pretty much my childhood and I was a little boy. So there you go. Okay. One are okay. Are these all for that one? For the and that's a different and then this will be 56.
Okay. Which one's first? Okay. So, these are first. Okay. You guys ready? Yeah. All right. Good evening everyone. Whoops. Welcome to Aeto City Council chambers. If everyone could please rise for the pledge of 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. Please join me in a moment of silence. I would like to call our meeting to order. It is May 5th, 2025 at
approximately 6:30 p.m. and we have all members of council present. We will start with our first order, which is ceremony items and presentations. So, if we can all go down and I'll I'll hand it over to the mayor. All right. Well, first up, we've got National Police Week. So, I'm going to
scoot this over. For anyone who came in after the showand tell explanation, we have a set of Atorian bag pipes on the dis up here. Those are from Odo, Spain, and they are the traditional instrument of this area. But without further
ado, we have a proclamation for uh do we have national police week? I think I'm holding the right thing. All right. Whereas Congress and the President of the United States have designated May 15th as Peace Officer
Memorial Day and the week in which May 15th falls as police. And whereas the members of the Ovito Police Department play an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of citizens of Ovido. And whereas it is important that all citizens know and understands
understand the duties, responsibilities, hazards, and sacrifices of law enforcement. and that members of the Ovito Police Department recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property, by protecting them against violence and disorder, and by protecting the innocent against
deception and the weak against oppression. And whereas the men and women of the Ovido Police Department unceasingly provide a vital public service. Now therefore, I, Megan Slater, by virtue of the authority vested in me as mayor of the city of Ovido, do hereby
proclaim May 11th through 17th as National Police Week in the city of Ovido and urge everyone to join in commemorating law enforcement offers past and present, who by their faithful and loyal dedication to the responsibilities have rendered a
dedicated service to their communities, and in doing so have established for themselves an enviable and enduring reputation. for preserving the rights and security of all citizens. And I I'll further urge
everyone to observe May 15th, 2025 as Peace Officer Memorial Day in honor of those law enforcement officers who through their courageous deeds have made the ultimate sacrifice in service for their community and have become disabled
or perished uh in in uh service to our community. Do we have any law enforcement officers who may be willing to receive this on behalf of the department? If we get get our chief up here. Okay.
Go. [Applause] All right. Next up, we want to recognize another group of individuals who do a tremendous service for our city. Whereas the office of the municipal professional
clerk, a timehonored and vital part of local government, exists through the world. And whereas the office of the professional municipal clerk is the oldest among public servants. And whereas the office of the professional municipal clerk provides the
professional link between the citizens and the local governing bodies and agencies of governments at all other levels. Whereas municipal clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality, rendering
equal service to all. And whereas the professional municipal clerk serves as the information center on functions of local government and community. And whereas professional municipal clerks continually strive to improve the administration of the affairs of the
office of the professional municipal clerk through participation in education programs, seminars, workshops, and the annual meetings of their state, provincial, county, and professional organizations. And whereas it is most appropriate that we recognize the
accomplishments of the office of the professional municipal clerk. Now therefore, I began Slater by the ver authority vested in me as mayor of Ovido proclaim this week May 4th through 10th as professional municipal clerks week and our city clerks here. If you make a
public records request this is who fills it. So we really appreciate all you do to be the link of transparency and the gateway to all the information in the city and keeping it all all recorded for us.
Thank you. That's for you. Thank you. Thank you. And uh some gift cards for you guys for Thank you. Thank you.
What is number? All right, but we're going to bring somebody else up to talk about that because this is a new look and it's fantastic and I'm so glad to see so many members of the public arts board here today. Thank you, mayor, deputy mayor, council members. I'll invite um Miss
Wonder Granville to come here and all the public art board members to come here as well. And we are happy to uh unveil tonight the second um um city um city hall um art and chambers. Um and
this is Miss is the work from Mrs. um Wanda Granville. I met Mrs. Granville a couple of years ago. Hello. Hi, Teresa. Hi. So, I met Mrs. Granville a couple of years ago. I went
to the Winter Park um sidewalk art festival and um she um won the award as the best emerging artist. And when I've heard she was from Avido, I said I have to meet her. So, I went there, introduced myself and talked about the public art board and here we are. So,
she's now um showing these beautiful charcoal um paintings for us and she'll tell the story of the paintings. Hi. Um again, I'm Wanda Granville. That's my mom sitting in the back, Ida
Smith. And my good friend Alex, who's also an incredible artist. But I want to thank you all for this opportunity to show in chambers because I am an Ovido girl and I don't care where you live. I am very much attached to Ovito. So this
is an absolute honor for me. I um remember a lot of the I remember the Ovita garage and Lden house because they we were allowed to be integrated when I was 9 years old in fourth grade and mom
said, "Do you want to go to Lahen?" I said, "Can I sleep late?" She said, "Yeah." And I said, "I want to go then." And um I remember all the farming and so I called this collection simple gifts because Oido and I won't tell my age but
I remember when my grandmother said when I was a little girl Ovito is like a onehorse town. It was one traffic light for many years. But people farmed, they worked. They got along. They made a good living and it was a beautiful life. I
mean, I had a wonderful childhood. I used to stay in the orange groves because I love oranges and I still do. But I had a wonderful childhood and I um got the idea of calling it simple gifts from a Shaker song, 1948 Shaker song
that was um reco composed by conductor Aaron Cobblin and it was um redone a beautiful sound of it from Yoyo and Allison Cross. and encourage you to listen to that and it's the sound of America and when I listen to it I think
of a veto. I think of people going to work. Um I remember when the Dudas had the um the big corporation and they had a place most people won't know it was called Duda Quarters. I remember the Nelson factory. So Oto is a really good
life. So, it's an absolute honor for me to do my hometown and I let everybody know that I am a true Southerner. Not Southerner, Ner, but a Southerner NH n ah. So, thank you very much for
this opportunity to um be able to show in the chambers. And like I said, I'm an Ovito girl and I And I if I could add this exhibition goes up to September 5th and most of the the um charcoal drawings are for sale.
They are actually a reproduction of um paint or photographs of a video except the lot house that is already taken. So please you know check the exhibition come back if you want and um and thank you. Great. Let's let's all scoot together so
Mr. Kelly can get a picture of everybody and artboard in the middle. I think we've got you there already. And if somebody does want to take one of these home, what is the process for that? Talk to you. Talk to us. Okay. Talk to
Dr. Car. All right, we will move on to item number four, which is the approval of our minutes. What is the pleasure of council? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for the March 3rd, 2025 regular session. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any
discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. All those opposed? Motion carries. We will move on to the public comment portion of our agenda. Um, I have written requests, but they for they are for agenda items. So, if you fill out a form, we will get to
those. Does anybody have um anybody would like to address council at this time for anything not on the agenda? Please come up to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Come on up. So, yeah, state your name and address for the record up here and
uh Jennifer McDonald Feedler, 1049 Long Branch Lane, Ovito, Florida. Thank you. And I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but I'm going to ask. Um there's been wild boores or hogs, I don't know what you call them, but in um I live in Twin Rivers in the I think
it's called Riverwoods Park and I wonder what you guys are doing for those things. That's where the um Frisbee golf is. And so it's evident they're there. I'm a little worried. We take our grandkids down there, ride bikes, so on and so forth. And so I'm a little
worried about that. Okay. Um, and this is the public comment, so we might not answer your questions now, but for that, we'll definitely get with public works. If you want to stick around to the reports, we can discuss that further. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else looking to address council at this time? Hearing none, I will close public
comment. We will move on. We do not have anything on our consent agenda. So, first up, we are up to public hearings. Item number seven, which is ordinance number 1754, future land use map amendment for Ariadavito mixeduse development. Uh,
let's see. Mr. Hall, would you read the ordinance by title only? I will do so then, mayor. Ordinance number 1754, an ordinance of the city of Oito, Florida, amending the future land use map for approximately 9.62 62 acres of land generally located on the southeast side
of Lockwood Boulevard and the east side of County Road 419 from lowdensity residential LER to mixeduse MU providing for legislative intent implementing administrative actions a savings provision scrier's errors conflicts and
separability and providing for an effective date. Thank you Mr. Hall. Mr. Cobb would you please provide a brief introduction? Uh thank you deputy mayor. Uh Dr. Gray is going to give the staff presentation. Uh, as we did at the last meeting when we did first reading, she'll be covering both ordinance 1754 and ordinance
1755. Uh, since this is a public hearing, we'll need you to conduct two public hearings, one for each ordinance. I also believe the applicant in their presentation, they'll be addressing both 1754 and 1755 as well. So, I'll turn it over to Dr. Korea.
So, good evening, Mayor U. Deputy Mayor, council members. So tonight we are presenting an abbreviated version of the presentation we did last time. We have the whole deck of slides here. If needed, we can pull that again. Um but
so this is a request for a future land use map amendment from LDR to mixuse and um zoning uh amendment uh from PUD to PUD to allow um a new DA to um provide
for standards for residential and mixeduse development on site. So this is the location map of the project. Um you can see that it's um the area is in the in at Lockwood. Um there is also
access through 419 but it's in the area that has more intense development around. We added another slide. Next slide please. That shows um so this is the proposal. Um it's for 172 age restricted
um multif family dwelling units and um they have assoc associated amenities a pickle ball court, a dog park, um clubhouse, pool and conservation areas, but they also have 6,200 ft of
commercial retail space. And um the maximum height is 70 um ft. 294 parking spaces. They are providing 37% in open space. Um the development agreement
requires 30. The comp plan requires 25. They are exceeding the open space and um they are providing a conservation um ement buffer from the wetland. Next slide please. So this is a new slide from uh the previous
presentation. There was some confusion before that um um this property allows commercial by ride today although it has LDR a low density residential um future land use and we explained last time that
um this the LDR allows mixed use under PUD zoning and that's what the zoning of the project and I said that it was not particular to this project so other projects in this other PUDS in the city have the same situation LDR and u and uh
um uh PUD so with commercial so we are showing the um all the PUGs in the city so you have um in the north the forest has an LDR future land use and has two sides though those ones are still vacant
for commercial office and commercial then you have um on the uh west side you have Waverly Woods. So in front of um River Oaks, the Publix on the other side of Lockwood is the commercial um um um
portion of the PUD and that has LDR. So that public has also a future land use of LDR. So the same the same thing on this side of Lockwood for the River Oaks. You have Walgreens and all the other businesses around um along 419
that um are part of this uh PUD also are under LDR um future land use designation. And then we have sanctuary and then we have um Senica Band um on the other the the little um picture over
there which is in the west side of the city. that recently or some years ago we approved um a commercial site um uh daycare for uh the for the project. Next slide
please. So uh we also showed last last time and again this is not to in in bring any fear to the community. is just that what is allowed today. Today is allowed they have the right to build up to
96,300 square ft of commercial. So we used some examples of what could go there a Publix and a Walmart. Um the Walmart that is showing up there at Aloma is and there was some confusion
what what type of Walmart um that was um we researched. So this is just to show what could go there. a Walmart usually the the small one the neighborhood one is between 16 and 80,000 square ft and the regular Walmart starts at 125 so
that one is kind of in between is a hybrid in between those two and then the super center is 300,000 square ft so that would not be the case and of course a Publix could also go there or a pro a supermarket like like Publix this is
just to show the comparison and we are going to show the comparison in trips as well. Next slide please. So this is a sidebyside comparison between um what is u allowed today by right and and just
also a reminder um the elders that we approved in 2024 allowed now all the um uh development agreements that have expired. we have allowed them to continue um so that vacant property can
still be developed until there is a new DA um approved for the pro project. So this one has an expired DA but the standards would still prevail according to the LDC now. So that's why we are saying that they have by right um the
opportunity to build up to 96,300 square feet of um retail. And then we are showing the comparison between the trips for the commercial. So you can see 9,99 um trips would be the weekday trips. Um
the AM peak hour for the commercial 680 trips and PM peak hour 436 trips. And then we compare to what Arya is proposing which is 172 age restricted multif family. So it has a different
category for the IT which is the institute for transportation engineers that we that's the the the institute that provides the information where to calculate the trips that will generate different users would generate. Um and
then you have the weekday um would be a,020 trips. So you see the the difference the decrease. So in in uh in black you have the decrease um compare or the impact um the difference of compare of impact between the DA today
by right use and the area. During the weekend, there was also a request for us to uh analyze what could go there uh according to the leave local act and that is for um affordable units. Um and
if you provide by statutes um up to 40% of u affordable units then the state uh preempts the city to you know to um um approve um by the process. It has to
be administratively. So we calculated they could go up to the highest density in the city which would be 50 uh dwelling units per acre. So that would yield 410 units in that site. Um and we have
checked with the with our attorney that the language of the statutes today um shows that these could be approved. They are changing the language to clarify that uh because the language today says that all the properties that are zoned
for commercial, industrial or mixed use. This PUD is a mixeduse and uh the underlying zone in the PUG for this pro uh pro uh property is C1. So it's commercial. So um but PUD is a different
situation. So there is new language been clarifying being added to the um in the statute has hasn't been approved yet clarifying that um PUDS would be then subject also to the leave local act. Um
but the interpretation of our city attorney is that today they could also do that. So that's why we are showing the comparison. So of course we are comparing to what is um the entitlements today. So you have the line in blue that shows um what
could be done with multif family and the trips are higher but you can also compare with area. So it would be much more than the area because you have more units and then it's not age restricted. So the trips are calculated in a different rate as well. So you have all
the comparison there. And then for the open space um today the PUD requires 30%. Um audio is providing the minimum in the DA is 35 but they are proposing 37.8 eight and the height is and and for
the um leave local act we have a question if it would the DA would would be um the one dictating or the comp plan. So that's why we put both 30 or 25%. So it would be either not an
increase or um possible a decrease in open space. Um for the height um the maximum today in the in the DA is 35. AI is proposing 70 and the maximum by leave a local act is 60 and parking spaces. We
also showed the calculation of course with 410 units you have much more parking spaces. Next slide please. So we were also asked to make a comparison with the Ellington which is
this project that we have here at CLI um um and Mitchell Hammock which is a similar project. It's also uh mixeduse future land use and zoning PUB. They have 296 dwelling units and um
10,63 square ft in retail commercial and retail. Um Arya is proposing today's LDR but they are they are asking for a mixeduse future land use. So that's going to be the if if approved that's
going to be the um the future land use and the zoning PUB 172 age restricted um dwelling units with 6,200 square ft of retail. So the proportion of retail to the number of
units it's kind of in the 30 six% and 39%. So it's more or less the same. Next slide, please. So this was the the schedule of the project. So the we have the the
first hearing at LPA. It on January 28th, it was continued. Then um LPA requested the community meeting that happened on February 13th. Um the second LPA hearing was on April 1st. Um they recommended recommended denial of
ordinance 1754 which was the complaint amendment which recommended approval of ordinance 1755 which is the zoning with the condition that all residents should be 55 and plus and the applicant um
um um consented with that request. Um the first city council um uh reading was on April 21st and today's May 5th is the second um uh here here reading and in
public hearing. Next um slide please. So staff recommends approval of ordinances number 1754 and 55. It's recommended that city council read the ordinances by title only, conduct public hearings, and adopt
ordinances 54 and 55. We are available for questions. I have our consultants as well, transportation and environmental here if council has any questions. Thank you, Dr. Korea. Could you click back to the comparison chart real quickly just
so we're all on the same page? Is there a way to make that bigger and maybe scroll left to right so everybody sitting out here can see it a little bit better? I just want to clarify like is column the the ones on either Oh wait
scoot back in or like there we go. Shrink a little bit more or scoot there. Perfect. So on the second column there the potential development existing DA that can be done without anybody ever coming and asking like like they would never show up to a hearing again. Is
that correct? The leave local act. Yes. With So that's column four. And then also column number one. So both of those scenarios can happen and there's nothing that any of us could do to stop either of those from happening. Is that that's
correct? Right. So this the the live local act would be administratively by by the statutes. Right. The the first one will be dependent on deviations. So they would not have to come here for a public hearing for any zoning or any um
um future land use map amendment because they are already they have already the entitlements. If they have deviations on the side plan or in the ADO the architectural design order greater than 20% they will have to come to council for a public meeting not for a public
hearing. Okay. So that would be so that would not be advertised. It would not be notified. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Any other questions while she's up here? No, I do. Yeah. Uh so you you said that uh
under live local they could go as high or a uh developer could go as high as 410 units. We're talking here uh in this proposal about 172. Where in how what would you
envision that looking like? So So that's a good question. I mean, I don't know if they would fit into the site, right? We just at this point, it's a simulation. The same with a with a 96,300, you know, commercial. We haven't
we don't have a side plan for that. So they would they could only go with structure parking I would say because structure parking would be the parking would be a lot unless they ask for deviations and they would have to come to council for a deviation because I don't think that is or we'll have to
check with the city attorney how that goes but um um uh for the leave local act but so we don't have a side plan so we don't know if they can accommodate that number of units. This is just to show what could come right
without coming to council right and so the live local act has these maximums that seem to be higher than is possible to build on this piece of property. Then the other the other part of that um Mr. come send us an email uh about the the
structure height, right? So the structure height under live local can be limited to um the structure heights of that are allowed in the zonings of everything in a onem radius which would be 60 ft 60 ft in the city of Ovito and this one is looking to go or this
proposed project is looking to go 70. Yes. So a a um something under the live local act would be lower, right? So you could have, you know, one one less story, I guess, right? And then you'd have to have a parking garage, right? That would that would have to be built
to accommodate 665 parking spaces. All of this kind of seems to me like there's no way that somebody under live local could actually get to 410 units. I would say it's difficult, but again, this is the maximum. They could come to 200. They
could come to, you know, something less. This is the maximum that they could go. Then there the con the constraints of the site would dictate what they could do. What do you envision that being what that the constraints of the sites are? I know it's all hypothetical but it's very
difficult right depending so you have different geometries you can you know depending on the number of units or the size of the units as well right that they can bring. So I think parking is one huge limitation for them right to
realize that that the the yield that they have which is the 410 units. Um I think parking would be the most you know um um difficult thing that they could they have to overcome but again if they
go structure parking then they get some and if the units are small so I it's it's hard to it's hard to imagine you know uh engineering has so many and architecture has so many options right
to to to to to occupy the space. So, okay. Council member Britain, you had a question, too. No. No. Good. All right. So, did the applicant uh have a presentation? Yes. If you want to come up to that. Oh, thank you very much. For the record,
Logan Ops, 215 North Yola Drive. Great to be with council this evening. Um I will I think the clicker is with you. This is the mic. Great. Thank you. I really appreciate staff
going through everything and I know that uh there's been a lot of information flow with this. So I'll be brief in some of these slides. uh but this entire presentation has been organized to be efficient of time and also address some of the uh bigger discussion items that
we've had to this point and the project being proposed to you today. The request as we know of course and I'm going to I'm going to field both of these together as noted previously the future land use and reszoning of the existing PUB. So here's the site and we know from
staff's report that we have a mixeduse component to it. Um th that is also true from across the street of Lockwood that LDR has that public so that that commercial and the existing development agreement allows for C1 commercial uses. Uh you can see too the densities being
proposed by the requested future land use as a comparison. Also aware of the zoning these are the few that I'm going to kind of speed through unless we want to talk about these in more detail. So, here's a proposed plan. You'll see a couple snippets of the proposed plan as we go through to address some of the
items uh that I talked about at this at the start. Um, one of the things too that that the council member brought up was was the height and that was actually discussed at planning commission and some ongoing conversations with staff um as a goal to allow more compact
development. Uh certainly this property has topographic challenges and and others. There's the existence of wetlands. We have the wetland buffer. We've uh allowed for open space. Um we wanted to colorize this site plan to to pick that, but that is part of the
reason why we went to that to that height of 70 ft to allow a more compact and organized development. So that's a little bit more of the why. And here's another chart. I think these charts have been really helpful in this process. Um you'll note here and I'm going to highlight a couple. The
open space that 26% 2.49 acres that's that's an open space as uh depicted previously on the site plan from code. Uh when you add those things up with the wetland and the pond. So different from open space per code. Uh that equates to
about 44% of the overall site uh being non-developable. And in fact, since this is this presentation has been furnished uh to the city, that number has gone up a little bit because we were able to uh reduce some parking, allow for some permeable areas, mindful of of the site
and uh draining well well- drained sites and again preserving some of that natural vegetation and conservation areas out there. You've seen this concept plan uh that's being proposed. uh this is just another rendering of it. Um and some of
more of the comparisons because I think that they've been helpful and I'll take these just by item uh that's kind of come up. Again, we want to speak directly to some of the things that you've heard and one being landscaping. So, we have some similarities here. However, the proposed allows for the
wetland buffer that you saw um uh and some extended buffer areas. It also does allows for additional landscaping which is being shown and provided per the development agreement um and street trees and that's per code as well. Parking big reduction of parking
means more open space more permeable areas which is important and uh what we've provided for in the development agreement is a minimum of permeable pavers to address some of that. Um, but I think the the key of this one here is
uh almost 100 less parking spaces and the open space. So, we we've worked through this. The required by the comp plan 25. The current DA allows for 30%. We have changed the the comprehensive plan for some of the comments we got in the planning commission. Some of the comments we received from residents try to push that
open space up as much as possible. So we're providing for a 35% minimum open space and that's required per the DA. The DA has been revised to require a minimum. What's being can showed on the con conceptual development plan which is incorporated into uh the PUB zoning is
37%. Uh so required minimum of 35 additional 5% open space we're reaching it as much you know try to advance it as much as possible to to almost 38% uh per the conceptual development plan. uh that development needs to be consistent with. Excuse me. This is this is taken
from our uh traffic study. Another illustration comparison of the quite substantial reduction in and in and trips. And um I'll acknowledge this later on too, but since it's topical to this slide, um it's been said a lot that
this development, although having existing entitlements and commercial, hasn't been developed yet. And that's true. It it hasn't been. Um I know that this body is aware and likely some in the audience that that this parcel in particular uh has, you know, had a
storied pass with with the city, uh for trying to advance development on the property. And so, uh we know that that progress has been made in the past. Um, what we've tried to prepare and and work so much with your great staff and and and work through some of the feedback
we've got from the planning commission is a project we can present to you as you sit here in your in your legislative capacity as we look at the future land use tonight uh to make a good planning decision for this for this project and taking into some of the you know issues that I just covered in previous slides
and we'll continue to cover. So, we had our community meeting. These are a few of the highlights that came up. Again, I it might not be fully exhaustive. I want to address as many things as possible. These were certainly the highlights as we understood them to be. Uh, one is the line of sight. This
is just a cross-section view uh with the existing residential neighborhood to the north to show that there is, as we know on the site, a lot of existing vegetation uh and and a lot of which too on the property to the north. Um, and so they have their existing pond, our
proposed pond. When we go to develop the site, you've seen the conservation buffer, the wetland areas that must be protected, the pond. We're going to try to preserve as much of that natural vegetation as possible because it adds values for for everyone involved. And we've also committed to adding
additional landscaping buffers. We did see a comment from some of our correspondents with staff in the city uh to work towards having mature landscape buffers. Those are not a little tree when you go in there. Again, we're trying to maintain as much as the natural mature stuff as possible. And then when we go in with the additional
landscape buff buffer, and I have a rendering of that as well to put in some taller uh landscaping as well. This is that line of sight view. It's likely easier to see on your monitors, but uh it it does call out some of the distance there, which is
which is fairly substantial, right? And again, that's that existing vegetation does get senior in here. That's where we're providing the additional landscape buffer across the pond. So, so as the crow flies, quite quite a substantial setback on the line of
sight. This is the rendering I wanted to show you as it relates to the enhanced landscape buffer. That's the proposed area uh where we would have those additional plantings to supplement the natural vegetation and the preserved uh areas that will be unaffected.
I believe this is from the staff report and again we we we've seen this this is a common theme of the project being presented to you an opportunity for more open space and less traffic as entitled today and on that issue uh we will talk about traffic and safety which was an
ongoing discussion and again thanks to your staff for helping us come up with uh what you see before you uh additional striping uh again the landscape buffer this will help traffic flow and pedestrian safety, sight circulation,
and also some uh horizontal sight view matters also addressed by your professional staff. It was noted in in our community meeting uh and it was brought up, I know, in in some public comment in the first reading, uh this intersection, it's a highly urbanized area of the city
and uh there is some additional striping and traffic control measures that we've worked with your staff on. uh to ensure uh additional uh traffic safety and again uh traffic circulation through this intersection as you work your way on Lockwood. Would also provide for a
turn lane uh as depicted on the screens before you. I want to talk a little bit about what's being offered too. The the intended use is age restricted community and you heard me mention this briefly. One of the comments we got was we wanted to make sure that that's fully
enforced. And so as part of our leasing agreements, we've addressed that um in the in the development agreement in other areas that all residents within the facility would need to be 55 or older to ensure compliance across the board. But here's some of the programming that's being offered as it
relates to that senior living um and we've seen be very successful in and other age restricted projects. I'm getting close to the end, I promise. I know you've been have a lot of information overload, but uh another comment we receive a lot, right? We're
here for a comp uh comprehensive plan amendment, and this was explained a little bit more in detail last time, but your comprehensive plan, as we know, is the law of the land as it relates to development in the city of Ovido. Uh we the amendment being sought is to the
land use future land use element of your comprehensive plan. and it will amend the map which depicts the future land use as it affects this property. The objectives, policies, and goals of your comprehensive plan are what we uh any applicant aspires to be consistent with
before bringing it to this body. And those some of those objectives and policies uh are highlighted before you on your screen. Those are the items that in working with staff and some of the tweaks mentioned before uh have concluded to us being consistent with your goals and policies of the
comprehensive plans. not necessarily what's existing today on the future land use map. That is what's being uh proposed and requested to change but the goals, objectives and policies is what we strive to meet and and and have. So the meeting uh these are
this is just punch list. So it's not so much of the dense comprehensive plan language but uh these are taken directly from your comprehensive plan. It's age restricted so no school impact. It adds to a diverse housing types, provides for compact growth which I started with on
this on the beginning of the presentation. A sense of place and that was a major goal in in recent revisions to the comprehensive plan. Adding this housing option which the city does not have um and needs uh and the mixeduse development component which encourages
of course alternative transportation. Um and what we have here is is planning. Uh part of what you'll take a vote on tonight as it relates to the future land use is in your function as uh planning for the city and what you've seen and
what's been presented to you uh from the kind of urban area and that commercial uh is a solid transition to the residential to allow for that transition of uses from commercial heavy commercial to a mixeduse. this asset class to the
to more traditional town home uh single family to the north of us uh is that proper planning that comes from your comprehensive plan uh that we are presenting to you tonight. So, as I noted, uh we were thankful to have uh staff's collaboration and and
allow for even since we started uh a a better result that speaks to some of the items we've heard as important uh for the goals and objectives objectives of your comprehensive plan and the feedback we were able to get from you. So, I want to thank you for your time and efforts.
I want to thank the staff again for their efforts. Um, and as we turn this over, um, I'm happy to to have some time to respond or answer any questions we hear from the public. And I want to thank them for their time and ongoing participation as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Absel. All right. This is a uh
public hearing. So, we are going to open the public hearing now. Um, I do have 12 written requests to speak. Um, if you don't have any, there will be time for you to come up at the end as well, too. And I do ask the audience, as this is a uh business meeting, if we can please keep uh talking down in the audience,
you have three minutes to speak when you come up. That way we can make sure we hear everybody out. Uh the first person I have up here to speak is Nina Blankenship. If you want to come up, say your name and address for the record. Hello, my name is Nina Blankenship and I live at 2131 Rocky Bluff Court in Ovido,
Florida. I am here to defend our country's symbol of freedom, the American bald eagle that is protected by the federal bald and golden protection act and the migratory treaty act. I have seen the American bald eagle almost every day at 9:15 a.m. The last time I
saw the eagle was yesterday at their favorite hangout spot, which is at the top of the power lines at Publix on Lockwood, right across from Walgreens. Where do the eagles go after hanging out? The eagles fly around at the land at 781 Lockwood, the land that we're
talking about today. And as of today, a true survey of the land for Eagles Nest has not been done. Since my last speech, I have heard back from the senior scientist of the city of Ovido with an update that the true survey of the land
will be conducted in October to identify Eagle's nest. My major concern now is that the development company would like to build higher than the initially approved elevation with a mixed commercial and residential plan. American bald eagles can see 2 miles
away. And if the tallest building in Ovido is built at their favorite hangout spot, this will disrupt their habitat. This development company is not staying within the already approved height code and is trying to take advantage of the local residents. And now the American
bald eagles. Enough is enough. Do we even have a fire truck that can go to the height of the proposed building? It is illegal to disrupt the American bald eagle while nesting and that includes driving a truck by the nest, chopping down the additional trees within 660 ft
of the nest, and physically walking near the nest. Residents of Ovito, it is not enough to report an American bald eagle while sitting in a power line or flying around. We need to report all eagle's nests to the Ottabon and Fish and Wildlife website to prevent destruction
or interference of the American bald eagles. Please take pictures of all eagle's nest. No one from the city of Ovido or in a documentation such as an ecological study is acknowledging the American bald eagles. Just look up, go to the land
that we're talking about today at 9:15 a.m. and within 660 ft of this land, you will see an American bald eagle. This land is within the limits of Oto, the city limits. And as a steward of this land, it is your responsibility to protect the American bald eagles um and
make sure that everyone complies with federal laws. Please decline the newly proposed height that is not to plan. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have uh Paul Blankenship. Hello, Paul
Blankenship. I'm Nean's father, 10:31 Rocky Bluff Court. I want to address some subjects that came up in the last meeting which I thought were just ignored or improperly addressed. I'm sure I'm the oldest person here and I
want to address the subject of uh this the age of the people who are going to be living in this place and the some of their needs. I don't think that has been addressed properly at all. The assumption was made that apparently they're just going to
live there and never see the light of day. That isn't a complete analysis. The people living there are going to have people coming to visit them. aids people who are doing the
washing clothes and washing dishes, an assortment of people and first aid people. And there's probably a lot more traffic than you think from those kinds of people. I would imagine that about
two or three people a day visit me, and I'm probably not that unusual. Anyway, that's uh the one thing I wanted to address. The other one was uh flooding. I made a study of the flooding that took place when I
was observing it. Flood was flood water was coming up my backyard and I was trying to figure out where the flood water was coming from. And I went to walked up north of the dog park and the flooding was running down the sidewalk and it wasn't soaking into the
ground. It wasn't growing into any ponds or anything that nearby, just hydroplaning down the sidewalk. And when it got to a low spot near the church, it went under the road, went over to the conservation area. So, the idea that
there's going to be ponds doesn't mean that the water is going to go into those ponds. Unless the water is directed into those ponds, it won't. It'll go to whatever the lowest place is nearby. So, that's one thing I wanted to comment on.
And uh the other thing I want to comment on is that in terms of traffic, many people my age cannot drive as well as they think they can. And there many of them are a hazard when they start driving. You're going to
have a lot of people trying to get to the Publix who can't get to it. They're going to be trying to walk to walk there, trying to drive there, and they're not qualified. they can they'll be able to see it but they won't be able to get to it safely. So consider that as a pro a
possible a problem. I recommend and I I observe or my observation would be that you're going to see a lot of senior citizens dying like flies trying to get to the store because they're going to see it and they want to go want to go over the store and maybe they can't have
anybody coming right then and if they have a car and most of them going to have a car they're going to try to get there. They think it's only like a block away. I've got to get there. I want to get there. So consider that because that's going to be a serious problem and you're going to see people dying like
flies. That's my prediction. Thank you. I think that's time so I guess I'll go. Uh next up we have Megan McCullum. Good evening. I'm Megan McCullum. My address is 541 Farmingham Court Oto. Uh,
I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening regarding the proposed Arya age 55 and up mixeduse apartments on Lockwood Boulevard. Firstly, I want to recognize the importance of creating communities where seniors can age in place that these developments are crucial for providing safe, comfortable,
and supportive environments for our older residents. Additionally, multif family housing offers significant benefits in terms of sustainability. It promotes efficient land use, reduces environmental footprint, and supports a more sustainable future of Ovito or for
Ovito. However, I have serious concerns about the traffic congestion this development will create on Lockwood, particularly at the entrance of the public's plaza. This area is already very busy and difficult to navigate, especially when making left turns. The addition of this development will
exacerbate these issues, making these this area hazardous for drivers and pedestrians alike. Moreover, the suggestion that residents will walk to nearby grocery stores or restaurants is unrealistic. Crossing Lockwood at an area with heavy traffic and no pedestrian crossings is dangerous. A
mid-road crosswalk near an intersection poses significant safety risks and people are unlikely to walk past their destination to access a crosswalk. I also oppose the construction of a fivestory buildings in this location.
Ovito is characterized by much smaller buildings and there are no five-story structures in the city including an Ovido on the park. For comparison purposes, the uh concrete utility poles that tower above everything else on Lockwood are 50 ft in height. These
buildings at Arya would be nearly one and a half times that height. Such tall buildings should be reserved for the downtown core or Ovito Mall areas, not in an area of lowdensity residential neighborhoods. While I would support this development if the buildings were limited to three stories, which aligns
better with the surrounding areas, my concerns about traffic impacts and the height of the proposed development remain significant. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have John Hildebrandt. Uh John Hildebrandt 2712
running Springs Loop. Um it seems almost daily there's a new large apartment complex being built. We all know that this means more traffic congestion, increased pressure on the city's limited resources, potential flooding from hurricanes as a result of more land
being paved over and built on. Despite all those valid concerns, whenever citizens have addressed opposition to large apartment complexes, we've been told that they're allowed in the comprehensive plan and we have to follow the comprehensive plan. However, now it
appears that the plan can be changed when it's a developer rather than a citizen making that request. The proposed development under consideration is very near a busy intersection. Northbound traffic on Lockwood crossing 419 is narrowed down from two lanes to
one, creating backlogs that makes it very difficult to make left turns out of the Walgreens parking lot and left turns out of the public's parking lot. In addition, uh right turns out of the public's parking lot are also difficult
because the Lockwood curves once you get north of Publix. The apartment complex is basically being presented here as a lesser of two evils. There are ominous predictions about something as large as a Walmart being built there and traffic that would be
nine times as much if we didn't allow the apartments. Uh consider the fact that commercial development has always been available there and it appears there's been limited interest in doing so. Otherwise, something would have already been
started. Um we do know for a fact that 172 apartments uh with probably a couple you know hundred people residing there will create a significant traffic problem and the traffic estimates for the commercial
development are questionable at best. We don't really know what would be built there and as a result it's hard to predict what the actual traffic would be. It was mentioned in the April 21st meeting here that the city already has
an issue with an unfavorable balance of residential property to commercial property. Something like 80% residential, 20% commercial. And given that fact, it seems like there should be no need to take more commercial out of
the mix. Um, a senior living facility may be a very valid need, but it's questionable whether that's the best area for it. Uh, one of the most important needs for senior citizens is good convenient
access to medical care. We're lucky we have a hospital, two emergency rooms, multiple imaging facilities, doctor's offices, physical therapy locations, but they're all located on Redbug between
426 and uh Slavia Road. Thank you very much. Could I just make one quick I'm sorry. We have to move on. We have to give everybody a chance. Thank you so much. Uh next up we have James Rutherford. My name is James Rutherford from 393
Evening Sky Drive. What I'd like to do is read a portion of a letter that uh can I give this letter to you after uh that my wife wrote. Um, Lockwood Boulevard north of County Road 419 is a haven for conservation and
building a fivestory merchant apartment area is one more step to destroying nature that frankly the city of Ovido cannot afford. Next, the acreage on both sides of Lockwood Boulevard and County Road 426 will want to change their zoning,
too. You are possibly setting in motion development that won't be able to be stopped. Florida has grown exponentially. Growth is good. Uncontrolled building and destroying nature is not good. Ovidito has developed a plan for development and I
believe it is important that this plan be followed. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next up we have Howard Rand. Hello, Howard Rand, 410 Augustine Court in Waverly Woods.
Um, we were here last month talking to the planning board about this project and the planning board came back at the end and voted not to recommend it. Their reasoning for this is that a tremendous amount of time, energy, resources, and
money was spent on a comprehensive plan. That comprehensive plan identified areas where we have um high density housing laid out and their reasoning was this is not one of the areas that's why
they recommended not going forward with the recommendation. So from that aspect of it, we are looking at putting up a building that is five stories high, bigger than anything around. It's going to be monstrous
looking from anywhere that we're seeing this except from some woods out in the uh econ. But the biggest problem that goes with that too is the traffic. And everybody's talked about traffic, but the traffic there is horrendous right
now. And making a median strip down the middle that will have um cars having to come out and go right down on Lockwood, make U-turns at either River Oaks or the Augustine entrance or cutting through Augustine um I mean not Augustine, but
the Waverly Woods entrance there and cutting through Waverly Woods to get to 419 to go on their way because they can't make a left turn coming out of that development. um if they try to make a right turn coming out, then they have to face all that traffic on 419 itself. So while
traffic comes back to this thing, it is the primary concern of a lot of residents in that area, especially in the times when the traffic piles up and you coming down Lockwood going southward, it bends right coming into there. So cars are coming down there at
50 miles an hour and then they're going to have to stop or face whatever these things are here. Um, so really what you guys are looking at today is facing making a decision if you're going to go ahead and recommend this or not. And the question is the comprehensive plan was
laid out with a lot of input by residents, everybody to say where these things should be built. So when you consider this, what does this project offer that has to be built there in non-compliance with the comprehensive
plan? So thank you. Thank you. Uh, next up we have Deborah Alvis. Hello, I'm Deborah Alvis. I live at 1900 Ashlin Trail, which is Waverly Woods. The main objection I have to the plan is
the location on a residential road. Every house on Lockwood with the exception of the the two entrances where Publix and Walgreens are is a single family residential that is owned by a person. No rental
properties. I'm fear that if we allow one rental property, if we completely scrap what we've planned to have this more maximum density areas, if we just scrap that, what happens to the land at the end of our road? We have
approximately 11 acres near the River Oaks property as well as Ovida Forest. I think it's called Ovita Forest that are also been for sale. If their pud, which I had no idea when we bought our house 20 years ago, had this this ability, I
don't know that we would have chosen this area. We don't want to be completely hemmed in with apartments. I understand that yes, you can build up and you can get more folks in there and we create some tax revenues from that, but I also recognize that no one who
bought a single family home planned to have apartments looking down on them. So consider the work that your land planning board did and look to see if this is one of the reasons you want to break what you've already decided upon
because I say this is not a good location. I don't say that your project's not good. I just don't think this is a good comprehensive use. It's not in keeping. When we say that River Oaks when it was from your land planning
folks, I found out they were only allowed to build 53 units. That was in 1995. So now we think 172 adjacent to it is a good use of the same basic property. So I say I don't think so.
uh another location would be much better where it has more access to medical bus routes. We have no bus routes in our area, etc. So, I would be very opposed to this and I hope you all will take this under consideration. Thank you.
Thank you. Uh next up, Ed Stork. 677 Evening Sky Drive at Stork. So, I guess I'll start a little bit of a backstory on me. I been in Nova for 15 16 years, but I worked at Sears way back in the day and I sold washers and dryers. And what was very important to
them was selling those maintenance agreements. And I figured out really quick to be successful at that, the best way to do it was to sell the positives on it and not the threats to what could go wrong. And what we've been seeing over and over again is the threats. And that's really disheartening to see that
that's how you want to push something through is to just say this is what could happen if we don't do this. My wife and I, as I stated, we've moved here quite some time ago and we did our homework and we read the comprehensive plan before purchasing in
River Oaks. We chose the community because it was away from the high density mixeduse areas mapped out by the city. A home is the largest purchase that most of us will make in our lifetime. The idea that the city we chose to lay our roots in may pull the rug out from
underneath us is very disheartening. The land planning the land planning team likes to say that this is a consistent with the comp plan. That's their verbiage there that it's consistent with the comp plan. Well, if it's consistent with the comp plan, why
are we here trying to change it today? We hear threats that the traffic could be worse. I don't think so. Here's what I believe. I believe amending the comp plan is a gateway for more highdensity mixeduse development on Lockwood as some of my neighbors have stated and moving
forward, which would increase that traffic exponentially, even worse. River Oaks is a community of 50 units that I live in, built on 96 acres. The developer here wants to stuff 177 units plus commercial into onetenth the size
of that. do what's right, follow the comp plan that you guys put the effort into and reject the amendment in the zoning. And to the developer, I ask you to go back to the drawing board with something that's commercial
that will complement the area with the beautiful piece of land that you actually have. If you truly care about the area and what the residents think, you could make that work where most everybody would be happy. It may not yield the same
financial, but money is not everything. Thank you. Next up, we have Alberto Buster. Alberto Buster, 501 Wells Lee Street in Waverly Woods. Um, safety was one of the main concerns
that we have. When you turn out of this proposed development, nobody's making a right turn to head north on Lockwood. Everybody's making a beline for Red Bug Lake and everything else to get out of the city for wherever they're going. From the traffic light at the corner of
419 in Lockwood to the proposed egress point of this is only 650 ft. Currently, when there's traffic from the church, the Roman Catholic Church that lets out when it's morning time, the the traffic exceeds already the entrance to Waverly
Woods, and we sometimes have to wait long periods of time to even get out of our development unless we choose to go out the 419 exit. And that's going to create a bunch of safety issues as we're mentioning some of those things. I have another question. And what's going to happen when they have
struggles renting 55 plus to everybody in this proposed development? We're making it seem like people who are retired have great wealth and money when we see that in reality a lot of people are struggling to make it with what they currently have. People living on a fixed
income, everything that's being built today is luxury with luxury dollar prices. So, are they going to come back to the drawing board and then want to change again because they can't lease out to everybody 55 plus? My fellow neighbor brought up the
point about threats. We're being given the boogeyman constantly. And that is the argument. Many of you who are serving on council have stood up to say we will defend what is within our comp plan. And now we're turning that around to make an exception for a
developer for something that's not in place. And then the argument or the threat that's being made to us is Bert Harris. This parcel was sued before because the council in the past denied it. It's vested privilege. It's vested right. They do not currently have that
right today. So, it's irrelevant. So, stop threatening us with it. It doesn't make any sense for you to continue arguing in the city and everybody else to continue making this argument when you all know that it doesn't have any bearing on this particular case. let them build what's in their vested right
and then we'll have to deal with the consequences of that. But the reality is this, 20 years have gone by. Nothing commercial has built there because there is no visibility from 419 on that back property, which is why no commercial property wants it. And we've already been told tonight that to build
something to that size would require the amount of parking that they would not be able to get into that location without putting a traffic light somewhere off of Lockwood Boulevard. Lastly, commercial properties. There's five lots. If you turn this over and give a special
privilege, everybody else on North Lockwood Boulevard will come knocking at the door asking for tall buildings. Thank you. Next up, we have Jennifer Sumar. Hi, Jenny Snar. 381 Evening Sky Drive and I didn't come with any prepared
remarks. So, first of all, thank you for your service and thank you for allowing us to comment tonight. I echo the concerns that we have in terms of the traffic flow, particularly at that intersection of Lockwood and 419. Right now, it's abysmal. Um, and now coming off of the new Mitchell Hammock
construction that has been done, everything pigeon holes into Lockwood down to those two lanes. And my fear is that actually in two years or four years we're going be talking about fourlaning that road because of so much congestion and trying to offput the traffic that's happening through that particular
intersection. So my concern is certainly about the traffic, the flow, the thoughtfulness that's coming in and out of that ingress and egress area. Um and just the thoughtfulness behind what we need to do in order to rectify that particular position. The safety that was
brought up today is also another concern as well. the movement of folks between that 55 residential area and over to Publix I do think is a concern. Um I had the fortunate I will say opportunity
to help a blind individual who was coming off of Broadway trying to make it to the Publix and was disoriented because of that whole traffic flow. And so I was able to help her and recognize that she needed to get into that public's parking lot and into Publix to
shop. And and so that whole thought of a 55 over and not having the safety protocol in place across that particular threshold from one side of Lockwood over into the public's area is also now a concern of mine as well. So thank you for the time. I appreciate it. Thank
you. Okay. Next up, I have Gail Hudson Marco. If I said that right. Good evening, madame mayor and city council members. Gail Hudson Marco, 719 Evening Sky Drive.
I concur with all of the people that have talked about traffic because sometimes I even have trouble getting out to make a left turn and I have to go right and go up to Evans and come down around. But that's not the concern I want to address right now. My concern is
fire safety. Five stories. City of Ovido have the fire equipment to get up that high. This is not a we're not going to respond at this part of the meeting, but we will address it. So, well, that's my concern is that how where that equipment
is located and how long it would take to get to that complex because that would come across our pond through the barriers and I'm on the far end and when they build they're going to be able to look in my bedroom windows
every night. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, uh we have Jennifer Feedler. McDonalder. Um, Jennifer McDonald Feedler, 1049 Long Branch Lane, Ovito, Florida. Um, number one, thank you everybody that came and
spoke. And what I want to address to the council and the mayor and thank you for your time and and your study on all this is you haven't heard one person come here and say they want it here. We've all complimented the or have at one time probably in the other meetings how well they've done on their job and I do think
he's done a great job and I think it's great but we're all telling you it's the wrong location. By the way, there's thousands of acres in Bithlo they're developing. We could use it go there. We'll move there. Um justing but anyway it's the wrong location. We moved here
so we could have low density. We asked you guys, as they've said, to follow the plan, keep it low density or commercial. By the way, I've talked to several people and I think a few people would probably here agree. I don't care if we have another strip mall. I don't care if
we have another restaurant. Those will service. But what you're doing is putting more and more people in a congested area and you're putting a tall, tall building up and as they said, most likely opening the door for more. we moved to where we moved to be in a
low residential area and for every this used to be said for every time somebody speaks they're representing a hundred well a lot of people like when I used to work don't know what's going on but I assure you there are thousands that will be very upset when they learn that we
have a five-story building going right there. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I do not have any other written requests to speak. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to address council at this time? With that, I will close public comment. What is the pleasure of
councel? Well, before we move on, could I suggest that everybody look under your seat? We have door prizes again. Thank you all for coming out today. I have no idea how this will end, but we need a breath. So, some of you, three of you
have something taped under your seats. You can't make this up. Much better. All right. All right. We will move on and I will ask what is the pleasure of councel? I'll move to approve oh dang it what's
it called? Ordinance number ordinance uh 1754. We have a motion. Is there a second? For purposes of uh purposes of discussion. I'll second it. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Uh council member.
Yeah. Uh, thank you. That, um, and that's and that's really what I want to do here is I want to, um, have some discussion about it. Um, a lot of people brought up a lot of things and I think it's, uh, I think it's really important that we address the, um, the things that were said and I wrote down, uh, many of
them and I and I apologize if I don't get to them. Uh, the first one is is probably for Mr. Hall. Um would changing uh the comp plan, the zoning here set a precedent for other uh similar uh pieces of land in the same area? Would somebody
be able to come back and say, "Well, you changed it for them, so now you have to change it for us." They could, but we wouldn't necessarily be bound by that. It would depend on we have to consider each individual project on its own merits, and so it would depend on the traffic studies and and all the other
studies. So they could not say, "No, you gave it to them. We have to give it. You have to prove that you're entitled to not entitled to, but you have to council will look at each project and make and it have to stand on its own. It would have to stand on its own merit and and precedent would not be part of something
that they could come back with legal action. They would argue that but but in this case you're in a this hearing first hearing is a quaile legislative and it and and the standard is reasonables. So you would you evaluate each project on
its own merits. Okay. Uh thank you. Um so one uh one thing that was brought up is that the height here is higher than otherwise would be allowed in MU. Is is that correct? Is height a the height of this
project a variance or is the height consistent with MU? So the the elder city today um has increased the height of the city to um 60 ft to commercial but we have increased substantial the height in
other areas of the city in the um downtown core in um the gateway west. So the height is coming. So yeah well the height is coming in other areas. So we have and that is not you
know it's in the Elder Sea. We approved the Elder Scene in 2024 to increase to be more vertical. That is the only way to be more sustainable. Okay. So the the answer then is is that while this will be the highest thing in Ovido there are
other uh pieces of land which are zone can build that high by right right now even though they have not yet. Higher higher even. Okay. Okay. Okay. And I can get the the the standards like we can look for the standards to say what are
the highest right now. Okay. But the the the reason this could if approved go this high is not because it can by right now but because it is in the developers agreement. Correct. It's in the development. So they are asking for a change in the development agreement to
allow for an increased height and that would be consistent with mixed use the mixed use zoning. Yes. Well, developers agreements are it's it's a development agreement is a is a um negotiated standard. So I I we have to get the standards of the of the
code. Um I think we have for commercial use it's 60 ft in along arterial roads and u but I'll have to check the standards what it is today. Okay. But they are asking for a deviation um for
from the DA their existing DA today which is 35 to 270. Right. Okay. And the existing DA is the commercial one that's the commercial one. Yeah. Okay. But we have in other zoning districts in the city allowed for increased um height. Okay.
Already. So there are other ones with this height already that have not been built yet. I what I was going to explain was that in mixed use the development agreement establishes the land development regulations for the property. So Dr. Prey is correct in that
with the development agreement they can come in and request height that that meets their needs. Uh whether it it could be higher than what the land development code states or it could be lower. Uh but the development agreement would be would be the driver that
establishes those land development regulations. So it's not really a variance. It's not really a deviation either. It's establishing what is either a minimum or a maximum standard for the development of that property. Okay. Thank you. Um uh let's see. Uh uh one gentleman
brought up uh water retention and and Mr. Cobb, you had said something to me about water retention. Um uh could would you mind saying that again? Um about how you know water has to be retained on the property um and also still flow off the property
at the same um uh at the same rate and volume that it would have before the development. I was trying to see if Mr. Wyatt was here. It would be better for him to come in and explain it to you uh as since he
is he is a professional engineer. But you yes sir uh what we when you look at storm water one of the things that we did talk about is velocity and volume and that yes the rules are is that they are supposed to uh contain the storm water on their site but there is a point
where uh there are also rules about where your post development has to mimic your pre-development. And so there has if once we were talking about volume and velocity that if the water is currently flowing in a certain direction in volume
and velocity then the post development needs to mimic that volume and velocity. But in this case that and I'm glad Mr. Mr. Wyatt is here. He can explain it much better than I can. But in this case it would be going into a pond and then once it goes into the pond then it would be popping off into wherever that the
next place that it would go probably eventually to the river. But I'll turn it over to Mr. White. I lost some of the communication and and they're asking for storm water that they have to retain everything that their property is going to need and what came before it. If you could explain kind of those requirements. He was asking about preost
development. Well, for the yeah on the for the for the drainage, yes, they have to maintain everything on site and then it would pop off and go into the into the basin towards the river. Okay. And these are things that the developer would be required to do. I
mean, you know, you're not you're not allowed to just build a a thing and let No, you have to maintain well put the water a different way, right? The water has to keep going the same way. This is okay. Correct. You can't can't damage your neighbor, so to speak. Right. And these are things that would be followed.
Yes, sir. And there would be inspections by the city along and be reviewed through engineering as well. Yes. Okay. Actually, Mr. Mr. brought the uh when they go through the development process, they they provide us with a drainage calculation where they actually give us
the calculations of how much once we talk about you know volume and velocity, how much water, how fast is it moving, where is it going and they actually show us how it's done, whether it's going overland, whether it's going through pipes uh to the pond and you know as far
as they even provide us with the topography of the property that shows how it works. And so there's yeah there's a lot that that goes into uh the review of the drainage of the of the project. Okay. I guess thank you. Um
stick around Bobby. I won't go for uh so there was um did you have something else on that or Yeah. No not on that on the previous question. So I have the LDC here. So in straight zoning so again this is not straight zoning it's PUD. So it's negotiated. But um you ask about
MU, which would be another zoning possibility. It's 64. So we have several zoning districts that now the maximum is 60. The highest we have is 84 feet in the um downtown core, Gateway West and
Mitchell Hame corridor and also in the marketplace. So in four zoning juds we have 84 and we have several that are 60 and uh 64 for mixed use but this one because it's a development agreement then it's
negotiated. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um so there were questions about uh the traffic flow. Can we see the map again of the site? This was said in other meetings and I maybe it went by and I just didn't hear it. Um the one that uh maybe the next one uh that shows the
little strip that comes out to uh 419. Is there is there another one that has it like where it's yellow? I think I remember. Um the um it's on my presentation. Oh, it's on your presentation. Yeah. Um so and the idea
here if if I remember right is that Yeah, that's a good one. Um, so that's Lockwood going north and 419 going east and west, right? Um, that people would be able to come out of the development
through that small strip and get onto 419 to head toward town. No, that's the pickle ball court. That's the amenity. It's not vehicular access. There's no vehicular access down the the small strip. If you could come up to the
microphone. Thank you. Yeah, sure. Where the orange is that's being shown, that's not an access road. There is cross access to the Walgreens parking lot. That's from a previous uh reciprocal easement. Okay. So, they would have to go through the Walgreens parking lot in
order to get out there. And that's probably not something that's desired. No, that the the main entrance, but it does allow for cross flow per the per the easement. cross flow per the so so the Walgreens for example wouldn't say that no you guys can't come through here that's correct you like this this does
become a road it so to speak well the yes the connectivity the connectivity portion of that uh was was viewed favorably by staff and and how we looked at that we looked at those documents because it allows for you know site circulation cross access as as actually
a preference from from one of the city's policies yeah so you would be able to come out through the Walgreens and then turn right heading toward town. That's correct. You would not have to go north on Lockwood and then U-turn. That that is an option that you could take as
constructed. An option that that is that is an option you could take what you just described. Okay. In the after condition, if you will. And can I please ask the audience to refrain from speaking so we can hear the speakers. Thank you. Yeah. Sorry. Continue. Okay. Uh thank you. Thank you. Um, as far as
traffic goes, um, I know there was some discussion in the the LPA meeting, uh, about traffic and and how the traffic numbers are computed. And they're done, um, they're done in a specific way that the county requires, which is different than the way other places do them. And,
uh, yeah, could you could you speak to that? Good evening, Madame Mayor, deputy mayor, council members. uh Kauwan Ma 225 East Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida, 32801. Uh I represent the city as the uh traffic consultant for for the city of
Ovido. Um and you are correct in that uh traffic studies that are done within Seol County. Um the roadway capacities are evaluated on a daily basis uh rather than peak hour. Uh the intersections um
are evaluated for for the peak hour. However, uh the the segments themselves are evaluated on a daily basis. Um I can think of one other jurisdiction in Florida that does it uh on a daily basis. Most of them uh evaluate roadway
capacity on a peak hour basis or um most of them are peak hour peak direction. The benefit of the peak hour peak direction is that it captures um when roads reach capacity on uh commuter
roads. Mitchell Hammock being a very heavy commuter road. In the morning it's very heavy uh heading westbound. In the afternoon it's very heavy heading eastbound. And so on a peak hour peak direction basis uh the capacity may show
that or the um volumes may show that it is over capacity but on a daily basis when the volumes are toned down over the other hours of the day it will show well it currently shows that there is available capacity on those types of roads.
Right. Okay. Um and then additionally are the uh are the numbers that we get here now these are from the uh uh I the it numbers right yes and so there are codes in a in a manual absolutely um the codes say that for this many square feet
of this type of thing you're going to generate this much traffic and and these are all done on an individual basis kind of in a vacuum not considering the surrounding area is that is that correct uh yes But I would like to just go into
a little bit more detail. So it trip generation manual currently 11th edition uh has several hundred uh different land uses. Everything from your standard single family, it's got veterinary clinics, it's got post office, it's got all the different types of land uses. Um
all of those are based off of surveys um of of comparable uses. And uh the trips that are generated or the trips that are the rates and formulas that are produced
from those surveys um are used to uh calculate the trip generation using independent variable. For retail, you could um you could calculate the trips based off of per thousand square feet. For residential neighborhood, it's per uh number of dwelling units. For movie
theater, it's by number of screens. For restaurants, by number of seats. Um and some of them uh hospitals have different independent uh variables. It could be by beds or thousands of square feet. Um the trip generation for this particular site
was included in their traffic uh traffic study and that was reviewed against uh it to make sure that uh the numbers uh fit. Um coincidentally if you uh just expanding on some of the discussion uh earlier this evening I know that there
was a lot of discussion about potential uses on this site and I remember uh I believe I heard 93,000 ft. I heard uh 412 dwelling units um as comparison and yes I I I believe that those are very
high intensities um and they represent potential but if you are wanting to talk about the number of trips the 84 trips uh during the PM peak hour that this development generates and you want to talk about the um the amount of retail
if there if there was not a future or a compre comp plan amendment. The equivalent retail that would equate to the 84 trips is 11,000 square ft. Once you pass 11,000 square ft, you you um this would generate more trips
than the proposed 172 units with the 6,000 ft. Okay. So, so I'm interested on like it seems like that the quantity that's being generated there is Well, here's here's where I get to on on the traffic, right? So, we had two examples. One of
them was a Walmart. Uh, the other was a Publix. It's just examples of things that could potentially go here, right? Um, if a Publix were to go there, there is already a grocery store on two out of four corners of that intersection, right? Um, so the idea that we are going
to add the same number of trips into that place as we would if there were no grocery stores there is is it's not really going to be the same thing. people aren't going to buy more groceries or go to the grocery store more often just because there are three instead of two at the same place. So, you would be taking traffic away from
some to go to the the new one, right? And and in the same way Oh, go ahead. I was just going to say I don't know that all of the numbers would add up the same. Maybe you wouldn't have, you know, 50% more by having a third one, but it
may go up 20% if you add up all, right? Because people might go to multiple ones because it's right there, but you're not going to you're not going to create, you know, 50% more. Probably going from two to three, right? That is correct. Um, and in the same way, if a Walmart were to go there, well, now everybody on the
east side of town, if they wanted to go to a Walmart, would go to that one instead of then coming across, going through the intersection, going across Mitchell Hammock, transiting the entire city to get all the way down to Deep Lake Road, which to me sounds like, okay, well, now you're putting in a
commercial thing, which is supposed to generate more traffic, but in some ways, immeasurably, you may generate less traffic on the city as a whole, Right. Now, now of course people from the middle part of town are going to go east perhaps. Yes. Right. But but the idea
that it's we're going to generate, you know, this fixed amount of traffic or that we can know for sure without really knowing what's going in there and especially not looking at the whole city, it it almost feels like we're measuring the wrong quantity if if that makes sense. Yes. Um there is there is an advantage of course
to having mixed use because you shorten up the trip lengths and um it most evident in within the city of Ovito when as um Ovito on the park was developed. Uh it's hard to gauge, but what we can
tell you is that if you take a look at historically the number of trips that crossed 434 at the intersection uh at Mitchell Hammock Road, as Ovito on the Park continued to grow, there was less
traffic that was crossing there. Now, there is also um a higher population of that has come into a veto and it has since caught back up, but there was a period of time where we did see some less traffic because there was uh there
was le maybe less of a need for the high residential area that is east of 434 to cross need to cross over because uh a lot maybe more of the the uh trip purposes and trip types were satisfied
with more commercial on that side. Right. Right. And I'm one of those people that that describes right from from that exact place. So, okay. Um uh thank you very much. I I appreciate that. Um I just had a couple more things I wanted to address. Um one gentleman um
talked about adjusting the comp plan and and how a lot of times when building uh projects come in, we say that this is, you know, required. We can't it it meets the comp plan. We have to let them build it. But then in this case, you know, we're going to change the comp plan to accommodate them. Um, and I I think the
the important thing to note here is that when people have property rights to a piece of land, um, the the price the rights can go up, but they can never go down, uh, legally speaking. So, if you if you buy a piece of land, you bought it with a price or bought it for a price
because of a certain thing that could be built there, that can't be taken away, but it can be added to. And so that's the reason we're here looking at changing the uh the comp plan for this piece of land and where in other places we can't do that. Um I I also wanted to
address um uh the comments that the um city staff was being um manipulative or threatening uh with the um with describing things that could go in there um under the commercial zoning.
Um, I I just want to to point out that when when things come here to be reszoned, it's important that that we have all of the data about, you know, what are we reszoning it from potentially um that could go there um by
right and it it's not a measure. It's it's not in order to scare us and saying that hey, this is what could go in there or this is what will go in there if you don't do it. It's just to have the backs stop against what are we com what are we comparing to and honestly if if they didn't do that they wouldn't be doing
their job right so this is part of of what that is so um I I just want to thank uh staff for putting all of the the things in there so that you know we can evaluate it um so to uh some other things uh I think it's important to point out that that the LPA actually
wanted to deny both things um and voted 52 to do it both times uh however Um they were instructed uh by the city attorney that they needed to have competent and substantial evidence to uh or have a reason. You might not have used the word confidence substantial
evidence right there. Um but they needed to have a reason for to reject the or to not recommend the zoning change. Um and and many of them from from watching it wanted to say like well we didn't recommend the the comp plan change so then how can we recommend the zoning
change? Um and and the direction was, you know, in case that there was a scenario where the council wanted to say change the the comp plan but not the or change the comp plan or sorry uh yes, change the comp plan and then look at
the zoning. Um that they there needed to be a recommendation there. And I I don't I'm not sure I mean legally speaking that that may be the case. Um, but I'm not sure that that saying that the LPA wanted to approve the zoning change
really characterizes what happened in that that meeting. Um, so then we're down to um, you know, this is a thing, you know, as been discussed that we we don't have to do this. This is something that um, that we we get to decide here. And so what we're deciding is not
whether we have to, but whether we should, whether this is better, whether it's better to take this thing uh that would go in now and have it be um or have the thing that could happen um next
year or in 5 years or or never, right? Um we don't really know uh when a commercial uh development could go in there. So, I mean there's very much uh I mean to to bend the metaphor a bird in the hand and a a two in the bush kind of thing going on here is is the way this
is in my mind. Um in additionally or additionally, you know, this is not uh consistent with the future land use designation or with the current zoning. Um but as was stated, it's it's consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies. um basically the text of
the comprehensive plan talking about you know walkability and and density and all of that. Um but I I believe that this could that this statement could be said about reszoning any property in Ovito, right? Any property in Ovito. You could say, well, we want to build mixed use here. Well, that's consistent with the
goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. Um, but when the comp plan was amended in 2022, it was decided to put all of the new density uh downtown, you know, and and uh changes were made to the future land use
downtown. And this is where uh you know, where the plan is, right? I mean, it's the comprehensive plan where the infrastructure is going to go that's going to support all of this thing or all of this kind of development. and you know it wasn't done over where this um
where this development is proposed. Um, so I I mean to me that's kind of saying that, you know, many people have said like, you know, this is not the right space for it and and I know when this kind of stuff comes up, there's a lot of um the the feeling of
not in my backyard, right? However, in this case, that really is consistent with the map that we've drawn of the city is that it is that this kind of thing is supposed to go uh somewhere else. Um, and we've identified where that is. So it's not just a matter of
don't do it where I am. It's a matter of there is a place we agreed on that and it it this kind of thing should go there. Now to that the developer doesn't necessarily own land there. This is the land that the developer owns. So that's why you know it's coming here. Um and
you know to the traffic you know as we talked about um you know the numbers can say what they say but like I said I believe they're measuring the wrong quantity. Um, and the thing that makes more traffic is more people, not more shops. That that much seems uh very
clear to me. Um, and so I think ultimately it's up to us to decide what to do here. And as the elected council, I I believe it's it's our job to do the will of the residents when the
residents um, you know, when when we have these kind of options. And as far as like, you know, bird in the hand, bird in the bush, whatever. Um, you know, there is a risk that so you could build the MU now, you could build or something else could come later. And it looks like that the residents are
overwhelmingly willing to take that risk on something that perhaps they like less coming um coming in the future. And uh that's that that's where I am on it. So, thank you and thank you for for letting me say all that, Mor. Well, there's a a
significant complicating factor uh to our comprehensive plan. If this was a simple pick the proposal or pick commercial, the residents want commercial. I'm cool sticking with the plan. The problem is the state of Florida has passed a law that makes it
impossible for us to actually apply our comprehensive plan. So I if that slide is available, the one that I asked them to go back to in the beginning, uh I am very genuinely concerned about what this property could be developed as if
somebody were to flex the state level live local act. Uh at this time the city of Ovito has opted out of having no taxes uh paid by uh the units that are affordable. But under this state level
law, the the maximum density and and staff calculated this up today. I did I don't know why I didn't cross my mind before. So I I feel kind of foolish not to have thought of it until you over the weekend when nobody's around to do calculations. Um but if we can have up
to 410 units there if somebody goes vertical, that's a disaster. Uh more of a disaster than 172 units. And if you say, "Ah, you can't geometrically fit it there." Well, we know that they can fit 172. So, if you take out the 6,000 commercial uh 6,000 ft of commercial,
that generates more traffic presumably than apartments do and uh if we could get our traffic consultant, see if he's still around to confirm that generally speaking shifting to more apartments. If we shift it to say we we take half that,
say they're off by half, they can only fit 205 apartments there. Would that be more or less traffic than 172 age restricted plus 61? And and if it was the two if it was multif family underlift local, it would not be age
restricted either, right? So 205 market rate multif family units would absolutely generate more trips than 172 age restricted units. Plus this the commercial
the commercial itself generates I believe 42 trips. Um that would equate to approximately
70. So you would need so it would be is it about break even doing 205 units versus one versus the proposal. So you um the 6,000 square feet of retail would equate
to approximately 70 uh market rate multif family units. 70 that is correct. Wow. Okay. So there there that would actually create potentially less traffic even by getting rid of the commercial component and going with all market
rate. If if you take a Yeah. If you take a look at the traffic study um and break down the trips, it's half of the trips come from the re that retail. All right. Thank you very much. Uh and then I've got a question for uh our our planning staff on live
local. Uh I I believe that there is no requirement to have mixed use. They can by right build straight residential. Is that correct in this area? So my understanding I think that we have a percentage if we had a percentage
commercial um I think it was 20% so they would have to do 20% commercial and they could do no if the city had um if the mix of residential and commercial I think it was 8020 I have to read again
okay um if there was if we did not reach the threshold of more than 20% um of commercial I think it might have to be mixeduse but I don't know the new language in the that is being discussed right now. What are the requirements
because they are trying to make it easier for folks to apply and leave local. They they are so I believe that is on the governor's desk right now with some adjustments that make it more difficult for us to impose our comp plan when it comes to projects like this. So
it and this would be triggered the live local act I believe it is if is it if 40% are affordable. Correct. Yes, minimum 40% affordable. And we had talked earlier, this is like months ago, about what the adjusted median income is that triggers the AMI. Uh so the the AMI
is the adjusted median income. And I believe we had calculated it was like you could have rent of $42,000 a year and still fall within the the parameters that allow this. So it it's market weight, right?
Like it's almost market. So, it's not affordable housing that could come. It's market rate apartments that could come because of the terminology put into place by the state level legislature that preempts and wipes out for purposes of adding additional multif family
housing. It wipes out our comp plan. Um, so that that's all I got for now. Okay. But I just want to make sure that everybody in the audience understands what a hot mess that is and that the five of us have no control over that. So, if we were to turn this down
and somebody can figure out how to make market rate apartments, which is what they're proposing, these are just age restricted and market rate. Then they can show up and they can make even more apartments. Exclude the commercial and it is the commercial that I think everybody who is is prefer I I would
prefer commercial too. Like that helps me more h more houses. You know, I'm I'm a kind of a selfish person when it comes to amenities. I'd rather have a restaurant or something there. So, when we get to the next phase of this talking about the developers agreement and the zoning, we'll we'll talk about that the
the lack of restaurant being allowed. Um, but I did want to um address the height. If I could get the developer to hop up real quickly. So, under live local, 60 is the highest that can be done. And it looks like you're trying to do five stories.
Can you make it fit in 60 ft? Madame Mayor, do you mind if I talk to my engineer? Absolutely. Uh, I think that would be something that would make this a little bit more palatable. That was going to be my question, too. Yeah.
I I don't want to approve something that is higher than what is allowed by right in any of these categories. And why we're doing that, can we ask the chief if you could speak on the uh ladder truck if that is tall enough for this building just to give them Wait,
he's back. Sorry. Go ahead if you're ready. No. Whatever your preference is. Is it's yes. No. Can you do it? It sounds like that's an architect question, which is about the only professional we don't have here today. Got as built. I don't believe that that's been laid out. It
seems to us from this discussion that it can be done for under 70, which is why it was 70 was the max. Just Okay. That's the how we landed there. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And I I also am hoping to hear about the fire equipment and the height of the
mall. If you could share the height of the mall. I'm not sure the exact height of the mall, but the city does own a 100 foot uh tower truck. It's capable of reaching uh depending on how close the truck can stage to the building.
Um eight, seven, eight stories, nine stories, depending on how close they can get to the building. Okay. So, this should not be a problem as far as any of these proposed, we should we shouldn't have any problem accessing the roof. Okay. Thank you. And also with new construction design uh through the Florida Fire Prevention Code um and FPA
11101 life safety codes, um there will be um safety requirements that would have to be met anytime a building goes above a certain a certain level. So, there there shouldn't be any issues in regards to
life safety. Okay. Thank you, Chief. We got a question for our legal counsel. Uh on a 55 and up and and maybe it's for for the developers legal council. Uh there has been a volunteering to say that everybody has to be over 55. And I have not gone to cross-check this with
Florida statutes, but somebody suggested that this was not allowed. I just want to confirm for sure that this is something that is allowable under Florida law. that we can say not that just that one person who lives there has to be 55 or older, but that a 100% of
the permanent residents must be over 55. Is that something either of you can speak to? I'm not aware of any of that. I have not seen anything that says we cannot do that and especially if the developers voluntarily willing to do it. I, you know, could we force them to do it? I don't know. I'd have to check into
that. But but since it's a nonvoluntary basis, I believe and it would be in the development agreement. So it would through development if nothing else. Okay. Very good. And there might be something else that I come back to, but for now that's all I've got. Okay. We'll come back at the end if you have more. Okay. Council
member Britain. Okay. You hit on a lot of the stuff I would have probably uh wanted to hear about too, but uh let's start with Bobby. Come on up. Got a couple questions for you. [Music] Let's talk about the uh the Lockwood bin
as I heard it called. Um and I I mentioned this because I got broadsided trying to get across that before they increase the line of sight. So that's a touchy subject with me. Um is there going to be any changes to that line of
sight or to the the road itself to help give a little bit more time for folks coming out? Mr. Britain, I don't know. Um I I haven't seen an engineering plan and staff would review it when it come when it would be submitted to review that specific purpose. What I saw didn't show much uh going down to the north
north of the uh the road. So that's something that's a little bit concerning because they're they'll have that exit uh and trying to cross the street is going to be going to be tricky. Line of sight is always something that's evaluated, but I don't know in this instance. Okay. Um, other thing, storm
water. I know it's got to be stay on site. It's got to pre and post has to be uh uh contained. What if we get another 25 in overnight? What what happens then? All bets are off. Yeah. So, the the calculations are really for what a four
4 in an hour storm. It's a 20 uh um 50 years. 24 year 24 hour I believe is current design. 24 what is that? hour 4 in in 24 hours. I don't know. I don't know the specific number. That's Mr. Yurain's expertise.
I'm not a storm water expert, but it's no nowhere near 15 in overnight or 25 in overnight. I again I don't know the number off the top of my head. Okay. So, in that case, it would have to somehow flow the way that would naturally flow
anyway. Probably down to the Econ. It would be designed. Yes, sir. I believe the outfall would be the Econ River ultimately. Okay. Not directly, but ultimately. Okay. Um I think that's all I got for you, Bobby.
Uh Mr. Upsald, I got a couple questions. Um first one is how how many uh community members attended those community meetings? Sure. So we had uh one voluntary community meeting uh that was discussed that that tabled the item.
There was probably 20 about 20 um and communication of that meeting went to uh key stakeholders that were in attendance at the first LPA meeting um and
surrounding areas uh and we worked with staff to reach them so we could get attendance. Was it congenial? It was very polite conversation. Yes. Okay. Well, was there I appreciate that. Was there a was there a consensus on
what the final plan would be or did you make plans to to uh address their concerns? I know you made ch changes to the buffers and stuff like that, but yeah. Was there anything else? I would say that the comments uh at that community meeting uh on a broad scale
were consistent with what you heard tonight and the items that to answer your question directly that were being proposed like the additional open space and the buffering those types of things were in an effort to address those things as best we could. Okay. All right.
Uh yeah, I'm kind of concerned with the with the height increase, too. There's no way you can make it a four-story building. feasibly. Uh I know it's a financial calculation but yeah and and again I I the height had all that conversation had
always originated from a less impact to the overall property. Um and it's in line with what if you want four stories you'd have to spread it out further. That's right. That's why that's how we landed on the maximum height of 70. And so that's kind of has what always fueled
the conversation as opposed to We want more density. Um, it was about the site layout. Okay. Uh, last thing is are you doing anything to check out
if there's an eagle over there? We have an uh environmental survey uh environmental impact assessment report. Uh, I we were talking with staff about that I think after the LPA. um we we have to comply with the eagle requirements to the extent that report
needs to be updated or we need to go out there and survey for the eagles. We absolutely will because we have to. Yeah, if I look at Google Earth, it it looks like that uh uh Econ State Forest is like right out the back door. So I I
think from working with the federal government, they they either make a mile or a quarter mile circle around an eagle's nest. That's that's kind of their zone. I'm not sure which one it is. I I don't know the specifics either about that, but I know that there's a strict compliance mechanism with it. And so, frankly, there's there's really not
an option to the extent there's eagle nest out there. We have to comply with federal, state, and local. So, what would you do if there's an eagle like a quarter mile away in a nest? And they say that circle around that nest is prohibited. Sure. Well, as legal counsel to the development, I'd say we'd have to
comply with federal, state, and local laws relating to the Eagles placement. So, I think we need to probably go look at that. Um, I think that's all I got for you, sir. Thank you. For the traffic consultant, I'm not sure
if this is a question for you or for Bobby, but I'll start with you. [Music] Did you Did you do a uh car count or put a rubber hose across the ho uh road and count the cars that
are actually going through that area uh at the present time? No, I did not. I I rely on the traffic uh on the analysis that's provided in the traffic study and the counts that are provided by Semino County. So So you assume Seminal County
has been out there counting cars? They do every year. Okay. Um I take that back. No, they did not do it last year um because we don't have updated counts for them for 2024.
Okay. that that would be a concern. Uh there's more people moving here every day and they're seems like they're all coming down 419 in the morning. That's correct. So did that sir? You did? Yes, sir. You did actual counts. Yes. Okay. Yep. They did include their raw counts in the appendix of their traffic study.
So when we take a look at the projected counts for their buildout year, we look uh if they for the roadway segments, even if uh Seminal County has older counts such as 2023, uh we make sure that they apply the the historic growth
rate um appropriately to the 2023 to whatever their buildout year is. Okay. So th this is where I don't know if it's for you or for Bobby, but how how much capacity is in that on Lockwood Boulevard before we're going to have to
widen it? Do you have a guess? Um rough guess. A two-lane road has a daily capacity of 10,000 vehicles. Okay. What what's it doing now? You know, uh north of 419, I don't know. Um it the
volume drops down significantly from compared with south of 419. South of 419 you're hitting last count I remember is about mid30s but that yes but that is a wider section. Okay. Yeah. That's a four
lane section. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And I guess I got a question for you, Teresa, because I I cannot figure out how you negotiated this this size of a
project in that smaller space. Can you tell us what the negotiation projects for the development agreement process is? Um well uh they proposed um the development right the the the site they
have a number of units that they you know plan to have and um we analyze based so so that residents understand as well what we do is we analyze impact right so we analyze impact and
character so when we um compare what is being proposed to what is by right is because we're analyzing impact what could come. It's not fear. We are not trying to sell the project. We are not salesperson right
the planning department. We are just trying to say what is the impact and give the the due process to the developer and to council. So in our comp plan they are changing the future language map. So the map is not
consistent. I always made that clear. But the policies in the comp plan that we have approved in 2022 is that new development the qualities of the new developments that we have are they they comply with several of those
requirements. So 55 and plus so when they propose 55 and plus that is a positive aspect for the planning population is aging and we do not have that project in the city right. So we want people the
residents to be able to age in place right to be able to age in the city. So that is a positive to the project. A mixeduse project is also a pro a positive. We want new development to bring uh mixed use. We cannot and I I
live in a single um uh um detached family uh home. Uh we cannot continue to develop like that. We are consuming more and more land. We have to go mixuse and we have to go vertical for new development. That's the future. And it's
not me saying it's the whole world saying that is that's the way to be sustainable. I understand that and we're we're constrained by the rural boundary and we we can't move we cannot move further. So we have to um um develop in an efficient way in a smart way. So
these are the the the qualities that we when a developer comes to us we are analyzing what are the positives and so going vertical that is also the future not only yeah but four stories is
vertical too isn't it? Uh yes instead of one or two stories and four stories would be wouldn't require a deviation would it? Well, the DA has to be changed anyway because it does not comply with the
residential use. It's commercial today. So, they would have to bring um an amendment to the DA anyway. The the project that they were proposed was not proposed was not for um um stories. We did not have that, you know, judgment to
say no, we have want less. We want the development to bring more open space. So, this is if I have to choose, I'd rather have more open space than less um height. Also, this building is kind of set back and it's 500 ft from the town
home community. So, it's not adjacent to, you know, you don't have a 50 ft, you know, setback to another property, right? there is buffer in the River Oaks um um town home itself and they also
have buffer. So that provides a buffer that in in the judgment of staff it was fine. It was not an issue. We we are listening to the community today. They they don't agree with that. You know, if this was out by the mall, I probably wouldn't wouldn't have an issue with it.
But I don't see anything that that tall anywhere near that place. And you're right. I mean that's the first one that we would have that is five stories. So that's that's that's that's a fact. But this is coming right with the other in
other areas for sure. Okay. All right. Well council member may answer one of your previous questions. Sure. I appreciate the project team for jumping on this. I noted to you that we arrived to the 70 maximum due to that efficient growth pattern. We did talk to our folks
and we would be agreeable to a max of 60 consistent with it's allowed for commercial. We would do the maximum to 60 as a condition to your vote of approval to make sure that the development plan gets changed. Okay. Thank you. And that that would still be a five-story building
potentially. They're going to have to figure that out in final engineering, but the maximum would be reduced to 60. Okay. So, we got a little bit out of you. Okay. I think that's all I have. Sorry, Council Member Broader. Yes. So, a lot
of the questions have been answered. Um, I know the bald eagle, we he talked about that one. I'm assuming there's probably gopher turtises out there. I don't know what the rule is on those. What What is it? Do you know? I mean, if they find one out there, what do they got to do? Uh, Council, we we have our
environmental consultant here tonight. That's convenient. And, uh, so I think I think he could he can address your questions. Uh good evening. Good evening, mayor. Um deputy mayor, council, uh David Min, Resource Environmental Solutions, um in uh 34
East Pine Street, Orlando, Florida, 32801. Um so basically, you all have brought up a couple of different issues. I'll I'll address the um the uh bald eagle questions first. So, um, the bald eagle is no longer, um, listed under the
Endangered Species Act, but as um, Miss Blankenship, someone from the public mentioned earlier that they are protected under the bald and golden eagle protection act as well as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Um under those laws, the rules are um
enacted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to provide for permitting and oversight and the regulatory review of that species. So in this particular case, what they've established under those rules is a 660
ft uh buffer as well as a 330 foot primary buffer. Now, um, basically what that means is that a a development, as the applicant mentioned, that they would be obligated to, um, abiding by those buffers at
certain times of the year. Uh in this particular case, what we're lacking from from this record is that there's there's been some observations of eagles in the area, but there is no specific nest
that's been identified yet. So, the nesting season for bald eagles is basically from October 1st through the end of May. I think it was May 15th. I think they extended it to the end of this month. So basically, it would be in
their best interest to conduct surveys during that period of time. They can conduct surveys now and find existing nests that may or may not be in use, but those nests, if they were to find one, would still be regulated. um they would have to have a permit from US fish to
monitor that nest during construction and during certain types of construction can occur um at certain points um based on those buffers. So the um so in in addition to the to the surveys that
could be conducted now, it would be in their best interest to also conduct surveys during the nesting season to ensure that if they were to find a nest, whether or not it's being used and if they didn't find a nest, if the eagles
in the area are conducting nest building activities during the nesting season, eagles have multiple nests. They don't always go to one nest. Nests get blown over by hurricanes. They build new nests and so forth. So, um, hopefully that
answers your questions. Um, so let me ask you this then. If you see an eagle, I mean, how far away can a nest be? It could be several miles. Could it be 300 yards? You'd have to ask the eagle. I would like that. I would like that.
Yeah. Yeah. and they don't read the rules either. So you know so but but certainly you know because they are a success story in terms of their protection and that they've flourished that they have become very accustomed to
development and um I've worked on a number of projects where um you know they're they're right there near a lot of activity and they're unaffected. But the more you get into certain areas
where you know it's more rural then they could become more impacted potentially impacted by by disturbances. Um the um there was one other thing I wanted to
mention, but anyway, um so if you had a question about gopher tortois again, yeah, if they find if they find them out there, um I I know like you go out in the snow hill and the trails out there. I mean, they're prevalent out there. Um I'm assuming they're probably through
through that area. in in my reviews of you know uh various developments that's kind of a boilerplate condition that we impose you know for um final engineering that tortoises are so ubiquitous you just never know where you're going to
find them. We always say you know um do a tortoise survey 90 days before you know you decide to break ground and follow the rules. Yeah. What are the rules of like they relocate them or what? Yeah. Yeah. So, they would have to get a permit from, you know, from
Florida Fish and Wildlife who regulates those and they would relocate them to a recipient site that's approved by them. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. I appreciate you coming. My pleasure. Um, so I had a question on the traffic.
I didn't know about this. So, several residents came up and were saying that the access out of the Walgreens to go straight across to the Publix that you would not be able to cross over. I didn't see anything about that. It is Is that a particular Is that going to get
blocked off? No, it it would remain open. It would remain open to Yeah, that's that's what I was confused about. And then I know there was a discussion about a crosswalk. Where would the crosswalk be? At the the north entrance to the community. There we have a slide on that. It might be helpful to to pull
up. Um, and Maline, it might be on on my presentation as well. Maybe easier to find. I know it's like there was one there. Okay. Showing a diagram on page 21. Yeah. So, I didn't see the crosswalk
across. Saw a different one. Where was it? I'll bring up the project engineers. He's been close to this. Josh Enaut 200 South Horns Avenue, Kimley Horn. So that was one of the changes that we made after the um the
last LPA and city council was adding this crosswalk. So it doesn't appear on these slides, but it is on the north side of that of the entrance. So we we had to move it as north as possible in order to have this line of sight coming
around that turn. So in order for the safety of those people, that crosswalk would be there. It would be a push button signalized similar to how the crosswalk across from the trail further down the wood looks. Can you point at
the screen exactly where you're talking about just so everybody in the It's north shows. So if you're looking at the screen here, he's got a pointer right behind you. Uh there we are. So it would be like right up here and then this driveway
that's currently here that is the existing lift station driveway and our driveway would be going right right there. So here's where our driveway would be and then the crosswalk would be right on the other side of that. Okay. And you said you're actually going to
have a signal there that or it it wouldn't be like a a signal stoplight, but it would be very similar to the pedestrian crossing on Lockwood across from the trail. Uh if you're as you're going to the church and then also it'd
be it'd be very similar to um if you're more familiar with the downtown area, the crossing for the where the trail is kind of the rapid flashers. Yes. You guys would be doing like a rapid flasher. So it would grab somebody's attention. Correct. Yep.
Okay. All right. Thanks. I guess one other question too in the in an age restricted community. Um do you envision that there's going to be a lot of golf carts? We we don't we
have a a similar asset class. We actually restrict them um just because there's not storage, there's not parking, there's not charging. Yeah. Um, and I I had just written this down, so I wanted to share the information that the the average age of a resident in our
other similar situation probably 71. I just thought it'd be helpful information. Yeah. No, I think I asked you guys that the last time what was the average age? I think that's right. You know, so I'm assuming. So the one of the other questions was I know in the developers agreement
you guys said that both residents have to be 55 plus. Mhm. Would there be anything that would make have you guys changed that to say no? It it would be a requirement of of our lease. Uh we also want to make clear
it's a requirement to the greatest extent available by law and the statutes 55 plus. That's the market. That's what we're seeking. That's have a successful project with with folks you know quite older than that. That's that's what we want. 55 plus for all residents. And
where are the other projects that you guys have that are similar to this? Sure. The newest would be AOE Akoi. Akoi right outside. Okay. That's right. All right. So, it's a very similar project. It's age restricted. Similar to the concept
renderings you were shown today. Yep. Yeah. And mixuse on the bottom. What's the type of mixuse you in they have or you envision would come into this? Yeah. So, I know a restaurant like with anything market decisions, we wanted to serve the residents. So, we've seen
things like um uh fitness classes, gym, lifestyle type uh uses that are very uh easily compatible with with the residential component. That's the what the market drives. Okay. And those seem
to be those types of uses, you know, like a smoothie shop next to like a cycling, you know, that type of thing. Okay. So, would you have a smoothies up or was that considered? Well, I was going toward more of the uses and I I you know, the mayor had brought up the the restaurant use as well. Um, we were the
only reason we looked at that is because we we thought that'd be a big producer of of traffic and so we wanted to address that issue. We've heard it a lot. So, that's that's why you see that in front of you. Okay. Yeah. All right. I had a question I missed on him while you're up there. Are you going to
provide a shuttle service at all? I don't believe we have the need for a shuttle service and the AOE one doesn't have one either. Okay. Sorry. So, how many how many mixed use businesses could go in this particular
area? So it's about 6,200 square ft which could be equate to depending on the the user one to is it safe to say three depending on suites potentially four if they're those types of one to one to four. So yeah not not a lot.
That's right. The appropriate suite size. Okay. All right. Um we talked about the fire truck already. I know somebody brought up about mass transit and bus routes, but I don't think and I appreciate I don't
think I have any more questions for it, but Okay, thank you for your time. Unless you know about bus routes and then I don't apparently I got to go find an eagle and talk to an eagle right now too. But but I don't think we have very very little mass transit in the in the town.
Right. I think there's one that comes up Boulevard and down Mitchell Hammock a little bit. Uh uh council member, we we have one bus route in it's the 434 route. It uh uses utilizes Machic Road and Sterile 434. It
heads up to uh to Longwood, heads up toward Longwood. So, we wouldn't envision these people riding buses or mass transit because there is uh the only way they would be able to do it would be able to engage the flex service and the flex service would pick them up at their at their residence and then take them they can take them anywhere in
the flex area. Uh it's one of the things that the countyy's working on right now. They're working on a microtransit project that they haven't got it finalized yet, but once again it would be more of a door-to-door service that would be provided uh rather than a fixed route. they can get you to the fixed
route, but uh the what the county is looking at as far as their microtransit would be more of a door-to-door service in a small vehicle. So, okay. All right. And I did have one more question for you if you don't mind. So, going back to your example to one in a COE and we're
saying that the average age is 71 and I'm assuming the average is two two people per per unit depending on the unit, but we see a lot of twos. Yep. a lot of twos. How how many cars? I mean, is it two cars? I mean, are they one
down to one car at this point? Yeah. So, we there's independent kind of market studies that look to what we would want to affectuate in terms of parking capacity and it's usually much lower than actually required um by a given
jurisdiction. Uh but in this case uh those they're sufficient above and beyond what our market studies show which is less than two. That's what because you had less parking than the actual if you were going to do two two parking spots for every every vehicle.
So all right that's what I was kind of figuring it. It's less less cars and two per unit. Yeah. when you spread it out across the project and then it it also lends itself to, you know, additional open space, less impervious. Okay. All
right. Great. Thank you. Thank you. That's all my questions. All right. I guess I'm up. I would say like 90% or almost all of the questions are answered. I'm just going down my list here. Um, we hit bald eagles. We got fire
trucks. I guess my big thing here is when I'm making decisions on these things, I mean, we've talked comp plan for the past several years, and I think the mayor laid it out pretty well here. We do have the right to say no here. Um, the real wrench in here is live local, and we shouldn't shy away from that,
which is also when you brought up to 60 ft. I don't want to give more than live local has. So, I I would not approve more than 60 feet. So, I'm glad you guys are willing to limit the height there. And that does address some of the things said. Um, as far as pros, cons here, I really like that this is 55 and up. We
don't have that anywhere in our city. I know we've approved it at the mall and then it got changed and that still hasn't been built. So, we have not had that. Um, I know we have residents out against this here. I've also talked to several residents for this. Um, I it's
it's been both sides. Um, there's good and bad here. So, as far as and I I want to be corrected if I'm wrong here because I did watch our LPA meetings extensively. The there were quite a few changes made from residents coming out to speak up that I'm really thankful
for. So, we have a lot more open space than what you guys started with on the initial project. Um the crosswalk edition, I'm glad we went over that because I was not shown up here tonight. And we had some people come out tonight saying they're worried about safety. Uh and I do have someone saying uh senior citizens are not great at
driving. We can't control that. Um, but I do want to say as far as Lockwood, we all know Lockwood in that area is a traffic issue that we need to work on and there's no easy solution. So, I did sit down with staff and look at our mobility plan and I think it was project
121 on there. I think it was $25 million to get some good circulation in there, which we do not have. So, traffic does concern me, but that is there right now. As far as the entrance being where it is, I'm glad it's there and not on 419.
Um, so I mean, I'm really looking at this. Are are we deciding, as the mayor said, put this in mixed use or put it I hate calling it affordable housing. The the live local says it's affordable housing. It is definitely not affordable housing. It is luxury housing at a tax
discount. Um, if it was affordable housing, actual affordable housing, I would go that route. Um, but 55 and up mixed use does seem like the better use there. So, my main last concern I have here, and I don't know if staff can
answer this, is on the map on Evening Sky Drive, which is the units over. Did that flood during Hurricane Ian, I guess, is my question. Yes. I'm sorry you guys would be quiet.
We have asked staff here. So, if we're looking at the houses right above the development up there and I if you could say whether water went into the houses or whether it just came up and then drained because that is a different thing correct than going
into the houses. I'm not familiar with any units that actually flooded like got inside the interior of a unit in this area of town. I know Twin Rivers um up on I know the econ nothing I'm familiar with here but not on that side of and as far as
drainage I do understand requirements are we meeting the requirements or exceeding them is there more capacity than necessary or I don't know if the client can speak to that. Yeah I'm going to call up my engineer again to speak to that because we had talked about this uh
at the first reading too um after the fact and We're mindful of the flooding. It came up in the community meeting. We we talked about that given the requirements and and a lot of those standards have actually become more stringent. I believe that became effective this month. Uh they're actually looking to
improve those flooding issues because the requirements are such that we have to retain that water so to prevent that future flooding. And the topo and I heard this being brought up does ultimately drain uh to the river as as well. But I I'll let the engineer speak
to that a little more specifically. Yeah, I know earlier today we've talked about us having to be better pre-post as far as flow rates. One of the other requirements that we have to meet is treating for phosphorus and nitrogen, which actually causes you to hold back a
lot more water than what would be there previously. Uh there's new laws going into effect statewide that we have to that we have to meet. And so overall, this would be a net benefit because right now there's nothing to slow down the water. As it rains, it goes right
through um the topo has this flow right right towards the the south. So did you just put too the topo? Oh, okay. The the topography of land. Sorry. Glad you clarified that. Thank you. Yeah, it
flows right to the to the east, southeast. Okay. So, looking at this map though, as far as if we had overflow, it wouldn't flow north towards that street anyways if the river came out that way the way the topography is. Correct. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah.
So, our our our pond would direct it towards the towards the Econ. So, it would flow parallel. If we were to have another EN and let's say they flooded or did not, is this exacerbating that? If we are directing this directly east and
not that direction. No, it would not exacerbate that. Okay. Thank you. So I guess where I stand I don't know if the amendment if the 60 foot height is on this motion or not, but I hope you will. I am not perhaps add that Mr. Cob said
that's the next one. So that's not this one. Okay. Okay. Uh did anybody have any further questions at this time? No. Okay. Then I will ask the clerk to call a role. Council member Aught. Nay. Mayor Slick. Only because the state has preempted our
comp plan and made it impossible for us to allow commercial. I Deputy Mayor Tukurt. I. Council member Britain. Nay. Council member Bford. I.
Okay. The motion carries. Um, we did already have discussion, but we will move on to ordinance number 1755. Uh, let's see. Make sure I do this right. Mr. Hall, can you read this by title only? Absolutely. Ordinance number 1755, an ordinance of City of Odo,
Florida, amending the zoning map for approximately 9.62 acres of land generally located on the southeast side of Lockwood Boulevard on the east side of County Road 419. from planned unit development PUD to planned unit
development PUD providing for legislative intent implementing administrative actions a savings provision scrier's errors conflicts and severability and providing for an effective date thank you Mr. Hall Mr. is there anything
did we Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Uh the the staff did their presentation during the uh as they presented both ordinances uh in their presentation. And really what this this ordinance does is that it changes the land development regulations
for this property from the River Oaks Reserve plan unit development to the Arya plan unit development is what it does. And then it lays out the different different minimum and maximum land development regulations for the property. And uh staff's recommendation
is to conduct public hearing and adopt ordinance number 1755. Thank you, Mr. Cobb. Uh what is the pleasure of councel? You might want to ask the applicant if they have any additional comments. Sure. If you have any further comments. You my
time. I'm happy to answer questions if there is any relating to the PUB. Okay. Thank you. and and this is a public hearing so you don't need to open it up. Yes. Okay. So, uh we already read all the written requests on the previous one. Is there anybody wishing to speak at this time
and I will close public comment and what is the pleasure of councel? I move we adopt ordinance 1755 but we limit to 60 ft in height and potentially allow a restaurant. So, there's a benefit to the
people who live near there. We have a motion. Is there a second? Just can't be me. So, I'll second. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Uh, any discussion? Mayor Slater. I do not love that anything is going here, but I
think having less apartments is better than more apartments and that the most likely outcome if this had been denied the comp plan change is that somebody would have turned around and built more than 172 apartments. I really think so. If somebody's willing to build 172,
they're absolutely willing to build 205, which is half what is allowed under state level law. So it that was a hard vote for me. But since it is it is now allowable to have this sort of a thing, we do need to
negotiate the developers agreement. And how do we do that in a way that is is as beneficial for the people who already live here as possible. And I think allowing restaurants to go there is a good way. There's mention of a of a smoothie shop. That sounds pretty good.
Uh it sounds better than an accountant. I I shouldn't say I love accountants. The accounts are wonderful, too. But, you know, it's it's something that you could that could enhance your life more than a couple of times a year,
perhaps. So, if if council is open to deleting that, I know it would impact traffic. Um, but the overwhelming consensus is that we would prefer commercial that is useful to the people who already live here. And I would like
to let the market drive it more than us limiting it for no purpose other than limiting traffic. So what what would that how would that shift it? So when we went through the uh review process for the traffic study um one of my comments
was whether or not this was going to be a restaurant use because the trip generation that they used was for general retail. restaurants have a significantly higher trip generation. So, I wanted to make sure that the impacts that they identified in the
traffic study would accommodate that and actually suggested that maybe we uh the applicant changed the the retail use to restaurant to um to show what the uh higher impacts would would result in. Uh
I we were uh told that there this was not going to be a restaurant use and therefore they were going to stick to the the lower general retail use. So uh it was uh under my suggestion to staff
to include that condition that the restaurant use would not be permitted unless they went back to um conduct a updated traffic study. So, is this something we could I guess this is a legal question. Could we punt on this and decide this one later after
we have additional information on traffic impacts? Uh, well, we have an application now and application it does not include restaurant. So, I don't think we can force them to do it. And I was going to say they're not asking for restaurant and I'm not in favor either. Yeah, I'm
not favor of restaurant. Okay. So, well I just one very small detail. Uh, another reason we had kind of arrived at that um, and is the parking uh, and trying to keep more open space. Just that use requires some more parking. Okay. So, you don't even want it as an
option. Whatever the pleasure of the council is, we can look at that. But I just wanted to give you the picture because I know that's an important component of what's been presented from you and I want to be consistent. Open space and parking. All right. Thank you.
So, it sounds like the motion ought to be 60 feet and that there's not perhaps consensus for deleting the the provision about the restaurant. Are you amending your motion to do that? Uh, I I'll wait to amend my motion to
see if if anybody else wants to consider it. Do you have further questions? No. No, I'm good. No, I mean we we talked a lot about in the last one and um though I am not in favor of of a restaurant here. Again, I
think the the logic you guys explained, I mean the parking and then also traffic um I I think are good good reasons. You know, again, we heard traffic being one of major issues. So, yeah, I'm again I'm not in favor of restaurant. Council member, um so something occurred to me
as soon as the last vote was over. So we just changed the comp plan right the future land use which means that now uh wi with mixed use this can be built or this can be built by right right because
we have just changed like like that zoning change is now by right is that is that not true no so you changed the comprehensive plan right the future land use map now the pug the pug
that exists today is not consistent because it's it's commercial and it's doesn't give the you know the residential doesn't give the height. So um the PUD has to be amended too. So the
PUD has to be amended also. Yes. But if there were a situation where um this PUB were approved and then it were not built, the land were sold. Right now the future land use is mixed use mixed use.
And then the next person could come and say I want to build mixed use here and they would now have right to build that mixed use. They would have to again because the zoning is the is the they would have to
amend the zoning. Either they would follow this DA or they would have to amend the DA again. So they would have to amend the zoning but they would be able to amend the zoning because they because it's consistent with the future land use, right? And and and that's where we
wouldn't be able to stop that in the future. It's quite a judicial. Yes. But the zoning is the DA. So the DA is the zoning. So if they don't like what the DA what the developers agreement says, then to to change the developers agreement counts as changing the zoning.
They would have to come again and and go through this process for public hearing. But we would be required to allow them because the future land use map has been changed today. No, no, no. Because a DA is always negotiated, right? We have to
make sure that it's compliant with the comp plan, right? the whatever they are proposing, but it's always negotiated. You just change the 75 to 60 or 7 feet to to 60, right? This is negotiation. But because of what was just done, there's no way that the council could
say, "No, you got to go back to commercial because you didn't build here." Well, it's it's going to be mixed use. It's going to be mixed use, right? But there there's no way that we could say that because it's commercial right now.
Right. It cannot be entirely commercial in the future with a mixeduse future land use. It will have to be a combination of two two uses. And so then I'm wondering why did we just change the comp plan when we could change the um
the zoning, right, without changing the comp plan. And then that makes it so that the zoning has changed for this project, but if this project doesn't work out, we haven't changed it for a future. We could we could not allow this project
without changing the comp plan because of the density. Okay. They needed to have higher density than the 4, you know, zero dwelling units per acre. But that's true. However, it was not already like
that, right? Already it's C1 with LDR as are all of those commercial properties, right? Yes. But commercial doesn't have a density, right? So they couldn't they could not build apartments and if they wanted to build residential they would
have per the comp plan they would could adjust the the the um DA but they would have to comply with the entitlements of the comp plan for LDR. Okay. And that they would never be able to build the apartment. So, so what you're saying is that the mechanism which allows the
commercial properties right there to be commercially PUB zoned right how but have the LDR future land use does not apply to something that is mixed use that same disparity cannot exist for
something that's mixed use because the mixed use has higher density than the commercial is that what you're saying I don't know if I followed you but so the commercial component is still there in the mixed use right but the mixed use future land use has
percentages so right now the whole UD is mixed use but this parcel was entirely commercial now they want to bring a mixeduse component residential and and and uh um mixuse and I think no no um um
single use can be more than 90% or 10% not less than 10% so you have to have a mix of two uses is you can still have commercial you would have to amend the DA because the DA that we are negotiating now is for this project so if they come with a different so if this
project doesn't move forward let's say you were asking the question if another pro applicant comes can they do commercial they would have to do a mixeduse they could still do commercial okay so but we needed to change the the
future land use so we we've granted that right now whether this project is built or not. We granted the mixeduse future land use designation on that project in the first in the first ordinance. Yes. Is there a way to tie that to this project being completed? No, there's no
conditional. No. Yeah. So, it's done forever then essentially. What is done forever? The the the the upgrading in future land use that that part allowing allowing more units per acre. No, no. allowing um allowing mixed
use there versus only a single use LDR. Yes. Right. Yeah. That part's okay. Yeah. All right. Well, uh if if that's the way it is, then that's all I've got. I already asked you guys. Yeah, I'm catching up here. Sorry. Uh I guess the
motion on the table is still with a restaurant, which I'm not in favor. So, I don't know if you want to adjust that or not before we go to a vote, but I'll Okay. So we don't does the second Do we have a seconder? I guess we had somebody Yes. Council member I'd be agreeable to
take it off. Well, I'd like it on. We really don't Let All right. We'll just vote on Okay, let's let's vote on it. If we vote against it, are we able to revote it? Yeah, we do another motion. Okay. Uh I will call the role or I guess the clerk will call the role.
Mayor Slater, I council member Britain. Nay. Deputy Mayor Tukurt. Nay. Council member Bodford. Nay. Council member Aught. Nay. All right. Well, I guess I'll make the motion for just the 60 ft and we'll
leave it with no restaurant. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Any further discussion? Yeah. I'm sorry. All right. Council member Rock. uh on
the on the live local. Um I looked at that and it it just doesn't seem like that the affordable housing and uh something going in under under Live Local if somebody were to
invoke that, right? It just doesn't seem like that is more dense practically or worse so to speak um than than what's being proposed here. I mean so council member that was our previous ordinance. So do you have any questions pertaining
to the current ordinance right now because we already went through that. Oh no. Well so I thought that was so we're approving the uh I'm sorry the the developers develop agreement. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um I believe that's pertinent to this. Is it
as long as it is? Is it okay? It's up to you. Okay. Sometimes I'm confused, but uh yeah, it just it doesn't seem like that the what's under the live local is necessarily um all that more dense um based on, you
know, uh like Dr. Ka said, you'd have to go to structured parking, right? So, we're talking about having to build a parking garage, and those things just don't seem economically feasible. It seems like kind of the, you
know, worst case, so to speak, if we were to deny this would be to get something very similar and then there's the possibility that we might get something commercial with it. So, um, yeah, that that's kind
of where I I fell on on the mixed piece or on the, uh, live low. Sorry. I will call ask the clerk to call a role. [Music] Mayor Slick, I, Council Member Bford, I, Deputy Mayor Tukurt, I, Council Member
Britain, I, Council Member A, nay. Motion carries and I'm going to ask that we take a fivem minute recess. Thank you for your time. Thank you. We will be back at 9:18. Good luck to you. you leaving? Chief said here he'd be
doing this. I'm going to shoot you. All right, round two. We really thinned out, didn't we? Item number nine, ordinance number 1756, amendments to the land development code, article 14 signs. So,
Mr. Cob. Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. Actually, did I skip Mr. Hall? Actually, yeah, Mr. Hall should read it into the record first. I can do that. Thank you. Ordinance number 1756, an ordinance of city of Oido, Florida, amending the land development code of the city of Oido. Specifically,
artic article 14 signs section 14.10 temporary signs. implementing administrative actions providing for savings providing for conflicts severability codification as well as a correction of script errors and an effective date. Thank you Mr. Cob. Uh
thank you mayor. Uh Dr. Korea is going to provide staff presentation. So well good evening again. So this is the um the same presentation I we had before. Um, if there's nothing new,
there is nothing new. Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to see this presentation redone? Alexis just wrote she wants to see it. Then I think we're all in favor of not doing that. Thank you. Okay. Now, this is a public hearing and I do have a
written request to speak. Uh, so I will call up David Williamson. Thank you. He's sorry to believe the evening, but um I didn't study like I should have before the meeting and probably would have emailed you all and worked this out, but I have no objection to the uh David Williamson. My address
is in the record that I filed. I have no objection to the proposed ordinance, but I wanted to offer an opportunity to clarify something in two places in the proposed ordinance as a hopefully an effort to help out. Um, I assume with this ordinance that you do not seek to limit the size of free speech and campaign signs uh and banners which are
hand carried, but you do mention uh placed signs and carried signs together in section two, paragraph B number two. Again, that's section two, paragraph B, number two on page three. And then section two, paragraph D. It kind of in
parallel the way the writing works. Um, number one and that's on page four. And again, those are noted together in these two places. So when you get down to the size and setback standards, it could be read such that you intended to regulate signs that are carried. Uh, and I trust that your team can come up with the best
way to not do that or make that clarification unless that's what you intend to do. I don't know that you want to or can, but you might add into section 2 paragraph B and then the other place that the standards that follow do not apply to carried signs. So that was it. Thank you.
Is there anybody else wishing to address council at this time? I will close public comment. What is the pleasure of council? I move we adopt ordinance number 1756 and add in a line where appropriate that the
regulations do not apply to signs that are being carried. I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Mayor Slick. That is a good catch. I'm very glad that you brought that to our attention, Council Member Bradford. No, I agree.
Appreciate that being called out. Good. Nothing. Okay, then I will uh I also like that addition. Good catch. So, I'll ask the clerk to call a role. Mayor Slick, I. Council member Bterford, I. Deputy Mayor Dickert, I. Council member
Britain, I. Council member Aut I. Motion carries. Moving on to ordinance number 1757. Uh Mr. Hall, can you read this by title only? Yes, that mayor. Ordinance 1757, an ordinance of the city of Ovido, Florida, amending the code of ordinance
of the city of city of Ovido, Florida. Specifically, section 30-3 political campaign signs, advertisements prohibited on city-owned property, immediate implement administrative action providing for savings, providing for conflicts, severability,
codification as well as correction of scripturous errors, and an effective date. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Mr. Cobb, actually, Deputy Mayor, I have the same I have the same presentation that I presented at the last meeting as well. Do you wish me to get through it? I will once again ask if anybody would like us
to redo this presentation. I think we're good. Then the recommendation is to conduct a public hearing and adopt ordinance number 1757. I do have one written request to speak. Mr. David Williamson. [Music] Again, apologies, David Williamson.
Address is on the form I filled out. No objection here, but I have experience with campaigns in the city, so I wanted to offer some um some experience. On page two, uh, section two, paragraph A, number four, you indicate that the sign owner will either erect or remove the
signs, but I really think you want them to do both. Um, maybe that's obvious. Um, in paragraph C in the same section two, the pro prohibition against using the rightway on the opposite side of the street means that a long-standing tradition of yelling and screaming from
across from the library and probably the cultural center will both be limited to handcarried signs. So, just a behavioral change that will result from this. Just wanted to make sure that was the plan. Um, and then in section two on this um on page three in paragraph uh D,
presumably using the word located, you not you do not mean signs that are hand carried throughout the word placed exists. You might just use the word placed there instead of located just for clarity unless I'm misunderstanding your intentions. And finally, and more substantially, the Florida election law
in Florida statute 102.031 031 section 4 paragraph D and E prohibit respectively both the supervisor of elections uh election workers and public and private property owners from enforcing no solicitation rules outside
150 ft zone. I know that our former supervisor and probably supervisors before that have enforced no signage agreements with site owners. Um this is a sticking point for campaigns and parties. Um we don't know that that will continue with uh our new supervisor. We don't know if the courts will weigh in on this. I know this the division of
elections has refused to but I suggest you avoid adding that to your ordinance to confuse readers that would be comparing various regulations. So again that's stat Florida statute 102.031 paragraph D which reads in part the supervisor may not restrict access
except as provided in paragraph A. Paragraph A refers to the 150 foot no solicitation zone going back to D where we were. This applies to any public or private property used as a polling place. So what they're saying is the supervisor and staff cannot do anything outside the 150 even though we do that
in seol. Um, additionally the next paragraph speaks to you as the property owner. Paragraph E reads in part, the owner of a property on which a polling place is located may not prohibit solicitation outside the note solicitation zone. So every time you tell somebody at the aquatic center to get off the property with their signs,
you're in violation of Florida election law by my read, but I'm no attorney. While you may want to remove signs outside the 150 foot no solicitation zone on your property, state law appears to prohibit it. So that's all I have and I hope those have been helpful.
Thank you. Uh what is the pleasure of councel? I move we adopt ordinance number 1757 for purposes of discussion. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Any discussion? Mayor Slicky. This is all fantastically interesting
information. Thank you, Mr. Williamson for bringing this bringing this to light. Um I I think it would be in our best interest to I probably should have suggested we we um rescheduled this for next meeting because that's a lot and it
sounds like our proposal is is in conflict with state law. So I I don't want us to to hastily move forward tonight if we uh have have some additional information that has not been presented to council until right now. So I I withdraw my motion
and instead move we re Yeah, we continue the motion. Uh I I move we continue ordinance number 1757 to uh May 19th. I concur.
Any further discussion from um any down here? Well, I do have one thing. Uh, I don't know if I got out consensus on this along the way, but I I did show an interest at one point in allowing signs to be on the opposite side as long as it was right ofway owned
by the city. So, the opposite side of the pole for the length of the pole. And I don't recall if that was something that nobody but me thought was a good idea. Doesn't matter. We're tableing it. Yeah, I'm in favor of that as well. I mean, uh, if we're going to bring it
back up, then then we should probably like at least decide on that right now and then we come up with, you know, we address that issue, we address the inconsistencies with state law, and then then it's back. So, I guess I will ask Council Member Brennan. I'm fine. Okay.
Fine. Okay. Okay. So, adding it to right away that applies to the other side of the road that lines up if owned by the city that lines up if it's owned by the city. If it's owned by the it was Yeah. So it would be right ofway. So it would be owned Oh, I guess maybe it wouldn't be owned by the city. I mean, that gets complicated. The property is owned by
the city, not the rightway, like the whole property. Yeah. Okay. Well, the Well, because like Oto Boulevard, is that owned by across the city or is it does the city only have an easement for the ride ofway? And that would apply also to the property at the library. Is would we then be attempting to give the
right? Well, I think if we're going to continue this, we Yeah, we could talk about that later, I guess. Okay. Um, I will ask this wouldn't impact the library. This doesn't impact the library because the library is not a city- owned property, but but next time it'll be too late to talk about it, right? Because it'll all be written up. Yeah. Well, you
can always make changes as long as the city attorney doesn't say it's a substantial change. You can make changes. Yeah. That's the only change I think we can discuss. Okay. And could I just I I'd like to seek some clarification um on some of this.
uh as part of the I'm looking at um the part about the political campaign sign which does not conform to provisions of any section uh may be removed by code enforcement officer is date designated by the city manager. Then we also have
in here or an election worker appointed by seminal county supervisor. So the idea is to eliminate the or an election worker appointed by the supervisor. Is that what we're looking at? Yeah. Well, who were you asking? I I just want I I'm
Well, can I can I put this up on the screen so that we can look at it? Yes. Okay. Meline, could you put it up on the screen for me, please? Thank you. Okay. This part here, this is all about the Let's scroll down.
This area here, this is just talking about when we can put the signs up, whether it's uh whether it's a primary, whether it's early voting, whether it's general election. Keep on going down with me. This right, stop right there. That's
the paragraph I'm looking at is that what I think what I heard was that you do not wish us to add in the last last part of that. [Music] I don't think it can be removed by a code enforcement officer either under
state law. I think that's the part that we need to reconcile whether anybody can remove it. Okay. Yeah. I think some research is what probably should happen. I mean I know I did not make a motion because I can't but as far as I'm seeing the continuence as addressing some of
these concerns that to make sure what we're putting in is cohesive with the law that's written. Right. That's why I'm asking cuz I want to make sure that I've got right direction here. So, but this parag that paragraph we need to
make sure that we're not violating state law. Mhm. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Let's um and this is is a great thing to have somebody who is not a candidate bring up because right you know all of us we just we're told these things and we believe
them and don't realize you know you don't want to go have a an encounter with a supervisor of elections or a pole worker the election I ask Mr. Williamson too to send over the sections to staff too as well so we can look at that. Thank you.
Uh, Madam, we could go down to a little bit further. Let's go down to C. So, then this one here, this is where we talk about um shall not be elect. This is where it says, you know, you won't put it in the rightway except that campaign signs of six square feet or less may be placed in
the public rideway directly adjacent and on the same side of the designated polling location. Uh, however, such signs shall be shall not block the line of sight. So on this one, are you looking to say on the same side and across cuz we're talking about in the
right of way? So uh so it would be not on private property. Okay. So it's in the public ride ofway and so it would be as mayor as you said within if we just took the property lines and extended them out across the ride ofway that it
would be on the same side as the polling place but also they would be allowed on the other side of in inside the right of way of where the polling place is. Is that what we're talking about?
Okay. It's already being done, right? You know, and that's one of the things about like if you think about a Vita Boulevard, anything that happens north, let's say between the gym and 419, this ordinance doesn't cover that because we're not talking about
city property. So, from there, yeah, if it's in the rideway, staff could remove it, you know. Okay. Uh let's see here. Not right away. Okay. So, even Maline, if we could go down to the next part, we need to make sure that this part here is
is uh we need to check that per state law, but it doesn't we're not obstructing people who can who are carrying. Okay. So, I think those are that's really that one looks okay to me. I think I want to check it just because it can be removed by a code enforcement
officer. Okay. Okay, I want to check that part and but the rest of it I think we're okay. Um then we go down to let's go down to E. There we go. And this was the one I think Mr. Williamson talked about that we as the property owner we could say
not in this area. Is is that right, Mr. Williamson? We probably cannot do that. Check that. We need to check that one for state law as well. I think that's all the questions I have. Okay. All right. I will ask the clerk to
call a role on continuing. Do we need to vote on continuing it? Yes, you. Yes, you need to vote. Okay. Mayor Slick I. Council member I. Deputy Mayor Tukurt. I. Council member Bterford. I. Council member Britain. I. The motion carries.
We are moving on to first reading of ordinances. Uh item number 11, ordinance number 1758, arisen to the city code of ordinances, section 3899. Let's see. Mr. Hall, can you read this by
title only? Uh okay, I have to find it. [Music] [Music] Yeah. Ordinance number 1758, an ordinance of the city of Levito, Florida, amending certain provisions of chapter 38 private waste collections by
waste collectors. Section 38. 90-99 rates subject to review providing for implementing administrative actions providing for a savings provision providing for conflicts providing for severability providing for cotification and scriveners error and providing for
an effective date. Thank you Mr. Hall. Uh Mr. Cob. Uh yes, thank you deputy mayor. Madam if you could just pull that ordinance up for me that'd be great. Uh we've discussed council if you remember uh you discussed this u about at your um
April 7th meeting. Uh if you could blow that up a little bit Meline. Anyway, the basic gist of this is is that we this is to address concerns expressed by some of our commercial waste haulers. And this uh 38.99 in our land in our code of
ordinances requires the provision of their rate sheets within their uh within the commercial uh um franchise agreements. And what this ordinance does, it eliminates that requirement. And so then it would not only would it eliminate it out of the uh code of ordinances, it also would take it out of
any u uh franchise agreements as well. So that's what this ordinance does. It just takes out that language from the code of ordinances. And so there would be no requirement for them to provide their rate sheets. Thank you, Mr. Cop. Do we have a motion to schedule a public hearing for May
19th, 2025? So moved. We have a second. Second. Any discussion? Um so on uh on this thing, I I know we're just scheduling the public hearing. Um and and I am in favor uh of
this. Um we were in a an ethics training the other week. uh Mr. Kazer and the mayor and um Mr. Rivera and uh one of the things that was mentioned was that um certain uh this kind of proprietary information uh is in the opinion of the
person giving the training excluded from public records act and I went and looked up found uh 119.0713 0713 and then it's uh four and then a and five uh underneath that which says information relating to the competitive interests the disclosure of which would impair the
competitive business of the provider of the information. That's the bullet point that says it's uh exempted from inspection or copying of public records. Um, and so while it's it's good that we can do this, um, it occurs to me that there may be other things since we
didn't seem to be aware of that, um, that that may also be affected by this where things um, can be kept uh, from disclosure. So, um, I would just, um, maybe something to to have a look at, um, with respect to state statute.
Council member Bradford, I'm good. Council member Britain. Good. All right. I will ask the clerk to call a role. Mayor Slick I. Council member A. I. Deputy Mayor Tuker. Hi. Council member Bterford. Hi. Council member Britain. I. Motion carries. Moving on to item number
12, resolution number 4597-25. Let's open this up. Mr. Cop. Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. This is a request for the council to uh approve a non-exclusive franchise agreement for the collection of commercial solid waste with coastal waste and recycling. Uh one of the
reasons that I asked that we move the u this agreement to this part of the agenda was so that we would get the ordinance scheduled for public hearing first. And uh so that this this agreement is consistent with the ordinance that you just scheduled for
public hearing. uh the it allows them to operate in the city and provide commercial waste waste management services. Uh I checked with Mr. Hall it is okay for us to go ahead and approve this agreement since council has scheduled the public hearing. So it's recommended that the uh city council
adopt resolution number 4597-25. Thank you Mr. C. What's the pleasure of council? I move we adopt resolution 4597-25. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second. Mayor Slick. No. Good. Council Bford, I'm just disappointed we didn't
do public comment. It says if they uh submitted a form and no one did. So, following protocol here. I do have a a question. Does does do these agreements prohibit uh waste haulers from parking uh overnight in
like say a parking lot? And the reason I asked that there is a truck and I think it may be one of these companies that parks uh behind the I think it's behind the Walgreens and Riley's uh very often and I've gotten complaints about it, but I'm
I didn't realize uh they didn't even have a contract with us yet. I don't believe they do. I I don't think I don't recollect a provision in the agreement that would prevent that. Okay. There may be a parked on a a city
rightaway because it's a it's not the rightway. It's part of the No, code enforcement looked into this already and it's it's private property. Okay. But they can still park on private property behind a a shopping center. I don't know of anything that would
prohibit. I don't I don't Mr. Cob, right? I don't remember seeing that in the agreement that we can dictate they can't park or whatever. We can take we can take a closer look at it and report back to you. You know, I would think they would somehow have a a yard they would park all their vehicles in at
night. Uh I think they typically would, but yeah, that's not not sure everybody follows the rules, but we'll glad to look into that for you. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Uh nothing. All right. Uh I will ask the clerk to call a role. Mayor Slick.
Hi. Council member Bford. Hi. Deputy Mayor Duker. Hi. Council member Britain. I. Council member. I. The motion carries. On to item number 13, resolution number 4598-25, new city attorney selection and approval. Mr. Cop. Hi. Thank you, Deputy
Mayor. This is a request to award RFP number 25-28 and approve the selection of the VO law firm as as the city's new city attorney. Uh the RFP was advertised in vendor link on March the 9th. We received seven proposals uh regard in
response to the RFP. On April the 7th, the attorney selection committee did select four of the firms for interview. These interviews were conducted on April 14th, 2025. And following the presentations and a question and answer periods, uh this committee recommended
that the uh city council select the Bose law firm for to be this new city attorney. Uh the agreement that is provided uh is an indefinite term but has a notice requirement of 180 days on both parties. Uh the new city attorney
will be compensated at a monthly rate of $20,000 per month. Uh there is a uh annual increase that is built into the contract that is either five the lesser of 5% or CPI urban uh an whatever the
CPI index or urban. Uh last week we uh learned that there was some confusion regarding uh section 10 of the agreement. Uh Mr. Bose did offer some new language that clarifies uh the um when the when Stenstöm will end their
service to the city when both will take over with the service to the city as well as the um transition period. The agreement that is said that is on the dis does have the new language in the section 10 that Mr. Mr. Bose did put
together for us. And so it's recommend what we would recommend is that the city council adopt resolution number 4598-25 but with substituting the the agreement that's on the dis with the uh that you would approve that agreement
rather than the one that was presented with the resolution. Mr. Bose is here. I would recommend that you give him the opportunity to make some remarks as well. Thank you, Mr. Cop. Mr. Vos, if you wanted to come on up. Floor is yours.
[Music] Mayor, deputy mayor, council members. Good evening. Wade Vos, managing partner of the Vos Law Firm. Don't want to take up too much of your time tonight. Thank you all very much for the opportunity. And uh as I mentioned to you when I first had the opportunity to speak with
each of you, we are very excited about this opportunity and I promise we will do an outstanding job for you as your city attorney. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Is there anybody in the public wishing to speak at this
time? Hearing none, I will close public comment. What is the pleasure of council? I move we adopt resolution 4598-25 U and a swap out for the June 1st start date. Second. There's a motion
and a second. Any discussion? Mor. Council member Rat. No. Council member Bford. No. Council member Britain. No. Okay. I will ask the clerk to call a role. Mayor Slick. I. Council member I. Hi I. Deputy Mayor Tukurt. Hi. Council member
Bodford. Hi. Council member Britain. I the motion carries. We do not have any discussion items. So, we will move on to the city manager's report. I have no report. Deputy mayor, the city attorney's report. Uh, Dep mayor, I do not have a report, but I do have a
comment. I owe Mayor Slick an apology which I will make. I incorrectly accused her of of inserting herself in the process of the revising the uh city attorney agreement. uh in subse conversation with Mr. uh Bose and Mr.
Cobb uh we got it straightened out and I realized I was wrong and u I was raised that when you're wrong you admit it and uh and own up to it and also that if you've wronged a person you seek them
out and you apologize. So mayor I I ask that you accept my apologies. I I was in the wrong and that's all I have. Thank you, Council Member Ro. Uh had a great time at the hundreds. Um thanks to everybody who uh who put that on and uh that's
about all I have. Thank you, Council Member Bodford. Yeah. Um I know we're getting late here, so I'll be quick, but I know there was a lady here that was asking about the the wild hogs u right behind Riverside. I know that the hogs also are in the back of Live Oak uh
doing the thing. My understanding, Mr. Cob is that the land owner is the one responsible for hiring a trapper. Is that right? Or that's what we'll do. Uh she mentioned Riverwoods Park. And so we'll we uh we work with a trapper and we'll have them go out and survey the
area and see uh as you know as well as any other park in the city, you know, if it's a city-owned property, then yes, we would work with the trapper to see if it one see if they're a nuisance and then you know, two I understand I understand the concern as far as from safety and everything. We also do have to deal with
them at the golf course quite regularly. I have seen I have seen their handiwork. Yes. So yeah, I'll I'll let Mr. Beldon know and then we can reach out and see if the see if we can see what see what the issue is. Okay, great. Thanks. So on that though, if it's not city own
property, the owner's response. Yeah, if it was private property, it would be up to the owner then. Okay. Yeah. Um great job on the hundth. Uh definitely to uh the parks and recck team and everybody that was out there. Um it was a great event. Looks like we had a great turnout that
that came out for that. Uh I did not was not able to attend the Bacon Bourbon Blues. I heard it was a good event, but I did hear there was a problem with the AC and and is it true that there was a work order put in for AC repair and then it went down and they did it that day
during the event? I have no I do not know. I wasn't at the event. Yeah, I wasn't there either. I think they got it turned down uh eventually. So, all right. And uh that's all I got. All right, Council Member Britain. Um going to skip reports this time. Okay.
And I'm up. I was going to ask about the hogs. So, no report tonight. Mayor Slated. No report. All right. Is there anything else for the good of the order? It is 9:49 and this meeting is adjourned. Oh, that was so sad.