I would like to call the order of the planning board and the planning and zoning board meeting for Thursday August 8th, 2024 at 6 p.m. At this time we will have the invocation followed by the pledge of allegiance and we will have the invocation by Mr. Carl Deacon Carl Wilkie from First Apples Church of Lake Alfred. Thank you for allowing me this privilege to do this. Thank you. Shall we pray? Heavenly Father, thank you for the opportunity that you give us to call upon your name, most holy God, and we pray you're blessing upon this meeting tonight. We thank you for all these people that are here on this planning board and pray Lord that you would give them wisdom, your wisdom to make decisions for our little town, and our communities around the bout Lord that they would be decisions made for the betterment of the community and for the people that live here. Father, thank you for this day. We pray that you bless those that are in charge over us as your word tells us that we should pray for them. We pray that your Holy Spirit would give them direction for the decisions that are being made and have to be made on our behalf. We ask these things in Jesus name, amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic of which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. I want to have a roll call by Miss Linda on board Jesus City Clerk. Chair Arnold here vice chair gear heart. Here board member Nigg board member Long. Board member Rothbard. Board member fountain. Board member Piston. There is a quorum present. And now I present the minutes for the consideration of approval. This is for my ass. Make a motion, no proof. Sir. All in favor, aye? Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. I'll post motion carrot. Our business items for today will be the public hearing for Burton Ranch. That's L.F.L.U. and the public hearing for Burton Ranch. That's a failure you and the public here for burnt rent that's zoning. Chair would you like me to read into the record the meeting procedures as well as provide the swearing in yes. Thank you. Meeting procedures general procedures anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on the case will be sworn in. Chair shall announce the case. Staff will introduce the case in the schools and the responses to the notification, which were not already provided to the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff will present the staff report and recommendations. The applicant or a designated speaker representing a group in opposition will have 30 minutes to speak. Members of the general public will state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of If you are going to address the planning and zoning board on any case today, please stand up, raise your right hand, and answer out loud to the following question. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you provide to the planning and zoning board today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Is there anyone in attendance tonight that requires the services of an interpreter or translation? No. Well I doubt seriously if they needed a translator they would understand what I just said chair but it appears that no one is in need of a translator or interpreter tonight. Okay, so now we're turning this over to any staff presentations. Very good. Thank you Madam Chair. We'll begin with the first action item. These are presented concurrently, but they are two separate action items both on the land use and on the zoning. So if this one feels like a deja vu moment or groundhog day moment, it's because it is. This one previously came to the planning board back in December of 2022 and was subsequently adopted by the city commission in 2023. At the beginning of 2023, a rule change with the state of Florida required localities to submit the final adopted ordinances to the state with intent business days following the final adoption. This is in addition to the normal state requirement, which required the submitter after a first reading for state comment. City missed the submitter after final adoption and said the state has effectively invalidated the prior adoption, said the city has to go through the adoption process again. So Linda and I did a thorough review of all of the ordinances over the past year, you know, that we might have missed on that. And so the really the only ones that we found that would have an issue would be the Burton Ranch, Wann, Eucon, Zoning, and then also the comp plan amendments. So both of those are being presented back to the the board for tonight to kind of rego through that process and then cross the T's and adopt the I so to speak. So the the proposed land use and zoning is identical to the prior action and this would be for 43.88 acres of residential and 196.94 acres of conservation for the land use and 43.88 acres for the vintage residential. So the staff report has been included or this is the that was included as an attachment and then also here the presentation for those that may remember the site there kind of in the northeastern part. There's an aerial view of the property. This one was characterized and also included the excerpts from the planning board meeting the first time. There was concern about the pockets there so to speak and access to roads and the like. That whole area is already kind of integrated. You can see further to the east. That's area over in the Lake Lowry Road. That area is kind of under development, so there will ultimately be connectivity. Even though you can kind of see like the wetland areas there's already grove roads that are kind of in existence that already kind of connect those the wetland areas there. There's already grove roads that are kind of in existence, that already kind of connect those areas to the others. So those trails are already there, so to speak, for improvement in the future. I think one of the concerns was, what did we turn that into rural residential versus vintage? That conversation was also had at the city commission level and just as we've reported before, you know, most properties that come into the city limits, you know, the residential zoning category, especially in the green swamp, is that vintage residential. We've already kind of lowered the density there. It's for units per acre. That's the maximum you can get, you know, other areas of the city. They might go after six units per acre. That's the maximum you can get. You know, other areas of the city, they might go after six units per acre or eight or even like urban residential which would be, you know, even higher. So, VRN is pretty much typically what we see as our prime residential category. The board may remember that from the previous presentation when we talked about the master plan communities. All of that focus was in VRN. We even closed down another zoning category, the R&1, to further direct all that residential development really just falls into the VRN pattern. So the board looks at this and you go, okay, what are the options on the menu? Is it going to be chicken? Is it going to be fish? Is it going to be steak? And as you look at it, you go, okay, residential, commercial or industrial. It doesn't really make sense for industrial. The whole area is surrounded by wetlands and potentially other residential. It doesn't make sense for commercial. That would have even higher intensity of use. And the roads aren't really there or the industry. To support that, you typically want to see industrial go along your main corridors, your main roads. Same thing with the commercial. And so then you go, OK, what's the last option on the menu? Pretty much residential. And VRN is our primary residential category. The thing that I like to point out on this annexation, my annexation, this land use and zoning, similar to what I pointed out before to the board and also the city commission, as I'm very thankful that Lake Alfred is in the Greenswamp area of critical state concern because when you look at the zoning designation, the bulk of it, 196 acres is going into conservation. So that's that consistent with that narrative that as you look at the overhead map of Lake Alfred, the bulk of it is 80 plus percent of it is in conservation because of the wet wintered dyristics of the green swamp. So it's automatically a win in that perspective and that you're only looking at 43 acres of the upwind residential you know whereas have this property been in Haines City or in Davenport or in Bartow you'd be looking at 196 acres of residential. So that's kind of the silver lining as I like to look at it, you know, for being in Lake Alfred and having most of the areas preserved and put into conservation. So I won't go through the nitty-gritty on it. I mean, that's kind of the high level overview. Again, you're looking at 43 acres that are going into residential and then 196 acres that are going into conservation. And then at that point, I will yield to the board for any questions or concerns that you may have. I'm just going to good just for the record. The staff has reviewed the applications and found that the requested future land use is consistent with the comp plan and compatible with applicable land development regulations and the civic lake offered. Yes, and we've done concurrency review on it and all of that was included in the staff report. That was done previously. Okay. I would now like to open up, open up to the public. If anyone have any questions or concerns. Yes. You come up to the podium please instead your name. address. Good afternoon folks my name is Charles Able I live at 320 WGTO Tower Road. I have a couple of questions because I'm not familiar with how the board operates. How are the residents who are involved with this particular operation supposed to be notified that there's a meeting? I've been a notice went out. What kind of notes, ma'am? There should have been a public hearing notice that went out. In writing? Yes, sir. Okay, I can assure you that almost nobody that I'm aware of that I talked to this afternoon that's on WGTO Tower Road received any of that. So our response to this meeting is already extremely slim. The next thing I'd like to ask a question out the way I was reading the map that was provided in an electronic copy did Lake Alfred annex the north side of WGTO Tower Road and we're again looking at the Burton-Maranx property. Where's WGTA town? The other half of the lake and relation to it. So they're developing, I'm going to call it the South Side of the Lake, extending to the east. That's the Lake Gum project. That's totally separate from this action item. Okay, you're looking over. This is further east of Gumb Lake. So Gumb Lake, you can't see it on the screen there, but it's further to the west. If you go back one, whoever has this, if you go back one, it clearly shows the lake in the roadway and the, a truck, now go back one more, I'm sorry. There, that one. Yes. So what we look at is we all came to the meeting about this entire project and they're connecting to our road. Sorry man thank you. I'm sure everybody got my point. So I'm asking was was both sides of WGTO taken over by the city. The areas for Greg gum, they were annexed, but considerably long time ago. These ones, I believe there was a note in the minutes as to when they were originally annexed. These were annexed, I believe, back in 2021. But yeah, these annexations occurred a while ago, sir. It says the property was voluntarily annexed into the city on November 7th of 2022, 20th, the ordinance 1500-22. So I'm asking for the exact property line that the city owns. What is it? It isn't on it. The city has an own property in the city. All right. Let me expand it. Has control of it through annexation. Where is the line that the city now has control of? What to provide that? I mean, those maps are online, you can see the city municipal boundary. And board, I don't want to get into a back-and-forth Q&A. So there's public comment that the gentleman will want to to list the various questions and then staff is here for the presentation to the board. Any questions that you would like me to answer just please instruct me and I'll be happy to do so. Okay. The next item is the roadway itself. I have a question sir. I have a question for you may follow me. Sure. What would be the effect if the city had not annexed the land that you're talking about? If they did not have control of that land, what would be the effect? The effect is that I move on to a county piece of property filing under county rules, not city rules. If the city annexed my property, zone line, then I fall under all the rules and regulations of the city, and that's not why I moved there. And that's not why, and I'm not trying to speak for the rest of us there, but that's not why most of us live at the end of a country road. So which is what we were at? So you're paying, you don't pay any taxes to the city of Lake Alfred and that kind of thing. No, sir. I do not pay taxes to Lake Alfred, but if you annexed it, I understand if you annex it sure. That's up. Thank you very much. Right. So my question is if you annexed both sides of that road in corporation with this bill for this ranch property, Dumb Lake area and you are planning to use that road, it's not DOT certified. And my understanding is, you're going to quadruple the amount of people that are using our road. I also understand that it's going to connect at eastward to the roads that are farther away from this particular spot so that there's access. And you look here, you go straight on the call the call that east but it's north on the map It connects to other major roads It is going to take our small country road and increase our traffic tremendously on a non-DOT certified road So now we need to look at access for personal property. We need to look at drainage. We need to look at curbage, sidewalk and lighting. These are things that are my concern. And if I can talk to somebody after this, I'm happy to submit my stuff and writing. Okay, so we can, you can submit your stuff and we can follow up on it and get someone you can talk to. Okay. Thank you. Sir, I don't mind if we, if I can get your contact info. You're right now or after? After the meeting, it's fine. Yeah. I'll follow up with the resident. I mean, there's a lot to unpack there. The city's not looking to involuntarily annex existing residents, you know, but most under most certainly understand the potential impact for other development in the area. So I'd be happy to take his contact information and try to answer any additional questions. He may have. So when you're dealing with an application, and mail notice is going out for purposes of a land use or zoning application that's going to come for the board. That mail notice goes to residents that are within 300 feet of the subject property. So if it was determined that a location or a lot is outside of that 300 foot distance requirement, then mail notice would not have been provided. And I'll also remind the planning is only worthwhile. I believe that the issues that are going to be brought up are relevant in germane when you're dealing with site plan or you're dealing with actual development applications for approval, but you're dealing with today an application for future land use. Now, when you're looking at future land use, you're looking at the maximum on below, but those site-specific concurrency issues, transportation, all those must be addressed and you must have a adequate concurrency evaluation in order to move forward with any type before it's on a vertical construction on a site, but that's not what is for consideration. You're looking to see what is the the current future land use designations on adjacent lots as it consistent the request with the comprehensive plan the goals policies and objectives and is it compatible with the land development regulations that work by the unified land development code and then you also look at development trends within that general area to see if the future land use designation being sought is consistent with those trends. Now I believe I'm not a resident there I certainly understand the concerns but land use is not for purposes of vertical construction that there's a separate process for that. So as a property owner the applicant does have a right to request a future land use designation that is consistent with what is provided for within the corporate limits of the city of Lake Alfred. And this property was legally and properly annexed into the jurisdictional limits of the city of Lake Alfred. So I just wanted to make sure that we keep the correct framework for purposes of today's hearing. Thank you. Well, with that being said, I know this isn't more than a framework, but the question was asked is, I am a taxpayer of city Lake Alfred. I'm John Taylor. John Taylor, I'm actually 23 acres that's right here. I annex into the city city was kind enough to help me build a house on it and I actually owned a large portion of land to the south and I did sell that to the developer under the agreement that the excess road to the gun-like property will be used for emergency access only because W. Joe Tower Road was not wide enough and when I impact the residents that was kind of contingent part of me selling the land of them. The question was asked is I haven't seen any maps where the plan was to bring WGTO tower road into services particular development. I know that's probably not the format for this meeting but it seems to be everyone's concerned. Is that the plan? It's more, and I remember what you're referring. So going back to the GUM Lake subdivision, so that is kind of the connection to WGTA Tower Road and its current format is designed to be emergency access only. Because currently for Lake GUM to the south, it's one way in and one way out. Now that has public safety implications. As we learned the lesson of the distillery years ago, to where they had a massive fire and everyone in the fruit and park neighborhood was effectively tracked. They had to drive off across the golf course of Cypress greens in order to escape. And so part of those lessons learned is to have multiple ways in and out. So that is correct. The current connection or the plant connection to WGTO or Tower Road is emergency only. And those limiting factors do ring a bell is where WGTO Tower Road in its current format really can't support a full connection. Now, 10, 15, 20 years in the future, if a developer comes in and maybe then they do have to improve it to be determined, not even subject to this action item, probably not subject to any action item for at least the next potential 10 years or so. Now what's more likely to happen though is you can see kind of like the bottom left corner which is also part of this annexation right? Yeah right there, there might be an opportunity but there could be a potential connection there or it could just go from Lake Wower to the east you know which there is. That area is already slated over there to the east of the red box to be, you know, residential. So you've got residential to the west, you've got residential to the east, and so then the question to the planning board going back to my comment about, okay, commercial, industrial, or residential, you've got residential to the east, residential to the west, that's already closer to larger roads. So commercial or industrial really doesn't make sense to go in the middle. If you were going to put commercial anywhere, you would have put a closer to Lake Lowry and then maybe phased in the residential. So the fact that you're getting a request for residential is actually the most consistent option, you know, based upon not only the applicant's request, but based on the staff's evaluation. It's the lowest intensity, you know, of the three options if you really were to consider it. That was all I had. And just clarify for some of my neighbors, the yellow border is the father's north part that I know of other than this new property that was annexed. That's my property line to the north of my property line. I've tried to build a house within the county. County wouldn't let me. I was going to sell the land. I actually started working with a developer and they annexed the land and then when I found out the city said you can go to house now, I changed my mind. I built my one house I mean I changed land use and I maintain the role residential land use and that's where it's at right now. I have a question. Thank you. Excuse me sir. Do you answer one question? This WGT hour show the WGTO Tower Road. Set a private road. It is a county maintained road. But you said that you had an agreement with a developer? Yes, I owned up to fact I'm not this road. I owned 20 acres to the south of my 20 acres. The agreement that I made with him, when we signed before we sold, was that the access would only be for emergency, and the increase in the increase, on to the Gum Lake property. Wait a second. Of this road that we're talking about, the WGTO. So WGOTIRO did it into the property that it owned. We donated land for COALSET. OK. So you're in an agreement when you saw the land, that this would only be used for an emergency. Emergency access, yes. And wait a second. Is it maintained by the county? WTO Child Road is maintained by the county. And you made an agreement it could only be not with the county with the developer that part. I understand how can you make an agreement with a developer that a county road will only be used for because it's not a county. There wasn't. It doesn't. I don't know there's no County road here that the kids the road that they built did not exist The new road they built wasn't there at the time It's the agreement they entered into Wait a second hang on play a second, please Did they build the road the new road right where the old road? The old road did it into my property, dead end. What, wait a second. Now okay, let's talk about the old road, owned by the county, maintained by the county. Yes. And somehow you made an agreement that could only be used for an emergency, where the private developer. For the development for that land. For a public road. Okay, sorry, that was part of the deal contingent. That was what we talked about. They said they assured us that's what it was and that's what they put in there. Sorry, please. Thank you. No, no, no, I was always trying to clarify for you a board member, Nick, is that depending on the nature of the agreement, obviously the property owner cannot contract away any rights which they don't have. So the county would still be if it's a county owned and maintained right of way, they would not be able to contract or combine the county. However, they can contract the way rights and privileges that they would otherwise have. If that agreement were separate from the PSA recorded in the public records and that would be a covenant running with the land. So if you have the copy of that agreement now I'm proud to find it. Yeah. Please provide that and see if it was recorded in the public records. If it was, please provide a copy to the interim community development director slash city managers slash slash it's such an agreement exists we would file it and have a record of it so that it shows up and then what he's referring to is accurate and again I'm going off a memory here from the site and I saw four years ago but it is slated in the current iteration to just be emergency access. So that being said, not with standing some type of deed restriction or covenant, you know, emergency accesses can be converted later, you know, but a great expense because they're right. The road in its current condition would not support main access. I'm sure to gain main access, you would need to widen W2 tower road and fix the property. There's no doubt. City's not looking to do that. And this side of, you know, 10, 15, you know, plus years. It's not to say that it won't eventually happen. And I most certainly I understand the mindset, you know, from the county resident, you folks thought she ended up on a rural, you know, area far away and it followed you know it came from Orlando so we've tried to be sensitive to that you know there won't be any forced annexation you know the city's not looking to take anybody in although I will say that you know sometimes there's some turnover there and mindset's changed and I've had areas of the city you know where they swore up and down they would never annex never wanted to be a part of the city. And then it flipped. We got a whole community off of the experiment station road that, you know, 15 years ago, never wanted to be a part of the city. And every now and then, all of the, hey, when can we come in? And we're ready to join for different reasons. So I think the city is a long-term entity. The city's been here for over 100 years. God willing, we'll be here 100 years from now. And you know, at that point, times people can turn over. Sentiments can change. But as is today, 2024, I really wouldn't anticipate that turning into a major connection or a road, you know, for at least the next decade. I appreciate that. Yeah, and if you find that deed restriction or like a covenant there, that's a part of it. I'll look to make sure. So, you know, send that to us. We will add that to the file to keep it on record. My guess is it was, it probably wasn't a covenant. Yeah, so, you know, it's what it is. But I'll look through that and find out when we did that sale. And the good thing about developers is they don't like doing very expensive things that they don't have to do. And so since we're not making that development do it as a part of this, it's slated to be emergency access. There's really not going to be the will or the pocket book to make that happen. So that's the biggest thing that you've got protecting, you know, not don't take my word for it. Just look at the economics of it to where if the city's not requiring for that development to do that, which we're not, they're not going to volunteer for additional expenses that are related to their government. I completely understand. When I annexed my land, there was neighbors literally coming down with the dishes to stop me from building my one house right here in the same meetings. I had to go to spend $30,000 and I asked my lands so I could build my one house. So I have no business telling anyone they can't do with their land. And everyone kind of says, hey, you caused this. They're going to widen our road and do this. So that's why I wanna clarify, is that the plan right now? So I can say yes or no, and then they can do it. So right now, there's not the plan to access to WGJTAR vote, only for emergency access and our plan is to use alternative routes. And then full disclaimer, assuming now, that's tied to the late gun project, which went through site plan approval years and years and years ago. This annexation is adjacent to that or next to it, but as the city attorney mentioned, those would be construction and site plan considerations to be dealt with. So not only is the board not considering that, you you know residential, commercial, industrial compatibility and not only are you determined that you're determined on the property next to it so just to kind of put it back into context and perspective for the board. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you. Well, if there's since I was 10 years old you've got any other questions I can tell you more. Thank you. My name is James Allen. I'm from Polk County, Florida. I'm not Polk City. And I'd like to say something. If it's going to be used for emergency use only, how are you going to keep other people using it when it's a public road? You know, I haven't really got a dog in this fight. But it don't make sense to me, but then property owners link up the WGTO road. That road is going to be used. You can't tell me, I can't go down that thing if I want to, and turn around and then come back. And you can't tell people in them the buildings that they can't go through there when they are going to have to go out the other way when they're going to be heading the other way anyway they're not they're going to use WDTO Tower route and that's all I got to say on that matter. You know, common sense to you that that's come along with development and that's the way it is. Thank you Ryan to that point. If I generally wouldn't be And that's the way it is. Thank you. Right into that point. But generally, wouldn't the emergency access points be disgated with a lock box or some type of secure access point? So just to answer Mr. Allen's concern again, we're kind of getting back up topic, but just operationally, those emergency access points, he would be exactly right. That road was open. Everyone was driving on it. You've probably seen them before at different retirement communities that have one primary access, but then they always have the emergency access in case that one access was compromised. And so what it is, it's like a gate, like an electronic gate, and then what happens is they give like little, there's like a key code, and then they'll have like a little garage clicker type thing and really it's given to like public safety like the fire department would have it so then it would be gated it's not something that would be accessible and then unlike another gate to where like a community with a gated community where oh the residents can come in and out no it doesn't it doesn't work like that it It's a, it's gated for emergency, access, and emergency personnel only. So that's how they keep it honest and prevent it from just people, you know, blowing through there. Yeah, ask a second question. Yes. Oh, yeah. Back on topic of the red box up here. So my concern is water, seeing how we had a tremendous amount of water in the Sarah Soda, the Brayden Tint area recently. Gumb Lake serves as a repository for three other lakes that flow into Gumb Lake. It's supposed to flow through the Gumb Lake development area that were pre-existing culverts that we haven't seen since they started construction. It's supposed to flow directly into the larger of the red square and then flow all the way and I don't know the lakes but it's the big lake that's over my 17 on the backside of Lake Alfred as you go towards the east. There's supposed to be a flow path that moves through there. So if we're looking at this, are we making sure that we don't have a flood problem in this zone? Have we done a SWIFT mud study yet to make sure that we have proper flow? Have we verified that all the culverts and drainage points that flow on that line through this area, through the development that we're not talking about, so that those of us who do exist there now don't have a future problem? I would be interested in reading the Swift mud study and they should have been one. I'll be interested to read that Swift Month study when they conduct it. So again, this is not, that would be more aching those types of studies and the like are done when they get into site plan and construction. Because I should have been done before that. So I hate to interrupt you, but in order to zone something as a conservative area for water flow that's a natural water flow basin. I believe that study has to come first so it could be presented to the board and you have natural water flow in the state of Florida and you don't have serosoda braidensin. That's my concern because I actually live in that zone. And if it's not maintained, my house will be under water. That's all. Thank you, and I apologize for interrupting you. Thank you, sir. And again, those are compelling concerns. We've done a lot of studying on, you know, Dumb Lake and have concerns there from residents from WGR Road. And there is kind of a flow pattern that goes through the wetland and different cold-verts and so that natural water pattern does exist and they, with mud, is a part of that permitting process, you know, because there's already some of those things there. So the area in question though is in the upland. So again, we're not trying, they're not going to be able to impact the wetland and again, go back to that. That's why 196 of the 248 acres is going into, or the 200 acres is, or 250 acres is going into conservation and recognition of that sensitive area. That's a go back to that original comment that I made. It was dabbing for corners area. You'd be looking at 250 acres worth of residential precisely because those wetlands don't exist. So it's because of those water flows and because it's in the green swamp, that's why 196 acres is going in the conservation and then only the upland areas are. If you look at the topography too, and this is something that was pointed out in the last meeting, or the last time we went through the process, that overhead there, it looks like there's quite a bit of upland if you actually look at kind of the pockets. When you look at what's actually being proposed for zoning, it's actually smaller if you compare that photo, that visual there, that whole area, that kind of like dog bone looking area, that whole area looks like upland. But when you actually go to the proposed zoning where we've actually shrunk down that area, quite a bit of it's actually going into the conservation. You can see we split that dogbone up into much smaller pockets of the residential. So that's kind of staff evaluating that and trying to put as much into conservation as we can above and beyond what you see just in the overhead. So even more is going into conservation than what you would think otherwise just looking at that map. Good evening. I'm Nellie Cromley, Puck City, Florida. Mr. Able had a very good question as to when the city annexed, if it annexed or own, probably it wasn't owned, but annexed property around Lake Gump. And I just sort of was a call that you sort of him hauled around the question and never answered it. Because you know, as you've all stated that some of these areas, the Lake Gump preserve faces went through side of herville years ago. So they were annexed several years ago. So you know, they know that the city has annexed out of the property except G2 Tower Road around Lake Gaw. So it's part of the city. There's no doubt about that. That should have been no question. When you look at the PNZ slide that you were on right there, so you have VNR 6.3 acres. That means it's going to be six possible units per acre there. That's the criteria. And then your residential will give you, I'm sorry, the residential will give you six houses per acre. the V&R will give you four units per acre, four houses, dwellings per acre. So the rest of it is not due to the good nature of the city of Lake Alfred, from what I've seen. It's going to be in conservation because there's no other choice. It is in the area of critical concern of the green swamp. And it is a natural water basin. So you can't develop all of it like they requested. At the last zoning and planning of December of 22, there was an issue that didn't go through. But to say, oh, just shoot me your questions, to residents, that's really concerned, because there's a possibility of 260 driving units passing by their house on a daily basis in the morning in the afternoon when they commute, because they're not going to go around to Lake Lowry Road to get to I-4 if they can go through G2 Tower Road. And in those minutes of December the 8th, it says, Phase 3 of a set sub-advision above which is Lake Gum Grove subdivision have been approved for grading and providing access to GTO Tower Road. There's nothing that I have seen in the minutes. I'd like to see them if they're arc, and I'm missing them about emergency vehicles only. This says that they're going to have direct access to that residential road, which is it's time along two years back was just a clay row. It has just recently in the last few years been paved. But those residents don't deserve to have 260 cars possibly driving through their neighborhood, their little small road which is less than a mile on a daily basis. But that's what you're approving. You're even approving a little bit more than that. When you calculate the possible density in that area. So the question is, can he hold off and wait and to see all these questions? Well, no, because the board today, the zoning playing board, is going to say, are we recommend this to go to the City Commission? Or we don't? So are you going to leave it at six acres, more plus at four units, but the rest of the 37 and a half acres at six units per acre. I mean, that's what you're looking at today. And usually it's approved and then it goes to the commissioner. And these residents that had questions about their row, it's too late. It's a done deal. I think they deserve better than that. Okay, they're in their city limits. And usually when I read them in this, there are no audiences or residents here to say anything because they're not aware of it. The notification isn't the ledger. And you have to hunt it. You have to hunt for it. The only people are several hundred feet that get a notice as to annexation or changes in zoning. So nobody on GTRTAR would have gotten that little postcard in the mail. That sometimes people say this looks like junk mail they don't pay attention to it so that's why most of the time there's no audience here thank you anyone else from the public would like to come up Good evening. My name is Jason Wilkie. We live in 160 South Pennsylvania. I have a, it doesn't concern me at all, but this thing to the, what they had to say, if the city develops this property and subsequently there's drainage issues that causes these individuals problems. Does the city have the right, maybe this is for the attorney, to claim sovereign immunity or do the individuals who might be damaged by said drainage have the right to, through civil discourse claim damage. Are you referring to official water flows? Correct. I know there's first case law even very close in this area where drainage was modified and somebody was injured by that. So there was a multi-million dollar claim against that. But in a situation where you were the city, does the city have the right to claim sovereign immunity where they cannot be sued for damaging property in the process? I could probably come up with a number of hypotheticals for sovereign immunity. Would be applicable. I could probably come up with a handful of situations or hypotheticals for sovereign immunity would not be applicable in light of grossly negligent conduct on behalf of municipal government or governmental entity. Those are all going to be issues that would be addressed when you get to the point and time where you're reviewing site development plans and you're reviewing the engineering. I want to say documentation or plans that are provided by both the developer and reviewed by the town's consulting engineers. It's outside the scope of this discussion, but it is a relevant issue given the location and specifics or facts related to the topography in that general area. So it certainly will be a closely scrutinized issue when it comes forward for some form of construction, whether it be horizontal or vertical. But at this point in time, because it is future land use, when you're getting into the site specific conditions and issues, they wouldn't tie into today's decision to recommend or not recommend, but I think those are very relevant questions to be asked as or if this project continues to move forward. Right. On behalf of the people, I wanted to just kind of bring that to the table. Only other question I have is does the city have any intent of annexing WGTO roads specifically? Madam Chair, if I may. Yes, he may. The city has no intention of annexing WGTO Tower Road or taking over maintenance of that or annexing any of the residents that don't want to be annexed. So it's a strictly voluntary process for that, especially if the city did try to annex the residents on WGTO Tower Road, and it wasn't voluntary, they would vote. They would have to vote in order to come in, and the majority would have to decide. But the city's just not in the habit of not annexing folks that don't want to come in. I think we had one recently, you know, where there was a small election, but the majority of the people wanted to come in and it was, we went through that process. So no, and then I'll go back to the other on drainage and think that's why the engineers are heavily involved in the site plan and construction process. People that went to school for a lot of years and they've got to put their stamp on it. You know, when you put that stamp on it as an engineer, would that comes liability? So, you know, their engineers are certifying that there aren't any issues. The city has engineers to review it. City attorneys very involved in the planning process. And SwiftMud is to, you know, when you build in the city of Lake Alfred, you don't just get a permit from the city of Lake Alfred. You've got to get permits from the water management district, you know, potentially DEP. It depends on what you're doing, but there's a lot of different agencies that you've got to get the green light for and absolutely SwiftMud is a part of that. And we do want to be sensitive to those areas and I know there has been concerns around gun lake and drainage and the like and we've had many conversations with the water management district and that's something we'll be sensitive to as they go through the process. Hello, my name is Clayton. A couple of main issues. One, me and my wife purchase this home for a quiet countryside home to grow up with our kids as a forever home. Am I excited about the homes currently going in? Not at all. But I have to deal with that part. This whole breakdown date for emergency vehicles, what's your contingency plan if the year electronic gate fails? Are you going to leave it open? Yeah, so I'm going to have, I'm going to have a memory here. I've heard some different comments made recently. I'm going to go back and I'm going to check the site plan and I'm going to verify what was actually put in there. I remember the conversation being the emergency gate. I'm going to verify that. It would ultimately be the developers responsibility, but now they've got an enforceable site plan. So they can't just leave it, you know, it'd be like an enforcement issue. So the gate was broken wide open and people started using it. I'm sure the city and or the that development would get a call. And we've got a binding site plan that says, you know, you've got to do this. And so we would hang our hat on that and basically make them fix it. How fast would that fix be, mate? We could go, it's not our property, because again, it's their gate. You know, so the city can't just make a habit of going and touching people's private property. But, you know, fourth lift, I mean, we would make it a priority if it were to happen. And again, we would have to put pressure on the HLA basically, or the HLA to fix it. So the city would work when conjunction with the residents to say, hey, this thing's got to be gated off for the cyclone because the road, as the other gentleman was saying, the road isn't designed to handle that kind of flow, or potential traffic flow. So it's not something that, well, we just took the gate out and, you know, oops, too bad, that's not going to be an option. You know, they're going to have to repair and place. I would rather have the gate closed, you know, broken in a fixed position, because the public safety needs to get in there. We're going to get in there. I mean, they got a random gate because of an emergency, in a get a 22 year old firefighter in a fire truck and tell him he gets the random gate, he'll be all for it. You know, so I'm not worried about the emergency access out of it on the gate being fixed in an open position. In the rare event that that would happen, we would be able to enforce them to fix that. Maybe a rare event, but there has been several ways that I've had to deal with where the gas broken, we're not going to spend the money, we're going to leave it open, then traffic comes freely. So that's one of the issues I have. The other issue is obviously Sunday we have a storm. We already have a drainage problem on WGTO Tower Road. They're still water receding from that storm. So again, you start bringing them more and more houses. They're going to have a solid foundation which they're going to bring more dirt in. The water has to go somewhere. I don't want it going into my house because then it's my insurance claim because the city and other government they're not going to care that it's my problem. So obviously we already need to address the drainage issue on that road and then you're going to have more how this come in and all that water is going to keep So they are on what his question was they're on the city or down the county. Sir you on WGTO Tower Road the roadways county but we are on city utilities for water. Okay we're on that. Yeah. Are you on the main road or WGTO Tower Road? Okay so he's on WGTS, however. So you have all these concerns about drainage. Well, again, I appreciate the concerns from the public and most certainly their legitimate. You know, you got to look at in context of what commercial development have fewer traffic concerns or more traffic concerns. When they have more drainage issues or less drainage issues, I can tell you from the code that industrial and commercial have much higher impervious surface ratios, meaning that much more of the property can be impervious versus residential. So from a drainage concern, residential is probably the least intensive impact to that area as compared to commercial or vacuum or industrial. And so I think oftentimes the temptation is to say, well, I don't want residential to go here because I'm looking at it as a vacant land. But that's not really the alternative. The alternative is, you know, commercial, industrial, or residential. So of those three, residential probably will have the lowest impact in terms of absolute terms, not only for traffic, but maybe traffic, you got residents, but most certainly on drainage, just in looking at the zoning categories. The last thing that I'll say on the drainage side is that these subdivisions are stormwater retention standards in the state of Florida or top notch because of hurricanes and everything else that you see them. When they build those massive stormwater ponds that you see, that's all the prepare for that 100, 200 year storm event. How often do you drive by those massive ponds and ever even see water in them? Well they're designed to capture all of the water and drainage from that subdivision and put it into that pond. So that's not only from the storm side of it but it's also for the pollution side of it and so that's where the water management district, that's where the standards come from because they don't want the water running off of the street or the pesticides or the oil from your car and then going directly into the lake. No, it's gonna go into that storm water pond and all of that is designed to go in there. Now, is it a silver bullet? Is it gonna solve all things? And you know, could there potentially be some impacts? Absolutely, but there are very strict standards for stormwater. To where if you look at the traditional part of town that was all probably built in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, you don't see any stormwater. It all just runs down to the lake. So that's all old development, all new developments, since at least the 1970s and beyond, all have those massive stormwater retention ponds, which is also why you'll never see a new neighborhood built that doesn't have an HOA or doesn't have a CDD because of the stormwater maintenance requirements. That is why every new development that's built hasn't HOA because they have to maintain those common areas. So I don't mean to go down the history lesson, but I mean it's sometimes it can help provide context to the overall thing. And with that I'll yield back to the board. Thank you sir, for your comments. And then I'll just end with this. Obviously if we have that increased traffic that's WGTSR Red will become a direct strip. It's about three-quarter mile long. I like to go on it and bike ride with my kids. I go jogging for exercise. A lot of people use it for that reason. It's a dead end road. There's minimal traffic. So the state defector is pretty good. Obviously there's the the slim chance of something happening but you start putting 200 plus people driving up and down that road every day there's gonna be a lot more incidents and I don't want that to happen. Okay. I believe no one else might come up. Okay. Any boy member comments? Go ahead, come. I just want to say that I don't think people realize that we have to give a classification correct. So we sitting here as the board have to agree to classify this land. So if you're going to have commercial, you're going to have, you know, or industrial, you're going to have some, maybe some big buildings and you might have a lot of traffic. And so it's up to us to decide what the classification is. It has to be done in those four categories. Four? I mean, you would have options. I tend to simplify it in the sense of like commercial industrial zoning. There are subcategories within that, but every every residential annexation in the vicinity has all been vintage residential. VRN. So to the east off of Lake Lowry, the gum project that people refer into on the south or the east side and the south side of the lake is vintage residential and that's just our that is our standard residential category. There is a lower intensity one role residential. We don't really take that in, especially if they have water and sewer access because it's the access the infrastructure access that kind of leads to that with all of that being the green, I believe it's in the green swamp area, you know, they've got protections in the sense that if you don't have water and sewer, you're limited to one unit per 10 acre no matter what your zoning category is. So the board or the commission could give, you know, a vintage residential for units per acre, but, you know, that's what you connecting to city utilities, water and sewer. If you didn't connect to city utilities, then it doesn't matter what your zoning category is, you're limited to the one unit per 10 acres. And the other gentleman that came up, that built, you know, the one house on 20 acres, that's really kind of what that has in mind. So I don't know if for sure, but probably built on well and septic, if you're on a 20-acre property, that's fine. We don't wanna see high density development. So really anywhere, but especially in the green swamp area, that don't have water and sewer. Because then if you've got everyone on septic systems, that creates nutrient loads and pollution concerns you know to the wetland areas that we don't want. We want all of that going into the system so that you're not having that nitrogen and nutrient contamination you know going into the wetland. Thank you. Go ahead. Oh, a few things. I guess. Thank you. Go ahead. Oh, a few things. I guess. First, this is a rural community out there, right? The Green Swamp. And I'm assuming they don't have any city services out there, so they're on septic and wells. Correct? The current residents out there so they're on septic and wells correct WD the current residents out there. Belize some may be on water so and they're so they're on 10 acres. The current residents of they don't have a quarter acre lots they've got a big lot out there because that's what the green smoke requires. So that would be for the city codes, sir. The WGTO and their developments may predate what the current county regs are, but they're kind of set up as a larger lot. You know, it's a block. Well, I guess they're not on 10 acres, but they're not on small lots. That is a gentleman made a point here about notice, mail notices. And I get it, Seth, that's 300 feet. But you run into 300 feet real quick of people sitting on five acres. So you've got a lot of people in a community very quickly for notice. And I'd like to see this city change that. I mean, it might be the regulation for a city, but these are rural people with large pieces of land. And I just think it's, I don't know how to put it, not exactly non-ethical, inconsiderate of the situation for rural people to limit it to 300. You can see the community sitting there. You measure 300 feet. We'll cut that neighbor out and we'll cut that one out over there. Because they're beyond 300 feet. But they're impacted. So anyway, that's at one point. Conservation reduction. You've got 196 acres here of conservation, but that's not exactly accurate. And the reason it's not accurate is because the only parcel is the land is surrounded by conservation and you've got to have access. You're going to cut roads in there. You're going to put in city services. Right? Yeah, they've got to you might have some things you might have to put in a pond or two, or we can't say pond or two, where's that going to go? Going to conservation area or is that going to go in the up on the area? Yeah, they'll have to put that in the up on the area. Okay. OK. So the hundred and ninety six acres, you know, we're up here considering this stuff. And you're looking at this, this is getting critical now. We're not in the green swamp sitting in this room, but we sure are up there. And the changes things. I think, traffic I think is a good point. And I would like a determination because it's a emergency exit thing on WGTO wrote up and on the sport of share amount of time. And I don't remember ever hearing anything about an emergency exit on WGTO tower road. In fact, the lady that got up and spoke and she's gone back to the minutes or whatever and it was supposed to be like a regular road for the residents. And we approved that, but now it's emergency. So this doesn't sit very well. It's either an emergency road or it's a a road. I don't know which that's going to be but it seems like it's not settled. I'll check it and then not only will I provide that information to the residents that requested it, I'll also kick that out to the board just so that you all can see that. That would have been handled through site plan and construction plans, which typically more detailed oriented, not getting necessarily see it as a part of a land use action. All right. The other question I have is the number of units per acre. How many units are actually going in here because when you put the... So is that... Could you go back to that one? Yeah, so this is what it happened the last time for the recommendation from the board. There we go, right there. You guys were looking at rural residential and the main pockets and then VRN and the bottom left corner. When it went through the commission, it went through as vintage residential. And again, as I suggested, the protection of rural residential is really captured with the availability of water and sewer. So if you don't have water and sewer, it's one unit per ten acre. And then if you've got the access, then that kind of unlocks. It's four units per acre though. It's not, we don't allow six units per acre in the green swamp. But for your presenting six, looks like up there at one of the VRM. No, I think so that's not the units for acre. That's just the acreage. Oh, okay. Period. So it's always four. Yeah, vintage residential is four. Where a rural residential would be one, but as I suggested, we don't really take in properties with rural residential. Okay. VRM is kind of the main state in a residential category. I had one other question. The last time this came before the board, alternate board member Reinerck was concerned about impacts to the conservation area and the possibility of coming back later and redefining the conservation area so you could develop more of this. And the answer coming from the community development director said if we did a new flood study, a wetland study, a environmental documentation, then you might go ahead and change the conservation thing. In other words, this is, you've had this done by professionals and they put their stand upon it, but that's fluid. You get a new set of professionals and up and down this road. You get a new set of professionals in here and you set a surveyors, the land came up two inches and Suddenly you've got developed all stuff and you're staying at yourself. You know if this was in Hane City I just don't even worry about this stuff We just dig out big a few bonds overfoot in houses So I mean I appreciate the fact that you guys are Or kind of watching out for this but why isn't it set in stone? It is set in stone to the sense that that's the kind of what land use is and I don't know if anything was set in stone. I mean laws can always change you know people are always lobbying. Tallahassee heck the city tries to pass laws and we think are good and then Tallahassee heck, the city tries the fast laws and we think are good. And then Tallahassee comes in and over rules us. I mean, we're dealing with that all the time. As much as we can get it, the land use and zoning are a pretty good protection because you've got to go back through the process to change anything. And unlike a blank slate where the board has to assign and the commission has to assign and once something's already been assigned, you've already evaluated everything. So now they've got almost produced even more evidence to change something. Like let's say they wanted to come back in and put commercial. You would go, well we already looked at this. You know, no, resident, you have zoning and land use. We're not taking anything away from you. No, denial. So the same thing with here, just like you give in land use and zoning to that conservation, that's its entitlement. So it's been taken care of. It's not to say that they can't come back through, but it's a higher bar. So we put as much in conservation as we could. And so what happens, Board Member Neg is that we'll have like maps or like development limitations maps. Some of these things have been done GIS studies through other organizations and it might be not as it might be more granular. You know, so we're going to conserve we're going to air on conservation, which is what we've done here. Now, let's say the applicant came in and disagreed with staff. Let's say they said no, I think that's actually all upland. I think all of that should be an upland. And if they wanted to fight us on it, and you can kind of see there, it's if they wanted to connect that green area and saying, oh, all that's an upland, we would say, okay, you guys, again, you guys on your own dime, you guys have to do these detailed environment, wetland delineation surveys and boundary studies, and then they would have to come up with that, and then they would have to go through this whole process, they would have to come through again. So it's not that they can't do it, it's that it's much harder to do it once it's already been done because again, go back to the comment earlier. Are they really going to go back through that entire process? They get five more acres or six more acres. You know, maybe if you were in downtown Orlando, they would. But here am I going to have go through the expense and the risk and the no guarantee that the board or the commission approves it that said well I appreciate the study you know but you know I think we made the right decision at the time on balance we want conservation. The other side of the two is once it develops the developer leaves and moves onward they're not going to come back for, you know, three acres or four acres or five acres. So by doing what the board's doing now, you're actually setting up your best chance to preserve it the way it's being presented. Because it's gonna be very costly, very expensive, and it very limited benefit for them to try to crack back into it and carve that back out. One rest then, then I'll show you. You know, Florida was a frontier until about 1850. When it got rid of the Indians, ship the Indians to Oklahoma, except for the Seminoles, which showed up out here outside Lake Alfred at the Fort to talk to the commanding officer. But it was also a frontier for agriculture. Do a lot of things back in the day that are not allowed now and so In a place like this where they had growth That we can't we say now is a conservation area Those dirt roads they use are still conservation area They're not dirt roads. They don't become non-conservation areas because There are roads that some road won't be used. I like to take you in places and you look at the road and say, by gosh, that looks like a nice road and wait till it rains, I'll take you down that road. Because we were frontier, we didn't have the rules and regulations. They put roads everywhere. They tore out the swamp. They did all kinds of things here. In fact, if we had had puffed fiction writers for Florida, we'd have movies now about Florida. I like to do it with a wild west. Because it was a wild west here. A lot of people don't understand that. People carried guns on the street. They had a robbery here in Lake Alfredo, the bank that banked as you went after the guy with a 45. On the street. So those roads, they might be old, but they're still in the swamp. Because they just drove down through the swamp. I take you up in the green swamp show you how it did up there, you know the old tram roads You know tram to get in and out of the swamp But my point is is that those roads can't be Re-designated as non-conservation. There's still conservation. I get where you're coming from. You said, hey, the road went in and out and all that. I get it, but I just wish we'd look at it differently. That's all. So thank you. I'm a staff recommendations. And it says the applicant has requested the future land use assignments of residential and vintage residential. Is that the same? So it would be residential for the future land use and then vintage residential for the zoning. Oh, okay. So conservation is the same for both conservation, future land use and conservation zoning and then for the residential, it's just residential, future land use and conservation zoning and then for the residential, it's just residential future land use and then vintage residential zoning. Okay, thank you. Okay. So. I'll remind the board that this is the future land use. This is the overall envelope. You'll still have a zoning designation that will need to be heard and recommended following the future land use. So you're setting the envelope as you set the envelope the way that the the structure works anywhere the processes that you have your future land use they don't have a zoning designation and then what is permitted by right or by exception or by certain application processes within those zoning regulations or those designations you will get to development. So that development, what's actually going to be built, is further down the line and should not come into consideration for purposes of future land use. I know it's difficult because you're hearing, and I do, Ms. Chronoly comes in and she always brings in for me. I love to hear her come up and present her arguments. And I think they do a fabulous job of bringing relevant and germane issues to the board's attention, whether it's a commissioner of the planning zoning board, but we have to wear a hat when we're looking at the future land use that this is the max envelope. We look at what criteria would be applicable and then we move forward with a recommendation on land use and then what's that takes place then it would be zoning So we're not considering what's going to be built what could be built or what they say they will not build You'd have to look at that envelope and the consistency analysis and make your recommendation On the questions other So we're done. Other questions? Other staff? No, um, what I'm meant to have spoken, which I'll like to entertain a motion for the for emotion options. So you can read on the website. And this particular instance, I do not believe that the modification option would be applicable because it's a future land use application. So it would either be approval or denial and tabling because this will have to go to the commission. It's always been my advice and recommendation that the applicant, the property owner, does have a right to have a public hearing before the legislative body. So we need to update this, and the motion options would be for approval or denial. Just pull the federal. And not table. Not not not to table correct, because the board doesn't have decision making authority or making a recommendation. Okay, it's not stable. Not stable. Correct. Because the board doesn't have decision making authority or making a recommendation. But if denial is going to be your recommendation, we want to articulate on the record. So that way, whatever those the justifications are, they are memorializing the minutes. And that goes to the commission and constitutes competence of schedule evidence for purposes of their decision. So you mean to tell me we're going to only have two choices? Yes, board member Nick, I do apologize. We did not update the form. I know there's some turnover right now and community development. I did not get an opportunity to go over that form with the interim community development director slash city manager slash. Okay, we can't recommend the modification. You can modify it. Well, you can recommend that the city commission consider an alternative, but you can't modify the application. So however the application was made for the future land use, a property owner submitted that application. So it would be to approval denied based upon the application made unless the applicant was here to make an order to this motion to amend their application. I would recommend if you want to go that route, make those recommendations on the record as part of your recommendation to approve or deny. And just so you're aware and I know this has been a discussion before. I can tell you when we had a matter come before you for an agreement and your comments and the record went to the commission and those comments were read and heard and understood and taken into account. So I know there's been discussion before as this is a ministerial action. It is not and what you do today does carry significant weight as it moves forward to the legislative process. So with the board, I'd say in the pane of motion for approval of denial. I'll tell you whatever that might be. I have two recommendations for the city commission. They settle this issue of the WGTO road. Whether or not this is an emergency exit or it has already been approved by the city as a regular road for some other development up there. It's this is I just find it puzzling that that's the way that is and that they also consider clamping down on this conservation business. I'm not sure exactly what that means that I hate to see another board come alone and change things because somebody else did another study. We're tearing up the ecology of Florida enough as it is. We're not going to have anything left. We don't stop it. And that means we step on everybody's land rights. But we've got to have something left. I, I as a chair, I'm a, I'm a, my decision is to do a denial based on the public that they had questions and they need to get with the city manager. But for more answers, I wouldn't run to approve something that they have questions and they won't answer for. So it's just so I can phrase that for you so that way the recommendation for denial will actually be able to be considered by the city commission. If that is your motion to recommend denial board member dig mentioned concerns over the conservation, the allocation of acreage for conservation and the protection of environmentally sensitive lands. That is a, that's certainly going to be an issue that is germane to the public health safety and welfare as well as consistency with our comprehensive plan and compatibility with our land development regulation. So that is the basis for your motion to recommend denial. You can say as stated and move forward with it that way, but if it's based upon inquiries that are not that are development specific, then those would not be considered as competence of substantial moving up to the commission and would not form a as competence of substantial moving up to the commission and would not form a basis upon which to recommend deny or for the commission to deny. So. Thank you for that. Yes. Okay. That's why. So you made a move. No, I didn't make the motion. I said that would have been my option, but I'm just one person and we are boy here so we need to make a motion. Um, what have we gonna instead of going to be approval or deny it based on self justice plan and that more. Just for clarification. So if it goes for denial to the commission, then you know land use and zoning do have to be assigned. So what will happen is yes, the property was annexed into the corporate limits. So in order for any productive use to be made of the property, there would need to be an applicable city, future land use and zoning designation assigned or designated honor for the property. Now obviously the city commission is going to hear the application fast presentation as well as receive your minutes and your recommendation as part of their consideration. So it is a recommendation. This is not the buck doesn't stop here. So whatever happens here, it goes up to the commission and the commission will evaluate as well. Well, fine. If you want that, I'll make the motion to the nine. Based on the previous comments has outlined by attorney playtor. In other words, it's already on the record of concerns you have for the people to have concerns that have not been answered and so forth. So I'll recommend a now. I'll second it. Okay. So Miss, I'm going to do what you give us a roll call. Board member Long. Deny. Chair Arnold. Deny. Vice Chair Gerhard. To confirm here, Deny is to move with just Deny O'Hanger. We're denying Deny O'Hanger. This is for future Landy. So this would be a recommendation to deny the future Landy's request that were presented based upon the facts that I had stated on the record. Deny. the facts that I had stated on the record. Do I? Board member, no. I know. We will like to move on to business item number three. We have to do zoning. Oh, OK. I'm sorry. So based upon your recommendation to deny the future land use, I would recommend that this particular point in time that you make a recommendation. You can't have you can't assign the zoning designation or approve. It would be inconsistent if you recommend approval of the zoning designation or approval. There would be inconsistent if you recommend approval of the zoning designation after having denied, recommended denial of the future land use. So I would make a motion to recommend denial of the request for the zoning designation based upon the same facts presented for the future land use. Because they both coincide together. Yes. We don't have toide together. Yes. Okay. So, I'd like to entertain a motion to deny this. I'm doing a map of the public comments, right? I would still open it for public comment, because it is a separate vote. Yes. Anyone from the public? Right. Come up. Now the crimeway Puck City floor. So the zoning is requested is VRN, which is four dwelling per acres. So if we're doing with conservation, that land is set for conservation because it is in the Green's Farm area of critical concern. So that sort of locks in where you can build. And the concern is here instead of having the other land use of RR for the 37.5 acres, which reached six wells per acre, you would probably want to go with the four because in their December In your December 8th meeting of 22, basically it says that this area contains wetlands and is in a high risk flood zone AE. So if you're in a high risk flood zone, why would you want to build sixth dwelling for acres? to both sixth dwelling for acres because you're going to have one off in an already critical area. So they're in a high risk. So these residents are going to have to carry flood insurance to their benefit. But the recommendation here would be not the VRN, I'm sorry, on the zoning for dwellings per acre would be what you would have go with instead of the six on the RR. So that would make sense during a critical area for flooding. You have a flood basin area. Why would you not go with less housing so that you have less runoff and less potential for flooding in this area? Thank you. Just for a note, because there's no, you're not recommending an approval for the future land use. A zoning designation would be inconsistent with your comprehensive plan because you would have to have a future land use assigned for in order to assign or recommend approval of the zoning designation. And it would be incompatible with your applicable unified land development code provisions as well. So, and just as a caveat, so when the board recommends a Nile the residential, you're effectively saying you want industrial or commercial, you know, or you want the whole thing to be conservation. And so that's where I just just as an academic point you know when you say no to something you inherently say yes to something else so just you know we can cover that in future trainings and the like but I just want the board to come to cognizant of that you know just as a as a caveat I don't know. I don't know. There's nothing. There's nothing personal here in this decision. Nothing at all. We're not saying that we want industrial. Something like that. The concern was that there are so many questions about various things. I think you guys have done a great job actually. But there are so many questions. Let's get those questions answered so everybody is comfortable with it. And there will be some people I know that will never be comfortable with it. But that's the nature of the beast, I guess So we'll clear up these questions and let's see where it goes from there. That's all. Thank you I'm having one as from the public with no more questions Okay, Seeing none then. Okay. When's the next meeting about this whole process so we can get properly notified so we can have a better representation? Number 12, right? I want to schedule September 12th. Okay. Thank you. For the City Commission meeting. Yes. It's actually scheduled for August 19th. August 19th will be first read. Yes. Okay. And so staff will have the, we'll have those questions and the concerns at the board addressed for the reason for denial. Staff will address those questions and the announce this to the City Commission. Okay. Was that what you referring to, Clayton, the commission meeting or the next planning board meeting? Both. Whatever it is dealing with this project. And that would be the City Commission meeting because it will not come back to the thing. It's only worth it unless a new application is made. Okay. And that's August. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Thank you. I caught a fish. You're right. Yeah, I have a brief moment here. The reason I asked, the reason I asked you to say, I'm James Allen from Polk County Florida. Last time I was here two months ago last meeting. We was told from Pope City why don't we go back to Pope City and manage Pope City's business. There's people living in the city limits of Lake Alfred that's got Pope City address. And the reason I have been brought into Lake Alfred I found out December after four months that land across interstate four north of interstate four and the six thousand acres of Delacio Island off of Madden Bay Area was annexed into the city of Lake Alfred, which there's some city for the state statutes. It's not real clear, but the city didn't abide by all of them for 100% and the state didn't abide by a Florida statute. The state was supposed to notify the Polk County committee to obtain the four senators and representatives the legislation committee of Lake Alfred that they were going to annex that six thousand plus acres which they did not. And the reason I have, I live a mile as the crew flies from Lake Alpha City, Memphis now, which it used to be at least five miles. I live seven miles from Pope City, but there was a gentleman on the board that said, why don't we just go back to Pope City and take care of Pope City business? Well, when business affects my way of living and my life and the traffic flow that's going to be becoming, when it takes me an hour and a half to probably get the winter havin' now after all this development's developed, it's affecting my life and my way of life. And I just want to let y'all know that these meetings are open for the public and we shouldn't be told to go back to the whole city. Now I don't know about the members of the here and still on the board and the ones who bake it, but I'm not naming those names, but y'all know who I'm talking about. And that was very rude and I've thought about it for two months and I was not going to come here but I wanted to say this part and you told about Green Swamp and over on the other side of the state which is going to be developed and which has never been developed but the way that's sitting like Alfred went about getting this property based on the listed and Blake Alvarse supposed to be reasonably compact. That's one for the state. Well, it's not reasonably compact and when they submitted urban service report, they did not correctly state everything true in it because they said the Bimbo and Frazier land was vacant, which it was not. It was consumed at and used by construction. Something still is being used by construction company. And they say the standard land was vacant, whether it's not, they've been someone living on there before and after the annexation. And he's got a post city address because of my same mail, ladies and gentlemen, him and my garbage pick up, pick his garbage up. And that's the reason I'm here because when things around my neighborhood have faced me and all this development is going to affect me because like the gentleman said, I remember when an old grade road being still a fossil road with old dirt and we hung out there and fish out, we fish in the ditches. Well, that's them days over here, but definitely. But I just wanted to let you know that you all be seeing me and the public is invited to these areas. And I said, we shouldn't have been told the way we were talking to the athlete. And thank you. And I know it's not everybody's fault. It's just one person's perspective. But like I already got a big job to do, a real big job to do with all this growth in development. And Pope County is not Pope is that I know but thank you and y'all have a good night. I'd like to say that I was surprised when that comment was said to you by a board member and I'm sorry that it was that I thought it was inappropriate and this meeting is for the public and if you want to come and speak we welcome you to come and speak. I appreciate that, ma'am. And thank you. I ask the chair as well. Again, this is for the public and no one should be told down or applied on. So and I apologize for the whole board members. I don't recall who said it, but I'm going to apologize as the chair to you personally. Well, I accept your apology and I appreciate it. And I wish the best for Lake Alfred because the first bank account I ever had was in Lake Alfred. I graduated in over there on 75 and my mom and dad graduated in over there on 1953. So I've seen what's going on. It's not good a lot of ways. But I do, I decided what I retired to come back and live here. And my home is here. And Pope County is my home. And it'll just come down to Lake Alford, look what the county is letting go. So anyway, I wish to best look to everybody. Thank you for that, let me talk. Thank you. I may have needed an interpreter next time I thought about that at the beginning. I ran from the country and I ran into the Georgia Muslim life and that's why I have to enter the accident. So, and when I ran my voice, my wife said, yeah, it's the tone you hear. Where it is the tone I use, but I was constructing motorbike for 36 years, you know. So, I've got a lot of excuses, but thank you for your time. You already come this day out? Okay. Okay. You're speaking for me. Okay. You're speaking for me. Okay. You're speaking for me. Okay. You're speaking for me. Okay. You're speaking for me. Okay. So, I'm going to ask the board. Do we want to approve or entertain the motion to deny which they both coincide with each other so As I as chair going to deny as well Did not on this one as well Okay Go for it. I'm gonna make a motion to welcome in the NIO. It's the deny raise the bond and the fact that without a usually a new assignment there would not be consistency with the city's confidence of planning without ability to develop the regulations. Yes, thank you. And just so that I've got further edification, the contingent, the denial of the land use and this was contingent based upon the concerns associated with transportation infrastructure, which would have been the connection to WGTA Tower Road and then also the concern regarding the permanency of the conservation zoning. Okay. Thank you. Okay motion. Board member Nigg. Yes, good night. Vice Chair, your heart. Chair Arnold. And I can board member Long. Motion carries for denial. On to business item number three. Company and supplant amendment. And I would turn it over to staff for any presentation. Thank you Madam Chair. At the beginning of 2023, a rule changed with the State of Florida. Required localities to submit the final adopted ordinance of the state within 10 business days following final adoption. This is in addition to the state required submitter after first reading, first state comment proceeding and also proceeding final adoption. The city missed the submittal after final adoption and the state has effectively invalidated the prior adoption. So the city has to go through the adoption process again. The previous approved conflant amendments are effectively being represented for adoption. As a refresher, the proposed tax amendments predominantly address changes in water supply planning and include references to the Polk County Water Cooperative, water supply planning, and updated level of service standards. In addition to the previously presented changes, additional changes are being proposed in the capital improvements element. It removes policy 4.2 related to debt service percentages as this is an arbitrary number that shouldn't be in the comp plan. And then also we amended policy 4.3 to adopt the city's CIP and facility plan by reference. And I had included my additional notes and the attachments that the board had received. Staff recommendation on this item is to approve the proposed comp plan text amendments and staff will be happy to answer any questions. And again, this is what was previously presented in the board and previously recommended approval. These were adopted by the City Commission, but we're just having to go back through the process again. Any comments from the public? Seeing, I would like to entertain the motion to the approval. Okay. Okay. and I would like to entertain the motion to the approval. Okay, okay, that's all right. All right, we've got adjusting septic tanks in this city. So city gonna pay for the hookup for, for citizens that have septic tanks because you're gonna force people to go to city water. I mean city sewer according to this plan. We have a septic to sewer conversion program with the city that we've already adopted by resolution and we do fund it as we get into large scale. scale conversions will have to go after state funding, grant funding to assess with that. But that is a long-term goal is to do a septic to sewer conversion program. But the City Commission has been in myself always advocated for that. It should be no cost, you know, to the residents. That's a tall lift. They've got a they've got a, you know, decommissioned septic system. You've got to pay to connect to the city sewer And then you also have that impact fees associated with that so we've had a couple of conversions already But the real limiting factors you've got to be adjacent to existing Steward to begin with because if you're out again Wgt or tell rather that if you're off there and there's sewers not available Okay, well you you have to have your septic system then. So again, as sewers becomes available, we will look for additional funding sources that help offset that, but the goal, more member, is a neg is to cover those costs. Okay, now you also have a water plan with other cities, right? Yes, sir. We run out of water here, we'll get it from Auburndale and so forth. Okay? Correct? Yes sir. Would you agree that you're all dipping in the same source of water? So that could be a two hour long question. I understand. Yes sir, no question. Yes sir. Okay. And he isn't there a plan in place also to inject gray water as a storage device so that that can be reused as drinking water. Yes or no question. Are they drilling walls down by lake whales to get the water to store water so that we end up with drinking water? Because you're to put that in the aquifer we're gonna pump it back out at some point. It's already there They're putting the salts back in the water's coming out Wait you're putting gray water back in right Take treated water from a sewer plant you pump it back into the aquifer, right? We're not quite That's a good question. I don't know if someone have to, you some have direct injection back into the, maybe the lower obstacle. They answer yes I think. Yes. Thank you. Now you're asking. Thank you. Oh, I thought. Now they say they're going to purify that wire but that purification in this again is a yes or no answer is chlorination only. Is that correct? Yes, sir. What else they're going to do? Reverse osmosis. You're going to, I don't know. And that's after it comes back out or when it goes in. When it comes out. You're going to reverse osmosis. Okay, I'll have to look into that. Because all that water you inject, that at gray water, contain strokes, steroids, excess metals, heavy metals, that's humans just have that condition that we excrete heavy metals differently. So, gray water contains a lot of stuff that chlorination will touch. In fact, chlorination will make it worse because you're gonna chlorinate chemicals that weren't chlorinated in the first place. I'm just curious about that. So, I'm sure this plan for improvement, approval that I just want to ask questions. Thank you Any more questions from the board members Okay, so I'm gonna make a motion to approve it prove the second I'll oppose anyone opposed. I in favor say aye. Okay. Aye. No clarification for the record that's motion to any vote to recommend a fruitful decision. Eric. We'll move on to our last item. Sorry, you guys are the last. That's a real show for you. I have a question. What might have been the easy one? The Vichydowski. The 130 South Pennsylvania Avenue, use of provost site development plan. Madam Chair, if I may. Yes. The putting in zoning board will consider a conditional use for the operation of the school in the downtown area. Our career center to academy is operating in primary school for special needs students at the method is church, which is located at 130 South Pennsylvania Avenue. The operation of the school within a civic assembly constitutes a change of use for a portion of the site. One evaluating the site concerns regarding access and parking were identified, drop off and pick up of students is currently facilitated from an alley off of South Pennsylvania Avenue, which then intersects with the remnant of South-Wanda Vista, which then connects to West Pierce Street. This is problematic because the intersection with West Pierce is too close to cars turning off of Shambolvard. SAPP is proposing to close off on Avista and for a coldest act to be installed at the end of the alley to create a turnaround for pickup and drop-off. Additionally, due to the age of the existing church all on-site parking is currently grass parking. Sufficient on-site parking exists for teachers staff, that can be attributed to the use. However staff is requesting to pay the handicapped accessible spaces to be placed on the interior of the site. That will have ADA access to the building, which is housed in the school. The city will close the access from West Pierce as the city initiated project. As a result of this, the city will replace the lost access with the as the city initiated project has a result of this. The city will replace the lost access with the driveway and the construction of the coldest act. Additionally, CRA grant funds are available to assist with the owner for the handicap parking requirements. I have received subsequent feedback from the school and from the church. And so definitely receptive to looking at this change. So if you'll draw your attention to the screen, this is kind of what the concern is. The access thereof of one of this is so close to that shin bull bar that if you've got a lot of traffic coming in and out as a result of the school, especially around pickup or drop off time, you know, that could just be problematic, especially cars that were turning from pierced. You don't want to be turning in as someone's turning on to pierce and then potentially, you know, have a collision. So that was one of the concerns. This is kind of what our engineer had sketched up and what we had talked about. This would convert it into a cul-de-sac. One of this would go away and then you can see there kind of the paving of their alleyway that kind of goes up through the center just there to the east of the building. That would be paved. You can see the two handicapped spaces to the left. The other parking spaces to the right, they're already there. Those wouldn't be paved, but we might be able to put like curb stops or something like that. Now, the church has communicated. They don't really have a lot of additional funding to make this happen. So the city would kind of initiate the project and all this would all be with the city commission. They would have to take action on this, but just so that the planning board kind of knows what the game plan would be. The city's really looking to take this on. And then through the community redevelopment agency, there would be grant funding there to assist with the improvements that would be onsite. Now, recent feedback that I've received, this is an alternative option that they had come up with where maybe we could convert one of this into a one way end. And then that would potentially improve the safety. we could convert one of this into a one way end. And then that would potentially improve the safety. I think we'll work out the details of the ultimate solution there just from an engineering perspective and make sure everyone's comfortable with it. But for the purposes of the board action tonight, the staff recommendation is to approve the use, because the board has to approve the use of the school at the at the property. So it's to approve the use but then with the conditions that two handicap parking spaces be placed and this would be by January 1st, 2026 and that we paved the driveway that bisects the church property and provide access access to the grass and then the handicap parking. So the only real conditions of the board are going to put forward is that, you know, this area, I guess I can show here, that that area be paved and then there be two parking spaces. All of this side over here, kind of what the two, the two v. determined, that will kind of be handled at the city level, that will work with the church property, just to make sure that they've got a comfort level, with what we're trying to do there. They're the primary and really the only users of this area. So we want to make sure that they're comfortable with the outcome, but at the same time, we want to preserve safety. So the only two conditions that the staff is asking at the board place for the use approval is the two handicap spaces and then that drive way on the church property. And as I've suggested before, there's already CRA grants that can offset or assist with the costs of those conditions that would obviously the city would look favorable to, you know, as a community partner, you know, in someone making to look improvements in the downtown area. So staff recommendation is to approve the primary school use at 130 South Pennsylvania Avenue with the listed conditions in the timeline. And staff will be happy to answer any questions. Got a question because now you're dealing with peer streak. So you're saying when when does this school open? It's our it's been open. It's been an operation. So this this use has got to come in the all after the fact. You know that's something that we worked with the applicant on. You know we didn't want to shut them down or anything like that. So we worked with them. They did all the inspections for fire assessor. They were in compliance with everything. So this would just be to kind of retroactively or to give a formal approval going forward. And those were the identified conditions that we had concerns with. So with a code of sight, they would go in, go around the code of sight, and go back out the same way that they came in. They could either go back out the same way, or they could drive through up to West Pierce. So then, you know, in theory, depending on how they wanted to operate, I think currently they kind of, and John, you might be able to answer more specific details on it. But they come in off of Pennsylvania, I believe, and then potentially exit, you know, of one of this stuff, and then go back out onto Pierce. So the cul-de-sac would create like a loop, you could come in off of Pennsylvania, and then wrap around, and then go back out. Or in theory, you could wrap around, and as you do the drop-off, you might be able to go up the alley. So it provides options. It provides options, but again, I don't wanna get too hung up on the details on that. I mean, there's the focus for the conditions or the driveway. And again, we wanna make sure that the church is comfortable with it, but we did have that concern with just the access to one of this. A one way in might solve it, but I want the engineers to look at it first. Okay. So on this page here, it shows the yellow, yellow shape line, and then you got a red X. That was the concern. That was just identifying kind of what the concern was, is just the proximity of the access to one of this. And that's a remnant. So that's off that road there is a holdover, you know, back from the two-way conversion process that happened a while ago. One of this, it used to be the original road, and so they've left it there. That road could be deconitioned there because the properties that are directly to the left of it don't have access off of it. They're driveways either come north to the alley above it or south to pier street. And so that's why that would have the ability to close that down, potentially with the safety concern. Okay. That was my question for the safety concern. Okay. So that was my question for the safety concern. The traffic coming off the highway, I finititude turning onto pierce, and I just wanted to get clear on the stand of that ill-shake, that ill-shake, that they are not going to be coming out of there with traffic turning onto pierce street. Right. And currently that could be, you know, gonna what's happening or the potential for it. You know, the cul-de-sac would obviously eliminate that, you know, a one-way in would also prevent, you know, from coming out there too. So we need to evaluate that option, but you've got two decent options, I think here that will cover it. The board doesn't inherently need to weigh in on that. I think the conditions that we have established for the use are good, and then the city will work with the applicant. Because the city is going to have to do this anyways. If we do anything to want to do this, that wouldn't be the responsibility of the applicant inherently to do it. It's really the city that has a safety concern there, and the use is really just exacerbating the problem that already inherently existed, so it didn't seem fair to try to make them, you know, pay the freight on it. So that's why the city's looking at it as a city initiated project. No, I can appreciate the fact that the traffic, and I hope you guys really study it, because the traffic over by that elementary school is awful and You know every time that school lets out I mean it's like it's four ways but all the roads are full And with with cars so you basically have two cars going in different directions in one lane So it's a mess. So I hope that you guys can figure out so you don't have such a mess. Yeah, and this is, they can speak more to it that they've got a small student group. So, you know, the problem with elementary school was designed for 500 students and they've got 900. Now would have been my next question, is it that church, as a small of, version of students go there since it's a special needs school. I know it probably won't be 500 special needs students go there. Because then you will have what issue on hand. Eat, try and go either way out. So that my question was, is it a smaller entity of kids go there? It is and I would just yield to the applicant during the, you know, if you want to hear from them now or during the public comment section. Okay. Any comments? Any, any, any more comments? I'm going to have comments. Hello. My name is Jason Mokie and I live at 160 South Bend Bay and I'm going to grab your pointer man. Uh, there's nothing else at the time. This right here. It's a traffic safety issue. I met having lived here for many years. I would agree with the city cities request to close that. There's a lot of foot traffic in the area. I've been hit by a car at that intersection. My wife has almost been hit by a car walking, running, things of that nature. My question on this, if you move with this plan, is who owns that property? Does it remain right away? Or does it move into ownership by the church? our families. We are there for 40 something years. right away at least for the time being just because the church probably doesn't want the maintenance of it, you know So we would just we could potentially vacate it. I mean that week that's something we would have to Right is that I understand This portion of property belongs to them and would remain in their ownership I wouldn't I wouldn't make such an assumption they wouldn't keep that but the alleyway itself Is currently right away and it would remain as such I guess that's my concern. Well I don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole because we're talking about a use right now and that's what's before the the board and understand that you are making a final decision as related to the use. So the proverbial buck stops here for this application. Now when we're dealing with right-of-way or alleyway, if it has been dedicated or if it has been somehow via easement or deed preserved or reserved for the public's use, it will not. That won't change. If there's no vacation of the public's interest in the alley or right-of-way. However that was originally conveyed, that interest. Then the underlying fee will not revert. Now, let me jump in and just looking at it, I don't think we would be able to vacate it because not all of the property is owned, I believe, by the church. And so what happens when you vacate it is half would go to the church and half would go to the other property owner And then and then that would compromise the alley and yes So we probably we probably need to keep it as right right? I would I would encourage this plan I I think that it's the safest As far as the traffic is concerned just just from my personal perspective of living here since 1983. And fortunately, I left it for Afghanistan in 2011 when Boenvista was still in use. And I came back nine months later on leave and it was all finished. So I never saw the construction, never had to deal with the nightmare. I guess you guys had to deal with that intersection area there. It is problematic and I would not be opposed to see me going. So as the city manager identified, if there is a public use in order to vacate or to abandon, you would have to make a legislative finding that there's no public use or public purpose for the alleyway or right of way. And given that testimony, that's not going to be an issue, so that would maintain, however, whether it be by dedication or by easement or however that right in the public is preserved, that's going to remain. So we don't have to deal with the title issues that you would have to deal with from an abandonment or vacation. So that- And it does call into question. This small portion of property here, I believe that that is owned by the church. So how you would go about doing that? It's going to have to be some type of contract or agreement between the municipality and the the private property owners. So that's something though that can be worked out outside of the use that's before you. But this plan is a viable plan. There are some other parts to it that need to be worked out contractually later. But I believe the youth coupled with what you have before you is more than a sufficient plan for the Church to move forward and have adequate and safe access. And I would strongly oppose in every possible way and even defy you making that a one way I would not abide by that you'd have to put a police officer there every day of the week to write me a ticket because that's my access to a park that I would defy that monumentally. So in other words if we find things that are obstructing the right of way, we know who did it As I say I purchased that the property here So they can this property here and I want an 80 over and since that time there was prior to this building being built a home just identical to mine on that location. That home was moved over somewhere else in the city. This property was built and then the church at that time had this alleyway paid. They paid it. The church paid for paying it. And in doing so, they raised the alley was raised down to here, which would have caused the runoff to run off on my property. So in order for them to not have to regrade all of that area and change that, I proposed to them to make that alleyway of valley, center so that water would run down the center of the alley down to south Petzalania. So in this proposal is the city going to maintain this alley all the way to south Petzalania Avenue. I believe it's an alley now. I believe it's the right way now. Yeah so we would we would be responsible for the maintenance of that. And we would look at that drainage concern when we went through and resurfaced it. Yeah. OK. Thank you. Yep. You just tell me about it. I'm going to be back on. Hi, I'm John Brock. I'm a real sheriff at school. And I've been wanting to use this all night. For other than just pointing. The biggest concern that I believe more than a number long head was traffic. So this is a school that has about 45 students in it more than half of which take our van's home. So there's maybe, maybe at about 315, there's maybe five cars on that right here. So it's not, we're never looking at like, and we also, for those of you guys who know us, we have two campuses, the other campuses at first press. So we are very aware of the traffic at Lake Uppard, Old Manchray. We are never going to be that. But I just want to make sure you know that the traffic in that area is never going to... It's never going to back up. It's never going to get anywhere closer than about right here when they start and they're here for five minutes and then they're gone. We have two 15 passenger bands that we take students in and they never, they never even go this way. We pull them in, we let them out when we drive them out. So traffic is not going to be an issue at all. We've been there, this is, we've been there two years now. So my biggest concern because I love my landlord is that they own, bear with me, sorry, they own all of with me. Sorry. They own all of this land right here. So, and I know we're not addressing it in detail right now. But if we make this, that takes up half of a parcel, there's actually three parcels here. So it takes up half of their parcel. So not only would we be doing, if we did what, which, by the way, was well done, if we cut this road off completely, then two things happen. One, this land becomes worthless if they were decided they wanted to do something with it because now it becomes part of the public. Try to do this right here is our front store that everybody that comes to this strip, 90% of the people who just, the thrift store, empty room. So we understand each year. And we understand the traffic issue right here. But I will tell you having been driving this for multiple years now, the people that turn out to hear that as bad as the dangers and stupid things do, I've done it before I'll never do it again. A one way in here, I think we resolve it, but I understand why we have concern. He's been here longer than I have. But what we're trying to do right now is give my students an official place to be. We should have done it a while ago, but we went through some moves so we didn't realize we were missing. and then give us the permission to work with the City Planner, Slesh, City Manager to make a revision to this pavement that works for everybody. Okay, but I said you want to go. Can I point out that the portion of that property on What we're seeing is the bottom side of that is in fact right away and I'll start come up to the camp Can you move to the Overlay with the Properly lines of the leaves this one right here is right away. I can look it up. You are correct sir. It is. There is an alleyway through. It is an alleyway through there. But our property is all of that. We have those parcels. We have all of those parcels that are there. Our thrift store is also right here. Our thrift store has been there for 14 years. Right? And it is a percentage of what helps keep our church open. It is also utilized by lots of people who come in to shop there, who don't have the money to be able to shop at other places. We get individuals from surrounding cities, Haines City, people come from Haines City, all over to shop at our thrift store. So I would like to ask you all if you were going to come to my thrift store how would you get to it? I've been to your thrift store many of times and I've came both direction. I've came through that all the way and I can't whatever it is. My next question is if you take away the ability for the individuals to come through to the first store on point of So, how would you direct them to get there? What would our address be? How would somebody Google Lister store? One of their usual things of India. But it's not. But it's not. One of our usual things of India. But it's not. One of our usual things of India. But it's not. But it's not. But it's not. But it's not. But it's not. But it's not. So our proposal truly was to make a voice to drive a one way coming in only because otherwise I don't know how anyone would get there. And if you want to take away and close down our first door, you all are doing a pretty good job of doing that. If you want to take away and close down our first door, you all are doing a pretty good job of doing that. And I share, don't want the thrift store closed because I go there a lot. Right. I do go in that way sometime, but I don't come out that way. Why? Because I was coming out that way, but I still go in that way. So that's what we're saying and Ryan's done an awesome job in working with us but doing the cul-de-sac or closing off point of vista which I understand is city and it is owned by the city of Lake offering and so you all can do what you want, right? I enjoy when there's some level of consensus. But this isn't going to be solved here tonight. Correct. The most important thing is to get the use approved for the school and the conditions on that are the handicap spaces and the pay drive through, you know, which there's CRA grant funding that can assist with that. Yeah. That road based upon public comment and concerns from both sides, and we may just have to do a more detailed study. You know, the concern does remain on that intersection, and even if the traffic doesn't increase as a result of the school traffic is just increasing period. Oh, absolutely. The route down on Pierce Street and so things that may not have been issues before. Oh well, you know that's been that way for years. Why do we need to change it? All of our transportation infrastructure systems are getting tested and so things that might have been okay five years ago are starting to show, you know, their bus again, look at the school, look at my car, Boulevard, you know, different things like that. Pierce is a major connector to Auburndale. So as Water Ridge builds out and you see between as Auburndale and Lake Alfred Connect and all those groves between us, turning into subdivisions. And you know this chair member, you live on Pierce, you see it. We've had to put in traffic, calling with and everything else. So I don't want to do, I don't want to just do nothing on it, or well, one wants a one way and one doesn't, and let's cancel each other out. We'll probably need to do additional studies on it and maybe even get like a traffic study on it to do further evaluation. Okay. My name is Dale Golden. I'm the pastor at First Judgment for Church. And for that I just to thank you for your time and your concern for our church and our community. That's all I want to say is thank you so much. You are a pretty good man. You're welcome. How are you doing? I'm Aaron Nangle. I'm actually a new resident of Lake Alfred. I just had a house built here about four months ago. One of the things I did when I came to this town is I loved how small and how cute it was, so to my wife she fell in love with the place. But I also fell in love with the Methodist Church. So I want to make sure everything works for them. The best that I possibly can. And one thing I want to make sure that I point out out you guys. So you take the time, you look at Haynes Boulevard, look at the size of that, look at the size of this road. And you see this road here, you can have a car in car out both ways, apparently. But then you look at here, if you were to build a road here, what would happen right here? There would be no room for a regular road to fit in between these two buildings right here. It's impossible. There's not enough room. They won't work. So make sure you take a look at that. And again, as they were talking about the third store, it's a big time line maker. I went there just a day to donate some stuff. I go in there. There's so many happy people in the shopping, looking around, helpers. But we don't want them mess that up and it's so true about the address and you people come down this road and they see the signs for this and what do they do? They come in, they come up in the park right here. They don't just drive around really really this way and not see anything to do with that so if you take this from the way all together people aren't going to become in there like they do now. It's not going to be so easy to find. You know, who's going to take the time? Well, let me see if I can circle around and see how to get into that place, but they don't very well when they come down here that's turned right in. So just take that into consideration, you know, because I want to make sure that the church always does good and helps all the people that they help. So let's not mess that up, okay? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your concern and I can assure that the City Manager will look further into that and make better decisions. We discussed about a lot of it in and out. The point of the matter tonight is I think it's improving the School to operate here in this facility correct so if you guys approve This school to operate in this facility How is that going to affect my property here? They've been there for two years. Is that going to, is that going to rezone my properties? No. Nothing is being rezone. And is there any other factors? I think there's a misunderstanding on how, what we're voting on tonight versus what, all of our questions are for the future. If I may, Madam Chair. Okay. The zoning has already been established. There is no change in zoning. So if you look at their zoning, which I believe was like C2, you know, assembly is a permitted use. Now, things that have permitted use is depending upon the level of approval, it might be staff level. So, if someone's going in and you know, they want to open up their insurance, you know, business, you know, they would just go through the regular business tax receipt process, make sure they've got all their permits in order. So because the school has board level approval, it means that staff can't approve it. So it means that because it's not the zoning that's changing, it's the use. So because they're using that portion of it, you know, as a school, that's triggering the use to come to the board for y'all's approval, and then any conditions that, you know, the board for y'all's approval and then any conditions that you know the board may put upon it. When we did our review of the area because it is a smaller school it's special needs it's not like they're opening up a full-on you know elementary school year the impacts are overall minimal relative to what the church you know there could be a lot more cars showing up for church on a Sunday you know then potentially for you know, there could be a lot more cars showing up for church on the Sunday, you know, than potentially for, you know, the school. And so staff looks at that. We look at, okay, well, they're not really competing usage. Uses, that's not like you need double the parking because when the school is in operation, the church usually isn't. So we look at that and we try to be fair and balanced. But when we looked at it, we said, okay, well then also too you don't need to come up with a whole new parking lot or things like that. But, okay, pay and handicapped parking spaces, that seems like a reasonable condition or ask because of the change of use. Now if the church had just stayed a church, you know, for ever when there was no change of use, there would have been no bite at the apple or opportunity to say, hey, can you change this or add this parking or do the like? So because there's that use change that's coming to the board, that gives the board the ability to put a couple conditions. And so the staff recommended conditions were consistent with our review. And as we looked at our concerns with one of this, that triggered our review of it. But in all candor that concern existed even outside of the use category. That's more of just like a city and overall city concern. So that's why you don't see a condition one way or the other that says one of this has got to go. That's something that we need to evaluate. It identified the problem, but it's not inherently going to be sold through this, especially because you're dealing with city ride away on a road that's not even a part of their property. Thank you. Any more questions, concerns from the public? Okay, what about boy members? No. So I'm gonna entertain the motion to approve. Okay. So the staff recommendation would be to approve the use at 130 Pennsylvania Avenue with the conditions and timeline listed in the staff analysis. Can I give a second? Second. Who made the motion? Would you like a roll call for? I'm going to ask the question, but what is exactly they are 100% just approved? Just so everybody is clear. You think you said that fellowship conference is short? Okay, that's what I meant. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The conversation should be with you. What? I have a question. Any other question? Just for clarification for the members in the audience, although 90% of the discussion centered around the one to this and the like, what was actually approved was the use of the school to go there and then the conditions for the approval is that they put in the two handicap spaces and that they improve kind of the vertical element there. The long alley, but that's on their property. Whether we do the cul de sac, we're a one-way in, that's going to involve FDOT. So here's the other thing. Sometimes there's questions you don't want to ask, but we got to ask them anyways. When we ask the question, FDOT is going to be a part of that process, and they'll have a seat at the table, because everything within 50 feet of a state road is partially their jurisdiction. So even though it's a city road, and we get some say, they're going to have, you know, they may potentially weigh in, you know, as well. So we'll have to collaborate, we'll collaborate with the church and the residents as well as with FDOT. And as I suggested, there will probably need to be additional study done. And we probably won't have a final determination any time soon. But I want it to be a collaborative process. You know, we're, you know, everyone is on board and we address the concerns of the neighborhood as well as the safety considerations. Okay, that's exactly what I was going to ask. I mean, anything that goes to happen, church needs to know 100% about it, just so we can all be involved 100%. And the residents, so yeah, absolutely. Thank you. We'll go through that process and but yeah, we're going to need to do some more evaluations based on the feedback report. Okay. So next plan is on board meeting scheduled for September 12th. If no more questions and concerns, I will adjourn this meeting. Thank you.