to do it this includes the substance of any communications and identity of the person with

whom the communications took place any details on the site visits or any additional written

written communications that have not already been disclosed we'll start with the vice mayor colony

uh i haven't been to the site other than driving by it i have no written communications with

anybody on this i did meet with a mr mike lopez who was principal either in the firm

or person promoting it which he pointed out the changes that were made and basically that was it

have you had an opportunity to review the written materials that have been submitted

to you for consideration tonight on this item yes i have is there anything you heard or

were told as part of any ex parte conversations regarding this item that are not included in the

written record that has already been submitted with the clerk none will your vote tonight be

based solely on the written record submitted and the oral testimony given tonight on this item

yes i will okay commissioner sachs j ex parte disclosures yes uh in the previous commission

i had an ex parte a verbal one with uh mr lopez and mr snowden regarding their wishes for this

property in the future have you had an opportunity to review the written materials that have been

submitted to you for consideration tonight on this item only preliminary sketches drawings

in the staff report and the other items that have been submitted you've reviewed this

very hard to recall i think they were provided by the applicants um i'm talking about the agenda

item the the staff report the items yes is there anything you've heard or been told as a part of

any ex parte conversations regarding this item that are not included in what you've reviewed

for tonight's material yeah will your vote tonight be based only on the written record submitted and

the oral testimony given tonight on this item yes marilyn yes any exported disclosures uh

no i did receive one uh email from uh mike lopez requesting a meeting that i realized earlier this

week i forgot to respond to so sorry mike have you had an opportunity to review the written materials

that have been submitted to you for consideration tonight on this item yes um you've already stated

no ex parte conversations will your vote tonight be based solely on the written record submitted

and the oral testimony given tonight on this item yes commissioner mcgurk any exported disclosures

yes i've had meetings and discussions with mike lopez and mr snowden both senior

and i guess would be a junior both from previous times and recent regarding this agenda item

have you had an opportunity to review the written materials

that have been submitted to you for consideration tonight on this item

yes is there anything you heard or were told as part of those ex parte conversations

regarding this item that were not included in this written record no will your vote tonight be based

only on the written record submitted and the oral testimony given tonight yes commissioner hartman

disclosures yes over the last four years i've met with mr lopez and mr snowden

senior to discuss this i've attended both are the planning and zoning meetings where

this was presented before planning and zoning and then most recently met with

mr lopez and the younger mr snowden to discuss what they had presented

at the pnz and to have some conversations about what they actually had planned going forward

have you had an opportunity to review the written materials that have been submitted to you for

consideration tonight yes i have is there anything you heard or we're told as a part of those ex

parte conversations that are not included in this written record that's before you yes in

our most recent conversation we talked about uh security issues going forward uh possibly

helping out with some infrastructure as uh and helping with the police department in doing some

a video stuff going forward and um they both seem the meaningful to that idea okay other than that

particular conversation and the written record and innate world testimony tonight will your

your decision tonight be based on any other evidence yes it will just on tonight's okay okay

so for the record it will be based on the conversation regarding the infrastructure

the written record and any oral testimony savannah that's yes thank you

okay

all right

now hear from chief planner gov uh you are still under oath do you swear firm that

the evidence you're about to give will be the truth oh sorry about the truth i do thank you

where did bob you yes i read the name here but i thought it was bob still standing up there my bad

all right uh if you would please state your full legal name and give your educational professional

background uh my name is jeffrey gove i'm chief planner and have been since 2012 i've been

practicing professional planner in the state of florida for over 30 years and um have been

a member of the american institute of certified planners for the last 25 years okay so remember

the audience or the commission wish to question mr gove on his professional qualifications

if not are there any objections to qualifying him as an expert witness in the area of land

development hearing no objections mr gove is determined to be an expert in the area of land

development and qualified to give an opinion testimony concerning these matters mr grove

are you familiar with ordinance 107-20 regarding the ocean gate pud yes i am please state whether

it's consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and share your recommendation on the ocean

gate pud uh yes we've found it consistent with the comprehensive plan for its activity center future

land use designation and the other compound elements and are recommending approval okay

remember the commission or the applicant wish to question mr gove on his testimony

go ahead vice man i did take a look at the plan i know it goes back a number of years

and since it was originally approved we've modified our wetlands criteria concerning density

we've also increased the landscaping requirements along 44. though are those items addressed

in this revised plan uh they're not specifically addressed in this plan

there's a proposed hotel as part of this second amendment that does have a density

calculation associated with it so we didn't go to that aspect of calculating the density

except for the fact that well i guess i need to start from the beginning with

where we are in the plant this is 181 acres that's pud that was first approved in 2013.

first amendment to the pud was approved in 2017 which added just under three acre

property didn't really add it but it was called for its development for the race

track and the entrance road at the signalized intersection and the second amendment is now for

a few different items but one is for change to the conceptual plan to allow more definitive

development of the north 47 acres that's proposed to be developed into 10 lots one

of those lots is for a proposed holiday inn and they have submitted along with this application

concurrent applications for subdivision of the property and a site plan for that holiday inn

we reviewed those in game comments and i actually reviewed the holiday inn

plan for density within its own property without consideration of wetlands but

that's something that we haven't addressed with the applicant

that's maybe a question as far as

what the second amendment uh would consist of but again we were using the old pud documents

um jeff i could interject there the the wetlands ordinance that we passed last

year for the residential density would not that this application would not be impacted by that

so right there's as far as i remember the pud has no residential component

the only thing is transient lodging that does have a density calculation

um i'm not sure if our new density is yeah

jeff could you address the landscaping component sure the landscaping um

this was based on the previous buffer requirements that applied throughout the coc where there

was typically a 45-foot landscape buffer which consisted of the 25-foot utility easement and a

20-foot landscape buffer area behind that which in the activity center as you'll see in some of the

areas like walmart where it's built that actually contains a 10-foot sidewalk within it seating it's

kind of a unique fish feature designed for the activity center the four quadrants of 95 and 44.

their plan that they've submitted the subdivision plan shows that 45 foot easement or

buffer with as the mda re requires i actually looked at the landscape plan for the subdivision

for the 44 frontage and calculated their proposed trees and they actually exceed what's

the minimum requirement in the new coz buffer even though the new cod buffer is 50 feet

they have more trees in their 20 feet of linear frontage than what would be required in the csd so

the cse requirements don't apply to this area because it's activity center but what they've

proposed would provide more landscape materials than the minimum now required in the coz so so

the answer is no it's not the 50-foot dimensional width that is required in the coz but again our

ldr and i think the comp plan specifically say the activity center is not contained within the coc

so in other words are the new landscape regulations do not apply to this area

but if you compare them this is

in excess earlier than what we would require in the coz less area but more trees and trips

i understand this is an area that's going to be very highly intensely developed which i

honestly don't have too much problem with i do have a little bit of difficulty with

the appearance from 44 and i know that when a different pud came up for a modification

approximately a quarter mile to the east along 44. the developer was more than happy to amend his

plan as part of his amended plan to include that additional buffer width and i would like to see

that in this plant grant that it's only five feet in width and probably won't result in more trees

but as we look down along 44 especially where the new apartments are we can see how important

those buffers are and if we want to maintain the appearance along that road i would like

to see that even if it's an additional five feet i wanted to see that in the plan will

there be an opportunity later on in this approval process to request the developer to add that with

uh there would be but it would be as the very end step of the design process this pending

subdivision application that they submitted at the same time as this one again we reviewed it

we gave them comments they didn't move further because it's dependent on this mda amendment so

if it came to you again it would be as a subdivision approval and at that point it

would have been a few months or even maybe a year since the original submittal and to add

more area to the buffer at that time would be kind of almost after the fact it would

be a last minute change and if it's going to be done it may be better done at this point

okay

vice mayor can i elicit questions from mr gove yeah come back too all right i'm thinking i i

thought so all right any other questions from the commission of mr governor's testimony

or the applicant any questions of mr gove and if not we'll hear from the applicant at this

time if they have a presentation i may have skipped over a few of the elements that are

part of the okay go ahead just to go through them briefly um what this does is add three new uses

car wash mini warehouse a wave pool those may or may not be in the second phase the wave pool we

asked them to add a definition for that in this amendment because we don't have one in our ldr

there's another request change in here for the floor area ratio far

that is requested to be changed from the existing 0.5 to a 0.6 and that would be

just for the lot 7 holiday inn proposed site plan we do have that site plan in as i mentioned

we did review it this current floor area ratio for that holiday inn lot 7

property is now 0.58 so that site plan can't go forward unless this change is made

or the property is altered in some other way maybe providing more a lot area

so that's one other significant part here another part deals with

how the roadways are called they were pla mda calls for them to be internal drives 70

foot right away they were always intended to be private drives maintained by the property owner

not maintained by the city so their request was to change those to easements which serve the same

purpose as far as we're concerned the width would go from 70 feet to 64 but they would still have

the same components of the two bike lanes on each side and two sidewalks on each side of the road so

we were okay with that change so just to finalize what the components of this are okay

thank you okay kelly i just saw you asking them are the screens not working at the moment is

that what's happening i'm not quite sure we're having technical difficulties but not on our

side of the house okay i just didn't know if the screens are gonna work is that crucial to

your presentation or if it's stuff that's in the agenda package we can all pull it up here

if it's not then i think we can wing it okay we'll try to get those working if

not um i saw somebody go run look at that there we go here we go that's that's power

okay so we'll now hear from the applicant okay go ahead um mr mayor members of the commission thank

you for the opportunity to be here this evening for the record mark watts with the law firm of cob

cole 231 north woodland boulevard deland um we we have a you know let me start off

by by thanking uh jeff and and brian and the rest of your staff for working with us

maybe yeah i've had non-stop computer issues for the past two days so i'm

guessing it's me hopefully we'll see if it works here

maybe there we go in any event thank you to your staff they've been great to work with as we've

kind of worked through the the issues this is really kind of a number of housekeeping items that

really resulted in the need to come through and do a major amendment to address a couple of points so

let me walk through just on on the slide here um the points uh with regards to the major pieces

of the amendment that's proposed for you this evening um you know kind of the first amendment

again updating the conceptual development plan i'll talk about that and show you a map in a

minute there's a couple of reasons for it jeff referenced the kind of change in configuration

of some of the roadways i'll show you on the next slide how that helps avoid substantial wetland

impacts that were in the original conceptual development plan attached to the approved pd

so i'll walk you through that in just a second i also wanted to point out i

do recognize what you're back here just working or is it just me or you

that was you okay um i did create a new word and i forgot to update again that uh before

you know since the pnc meeting but it updates certain criteria not criteria in um in the mda

uh relating to this the cdp um and some of the buffering and lot uh standards so i'll walk you

through that as well and then updates allowable uses to reflect three additional uses that

we're asking to include in the pd so let me let me first also mention that i've got

mike hale with ted's engineering um here he's our civil engineer on the project he's here to answer

any questions you might have from a technical standpoint and then ben snowden and mike lopez

who are the owners and ocean gate llc so with that let's see there we go i think it's now armed

okay can you just flip the slides down just yeah

all right so the next slide we're going to see is kind of the on the left you have the existing um

uh cdp that's attached to the approved pd so you can see there's a primary road that comes in runs

along the the power line easement you know sort of you know from the north down to the south and

you've got the secondary road that comes around here what we have done the primary

reason that we wanted to update the cdp as we're proposing to bring the road in make a

with the existing power line easement one of the criteria that we have to meet with to satisfy the

power company is to cross as as near of 90 degree angle cross under their lines as possible and

obviously in between the structures they have there and so that's one of the reasons why um

we've got this coming in and then kind of curving under that to serve all of the property and reduce

the amount of pavement it is in the additional roads that need to come in there you'll see a

little bit better on the next slide but this area right here is one of the principal wetland areas

on the site and if you see the existing cdp really kind of cuts right through the middle of that

so one of the one of the benefits of kind of this rerouting and reconfiguration of the roadway

is not severing that uh wetland with with a road crossing so we think that uh certainly provides a

benefit to it can you orient me is the is the racetrack visible in here at all is up that

top left corner racetrack is right here that's what i figured i think so this is racetrack it's

on the existing um you know cdp as well um so yes that's and so you've got 44 running along you know

here on the north side and then the interstate frontage along here okay so this is just uh

we wanted to help help kind of show you the different development criteria it's a little

bit hard to see in here but we tried to provide something some green in here that that shows

where we've got some of the landscape buffering that's specifically called out in the criteria in

the update obviously this is the the new roadway alignment this remains the 120 foot right-of-way

these are the roadways that we are proposing to take from public roadways keep them private keep

them privately maintained but still provide for the same profile from the standpoint of bike lanes

sidewalks trails things of that nature just have it in a in a private easement that is privately

maintained but open to the public so that was one of the shifts in the in the overall criteria

and again you can see this is that wetland area that i mentioned you know before the

road actually came right through here and severed um you know would have created an impact to that

wetland area if we had tried to go through and permit it that way don't know if that you know

even would have been permittable but obviously this configuration avoids that overall impact

with regard to the uses right now the existing pe does allow car washes it allows them as an

accessory or you know an additional portion of a gas station or convenience store so this just

clarifies that it also can be a standalone use citing to the existing definitions in your code

so we're just using you know the same definitions and and use that's defined by the ldc and allowing

that as a principal use it adds warehouses many warehouses again defined by your existing code

as a potential use obviously that is something that we're looking at that

farther to the south if you look at the overall layout we would anticipate that use you know

kind of down in this area rather than up closer to the road i think that has a couple of benefits

from a landowner standpoint it is certainly a valuable use from a community standpoint

though it's a very low traffic generator and so i think that there's a benefit to that use being

provided in the overall mix because it does take some of the land and guarantee that it would be

if it's developed as that it would be a lower lower overall you know traffic generation rate

and then finally the wave pool is included and defined as a use now when we started

this process with staff we were looking at you know what what's a wave pool uh when we got

our traffic engineers to look at it the only thing they could come up with was water park

that scared all of us because we didn't want that type of a traffic or trip generation type um you

know thing associated with it so what our clients and mike lopez i'm sure has mentioned this in some

of his discussions um they are working with with a company called perfect swell to actually bring

a surfable wave to one of the phases within the project primarily this is expected to go

in this area here that's phase 3 on the cdp that is attached to the amendment but we defined it as

as a use that would be limited to 20 participants an hour so this is something where um you actually

can and i've talked to a number of folks not just in new smyrna but former county council member

josh wagner actually called me up unsolicited and said i heard you know this this this particular

wave pool has gained a following around the uh the country um it apparently is uh considered

a very you know one of the better surfable waves that you can build a facility to provide

um and you know josh indicated he was very excited to try and come down here and and be able to

to surf this particular facility so you know with the the beach and the focus on surfing that new

smyrna has historically had you know we think this is an interesting potential to add into

the mix for the overall development um that you can provide a you know a feature for people to

maybe turn off a little bit earlier than coming into the the beach fully and still be able to

enjoy surfing in new smyrna so um with that happy to answer any questions you may have i think

that you know kind of covers the the specific things we were asking to revise in the overall

pd um i will note um you know as as with regard to things like the development criteria that are

associated with the activity center we have maintained all of that we're not asking to

change any of those so the criteria that i think the city you know published that design criteria

booklet uh it's attached as a as a portion of the uh the original plan development approval for the

the site um none of that is is being requested to change we're we're maintaining that there's

a lot of very high architectural standards and appearance standards in that and also very intense

landscaping standards for example so mr claudia to your you know our vice mayor claudia to your point

um while it's a 45-foot buffer that's required under those design criteria which applies at all

four quadrants of the interchange because it's not in that the cse area that that you're referring to

it is i think the intensity of the plantings is more so under that standard so we think

you're getting a functional equivalent if you will too to that updated standard

so with that happy to answer any questions okay before we go there i

do i should disclose when you said josh wagner reminded me he also called me to say that he was

super excited about it didn't really enter any evidence but just he was really excited about it

that's pretty much what he said to me too josh if you don't know josh is a passionate server surfer

and and i think his first and last things that he did on the county council the first thing he tried

to do was reduce the setbacks on the sun globe here so the surfers could surf closer to that and

we they denied that at that point and in his last act uh uh meeting we actually got it approved and

cut those uh those setbacks in half because that was one of those big things that he wanted to do

in his time in office so i didn't know that and this is i think the first time i've heard from him

since being elected so he obviously is passionate about this but yeah all right do we have uh

any let's see where i'm at on my script here heard from the applicant any questions of the

applicant questions of the applicant vice mayor i appreciate your comments on the landscaping buffer

would there be any detriment to you to increasing the width of that buffer five feet

the difficulty i think would be um so so this pro project has been underdeveloped for a number

of years we have a portion of it that was already developed under the existing standards so i think

that the difficulty would be created certainly it wouldn't affect the overall property it would

affect the properties along 44 so those out parcels that are already kind of sized and

configured based on both the road you know right away to the north the access road that will go

behind them to the south so that additional five feet would create some constraints on

their overall site plan layouts but again we've actually added more intensity from the landscaping

standard into the area that's it that's between them and the 44 right away on the subject of

turning that one road into a an access easement you would be then running the individual parcel uh

property lines out to the center of that easement that will likely be um when we planted it'd

actually be a plotted easement that would come in there so no it would it would be an easement that

goes across there would be a track maintained by the owners association but the actual size of the

individual lots would be greater um based on the the six foot reduction in the right-of-way width

because they're going from 70 feet which is what the current requirement is

to 64 feet okay under the current standards now the uh property lines for those individual parcels

runs to the sideline of that 70 foot correct correct under the new proposal will this

will the property lines be the center of that easement no but let me ask our engineer to

come up and he's working on the plots let me ask him to come up and speak to that i think

we need to swear him in right do you swear to affirm that the evidence you're about to give

will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you all right um so yes

currently as jeff had mentioned we have uh we have the subdivision kind of under design and the lot

lines do come all the way out to the center of that road so while physically effectively

it's the same width of right-of-way same medium width same road lane with same bike lane with

we we are capitalizing on property one of the things i'd like to mention and and mark kind

of touched on it there is a transmission main easement it's a fpl right-of-way easement it

might as well be right away we still pay tax on the property they still think they own it

they don't let us develop anything within that one of the criteria is already at the super elevation

that we're proposing in this roadway we're trying to get that roadway cutting across that

that transmission main easement as perpendicular as possible and and what that does is it limits

those property deaths so to answer your question uh vice prepaladdy it does start impacting the

depths of those usable out parcels out front and that was one of the reasons that we that we uh

you know we're still providing the same amount of buffer width we're just doing it on the outside

of the easement as opposed to traditionally on the property perimeters of those lots

there's effectively no difference in the planning even though the lot line technically

is in the middle of the easement correct now i wasn't raising the issue for the

regarding landscaping but basically you'll be increasing the area of the various lots

and will that allow you to have greater density we we have we actually are maintaining the 0.5

far that is is the existing density approved on the property we initially when we came in

we asked to go to 0.6 because of the request for the lot 7. so lot 7 as staff mentioned

they're looking to to meet both the city requirements and the requirements from

uh holiday inn which is their hotel flag that they're they're you know working to bring in um

they have to have a certain size building and so that is it's what's creating our far

issue with regard to that specific lot so at the planning board that was a that was raised as a as

a concern increasing that intensity so rather than asking for that across the entire pde we reduced

it to only lot seven um and so we we pulled back and and kept everything else at 0.5 far

now i believe under your activity center regulations the highest far that's allowed in the

four quadrants around the interchange is two um so we're at maintaining about 25 of that maximum

far that's permitted under the comprehensive plan for the development area here yeah my concern is

not with the holiday and i have no difficulties with that at all it's some of these smaller out

parcels that you have facing 44 is by increasing their lot areas are we allowing more development

on those properties more floor area on it and squeezing it into the non-right-of-way portion

that would that's my concern no i understand your question i don't think we're making any mike let

me ask you to come up again and address this if you will will but um from a development area

standpoint or intensity area standpoint are we really achieving any increase in the development

potential on those lots with that configuration uh no not in my opinion and as a matter of fact

i mean um the holiday inn is somewhat of a unique piece in that it is approaching that upper limit

but by and large when some of these other lots are developed to accommodate all the necessary

necessary services such as parking stuff they'll be nowhere near intense so for instance that

large lot there each building is not going to occupy nearly even half of its footprint

and that's it and that will offset the you know as a whole we'll be far less than the max cap of far

within the project and actually that was a point that mike and i talked about as we were coming

into the meeting that you know if you looked at this area so if you looked for example at this

phase of the developments which is you know phase two in here if you looked at that area as a whole

and looked at the far and applied the far across that area we wouldn't need to look at taking lot

7 or requesting the lot 7 go up to a 0.6 i think to your specific question we're not increasing

the overall density intensity of what's being permitted in here by going to that easement area

in fact the only place we're even talking about increasing any density or intensity is

just on that lot seven as a result of their design criteria okay if if i can just restate what i

think i heard you asking um basically since you're making the lot a little bit bigger by by expanding

that easement the the 0.5 i mean it's you're now dealing with percentages so it's a percent of a

larger number so therefore that is a larger number is that that's basically what you're getting at

yes yeah you've got it and my concern is for the smaller for the smaller lots

is i don't want us creating a situation where it appears very dense from the highway got it

sort of that so that subtle change with the the right-of-way and the easement could in fact result

in a kind of an unintended perhaps consequence i i see where you go i didn't follow you for a while

but i caught up and i think if if that is the specific concern i don't think we would have any

problem specifying that the area of the easement for the roadway would not be counted towards

our far calculation that would be great i think that's what he's going for yeah happy to do that

thank you the one thing i would like to say about that is um you know those lots um to

provide all those unnecessary services and like i said i already think several of those smaller out

parcels that you're asking about they don't have any chance of of coming near that max far already

so if if we do that that restriction that further restriction that's not been you know part of any

request or part of any plan or discussion with staff i do have some concerns that will restrict

them down so far that they won't get users in there and they'll sit as out parcels you know just

as they have across the street for a while well with that with the uh restriction as proposed by

the applicant you're not reducing anything you're maintaining what you have on your plan right now

maybe i misunderstood you so we would just take the road area would not be included in the far

calculation for the lot so the area covered by the easement would be deducted i mean i think i yeah i

think we can live with it i do think some of the smaller round polishers we're going to be even

further restricted in terms of the the likely size of the buildings that the users would

want there but i understand i also wanted to just clarify for the public and then we'll get to other

other questions we keep the term subdivision has been used a bit today i think most of us think

residential rooftops when you hear that correct we're not talking about that at all we're talking

about subdivision of the of a broader partial to smaller particles subdivision under under florida

laws you know subdivision refers to any time you're recording a map that divides property i

hear you yeah i just want to make sure some folks here subdivision and they picture i understand

yeah it's probably gonna be on it's probably already on next door that there's 5 000 homes

going in right there i'm sure that's true um yeah there's as i think was previously stated

there's not a residential use proposed in any of those this is commercial there's a number of uses

that are permitted all as outlined in your your activity center guidelines okay other questions

of the applicants and the witness just a brief comment so um i've spoken to you about this i

think what i want to make clear is i want quality high-end development i think the community is

pretty clear on that we're building for the next 50 years not what the last 50 years has been

thank you yeah we're clear on that i think you know one of the things in fact one of the things

we've heard from holiday inn as they've been going through some of their site plan review is that

the architectural standards and the guidelines are very hard they're very very stringent um and so um

you know but but we're not asking to change any of that you've got your activity center design book

it's it's part of it's it's you know an attachment to the existing pd and it remains an attachment to

the existing pd thank you mayor you looking for a motion yet uh no i want to make sure we've got um

i think there's more we got to do but let's get some other comments go ahead

well mark i i had spoken to vince and mike quite some time ago and the impression i got was that

they were looking for quality i know that some of the uses include the car wash and mini storage

so now i'm already looking at a hodgepodge kind of haphazard let's what can we put in here what

we put in there but what cued my interest was the theme park the water theme park

i do have a worry about the traffic impact but at the same time a novel idea like that

would would be an interesting i think in my view a good feature to add to the city

so with that thought in mind if you're hopefully thinking at all like me vince and mike and whoever

develops the property that everything is congruous and that it does look nice that it does um comply

to what we've been asking for for years a nice frontage on 44. good access to the amenities and

just a question about the far how does it relate to the holiday inn how many rooms would you have

so if you look at again you've got a couple questions there so i'll try and talk through

um you know a couple of them let me start with the far first so um basically the impact of that far

is essentially a floor um so a five-story building versus a four-story building that based on on

typical hotel operation is feasibility versus infeasibility with regard to that use and so

this was not part of our initial request this is something that we we've been working with

the the owner of that property um you know to to kind of accommodate um some of their concerns um

and so that's the reason that we included that in there again we we felt like you know in the in the

beginning since you have um your activity center has that 2.0 far as the maximum um you know we we

thought well we can ask for six you know on all of the property that way you're getting some more

of that intensity in there but we understood loud and clear in our discussions with planning board

that there was concern about that and so that's why we we dropped back

and you know limited it to that as i said if if we were calculating far

on the broader property we wouldn't have any problem with meeting the 0.5 fbr i think mike

spoke to that a few minutes ago we won't achieve 0.5 across the entire thing

but since we have to look at it on a lot by lot basis that one lot becomes constrained

and so that's why we were asking for that one lot to have that 0.6 far to allow that to be an

economically feasible you know hotel development meeting the the criteria from the um the franchise

and speaking of the water park would that be located close to the impoundment there's

a uh a water retention area or borrowed it that that's exactly where they're we're looking to to

kind of develop it so if you come down in here there is that existing

you know water feature borrow pit area in there that will be working to design it as part of that

traffic you you mentioned your concern about traffic associated with that use

when we did our initial traffic analysis we looked at you know kind of the water park the definition

and you're right that generates a lot of traffic and so when we if you look on page two of the

proposed second amendment we included a a distinct definition that's separate and

apart from that definition for traditional water park and we included specifically from a traffic

standpoint that limitation on 20 participants per hour that way you don't have a lot of people

cycling in and out you don't have a lot of arrivals and departures you know if you're

looking at that overall use um you know you have you know 20 and this is a graphic that was created

but this is one of the actual facilities you know you you would have a limited number of people in

there and that specifically is included in the definition here to keep traffic generation down

so basically i'm asking for a lot with not too many negotiation skills if you could use

your talents all of you to create something that the city could truly finally be proud

of retaining wetlands using the water resources properly doing the proper tias i know the area

is going to be real congested anyway but if you can make it more useful user user-friendly um

you guys do have something we could all be proud of and i think in speaking with i've been working

with mike and vince and mike hale you know for for a little bit over a year now on this and and

consistently what i hear from them is the desire to create a quality project in the at the gateway

here so i think those plans are consistent and i think again that's why we we have and we haven't

asked to change anything in those gateway criteria even though they're they're fairly onerous

you know but their their their intent is to create um good quality development at the city's gateway

thanks appreciate it question for you based on what he just raised go walk me back through that

bar a bit i now i've just pulled up an aerial image and is it going to it's going to still be

there right you're just going to work around it or how's that going where does that fit in it is our

our intent will be to work to modify that so that that becomes part of you know what

you see here um so you have a borrow pit there um that is a a man-made feature um

of the property um so to to work to modify it um the way that this particular facility works

there's a you know mechanisms along one side and if i get beyond my technical expertise or

familiarity i'll call mike lopez up because he's the ones working with this particular

developer or company but there are mechanisms along one side of this longer pool which you know

create the wave action and so we'll be working with staff and all appropriate permitting agencies

to take that existing borrow pit modify it to be kind of this waveful facility on the property okay

all right other questions of the applicant yes so as i mentioned earlier we had a discussion about

public safety and one of the things that i've mentioned to

the commission a couple months ago was looking forward is concerns with the police chief having

availability to possibly do some cameras for both crime prevention and also uh crime solving issues

and given that you're going to have a hotel in there that seems to be uh um

you know it's an an easy ability for people to just go by and grab and run kind of thing so uh

your client indicated that he'd be meaningful to working with uh both the police chief and

the planning department to work on some uh infrastructure needs uh poles uh power that sort

of thing and then going forward um to to enhance the the area and the whole project as a whole

to be able to be provided with some security or camera systems and that sort of thing so he

are is he still amenable to that and yeah yes okay thank you yeah we're certainly happy to do that

and if you um i don't know if that needs to be incorporated here and specifically or simply

stated on the record that that will cooperate with city staff with regard to the installation and

security apparatus and partnership with the police department i i'm good with just on the record

so this time don't let me down certainly okay uh it's a public hearing so we'll open it up real

quick for the public any members oh sorry yeah i'm just gonna say happy to come back up and answer

any other questions you might have yeah we'll have closing remarks and everything so members

of the public wish to comment on this item yes sir i see one coming ahead uh please limit your

remarks to matters of which you have personal knowledge and for this one you get to swear in

do you swear from that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and

nothing but the truth yes i do thank you yes joe blueback personal interest came up when it was

mentioned that there's going to be a reduction in road with and with all developments including

this one i have a bit of anxiety about access being provided to emergency vehicles the fire

trucks the ambulances the police cars being able to get access to where they need to be

with cars parked on both or alternate sides of the road and i hope we don't miss that point and the

second one is i don't is there a parking space or garage on the site that's presented anyway

my question is any concerns we'll let the applicant respond to those questions

yeah i'll attempt on the the roads and michael kick me if i if i say it wrong but um

you know i think if you look at the the profiles that are in the cdp that's attached to the second

amendment the actual pavement width doesn't change um versus the access easements versus the you know

public right-of-way so we're still maintaining the same travel lane width and we have to meet all of

your criteria under your lan development code for emergency vehicle access and apparatus to

get through and circulate through the site so we will have to comply with all those standards and

make sure that we're meeting those standards as we continue to design so that that will certainly be

taken care of um with regard to parking there's not a parking garage that's proposed as part of

this at this point in time so we would be working under your code and the standards that are in

both your code your your overlay for service parking for the the site um in those roadways i

might correct me if i'm wrong i don't think we have any on-street parking in any of those

primary roadways coming in so that wouldn't i think be an issue okay i'd just like to add that

you know the roadway basically the roadway that's out there right next to the racetrack now this

roadway is being extended in that same manner so it's a four lane road the lanes are 12 foot wide

the ones that we're placing within easements are going to be 12 foot wide with four foot

bike lanes adjacent to them as well as six foot sidewalks beyond that down the main road the

spine road that we're extending from racetrack it will have a 10 foot sidewalk on one side

and a six foot sidewalk on the other so you know if you've been out there you know there's

plenty of room for trucks to maneuver access and and we're going to carry that same theme down

through the the south of the stage as well okay uh we'll still have it open for public hearing others

yes sir do you swear from that evidence you're about to give away the truth the whole truth i

know about this i do and it should have been my right hand we'll still take it i'm thrown off

with the mask this is more of a question i've traveled quite a bit and a lot of the hotels

that are on intersections and highways are four stories i'd like to understand why this

has to be five and why is the hotel uh company the holly inn determining the height for this facility

the applicant like to respond to that

yeah with regard to the the overall height i think the

um you know what's really driving it is you know the number of rooms that are necessary to make

the hotel in this location actually function and like i said be financially feasible so um you know

this is consistent with the height that's that's in your existing standards we're not changing

that height we're not increasing it um so it is what's permitted you are permitted to go to a five

um you know five story um you know if the if we um included you know additional area um or it had the

wetland area adjacent to it that were included in that far calculation or as i said before

had the calculation over the entire phase two area we wouldn't have to ask to increase on just

that one parcel but i think that's you know the answer to you know if you remove a floor out of

a hotel you're you're probably reducing i think the overall room count here is um just a second

122 rooms um so if you were if you if you think about that and divided by

you know roughly five um you know and and took away you know one-fifth of that that

substantially reduces the economic viability of that particular use um so i think this is that

the type of use you want to see in that area um so that you are kind of drawing in some

of the traveling public and serving people who are coming in and visiting this area

knowing some of the other things that are planned you know around the interchanges and with the

hospital parcel and everything else a hotel in that area i think is a good thing and certainly

i think you'd want to see it be successful as well so i think this helps it achieve that okay i think

we had one other member of the public that came forward wish to speak on this item yes sir if you

wish to speak after him come on down okay do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're out to

get will be to treat the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do my name is john causey

3538 tuscany reserve boulevard and i'd like to compliment some of the questions that the

commissioners have asked and mr mcgurk said it best when we said we're planning for

50 years not five years and i think if everyone's coming together with all these great intentions

wonderful new buildings and so forth i believe this is the first commercial development of

this size in some time and i think i've only been here two years but it looks like

44.95 is becoming the hotbed of development so there's a great opportunity for the builder who

wants to make a profit in the commission who wants to protect their property values

to work together and build something of the very high quality and set the example

for the rest of the development not only in 95 and 44 but throughout new smyrna beach

something we're proud of something the developers proud of in five years from now the people and the

commissioners aren't going to be saying well we're just paying for the sins of the past

there's a very there's a great number of examples on 44 where we didn't get it right this property

set dormant for seven years with the exception of the service station or the gas station

there's new interest let's work together but let's do it right and honestly let's hold the developer

responsible for what they say they're going to do and the plans they put forth with the

city thank you thank you any response to that sure just briefly i think one of the benefits

you have here is that uh mr snowden and his family have owned the property since 1948

they are residents he is a resident long time uh or lifelong resident of the city of new smyrna

beach and so i think they certainly share that long-term view with both the speaker and members

of the commission so i think you'll you've got a little bit different here because you do have

somebody whose family has owned the property that is directly involved as the you know the

developer moving forward you know since you know the late 40s so thank you okay seeing

no other members of the public coming forward to speak we will close the public hearing part of the

uh of that while i hear closing remarks first from the city any closing of some city to address on

any of the items brought up brian go ahead i just want to clarify one item when we get to the far

the the far it's a pud so right now it applies to the entire pud and we enforce it on a lot by

lot basis as i understand what's been requested is that if we have a particular lot that has

a major roadway that's in an easement not in a privately owned track but it's an easement that

that area for that road will be subtracted out from the far calculation for that particular lot

that's my request yes okay understood i want to make sure we had that that they understood

that and our staff did so if that's part of a motion that we we can document that clearly

okay that's it all right uh any closing remarks from the applicants

no again i thank you for your time this evening we certainly you know as i said we would agree that

um condition uh changing um with regard to the far calculation so mark thank you and and just for

the record because i know you guys are um i did receive the um ex parte communication package from

your city attorney at the beginning of the meeting so um thank you for that mark i had a couple

more questions and a possible request if this is approved um what is the height of the hotel with

the five floors what what is that overall height do you have that does anybody have that handy

sixty feet sixty all right i'm hearing 60 feet from staff ah thank you that's great um

the so staying on that for a minute if this is if this is approved at that height or frankly

even at the other height um you know one thing that i think we've gotten right a few times

um and even there's another hotel in town that i've come i'm routinely complimented on

the appearances of uh the hotel on on flag of the hampton and i guess it is on flag

it fits the vernacular of new smyrna beach um so i guess my question for staff is

when when is the right time to make sure that is done right that that is going to be

something we're proud of look i've traveled quite a bit i've stayed in a lot of these

you know interstate hotels you know a lot some of them look like you know barracks and in some cases

and so i want to make sure this is nowhere near that to the extent i can leverage that

when is the right time to have that discussion so for this would be part of the site plan

which they're required to submit architectural renderings to meet our code as well as this mda

on those other sites the entire project was a hotel so you could have the hotel architecture in

the overall mda and you could look at it at that time so this is a a future property we have looked

at some preliminary renderings but the site plan would approve the engineering and those renderings

okay if i can just add to that in we did have the holiday inn site plan

submitted and we did give them comments on it the building comments were part of that too and

bob has worked with the architect they've made significant changes and resubmitted a revised

building because of that so i guess my concern is you know we we say commissioner sack said it

the gentleman spoke said it like we want it to be something that we're very proud of as a community

but i i don't want to miss a chance to negotiate that i guess what i'm if i'm just

be totally candid like if we're about to approve something you know is there is now the time to say

let's let's make sure we're getting what we want as a community and i i respect that

they're long-time residents and they they want to do the right thing the problem is they're

not making every design choice you know holiday inn is and they'll you know they get a bunch of

finance guys like me in a room and they don't care about that frankly they're headquartered somewhere

else and they want to hit a bottom line number and so um when is the right time to have that

if there's some specific the commission had in mind you could add that now

um we obviously you don't have that rendering in front of you to comment on and say what

you like and don't like so that could be brought back under a separate item but

it's currently not part of this mda amendment okay and was it possible mark to bring back

the architectural elevation to be approved by the commission before it's finalized is that

let me just ask brian from a process standpoint because the site plan for that size building

i believe would come back to the commission that would be part of that review and approval and

from a design criteria standpoint if you look in your agenda materials page 12 of the

um exhibit c to the initial pd is the the city's activity center design standards and

beginning on page 12 subsection g you have the the building appearance standards that are adopted

as part of this overall set of guidelines that the city adopted in 2004 for that area

so it it has a fairly detailed set you know of appearance criteria now that being said i

don't specifically represent the owner of that property so i'm happy to tell you that they'll

come back and show you that as part of their site plan i think that's when you have the opportunity

to review and approve the final architecture as part of their site plan approval so what i would

suggest mayor is right now that site plan would only go to the planning and zoning board that

you could make an amendment um i know it needs to be in the agreement or separately that that

holiday inn site plan would require because of its size and location and how special it is that that

would need to come to the commission okay but we would want to make sure to add that in as a as a

contingent term basically on this either and and i don't think

we wouldn't have any objections to adding that on lots of them particularly because we're asking

for the additional far okay uh second or last last question on on the uh road we're dealing

and i get this isn't residential but we're as we get more through traffic more guests et cetera

we're dealing with i'm hearing about a lot of speed issues in neighborhoods non-native

traffic and speed issues in neighborhoods one thing in my in my you know under this much about

traffic and engineering but one thing i have learned is you know road design plays a huge

part of that and so you get roads that feel like a super speedway people treat them like a super

speedway and what i think i heard you describe was a great road but it's wide and it's got this bike

path and it's got a side it's got this it i'm picturing it feeling like this super speedway

and i'm picturing that becoming a problem down the road where we're getting complaints

that we have people flying down that road at 80 miles an hour because it's been poorly designed

sure what what i have learned is that roads should be designed to have some chicaneries and other

things that kind of cause those constrictions and bends and twists and everything to to naturally

dampen that so we're not having to deal with there's not we but some future commission

having to deal with speed hump speed bumps you know chiefs getting yelled at etc so

have has that been considered at all in these designs and what things can we do

i do see some curves and bends which are good but could we build into the design

either now or at some point in the future the right elements to naturally dampen speed sure um

i'd like to mention that if you look at the originally approved plan where's the light red dot

screen shafts there yeah this road i mean that would be your raceway road right it

would be the drag strip south if it were approved as originally and you know this was

this development for those of us remember all the discussion that there was on activity center

here in this community before this plan ever got approved um i think the reality is this plan was

somewhat more of a bubble as opposed to something that had wetland science gone into it planting

gone into it engineering gone into it so part of this roadway with with that curvature in the road

we've had some discussions with city engineer about you know keeping the speeds low

at 30 miles an hour the way the way the walmart driveway comes in that's on uc property over here

you simply can't come through this intersection and go quick and we'd like to carry that same tone

uh down through this neighborhood as well um right now we're building an effectively a four-lane

roadway to nothing it's a it's a dead-end driveway one of the one of the difficulties was

when there was so much discussion of where williamson boulevard is going to go

and there's been more further discussions but i think we've confirmed it's not here

this road has already been planted previously as ocean gate boulevard but that's one of the

things we had to do is to keep this open-ended when we talk with staff because nobody really

knows another city here what's happening to the south and what we will need in terms of roadways

but i i i think the the design speed keeping that design speed of the roadway down at the

30 mile hour mark is going to do just that i don't believe this is going to be one of those

super highways where you're seeing a bunch of speeds on those on those roadways well

and i think if i can add to that um you know the having the on street pedestrian facilities and

bicycle facilities i think also kind of adds the additional activity on the street edge

and tends to i think create some friction to slow things down the other point when you get

into this internal area is we have features like this roundabout um that create um points that

slow traffic flow yeah i'm not worried about those i mean that the main kind of strip was

is the main thing so i guess what i'd be hoping we could hold for is you know building in you know

landscape elements things but i mean things we're talking about now on streets that we're going back

and wishing we had done let's just try to catch it here if we can during the design process

because it's way cheaper and easier to build in up front to just add some things where we think

speed will be an issue that we can go ahead and try to try to plan for that and i think

we can achieve things like that with traffic calming features at pedestrian crosswalks and

and things of that nature because we do expect that there will be interaction and

activity between the different sides of this so um we're certainly happy to work with staff and

and the commission and during the design review process to do that yeah and i agree i don't think

it'll be a problem for for a long time as long as that's a dead end road it won't be a problem but

eventually when it goes south when it goes further to the south you'll need you'll need to make sure

those features some future commissions should call us and thank us all right mr mayor i mean

yes um i think it's incumbent on all of us and hopefully it will happen so using best practices

to make sure the roads can accommodate a ladder truck since you're proposing a five hopefully

four-story building i think that's necessary and we wouldn't want to regretfully see it not happen

down the road right so to speak but two two things came to mind and i'd like to address them uh the

mini storage and car wash we seem to have a clarify proliferation of them a lot of them

and so we wonder how flexible are you as to find other uses um you know i think that we one of the

reasons the principal reasons we've we've asked to add those in is because those are things that we

we're approached about those are certainly things that that um as you indicate are popular um you

know our intent you know at this point in time in this area here um kind of the phases up closer

to the roadway you can well actually through the entire site you can have you know car washes now

um the only difference their distinction is is it a principle or is it an accessory um use um

here if you if you've seen some of the the newer you know i think um design and elements of those

um they're actually very well done very tastefully done and again the thing to keep in mind here is

that anything that's built of that nature has to meet your design guidelines under that that

activity center design book so i think you'll end up with something that is very distinct

you know from the standpoint of having to meet those design criteria with regard to you know

kind of the the warehouse use again that from a long-term standpoint for the property owner

i think is an attractive use because you know it's it's something that allows for them to develop an

income a long long-term income opportunity um but i certainly understand you know kind of a lot of

a lot of places you know say yeah we don't want that up on our major roadways or anything and so

i think we would be happy to restrict that you use if you if the commission you know sees fit

to only phase five so that it's kind of pulled back in a way again the benefit you then have is

that that is a use that's allowed in there it is a use that keeps the traffic generation rate down

provides a benefit to the landowner but can be put into a portion of it that pulls it away from

kind of that that central area up there near the roadway where you want to have you know kind of

more of the feature uses if you will so we'd be we'd be happy to modify that used to restrict it

to only phase 5 as shown on the cdp okay all right we will now uh any other questions for

the applicant before we close this and have commission discussion and decide this item

all right thank you mark appreciate it we will now uh close the second

reading and quantitative judicial i'm gonna now consider ordinance 107-20 i want to for clarity

uh and brian and kerry keeping me uh on track here there were i captured three specific items that

were pointed out as uh you know wouldn't have an issue am i paraphrasing wouldn't have an issue

doing or could agree to or may agree to so but i do think i just want to call out that those

are not necessarily built in unless we build that into the motion as we as we make it so what

i heard that there at the very end was that they would be amenable to restricting the many to the

mini storage used to just that phase five um uh in my commentary we talked about possibly requiring

that the site plan approve will come back to this commission uh and then there was that the far

only being uh the far be applied excluding the new roadway uh density pickup for like that's the

highly technical terms i just used there but we we discussed the nauseam you know what i'm talking

about but just just for clarity those three items should should be included by the motion maker

if those are desired by the motion maker so with that the commission will consider ordinance 107-20

mr mayor i'll make a motion to approve

as submitted with the condition that floor area ratios for all lots that front on

private access roadways not include the area included within that roadway

okay got a motion to approve with one of one extra condition on the far to have a second

i can second the motion okay here discussion would the motion maker consider bringing the

site plan back to the commission yes all right and just in general i think that we

have to look into our overall design regulations to make that more of a permanent thing also but

i'm willing to add that for this particular application so probably just for formality

do you want to amend but before you do that i i also like this concept of pushing them

again if this is going to go forward pushing them and they're amenable to it they volunteered it

frankly so pushing the mini storage not on 44 restricting it to phase five would the motion

maker consider amending to add those two terms as well yes i would okay uh so just the second

or except those two all right so motion is to approve 107 dash 20 is submitted with the

the three conditions of many stores restricted to phase five site plan comes to us for approval

and the far conditions that were applied there uh and that has been accepted by the seconder

apologize mr mayor one one point of clarification uh just mr snowden just pointed out it could be

possible uh and if you'd be amenable four or five for that uh many warehouse use so again

the southern portion of the property but farther to the south away from the roadway

in phase four or five let's refer to the motion uh that's acceptable to me i didn't

hear you mentioned yeah section four okay seconder accept that all right so as presented

three conditions many stores to phase four or five site plan back to us for

approval on the far discussion that was included and that's on lot seven correct

what's up the site plan on lock seven i think was the yes yes i've been on not seven yes thank you

all right we had a motion we had a second any other discussion by the commission

uh okay uh the one comment i'll make you know there there's some in our community

that would like to see you know never another brick in the ground that's just not a reality

um one thing i have been contemplating is we've had this tremendous explosion of the past few

years of residential growth to our west commercial hasn't kept up and so when you think of trips and

trip generation right now goods and services that are going to be eventually provided in this area

and other commercial activities out there right now those are trips that all head further east

into you know into downtown new smyrna so as you think about some of the some

of the issues and traffic generation i think these are if we have more people

that are staying further west that eases some of the traffic and gesture we have so

it's just something to consider all right i had a motion in a second city clerk feed caller

commissioner sax yes vice mayor colony yes commissioner hartman yes commissioner mccurrick

yes mayor owen um yeah i'm a no but fast anyway i felt like the hotel should be the size it was

approved out all right ordinance 107-20 has been adopted thank you thanks mark good to see you all

ordinance number 108-20 second reading of public hearing of an ordinance which would absolutely

grant a non-exclusive construction roll-off service franchise to precision containers

we have sorry go ahead ordinance number 10820 an ordinance of the city of new smyrna beach

granting a non-exclusive franchise to precision containers and cleanup llc to provide construction

and demolition debris removal services within the city of new smyrna beach outlining franchisees

duties providing terms and conditions under which such franchise shall operate providing

for severability providing for conflicting ordinances and providing an effective date

and i believe we have the applicant here who may be requesting a continuance so okay that is

correct i'd like to request this to be continued until the november 24th meeting i'm out of town

november 10th we'd like to some additional time to work with the city staff to try to get

the proposals between the two of us more in line than they are currently

okay we're meeting on the 7th the 10th and the 17th of november not the 24th 17th would be great

17th it's good all right do we have a motion to continue this item to november 17th so move

second city clerk for colorado vice mayor colony yes commissioner hartman yes commissioner

mccarrick yes commissioner sacks yes marilyn yes thank you mike you should have told me i

could have put you ahead of that last item i'm sorry about that oh good thank you very much

and for the record michael lyons on behalf of precision containers their attorney all right

thank y'all thank you item has been continued to the november 17th meeting it'll be considered

at the time nine a ordinance's first reading kerry if you will read these

two uh a and b ordnance number 10420 an ordinance of the city of new smyrna beach amending the

land development regulations emitting article 10 subdivisions and article 11 site plans providing

for codification providing for public hearing providing for conflicting ordinances providing

perseverability and providing an effective date ordinance number 109 20. oh i'm sorry

do you have a discussion uh yeah just a comment uh at this last uh public hearing we just had

we asked that the subdivision come back before us for a further review we're now proposing to modify

uh the section that that change would apply to would it be appropriate to add something to that

at a second reading or would that be too significant of a change

brian has left the room and he's probably the appropriate person to

review that but it looks like we could based on the title we wouldn't have to revise the title

so we could look at that and if there's an appropriate place to insert it we can make sure

that that's included for second reading so it's to you would want you need to flesh it out a little

bit what kind of site plans would you like coming back to the commission a certain size i would like

time to flesh that out i don't know exactly what i would propose i don't um i haven't read that

section fully to see where the site plan approvals go uh whether they go to pnz whether they come

here so i i don't know at this particular time so vice mayor from a real quick to bring brian

up to speed um so on 9 a the ldr changes uh vice mayor pointed out hey we just asked someone to

bring a site plan back we're touching this could we add language or look at that language at least

to contemplate whether or not we could add that as a requirement you know look at what's required to

go where now city attorney and brian a question for you all you know i don't think we can hash

that out tonight because i'm not prepared to discuss that nobody else says either so

could we you know vice mayor work with staff and others can provide input as well bring

some proposals back at that second hearing and we can talk about it at that second hearing and

hopefully get languages close enough and if we have to get close and then continue that second

hearing to the next one we can we can do that does that sound like that will that work for the staff

we can add one requirement i would just suggest that we view this as kind of step one of two this

is the administrative step that clarifies kind of the number of copies and things like that step two

is really looking at the process itself and where how the approvals are made we didn't really touch

that with this so i would say we have more of a comprehensive text amendment on the way to

address that with subdivisions and site plans and specifically to answer the question the holiday

inn a project of that size should go to the city commission so we'd like to make that you know

the requirement going forward but you're saying that's that's a we're going to get another bite at

that apple that's kind of coming up following this item that's all right so well then all right so

thank you for that i think you're right i'm on board with you so this item will come forward as

as prepared that second reading will be on november 10 2020 and then you'll take this

feedback you've heard and bring something back to us yes part of the next thing thank

you brian all right go ahead ordinance number 10920 an ordinance of the city of new smyrna

beach amending the code of ordinances amending chapter 26 buildings and building regulations

article 2 standards and specifications to adopt and amend administrative and technical amendments

to the florida building code and article eight floodplain floodplain management providing

for codification providing for public hearing providing for conflicting ordinances providing

for severability and providing an effective date okay and that will be uh second reading

and public hearing will be on november 10 2020. all right next item up boards and commissions

i want to point out good to see jordan here again he's here every meeting

bell to gavel to gavel every meeting new member of the leisure board good to see you buddy

all right item 10a airport advisory board consider the reappointment of four members

to serve three-year terms to set to expire on november 9 2023 um so let's see we've got uh

in terms of keith goodrum celeste lester and david uh david maybe is it made and eileen uh

smizer expired on november on september 9th 2020. mr goodrum has served two terms um mr maybe served

three terms and lester schmeiser have served one term so staff recommends the reappointment

of the first term members in the appointment of two citizens to serve three year terms expiring

september 9 2023 are there term limits on this board or no yes on the airport advisory report

it's two and if i may i just received i can't hear you pull up michael i'm sorry

ms i just received this afternoon a notification from mr goodroom

who contacted the airport and submitted his resignation

so okay so can we deal with that in our next meeting because we can't oh no i was just he's not

interested in being i got you so he's not being reappointed okay uh all right so we need then

so we need to reappoint a couple folks but we

um do i have a motion to reappoint miss lester and mrs mizer have only served one term

i'll take a second from commissioner sachs commissioner hartman's uh

motion city clerk if you call the roll to reappoint those two members commissioner mcgregor

so yes commissioner yes commissioner sacks vice mayor colony uh just please repeat the two people

miser and lester yes reappointment

commissioner hartman yes mayor owen yes thank you okay so now that leaves us within

one vacancy to fill tonight because we're not going to fill the good room vacancy

we can we can you're saying you're going to fill the good room vacancy yeah why not all right do

we have a motion to accept the resignation of mr goodrum so move zachary city court caller

commissioner sacks vice mayor clooney yes commissioner hartman yes commissioner

mcgirk yes mayor owen yes all right we have two applications and it sounds like two vacancies do

i have a motion to appoint the two applicants to these two vacancies we'll move second city clerk

from colorado commissioner sacks yeah vice mayor colony yes commissioner hartman yes commissioner

mccarrick yes mayor owen yes thank you all right i feel like we lost somebody in there so

when you go back and count them up make sure we still got the right number of people

all right item 10b animal control board consider the appointments reappointments of two members

all right so the terms of james belt and robert leonard

expired on september 30th 2020 mr bell to serve two terms dr leonard has served three

and the uh term formerly occupied by kathy blackman is vacated as his member

uh at the criteria okay gotcha so she had to vacate that because she doesn't meet these

requirements right that's correct when she was appointed to that position she was she filled

the slot of being a member of the southeast volusia humane society and now she does not

okay she had to give up so we have uh six or so people uh the current member criteria and i

don't know what you all have in the staff report or not current member criteria is you have to

have a licensed veterinarian that's filled by robert leonard uh an s e v h s representative

that's vacant you have to have two animal owners that's lori crane and james belt currently and

then a non-animal owner alfred fork camera this is our most complicated board i say this every time

i'm glad you said that you gotta have someone with red hair and blue eyes and lives on elm

street holy cow all right staff recommends the reappointments of mr belt and dr leonard with a

waiver to serve an additional term granted by the commission i think that recommendation is

because you have to have a licensed veterinarian and he's the only applicant in that role so

uh do i have a motion to reappoint mr belt and dr leonard with a waiver uh for the additional term i

will make that motion second i heard a second from commissioner martian bus vice mayor city clerk

colorado on that and then we'll do the appointment vice mayor colony yes commissioner hartman yes

commissioner mcgirk yes commissioner sacks mayor owen yes thank you okay then we have and

received one application and that is sarah wiese i guess and i'm probably butchering last names

i apologize if you ever watch this sir my bad who is a current member of the sev hs

staff recommends that we appoint her she would take over that kathy blackman

term i'll make that motion second thank you city clerk calderon commissioner hartman

yes commissioner mcgirk yes commissioner sacks vice mayor colony yes mayor owen yes thank you

all right that gets us through that one and then planning and zoning there's three members

that needed their terms to expire patricia arvison we heard from her earlier point

out sandra smith and thomas wheeler they are expiring october 31st 2020.

all three members have displayed the willingness and desire to remain a member and be considered

for reappointment uh miss arvison has served two terms wheeler and smith are both in their first

term does this position have term limits yes two two okay mr mayor yes uh one thing you did

say about pat arvidsson uh she was appointed to a term so she hasn't served two full terms

she served one and a half terms okay so that's correct her first year she uh they had

she filled an unfinished vacancy or whatever yeah yes right so she attended about eight

or nine meetings out of that year in 2015. so i also want to point out that thomas wheeler filled

vice versa position so he's he's also in that boat so however we handle harvesting we're gonna

have to probably handle wheeler in the same way or at least try to be consistent yeah so okay

so we have these we have three vacancies these three members have uh indicated their desire

to continue serving pj is uh harvesting sorry which goes by pj is um i guess technically at or

approaching term limit but because of the you know what you just clarified um we also had a slew of

members here that ex uh expressed a desire to serve um i'm counting 15 or so members that have

displayed interest in serving so gentlemen what's the pleasure uh i will make a motion to reappoint

the three members i have a motion to reappoint and i'll second that the commission's pleasure

so just for clarity that was a motion to reappoint the three current members uh pat arvison sanders

smith and thomas wheeler and that was second to go ahead commissioner so i guess my question is

is someone gonna get two full terms and then additional what they have served the remaining

of a term filled by a vacancy so i mean it's either one or the other or we're going to get

complicated either they're not going to get two full terms or they're going to get two full terms

plus what they filled the remaining vacancy and i just wanted some discussion on what the commission

thought about that it was it would be if we point to full terms now which i think we should

to get on track it would be very true that you would have a person serving two and a half

terms you know i did serve on the planning zoning board prior to getting elected and i

found arvidsson and smith to be to be very good at it so i would like to see them stay on the board

um i'm not questioning whether they're good or not i'm just trying to clarify the understanding

of what we're doing here my my motion is to make all three full-term appointments so going forward

okay so pj was appointed it says in my notes on january 27 2015. sorry i keep calling pj ms

harvesting disappointed on january 27 2015. so by my calculations that is two full terms four years

plus a year as of right now and the term limit on this is two terms yes that's correct so

she technically hasn't served two terms because of that so if you want to do a waiver

uh and include that into your motion just to have it in there but they're two-year terms right no

this is a three-year term oh three-year term sorry yes that blows all my math up

okay i i will if the board feels it appropriate i would make a waiver in that case so she as of

appointment she hasn't served the full two terms at this point she's just getting no she's three

months shy of two terms she's three months shy of two terms yeah yeah so i think to your point

and i'm kind of struggling with the same thing is you know when someone fills an unexpired vacancy

you know what point is the cutoff of counting it as a full term versus

in this case she's three months shy so she's about to hit the two the two-term limit within

three more months so she's really going to get three full terms um and granted she i think she's

a dedicated public you know volunteer so but yeah so that's kind of where i was trying

to have a discussion in other words do we do does she get almost three full terms or do we

it can get complicated i i think you i mean i don't know that we write it in the law or anything

but to me if if it's more than half the term you probably count it as a you know they've they've

served that term i mean it's just how i probably mentally will do the math and so i don't know if

everyone wants to follow that same guidance or not but that's how i'd mentally do the math if someone

you know if it's less than half of the term then i wouldn't count them as having served

you know they come in to fill the last two or three meetings and to me that doesn't count

so mr mayor are we speaking to the fact that we have the ability to waive the term limit

and our pleasure and let them serve another term we do and that was what the motion maker

requested basically is we're going to have to do that because in this case uh ms arvidsson