WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=V_iwsqaHYTk

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: V_iwsqaHYTk):
- 00:00:13: Meeting Commences, Roll Call, and Minute Approval
- 00:01:54: Public Meeting: Deviation Request for East Broadway Sign
- 00:04:08: Staff Presentation: Sign Deviation Request Analysis
- 00:09:13: Board Discussion and Vote on Sign Deviation
- 00:10:03: More Detail Requested for Sign Deviation Vote
- 00:10:39: Public Hearing: Zoning Map Amendment for RTS
- 00:11:36: Applicant Presentation: Reformed Theological Seminary Amendment
- 00:16:30: Request to Amend for Bunk House/Dormitory
- 00:20:05: Staff Presentation: History and Analysis of Amendment
- 00:29:28: Details on the Reformed Theological Seminary Campus
- 00:34:13: Traffic and Recommendations on Zoning Map Amendment
- 00:37:27: Public Comment: William Ryan - Track J Concerns
- 00:40:47: Public Comment: Daniel Mali - Stormwater Issues
- 00:43:11: Public Comment: Michael Sardo - Sidewalk Need
- 00:45:03: Public Comment: Scott Minga - Overall Development Concerns
- 00:48:17: Public Comment: Blake Holton - General Inquiry
- 00:49:45: Developer Rebuttal: Addressing Public Comments, Commitments
- 00:54:44: Board Questions: Vision, Traffic, and HOA Meeting
- 01:02:53: Discussion Opportunity With HOA Offered
- 01:05:21: Board Motion: Continuance for HOA/Resident Meeting
- 01:09:12: Adjournment and Future Meeting Announcement


Part: 1

1
00:00:13.040 --> 00:01:02.559
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,

2
00:01:02.559 --> 00:01:20.000
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

3
00:01:20.000 --> 00:01:34.960
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

4
00:01:34.960 --> 00:01:54.320
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

5
00:01:54.320 --> 00:02:10.640
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

6
00:02:10.640 --> 00:02:32.959
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,

7
00:02:32.959 --> 00:02:48.879
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

8
00:02:48.879 --> 00:03:04.159
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

9
00:03:04.159 --> 00:03:19.760
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

10
00:03:19.760 --> 00:03:35.920
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

11
00:03:35.920 --> 00:03:52.879
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

12
00:03:52.879 --> 00:04:08.959
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.

13
00:04:08.959 --> 00:04:24.639
>> 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

14
00:04:24.639 --> 00:04:40.560
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.

15
00:04:40.560 --> 00:04:55.680
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

16
00:04:55.680 --> 00:05:12.400
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

17
00:05:12.400 --> 00:05:28.000
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

18
00:05:28.000 --> 00:05:43.360
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

19
00:05:43.360 --> 00:06:01.280
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

20
00:06:01.280 --> 00:06:18.319
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

21
00:06:18.319 --> 00:06:33.520
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

22
00:06:33.520 --> 00:06:49.919
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

23
00:06:49.919 --> 00:07:06.000
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

24
00:07:06.000 --> 00:07:20.880
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

25
00:07:20.880 --> 00:07:37.520
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

26
00:07:37.520 --> 00:07:54.000
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

27
00:07:54.000 --> 00:08:09.120
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

28
00:08:09.120 --> 00:08:25.199
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

29
00:08:25.199 --> 00:08:39.839
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

30
00:08:39.839 --> 00:08:57.519
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

31
00:08:57.519 --> 00:09:13.680
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.

32
00:09:13.680 --> 00:09:30.240
>> 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?

33
00:09:30.240 --> 00:09:46.160
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

34
00:09:46.160 --> 00:10:03.440
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

35
00:10:03.440 --> 00:10:22.240
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.

36
00:10:22.240 --> 00:10:39.440
>> 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

37
00:10:39.440 --> 00:10:59.279
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

38
00:10:59.279 --> 00:11:32.279
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.

39
00:11:36.160 --> 00:11:51.120
>> 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,

40
00:11:51.120 --> 00:12:08.959
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

41
00:12:08.959 --> 00:12:23.279
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

42
00:12:23.279 --> 00:12:40.480
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,

43
00:12:40.480 --> 00:12:58.000
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

44
00:12:58.000 --> 00:13:15.279
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

45
00:13:15.279 --> 00:13:30.480
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

46
00:13:30.480 --> 00:13:46.160
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

47
00:13:46.160 --> 00:14:01.760
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

48
00:14:01.760 --> 00:14:17.440
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

49
00:14:17.440 --> 00:14:33.680
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

50
00:14:33.680 --> 00:14:52.240
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

51
00:14:52.240 --> 00:15:08.160
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

52
00:15:08.160 --> 00:15:24.560
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,

53
00:15:24.560 --> 00:15:41.279
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

54
00:15:41.279 --> 00:15:58.079
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

55
00:15:58.079 --> 00:16:13.199
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

56
00:16:13.199 --> 00:16:30.399
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

57
00:16:30.399 --> 00:16:47.920
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

58
00:16:47.920 --> 00:17:04.480
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

59
00:17:04.480 --> 00:17:22.880
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

60
00:17:22.880 --> 00:17:37.919
willing to restrict ourselves to 163 student housing beds including not in addition to but including whatever beds are constructed in the in

61
00:17:37.919 --> 00:17:53.919
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

62
00:17:53.919 --> 00:18:10.080
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

63
00:18:10.080 --> 00:18:27.360
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

64
00:18:27.360 --> 00:18:41.440
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

65
00:18:41.440 --> 00:19:00.559
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

66
00:19:00.559 --> 00:19:15.840
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

67
00:19:15.840 --> 00:19:31.039
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

68
00:19:31.039 --> 00:19:48.080
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

69
00:19:48.080 --> 00:20:05.760
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.

70
00:20:05.760 --> 00:20:28.960
>> 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

71
00:20:28.960 --> 00:20:47.039
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

72
00:20:47.039 --> 00:21:04.240
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

73
00:21:04.240 --> 00:21:19.679
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.

74
00:21:19.679 --> 00:21:34.720
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.

75
00:21:34.720 --> 00:21:50.159
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

76
00:21:50.159 --> 00:22:08.480
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

77
00:22:08.480 --> 00:22:24.320
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

78
00:22:24.320 --> 00:22:41.600
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

79
00:22:41.600 --> 00:23:00.880
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

80
00:23:00.880 --> 00:23:17.200
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

81
00:23:17.200 --> 00:23:34.720
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?

82
00:23:34.720 --> 00:23:51.120
>> 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

83
00:23:51.120 --> 00:24:06.799
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

84
00:24:06.799 --> 00:24:24.559
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

85
00:24:24.559 --> 00:24:43.200
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.

86
00:24:43.200 --> 00:24:59.440
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.

87
00:24:59.440 --> 00:25:16.559
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

88
00:25:16.559 --> 00:25:34.720
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

89
00:25:34.720 --> 00:25:53.039
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

90
00:25:53.039 --> 00:26:08.559
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

91
00:26:08.559 --> 00:26:24.960
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

92
00:26:24.960 --> 00:26:42.159
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

93
00:26:42.159 --> 00:27:04.159
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

94
00:27:04.159 --> 00:27:20.240
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

95
00:27:20.240 --> 00:27:34.960
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

96
00:27:34.960 --> 00:27:52.159
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

97
00:27:52.159 --> 00:28:10.559
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

98
00:28:10.559 --> 00:28:26.640
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

99
00:28:26.640 --> 00:28:41.279
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

100
00:28:41.279 --> 00:28:57.120
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

101
00:28:57.120 --> 00:29:12.399
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

102
00:29:12.399 --> 00:29:28.640
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

103
00:29:28.640 --> 00:29:47.559
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.

104
00:29:48.159 --> 00:30:03.039
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.

105
00:30:03.039 --> 00:30:20.240
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.

106
00:30:20.240 --> 00:30:35.360
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

107
00:30:35.360 --> 00:30:51.679
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

108
00:30:51.679 --> 00:31:08.480
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

109
00:31:08.480 --> 00:31:23.520
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

110
00:31:23.520 --> 00:31:40.720
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

111
00:31:40.720 --> 00:31:57.360
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

112
00:31:57.360 --> 00:32:12.480
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

113
00:32:12.480 --> 00:32:28.960
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.

114
00:32:28.960 --> 00:32:46.559
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

115
00:32:46.559 --> 00:33:03.360
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

116
00:33:03.360 --> 00:33:19.919
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

117
00:33:19.919 --> 00:33:39.039
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

118
00:33:39.039 --> 00:33:55.840
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

119
00:33:55.840 --> 00:34:13.359
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.

120
00:34:13.359 --> 00:34:28.000
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.

121
00:34:28.000 --> 00:34:46.159
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

122
00:34:46.159 --> 00:35:03.119
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

123
00:35:03.119 --> 00:35:17.920
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.

124
00:35:17.920 --> 00:35:35.040
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

125
00:35:35.040 --> 00:35:53.040
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

126
00:35:53.040 --> 00:36:08.079
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

127
00:36:08.079 --> 00:36:23.760
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

128
00:36:23.760 --> 00:36:39.200
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

129
00:36:39.200 --> 00:36:54.400
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

130
00:36:54.400 --> 00:37:10.400
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

131
00:37:10.400 --> 00:37:27.920
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

132
00:37:27.920 --> 00:37:44.160
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

133
00:37:44.160 --> 00:38:00.240
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

134
00:38:00.240 --> 00:38:15.760
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

135
00:38:15.760 --> 00:38:32.640
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

136
00:38:32.640 --> 00:38:50.240
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

137
00:38:50.240 --> 00:39:04.800
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

138
00:39:04.800 --> 00:39:21.280
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

139
00:39:21.280 --> 00:39:38.520
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.

140
00:39:40.240 --> 00:39:56.880
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.

141
00:39:56.880 --> 00:40:13.119
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

142
00:40:13.119 --> 00:40:29.680
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

143
00:40:29.680 --> 00:40:47.280
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.

144
00:40:47.280 --> 00:41:03.040
>> 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

145
00:41:03.040 --> 00:41:18.880
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

146
00:41:18.880 --> 00:41:33.680
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

147
00:41:33.680 --> 00:41:51.440
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

148
00:41:51.440 --> 00:42:06.880
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

149
00:42:06.880 --> 00:42:20.800
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

150
00:42:20.800 --> 00:42:38.720
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

151
00:42:38.720 --> 00:42:54.800
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

152
00:42:54.800 --> 00:43:11.359
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

153
00:43:11.359 --> 00:43:27.040
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

154
00:43:27.040 --> 00:43:42.560
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

155
00:43:42.560 --> 00:43:58.560
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

156
00:43:58.560 --> 00:44:15.359
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

157
00:44:15.359 --> 00:44:31.200
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

158
00:44:31.200 --> 00:44:47.119
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

159
00:44:47.119 --> 00:45:03.599
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

160
00:45:03.599 --> 00:45:25.839
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

161
00:45:25.839 --> 00:45:42.000
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.

162
00:45:42.000 --> 00:45:57.359
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

163
00:45:57.359 --> 00:46:12.400
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

164
00:46:12.400 --> 00:46:28.880
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

165
00:46:28.880 --> 00:46:43.280
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

166
00:46:43.280 --> 00:46:58.400
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

167
00:46:58.400 --> 00:47:13.440
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

168
00:47:13.440 --> 00:47:28.480
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

169
00:47:28.480 --> 00:47:44.560
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

170
00:47:44.560 --> 00:48:02.000
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

171
00:48:02.000 --> 00:48:17.680
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.

172
00:48:17.680 --> 00:48:39.359
>> 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.

173
00:48:39.359 --> 00:48:56.160
>> 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,

174
00:48:56.160 --> 00:49:12.000
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

175
00:49:12.000 --> 00:49:28.720
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

176
00:49:28.720 --> 00:49:45.480
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?

177
00:49:45.520 --> 00:50:00.640
>> 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

178
00:50:00.640 --> 00:50:22.079
>> 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

179
00:50:22.079 --> 00:50:38.480
>> 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

180
00:50:38.480 --> 00:50:54.000
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

181
00:50:54.000 --> 00:51:10.000
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

182
00:51:10.000 --> 00:51:25.040
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.

183
00:51:25.040 --> 00:51:40.319
>> 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

184
00:51:40.319 --> 00:51:57.200
>> 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

185
00:51:57.200 --> 00:52:13.680
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

186
00:52:13.680 --> 00:52:30.119
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.

187
00:52:34.400 --> 00:52:49.599
>> 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

188
00:52:49.599 --> 00:53:06.319
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

189
00:53:06.319 --> 00:53:21.760
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

190
00:53:21.760 --> 00:53:36.000
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

191
00:53:36.000 --> 00:53:52.800
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

192
00:53:52.800 --> 00:54:10.480
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

193
00:54:10.480 --> 00:54:26.160
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

194
00:54:26.160 --> 00:54:44.000
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

195
00:54:44.000 --> 00:55:01.040
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

196
00:55:01.040 --> 00:55:18.480
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.

197
00:55:18.480 --> 00:55:33.680
>> 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

198
00:55:33.680 --> 00:55:50.640
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

199
00:55:50.640 --> 00:56:08.400
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.

200
00:56:08.400 --> 00:56:25.440
>> 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

201
00:56:25.440 --> 00:56:43.040
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

202
00:56:43.040 --> 00:56:58.079
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

203
00:56:58.079 --> 00:57:14.079
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

204
00:57:14.079 --> 00:57:30.640
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

205
00:57:30.640 --> 00:57:47.040
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

206
00:57:47.040 --> 00:58:05.920
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

207
00:58:05.920 --> 00:58:23.160
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?

208
00:58:24.640 --> 00:58:40.880
>> 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

209
00:58:40.880 --> 00:58:59.440
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

210
00:58:59.440 --> 00:59:16.240
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

211
00:59:16.240 --> 00:59:32.960
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

212
00:59:32.960 --> 00:59:48.240
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

213
00:59:48.240 --> 01:00:03.520
>> 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,

214
01:00:03.520 --> 01:00:19.520
>> 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

215
01:00:19.520 --> 01:00:36.160
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

216
01:00:36.160 --> 01:00:51.599
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

217
01:00:51.599 --> 01:01:07.280
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.

218
01:01:07.280 --> 01:01:26.880
>> 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.

219
01:01:26.880 --> 01:01:42.720
>> 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

220
01:01:42.720 --> 01:01:59.520
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

221
01:01:59.520 --> 01:02:16.960
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

222
01:02:16.960 --> 01:02:32.960
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

223
01:02:32.960 --> 01:02:53.760
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

224
01:02:53.760 --> 01:03:10.960
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

225
01:03:10.960 --> 01:03:27.119
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

226
01:03:27.119 --> 01:03:42.559
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

227
01:03:42.559 --> 01:03:58.640
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

228
01:03:58.640 --> 01:04:15.440
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

229
01:04:15.440 --> 01:04:32.160
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

230
01:04:32.160 --> 01:04:48.000
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

231
01:04:48.000 --> 01:05:04.520
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.

232
01:05:05.280 --> 01:05:21.839
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

233
01:05:21.839 --> 01:05:39.920
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.

234
01:05:39.920 --> 01:05:56.240
>> 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.

235
01:05:56.240 --> 01:06:12.960
>> 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

236
01:06:12.960 --> 01:06:28.720
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

237
01:06:28.720 --> 01:06:44.640
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

238
01:06:44.640 --> 01:07:00.880
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.

239
01:07:00.880 --> 01:07:16.480
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.

240
01:07:16.480 --> 01:07:32.880
>> 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

241
01:07:32.880 --> 01:07:51.200
>> 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.

242
01:07:51.200 --> 01:08:06.079
>> 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

243
01:08:06.079 --> 01:08:23.199
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.

244
01:08:23.199 --> 01:08:38.960
>> 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

245
01:08:38.960 --> 01:08:55.359
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.

246
01:08:55.359 --> 01:09:12.640
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.

247
01:09:12.640 --> 01:09:26.799
>> 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.

248
01:09:26.799 --> 01:09:36.640
>> Do we have anything for June 2nd? >> I'm not aware of anything right now, >> but for sure obviously the 19th. >> Yes. Okay.