like signs on my own. Stop here for gas or look for gas, >> right? Yeah. You got to prepare. >> Wow. >> But it was good. Good trip. Saw a bunch of stuff. >> Just you and your son. >> Yeah. >> That's kind of a cool trip.
>> Yeah. >> Excuse me. Mics are live. Thank you. >> Okay. Yeah, >> that is cool. >> I just I'm >> good. How are you? >> Those kind of trips seem cool to me, but
I hate driving. I can I can if I could go as fast as I wanted to. >> How's it going? >> Different. >> My dream car is a limousine with a driver in there so I don't have to drive. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, I mean that's nice when you do
that and you see all the sides on the line. >> Okay. >> How's it going? >> Good. >> Missed your lesson. >> That was just >> Yeah. Can you confirm?
>> Yeah, we can. >> I mean, it was pretty much the same stuff as last time. keep working. >> That's how you do it. That's how you do it. Beautiful country. >> Yeah. >> I think
section, you know. >> Yeah. >> Somebody worked for me just uh relocated out. They took a image of these mountains called spider >> lights. >> Yeah. >> The whole thing
>> and then you can >> adjust Washington. The screen's further away and we can't see. >> Oh, yeah. >> We couldn't We could I couldn't even film.
better. >> And there's one underneath your >> Okay. and seven. >> That's what they want. All right. Good. Hey Britain sir, how are you? How are
you? >> Hello. >> Hello. >> I got two. So what was the confus? >> She said next week is a different Okay. So clear.
doesn't have all these must have been the original. That's not fair. That's the original idea. I had better. >> Yeah. So did I.
>> Um you're on vacation. We're going to get home [ __ ] I don't know. >> North Carolina elaborate. >> I never vacations. >> Scouting places to uh
>> Huh? scouting out of course from wherever. Right. >> That's right. I'm sorry. Sir, are you going to be speaking tonight, sir? over here. You can bring you can bring that up. Yes, sir.
>> Thank you. >> That's okay. Good evening. Welcome to the May 19th regular session of the local planning agency. Can we please get a roll call? >> Yes. Present tonight we have Arrol Lopez, Katherine Hunt, Bruce Kavanagh,
James Griby, David Deber, Ryan Hulcom, Dr. Arian Bryant. >> Thank you. At this time, I'd like everyone to please silent their cell phones so we can conduct proper business. >> Next item we have is approval of minutes. Is there a motion from the
board? >> Like to make a motion to approve the minutes from uh May 5th. >> Second. >> Second. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing those discussion, I'll call the vote. All those in favor say I. >> I.
>> Oppos say nay. And moving on. This area is public comment. Anyone wishing to speak to the board that on an item that is not on the agenda. Seeing none, I will close the public comment. Next thing we have is public
meeting. We don't have anything in the public meeting. So, we'll move right along into the public hearing. We have ordinance number 1766 zoning map amendment for planning unit for RT S. This is just strictly considering the
amendment changed nothing else. Is the applicant here come up state your name also the staff will not be presenting since they presented last week last. Hi. Yes. Um, Stuart Nielsen, McCree Journal Contractors and Architects on
behalf of Reformed Theological Seminary, the applicant. So, thank you for having us back. This is our second public hearing and uh last hearing the council requested that we meet with the Homeowners Associations of Kingsbridge East and West.
Last Wednesday, uh, between the hours of just shortly after 6:30 p.m. and between 8:30 p.m., we held a public, uh, open house for the HOA. We had roughly 34 members of the HOAs. Um, we have sign-in sheets and documentation showed that the
meeting was held. During this meeting, we presented the PowerPoint presentation that uh Deborah Pierre had presented in the last um to the city um to the HOA members and as we just ran through that quickly to allow
some of the members who hadn't yet seen that answer questions and also went over uh the plan that you see up here on the wall. Um, and we spent the entire 2 hours describing the project, the intent
of the amendment, the history of RTS, and at the end of the meeting, there was no members of that uh committee that had any questions left. Um, and but quickly run down, there was a lot of questions, general questions, just trying to
understand what it was we were trying to do. Um but basically the big thing that we we stressed was the whole purpose of this amendment was that RTS approached us and wanted to develop this bunk house, this dormatory, uh which is a a
place for students who mainly study outside of state or outside of area to be able to come in for short periods of time to take classes that otherwise couldn't be held online. uh roughly a couple stays for maybe a weekend or you
know a week. And we showed this plan that you're seeing up here on this wall. This is an old concept plan or master plan that was developed back in the uh mid90s when they were first developing the property. That plan shows seven
buildings and parking structures and the driveways off Mitchell Hammock and East Kings Bridge. The buildings number two, three and four are existing and built and buildings 1, five, six and seven are
were planned for future. The dormatory which is in the amend amendment is meant for track F which is the south track and is that building number one. Now that's not the footprint and as we
told the community this is very early conceptual. We haven't yet figured out, you know, what's in the program there. All we know is that it won't be more than 40 beds. It could be less. That's it. And that was the purpose of the amendment. That's where this whole thing came about. Um,
and yes, there there we you know, we talked about the student housing, but again, we're restricting ourselves. We're not doing dwelling units, which is undefined in the city code. We're saying this is the maximum number of beds. 163. 40 of those would be for this bunk
house. The other 123 could be at a future time, but there is no plans that we're aware of or the RTS is aware of to build those at this current time. We're just changing the amendment here so that 10 years etc. down the road if that were
to came come about and funding maybe that's something they consider. Right now, we're just trying to worry about the dormatory. There were a lot of questions, as I mentioned. The most common questions had to do with the conservation area, which was really talked about, and we said
again, there's several existing conservation areas. Those have been granted. I believe they are to the county. >> Um, St. John's River Water Management. >> St. John's River Water Management District. Thank you. Those areas have no plans for development. They cannot be
developed. they are granted and dedicated. There's all sorts of requirements as we would have to get into further development with buffers and landscaping, but again, this is conceptual. We're not at that stage yet. We're just trying to get an idea of getting this amendment through. Um, that
was really one of the biggest issues along with the storm water and the management of um there's a drainage canal on the south on the very north end of the property, Jay. Um, and there was questions about who is responsible for maintaining that. Um, that's a tricky
question because it is a conservation area over there and it is heavily um, uh, tied to the overall master planning of Long Lake, the Little Econ River system. So, we tried our best to answer those questions as we can, but a lot of
those tie into the greater storm water management system, St. John's, and those areas. There were questions about traffic and impact. I think we addressed all of those in the meeting. I don't think there was any major concerns from any of the staff or any of the members that I
was aware of leaving other than just general concerns about traffic in the city. Uh which again we are trying to not impact at all these 40 beds. Again, we're limiting ourselves uh by reducing number of students etc to to limit this
area. So we have no impact. I'm sure there was plenty of other questions there. We tried to address everything. I'd never uh at the end of the meeting I I asked multiple times. We did not hear anybody ask for additional questions at that time. Um but those
were really the general takeaways that I remember to the best of my knowledge. And with that, >> thank you. All right, we'll hear from we've got some people that want to speak. So it's staff is not going to present since they presented the last time. So I have four requests. The first
one I have is a William Ryan. >> You come up. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Hello, my name is William Ryan. I live at 458 Lake Park Trail. I've lived there since 1999. It's directly on the northern boundary of the seminal owned portion of Track J. Like many of my
neighbors, when I purchased my home, I paid a financial premium specifically for a lot adjacent to a protected conservation area that was never supposed to be developed further. The foundational purpose of a planned unit development is to provide long-term stability, predictability, and permanency so that investments like mine
are protected. I am here tonight to urge a critical text clarification on page 38 of the packet. The current text state that architectural guidelines shall be created for track J and J1. While a city official has verbally assured me that track J will not be affected by the
amendment, written ordinances outweigh verbal assur as assurances of intent. Because the senator only owns 4 acres of track J while my neighbors and I reside on the rem remaining 81.4 acres, any legal ambiguity introduces unpredictable risk to the stability of our entire
neighborhood. We have historical proof right in front of us why explicit test is mandatory to maintain this permanency. Staff recently located a 2001 permit for the fallen chain link fence claiming it's it satisfied a long
lake canal boat barrier. A protected conservation easement is in no way a canal and the narrative that any resident would or even could launch a motorized boat from a landlocked backyard is completely absurd. The fence is classified in your database as a
standard residential fence and a planned unit development zoning description. Current staff is retroact re retroactively fabricating a boat barrier narrative to defend a 25-year-old administrative oversight. If staff can
reinvent a plain residential fence record today, future staff can easily reinterpret the phrase shall be created to strip away our neighborhoods protections. To ensure stability, I request adding the following phrase. The architectural guidelines for track J and
J1 as set forth in exhibit E represent the existing standards and shall not be modified or diminished by this amendment. Finally, the property line sits inside a legally designated conservation easement. The seminary has neglected the fence for 20 years, forcing residents to clean heavy clear
heavy overgrowth from the fence. Today, 100 ft of the fence lies completely collapsed. Two weeks ago, RTS tried to argue that it wasn't even their offense. I urge the council to protect our community borders and stipulate the removal as a formal condition of the approval of ordinance 1766. Thank you
for your time. >> Thank you. Next person I have is Ray Clants. Clance, >> please state your name and address for the record, please. >> Mr. Chairman, members, my name is Rex Clants. I'm here to talk about the Ovido
Cemetery at the uh located at the corner of Broadway and Allen Street. >> Let me just stop you right there. Okay. We're not talking about the cemetery. >> So, that's that's my my issue today. >> Yeah, I know that that that that's why I said earlier on when we first opened up if anybody had to speak on an item that
wasn't on the agenda and that's when you should >> I'll have a seat. >> Okay. Thank you. Next person is David Evans. same issue. >> Speak to the symmetry also. So, >> Gotcha.
>> I miss other. >> No, no worries. No worries. I'll tell you what, if we can, can we backtrack if they want to speak before after we finish everything? >> Yeah, if you want to then have an opportunity to speak. >> Okay. Well, at the end, we'll let you have your your just your three minutes.
>> I'm sorry. Please say >> once we finish this uh agenda item. >> Get a doover. >> Will you get a doover? Yeah, that'll work. Uh, next person I have is Randy Greenwald. >> Yeah, my name is Randa Greenwald. I live
on Lind Street, 521 Len Street, Innov. Um my reason for being here is to give some sense of the character of who would inhabit these dormitories and the sense that the word dormatory can conjure all
kind of um uh images in our minds. Um I have I I taught these students for six or seven years. Um I have had some of them stay in my home. Um these these are
uh mature men and women um who have families at home. Um most of you know many of them are married with children. Um they're here for a week or so. Um and and in fact, you know, with living on the campus, they're going to be leaving,
you know, they're going to be less in the streets, right? Um less traffic, but they are are men and women of just high character and uh professional demeanor. Um it's certainly a you know it's an asset to the community and not a
detriment. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Uh you any questions for the applicant? >> Let me just before I start let me clarify it. The only questions we can ask >> are based on what's presented to us
today. No fencing, no retention. None of that can be answered tonight or asked >> then. >> Okay, >> go ahead. Um, it might not be able to be answered. Uh, because this original plan, as you referenced, goes back to the mid90s, but
does anyone know from the city or from from RTS what the original reason that that student housing or dormatory housing was not to be allowed on that property in the first place? >> I don't know if anyone from RTS wants to answer that.
>> The short answer is no. Yeah, >> for the dormatory, I know that the multif family was part of there. I I have some older documentation showing that I think there was planned for student housing. And again, the Ovito code is pretty vague on how dwelling
units or things are are defined. Um, and it's I think it's important to know it's we're calling it a dormatory, but it's it's hard to describe that because it's not students staying there for a full semester. It's not like, you know, I know a lot of the community had some
fear. You know, what if they rent it out to UCF students and, you know, it's not a frat house. It's not a dorm. You know, it's just a short stay. It's giving these students an opportunity, a place where they're not having to book a hotel down the road for a week. It's giving them that place. Um, I'd also add, you
know, the amendment also includes two caretakers. That's it's a nonprofit. It's not meant for, you know, somebody to live there for 20 years. It's meant for, you know, possibly a student or something that could have that house for a year that could then change over
linens and things. Um because again, it's not a full staff. It's a it's a nonprofit organization. So, the language of the dormatory when we talked with the city and first met that was it was a conundrum. I know we we all discussed what do we what do we call this thing? But that's the closest we could come up
with a definition for. >> One one last thing while I have you up here real quick. Um, you know, I think a lot of the push back we get from from citizens and from even from our own thoughts is uh is traffic, right? And you mentioned that that uh you know,
adding 40 40 units >> uh yes >> would have an impact. But but what my question is uh this change to the amendment opens up not just this 40 track, it opens up the rest of the of the lots to future development, right?
>> Yes. So again, and I know there's some concern about what the traffic was when this thing was first developed. There was a master plan for Kings Bridge that did a full traffic impact analysis of the entire >> PUD. We actually hired the same traffic engineer to reanalyze this property
specifically and what the impacts that we had in the amendment to make sure that with today's IT standards would not impact the traffic we actually reducing because again in the original amendment they wanted something like 750 students which isn't what they're seeing today.
The change of you know off-campus the change of education has has been redefined. So a lot of the students they have they're working remotely and so we realized we didn't need that impact and so from that and and we just tried to
fit the amendment into more current standards so it's more real than what is currently in the PUD and and that's where we get back to again our impacts are are actually less and deductive to what was originally there >> because it's meant for 750 students.
Yeah. And and if I can just add that 120 units can equal more than 163 beds. >> Exactly. >> So they are limiting themselves to 163 beds regardless. >> Regardless of the number of units. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> All right. What's a pleasure to report? I'd like to uh I'll make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 1766, the zoning map amendment for uh the planned unit development plan unit
development for reformed theological seminary at Kingsbridge. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any discussion on your part? Um, not really because, you know, I think we're going from like you just
said 100 the uh the original thing could had more beds. You there was no stipulation on that. So, we're actually limiting that. Um, and although I understand your issue about the fence, we're only talking about section F here and I think H, which is nowhere near that particular area. So, I'm totally
okay with making this change, which to me is a reduction of the possible number of bed space that you could have had in there to begin with anyway. I'm in agreement with that. >> Anybody else want to comment? >> I think my only my only comment would
be, you know, that this this change to amendment opens up future development. You referenced it doesn't your comments don't uh don't really reflect the >> the reason I say that is because since this is conceptual at this point, we're
just changing it limiting them from going from the 120 or 160 down to >> Mr. Chairman, if I can just um get clarification when you say does it open it up to future development, what do you >> you're you're this this amendment doesn't just affect lot F, right?
>> It affects affects >> it affects lots um it's in the staff report. Let me see. It's F and H. F. >> It's tracks F and H. Those are the only tracks that are affected by this amendment. It does not although they do own a portion of track J, it's not
affected by this particular amendment. So nothing else is affected and the only thing that's being added are those uses which would be the 163 beds as well as the let me repeat it two detached single
family and up to 40 um student housing dormitories and that's the beds >> up to 40 beds. >> Okay. So that's the that's tonight's amendment but further on down the road when they if they they could come back and and make changes to other lots. If they decide to make changes other than
what's approved here, they would have to come back through the same process. So, we would have to go back through LPA and then city council. So, nothing else other than what we are discussing tonight is being changed. >> Yes. I I Good evening, chair, LPA
members. I was going to clarify when you mentioned that u this agreement is opening up for future development. This agreement is very specific to what they are requesting. So they had already they were vested already for 120 units not beds right so we don't know how many
bedrooms a unit can can have we don't limit that. So if you have let's say even if you have two bedrooms three bedrooms you you know one one bed per bedroom they were vested for many more beds. So they are self-limiting to give
up the 120 units to now have a maximum of 133 beds >> in two track 163 in two um tracks and one of them has a maximum of 40 beds and that is the dorm. I would assume again
we were not here when when it was there was that prohibition. I would imagine they were afraid of UCF um students, dorm students, right? So um that is we're just assuming that but um today
they know that this is not UCF has a different purpose and the students are there for a short period of time. So that has a different character as you know um one member of the the community also expressed that. So this is very
specific. It's not it's not opening for things that we do not know. The amendment is very specific to allow the 163 beds. >> Yeah. Would they be open to discussion? I mean such a small area that this gentleman's talking about, would they be
open to amending that uh language? >> So that if you're talking about the fence, is that what you're talking about? the the the property this general >> I think the architectural standards for track J right >> would there be >> yeah we're only considering we're only
considering the two tracks now not that track so if they were to come back so we all we're doing is changing it from the 120 units down to 40 beds so we're limiting them completely so that's the only on Huh >> they're self-limiting >> I'm sorry
>> you said they're we're limiting they're selfim they're limiting themselves right >> so I mean if if they didn't want to do that. They can exist to go in there right now and build 120 units which could house >> two or three thousand people. >> That's and you know I'm I'm exaggerating
the number but we don't know what as as staff has mentioned >> we can have each building can have you know 100 200 people and they were talking we're down just the one bunk room >> you know so there you know I understand the concerns of the other people have
brought up but that's not what's in front of us today. >> Mhm. Okay. Not is not not to say that when they come back to us with other plans even for this property that we won't be able to address some of those issues. >> Uhhuh. >> But all we're considering right now is
just reducing it from the 120 units just to the bunk bed and the two u custodial buildings. That that's all we have to agree on or not or so. Anyway, anybody else have any comments? Okay. Seeing none, that I will call the
vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed. Absumptions. Everybody voted. I didn't hear everybody. Okay. Motion passes. Okay. Sorry. All right. Thank you. You'll go to city
hall. I mean a city council next week. Week after next. >> June 1st and June >> 15th. Do you want to have time for the uh >> Oh, back end. >> Yeah, the back end. Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans.
>> Mr. KL, come on up. >> I'll try this again, >> please. Sorry to cut you off there, but >> that No, it's quite all right. Um, I'm Rex Clance, uh, here to talk about the Ovita Cemetery. um at the corner of uh
Broadway and um Allen Street. Um Methodist Church of Ovido has operated that for years and of which I'm a member. And uh we'd like to put a fence of commercial grade black anodized chain um
uh picket fence along the side of all uh principally because on game nights across the street everybody's short of parking place and they want to pull in. We've had instances of people parking on grave sites.
Um, this will not be locked off to the public, but it will be uh set aside by that fence. It'll have uh brick columns at the entrance way uh to designate where the entrances are. Um it will sit
back from the edge of the road approximately 15 ft. Um, but by city code, a fence needs to be 2 ft back from the property line. To do so puts us
through large oak trees. Uh, if any of you have driven along Allen Street, you know that cemetery's got lots of trees actually on the both on the um right ofway street rightway as well as the
cemetery itself. So, we would go through, we would be hitting oak trees, we'd be going across grave sites. We're asking for uh permission to um be able to put our fence up on the edge of the
property line, not on the rightway at all, but on our property without having to do the two-foot setback. That's the simple thing. I'll be glad to answer any questions. >> Okay. I'm gonna guess talking to looking at staff. Is that coming to us soon?
>> That will be coming to you. There's a process for sure. The deviation. It's a deviation application and it's under review now. >> Um so it will be before you um soon. Um we've been um discussing this with the applicant as well. So the applicant is
aware of what the city is requiring um and they are working with the staff. So, we can't answer any questions or ask any questions because it's coming to the board. So, we can't prejudge anything. >> All right. >> Okay. But thank you, Mr. Evans. >> I would just like to um re reiterate
what Rex had said that um we're trying to accommodate the existing traffic that's generated during the football games and the other games uh at the high school. And um this this deviation would allow us to put the
fence in without removing some very specimen oak trees and uh so that's the reason for it and it will be on the just inches inside of our our property line. So we would appreciate um uh your approval and your suggestion to the
council that uh that they approve it. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. >> All right. Next item is discussion items. Anybody have anything they want to discuss? Seeing none. Future meetings. We do have one next week, right? >> And do we have one for June 2nd?
>> Um, not that I'm aware of. >> Okay. >> I'm not sure. >> All right. >> When would the um projected when we presented with the challenges with the property line with the cemetery >> fence >> or the or the fence? They still have
some um comments that they need to resolve with the city. Um there's a portion of the property that portion of the fence that may extend to the city's rightway. So there's some issues. We're trying to get that out of the city's right away. Um but we're still working
with the applicant on it. >> So this summer possibly >> hopefully soon. >> Okay. >> Hopefully soon. >> Perfect. Thank you. Seeing nothing else, we are journed. Thank you everyone. Okay.
But I know you were doing another fun plans for that amendment to the original