It doesn't work. >> Who was responsible? You sure? >> Good evening. Welcome to the May 5th local planning agency. Um, it was now 6:30. Can we get a roll call, please? >> Yes. >> Present tonight, we have Daryl Lopez,
Dr. Arian Bryant, David De, Katherine Hunt, Bruce Kavanaaugh, and James Grievy. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> For the convenience of doing business appropriately, if we can all silence our cell phones, uh, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. >> Next item on the agenda is approval of
minutes. Is there a motion from the board? I can make a motion to approve uh the minutes. >> Bruce, is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Catherine, is there any discussion on the minutes from the May from the March
3rd meeting? >> No. Seeing no discussion, I'll call the vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed say nay. Next order of business is the public comment. This is an area where anyone can speak to the board that is not related to any agenda
item. Seeing none, I will close public comment. Moving on to public meeting. We have one public meeting at this time. It's deviation request for 376 E Broadway Street. Is the applicant present? Would you come up and state
your name and address for the record, please? Ed Clamp, uh, 376 East Broadway, Ovita, Florida. >> Okay. >> Um, we're here to, um, request a deviation for a sign. Um, we, uh, we,
Kirk, my Vansile, my business partner, and I, uh, purchased the OVO bowling center back in 2020 and unfortunately shortly had to close. So, we decided to do some remodels inside. Uh but when we did that, one of the intents was to uh replace the sign that was out front. Uh
the sign was the original sign was removed uh for easement uh so that whenever they did the im took over imminent domain when they widened uh over when they widened Rod Street. So um when that happened, we were left without a sign. So we decided to go ahead and
get a sign company to to make a a sign that that we thought would be, you know, kind of would look good, would look I think it looks neat. So, uh, that being said, uh, we're trying to figure out where to put the sign. Um, the issue is that the sign can only be the limit is 8
feet. And if you go out on the property after the road's been built, um, the street level is now 4 foot above where a sign could be on our property. Uh, hence the reason for the easement or the, uh, the deviation request rather. Um, so
we've we've tried we're we're kind of limited by um there's there's drainage easement there. There's also wetlands uh that's to our I believe it's to the south. Uh but where we're very limited on where that sign can be. So the unfortunately the sign has to go in an area that it would be 4 foot shorter uh
than normal which would make it tough to visit you know for visibility as you're driving by. So uh you know right now people aren't really sure if if we're a bowling center or a tire center honestly. So >> understood. >> We'd appreciate uh we appreciate your consideration.
>> Thank you very much. All right. Can we hear from staff, please? >> Yep. Thanks, Mr. Chair. So, this is a request for the local planning agency to approve the following. A 3.9 ft deviation to the maximum 8 foot freestanding height
requirement. Freestanding sign height requirement. This represents a 48% uh 48.7% deviation to permit the proposed freestanding sign to be developed to uh 11.9 ft in height. Uh, the property owner is Silverball Entertainment, Inc.
and the applicant who spoke, Mr. Ed Clamp. LDC section 2.4D1E states that the LPA shall review and act upon building permit applications, uh, including amendments that require a deviation greater than 20% of a minimum LDC
requirement. The requested freestanding sign height deviation represents a 48.7% deviation to the standards outlined in table 14.8.3 of the city's land development code. As such, the LPA shall have the final approval authority. Uh, the subject property is located at 376
East Broadway Street. The property's future land use designation is commercial. The zoning district is commercial C2. Uh, the proposed freestanding sign is proposed to be developed in front of the principal structure along East Broadway Street. The proposed 3.9 ft deviation will
permit the applicant to develop the freestanding sign to 11.9 ft in height. Uh the applicant submitted an applica uh a narrative uh for the requested deviation uh per uh criteria required in LDC section 2.7C. We've staff has
reviewed this uh deviation application and narrative and summarized the findings below uh the ex existence of special conditions. The subject property is situated below the elevation uh as Mr. Clamp mentioned of the adjacent rightaway which is East
Broadway Street. Uh there's a grade variance ranging from three to five feet at various points along that road. Uh thus a traditional 8- foot high freestanding sign would effectively sit much lower to the ground and not achieve its purpose as effectively. Uh
additionally, this uh subject property was subjected to an imminent domain process by the uh Florida Department of Transportation which resulted in a significant amount of land and their sign being taken uh from the front of the property. Uh this taking resulted in
a new front property line that is situated uh further from the existing pave portion of the rightway than before which also reduces uh visibility and proximity along East Broadway Street. The applicant also mentioned the drainage easements and the wetlands in the area as well. Uh which the sign is
not proposed in in any in any of that. Uh number two is compatibility. uh the freestanding signs face area, its setbacks, the landscaping requirements, uh they're all being met as far as everything else for the signs requirement. Um given the grading challenges with the site, the
freestanding signs height will remain and appear compatible with surrounding freestanding signs. Uh number three, proper use of mitigative techniques. Uh the applicant shall plant extra shrubs in addition to the required landscaped area to at the base of the freestanding
sign. uh shrubs were selected to avoid any landscaping that would uh block line of sight to the freestanding sign for protection of environmentally sensitive areas. Uh this deviation is not uh necessary to conserve or protect any uh environmentally sensitive areas of the property and uh those areas are not
anticipated to be impacted negatively by the project. Number five is the only the minimum deviation granted. uh the requested deviation it is the minimum necessary in order to develop the freestanding sign to a height at which it will function the same way as any other freestanding sign along East
Broadway Street uh which are not subjected to slope and grading challenges. Uh number six is open space and other facilities. Uh this deviation will not provide any more usable or suitable located open space but the uh applicant is still meeting all of their
open space requirements. Seven existing non-conforming uses of other property not basis for approval. There were no non-conforming situations on neighboring properties uh that were considered during this review. And nine eight is other information. Um you have a copy of
their written narrative. Uh staff recommends approval of this deviation development order uh which would grant the following deviation along with one condition. uh a 3.9 foot deviation to the maximum 8 foot freestanding sign. Maximum height requirement representing
a 48.7% deviation of freestanding sign. Maximum height requirements to permit the proposed freestanding sign to be developed to 11.9 ft. Uh the one condition is that the applicant shall plant those shrubs uh from a Florida friendly list around the base of the proposed freestanding sign. The LPA you
have the following options. You can approve this deviation as submitted. Approve the deviation as submitted with conditions. Approve a lesser deviation. Approve a lesser deviation with conditions or deny the deviation. And that concludes staff's presentation. >> Thank you, Mr. Puk.
>> What's the pleasure board at this time? Do you have any questions for anybody? >> No questions. >> No. >> Okay. >> So, what is the pleasure? Is there a motion?
Yes, >> I think we approved the motion with the conditions that the shrubs um are planted which is the concession, right? The recommendation of staff. >> I second that. >> You second. Uh I will clarify. Can you
get a little bit more detailed as to what we're >> so it's clearly stated in the record, please? >> Yes. All right. >> It's on the front page. >> I got you. >> On the bottom. >> This one right here, right? Yes, that's correct. >> I make a motion to approve the deviation
request for 376 East Broadway. Um the project 25156 um parcel ID number 1521313000150. How much more detailed? >> That's good. That's >> that's good. All right. >> You have a second. >> I'll still second that. Yeah.
>> All right. Perfect. Is there any discussion amongst us before we go call vote? >> No, please. I do like the style of the sign. >> I I would agree. Yeah, >> it's very nice. >> That was my first reaction as well. >> Yeah, it's added. Yeah. >> All right. See no other discussion. All
those in favor say I. I. >> All those opposed say nay. Motion passes. Good luck. >> We have no other public uh meeting items. Next thing we do have is a public hearing for ordinance number 1766, zoning map
amendment. Is the applicant present? If you'll state your name and address for the record, please. If you'll state your name and address for the record, please. Yeah, I think it's the mic.
>> Sorry about that. >> That's okay. Thought it was my hearing aids. >> I I >> Thank you. How's that? >> I'm much better. Perfect. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is Michael Grind Staff. I'm with the law firm of Shuts and Bowen,
300 South Orange Avenue, um, Orlando, Florida 32801. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Reformed Theological Seminary. RTS, we'll refer to him as RTS. Here with me tonight are representatives of of RTS, which include
Rob McAdams, the senior director of operations, Stuart Nielsen with McCree Construction, and Derek Walters, project engineer with M. Creek construction. We're here tonight seeking to amend the
PD that pertains to RTS. Specifically, I think the the um the items listed as amended PUD to PUD, but it's about amending the development agreement that pertains to the subject site. In a nutshell,
uh, on page three of your staff report, there's a very succinct summary of what the the request is, and I would read it for the sub for the audience as well. The subject property is currently entitled to 120 multifamily units on the
property. However, dormatory buildings are prohibited. The multif family dwelling units have not been developed on the lot on on the project to date. The purpose of the proposed zoning map amendment is to amend the Kingsbridge development agreement and the conceptual
plan for the subject property to allow the following land uses. One, 163 student housing beds on tracks F and H. Two, two detached single family
residential dwellings, one on tract F and one on tract H. That's for night watchman, security, etc. administration up to 40 and up to a 40 student housing bed dormatory/bunk
house on tract F. The proposed 163 student housing beds on track F and H, including the 40 40 student housing beds in the dormatory house on tract F are
not in addition to each other to the existing 12 multif family units within the adopted PD. Multif family can be one of two ways but not both. Okay. 120
dwelling units, existing entitlements within the Kingbridge development agreement, will remain. The 163 housing beds proposed, that's the proposed development, can be distributed up to, but not including or not more than 12
dwelling units. Let me try to further explain that that memo. The project is entitled to currently to 120 multifamily dwelling units. Think in terms of apartments, if you will. They
have also entitled to 750 students. They have a 7,000 square foot church. What was prohibited was a dormatory use, a place where more than you have a number of students at the same time. We
asked came in and asked to remove that prohibition and get a be allowed to construct a dormatory a bunk house as we call it because we have a number of students that come not to live there but they come to be there for three, four,
seven days at a time, not more than that, take courses, take specific courses and then leave. So it would be more like a a bunk house, a dormatory bunk house, but for short-term use as opposed to moving in there and living
there in in a multif family unit. So as we we discussed the situation with staff, it came to we had to amend the development agreement because the development agreement had specific prohibition on a dormatory use on
certain property which was interpreted to be the whole property instead of just the south half of the property. So rather than try to go through an interpretation uh debate, we said, "Let's just go amend the the the the DA and and try to
explain why why we're doing this and and the consequences of doing that." So what we're asking for specifically is to amend the agreement to allow this 40 up up to 40 bedroomedroom
bunk house dormatory. Call it whatever you want to call it. I'm sure there's critics they'll call it something else. Who knows? But that's what we'd like to do with a maximum cap of 163 student beds, student housing beds on the
property. Your your code does not distinguish between dwelling units, student housing beds, dormitories. So what we're willing to do and what we think is important in this presentation is right now we could
have 120 multif family dwelling units with no specific limitation on the size of bedrooms whether it ranges from onebedroom, twobedroom, threebedroom, fourbedroom, whatever they are. We're entitled to those dwelling units. We're
willing to restrict ourselves to 163 student housing beds including not in addition to but including whatever beds are constructed in the in
the bunk house. Okay. So let's say there are 40 beds constructed in the bunk house. You got a cap of 163. That's 123 remaining available student housing beds
on the property. Not 120 dwelling units, notund or or 83 dwelling units with each of which could have four bedrooms and that sort of thing. We're talking about 163
beds total counting the bunk house. If the bunk house has only 35 units, then then take the 163 minus the one the 25 or 35 and that's how many uh beds you would have left available
for the remainder of the project. In addition, there there would be one single family unit allowed on the north parcel tract H and one on the south parcel tract F. Those
are for u watchmen security administration perhaps the president of the university or the president of the school but that sort of thing administrative u people officials living there to watch out for the property traffic the traffic
net traffic impact of what we're proposed is in your staff report in way in the back of the staff report in the justification area. Um the net traffic is down and if you'd like to dwell on it is reduced by what we're proposing by
about 23 trips. If you'd like to hear more about that, we have Mr. Nilson here to talk to traffic and um I think that you know there I know there will be some questions and we'll be prepared to answer them. I I hope u you
may have them right now to ask and I'll try my best to answer them. We've got a team that can if I if I stumble. But we believe it's a net gain for everyone, the city in particular, and for us. We allow we will be able to offer up these
shorter versions of um of courses and education in uh the mission of the RTS. So, that said, I felt like I stuttered a little bit on it, but I'm happy to try to answer your questions. We will get to you after we hear from staff.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Sam, are you doing this or is >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and the LPA. Good evening. Tonight, we're going to talk about Kingsbridge PUB and the
amendment to it. Next slide, please. So tonight this we're going to discuss an amendment to the planned unit development to our zoning map and it's from going from planned unit development to plan unit development as well as an amendment to the Kingsbridge development
agreement. The applicant is Mr. Walters with Catalyst Design Group. So tonight we're going to talk Next slide please. We're going to do just a little bit of history. I like to do a little bit of history with the LPA when it comes to these developments. So, I want to talk
about um Kingsbridge. And I don't know if you all know, but Kingsbridge was formerly called Ovido Groves, and it was a planned unit development. It was approved November 7th, 1988.
And the parties to that agreement were Evans Groves as well as the city. The total acreage of that was 417 acres. Um it consisted of 800 residential units.
It also provided for 7 acres of commercial which equals um 60,000 square ft of commercial. also 13 acres of office which was 130,000 square feet of office
as well as 11.9 acres of private park and 7.5 acres of public park. Next slide. Now what was happening in Ovido around 1988, the same year this Ovido Grove
development PUB was approved. So, Mckenley's Mill um they were also in the process of getting their PUB approved and as well as Little Creek and Mckenley's Mill is 103 homes. You also
have Little Creek which is to the south. Mckenley's Mill is the one that's up there and and um Little Creek is the four that's there. So you had those two developments that were going through the same type of approval um for their PUB the same year as Ovito Grove. Next
slide. So what else was going on in 1989? 1989 which was the um next year we had a population the city had a population of 8,844 people. And this is Mitchell Hammock
Road. And this is what Mitchell Hammock, East Mitchell Hammock Road looked like during that time. It was a dirt road. So you had a developer by the name of Anden Anden Group um who developed Alfa Woods and Twin Rivers. He worked with the
county as well as the city to construct East Mitchell Hammock Road. Next slide. 1990, which was the next year, um you have um did we skip a slide?
>> No. >> Okay. So, 1990, the population was 11,114. And this is what East Mitchell Hammock looked like once it was paved. So, I was actually able to find an article from 1990
and um it was talking about Ovito elections, believe it or not, but we're not going to go into that. What I want to call your attention to is how they talked about um the population and how it grew from 3,000 to 12,000 people um
within 8 years. And then they talk about all the great accomplishments that the city did. So it talks about how we were the first government in Semino County to impose impact fees for um fire, for roads, for police and recreation. We
also adopted the um city manager form of government. And then the city also planned for and constructed its first east west road which was Mitchell Hammock which I just showed um along with other major roads. Next slide.
So, this was Lockwood Boulevard back in 1989. And you'll see that it's a dirt road. You can also see those wooden railroad ties. I think that's what it's called there that's going across um the road.
And And was also instrumental in constructing this roadway with the city. So our population at that time in 1989 was 8,444. Next slide. So this is what Lockwood Boulevard looks
like today. So from 1989 and our population is 42,080 today. So from 19 um 89 to 2026 we see that's about 37 years. um we grew about 33,236
in terms of population today. So that's what it looks like today. Okay. So now Kingsbridge Kingsbridge it was finally adopted in 1995. Kingsbridge it changed from Ovito Groves to Kingsbridge and Kingsbridge it
was the same acreage and we'll go over the difference between Ovito Groves as well as Kingsbridge. So we have a hund 417 acres. It we had the two phases which is the east and west Kingsbridge and it consists of single family
residential commercial multif family institutional and private park uses and what I want to call your attention to on this is the parties that were part of this agreement. So you have Evans Grove, you have the Colony Land Company, Evans
Partnership, but you also have Reformed Theological Seminary. So they were part of when it became Kingsbridge, they were party to this development agreement. And you can see the property hatched in red. So they were already planned um for
development for this. And at that time, they were planned for 120 uh multif family units on the property. Next slide. So this is a comparison um with what was Ovito Groves compared to the adopted
Kingsbridge DA and then now the proposed amendment to the Kingsbridge DA. And you'll see in blue the residential zones. It's all the same across. So it's 800 units. nothing changed from DA to
DA. Um commercial and the flexible zones, you'll see commercial. Um so under Ovito Groves, it was 7 acres and then it increased with Kingsbridge to 12 acres and you'll see this the square
footage as well increased. Um the in the second amendment, which is what we're considering tonight, nothing has changed. Um in the office you'll see under Ovito Groves it was 13 acres of office. It increased with the um
Kingsbridge DA to 48.8 acres. Um the square footage um actually decreased to 63,000 in um square footage and it remains the same under the second amendment. Nothing is changing in that educational institutional. Um there was
no educational and institutional in the Ovito Groves. It came into play during the Kingsbridge DA that was adopted in 1995. So you'll see there's 36.4 acres and 25 net developable. Um it's the same
thing with the second amendment except that now we are um the applicant is requesting to have two single family homes, one on each tract. Um multif family, there was not a multif family in
the Ovito Groves 1988, but there is one in the adopted 1995 Kingsbridge. um that remains um um the same except that now um they're maintaining the 12
dwelling units per acre or the 100 maximum cap and um they're requesting the 163 student housing beds and the 40 housing beds um and dormatory building bunk house and we'll go over that as
well. And then the recreation, you'll see um the differences there, but nothing has changed in the second amendment. It actually changed in the King's Bridge from Ovido Gross to King's Bridge. Next slide. So now we're going to talk about
Reformed Theological Seminary. So they are a religious campus with existing um office and institutional components but they are also approved for multif family as well. Next slide.
So, in the Kingsbridge DA that was adopted in 1995, it allows um they are located in the flexible land use area and it allows multif family at a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre.
um but it can't exceed 120 units. And um it says the residential units if constructed are exclusive of the 800 that's allowed in the rest of the Kingsbridge PUD. Commercial at a maximum intensity of 10,000 square ft per acre.
It can't exceed 163,000 square feet. They're also allow office at a maximum intensity at 16,000 square feet per acre. I can't exceed 63,000 square feet. Single family residential lots no
smaller than lots sizes in J and shall not exceed the total project of 800. They're not proposing single family at all. Um tracked H uses shall be limited to residential not to exceed 12 dwelling
units per acre and educational institutional commercial development will not be allowed. Tract F uses shall be limited to commercial, office, and residential not to exceed 12 dwelling units per acre. There's also a note C um
a note A in exhibit C of the Kingsbridge DA that's in your packet. Um exhibit 2. It prohibits dormatory buildings on the property. And that's one of the reasons why the applicant is requesting changes
to the DA. Next slide. So this is a copy of um reformed theological their conceptual development plan and this is also in your packet. Um you'll see the different tracks on there
on the CDP. Um what the request is is they're going to maintain the 120 multif family unit cap. they are actually restricting the number of beds um that they can have on the
property. They're restricting it to 163 student housing beds and that 163 is a combined 163 on both tracks F and H. Um it also they're also requesting up to 40
student housing which is a dormatory um bunk bunk house on tract F and two detached single family residential units one on tract F and one on tract H.
Now, the dorm bunk house, and I know um their attorney just tried to explain it, but the the dormatory. So, if they were to construct 40 units um in a bunk house dormatory style, the 40 student housing
units or beds will be subtracted from the 163. And we tried to explain that into the staff report as well. So you would subtract those the 40 beds from 163 beds and it leaves you with 123
beds. So if they do decide to build the 120 multifamily unit, they can only build however many 123 um beds would allow. So it may not allow 120 units, but they are capping them. They're
restricting themselves to 163 beds. So, if they were to build more in the in the bunk house or less in the bunk house, then those beds can go in the 120. They're capped at 120 no matter what. They cannot exceed 120 um units on the
property. And so, the 120, they were already um allowed to have 120 on the property today. So that is not changing. So what's changing is they want to be able to have the bunk house or the
dormatory on the property. Next slide. So this is the conceptual development plan um as well that's in your packet and it lists the the tracks that it's going on. Next slide.
So we were able to look at the traffic. Our traffic consultant is here as well. And based on the trips, it's the reduction of daily trips. Um reduction of 37 um daily trips uh reduction of 49.
AM peak and PM peak. It's a reduction of 27 trips um for what they're proposing. The next slide please. So the conceptual development plan that's provided that was shown um it
reflects it should reflect um what was approved in the development agreement and you all have the development agreement. So all the changes that were in the development agreement should um is reflected on the conceptual development plan. There were no changes to the general layout. We're not at that
point yet where they will lay out the buildings on the plan because it's conceptual. It's called a conceptual development plan. they will have to come back to the city for any site plans which would be more a more detailed layout of where the buildings will go.
We don't know that um right now because it's conceptual but once they're ready to submit site plans. The city will have to review it. Um it will not come before this board because it's a site plan. Um if there are any deviations greater than 20% then it would go before council for
approval. Otherwise um it's staff level approval. The properties access points remain the same that were approved in the 1995 Kingsbridge development agreement. So they'll have one on East Bridge Drive
and one on Mitchell Hammock Road. Open space remains the same. That's in the conceptual development plan at 30%. The maximum building height also remains the same. Um it was uh three stories or 35
feet. Um in the original approval that has not changed. The protections um of the conservation areas the conservation tracks remain the same as well. Um and those were reviewed already. Um based on
the um the plan the plan is conceptual and will be addressed during the site development order for any site plan related issues. Um there was adequate capacity for recreation, solid waste and transportation to accommodate the
proposed use. Next slide. So staff recommends that LPA recommend adoption to city council. This item will go before city council for first reading on June 1st, 2026 and it
goes before city council for second reading which is the actual public hearing on June 15, 2026. The June 15th is the public hearing. So that's the meeting that will be advertised. The first reading, they're reading the
ordinance title into the record and scheduling the public hearing for June 15th. This concludes staff's presentation and I'm available for questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh at this time I will open it to to the
public. I have three requests to speak. Uh if there's anyone wishing else to speak, there are some forms in the back. Um we will limit the conversations to three minutes. Um first one up is a William Ryan. If you'll come up and state your name
and address for the record, please. gather everything off the ground. >> Hi, my name is William Ryan. I live on 458 Lake Park Trail. I've lived there since 1999. I live on the northern boundary of the seminary owned portion
of track J. The proposed amendment must explicitly exclude track J from any future student housing or dormatory entitlements and maintain its current conservation status. Specifically, I request one development status correction. The agenda memorandum on
page 17 describes lot three as being developed with asphalt parking. While the western edge of lot three near the chapel may have parking, the eastern portion within track J is pristine woodland and wetland that is completely undeveloped. This mischaracterization must be corrected before approving the
amendment. Two, explicit exclusion of track J. The second amendment to the Kingsbridge development agreement beginning on page 37 must explicitly limit the new student housing and dormatory entitlements to tract F and H only. The prohibit on dor the pro the
prohibition on dormitories must remain in place for track J. This must be explicitly stated in the amendment prior to approval. HOA guidelines. Page 38 mandates that new architectural guidelines shall be developed for track
J and J1 for incorporation into the East Village aka Eastbridge HOA documents. The current guidelines are provided on 30 on page 81 exhibit E and specifically disallowed chain link fences. The seminary's installation of a chain link
fence on the north border of track J is non-compliant. It has fallen and has been left in a state of disrepair for years. This is a picture from my backyard showing the chain link fence. I took that yesterday.
The petitioner should be required to come into full compliance with the original agreement before any modifications are granted. I strongly urge that the council stipulate that the removal of the non-compliance structure as a formal condition of approval for the ordinance for ordinance number 1766.
Furthermore, the new architectural guidelines must be strictly limited to traditional single family residential standards and not remove any protections given in exhibit E. This must be explicitly stated in the amendment prior to approval. And four, the natural buffer must be
maintained. Track J has served as a critical natural drainage buffer for the residents of Lake Park Trail through nine significant hurricanes since 2004. The preservation of track J as a natural buffer is a non-negotiable flood mitigation requirement to prevent catastrophic property damage from future
storm runoff. That's it. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Is there a clerk that I can give a copy of this to? >> Give it to her. The Dalia, please. Next person I have is Daniel Mali.
>> Mali. >> Mali. Yes. Thank you. Malabi. Uh, first of all, uh, thank you very much. >> Please state your name. >> I'm sorry. Damali, 465 Lake Park Trail, >> Ovita, Florida. >> Thank you. >> First of all, I'd like to say to the
representatives of the seminary, thank you so much for being such wonderful neighbors for so many years. We love you. We uh we support your mission and uh we couldn't have thank we couldn't think of better neighbors to have next to us. Uh what I would like to discuss
uh is actually the uh storm water situation which uh my friend Bill talked about a little bit. So um large portions of the seminary and wetlands that impact both the seminary and uh Eastbridge and
also Kingsbridge they all flow into Long Lake. Um we have had flooding in the last two big hurricanes Ian and Milton. We actually had some standing water at the end of the curve uh on on Lake Park Trail. Uh that's the lowest part of the
uh the development and that is actually about 20 yards from seminary property. Um so um all the drainage floods in Long Lake. Um and when and and so basically
what we're asking is that uh we maintain the conservation area that is actually in the proposal. Um and that that be those protections be included and uh basically codified. I didn't realize
that there were actually uh uh uh some uh comment or some laws or regulations about that conservation area. That's basically our wet wetland area. If there's a huge amount of water that goes in there when when storms occur and if
that goes away, then we're we're we're at risk. They're at risk. Kingsbridge is at risk. So, we ask that that be considered. Um I also mentioned that the current storm water infrastructure is not being maintained. If you go and see
the property right now, uh the current storm drains are full of debris and have been for quite some time. And that includes the ditch on the north end of the property that has not been cleared out in forever and is completely full of vegetation and probably doesn't serve the purpose that it was intended. That's
all I have. >> Thank you. >> Next person I have is Michael Sanders. >> Sorry. >> Please state your name and address for the record, please. >> Yes. I'm Michael Sardo. I live at uh 780 South Lake Clair Circle in Kingsbridge
West. Um, and I'd like to take a moment to point out something that might not be obvious if you don't live really close to the property. Uh, I wish there was a map up and I could point to it, but Reformation Way that crosses the property connects Eastbridge Drive and Mitchell Hammock. And today that serves as a pedestrian and biking like cutth
through for anyone who lives in Kingsbridge East uh, as well as Oto Grove Apartments. And that includes anyone going to and from uh, uh, Obito on the Park as well as students uh, going to Stenstöm Elementary. Um, and that's great. People take it because it's a it's a nicer walk. And the
alternative is going on uh the sidewalk on the north side of Mitchell Hammock, which is honestly a little harrowing. It's very close to the traffic. There's no bike lane there. Uh the traffic might be, you know, 6 feet from you when you're walking on it. So people, especially with kids going to school, opt to take a cut through there. The
only problem is there's no sidewalk completely through that path. There's uh one for a large portion of it on the on the uh east end and then uh there's a part that comes from their main parking lot and building out to Mitchell Hammock, but there's no complete sidewalk and it requires anybody who's crossing through there to walk in the
street uh or cut through the parking lot. That's kind of fine today because there's absolutely no traffic um going that direction. But if we ever got to a spot where there were 163 people living there as well as up to 200 students coming and going, I would think it'd be in both the seminary and the city's
interest to have a a well-marked uh sidewalk there. And if there's anything we could do at this stage or later stages, um I think it'd be a welcome addition to uh to the city's uh public safety. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to speak that I do not have a request to
speak from? Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record, please. >> Scott Ming a 491 Carolyn Drive. I'm the first property north of RTS. And again, I fully support RTS. Matter of fact, to give you my name, number love to have
students be able to house them for a part. So, I fully >> just address just address the board, please. >> Fully support RTS board. So, just as you know, however, the application, I know this is for a a preliminary CP uh plan. So, I know it's preliminary and I know you're ruling on just certain elements.
However, the application needs to address a lot of the things that do require staff took us through a a great road down history and that's what we need to really be evaluating on to modify the amendment. We need to evaluate a lot of things that can be
developed on the property. There's five major things that the applicant needs to really be responsible for and present to you in process to uh get an approval forward. So there's five major things. One there the buffers for the wetlands need to be considered as a part of the
density for overall development. You per your ordinance you have a 25 minimum and 50 foot average. So that needs to be evaluated for the density by which and where these units will go. So it needs to be considered because storm water is a big concern. I've inherited a property. I've been in a property owner
up for that for about a year and have been under major renovations and storm water is a big concern. I've had the property um reserveyed and I have a major storm water issue on the south side of my property which is butts
the PUD ordinance and that storm drainage easement. So I'm putting good money forward to improve storm conditions that's coming from the pond and city property on our propert. So, I'm I'm dealing with storm water and that's a big issue. The other issue is
not only do they have uh no no buffers for the wetlands shown on the property to define what the limits of improvements can be um because that will remove the amount of developable area. Um they also need to consider I mean
that traffic is of concern. Their baseline traffic is based on 750 approved units going down to 200. So that's a reduction of 550 units. There was no original use for that amount of students underneath the original. So
yes, the the traffic numbers are showing as a reduction, but the original use of 750 with the reduction of 550 needs to be further explored all the way through the process. I know the city will do a phenomenal job of kind of reviewing that process along the way. So storm water is
a big issue. Um storm water onsite uh is a big issue. uh the amount of density is calculated per dwelling units per acre which is defined by the application as well. So that the statement that it it isn't really defined. I love the idea of
dorms. I just think the location and where they're placing them in those tracks is closer to the environmental sensitive areas, the storm water in the area and closest to the lake which we do have a lot of different issues. So with that uh thank you for your consideration.
>> Thank you very much. Anyone else before I close the public comment? >> Hello, my name is >> Come up to the mic first because it's got to be recorded. >> That first >> No, stand in front of the mic first. I mean, you can give me that, but start your Thank you. Sorry.
>> Blake Holton, 724 Long Lake Drive. Um, just more of an inquiry. I'm trying to understand what RTS RTS is doing. Um, I didn't understand where the tracks are. I live on Long Lake, so concern um of the easements and the conservation area,
so it doesn't affect Long Lake drainage as was mentioned. Um, but more importantly, the view as well, so I don't know how far back the tracks are. It was kind of hard to tell from the schematic you had there. Um, I think that was about all I can think
of right now. Just trying to understand the scope of it and where the housing will be. three stories maximum, we'll probably be able to see it. Um, so just concerned about that and drainage uh and the effect on Long Lake in general, the use of Long Lake. Thank you for your
time. >> Thank you. >> One last time before I close. Anyone else? >> Seeing that, I will close public comment at this time. Does anybody have any questions for staff or the developer?
>> Are we Ma'am, we we you can't just talk from out there. I'm sorry. I apologize for that, but we got to follow procedure. >> Mr. Chairman, would you like for the um attorney to provide a rebuttal? >> We we can't
>> just to answer some of the questions. >> Come on up. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me? >> Yep. >> Um It was u I was trying to take notes as fast as I could. There were there were some fast talk if they were there
>> and I was u trying to communicate with Mr. McAdams along the way. I think we um most if not every one of the points that were brought up would be addressed in the ordinary course. I think there were
very valid legitimate concerns that are addressed in the ordinary course of a development process. Uh for example, buffers and wetlands. We got to comply with the buffers and wetlands. We respect the buffers and wetlands. Always
have um storm water both onsite and offsite. Y'all know we have to comply with storm water regulations of not only the city but of the water management district. Uh the traffic was evaluated. I'm not sure exactly what the comment
was about traffic, but we presented to you a traffic study that shows a a net reduction in >> You know what? I want to stop you on the traffic and I apologize for interrupting. The traffic studies that you have in Simol County are the worst. Please don't even they're they're horrible. >> Okay.
>> They have no validity in this in this >> because Simol County uses a 24-hour period for eval traffic, not at peak. So Mitchell Hammock in my opinion and most everybody on this board is that Mitchell Hammock is over congested with traffic
>> period. That is and I'm >> that's just a fact. So traffic count is a bogus number here in this in this county. >> Okay. Well I and I'm just trying to address the Mr. chairman the um and and I and I hear you and I can appreciate
the frustration but I'm just just trying to address >> and um versus what what could be and what what is proposed um the density it's an overall reduction in potential density what the maximum
density could be allowed there we believe there was a comment about density I I'm not sure what what the comment was there there's concern about density I get it But this is a net reduction of density of what could be there versus what is proposed.
>> Uh the gentleman that one comment about the the fencing. Um honestly we're not the representatives here tonight aren't sure where the fencing how the fencing got there where the fencing is. is if
it's our fencing, it'll be removed. And um and we appreciate it bring bringing it to our attention. The um storm water protection was again a concern. Maintenance of storm water was a concern by the second speaker. Uh the concern
about the sidewalk. U I I agree with the speaker. I think we agree with the speaker that if if as this thing progresses, if a sidewalk becomes necessary to protect the public and we're part of it, we'd like to participate in it. But if it's if it's
not us producing the impacts to cause a sidewalk, then we would not want to participate. But I think we will be there and it's going to be near our property and we would be willing to participate in the in the sidewalk uh
cure if and when that that happens. Um there were additional comments about the buffer the storm water again the buffered uh we have to comply storm water we have to comply I won't mention density or traffic because I'm a quick
study and the the um the the conservation on on Long Lake. We have to comply with the storm water and the the drainage requirements of the state and the and the county and the and the city. So, um, respectfully, we, uh, we would
like to have an opportunity to visit with each and every one of these speakers, and we will tonight if they're willing to hang around and talk and, uh, and do what we can to, um, address their concerns. And before we go to the, um, city council, we'll hopefully have a
chance to to visit with them. So, with that, I'll answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you. >> Any questions? Go ahead. >> Okay. So, just uh am I allowed to ask
what the vision is with the students? Is this a typical I don't know 4 6 8 hour day were the students that would live in the dormitories would they be in classes on the campus? I'm trying to get a vision for what a
day a normal day of activities would be for the seminary so that we would understand the flow of the community and what would be anticipated around the community. >> I know the courses will be on campus but to to answer your question about the normal day I'll bring in an expert.
>> Okay. >> Being as you're coming up we'll need your name and address. Uh yes, Rob McAdams, uh here on behalf of uh employee of Reformed Theological Seminary at uh 1231 Reformation Drive here in Ovido. Um question being about what the average day would be for a for
a student living on the campus. Um courses would begin uh generally around 9:00 a.m. Uh we run block scheduling so they would run 9 to noon say have an hour off for lunch, maybe two hours, come back in the afternoon for a course from anywhere from 1:00 to 5:00 in the
evening. Uh and then after that um the uh library remains open through the evening for students to do evening studying but otherwise uh following the completion of courses at five o'clock they would be uh free to head home. Uh currently that's somewhere offsite. Uh we would love for it to be on site.
>> Um if I can speak to uh the specific question or specific issue of the dormatory building as we're referring to it. Uh Mickey here mentioned um students coming in for short-term courses. Uh and that is a development that has taken place just in the world of education
since 1995 when uh the original DA um was approved. uh we've moved uh a lot of our teaching has moved to uh these hybrid models where students do a lot of work online and then they come to our campus just for one week and they're in class from 9:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. uh
knocking out their courses and then they fly back home to Iowa or California or or wherever wherever they are from. And so that's our um uh use of that dormatory space would be a spot for for those students who are just here um for the week. Uh rather than finding an
Airbnb or a hotel down by UCF and then clogging the roads uh to come to come to campus, they're they're here on site. So those are kind of the the normal days for both the dormatory housing and then the the multif family units that we see. Would there be any limits or
restrictions for the students that are attending the seminary um with personal vehicles or driving themselves or would they be um coming and being dropped off by some form of transportation but yet they remain on campus and they're the
transportation on and off campus. What do you envision that to be? >> Uh sure. As far as the the folks who would be living in the multif family area, they they would I'm sure some of them would have would have vehicles. Um we would institute a parking pass, you
know, keep a registration list of all the vehicles that are that are registered to the students on the property. >> Mr. >> Yeah. Um so the original plan, the 120 multif family beds, those could have been a two-bedroom unit is what you're
saying, right? So if you had 122b units, conceivably you could have 240 as opposed to you're limiting to one. How do we come to I'm curious the 163 number does that mean anything or how did that do we have a way of how we arrived at that?
>> We've had so many we've had so many numbers. Uh Stuart help me out on that one. >> Yes. Stuart Nielsen with McCree General Contractors and Architects. Our traffic engineer couldn't consultant couldn't be here today. Okay. So, I'll try to answer this. We didn't want to make an impact. The as as you guys said, the um original
development had 120 units. The 750 students in the church was all part of this original Kingsbridge PUD. We looked at the existing traffic study that was done with our traffic consultant back in 1990, 1980, and we said, "Okay, we don't
need 750 students." or the the uh RTS said that and we're trying to just keep it within the constraints of what was already planned and what we were looking at the PUB all we were trying to do even the original development because the original designer of Reformed
Theological laid out those buildings and the parking lot is actually been constructed there all the utilities all the storm drainage it's already there >> so we're we're not trying to change a lot you know we're not trying to spend a lot of money with a big development we're trying to stay within these sort of guidelines and only change the
definition of not allowing a dormatory. And I don't like plural. We're only talking about one dormatory and the building location is already sort of set because it was already developed for that place. >> And that's the one in tract F because we we talked about
>> tract F is the one to the south >> by the street. Yeah. >> H is to the north and J is the one above that and J >> but we're not talking about J at all at all. >> Yeah. No, not at all. >> Yes. Going down. So, if you're looking at the dormatory, you can actually see where the road goes. >> Yeah,
>> that's where it was designed to be placed is just you have the two buildings just to the north left of it up where your cursors other other direction to the left of the screen >> to the left. >> Right there. >> That's where a building was already designed to be placed. All the utilities
are there. Everything is set up. Not in that space. A little bit more to the left. Right where that little white dot. Yeah, that's where the building was supposed to be intended to be placed. Now, new regulations have come about with storm water and drainage. All those would be taken into account at the next
level of development. This is conceptual. We would apply to any type of regulation and code that's required. So, storm water has more stringent requirements. We would have to abide by those rules and uh restrictions during site engineering and development. And for for staff, do we have any idea why
back 31 years ago they singled out dorms as not being especially with having all this kind of stuff? Any idea why they said no to dorms? >> And the if no was the answer, I don't know if that's fine. >> Yeah. No, unfortunately.
>> Okay. Um in track F it says um for commercial use. Do you guys know at this point what type of commercial use? >> I guess it's really educa. The only thing they use it for is the education and institutional um admin, I guess.
>> Okay. I I wasn't sure if they, you know, would lease it out >> or not. >> And and and yes, no, they don't lease it out at all. >> Okay. And again, you can actually see on that map where the existing parking is already and all the infrastructure, the
utilities are there and there's storm water ponds there as well. And answer the um I'm just going to go back because it was something to add. The areas in blue that are are are um just outside the blue, those are conservation areas. Those have already been dedicated to the
city and and the state, right? >> Those aren't allowed to even be touched because they've already been dedicated. And Deborah had a presentation where uh a slide where she showed the actual property is 36 acres but there's only 25 that are usable. >> I saw that >> that's already dedicated. So the the the
difference is the conservation area determinations and when and also within the report all the buff uh the buffers again would be determined as well having to meet that 25 foot minimum 50 foot any type of landscape buffers that would have to follow within that would still
be met at the next level of development. This isn't like trying to design the whole thing right now. We're just doing something conceptual. >> Right. >> Right. Anybody else? >> Uh, I have a qu. Before you all came to do, uh, do this, did you ever meet with
the HOA at Kingsbridge? >> Uh, no, sir. Not to my knowledge. >> Was it given that any thought at all? >> No. When when we were approached by RTS, they wanted to do the dormatory in our original conversation. And again, we probably should have done that, but we were just looking at trying to build uh
this temporary housing idea. again with this needing a place for somebody to stay for a few nights as they came in and we had met we came in with the city because we weren't sure because the Kingsbridge PUD is a little vague about it and so we were is it a dwelling unit
is a multif family because that's what's there 120 units but we weren't really sure and then when we had conversations back and forth with the city uh we we got a little bit more definition and it's not really a dormatory either it's sort of this >> my my concern is you got you're putting
and 40 beds against 163 units, right? So, is it an additional >> 163 beds, not 163 units? >> Okay, because that's because we keep hearing housing, you know, so that's where I'm kind of definitions are kind of bad >> and that's very clear. The code that you
guys have for dwelling units is undefined. So, technically you could have a 12 bed dwelling unit. >> We're restricting ourselves to the 163 beds. >> Yeah. Do you think that the opportunity where you could meet with the HOA
give a one more opportunity with those that are living around the area >> an education on what the the vision is, what is going to be anticipated >> and and give it one more opportunity where you can openly discuss it and >> we we would we would love the
opportunity to discuss and again it's really conceptual. We haven't been contracted to do renderings or floor plans. Again, that's not the level of development we're at. >> Um, but we can easily discuss with them all these sort of issues because again, we all that's already addressed and like
the CAD uh the conservation area determination, apologize, is is already defined and it's already restricted within. We're not changing any of that really. The only thing we're changing is defining that dormatory. >> Okay.
Do you want to say something, Miss Pierre? >> No. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Okay. What is the pleasure of board? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is that it, Mr. Chairman? >> Yeah. I would like to recommend an
opportunity for them to have some time to meet with Kingbridge the HOA or open it up to the nearby community and have a opportunity to explain a little bit more in detail about filling any questions they might have and and go.
>> You wanting to postpone? >> Yes. >> Is that what your motion is? Give them time to have >> Yes. give them time and opportunity to meet with the HOA or the neighboring residents. >> Okay. Is there a second to that? >> I second that.
>> Okay. There's a second. So, would you be immutable to if we vote on that? >> I think so. I think >> do a continuence until next. >> Don't you have to >> Sorry. Sorry. >> Don't you have to continue to a date certain? >> We can do a continuence until the next
meeting which is in two weeks. >> The date. Okay. the next meeting and then >> that'll give you enough time to meet with them. >> Well, and is there an HOA rep? >> There's two HOAs. >> Okay, >> that's what we're trying to tell you. >> But is there a representative from either of those here to who could say
you would meet with us in the next two weeks? >> No. >> Mr. Chairman, we're willing to do that. Okay. >> We don't know if they're willing to do that. >> Well, I'm sure. >> Well, I think they would be most I think so. Yes. >> Within two weeks is my point. I mean, no, the two week time. Yeah. because we
do have we do have a next we do have a next meeting on the 19th. >> Um >> yeah. >> Oh May the 19th. >> Yep. >> So how we will agree that we'll try our best to meet with them if they will meet with us. You want to extend it further.
Do you want to give us >> I think that's I think that'll be plenty of time. >> You open the window and hopefully they show which means you've put out the effort to >> Okay. And if if for whatever reason they don't just keep moving forward on the 19th, >> but we're willing to do that. >> Yeah. >> So, >> okay.
>> Make your amendment to the u the continuence. >> Okay. >> And make sure you state the date certain, which would be May 19th, 2026. >> I couldn't hear. I'm sorry. >> We couldn't hear you. >> I apologize. Make sure you state the date certain, which would be May 19th, 2026. Um
>> May 192. May 19th >> date chair. >> Okay. So, you're gonna have to help me properly um phrase this, but I'd like to make a motion to um reconvene.
>> Continue. Okay. Continue. >> Ordinance number 1766, zoning map amendment. Ordinance number 1766, zoning map amendment from planned unit development to planned unit development for reformed
theological seminary at Kingsbridge and approving a second amendment to the Kingsbridge planned unit development to Tuesday May 19th at 6:30 p.m. >> on 26 >> on of 2026.
>> Correct. >> More question on that. Will that um will that impact our trip to the city council? >> It sure will. >> No, it will not. >> It will not. >> You go to city council on June 1st. >> Okay. >> That's right. You're right. June. You're
correct. My apologies. You're still on track. >> Correct. >> My my apologies. >> Okay. So, it doesn't pause you any. >> All right. And you will you second it. >> Second. >> Okay. Any discussion on this on that? >> All right. I will then call the vote.
All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed say nay. >> All right. We'll see you on the 19th. Hopefully you get everything resolved. >> I I my only concern is it's been 30 years, 30 plus years. Just need to kind of re-educate everybody.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Moving on. >> Uh discussion items. We have none. Future meetings is May 19th and June 22nd. And that we are adjourned. Okay.
>> Do we have anything for June 2nd? >> I'm not aware of anything right now, >> but for sure obviously the 19th. >> Yes. Okay.