All right, we're going to call uh call to order the uh the planning and zoning um commission uh for date May 13, 2025. If everybody uh we're going to first thing we're going to do is we are going to uh take a brief recess uh for the
time capsule and then uh we'll be back at I would say uh 7 o'clock to uh to restart the meeting. So, okay, let's go. Easy. All right, we'll call the meeting
back to uh back to order. If everybody will stand for the invocation pledge. Dear Lord, heavenly father, thank you for this day, Lord God. We ask that you uh bless the citizens of Okcoy, Lord. Bless our first responders, bless our city staff, Lord. Thank you for uh
having our city be here for 100 years and hopefully to be here for many many many more hundred years to come. Lord Jesus name we pray. Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call, please. Chair Lomneck here. Vice Chair Forges here. Member Keller here. Member Shone is absent. Member Galvin here. Member Butler here. You have a quorum. Thank
you very much. Can I get a uh approval of the minutes of the uh planning zoning meeting from April 8th, 2025? So moved. All right. Can I get a second? A second. We have a motion for approval by member Keller and a second by alternate member Butler, who's not alternate tonight.
Let's go ahead and vote. All right. All right. Okay. We have uh no old business, new business. We have uh a big one here. 508 518 and 524 Woodson Avenue. This is for Legacy Homes Florida LLC annexation and
resoning from Orange County R1 single family dwelling district to city of Okcoy R1A single family dwelling district. This is projects AX042502, AX042503,
AX042504, RZ25043, RZ25043, and RZ250403. Is that twice? 04. Oh yeah, the 03 is there twice. Okay. Do we know
what the what the correct the first one should be RZ25042 02. Thank you. All right. So for the record that was RZ25042 and RZ25043 and then RZ2504. So we'll need to do one two
three four five six motions. But uh planner um Bell Belellazeria Bellazer. All right. Close. You're good. You're up. Okay. All righty. Good. Good evening everyone. Tonight I'll present be
presenting on the annexation and resoning for the Legacy Homes FL LLC properties located at 508 518 and 524 Woodson Avenue. Okay. So for issues, it's whether or not the planning and zoning commission should recommend approval of
the annexations of the properties from the county into the city as well as reszoning the properties from county R1 to city of Akoi R1A. Okay, so some background on the properties. They're all located along the west side of Woodson Avenue and
south of Center Street for 508 and 518 Woodson Avenue. Each lot is 38 acres. for 524 Woodson Avenue. That lot is 35 acres. Um all the properties are eligible for annexation as they are all
adjacent to the city properties eligible for water service specifically portable water service and reduce the amount of enclaves within the city. It is also consistent with the joint planning area future land use map which is for low density residential.
Okay, so here we have the aerial of the property. Like I said, west of Woodson and south of Center Street. This is the surrounding zoning map. As you can see, the yellow areas are the city properties with R1A and R1 zoning designations, excuse
me. Um the future land use map showing again that consistency of low density residential. And so for these items, the development review committee met 6 to consider the annexation resoning and are recommend making a recommendation of
approval. And staff also recommends that the planning and zoning commission make a recommendation of approval for the annexation and resoning of the properties from the county into the city and resoning from R1 to R1A. And that concludes my presentation.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for staff? Uh, one question if I may. Yep. Mr. Chair, um, do we have to do this in a particular order? Because when I look at the, um, jurisdiction surrounding the
north,southeast, east, and west on 508 and 518, it shows that everything is surrounded by Orange County on all four sides. It's only 524 that shows an adjacency to the city
of Akoi. So, do we have to bring 24 in first, then 18, and then and then uh 8? That was going to be my That was going to be my recommendation tonight. Um you kind of work our way southward as we go. Okay.
Thank you. That was that was all, Mr. Chair. Great. Anybody else? And and and I don't know I don't know if if the planner knows which of these lots I'm gonna ask that go progressively to
the south. I think we want to make sure we do this right. I'm going to ask that as well. Um is there uh is there the applicant here? Oh, the applicant is not here now. All right, great. Anybody from the We'll open up to the public. We'll
close the public uh bring it back up to the DAS. So, yes. Uh which uh which RZ's and Azaxs are for 524 please actually do it on Google. Do we in order to 524 do it by address or will we have
to also since I've already recited the the uh the projects can we just do it by address? Chair, Mr. Chair, um planner Bellazer has advised that they are in project order by numerical order. So would start with 04 then 03 then 02.
Okay. Thank you. Uh you think we'll be okay with that just announcing the addresses since we already announced the projects? Yes. Okay. So then if you make a brought it back up to the dice here, uh just for the board, if you'd like to make a motion, you can start with 524
and just use the address will for the uh the RZ and then the A. So you don't have to recite the project number. So I'll take a motion if there's no other question. So just at for clarity here, so we're going to start with 524, then go to 518, then go to 50. Correct. Okay.
So, we're going to make a motion for all three at the same time because 524 has to be correct approved tonight first. Gotcha. Correct. Yep. We're going to do the 524. We'll do the RZ. So, somebody uh do we do the RZ or do we have to do the annexation? You do the annexation
first. Uh Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we approve or recommend approval of the annexation uh of 524 Woodson Avenue into the city of Akoi. Great. Thank you. Do I have a second? I second. All right. We have a a
motion for approval, a motion for recommendation of approval uh for 524 Woodson Avenue by member Keller and a second by member Galvin. All those in uh favor, let's vote. All right. Now, we need for 524.
Now, we'll need the resoning. I'll take a motion. Uh Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion for the reszoning of 524 Woodson Avenue from Orange County R1 to um City of Akoi R1A single family
dwelling district. Great. Do I have a second? I'll second it. All right. We have a uh motion for recommendation of approval of 524 Woodson Avenue for annexation by member Keller and a second by uh member uh Galvin. Let's uh go
vote, please. Great. That passes. Uh, next will be 518. Take a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll make a recommendation for approval to NX 518 Woodson Avenue.
Okay. I think you have a a motion. Do I have a second? A second. All right. We have a motion for approval. A motion for recommendation of approval for 518 Woodson Avenue for uh annexation by Vice Chair Forges and I believe that was a second by by member Butler. All those in
favor, let's vote. All right, that passes. Thank you. I'll take a motion for the reszoning of 518. And Mr. Mr. Chair, I'll make a recommendation for approval to reszone 518 Woodson Avenue to from R1.
Thank you. Do I have a second? A second. All right, we have a uh recommendation for approval for uh 518 Woodson Avenue for reszoning. And uh I cut him I cut member forges off, but he was saying from uh Orange County R1 to uh city of
Okcoy R1. So, I have a uh a recommendation for approval by member for uh by vice chair Forges and a second by member Galvin. Uh let's vote. All right. 508. Take a
motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion for a recommendation for approval for the annexation of 508 Woodson from Orange County R1 to City of OCOY R1A. We're not doing the zoning yet. First, we're doing annexation. I did. I'm
sorry. You're good. All right. We have a recommendation for approval for 508 Woodson Avenue for annexation. Do I have a second? Second. All right. We have a uh a recommendation for approval by member Butler of 508 Woodson Avenue and
a second by member Galvin. Let's vote. All right, that passes. All right, last but not least here, hold this thing. I want to do one like I'd like to recommend a motion for approval of uh 508 Woodson Avenue for
the uh annexation. Uh, you want to do it for resoning? We did the addex, right? That's exactly what I want to do. See, I haven't messed it up for resoning. I'll second that. Thank you. Go ahead. No, finish it up. Yeah, I can't gave it here.
There you go. Uh, we have a motion on the floor by um I'm sorry to annex to resone I'm sorry to reszone 5 508 Men Avenue to city of AOI. Motion by um Chair Lumeneck and second by Vice Chair
Forges to R1A. To R1A. You can't gave it either. Hand it over. Oh, shoot. Yeah, I'm vice chair. Do I need to repeat the vote? No, just gave it. We know. Ask for the vote. Everyone, please vote. Jesus Lord. Y'all know the law. I don't. Did it approve?
It approved. Yes. Let's not do that again. Father. All right, those all approved. It killed me. Jeez Louise. All right, for what we're all here for. This is uh 1561 Dusty Pine Drive. This is the
ferment property variance request project number VR2501. Yep. So this is for the ferment property located at 1561 Dusty Pine Drive for their variance and their request to increase the maximum allowed impervious surface area and to reduce the minimum
setbacks for imperous materials. So for issues it is whether or not the planning and zoning commission should recommend approval of two um variance requests. The first one is to exceed the maximum allowed 65% ISA
by 4% for a total of 69% as well as to encroach the minimum twoft setback for impervious material by.5 ft. Um both are for the purpose of installing pavers and concrete in the front side and rear
yards. Okay, so background on the property is located on the south side of Dusty Pine Drive. The lot area is a little bit over 6,000 square feet and it is within the Forest Lake Estates planned unit development as established in the PUD. The maximum allowed ISA is
65% which for this lot is 3,97 square ft. Okay, so here we have an aerial property. Um on the bottom right hand corner is a little bit more of a zoomed in image of the lot.
You can see some of the impervious material on the side and rear yards and a little bit towards the front. This is the zoning map. As mentioned, it's in a PUB. And the future land use map, it's
designated as low density residential. Okay. So, per section 4-9A of the land development code, a variance must meet four different criterias. The first one is that the circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land and
otherwise not applicable to other lands. The second is that the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners. The third is that the conditions and circumstances are not the result of the actions of applicant. And the fourth that the granting of the variance
request will not confer special privileges to the applicant. So, here is the original um plot plan for the home. It was constructed in 2019 with the home entry, rear stoop, walkway, AC pad, and driveway. The ISA
comes to 32% leaving the homeowner 33% ISA to cover on the property, which is approximately 1,984 square ft. This is their proposed survey for the 2024 permit. Um you can see the
impervious materials that were installed um without permits. The blue is concrete and the yellow um are PA areas. There's a patio in the front, walkways along the side, as well as um slabs and patio
areas in the rear yards. Um at this point the ISA is 69% um exceeded by 264%. There is also impervious material in the rear yard um in the distribution easement that's 10 ft wide in the rear
um not shown on this but is indicated on aerials. Okay. So for staff findings based on the four criterias we came to the following conclusions that there's no particular conditions to the land as the lot is similar to other properties in the subdivision. It's rectangular in
shape um similar lot size and similar location of easements on the property. For criteria two that the literal interpretation of the code does not deprive the property owner of rights enjoyed by other properties. Um, looking at the 2019 survey, we saw that there is
roughly 33% impervious material to work with, which staff considers ample amount of square footage to work with to submit for um any improvements, structures, things like that through permitting. For
criteria three, the property was cited by code enforcement in April of last year for having unpermitted pavers in the front and sideyards. When the applicant came in for their permit, it was then noticed that there are additional unpermitted improvements in
the rear property and that for criteria for the approval of the variance would confer special privileges to the applicant as other homes and lots are required to meet their minimum or to not exceed the maximum allowed ISA and to not encroach
into the minimum twoft side setback for imperous materials. and just want to um also discuss the impervious materials. Um there's two issues with them. One being within easements and one encroaching into the
minimum twoft setback. So in addition to applying to reduce the minimum twoft side setback or twoft setback for impervious materials, the um easement areas also had to be vacated. So, in addition to this variance application,
the applicant has applied for an easement vacation which is currently under review. Um, and both of which would have to be approved in order for those sidewalks and other imperous materials to remain where they are on the property.
And with that, staff recommends the planning and zoning commission make a recommendation of denial of requests um to not exceed the maximum allowed 65% ISA and to not allow the encroachment of the impervious materials into the two
foot setback by.5 ft. Noting that without the approval of the after um permit will have to be revised um to meet all those requirements. And that concludes my presentation. The applicants are here if you guys have any questions.
Dude, have we this before? You uh similar but not this one. No. Was more to the left, right? Um was in the same street a notch. Was this the the last one was was 304 Kipi Street. It looks
kind of similar because both streets curve. That's okay. Yeah. Thank you very much. Uh any questions for staff? Um the citation was issued April 2024. Yes. And there were no compliance to the citation. Um so they were cited by code
enforcement and applied for a permit soon after a permit was denied because of the pavers in the easement areas as well as unpermitted um improvements in the rear. So that permit um was since denied and then had some discussions
with the property owners, site visits, meetings and then they decided to pursue the variance and the easement vacation um in late December of last year. Okay. And that was the only citation, pardon me, that was the only citation. They were cited for the pavers in the front
and the sideyards, but once it came in for permitting, it was noticed that there is additional um material additional violation. But the original citation is for the papers in the front which was a patio area and then walkways along the side of the house. But when the additional violations were discovered, were there were there more
citation? No. Okay. All right. Cool. Uh is the applicant here? Yes. Would you like to come up? You'll just give your name for the record, please. I'm Monica Ferate.
Edwin Fermate. Good afternoon. Whatever. Do we just start talking? Um, so everything that Bernice said is correct as far as we were cited for um the paved um pavers that were on the
side of the home. And once we received that notice, we did everything that we could. We applied for permits. We've met with Annoch, Bernice, with code enforcement. We even had scheduled visits for them to come to the home um
to see what we can do to get the permits that we need. Um but apparently permits won't be issued for anything until I remove the side pavers that are on the side of the home. Um let me give you a
bit of a background why we put those papers there. Um, apparently there's water erosion that is eating up at the foundation and of the homes in all of in all of our um our neighborhood or subdivision.
That's that area that you see in the picture that's like eaten away. Um before the pavers were there, you could literally see the chipping of the stuckle um like missing from there. Um, and that
was the solution to the problem because we noticed that about more than two dozen homes in our neighborhood had placed pavers the same way in our neighborhood. So, we weren't the first ones to do this. We did this cuz we were like, "Oh, maybe that's a solution to
the problem." Um, then this whole thing happened where we were cited for that. Um, I do I did notice that the reason why the erosion also happens is the homes are built so close to each other and if your
neighbors have um gutters, the water is aiming towards your house. So like if you look at any of our neighbors, we don't have pictures of that obviously that don't have pavers on the side of their home, they have that problem, the erosion and the stuckle being eaten away
at their homes. So that was the solution to the problem. So the reason why I applied for the variance is I feel that I do meet one of those criterias because I'm trying to stop further erosion and damage to the foundation of my home.
Plus the we came up with all these solutions because we we was here before in front of a board. They gave us all the material we needed to apply for the variance. They gave us all the terminology, the afteractions, the you
know all everything that we can do. So we followed those the information that was given to us. So that's why we started asking the questions so that we can pay for what we need to pay for so that we don't have to pull up anything, you know. So whatever we have to do, we
willing to do it. We just trying to keep the house from cracking. And then um some of our neighbors that are here um one of them in particular did also have those papers and they were told to rip it up. The neighbors that
are right next to me were told to rip it up. The neighbors next to them. But it's just weird that it's only the neighbors on our same street. Like if you keep driving within the neighborhood, those haven't been told to pull it up. So, it's just ironic that we on our street
have only been told to pull up the papers. But like we again, we we willing we we trying to correct the issue. We trying we're not trying to hide and make other you know, we just trying to that cost a
lot of money to do and we we was under the impression that the company that did it pulled the permits. Once we realized when we got sight cited code enforcement that they didn't now we was asking well okay what's another solution that we could come up with to fix
this. So that's why we're here. Okay. Thank you very much. Does uh anybody have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Uh we have some public comments. So I'm going to let you guys if you don't mind go uh go back down. We appreciate your your testimony. Thank
you. We have uh two two comments here. We have one from uh Sherwood Brown. Come on up. You're the next contestant. Just say your name for the record.
My name is um Sherwood Brown. And um I can see I can I understand why he did what he did. If you look at the pictures and you can see it where the water wash is washing the side of the house and uh I was one of the ones to you help add
dirt put uh um mulch around that didn't work because of the the water washed it out and I guess the next step was to um add those papers. So if you really look at it, it's a it's a great improvement to the house and is the paver really
helps uh correct the problem issue that they was having. But since they added those paper, there's not been any other issue w with that property. So I just wanted to u add that to let you guys know that uh it's a it's a good addition to the property. Thank you very much.
Appreciate it. All right, we have um is it uh Rupchan? Mr. Ripchan Rajes Ripchan I too had the pavers on the side of my house and I had to remove it
yesterday. over all that rain. My carpet is wet on the floor. Right where the erosion is at, the water builds up between because the between the two houses is 10 ft with guttering on both sides. It's a swimming pool in there. So with the pavers, I had the pavers for a
couple years. No water, hurricanes, everything. No water. Yesterday I came home from work, the bedrooms are wet, the carpet. So the having the pavers there is a plus. It does stop the water from
hitting the foundation and seeping in inside wetting the carpet. My house smells disgusting right now with wet carpet. It does help a lot by putting the beavers. I just removed it. I came
spoke to Bernice to Ed. Everybody said you have to move it. I moved it out. Now I have water in my house. That's all I got to say. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? All right, we're going to go ahead and uh close it
back up, bring it up to the dis. We'll uh I'll take any questions that any P&Z members have. Okay. I I have a question. I mean, just and I'm I'm going to try to keep this related to the applying the law. Yes. You know,
to so the the two-foot setback is that like that's not right up to the house, is it? I mean, I guess I'm a little unclear where that two-foot setback begins. How close to or how much of the pavers are in the setback as opposed to
out of the setback that they could that the the setback violation would not exist. So the p So and I'm talking specifically the ones on the sides of the house. Yeah. Let me go ahead and one moment. Yep. Okay. I'm going to use the original copy
of the survey just so it's a little bit more clear. Um but if you follow my cursor there's the 5 foot wide easement goes all the way up to the property line. So technically no imperous material should be installed there because there are easements existing
along both property lines, the front as well as the rear. Um so that's why they're applying for the easement vacation. So they're even allowed to have the papers within that area. The second part is to reduce the setback because if the easements are vacated,
impervious materials still have a minimum of two feet requirement to be set back from the property lines and that's being encroached on. And I'm assuming that that's where they're 1 foot6 from the property line. They added 3 foot six, correct?
They are. They added 3 foot six. the 3 foot 6 and the 1 foot 6 and that's what they're requesting for the two foot minimum. So they're 6 in past, right? So they're Yeah, they're 6 in too close. Okay.
What was your question? Sorry. Okay. And and to to confirm, we're we're not saying they can't put papavers. We're saying you just cannot do it on the easement and or exceed. It's not to allow for it within the
easements or to allow it to encroach the minimum setback for impervious materials. Correct. The easement is being done through the easement vacation which is a separate application. Both of which would have to be approved for it to remain as proposed. Okay.
The other issue that I might see would be I may is that maybe the dirt is too low and that's why the erosion the erosion was there going into the actual foundation. Oh sorry sorry it was it was off. Um
what I kind of see from looking at this picture is that maybe that the dirt was too low. It was below the stuckle line. So sometimes when builders, they don't go all the way to the foundation or past the foundation. So if your concrete slab and then the block starts, you're
actually below that so the water is able to seep through. The other the other item might be is bringing more dirt to have it higher so that the water drains cuz I see that there's two different elevations from the front of the house. Is it like a 6 in step if I'm not
mistaken from what it looks like? That's I'm sorry. Sorry. We I so apologize and I know we as we can't have back and forth because we closed the public hearing already and plus he can't give can't give advice from the from the dis right but correct it's in it's in the
right spirit. Let me ask you a quick question. I want to make sure, right, we're not just talking about these pavers that are going down the side of the house, right? We're also over imperviousness as well, right? So whether if those pavers are there or not, you have too much going on
in the backyard to begin with, right? The the the fire pit, the the pavers in the back, the back concrete slab, that's going over the exceeded ISA. So even if those pavers on the side that that's not one of the main that's a main issue but
we're still over the imperviousness right? Yes. So if I could clarify um Anach Woodfields zoning manager um we have had several conversations with the property owners and if you could follow my cursor they are built at 3.5. So if
the easements were to be vacated they could drop to three which will keep them out of the setback. So the variance would not be needed. Um, second thing is if you look at the u these little squiggly lines here, those are little arrows that dictate or that show that
all those lots drain to the front. If the neighbors in the block are altering their backyards or sideyards and sending water in the wrong direction that it's not supposed to go in, that could also be contributing to adjacent neighbors and property owners experiencing
flooding issues. Um, the other thing too is the 69% that Bernice shows in her presentation is excluding everything that's in this red box, that's also covered in impervious materials. So, if you count the entirety of the lot, it's
well over the 69%. But that's the neighborhood wall, correct? It's the neighborhood wall is right at the edge of their property line. So the five there's a 5ft wall easement for the HOA to install the wall, but then on top of that is the 10
foot um power easement um that uh I think Bernice may have reached out that their easement vacation didn't include the 10 foot. So we need to do a modification to that easement vacate. It was only for the 5ft wall easement. Okay. Um but I just wanted to point out that we did meet with them. We talked
with city management and the direction from them was that the entire subdivision would need to be evaluated for drainage um not just individual lots. Sounds like there's a big issue there. All right. Uh if there's no more
questions, I'll uh I'll entertain a motion. Need one motion, please. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to a motion for recommendation of approval to deny the firm property variance request.
Okay. It was a it was for clear was a it was a it was a motion to recommend denial. Recommend denial. Yes. Okay. Cool. Thank you. Um do we have a second? I'll second that. Okay. We have a uh a
motion by member Butler to uh recommendation of denial of the project and a second by vice chair Forges. Uh does anybody want to make any additional comments? Just the the comment that um if you're
voting yes, you're voting for the denial. If you're voting no, you're voting against a denial. I've seen I've seen that before where people get backwards with what their Can I make a comment with regards to Y second? Yeah. My comment for that is we you simply
cannot vacate or request to vacate an easement um because it is there for whatever use the public may need whether it be through your property to get to someone else's property. Um the answer tonight is not that you cannot put the papers.
You simply have to do it within your allowable space. So you can still do that. You can if you follow the guidelines, you can still put the papers and have some resolutions to your property, but you just can exceed um unfortunately those are small lots, but
you just cannot exceed what has been set as as guidelines for the neighborhood. So that's why I'm voting that one. Okay. I'll also say we've been pretty consistent on this board when it comes to um imperousness and uh those rates.
That being said, we're just a a recommendation board to the city. So, you will have one more one more opportunity if you know if this is voted either way to uh meet with the city commission if if so. So, um but in that
case, uh we have motion, we have a second. Let's uh let's go ahead and vote. Did you vote the wrong way? No, I I I voted no uh specifically. Um I do see that they have a an issue that is unique. Uh
unfortunately, it's unique to the entire subdivision. Um I in my opinion I think the city needs to go out there do some major investigation into what needs to be done
to rectify. This is the second or possibly the third if I remember correctly that's come before us on this issue. Um quite frankly I before I I did agree but as I'm seeing more and more of this this is this is definitely an issue
with what was done in the construction of these and these citizens need to have some sort of recompense. If the if they cannot find a way to hold the developer responsible and him having to go in there and fix it, we need to give them
the opportunity to go in there and put the pavers in to protect their homes. So that I like the way that they have this here with at least it's not total PA. There's an area for that water to be to go through and to go down. I I think
that this really needs to be looked at as an entire community. This was not done correctly. Yeah, Joel and I appreciate your comments. I mean, but this is a some Forest Brook estates, right? What neighbor? For estates. Force Lake Estates. Yeah. I mean, that the HOA
should be taking that up with the builder, right? I mean, this is uh we have we have development codes for a reason. And I I get it, right? I see it. This is terrible. But uh we have to be consistent or you know everybody in the city will want uh if you know to have
that and I know it sucks but it just is what it is. But I want to uh clarify that vote was uh uh 4 to one in favor of denial. So I'm sorry. Good luck. I hope you guys get uh some more clarification on it. But not you want to say
something? Um I was just going to say um if it if it drops from three and a half feet to three feet, that might give some relief um so long as the rest of the ISA issue is resolved, right? And and that's my
point. It's not that you can't do it. You just have to stay within limits. And I think if you just do that half a foot, that should solve the problem. Okay. All right. So then now we have miscellaneous project status report
by well she's not here so would you like to do it? What do we got going on uh a notch? Anything good around the city happening? Um the backyard is supposed to be open tomorrow. Wow. So that's a good thing.
Um they will be once we sign the doggy dining um application, they'll they will be the city's first doggy dining or doggy friendly restaurant. So we're excited about that. Um I don't know if you've gone to the Wawa. I haven't been there. I have. It's amazing. I go to the
Murphy near my house. Um it's great. The um Envision 2045 community outreach meeting is two weeks from tomorrow. So, I don't know how many people we'll get, but uh staff is looking forward to it. We'll have um a rolling presentation.
I'll do a very very quick pre presentation and we'll have 3T x4t boards of the more pertinent maps all over the Lakeshore Center um as well as refreshments. So, hopefully people can come out and ask questions. What time is that? That is going to be May 28th from
6:00 to 8. That's important. That's uh the vision 2025 which will show 2045. Excuse I that's going to show a lot of good stuff about what our development is going to be moving forward. So, and uh we are also working on the LDC update, looking
at our current zoning districts, um the list of allowed uses, looking at hoping uh trying to bring the city to a more urban form while protecting our outer limits of the city boundaries. Great. Any uh any updates on city centers that
uh do you still you have any new packets on that or? Nope. Nothing new yet on city center. Yeah, I saw the news. That's what I was saying. Well, other than the whole Yes. Other than that, um nothing new in the world of permitting.
Any uh any movement on uh the the Lakewood project uh over there where like maybe the ne Walmart neighborhood market may be or may not going in. So, the neighborhood Walmart has come in for their second their second round. Um we have a few comments. There are only a
few minor comments left. We are pushing for some better architecture and placem um better connectivity for pedestrians. Um things like that. Um the gas station unfortunately is just tucked into that little triangular shaped piece. So we
there just wasn't any wiggle room to bring the gas station closer to the front. Um the northwest side of Village Center um the side north of Clarkona near the apartment complex. We have not yet heard back from them. Um they're still at round one. I'm sorry. Where
about the neighborhood Walmart's going to be in that complex on the south side of Clarkono Koi Road. If you drive up north Lakewood, go around the roundabout, it'll be the extension uh in that corner on the left. On the left across from the gas station.
Yes. Mhm. And then so yeah, gas station and then Walmart's Sorry, strike that from the record. the other gas station. Oh, so so there's there are plans for another gas station. Yes. Uhhuh. And so next to that will be the Walmart. Neighborhood market. The neighborhood
market. Neighborhood market. Okay. Okay. And then on the northwest corner um on the north side of Clark Kona Koi is a retail plaza with two buildings and they're in their first round. Cool. Einstein Bagels opened. It's been
awesome so far. Loved it. Um that's it. Uh, I would like to wish my wife uh today's our 19th anniversary. So, happy anniversary. Happy ann. But, uh, we just celebrated ours, too. Yay. Uh, anybody else have any
other questions for staff? No. Are we going to have JJ back uh next? Uh, I would like to believe so. All right. Our next meeting will be uh June 10th. Everybody have a wonderful evening. Longest meeting ever.
Workshop.