Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thanks everybody for being here.

We'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Can I take a moment?

Thank you. Amen.

Okay, if everyone has had a chance to review minutes, I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes from last month.

I'll make a motion to accept the minutes from last month.

Excuse me, we need to do our poll first. Oh, my apologies. You're so fuzzy.

Only my second time. Can you please call the roll?

Stan Schmidt?

Yes.

Scott Steger?

Yes.

Angela LaDuke? Here. Here.

Here.

Okay. It's right here in front of me that says I'm supposed to do that too. Okay, so I have entertained or I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes last month.

Make a motion to accept the minutes from last meeting. Second.

Roll call from meeting minutes. Vote.

All in favor? Aye.

Anyone opposed? No. Thank you. We have one agenda item this evening. Can I get a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve case number DCAM-25-0005, LDC Amendment Chapter 17, Section 29. Second. Second.

This is a code amendment to the land development code. A little bit different than our typical code amendments that we bring before you. This one is mainly just for a specific area within Port Orange area. It's called the PCA area. It's about 1,201 acres. I'll probably call it 1,200 because Simple that way then, but just to get the total acres there. But this area is located on the west side of Port Orange. It's west of I-95 and, of course, you know, east of Tomoka Farms Road and below the F-Canel easement and basically above Royal Palm subdivision there. So that's the property that this code, the text that we're reviewing tonight, applies to this specific area only within Port Orange. So just want to give a kind of context of where this is in here then. This really started a planning exercise back in 2001-2002 resulted in the adoption of the zoning district in 2002 along with the community west side future land use and then our designation for that property there and that established a number of parameters on that property which still exists today and are not changing with this code amendment. I just want to kind of briefly go over those because those were adopted in 2002 and are still in place and will not be changing and um so they've got a max overall density of that whole entire area is four units per acre which results into about four thousand eight hundred four dwelling units are permitted within that area then um it does allow for higher densities to be in there um as long as basically that overall cap is maintained and that is noticeable in a couple of developments that have already occurred out there where we have some residential subdivisions which develop uh two to three units per acre then you have you know the white palm apartments and springs which develop at 12 units per acre so the overall is allows for that increase of density in areas in but at the end of the day when this is done developing we have to get that four unit cap that per acre then and of course staff does track that as we go through so that will be you notice that we get closer to build out we'll be able to say when they're getting close to that and monitor that then also too it does require development pattern requirements the central town center there Higher intensities near I-95. It does require the residential map build-out, a mixture of uses by percentage. Again, that was established in 2002 and is consistently maintained as we do development projects in Port Orange, in this area that come in. Those are tracked to maintain that we're within those percentages and those still are in place then. And the last item is a transportation is a daily trip cap for the entire area at 62,600 average daily trips is in the comp plan that basically we have to monitor. Again, we have traffic studies that's all documented and tracked then. That is not only in the comp plan and the zoning document, but that's also in an interlocal agreement that is between the city and Volusia County that was approved back in 2002. So there's a lot of documents that were approved back then which set these parameters up here on there, including, like we've mentioned, that code amendment for that area. And again, with anything that was developed 20, 25 years ago, over the course of time we've looked at it and basically there needs to be some changes and updates to it then. It has allowed for the development of about 400 acres in Port Orange here, mainly the residential subdivisions. We think we listed those in the staff report. Coquina Cove, Port Orange Plantation, I think Westport Reserve. along with the multifamily there and some commercial that has come online then. So there has been some development in this area. It's mainly the southern portion, and it was within the neighborhood and workplace district. The other districts that are here, to the north here in that pink area which is vacant, those areas are mainly the community and again the worst workplace district as kind of the development trends have in this area have gone in terms of industry and kind of the job producing areas there those have more gravitated toward the i-95 i-4 corridor basically due to transportation needs that So this area that we have here, we should go ahead and get down to the next thing there. Sorry, this is what the current district map plan is here. It shows this long area here as basically being for office industrial, commercial, industrial uses here. As kind of 25 years ago, the plan was that would develop with the uses that you see kind of along the Amazon and the services up along the I-95 corridor. That is not the way the market's going. So basically, the property owner is looking to kind of We look at the vacant portion here and basically kind of align it with kind of market trends for hopefully the next 20 years for continued development in that area then. So what we have here is the proposed changes that are identified in that text change that we have. And it kind of includes a couple items here. The first part is the update to the figure which shows the pods which can be developed. And basically it results in the workplace district, which is kind of more of the industry commercial aspect of it then. being reduced by about 241 acres and being replaced by the community district which is more of a residential district but also too allows for commercial to be built within it too and then of course there's the West Town Center which is supposed to be a mixed-use project area about 100 acres with basically both retail commercial or commercial residential office that is still intact in that area and actually the way it kind of works out basically it increases overall two acres from what it originally proposed to be then so that's the the main part in terms of the shifting of kind of the general uses that are allowed in that area then While we were in there working on it with the applicant, there was a number of outdated code references and duplicate code references that were in there. We basically removed those. There's a lot of things where it referenced codes, other sections of the land development code that were not correct. So we basically just got rid of those because when you're reviewing a site plan, and it meets the code requirement you're naturally going to go to chapter 15 for signage so we did not have to have it listed again same thing for parking did not need to have it listed twice you go to the parking chapter when you're doing a site plan then we want to do that to keep that basically reduce the duplicate and also too if any code changes are made then then you don't accidentally forget to change it in one other section then which done in the past so we're trying to make hopefully penny and i were kind of streamlined for the next group to come on here so they're not wondering what we were doing um design standards and permitted uses were consolidated again to reference the ldc just to make it more efficient than um we did provide sorry we did provide some more design flexibility for the west town center that's again the mixed use project that's more kind of a denser area and a lot of the requirements that we have in our code are more for kind of you know the single use sites then this is going to be you know commercial with residential and office kind of combined together. So we knew we needed a little bit of flexibility in there for that type of development to come in here. So we built that flexibility in there so when that project is brought forward, it provides us some flexibility to make sure we get the the project we want in that area then also too it allows for within the community district only which is the blue area it allows for the subdivision open space as required the applicant could allow that to be placed outside the subdivision but within that um but that would have to be through a separate agreement with the city so if they this just kind of sets the framework to allow that option but in order for it to be acted on they still need to come before city council with a separate agreement to show where they're transferring that open space to on there then so all this does is set up the framework and then of course the actual action will still have to be reviewed by staff and brought forward for final approval then And then the last item is the request by the applicant to reduce the minimum lot width in the community district from 50 feet to 40 feet. They have been working with various home builders, and that is one of the things that the home builders have inquired about for the type of model homes they want to put in there is a 40-foot lot versus a 50-foot. The lot width is the only thing that's changing. The minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet is staying the same. So basically we're just getting a narrower lot but deeper lot then. and that allows for basically you know the flexibility in terms of housing style model style then which developers are looking for that to kind of change the way the neighborhood looks then so that is proposal that would only apply to the community district and the reason why we're only applying the community district is because that's the only one that still needs to be developed so that is also listed in the proposed text amendment changes this is just showing the map again here um just to kind of highlight the major areas where we're changing is this area right here kind of between mcginnis and 95 is going from the workplace district to the community district this area where the west town center is here was prior was the um workplace district and then you've got the residential here which used to be where the west town center was then so um the west those were the major changes on that map then and they get a lot of text amendments in there with the cleanup items there and then of course the last one was that lot width requirement being requested to be changed from 50 to 40 for the community and staff has reviewed it again we've worked with the applicants on going through the text changes there and staff is recognition is approval And the applicant is also here to further discuss their request.

I want to tell you it was a long read.

I think it took longer to explain how we got to here.

I appreciate you doing that because you gave a lot of information.

Versus the actual text amendment. I was like, this is a one-page text amendment, but then it's got seven pages of history.

Well, thank you very much for the very thorough explanation because, like I said, it was a lot. Questions for Tim? Stan?

I know you just explained that builders seem like they want the 40 foot width rather than the 50 foot width lot. And I personally just have a real problem with that. You know, we've got those out in South of town here.

We have some in Madeline Commons which just got approved and we've permitted a number of single family homes that have been built and constructed on those lots and they've been able to meet all of our requirements there in terms of setbacks, grading, etc. We've been able to work with developers on getting that type of housing model into that lot.

I remember we had to redo the setbacks at one point in time because the new more efficient air conditioning units were shorter and fatter than the old ones so now you had

That was in, I think, in Woodhaven then?

That was in Woodhaven, I think, yeah.

And that was, you know, again, too, I think basically they had indicated that the housing product that they had initially planned for that subdivision had changed then, so that's what kind of there then. I think the intent here is that, you know, the applicant explained more here, too, is that they would be letting these homeowners know ahead of time that that's the lot with requirements so they can make sure they're designing their homes to fit that then. But they can further give more information as to why that request has been made.

Well, I mean, you pretty much explained what it is. I'm just telling you my personal feeling. I don't like it. That doesn't make it right. It's just my personal feeling, and that's it. Because, you know, when you're facing the marketplace, you're trying to sell these houses, you've got to make it to where more people would want to buy that particular model house. And I get that. The other thing, and this is just a picky thing, which I've been known for, is the dyno. I didn't have all my stickies on at this time. Way, way, way toward the back, like on page 39, we were talking about... 39? Whatever it is. Yeah. 36, 34? You're supposed to guess. It's on one of those pages. Just guess. Get back there, boys. All right, so the first issue is... Come on.

Tell them the page.

So I just found it, because I had to scroll through all these. So if you look on page... We talk about we have to make all these different agencies aware of what we're doing and they talk about the Volusia County MPO. Is that still MPO or is that TPO now?

That is the TPO. TPO has turned to MPO. Right. The one thing that we were kind of cautious on that one is that this is also language that is per listed in the BGMC resolution that we have adopted and also to the comp plan. so basically we were keeping that saying because we did not want to contradict other documents then right so that's why they're but yeah we you know a lot that's why we try to not put the agency's name in here because we know we changed there but you are correct that that is no longer the um mpo house is actually the volusia flagler um right there they've changed the name like five times so i was gonna say it's been a while i think like when we did the comp plan basically we kind of made a generic term there then for that reason then but yeah i just caught my accent going

When you're looking at all these agencies and you're going, okay, FDOT, Trent, District 5, I guess we're still there. We haven't been redistricted on that, have we? No. Okay, good. It's not legislative redistricting.

But when we do these annual reports, they are sent to the correct agencies. Right.

All right, that's it for me. I'll let somebody else in on you for a while. Okay.

Angela?

I'll build on that one subject so you don't have to switch pages. But that traffic study is based, the future impact traffic study is based on information from 2001, correct?

No, what that was, when that code was done, basically the code was written, so when they started doing development, they had to do the basis traffic study. So yes, back in 2001. basically it was done on what was there then. Every year since then, we've had to do, we have to do monitoring reports then. So when we do the monitoring reports, we are reporting on actually what has been developed then. So as property develops, we continue to update that then.

Okay, so this analysis will be based upon the future land use map designation of the property as of June 25th, 2001.

Right. That was the initial when basically when this got adopted.

We were redlining something. Shouldn't you redline that? No.

That was the requirement on there then? This is based, that tells the past history of it.

Okay. Okay.

But in terms of, you know, 24 years ago when basically the code was in place then that was kind of directing them to do that first initial study then and they did do that then to get that basis and then we can update that. I wanted to get rid of a lot of this stuff, but Penny wouldn't let me. And I got scared. And she is the boss. And I got scared after asking so many questions. I just stopped doing that, too. But I had some questions, too, on that thing. Well, she has that intimidating presence. Yeah. She's standing over you on your desk. Yeah. Oh, yeah.

Her small stature is very intimidating. Well, it does seem like that, like,

The data that we're going to use should probably be reflective of what's there, right?

The data was used to collect the bases there, which we created on it then, and we continue to monitor that area because we have that trip cap, which we have to truly monitor that. and we collect data every year to make sure that we are within that trip gap and under it then. So we do continue to collect the correct data and we are accurately updating that there. That was just to get the basis then. And we continue to collect the data to make sure that we do not exceed strip tape of like 62,000 there. I think we're at 20,000 on it then. So we continue to update the reports to make sure that we are staying within the limits there that were established.

So when you say that, you mean you take numbers from the latest traffic manuals?

Every year we get traffic studies for all the reports for any development there. And basically at the end of the year, we do a study and we take that data from those traffic studies that have been approved by Volusia County, city staff, the transportation engineering years, and we add that to that there.

So if the numbers say that it used to be 1.5 trips generated by a certain dwelling unit, and now the new numbers say it's 1.8, then 1.8 is what you use to count against that trip?

We use the numbers at that time, and typically the numbers are getting less than, so in the earlier days. You're using the latest numbers? We're using the latest data. That's what I mean. Yeah. We're not going back to Trapsite from 2004 and updating it based off the trip generations. We're using, as they come in, we document them and carry forward that way. You don't even have to say anything.

You've got three heads behind you all bobbing.

I have another question. I didn't have a chance to review the interlocal agreement because I didn't even know it existed. So where can I find that?

We can provide that to you. The basis of that one is talks about the property being, you know, it will be, all that property will be annexed into Port Orange at that time and essentially that interlocal agreement also too documents the trip cap then, which is the same number that we used in the comp plan and the zoning document. So this is in Port Orange now or it will be? There is a portion of it that is outside Port Orange. Okay. And we are in the process of annexing it in. I think this, I don't think we have a map that shows that then. But you can kind of see the dash Port Orange boundary line here on your screen there. Can you see like the orange and pink dash line?

When you're talking colors, you might as well be talking to my cat, because I'm colorblind.

There is a portion north of this. You can see the dash.

When I was on the school board, I used to drive nuts, because they started off using a stick to point it out on the map. Then they went to the laser pointer, and I go...

i got nothing but that is outside city of port orange but the interlocal agreement says that that will be within port orange there we actually have the process of annexing it and while it's outside the city of port orange boundary it still has port orange future land use and port orange zoning on it then so the annexation is just the last step in terms of this finding an exercise that was started 24 years ago.

And there's nothing that would get in the way of that? Like that's an automated, like it's happening?

We're moving forward on that right now. So the interlocal agreement is between Fort Orange and the county. Nothing with the city of Daytona Beach? No. Okay. They have their own one that they get to monitor. Right.

And one last question. You said staff keep track of the overall density. Which staff?

Me. I'm planning.

And you're planning. Okay. Okay.

Handy dandy Excel chart. No, for real on that, then basically as the projects come in to, you know, the review then, basically we track everything from the, you know, the unit count there, the acreage, everything, you know, tracked in there as square footage and, you know, in adjusted accordingly as the projects move forward then to make sure that we're keeping that in there then because there's going to get to a point where you're going to get close to those there. So when the projects come in or pre-op meeting there, we have to be warning people, hey, you only have X number of units you can develop there. That's going to eventually happen. So we want to make sure that we're constantly tracking that to make sure we have the latest updated information.

And given the numbers you put for us so far, we're well within that buffer range.

I mean, I'd like to sit in a lawn chair because I think it's a bunch of malarkey, but it actually counts. Because when you're sitting in it, it seems like a lot more than that.

Well, I was just going to say, so Angela, do you have any more? Please do. I'm not trying to judge that.

No, I mean, I emailed Tim beforehand because of the one question. I had another question about like mixed the multifamily and senior housing, like how those units get counted, but they get counted as a unit.

Correct.

Right. And then, yeah, the only other thing which I thought was a little weird was the red line of the limitations. Yeah.

it seems like you'll quickly exceed quickly get to your allowed 4 800 if you put in more multifamily well yeah i think with the multifamily that for the workplace district there is that limitation on the um kind of the distance requirement that we have in there from the commercial of the pavilion so when you measure the pavilion basically that senior housing is pretty much at that last part then so the other two parts of the workplace district which are still vacant then outside that half mile then so you know they wanted to put multifamily it would not meet that criteria then at that point then so kind of self restricting based on Tom tell us about how the traffic studies wrong

Been down that road already.

Pun intended.

Pun intended, yeah. What can I say? Now I want to ask a couple questions, Tim. Maybe not directly related, not an issue really. But it talks about the required land use mix and the residential is 35 to 60% and it goes through commercial industrial mixed use. Is that just acreage? That's what I calculated. So technically the maximum residential could be like 720 acres is what I calculated from 60% of the 1201 or whatever it is, 1200. Okay. The interlocal agreement, does that strictly deal with the parcel that's not in Port Orange right now? Does it have anything to do with land that's on the, I guess, east side of 95, west of... Basically just the... Just inside of... Just that area to bring that in there and that trip cap for that area. Okay. And then... Going back to, there's a section here about allowing administrative approval of alternate block lengths, sidewalk layouts, driveway setbacks, building orientation standards. So does that mean,

they could change the driveway setbacks just by going through your office essentially yes but that's only in to that west town center district again just in there okay in there then again that's supposed to be similar to like kind of what we saw with the bristol development in terms of what they were proposing at riverwalk that mixed use concept where we kind of talked about that that they're you know your typical driveway setbacks that you see at the target lows are going to be different for that compact development then so we wanted to provide that flexibility in there again while it's just not an automatic approval, as staff we'd have to feel confident that is the correct way to go and safe then. If we decided that we don't think that is, we don't agree with that then, then they would have to come before through a variance or a code amendment then. So it's not an automatic guarantee, it just gives that staff the flexibility to make a decision and you know if we do that you know safety is the key and we kind of look at is it the right way to go other than so just want to make sure it wasn't an automatic approval on there it was provided just to give that flexibility yeah but it has to meet you know what we feel is comp are comfortable with approving okay thank you i'm good where's robert i might need his bike to get around town yeah where is it uh it's two kind of hope i was kind of hoping we were done building residential i mean it may it all make sense to me i just i'm dreading the traffic i mean the under the old the current setup that it has too they still have the ability to build residential then so it's not that we're adding more residential in this area it's just more of just allowing it to spread you know throughout the area then it still has that residential cap there um so i think it's you know important to know that it's not an increase in residential in this area it's just more of reshifting kind of the colors on the map the trip accounts are already included into you know williamson and yeah it's not overloaded except for one little area It's that area.

If you're going to talk traffic, you're talking to the wrong guy here. This is the other thing, too, to point out, too.

I'm right there with you. Which we didn't kind of hit on here because it was established is that it does establish the road network in there and maintain that and does show the eventual connection of Madeline Avenue out to Tomoka Farms Road and the eventual crossover on 95 then. So I think with the Madeline connection to Tomoka Farm Road, that gives you another access point out of that area, which currently does not exist.

Tomoka Farms Road is my secret getaway. Thank you. So don't be standing out loud. It's going to have to be extended.

We will review the traffic study, but that would give you, at that point, four points of access out of that area then. So that will help disperse traffic that way too. The poor folks at the north end of Tomoka Farms at ISB are all screaming about it.

Yeah, yes, that's true. You know me, I just like blank land. I just like something that orange. It doesn't matter. Make sure you specify that phrase. Um... One of my questions was already answered, so I think I'm good.

I think she reserved the right. I reserved the right.

I'm back at it. Like me. I still have a question about this vehicle trip number. Yes. Because in the comprehensive plan, the maximum vehicle trips, and that was based on how they divided up this 1200 acres. Yes.

right now has that changed how that how that was divided up i mean that was basically the future right land use at that time is what was listed in there then right which they used that to help basically the use that could be developed on the future land uses that's how they got to the 62 000 trips that with the future i mean in terms of those that are listed there those categories those no longer exist on that property it's just a single colored planning community west side future land use designation so all those designations that are listed the urban you know the office transition the four to eight units per acre the two to four those colors basically are not on that property anymore it is just one unified color one unified future land use the plan commercial the play commercial west side i get that but this the 62 000 is based on that shouldn't we revisit the 62 000 based on

not doing this plan. Like, over 800 acres is not a zero to four unit per acre lot.

Right? What is the 62,000 calculated based on?

It is calculated based on.

I think I can.

I think, are you, I don't, all right. Okay.

I just want to take a stab just because I think I, you turn. So, that was like freezing in time. what that land was in 2001 and 2002 when this was initially being done. And at that time, all the agencies involved, the county, DOT, everybody said, when this develops as the planned community, when you adopt all this stuff after the interlocal and the land use amendment and the zoning, they don't want you to have more trips than what's currently on there now. So they kind of froze in time The trips that were allowed based on the land uses that are listed there, that was what was in place in 2001, 2002. They kind of froze in time and said, these land uses today will generate this many trips. When you change the land use to planned community, you're not allowed to generate any more than that. So that's why we're not changing that language because it's the background data to how we got to today. I don't know if that helps.

In other words, no matter what you put in there. It's a fixed number. It's the background data.

It's just background data and analysis that got us to where we are today. Thanks, Peggy.

Did that help clarify?

Yes.

Additional questions for Tim? other than the ones Maria's holding in advance.

I do. Yes. Was it the city or the applicant that wants to remove language about what's prohibited within each section?

That was, we looked at that as a city and basically no other zoning district we identified as prohibited. It just lists what's permitted by basically, you know, there. So that was just general cleanup? Yeah, it seemed clean. It seemed unnecessary in there. And when you're a staff member looking at a code, you want to basically make it, you know, as efficient and less

So when you remove some of those prohibited items. They're still prohibited. They're still somewhere else in the code.

No, we don't list in our code anywhere what items are prohibited. We just list what's permitted. So if you came in, if it says, you know.

But you left like no adult entertainment and workplace. That's prohibited.

There's certain requirements on that.

I mean, if you're going to get rid of all the prohibited. Okay. Sorry, can you finish what you're saying?

Yeah, so, I mean, we didn't need to have, you know, prohibited, you know, mobile homes. I mean, it's not a permitted use then, so that was cleaned up. Adult entertainment, that was a, there was a specific Florida statute that we had to revise on that one. That basically is why we left that in there then, so.

So effectively, if it's not on the permitted list, they would have to come in and say, hey, can we do this?

If it's not on the permitted list, they would have to basically do a code amendment to add that in the permitted list for us to allow that to happen.

So it was just general cleanup.

Yeah. In any of the other standards in zoning districts, we have community commercial, the residential. It only lists the permitted uses. It does not list what's prohibited.

Anything else? So my only question, you kind of cleared this up already. When we change the lot lines from 40 feet wide to 50 feet wide, we're not increasing density. We're just saying that line, that lot can be 40 feet wide, but you're not saying, oh, now that it's 40 feet wide, we can put in 100 more residents. You're still at that cap then? You're keeping the square footage and the lot the same.

And also, too, the overall area of the lot is staying the same. They just have to reconfigure how they basically do the design plans then because they've got longer lots versus...

with 50 then so is that one of the deals where you could rearrange your garages in that district an alley down the middle and then the community district does allow for that then so that is a possibility and i was saying i hate the idea i wouldn't live in a neighborhood that was that narrow but i get it you're not you're simply changing the type of structure well if you need to roll the toilet paper you just ask the guy next door let's see just wave salt uh the only other thing i have is i'm offended by the fact that 2001 is 25 years ago I just want that on the record somewhere.

I would like to agree to that. I second that motion.

Thank you very much, Tim.

I appreciate it.

Thanks, Tim. Jessica, would you like to come up and be up again?

Good evening. For the record, Jessica Gow, Copco Law Firm 1, Daytona Boulevard in Daytona Beach, Florida. I don't have much to add because I think staff did a fantastic job. Like you said, it's a long read, a lot of interesting stuff going on here. On our side, just a little bit of background of how this code amendment came about. And that this property is a holding of the Crossy family. So think the ballparks, think the overall planning of Williamson back in the day. And this is kind of the largest piece left in terms of a master planning effort they have been doing for decades. 2001 was not too long ago. We've got some post-closing agreements with that family that go back decades before that in terms of where Williamson was planned for eventually and how that got constructed. So when we look at this corridor, we are really looking at it as a focus and intention of what this corridor looks like from a roadway, a recreational area, and kind of overall development. As staff noted, originally this was kind of pictured as the industrial hub. What you have seen actually developed out here is pretty low density residential development. And so I think if we did a survey of those existing residents today, they would say we do not want a large industrial project and truck traffic on our local roads. So as that has shifted, we've kind of looked at what the mapping looks like and how this will be oriented in the future. One of the key pieces that brought this forward is that we are currently discussing with the city the dedication of 75 acres of property in this area for the expansion of that existing Karasi Park. So that was contemplated when the city went through their master planning for the park bonding, and we've been talking about it for about two years now in terms of what that looks like. So at the core of this project, um our vision of it is that there will be a park facility that's why you see that change in the town center district so that that town center abuts the park you get a really great community activity and activation there and the roadway that was originally planned when this first came through i think willow run has right away dedicated for a corridor over the interstate and out to shuns As noted by Tim, that will not be Willow Run in our current design. You can see in the updated plans, that will be the Madeline extension. And so what we did, again, a post-closing back in the day, is we set up the potential expansion of Madeline through what is now in Daytona Beach, the Walker's Green site that is being developed. So that corridor remains. There are other crossings across other of the family holdings that maintain that corridor. And that will come in, that will connect McGinnis up and Crossy up and over to Tomoka Farms to create that access and circulation. So really what you see on the design, especially touching on the 40-foot lots, and we understand some people love them and some people hate them. My best friends live in a townhome. I live in two and a half acres. I don't want a townhome, but some people do. In this corridor where you're going to have a town center and you're going to have a park, you can have apartments and you can have town homes. That 40 foot really helps to create that transitional stagger from dense housing types to lower density. And so what we see is some really great rear loaded products along the parkfront and things like that that we would love to experiment and see out here. It's just a fantastic new feel that we don't see a lot of in Port Orange or Volusia County. That would require that compact lot width. And we're talking to builders about some of those designs. And we think as long as you have the architectural standards and treatment, it would be a really beautiful area. That is the reason for that request. The overall pockets, I think we talked about the open space, the Madeline and Willow Run. I want to make sure I'm hitting on everything you guys brought up. I will say the MPO is just a general term for municipal planning organization. So as long as it changes names, that still remains as the key. And we do have a lot of interlocal agreements, even with Daytona on utilities here. So we've taken all of those into account. So with that, we're here for questions.

Let's go the other way, Maria. Yes. So you actually brought up something I was thinking about and totally forgot about when you asked me if I had a question earlier. I'm also on the Parks and Rec Board, and we have been trying to get a piece of this property for a very long time, for soccer fields, et cetera. So when you're talking about the park that you want to build, Is that part of the property that we're looking at that we want soccer fields, yada, yada, yada? Is it going to be part of the sports complex?

So where you have the existing park facility now, about 75 acres directly around it is planned. That's what we own for dedication. We're working through the details of that agreement with the city at this time. The school board also owns 25 acres and we are trying to wrangle them into the discussion as well.

Well, they, I thought they decided they weren't going to build there. Okay, I thought so. I thought that's what I heard last year. I will not speak on their behalf. So I guess I just want to make sure that the land we need for Parks and Rec, based on the bond that we have that we want to build on, we're not going to be losing that.

Correct. This does not change that. That is the plan. That's what I wanted to know.

I'm good. Are you sure? Maybe.

Tom?

I'm good.

Thank you very much.

Angela?

Is there any kind of plan like for public transportation within your community?

Sidewalks, bicycle trails, all of those are regulated by the city code. Nothing specific. I think the town center has specific details about how you're supposed to activate that core for pedestrian activity. Um, but nothing like a, a fun rail line or a crawling or anything like that. Yeah.

Or like e-bikes have their own lane. E-bikes have their own. Lane, some of them.

The town of the road?

Yeah. Golf cart paths. We've seen it all. Yeah, right. No, I don't have any questions. Thank you.

Stan? So, let's think about this more. So, we're going from a 50 by 100 foot lot to a 40 by 125, basically, is what it amounts to. and we won't be increasing the number of lots because the space is still there now you got to just jiggle those around into the into the map area where you can squeeze these things in um and i think the uh development down in new smyrna family days or family yeah because they've got that town park in the middle of that and those are all back loading in their garages so that would be similar, although I think that's a wider lot, is my guess.

I think those are still 40 feet. There's a number of subdivisions where the main road is in the middle and the alleys are on the sides for garage access. We've got a couple neighborhoods like that.

I mean, those look great. If you ever go down there and see that. I mean, that whole thing was really well thought out, and they did a nice job on it a little bit. So that's just the whole thing. Now, the other thing that we don't have the crowd here tonight, but it's the stormwater. Because we've had a lot of people visiting us about stormwater lately and the impervious coverage and get all this kind of stuff. Are we still allowing, and this might be a Tim and Penny question, are we still allowing enough area to adequately handle the runoff from these lots? And do we have to have some storage ponds and then pumping and all the kind of stuff we're having to deal with right now? And that may not be something you've worried about,

but uh i think we're all worried about it you're going to get an earful of it because as soon as you start mentioning building houses we're going to have all of our friends will be here again yeah and what i will say is that you know this change doesn't impact any of the the current stormwater regulations and so when a development comes in they will have to prove that they meet all of the standards that the city has for stormwater and treatment i will say that the From the overall planning perspective, the uses that were originally contemplated in the PCA district were pretty intense. We see that trip cap. We see the overall spread of commercial, industrial. About 50% of it is currently developed, and we're at a third of the potential development. So they're coming in under. And when you look at single family development, I know that a lot of people say that's more homes, more footprint, but typically those have a lot coverage of 35%. Industrial developments are usually hovering around 80% of impervious. And so when you're looking at the shifting of uses, at the end of the day, I think introduction of more residential uses than kind of large industrial buildings probably reduces overall impervious, but this has to be tested when site plans or plots come in and they'd have to meet all of the requirements.

Because one of the things that we talked about in here, and I can't find the page on this one, but we talked about common usage. And one of the statements in here is that stormwater retention could be counted as the common usage. Okay, and that's, I don't know if that's going to be going to take a little bit of sales to the public when we start talking about that. Because right now, everybody's got their tail in the knot about stormwater. And you've seen this, and if you follow the city council, you've seen what's going on with them. Sounds like Tim wants to speak up.

Just on this one, this is just establishing a lot width requirement. They would still have to go back, design it. We're not changing any of our stormwater requirements. No state requirements. They still have to meet all those. The common use there basically is talking about is open space there. Typically in other subdivisions, you have to have green space, and then you'd have a pond. In this case, you can count that pond as your common open space.

you're still required to put their correct number size ponds in there nothing in this code changes that at all right because we're we're still at the 30 000 foot level we're not down at site plans a lot of kind of stuff right the zoning and that's going to be at some point in time in the future all right i just want to you know make sure because this is one of the things that you will get questions about and we will all get questions about too um so that's why i'm just asking at this point in time i think that's enough for me to

Other than I am so happy this is not apartments.

Well it doesn't say that. You don't want single family or apartments. The limitations are removed for the 13% and the 7%.

The limitations are removed. Thank you. Discussion?

Well, again, this is the 30,000-foot view. There's a long ways to go for any dirt that gets turned up there to build anything. So from this standpoint, the only thing I don't like is I don't like the 40-foot lots. But again, that's me. I'm not trying to sell these things. And these folks are, and they're willing to say, yeah, we can sell.

I think for me, the density part, if you're not saying 40-foot lots because we want to put more houses in, I'm okay with how... the people who want to sell the houses or develop the property want to develop the house, and if they feel like they can sell them, great. It wouldn't be my preference if I was moving into the neighborhood, but there seems to be an appetite for that. So I wouldn't get in the way of that as long as the density, as long as it's not asking for more people to be on the road. Right. Which is why we're not getting anyone a lot. Exactly. We still have the lot limit, so we're okay on that. And I do appreciate, Stan, you sort of clarifying for the record the notion that we're not discussing stormwater right now. That will all have to be addressed, and they haven't asked for any changes to anything that currently exists. And if they did, that would have to happen at a later date.

But what we've seen is, Some of the people get excited and they ignore the fact that we're looking at a 30,000 foot level. We're not getting down to the weeds yet. And that's the thing that I keep wanting to bring up is like, hold on, just wait. We got to get down to where we start actually doing the site plans.

I'll say one of the hardest things for me is hearing about traffic density and then sitting in the traffic lane. So I just heard this really great report today and I'm not feeling it in the seat of my pants while the car is running and I'm stopped underneath the 95. But we have to go by the facts and the data that's in front of us and not for the one or two hour windows from time to time when we're frustrated and hoping your air conditioning is working.

And soon we'll have the new relief valve to the top of us. That'll be awesome. We'll see. I'm not convinced. Maria, any comments?

I think I'm good, but I do have one quick question for Tim, now that I think about it. Speaking of traffic and the flow of all of this, what is going on with Yorktown Extension? I mean, we keep talking about it going all the way through. Is that not going to happen?

That is still in the plan. Still in it? Yeah, basically this time. Just curious. I mean, there's property that still needs to be developed in that area. I believe that we have, you know, agreements on that then. And I think at that time when that property there develops, then that's when Yorktown Boulevard Extension would be looked at. okay i was just curious we want to have additional comments it's still shown on the cop plan as basically a future road connection then on the then so it's just not in the construction stages this time of day yeah okay i was just curious hey tim how common is it for an applicant to actually redline a land development code is that common yes this is that's how you this is basically there's two kind of ways you can do a code amendment there's staff initiates code amendments which we've typically seen here but also too anyone can basically submit a code amendment to us then and basically as part of the application they submit the red line or the changes to upset um we've recently had that this one um we've had a billboard one a few years ago then um there's you know we don't get a lot of uh code amendments from an applicant then but we you know they are they that's the process then if they submit the application we tell them to provide us a straight through and underline so we can review it then and then we typically sit down with them and kind of go through it and you know and make changes as needed then but it um it is you know they are allowed to anyone can make a request to change the code okay thanks thank you very much tim um public comment

Something is wrong.

Robert, where are you, man?

He wasn't at Perks and Rec.

Someone has checked on him, though, right?

He had oxygen at the city council.

He was at the city council. I feel somehow slighted that he doesn't come in. I know.

At least we've seen him. Because there was a time, though, where he missed a couple meetings, and I was thinking maybe somebody needs to do a wellness check and just see how he's doing. But he's here.

He didn't bring him bread. yeah all right hearing no public comment are there any other discussion from the hearing none can we call the roll stan schmidt yes scott snager yes angela duke yes maria mills bene yes thomas jordan yes

okay thank you very much for that go us maria would you like to make some additional comments i would not just thank you to the staff for putting up with us and um these reports i mean they are a lot to read but you guys do an amazing job on it and we truly appreciate it it answers all the questions i think i'm going to have when i read the title And then I read through it and I'm like, oh, okay, okay. So it definitely makes it much easier for us.

I would echo the same thing. Tim, you answered questions I didn't know I had, so I truly appreciate the thoroughness with which you went through that because there was a lot. So thank you very much for that.

Tom? I would agree 100%. Thanks, guys. That's it. Angela?

No, thank you.

Stan?

Looking good.

Okay. Staff comments? Just we want to go home now? Okay. Public comments one more time? Hearing none.

Make a motion to adjourn. Okay.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

You're adjourned. Thank you.