Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

set the button up slide it forward okay good evening i'm going to call the planning and zoning board for the city of edgewater uh wednesday june 10 2026 to order can we have a roll call please mr duane mr fisher here mr mcginnis here mr kennedy here mr andrew kovacs here mr hatcher here mr cunningham here

Yeah, it's on testing.

Okay. Did you get the roll call? Okay, there is no approval of minutes at this time. There's also no old business at this time. So we will move to first item under new business, which is CPA 2602. Request for a small scale comprehensive plan amendment for 1711, 1715 and 1717 Edgewater Drive from commercial to medium density residential. And we have a staff report, please.

Thank you.

City staff sent out public notice within 500 feet of the subject properties shown here.

The applicant did apply last year and did receive approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. However, he was denied at City Council. The applicant is back. He is allowed to reapply after one year. That is the terms and conditions of a denial according to the Land Development Code. The applicant is requesting a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment for 1711, 1715, and 1717 Edgewater Drive. The properties are currently have a future land use of commercial and the applicant is proposing a future land use of medium density residential. Existing land uses include a duplex, a single family home and a vacant lot. To the north, there's another single family home and a tripod.

Thank you. I'll open the public hearing is the applicant have any in the audience have anything to say?

good evening uh joey posey 420 south nova attorney for the applicant and uh just to briefly touch on the uh how we got here um you know a lot of what happened the first time around there was a lot of discussion around the moratorium and this kind of i think got washed through with an unintended consequence just on um how this really just makes sense and it wasn't fleshed out truly It's a residential neighborhood with commercial future land use and commercial zoning, and every neighbor has been in support saying this could be residential. So with that, we're just looking for a recommendation to move forward again and maybe have a little more lengthy discussion at the council level, the wisdom of why this is a good thing for everybody, and especially since the neighbors see it as something they want to see in their neighborhood. But we're available for questions. I appreciate the consideration.

Thank you very much. Are there any comments or questions from the audience? Board comments or questions? I have a question. Can you hear me?

OK. Ryan, could we be told why council was their objection to this?

I don't really think there was a great reason given.

was the idea of building a duplex on the subject property which is residential yes so that was going to be my question so right now it's b3 commercial but it's got residential sitting on it what he's wanting to switch it to basically just zones it to what's already there except for 1713 no 1715 so that basically just lets him put two a duplex on 1715

no so this is a joint application and so mr hansen owns 1715 city staff would not entertain a rezoning without the other neighbors coming along with it otherwise it'd be spot zoning um the intent here is to feather density we have a triplex we have several single family homes and then we have a duplex and then mr hansen is also proposing a duplex It seemed like the appropriate future land use to accommodate feathering of density from higher intensities with commercial being kind of more of an intense use to duplexes and triplexes and then feathering down to single.

Well, okay. And especially considering the fact that there's literally already houses sitting on it, so I don't understand why council would deny it. when it's already there.

And maybe add a little more context. I wasn't there, but I know a little bit of what happened. There was one missing council member also. And I think the applicant didn't understand maybe that labeling this for a discussion was a better approach. So he got himself caught in a catch-22 where the council made a decision without fully understanding what they were deciding. And it was with the context of what was happening in the backdrop with the moratorium discussions and everything else that was on their plate. So the wisdom and how he moved forward, this would have been better to take a month, talk it through. But by implication of the code, since the decision was rendered, he had to wait a year. So here he is again with a little better understanding of how the process works. I think the same neighbors are in support. nothing that's changed from their end. It's been very transparent that he's even discussed the duplex with them and it's in their letters that's stating that he intends a duplex. This isn't a bait and switch and turning it into a home. So with that, I think we're gonna get a different outcome once we get to council and have that more exhaustive discussion about why we're doing this. But it was just unfortunate that's the way it happened. So maybe that helps give you a little background.

Thank you. Any other board comments or questions? I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

Motion to send a favorable recommendation for CPA 2602. Second.

Mr. Duane?

Yes. Mr. Fisher? Yes. Mr. McGinnis? Yes. Mr. Kennedy? Yes. Mr. Andrakowicz? Yes. Mr. Hatcher? Yep. Mr. Cunningham?

Yes.

Okay, next item is related to the last. It is RZ2606, request for approval of a rezoning form from B3 Highway Commercial to R4 Single Family Residential for 1711, 1715, and 1717 Edgewater Drive. Staff report, please.

Thank you.

The applicant is requesting rezoning from B3 Highway Commercial to R4 Single Family Residential for 1711, 1715, and 1717. Again, looking at this area in general, obviously the parcels in question are 1711 through 1719. However, you can see that the intent here is to hopefully get the other two neighbors to the north to also come in and eventually allow for this feathering of density and this transition of more intensive residential abutting commercial.

Thank you. I will open the public hearing and ask if anybody has any comments or questions. Board comments or questions? All right, I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

Motion to send a favorable recommendation for RZ 2606. Second.

Mr. Dwayne? Yes. Mr. Fisher? Yes. Mr. McGinnis? Yes. Mr. Kennedy? Yes. Mr. Andrakowicz? Yes. Mr. Hatcher? Yep. Mr. Cunningham? Yes.

Okay, next item on the agenda is VA-2610, request for variance to allow for a 33-foot front setback and a 33.16 max build ratio for the property located at 2003 12th Street.

staff report please thank you the applicant oh i should say city staff did send public notice within 500 feet of the subject property um the applicant is requesting against article 5 table v1 to allow a 33 foot front yard setback in lieu of the required 40 foot and to allow a max build at 33.16 in lieu of 30 allowed by right city staff did review the application against article 9 section 21 100.04d and found that the applicant could not meet all six of the criteria city staff did know that the intent here i believe is to allow for yeah an overhang structure for a porch

an overhanging structure for a porch, okay.

I will open the public hearing.

Mr. Chairman, committee members, yeah, this is for a gentleman whose house. Please state your name and address, please. Sorry, it's Jay Bryant. I'm at 4460 State Road 44, New Smyrna.

Could you speak up a little, please? I can hardly hear you. Yes, sir, will do.

Thank you. Yes, Mr. Smeltz in this situation here, he is handicapped. He's in a wheelchair. The access to the house. The front door is just about at that 40-foot setback. He's trying to get a little bit of an overhang, about an 8-foot overhang that's going to protrude into that setback area. He's just trying to get an area where he can roll up with his five little boys and be out of the rain as he gets into his house. So that's the purpose of it. It's a good structure. It's going to look really nice in that area.

so this this is not this is this existing construction we're just adding the 10 by 20 piece on the front of the property right okay but the paver and the ramp have recently been installed right they're not on this diagram the way it it actually is laid out the paver the paver the ramp is there now you have to be able to get it

Correct. But it sticks out into the yard. It meanders through the yard. It doesn't come straight off the driveway, right?

No, it makes a burst into the front of the door.

And so what type of overhang is this going to be?

It's just going to be like a – so we're coming off the roof as the roof exists now. It's a little towards the road and straight over the door.

Aluminum, wood, asphalt shingle, what is it?

Well, right now we have asphalt shingles on the roof. He's contemplating whether he wants to go back and put metal on it or keep it asphalt. That's still to be determined. The front of it's going to be post wood. It's really nice.

this the same gentleman we did a few months ago? Yeah.

Okay. That's if I may, I think that one was more than a few months ago, I believe we're trying to extend his hanger. Yeah, yeah, yeah. way too expensive work. So he decided to take that one off.

Okay. Okay. Any other any audience questions? Comments? Other board comments? Questions?

The only comment I have is the fact that in this situation, we had something a couple of years ago, similar situation, and the missing piece that we did not have was the fact that it was a handicapped person. And I think that should definitely be put into the documents for us. because at one point there was one that was teetering on not being able to be done, and then we find out that the person is handicapped. But we need to have that information up front. So I'm just stating that going forward, that that should be on the document. And I think the structure needs to be laid out more that we, like Patrick asked, what's it going to look like, we need to have that information up front.

The building plans were posted with the agenda, because I looked at them earlier. Was it? Yeah.

They're not in here. They're not in here.

No, on the agenda, if you clicked on one of the hyperlinks, it had surveying. Well, it tells me everything, but I'm a contractor. Yeah, that's the overhang in the porch. That's the ramp coming down, and then this is the elevation showing the new roof with the metal. Of course, they got metal here, and then this is the most of the beams. All right.

I can't even see that. It does say he's handicapped here on the first sentence.

I know how Jennifer draws her stuff.

I even looked at this in the PDF online and it wasn't legible.

No?

I just can't read. Gotcha.

Building contractor.

Okay, any other questions, comments, board comments, questions?

The only thing I'm wondering, so the previous variance that we gave him, he's wanting to take off the table due to cost. Could we condition this to remove the previous? I just don't know. I'm just throwing it out there.

I mean, the variance will expire. So he has a year. He basically has six months left on it.

Okay.

But if he acts upon that and then he has this, this really changes the total, right?

That's kind of where, that's what I was afraid of as well.

Yeah.

To me, that makes sense to do what you're talking about. Avoid the previous variance and allow this.

Is that the board's discretion to approve anything over the code limit?

Do we know the number?

I think on that one he was applying for 40.

But do we know the actual variance number? No.

Can I just say that it cancels on the condition that it removes previously approved variance? Would that make sense?

Does that make sense to everybody? Yeah, as long as it's clear in a minute.

So I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. You're going to make me do it, aren't you?

All right, go ahead, Patrick.

I'll make a motion to approve VA-2610 request for variance to allow for a 33-foot front yard setback and a 33.16% max build ratio for property located at 2003 12th Street. With consideration that the previous variance for max build ratio that was given by this board is rescinded. I'll second.

Mr. Duane?

Yes.

Mr. Fisher? Yes. Mr. McGinnis? Yes. Mr. Kennedy? Yes. Mr. Andrikovics? Yes. Mr. Hatcher?

Yep.

Mr. Cunningham? Yes.

Okay next item on the agenda is va to 611 request for variance to allow a front yard 1440 square foot storage building and remove the requirement of matching facade roofline exterior construction materials and color for the property located at 2931 you'll tree drive and we have a staff report, please.

Thank you, Chairman.

The city staff did send public notice within 500 feet of the subject property here at 2931 Mule Creek Drive. The applicant is requesting for variances against Article 3, Section 21-3602, G and M, which is to allow a front yard accessory structure and to allow a principal structure or accessory structure of 1,440 square feet not to meet the requirements of matching the architectural design features, including facade treatment, roof lining, color. City staff did review the applicant's application against Article 9, Section 21-100.04D, and found that the applicant could not meet all six criteria. City staff did note that other neighbors do have large accessory structures, but they are not available. Thank you.

I'll open the public hearing is the applicant in the audience.

Yep, we need your name and your address, please.

It was going to break out. The lens is cracked.

Name and address, please. In your name?

Ariel? Ariel?

OK.

Yeah, I built a building like this about five years ago on Pine Tree Drive, and I didn't have any problems. You know what would be that total building? I put a tree behind me.

Okay. What questions do we have?

A couple. I don't like any part of it where we're not gonna make it match the existing house. I agree. I mean, I guess it's technically the sides, not really the front. However, it is pulled further to the front than it is. So I prefer it not even come out any closer to the primary structure itself. um given what we now have found out about the gentleman on eaton without going into you know i would much prefer to see this with the construction specs of the building and elevations of the primary structure so that So, I mean, for me, that's the stuff I want to see. I mean, so that we don't inherently end up with yet another issue where an accessory structure is five feet taller than the primary house. So, I don't know. you can thank the people that are doing that for the reason that I'm saying what I'm saying now yeah the problem is when we when these people came to us years ago they didn't give us any of these specs and and now this is what we get to deal with so whatever he's showing you clarify on the

Do you know the address of that building?

2931 Yuletree.

2931 Yuletree. You're showing me an accessory structure that is... No, that's his address.

He's saying that's on Silver Palm? That is on Silver Palm. That looks like the new one on Silver Palm, and I don't think that was years ago. It was recent.

that it was that it was put up if it's the one i'm thinking of but do you know the address of that other than just on silver palm so it's an accessory structure on silver palm drive uh similar to the one that he wants to construct i want to say it's around 23rd or 24th yeah yeah we need you to speak in the microphone

So we have a record. Has the time been even put on? Well, he's the applicant. Oh, okay. It seems that at this point, we need more information. And I think it's appropriate to possibly say, let's table it. That's my gut.

I would agree.

If you're going to table it, please. get the staff and we can get it rescheduled.

Is the accessory structure affidavit still a thing? Yeah. Okay, because that wasn't completed and that would tell us a good bit of some other information that would be pertinent.

It's on the city's website.

But it's not required for him to complete prior to submitting for variance for an accessory structure?

It's for a building permit. So, so let's give them a list.

Well, all right. All right. So I'm going to want, let me write it down. All right. So we need the plans for the accessory structure elevations of the accessory structure and the primary structure.

And those can just be photographs of the primary structure. Obviously, he doesn't have, he's not gonna have to have an architect draw up the.

Yeah, no, I mean, would it be okay? I mean, the only thing I really wanna verify is the height of the roof. So, I mean, I don't even care if he sticks a tape measure up there or something like that. As long as he can give us a measurement that says, okay, I've got 14 feet to the peak of my roof and the building's not gonna be 13 foot nine. Okay, great, you know.

First vehicle is the same size as the house.

But so, so what's happened is we had another scenario like this a few months ago and that structure that was built is four feet taller than the primary structure. So now we're trying to make sure that doesn't happen again without the proper variants being applied for. So, all right. So plans, elevations, um, like to see a detail sheet of the street facing facade with its exterior cladding or how it's gonna look and paint scheme because like I said for me it needs to match the primary house I don't want to we need to get away from these metal buildings being built in the middle of Florida shores if they want a metal building there's plenty of real estate at Parktown Industrial, they can buy. Not anymore. That's true, not anymore. It's true. It's a good point. So anybody else got anything else they want to add to this?

I think you've done the high points, Chris.

All right.

Are they going to bring in any fill, or is that just going to be, is it going to set up higher with the fill? Is it going to be a concrete slab?

The elevation should tell us that. Now, we could, in the next, when he comes back, we could add the condition, or I'll go ahead and say it now, that we want it to be a stem wall construction. So that at least he can't, you know, that way we're not bringing up the...

I think that's important to be in there.

I think we need to put that in, Chris.

someone is going to make a list and send it to him right yes okay good thank you exterior cladding and paint to match primary structure okay all right everybody ready all right motion to table va 2611 And when the applicant comes back, we would like to see the building plans for the accessory structure, elevations of the accessory structure and the primary structure to verify height. The accessory structure needs to be built on a stem wall foundation. and a detail sheet showing the exterior cladding and paint to match the primary structure. Yeah, so let's... Second? I second. Okay. Let's move on. Absolutely.

Mr Dwayne. Yes, Mr Fisher. Yes, Mr McGinnis. Yes, Mr Kennedy. Yes, it's Andrew Kovacs. Yes, Mr Hatcher. Yep, Mr Cunningham. Yes.

Thank you Sir. Next item on the agenda is VA-2612, request for a variance to allow a metal carport to have a 3-foot, 3-inch side yard setback in lieu of the 10-foot requirement for the property located at 122 Hotel Avenue. Can we have a staff report, please?

yes thank you city staff sent out public notice within 500 feet of the subject property at 122 hotel avenue the applicant is requesting against article 5 table b1 to allow a three foot three inch side yard setback in lieu of the required 10 foot for the placement of a metal cardboard the parcel does have a non-conforming structure that's located five feet seven inches from the property line in the rear of the parcel this would allow for article seven and approved five yard setback of five foot seven inches however they are requested three foot three inches you recall within article seven you can't expand the non-conformity but you can match it so he's going even further city staff did review the application against article 9 section 21 100.04d and found that the applicant could not meet all of the six criteria city staff will note that 126 hotel avenue 128 hotel avenue and 135 hotel avenue all have structures less than 10 feet from the property line and city staff will be happy to answer any questions um and this is the depiction of this plot plan that was provided okay i'll open the public hearing is the applicant in the audience

Just name and address for the record, please.

Brian Stevens, 2900 Citrus Drive, Illinois. As for Delaney, she asked if we could do an updated survey. We did update a survey for you, which shows a setback. It's a little bit less than what we're asking for. Basically we're asking for a cover for his classic car that was left to him by his father. He needs extra feet.

Okay.

You guys have any questions for him while he's here? So the drawing's got an existing carport, but Google Street doesn't show a carport there.

There is not an existing carport. Right now there is a driveway going to the area. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, that actually makes me feel better because I was like, why are we adding on to a carport? Why don't we just redo it? Gotcha. Then I looked at Google Street and I'm like, oh, there isn't a carport.

Okay. Thank you. Does anybody in the audience have any questions, comments, concerns? Okay. I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

I make a motion to send a fable recommendation or to send to approve the VA 2612 variance as written.

Second.

Mr. Dwayne.

Yes.

Mr. Fisher. No. Mr. McGinnis.

No.

Mr. Kennedy.

Yes.

Mr. Andrew Kovacs. Yes. Mr. Hatcher.

Yeah.

Mr. Cunningham. No.

OK. Next item on the agenda is VA 2613, request for a variance to reduce the front yard setback to 10 feet on the east side, 14 feet on the southeast side, and 24 feet on the south of the property, as well as increase the max build to 40.88% for the property located at 121 Valencia Drive. Staff report, please.

thank you city staff sent out public notice within 500 feet of the subject property here at 121 valencia drive the applicant is requesting five variances from the board all almost all of them from article five the first is to allow a front yard setback on the east side of the property of 10 feet in lieu of the 30 foot requirement to allow a front yard setback on the southeast side of the property of 14 feet in lieu of the 30 foot requirement to allow a front yard setback on the south side of the property for 24 feet in lieu of the 30 foot requirement to allow a maximum build of 40.88% in lieu of 30%. And it's just noted that for article seven, nonconforming is planning and zoning board's discretion to grant variances for nonconforming lots. City staff did review the article against the land development code of Article nine section 21 dash 100.04 D and found that the applicant could not meet all six of the criteria. City staff are glad to answer any questions. This is the survey of the existing residents and what is proposed. and city staff did send out this evening um before the meeting about an hour and a half before a letter from a neighbor and i apologize for the late transmission of that letter to the board okay um and that was opposed to the correct yeah um concern was about the max build um and then elevation and grade change in relation to her property which is to the north

Okay, I will open the public hearing is the applicant in the audience.

Danielle 1713. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Yep.

Thank you.

Right over the staff comments and I appreciate the time to be able to speak on this property. The owners, Bruce and Lauren Katz are from Virginia. They're building a home and they bought this property They bought a dilapidated home, rat infested, we cleared the property for them, and they wanted to build something with curb appeal for the neighborhood. I did go over the notes with them about the staff hearing about the 40.88 going over the building coverage of 30%. I talked to her about getting rid of the carport. If we got rid of the carport, that would put us back in the 30% build ratio. And I also read about the saying it's not a unique lot. I will say a typical residential lot has one front setback. this property on this curve has two front setbacks authority so if you look at one of the pages i sent you i'm showing you what a property would look like if we build within the actual two front setbacks and 210 side yards which is what this property is known for we're just looking to put something for these homeowners who are moving here from virginia something that they can love she really wants a porch She loves the view of being able to see New Smyrna and the water over on the balcony that she wants to build on the second floor. And so she's willing to give up some. And again, we mentioned removing the carport. That'll put us in the 30% building coverage. We're 42% total property, so we're within the 60% for the impervious ratio. And we're willing to give. If you look at that one where I'm showing you what two front 30-step backs look like, That visual in the background is where the existing house sit that we demolished that was dilapidated. It already was set at a 12.5 setback from the front. So it was never within the 30 foot setback. And we're just trying to give them a little bit more room coverage. We're not trying to build anything extravagant actually did.

I've been called worse.

You can pass it around. I'm showing you what that first floor of the home looks like. It's a kitchen. It's a small living room, a master bedroom, and a utility room.

We're not trying to build a plasma hall here. We're just trying to give them something that's livable space, and it's about 1,900 square feet. I'm not calculating that little bump out. That was extra to get a little nook on the kitchen. We can get rid of that. but she really wanted that. If you look on that little corner part that's giving us that 10-foot front setback on that. That bump out is for the kitchen. If you're looking at that floor plan, I sent you.

Northwest side.

Northwest side. And so again, we'll get rid of the carport to give us some building coverage to get rid of that variance.

the plan you just gave us in front of the car is that a dining table and uh is that what you're talking about also yeah where you're pointing I gave them my plan so I don't see it now thank you so the dining table in a Yeah, directly in front of the car, where the carport would be.

That was the idea and concept. So that's just concrete. It doesn't have to be there. It still puts us in the impervious ratio of 60. But it would just be concrete going from front to back. We just showed them with a couch out there. They were just having something sit back there with a carport. But we could get rid of the concrete. What's most important to the homeowner is the front porch area. as well as maximizing the footprint if possible. I know there was another mention of storm water drainage issues. We would 100% take care of that in civil. We wouldn't ask for any variance. We've talked about the idea of doing a B-swell on the property line, to store water on the property line. We can do a French drain, anything that would meet civil requirements so that we wouldn't have a storm water drainage issue. Thank you.

Oh, okay.

Is there any is there any public comment anybody here that has any anything that they want to question ask Okay, I Don't see anything unreasonable about this request. I mean, I don't it's yeah, it's a constrained lot, right?

Stop zooming in No

mean that's a small street well I know but the existing house that was already sitting on the property was he was 11 feet from the side property line so it's a foot and a half I mean the existing house you know what I mean Jim I mean the existing house was eleven point nine feet at the front corner and they're proposing ten feet so it's one point nine foot and difference you know I mean it's I can't imagine that I probably have the largest truck of everybody here if I can make that corner I don't think it's a problem removing the carport puts you under 30 is that keeping the little bump out off the kitchen so that puts you under 30 Gotcha. To take stormwater into consideration, would they be, hang on, Ryan. Ryan's gonna shoot me if I say this out loud. What if we had them do some type of a pervious driveway? The apron, of course, would have to be concrete, but what if we said crushed, not asphalt, because everyone knows as soon as you put that down, it's impervious. But like if they did a river rock or something to minimize the concrete.

I think the biggest concern, and I apologize to everyone who's watching the video that I messed up the camera. I will fix it in a second. I think the biggest concern from the lady from the north was the fear of the fill and the grading that would take place where how storm water would be conveyed in the area. Everything in that area drains to the street. street has a basically a shallow non-existent swale um that's just a grass area for utilities um so there's almost no storm water facilities in that area it does just eventually just all head to the river um so i think you know that was her biggest concern at least from the phone call 30 to 45 minute phone call i had with her over the last two days, her biggest concern was her lot is kind of a bit lower. And the impervious, 42%, it's still within the range. I think probably, again, in this case, this would be these infill lots are really more prone to stem wall construction. And I think that would probably be more beneficial than the impervious drive. There is something that I would like to talk to the board later report this evening about looking at you know parking and whether we allow for impervious driveways in the city to combat stormwater issues instead of just having i know it's more of an optics right obviously concrete drive is just what everyone has grown up with and it looks nice But I think for areas that are experiencing a lot of flooding, it may be something that staff would like to explore with the board.

Less concrete is better? Well, they can do a porous bore, too.

Yeah, correct. And the young lady had mentioned the fact that they would be willing to address the water issues on the property.

Have you ever dealt with any of the systems that are installed underneath the driveway where basically the swale feeds into that storage system under the driveway? It's almost like a chamber system. That's another way that... I have.

I've installed them. So... It's a glorified French drain, yeah.

Well, I'm just saying...

It's structural, though, so you can put concrete on top of it as opposed to a French drain where you really couldn't do that.

You should come to the microphone. Oh, yeah. It's okay. It's okay.

All right.

But I just wanted to put that out there that they mentioned that that will address that issue, which I think that's, that's reasonable in itself.

Why couldn't we require the stem wall construction like we did with the?

Well, we can, what I was trying to figure out is how could we Because by development code, they've got to meet 100 year, right?

No, not .

What do they have to meet? Just whatever their stormwater is?

Stormwater goes to the street.

So if we made the requirement that they had to contain their own stormwater. And then in civil, then in civil, then they can design the system, whether it be the system like George was talking about. It could be as simple as a swale. I mean, the 2200 square foot addition, I'm putting in New Samaritan, I had to do a five foot by 60 foot swale six inches deep. That held all the retainers required.

So I think that's definitely appropriate.

Okay.

Okay.

All right. Anybody else? Anything? All right. I'm gonna close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

I know.

Motion to approve VA 2613 with the following conditions that the max building be kept under 30%. It'll be right there anyway, right?

Would that nix the carport? 31%. Chris, would that nix the carport?

Yes. The max building be kept under 31% and all stormwater be contained on site.

Can I get a second? Second.

Mr. Dwayne?

Yes.

Mr. Fisher?

Yes.

Mr. McGinnis? No. Mr. Kennedy? Yes. Mr. Jankovic? Yes. Mr. Hatcher? Yep. Mr. Cunningham? Yes.

Okay, next item on the agenda is VA-2614, request for variance to allow a pool and supporting retaining wall to encroach into the required waterfront setback shoreline buffer zone and to execute grade modifications utilizing approximately 200 cubic yards of fill dirt for the property located at 417 North Riverside Drive. Staff report please.

Thank you. City staff sent out public notice within 500 feet of the subject property. The applicant is looking to build a swimming pool and a supporting grade stabilizing retaining wall. For Article 4, Section 21-4104 and Article 5, Section 21-5307B, the construction of a pool wall 12 feet from the shoreline is the variance being requested in lieu of the 50-foot requirement. for Article IV, Section 21-4104, and Article V, Section 21-5307, A and B. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a supporting retaining wall four feet from the vegetation line encroaching into the required 50-foot waterfront buffer setback, where vertical seawalls and bulkheads are otherwise prohibited. And that is unless it is demonstrated that alternative stabilization methods are impractical and erosion poses a significant threat to real property. And then lastly, for Article four, section 214104, allow 200 cubic feet of yards within the protected coastal zone. City staff did review the article against Article nine or the application, excuse me, against Article 9, Section 21-100-04D. I found that the applicant could not meet all six of the criteria according to the city staff report. City staff do not recommend approval for VA-2614. And we'll note several comprehensive plan policies that could be in violation for this . City staff will be happy to go over any questions or comments regarding the staff report

Okay, I will open the public hearing. Does the DEP have to approve this as well?

No, because it's not actually in the water. That was my question, Army Corps question mark.

Is the applicant in the audience?

Mr. Fisher, you said the wall's already there.

There is a stem wall. There is some wall on the north side of the building, on the north side of the property. And it looks like Phil's already been brought in. There's a bigger wall. So my question would be, is that going to come back around on the other side of the pool and connect with some other stem wall? Is that being expanded? Is that it?

No, that's it. We're just going to... So there's two different drawings. One's from my engineer, which was stating on how it should be done with the fabric tiebacks and all that. And then there's another one from the surveyor that... to see the actual concrete and the impervious rate and all that so on the left side of the pool um actually it go all the way over and then it's coming down the side of my yard on the left side and there's a uh there's eight feet between there and the wall that's for the drain i got a my own swell there you're talking about to the north the north side of the property where that hook is

It doesn't turn. It's really just a straight wall. There's nothing on the back side of that that I could see. It just looked like it kind of tapered down. Is that the wall that's supporting the pool?

Yeah, that whole foundation there is supporting the pool.

Well, the best I could come up with is the pool is eight foot from a wall. And then four foot, that wall is four foot from the main high water line. and 12 foot from vegetation. So my basic math is, you know, out of these other homes, Ryan, are any of these others, these 423, 427, and 503 North Riverside, how many of those are four and 12 foot away from the

main high water line and vegetation yeah my next door neighbor right there in it she has the same kind of setup as mine see how the earth comes straight in to the north side of me comes all the way in all that vegetation and the pools right there i kind of have the same deal i mean i could push the pool all the way over to the vacant lot that i just combined both lots together but I mean, it's not going to be behind the house. It's going to be way over to the left to try to meet that 50-foot zone.

Right, but it could be brought closer, further away from the high water line.

I don't have that exactly.

Yeah. I didn't figure you did. I was just curious out of, you know. But yes, you can see that the neighbor's pool is very close as well.

Well, there's several on Riverside. I mean, some of them have literally the pool decks, five foot, go straight to the seawall, and then it's supported by rock and river. But those houses have been there forever. And the pools as well.

See, this picture looks like the wall is going to go all the way around the pool.

That's kind of what I, when I tried blowing it up on my computer, it just got fuzzier and fuzzier.

Oh, yeah, you're a fool. Back to the

basically right off the back of the house see how it's on this picture here how it's really dark so that's the actual wall and it's actually it's going to go back towards the water and then over to the neighbor north of me and then back up to the towards the street i got you so the dark line feeds into that lighter line right so off the back porch the actual sliding glass door was already under within the buffer zone 25 feet I think it was and the problem was that the old stem wall that was there was literally the other side of it was just grated off like it was just falling apart so that's why I actually did it to as a stabilization basically of my back of my house

Has the engineer, I mean, my other concern here is, so you're not technically in the water. At high tide, and more specifically, king high tides, I mean, knowing how those walls are built, there's not really, it's not like it's a sheet pile being driven into the ground. It's basically a layer of block that sets the base and then you just build from there. My concern is hurricanes. King tides. I mean, at what point does it start undermining that block to where it just collapses in?

The first layer of block is halfway down in the soil, and it's 57 stone on the layer to put it down. And then behind it, it's all 57 stone and then fabric, so all the water can bleed through the wall. I mean, they obviously put stacked stone walls everywhere.

That's the proper way to build it.

No, I know. No, I know. I've built one on the ocean in Norman.

It's got tieback, you know, in it and everything.

Yeah. No, I know. I just.

And it has one side. So basically, I have one side that's basically encroaching the 50-foot barrier there for the pool.

I mean, I'm not necessarily opposed to being inside the 50 feet. My bigger concern is the wash.

But you're the landscaping guy. You can probably tell me more about that. I didn't do it. David Knight did.

You didn't mean to wash. Well, I'm just, my bigger concern, my biggest concern here is tropical storms, hurricanes.

If it's construction property, you can build those things 50 feet high and they'll last 100 years. Okay. That's all I'm worried about is undermining. As long as it's properly engineered.

But yeah, I mean, as far as it being like where he's proposing to put it, not necessarily opposed to. Now, Ryan, you mentioned some of the comprehensive things.

Yeah, so the comprehensive plan does require high water line setback. We do have 25 feet from wetlands and roads. All those criteria of our coastal elements

Well, I know, what is that? Not Carlson Cove. What's the name of that street that we did?

Pelican.

Is it Pelican Cove? Where they got that one little cove that comes in and we had to basically let them build the house within 25 feet? Uh-huh. That thing's a monster of a house, too. Go back to the Google.

The other thing, too.

Google.

I'm sorry.

No, you're okay.

With the vegetation, you can see how it comes up in the cut there all the way up to my, basically back of my property, back of the house. Obviously, that's what we look at every day looking out there. Right. Not trying to take any vegetation away. I haven't damaged or hurt any vegetation. I need it to look beautiful because you're looking at that every day.

What's the vegetation? I'm assuming mangroves?

Yes. Okay. That and some other plant. I'm not sure what it is, but... It took a pretty good hit during that breeze.

Yeah, I was going to ask George at the end of the meeting what those tall pine trees are that are all brown now. Norfolk Island pines. Never realized how many there were in this town until they all turned brown.

So will there be an engineer responsible for the engineering of all of this?

It's already got it. It's what's submitted.

Well, it says it's submitted. It says contractor to submit structural engineering to owner, owner responsible for engineered review and coordination by licensed Florida engineer. The retaining wall information in these plans is provided for informational purposes only.

So the engineer copy and pasted that from the manufacturer's website. where this isn't the building permit yeah right so basically what's going to happen is the engineer is going to go back to the manufacturer and look at the install specs and then what they've had to do is design a system so that it holds to the building code so the engineer is just going to verify that it's and then it really comes down to the building inspector to make sure that it got installed the way it was supposed to i mean george is right i mean we installed one of these up in ormond on the ocean and when milton came through

guy to the north lost his concrete seawall that was driven into the sand this trimron system stayed so i just want to ask a question and clarify based on the photo that we have up now at the end of the dark where you currently have your retaining wall then your new wall is going to continue north and then back to the west is that correct yes sir Okay, because right now it's just your dirt that's in there.

All right. There's a wall on the north side of all that dirt. It's all done already.

Yeah. Mr. McGinnis, this. So only the dark line area is what we're adding.

so yeah the existing wall here exists he's talking about he wants to build this here so that he can backfill this for the pool okay so that's what i was saying so the dark line is what he's adding correct okay okay any questions from the um audience anybody have any questions okay anybody else have any other questions for him

Thank you. All right, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

Motion to approve VA 2614 version one.

Second.

Mr. Dwayne? Yes. Mr. Fisher?

No.

Mr. McGinnis? No. Mr. Kennedy?

Yes.

Mr. Jankovics? Yes. Mr. Hatcher?

Yep.

Mr. Cunningham? Yes.

Okay, next item on the agenda is Development Services Director's Report.

Thank you.

So, as you saw, we brought the new sign code to city council. The council did request for minor edits, so city staff are working on that. We're going to get it back on the agenda for the next hearing. One of the things that I'd like to workshop with the board coming up, when I get some free time, is to look at, especially in our infill areas, especially areas that don't have stormwater systems really designed to look at whether or not we look at going through rock drives and allowing one of the big things in the city right now, now that I'm in charge of code enforcement is a lot of people like to park on their rock drives. However, rock at the city is considered use for a path, which is only for you to move to and from your backyard, you cannot actually park on it. A approved parking space has to be an improved surface. Not necessarily a great idea to keep adding more. And so maybe looking at especially one of the things that the last the first moratorium I wrote for the council was that we didn't want to add any impervious. We couldn't say that even a square foot wasn't gonna add to additional flooding. Over the last year, probably 50 to 75,000 square feet of impervious has been added to Florida Shores. I'd say a fair amount of that is driveways and parking spaces. And so that's something I'd like to explore with this body as we kind of move forward.

Other than the apron, I'm all for Anything, I mean, asphalt millings is a tough one because as you're in the process of just laying the millings, you're compacting it to a point where it's now impervious. Next time it rains real hard, come look at my driveway.

But there are other options. You have segmented pavers that are specifically meant for porous to impervious, specifically to meet codes like Ryan's talking about.

I would absolutely like to explore options like that. I know the apron has to be, but...

i mean we talked about it on juniper you know i mean why put in 40 feet of pavement as long as it can support an 18 20 000 pound fifth or rv who cares so not a big fan of the crushed shell though gotta be a nicer than that so that's something that we'll probably have to bring up maybe we'll reserve it towards the end of the year um so um as and also as we get closer to july of next year um we're gonna I would like to workshop a lot more things. We haven't been able to, I haven't been able to make any code changes. And we will be, have the opportunity to hopefully make code changes by next summer. And so I'd like to start working with the board on some of those changes. Just to get you guys kind of ready for, in getting your feedback.

Let me go through my notes. I got a whole list I'll send to you.

I just picked up an RV. 34,000 pounds in order for me to put a rock driveway and it has to be a minimum eight inches thick But it'll all be impervious all the way through So what I did with mine Jim on my house on tamarind I basically just put in a

basically compacted stone runners and then put in like a geo grid that came off of the runners to support the runners and then just put all St Augustine, or Zoysia in this case, just ran it back with Zoysia. That way it was basically just runners. So as long as you're good at backing in, you're fine.

And then I've also been, Development Services has now folded in code enforcement. So if you have any code enforcement issues,

so feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions or concerns if anything pops up at parktown industrial just pick up the phone call yeah okay anything else i'll notify the president don't call him he's busy yeah with your ping pong table in your office