Good evening. I'm going to call this Tuesday, June 17th, 2025 council meeting to order. If you'll stand with me, uh Councilman Carlile is going to lead us in prayer. Let's pray. Heavenly Father, we're so thankful for this day. We're thankful for the health that we have and the
strength we have and we're thankful for the country that we live in. Pray for those that are in authority over us as your word tells us to. I pray for each person that represents the city up here u tonight that we make quality decisions
that please you. I pray for all of our first responders and those that work for the city for taking care of our city. I just ask special blessings upon them and everyone here. Lord of God just ask blessing. We ask that you take us home
safely tonight. Give you the praise, the glory, and the honor in Jesus name. Please join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, Kathy, can you please call the role? Bishop here. Here, here, here, Stewart here.
All right. If there is anyone in the audience that has something they'd like to speak about that is not on the agenda, um, you can fill out one of these agenda request forms up here and give it to Clerk Haley and we'll address that after new business. Uh, council members reports. Mr. Carla. Well, I went
to the Ballinger Range last week. Or was it this week? and and uh I'm on the steering committee there and uh Jennifer can help me out here. But I think that well we're going to have a final in a couple months of all the
things that need to be done. They have a high, medium, and low list. So we talked about that. That was part of
and the um I just want to say the uh meeting we had on the Zoom yesterday. I really enjoyed that. That was that was very educational. What meeting was that? The TDC. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that was
good. Good. Gives you a whole different light. Counciloman Kovs. No report. No report. No report. All right. No report for me either. Uh we're going to go ahead and move on to the consent agenda. Um if any council member wants
to remove an item from the consent agenda to talk about individually, you can do so now. Are there any questions or comments from uh the public on the consent agenda? Okay. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. I'll make motion we approve the consent agenda as presented. Second. All
right, we have a motion and a second. Kathy, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Still, yes. All right, there is no um old business. We're going to move on to new business. We're going to open this hearing for
item number 10 A. Uh public hearing and ordinance number 1547. If I can just at the outset note that some of you who are here for these items noticed there were meetings scheduled in May and then June and we rescheduled and moved those a little bit further down
the line. That was at the city's uh need. We had an advertising glitch on that. So that was not the applicant that asked for that. That was the city. So uh 10 agenda item 10A regards an ordinance number 1547 and is entitled an ordinance
of the city of Sebring Florida changing the future land use classification for approximately 66 acres located on the eastern edge of Lake Sebring west of scenic highway south of Summit Road north of Cuden Road but south of partial IDs and then from county medium density
residential to uh city low density residential providing for transmitted to Florida Commerce as a part of amendment 25-01 ESR for review and compliance providing for separability providing for conflict providing for an effective date.
Good evening. Good evening. Hello. Uh, for the record, Jennifer Photo Salsbury with the Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Can everybody hear me? Okay. Yes, ma'am. That's rare. So, thank you. Um, I am looking at my phone, which is the same PowerPoint, but it just
prevents me from looking back. Um, so that as was read into the record, ordinance 1547 is a future land use map amendment. And we go to the next slide. Um the owner is Gapway Groves and the
location the site is located on the eastern edge of Lake Sebring west of Scenic Highway south of Summit Road and north of Cudon Road. And the site is about 66 acres. The future land use today is residential
medium and it holds Highlands County's future land use. The property was annexed into the city in I believe December 2023 and uh at this time the owner has asked to change the future land use to low
density residential in the city and that's actually a lower density and we'll talk about that in a minute and we can go to the next slide and this really is an eye chart but it's a snapshot of the uses and the land uses surrounding
the property. Uh and Of course, we have Lake Sebring to the west. Um, but most of the properties in the surrounding area are county residential, medium. Uh, we do to the south have county residential, medium, and city high
density residential, for example, as far as future land use. And we can go to the next slide. And this is just a view looking uh at the property from Scenic Highway. And then on the next slide we have a view of the property from the end of Lake
Sebring Drive. And then the next slide we see the end of Sparkling Drive. And then finally we have the view adjacent neighborhood on Spark. Just kind of some snapshots of the area.
And then yes the future land use map. This is the current future land use today. It shows residential medium. That's the Highlands County future land use. And that allows eight dwelling units an acre. And then the proposed
land use is low density residential. That's city low density residential. And that allows five dwelling units an acre. So if the amendment is approved, we're looking at three dwelling units less per acre for five units an acre. And this is
a nice the next slide is a nice snapshot of the current future land use on the left and then the right is the proposed land use. So you can see uh what that will look like that again would be low density residential of the city and then
if we can go to the next slide. So what we like to show is what does the land use allow today the maximum density and what would it allow if the amendment is proposed and today 528 dwelling units
would be allowed under the proposed amendment 330 dwelling units would be allowed. So that's actually a reduction of 198 dwelling units uh maximum potential on the site. Uh and then going to the next slide in looking utilities.
Um the city would be the provider of both water and wastewater. Um emergency services are located within a five mile radius and the school board has provided initial concurrency planning letter showing there is
capacity. And then the next slide shows um impacts to uh recreation and open space. Um a subsequent zoning would show the provisions for those facilities. A transportation
uh and traffic study uh preliminary review indicates there's sufficient capacity in the supporting uh roadway network. And um from an environmental perspective, there's a small area of the property uh potentially indicating uh
Zurich uplands. Um the city's planning The zoning board held a public hearing on June 10th and they made a recommendation uh of approval in forwarding this amendment to the city council.
And I'm available for any questions. Any questions from council? Any questions or comments from the public? Yes, ma'am. You I'm sorry. You'll have to come up to the microphone. Let us know who you are for for the
record, please. Rebecca Wills, um city of Sebring resident. Is the land already purchased or is it still owned by the Gapway? It's still owned by Gway and Gway is the applicant. Oh, okay. They're going to continue to own the
land. Well, they're going to develop it. We'll let them address that question. Their representatives are here with us. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Shelton Rice. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Peterson and Myers 225 Lakeland, Florida. I'm here on behalf of
Gway Groves. They have owned property for time. They've been citrus families that property in this area 30 40 years parts of this community also have ownership citrus and other operations
county and other surrounding areas. This is this site is something we've worked on with the city frankly for many years at least going back to 2023. I know we had conversations about it. It was ultimately memorialized in a development agreement that's approved by
the city council in December of 2023 that contemplated annexation of the properties. But at the same time, we wanted to be transparent and we went through at that time, hey, here's ultimately what we're going to be asking for for land use. Here's what we're
going to be looking at for zoning. Not obligated to provide it, but wanted there to be transparency from our end. We didn't want uh anybody to look at it later and say you never told us what you're going to be asking or we wouldn't have asked you. Um so we tried to do this in a stand up and appropriate way.
Our clients have been good members of this community. We've had conversations with neighbors I think as recently as earlier today we had some conversations with some folks about different components of this project. So we think it makes a lot of sense. This property is kind of related to the next item
certainly related to it. That's the zoning map amendment. the same area. The comp plan amendment from that standpoint reduces the density as Miss Jennifer mentioned which we we agree. We think that's appropriate. But the zoning that we're contemplating is a plan unit development. So I know you guys are
familiar with that process, but ultimately that means we have a binding site plan. We're showing exactly where everything's located, what would be the requirements of development, and uh we have that stated. I think our density that we're actually coming in with, which we wouldn't be able to exceed without amending that PUD if this were
approved, is 3.5 units per acre. So, frankly, the county future land use designation starts at four units per acre, goes up to eight units per acre. What we're asking for and would be allowed through this comp plan amendment, and then the subsequent zoning would be a reduction even below
that four units an acre. So, we think this is appropriate. We're happy to answer any questions. I would ask if there are public comments on this item, uh, we'd be given an opportunity to come up and just respond and answer those. Sure. Thank you. Any any other questions from council or
from the public on this? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Um, I will entertain a motion. Make a motion approve ordinance 15 to 47 as presented on first reading and schedule second and final
reading for August 5th, 2025. Second is for the record. I graduated 1967 and Gatway owned the Groves 58 years ago. All right, we have a motion and a second.
Kathy, if you will call the RO, please. Fish, yes. Cor, yes. H, yes. Yes, Stewart. Yes. All right, we're going to move on to item number 10B. Um, this is public hearing ordinance number 1542. I'm going
to go ahead and open the public hearing on this one. Yes, sir. Ordinance 1542 is entitled an ordinance of the city of Sebring, Florida, changing the zoning classification for approximately 66 acres located on the eastern edge of Lake Sebring west of scenic highway
south of Summit Road and north of Cudden Road from county agricultural county residential district to city planned unit development for residential development providing severability for conflict and providing for an effective date. Okay.
All right. Good evening. For the record again, Jennifer Cotto Salsbury with the Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Uh and it was just read uh ordinance 1542 is the reszoning and
um so as mentioned the owner is Gapway Groves and the location again is on the eastern edge of Lake Sebring west of Scenic Highway south of Summit Road and north of Cudden Road. again approximately 66 acres and this would be
the accompanying reszoning to the future land use map amendment. Today the property is agriculture in Highlands County and also R1 and the applicant has requested a planned unit development on
the site and again the surrounding uh land uses uh most of the properties have county land use with residential medium or uh city high density residential. these
zoning in. To the north is um county R1 and R3. To the south we have R1 and county PUD. Uh and then of course to the west we have Lake Sebring. And to the east we have um residential medium and
county agriculture as examples. And then just going to the next slides again views of the property. Uh the view from scenic highway uh the view from the end of Lake Sebring Drive. the view uh of the property from the end of Sparkling
Drive and then the view of the adjacent neighborhood on Sparkling Drive and then a snapshot of the existing zoning map again which shows the county agricultural zoning and the R1 zoning that the property holds today. Uh on the
agricultural zoning, it allows one dwelling unit per five acres and uh the R1 I think would allow for 10,000 square foot lots. And then under the proposed zoning, uh we would be looking at uh the
applicant's request for planned unit development. And that would allow for 234 homes. And that's at a density of a little over three and a half dwelling units an acre. And that's um well under
the city's land use of five dwelling units an acre. Uh access to the neighborhood would be from scenic highway with emergency access to sparkling drive. The internal roadway network will be private.
Uh and then if we look at the impacts of the resoning again the future land use uh would be low density residential and uh the the potential planned unit development would
allow 234 dwelling units. So again consistency with that future land use. With regard to impacts, uh the city would provide water and wastewater. Emergency services are within five miles and there is school capacity indicated
at this time. Um as we look at the conditions for the plan development that will address recreation and open space. Again, the preliminary review of transportation indicates there's sufficiency in the roadway network and there's potentially an area of um Zurich
uplands on the site. So, as we look at the proposed conditions of the planned unit development, again, with a planned unit development, uh that they usually do walk with conditions in a binding site plan. Um, as you can see on the screen,
just a snapshot of the property. Um, looking at the single family dwelling units. Front yard setbacks would be 20 ft. Rear yard would be 10 ft. Sideyards would be um 7 and 1/2 ft. So, there'd be
15 feet between homes. Uh, and then the garage setback in the front would be 25 ft. Uh and then we'll go to in a minute we'll go to the concept plan and you can see how those lots lay out. But the lots
will be 50 by 115, 70x 115 and 70 by 205 and then we will go to the conditions of the plan development. U so the conditions include um the rights of way and the development will
be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners association. A minimum of a five- foot sidewalk will be constructed on both sides of all internal rights of way. Uh and then we have an update to condition four. Uh so if we can go to
the next slide, that condition will read as shown on the master development plan. A type D buffer and a 6 foot high wall will be built between as a buffer between the property
and the parcels on Sparkling Drive. And a type D buffer and a 6- foot high opaque fence will be between the property and the remaining parcels on Sparkling Drive. So just really adding the fence and the
wall in the conditions and you can see that on this drawing where the wall is proposed and the fence and that is binding in the plan development and also in the drawing
you'll see where the emergency access is provided on sparkling drive right right And then the next slide shows just indicates an emergency gate will be provided at the connection of Sparkling Drive.
And then if you go to the the concept plan, which I think the applicant had had up a moment ago, this really shows um the layout of the new neighborhood again with the orange lots being the 50x
110, the red 70x 115, and then the green being 70x 205. So those last lots I just mentioned, that's about 14,350 square ft. The red lots are a little over 8,000 square feet and the orange
are almost 6,000 square feet. They're 5,750 square feet. And next slide. Is that it?
So this is um again looking at the current zoning of agriculture and R1 and then the proposed zoning zoning going to planned unit development with those conditions. And I believe the applicant is also here and I'm available for any questions. On
June 10th, the planning and zoning board held a public hearing and they um made a motion to forward this amendment to the city council with a recommendation of approval. Okay. Any questions or or comments for
council? Any questions or comments from the public? Mark, you gota come to the state of the record, please. Mark Wilson, planning and zoning. Um, we rever did review this twice. Um, the
first time was a 4 and a half hour public hearing. Second time was about two hours. the developer made changes concerning what the public was uh uh concerned about and
he's made the changes that uh they wanted. The property is fantastic for them and it's I think it's going to be a good thing for the city. But we did read through this twice and uh it was quite lengthy and improved it and uh I don't
think we have anything to worry about. Good evening again. For the record, Shelton Rice uh here on behalf of Gapway Groves. I appreciate the comments that we heard. There have been some lengthy hearings before the planning and zoning board. Uh there have been a number of changes and I appreciate Miss Jennifer's comment. She basically showed you the
same slides that I was going to show you detailed the same things. So, uh I think we're on the right track. I'll just summarize a couple of those changes briefly and I appreciated the comment from planning and zoning board member. We transitioned a handful of 50 foot wide lots to 70 foot wide lots. You can
see those 70 foot wide lots are kind of done on periphery of the project. Right? So you've got the larger lots on the outside and then the smaller lots more internal with the deeper lots and the bigger lots of course on the lakefront. Um adjusted the connection to Sparkling
Drive. So, I made that emergency access only, which really means it's not going to be open for residents to use. It's only going to be utilized in the event of an emergency for police, fire, ambulances, those things. So, it will not be open to uh any other type of
access from residents or otherwise. Um the southern access point as we get closer to the other right away on the south side is actually fully landscaped. So, that's going to be fully blocked off. There wouldn't be any access that way. Um there's a sixoot pre-cast wall as was
mentioned that's adjacent to the four existing homes that's going to run along that entire boundary there. And then where we have we'll have adjacent lots on the other side of it. And then about the time when those lots on the west side in the neighborhood aren't developed where those are vacant, we
actually have open space on the other side. So instead of doing an expensive pre-cast wall there, the idea was just landscaping and then a sixoot opaque fence. Um, so there's been a number of changes. Uh, we appreciate the comments and the input we've had from the public to this point. As mentioned, Gapway is a
great client of ours. They're a great group to work with. We appreciate the opportunity to uh represent them. They try to do things the right way. So, we appreciate everything. I could go through more. I'm happy to answer questions. As I mentioned, if there are comments from the public, we just appreciate an opportunity to come up and
respond. Thank you. Any other uh comments, questions from council or Yes, sir. Good evening. evening. Tom Griffin, 343 Sparkling Drive, Sebring,
and um just live adjacent to the property being proposed and did attend the first zoning meeting and did appreciate the um back and forth with the developer and the changes that they made. Um I'm for growth in Sebring. I'm
excited to have an R1 development next door. No problems with that. But I did want to point something out because when we're talking about density and it's not just this development, but it's any other development, R1 or R2, they talk about 3.5 houses per acre for the
density. Sounds pretty good. But if you consider the sizes of the lots, which are 50 by 110, where those lots are, you're going to have seven and a half houses per acre. So I'm assuming that they're taking the whole square footage of the development
with the number of lots and coming up with the density of three and a half. So if you look at that development, it's gone. Now the bulk of the development in the middle is pretty dense. Okay, that's where most of those smaller lots are. Bigger lots being outside around the
edge. So the point I'm making is, you know, let's have a vision for growth. And when we're talking about density and we're talking about houses and setbacks and lot sizes and square footage, let's get let's get into the weeds and see what that really means and what we're
approving when we approve this development or any other development that's coming up. So, the only comment I'd like to make on this one, I appreciate your time. Mr. Rice, were you wanting to speak to that? I just briefly respond. I promise I'll
be quick. Um the it t it's typical for density to be evaluated on a gross acreage. We see that in lots of jurisdictions that that's kind of the norm. Um I like the way this one's oriented in this development. We've got those open space areas. So, it's good to have, you know, from a planning
perspective, and I'm not a planner, but we see enough projects, um, to see your density kind of clustered in one place so that you can preserve open space and have larger areas for people to to enjoy, uh, from that standpoint. So, we recognize that, but, that that's kind of part of how it's analyzed. So,
appreciate the comments. Uh, we respectfully request a favorable vote. Thank you. for closed public hearing. The only comment I guess I would make is um as a council, we've been begging developers for, you know, R1 developments um instead of just mobile home parks. I'm
really thrilled to see one come in and especially a developer that has been amendable to to listening to the people around and making changes to to fit that vision. So, I'm I'm very pleased with this. Any other comments or questions before we close the public hearing?
public hearing. We'll entertain a motion. I move to approve ordinance 1542 as presented on first reading and schedule second final reading for August 5th, 2025. Second. All right, we have a motion and second. Kathy, can you please
call the role? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, we're going to move on to item number 10 C, public hearing and ordinance number 1548. I will go ahead and open the public hearing. Mr. Yes, sir. Ordinance number 1548 is
entitled an ordinance of the city of Sever, Florida, changing the future land use classification for approximately 75 acres located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sunset Road rightway and scenic highway south of the Grand Boulevard north of Sebring Parkway.
Oops. partial IDs from county medium density residential to city medium density residential providing for transmitt to Florida commerce as a part of amendment 25-01 ESR for review and compliance providing for separability providing for conflict
and providing for an effective date. Okay. Uh once again, Jennifer Cotto Salsbury with the Central Florida Regional Planning Council. So the this is again um owned by Gapway Groves and the property is located at
the northeast corner of the intersection of Sunset Road right ofway and scenic highway south of L Grande Boulevard and north of the Sebring Parkway and it's about 75 acres. So it's kind of across the street from the amendment we just
looked at. The future land use today in Highlands County is residential medium, which allows eight units an acre as a maximum. And the proposed amendment is to city medium density residential, which allows up to 12 units an acre.
And this is a view of the property from scenic highway. And then kind of looking at what's around us again that that eye chart, but uh to the north we have county residential medium and residential low and to the south again
residential medium. Um and then as we look over to the east, uh residential medium as well. And then going to the next slide, you'll see this is our future land use map today showing that county medium density residential.
And then the following slide is the proposed future land use of city medium density residential at 12 units an acre. And you'll see the following slide puts them together and what the existing land use looks like and the proposed
both almost the same color. Uh both residential medium but again uh higher density in the county I mean the city sorry. Uh so if we go to the impact slide you'll see there that with this amendment the maximum potential units in
the city's land use will be 900 dwelling units. That's an increase of 300 dwelling units. If we go to the following slide, uh impacts, the site would be served by city water and sewer. There are
emergency services within a 5m radius and the school board has indicated that there is capacity. Uh with regard to recreation and open space, any future development would need to have at least 30% uh open space.
Recreation and open space, the preliminary traffic study indicates there is sufficient roadway capacity and this site is located outside of environmentally sensitive areas. And on June 10th, the planning and
zoning board uh did hold a public hearing on this application and voted to forward this application to city council with a recommendation of approval. And I'm available for any questions.
Are any questions from council? Any questions or comments from the public? Good afternoon. Shelton Rice from Peterson and Meyers, address 225 East Lemon Street here on behalf Lakeland, Florida. Here on behalf of Gapway Groves for the record, um appreciate appreciate
the comments and the presentation from Miss Jennifer. I think she covered most of the salient points. I would add a couple of things when we're talking about density um just from a big picture standpoint, right? This would allow up to this Yeah. large units per acre.
However, there are requirements in your code when you look at the zonings and I know we're kind of taking a peek at the next ordinance. When you look at the R2 zoning and you look at really the density that's allowed by right, it's 5.8 units per acre. that's really
contemplated off of duplex units at a 100 foot minimum lot width. Uh and you can't have 100 foot wide lots across the entire property, right? You got to have roads, you got to meet other open space and other requirements of the code. So, uh the theoretical density you could
really get to is much lower than that if you look at it with respect to the zoning that's contemplated. recognize this maximum density is much higher, but the ordinance coming behind it. Certainly uh we would propose limits that quite a bit from a zoning standpoint. Other than that, we
appreciate uh the time and I would ask for just a few minutes to respond if there are any public comments. Thank you. Any further uh comments or or uh concerns from the public? All right, seeing none, I'm going to go
ahead and close the hearing and I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve ordinance 1548 is presented first reading and schedule second final reading on August 5th. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a
second please. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. We're going to move on to item number 10 D. Public hearing and ordinance number 1543. And I will open the public hearing. Ordinance 1543 is entitled an ordinance
of the city of Sever, Florida, changing the zoning classification for approximately 75 acres located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sunset Road rightway and scenic highway the south of the Grand Boulevard road and north of Sebring Parkway from County Agricultural to city one and two family
district providing for severability providing for conflict and providing for an effective date. Okay, Jennifer with the regional planning council and again this is a resoning. This is a resoning from county
agriculture to city uh one and two family which is R2 and we have a couple of photos. One is looking at the property from scenic highway and the same photo a second time. Uh when we look at the surrounding
properties and we look at the zoning, uh to the north we have county zoning R1 and R3 with existing single family residential. To the south, county zoning is agriculture. As we look over to the
east, um again, county R1. Um so kind of really a similar area. And then if we go to the next slide, you can see what the map looks like today with the county agricultural zoning which allows one unit per five acres.
And then the proposed zoning uh as Mr. Rice had earlier indicated the zoning of R2 would allow 5.8 units per acre. And if we go to the the impacts, uh, of
course you'll see the slide again, the maximum potential under the future land use would be 900 dwelling units, but with the zoning, uh, that would allow a maximum of 435 dwelling units total on the site. And again, that's closer to
5.8 units per acre. Uh going to the next slide, the R2 zoning district in the city has a minimum lot size of 10,000 square ft and a minimum of an 80 foot wide lot. The
setbacks for a new home would be 25 foot front setbacks, 7 and 1/2 ft sideyard, so again about 15 ft between homes, a 25 ft rear yard setback, and a 15 foot uh
corner lot setback. The maximum height for future homes is 35 ft. And the minimum open space requirement again is 30% of the site. And as we look at
uh impacts, the city would provide water and wastewater to the site. There are emergency services within a 5m radius and there is school capacity at this time. Uh and then continued impacts
again recreation and open space. There's a 30% requirement of the development. The preliminary traffic studies indicate there is roadway network capacity and the site is located outside of environmentally sensitive areas.
And this is really a snapshot of the map that we have today with agricultural zoning and then the proposed map uh with the R2 zoning. And at the June 10th meeting of the planning and zoning board, the planning and zoning board
held a public hearing and voted to forward this amendment to the city council with a recommendation of approval. And I'm available for any questions. Any questions or comments from council? Any questions or comments from the
public? Thank you. For the record, Shelton Rice, attorney with the law firm of Peterson and Myers here on behalf of Gapway Groves. I think I should have sat maybe a little closer to the front. I'll remember that for next time. Um, but just just briefly to touch on the comments that uh, Miss Jennifer did. I
think she did an excellent job presenting really the nuts and bolts of this. So, a couple of things related to the R2 zoning. It has a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. So to deviate from that, we would have to come in with plan development. Um 80 foot minimum
width for a single family detached unit, 100 foot width for a duplex unit if that were pursued. Um frankly, those are way bigger than what you really see in the market today. Those are very large lots. Um so in all likelihood, a planned unit development would be pursued in the
event of a residential development on the site in the near future. Uh with that said, we think that really caps and limits what could be done on the site. It likely would come back before you. Uh no certainty they could meet these requirements, all the 30% open space, all these other things, but uh we think
this is appropriate zoning based on the land use designation, based on what's around it, uh and and what's in the community. So with that said, I just asked for a moment if there are any public comments to respond. Thank you. Anyone else from the public would like
to speak on this? Okay, seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. I will entertain a motion. A motion to approve ordinance 1543 is presented for first reading and schedule second and final
reading for August 5th. Second. All right, have a motion and a second roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. Okay, we're going to move on to item number 10E, public hearing and ordinance number 1549. And I
will open the public hearing. Mr. Ordinance 1549 is entitled an ordinance of the city of Sebring, Florida, changing the future land use classification for approximately 38 acres located at the southeast corner. The intersection of Sunset Road rideway and scenic highway south of Summit Road
and north of Seing Parkway. It lists out those partial ID numbers from medium density residential to city commercial providing for trans excuse me transmitt to Florida Commerce is a part of amendment 25-01 ESR for review and compliance providing
for separability providing for conflict and providing for an effective date. All right, Jennifer with the regional planning council and thank you. Uh so this the owner is
Gapway Groves. This is an approximately 38 acre site. Again just reiterating located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Sunset Road rightway and Scenic Highway south of Summit Road and north of Sebring Parkway. The future
land use today is county residential medium. So allowing up to eight units an acre. The proposed land use amendment is to city commercial. And just kind of taking a look at the property itself, we have a photo, the
view of the property from Scenic Highway and then a view of the adjacent warehouse facility. And then back to our land use matrix, uh, showing the surrounding land uses. To the south, uh, we have county
commercial. Uh, and to the north, we have county residential, medium, and low. And over to the east, we have, uh, city residential, low. Uh, and to the southeast, we have county residential high. And then if we take a look at the
existing future land use map, again, you'll see there that residential medium in the county. Again, the property was annexed in 2023, but carrying that county land use until changed into the city. The future land use of commercial
There we go. Um, allows for office and commercial activities and uses and all residential, recreation, and public uses in light manufacturing, wholesale, and warehouse uses. Um so so really it allows for a mix of uses. The imperous
surface ratio is.7 and the um multifamily maximum density would be 40 dwelling units an acre with an approved planned unit development. And then just taking a look again the
existing land use of residential medium and the proposed going to city commercial. And then taking a look at the impacts again in the county uh you could have 304 homes and in the proposal
for city commercial um you could have 20 uh dwelling units per acre. Um so that would look like uh 1,990 dwelling units or about a little over 2 million square ft of non-residential uses. So the
difference again is an increase of 1,686 units or about 2.3 million square feet of non-residential uses with this land use amendment. And then as we take a look at impacts, the site would be
served by city water and wastewater. There are emergency services within a 5m radius. And with the zoning that's proposed, which we'll talk about in a few minutes, um there would be no impact to to schools.
Um there is a 10% requirement for recreation and open space. There were preliminary traffic studies done which indicate there's sufficient roadway capacity and the site is located outside of
environmentally sensitive areas. Uh, at the June 10th meeting, the planning and zoning board um voted to recommend approval to the city council. I'm available for any questions. Any questions or comments from the
public? It's just a quick question out of curiosity. Christopher Toughley um from Sebring Lake access to the lake. How is that provided for the residents
or will there be a a ramp or so that would be under the previous items that we just voted on this? I forgot to ask it then. Okay. I can't answer that one. That's all right. It's up to the people that buy. Okay, my name is Michael Healey. I'm here on
behalf of my mother-in-law who lives at the intersection of Lrand and Scenics. They're just on the basically directly bordering the last property that was discussed. Uh I give you the same statement that I made to the planning
people. Absolutely not. This is not a commercial area. It's a residential area. You're adding and 650 to 700 more homes, residential homes in that area and it's it's not the place for a
commercial enterprise period. When this was all under the county and the discussion was held for the Bernie Little property, there was questions then about encroachment of commercial into the residential area. And at that time, the
county board said, "No, we won't let commercial go beyond where Bernie Little's going to go." And even that, that was a fight with Bernie Little. There's people that actually sold their homes because of Bernie Little going in there. So, this isn't the place for
commercial. Want commercial, go down on Route 27. That's where that belongs. It doesn't belong in this neighborhood. Any other comments or questions from the public? Thank you. For the record, Shelton Rice with Peterson Myers, 225 East Lemon
Street here on behalf of Gapway Lemon Street, Lakeland, Florida. Uh just a a couple of brief comments about this and this once again, I know I sound like a broken record, but it's kind of wrapped in with the plan development, right? This is a comp plan amendment to assign future land use designation, but there's
a plan unit development on the heels of it that that we're contemplating. Uh we think it is an appropriate site. We can appreciate there may be different opinions on that. Uh it's adjacent to a distribution area with Bernie Little. Uh we were involved with that project back
in the day when it went through the process. Um a couple of additional things that I think might help from a historical perspective as we look at this site. So when we went through with the development agreement, there was a lot of discussion we had with staff and Mr. Swain about what would this be, what
makes sense, and then what would the entitlement potentially be for this? And as contemplated in the development agreement, the idea was this could be a plan development or a plan unit development with one of the primary thoughts and concerns being the city
having an interest in an extension of Sunset Road. Um so we'll look at that. We'll show that and talk about that more on the next one. But that's part of the reason why we have a plan unit development on this as opposed to getting into the specifics of um a a
more general zoning district. Um, from a comp plan side, a couple of other things. They're 30% open space wrapped in the PD. I recognize we're in the comp plan, but other components of that, um, we've agreed to go through site plan approval. From a compatibility standpoint, though, we think it makes
sense. When you look at the aerial, we've got the distribution center adjacent to us. We have the frontage on the roadway. The residential we abut is really the other project that we talked about earlier this afternoon. Um, and so we think our client can do things to kind of limit that. The intended
commercial here is more neighborhood oriented. It's not intended to be a great big shopping center or plaza. It's more oriented to be kind of neighborhood uh focused commercial, smaller scale, uh, is the idea. But appreciate your time. Uh, we respectfully request a
favorable vote and we'll be back up for the PUB to get into more details on that. I have a question for you. Yes, sir. I think when we initially spoke um with Gapway a couple years ago, they expressed um maybe support for a fire station in that area. At that time, I
think they were talking about carving out a parcel maybe for that. Is that still a plan? Possibly. My recollection and I it's been a while as you may recall. Uh my recollection is there were some periphery conversations. That's something we're open to we'll evaluate
and talk about. It's not something we're obligated to in these approvals. Uh but certainly we we think it may make sense to provide more services closer to these future residents, closer to some of the development contemplated. It was listed as an acceptable use in your PD. I
assume that was why. Yes, sir. Okay. Any any questions or comments from of this? Andrew Lethbridge Sebring. First of all, I just want to thank all the commissioners. Thank you for serving. Um I know that it's not easy to lead. All
the office staff, all the work that you put in. Um service is not easy and leadership is not easy and I do appreciate it. Um looking back to the uh Bernie Little project, I do agree specifically there were a lot of concerns at the time as far as that
going in living in that area and they have been good neighbors uh specifically with that. Um I hear some of the justification as far as um looking at this property while we're adjacent to that property. There was a lot of discussion at at that time. What is this going to become? What is how is this
going to impact the neighborhood? Once you start one commercial um u project, okay, is the next property going to want to become commercial and then all of a sudden instead of a residential area and all of a sudden you're living in a commercial area was the concern. I do see that this is a move that direction
as far as this zoning change specifically and maybe there's plans and different pieces and you hear that um but it's always the unknown uh specifically that makes you worried as far as the community that you end up living in specifically. So um to me I
would be against moving this uh commercial specifically for this. Um, I think that the proximity to the parkway, uh, keeping those properties if that if that wanted to be commercial even more in the direction as far as Bernie Little or closer to the Parkway, that made
sense. Um, but the more that we end up encroaching the other direction, I think that you start shoving commercial into residential areas and it just doesn't make sense to me for that specific area. Appreciate your consideration. Either way, I appreciate you guys. Thank you very much. Any
other comments, concerns, questions from council or the public? Tom Griffin, my address again? 343. Okay. Just want to kind of follow up on some of the other comments on the commercial um changes asked for
um And I made a comment at the the planning and zoning and I'll make it again just as a visual. You know, 30 acre commercial development. You could have Home Depot and Lowe's on that parcel. Get a visual about, you know,
the amount of traffic that could be coming in and out of that and the the the way that a commercial change to that space could change the feel of that whole sector. You know, we have that northeast sector which is is starting to grow up, right? They finished the
Parkway, Panther Parkway. They're going to put a spur over to 17 now. Finish that phase four, fa phase five. So, we're going to see a lot of development I I think over the next 10 years in that that general direction. And Scenic Road,
that intersection is kind of one of the gateways to that. So, you know, while we're talking about, you know, serving the the new development and it maybe this or maybe that, well, let's see it. Let's see this footprint, you know, because once once
we go see one, the horse is out of the barn pretty much. You know, they could bring a plan later, it's my understanding there won't be any public notice or public, you know, where people can come and comment on that plan. it's
pretty much going to go staff straight to council and if you find out you find out. So I would ask that this council, you know, take a step back on this request and get more information, get a
site plan. You know, maybe we reconfigure the footprint a little so that it fits the space better and it fits a future, you know, kind of vision for that whole area. You know, we've got the town homes going in now.
I don't know when the traffic study was done, but from what I understand, it's two years old. Um, things have changed. You know, it's just there's too many unknowns um to kind of just kind of rubber stamp this to move forward. So,
I would request that we ask the developer to come back with a more specific plan before you make a decision. And maybe when they bring it, it's great and you go forward. But, you know, we know we we don't know what's going to happen in a year or two years.
It could become C1 and they could sell it. They may not, but they could. And then we don't know what that developer is going to do and what their intentions are going to be, how easy they're going to be to work with. So it the residents in the area
and I even think just for the city residents in general for planning for for growing for growing responsibly you know we need more information we need more specifics and it's too big of a parcel just to say yeah we'll see you when we see you and hopefully something
that works with everything. So I would ask that you turn this down at this time and let's go back to the drawing board on it. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Shelton Rice for Gapway. Um,
just a a couple of things briefly on that. Right, this we're at the comp plan amendment stage. So, we're asking for a future land use designation to be assigned to the property. Uh, we're asking for the commercial future land use designations. We've articulated why we think that's ate. Uh we have staff's
position as identified in the staff report. Uh we have a planning and zoning recommendation of approval. Uh we're adjacent to a warehouse right on the south side. Our western boundary is another roadway. Uh we have we have the
residential from the other projects kind of surrounding this. So the idea that there would be further encroachment associated with this, it's somewhat hemmed in by the entitlements and certainly anything that came before you would be required to come back. As to the specifics of it, right, we're
talking about now on the plan development side, which I recognize were not there. So I appreciate the leniency on that, but it's a 30% open space. We've limited the uses so it's not uh cart blanch commercial full zoning. We can do everything in it. There was a lot
of thought put in back in 2023 and since then uh based on comments from the public based on input we've received from staff today about eliminating certain uses from this uh plan development that you'll see next. So multif family was removed from that
right there. We've picked and chooses that we think are relatively low impact. We think they're appropriate for the specific sites site. With that said, we've we've done it in such a way so that there's conceptual. It's under a plan development. So there are these
additional development requirements. It's not as though a project comes through on a uklitian or a straight zoning where you meet the requirements of the code. You get to move forward. There's an obligation we go back through a public hearing process or at least an approval before a public body for a
actual layout of what this will look like. So there's there's more things in this. We think this is an appropriate middle ground between a uklitian zoning that allows you to have all these uses uh while also having a plan development that fixes things a little bit but also provides a little flexibility
recognizing we don't have this specific user. This property was annexed in. It's subject to that development agreement. This is very much in line with exactly what was contemplated then. So we request a favorable vote on this. Appreciate your time. I've got a question for Scott that I'd like maybe
you to be present for. Um so if we approved this tonight from the plan development that is um presented. So, do we have control where we would need to approve a site plan or is there flexibility to disallow some of the uses
that they have requested at future dates or what's in here? I believe us. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, we would only be approving a site plan going forward, not
uses. Is that is that because those uses are in this, right? Okay. Okay. Assuming you favorably vote for this one and the next agenda item, yes, you would be setting the permissible uses, the future
master development plan that they would bring back to you would be subject to layout and uh buffering and things like that, but not you couldn't You can't have a a Dollar General there.
Uses would be allowed as described under the next agenda item. So I guess the flexibility I'm asking is, you know, in the nuclear scary option where the use wasn't a retail store the size of a Home Depot, would we have the flexibility to
say no that that site plan is is not okay? We're not going to approve that. because that if retail use is permissible in there, would we not be allowed to do that? Is that clear what I'm asking? If it's an allowable use, you can
regulate the site layout where the parking is, things like that, height, but you couldn't say you can't have a retail that's that's too large of a single. Could we Okay, so I couldn't say that retail spot is too big. I couldn't say
that. want to look into it a little further, but no, I don't believe you'd be able to. Okay. To then later go back and say if if approved tonight, I don't think you could later go back and say, "Yeah, that we're just kidding about that." Okay. All right.
I guess speaking with council, my only concern and and I I hear what um you know, public comments been about commercial. I I don't think that commercial is a a bad spot for this area. It is limited. it can't go any further. It's, you know, going to border their own properties that they're
developing as residential. Um, I guess I would have a couple, you know, I and I I also feel like Gway is probably one of the more responsible developers that has come before us, but I am a little concerned with some of the allowable uses without having any sort of a site
plan on a PD that we're approving. Do you guys have thoughts on that? I would make that same statement. I don't know if we share the same concerns with certain uses listed here. Um, but I'm sure they would be pretty darn close.
Yeah. Um, so I I I will agree that these guys are extremely responsible uh based on what I've seen here tonight. So the way that I would view this is I would be okay with voting for the future land use, Matt, because I do think
commercial in in some settings is very appropriate there. Um, but I'm not sure that I would want to approve the zoning change as the PD has presented without having it a little more clearly defined.
Does that make sense what I'm saying? Is that the right course of action? My recommendation, if you wish to postpone consideration of the zoning on this parcel, I would also postpone consideration of land. Okay. So, there's no point voting for one approving
without approving it. If you think it needs further uh consideration and refinement of the applicant, you can I would postpone both. Okay. Yes, sir. So, if I may just briefly um our our
project, right, we have the comp plan and the plan development. This is first reading of both and so the comp plan will ultimately be transmitted up to the state for review and then it'll come back for an adoption hearing. Additionally, my understanding and please correct me Mr. Swain if I misstate anything is that the plan
development for this would also come back for a final hearing. So my thought would be and just just a consideration is maybe you do proceed with the first reading. You may transmit that up to the state, get the benefit of their comments, allow us to hear the comments from the public, the concerns that this
commission has, and then we could come back on second reading for adoption potentially with some modifications if we're able to accommodate some of the requests you guys have. But I I would propose that that's something we're comfortable with. We think may make sense and that'll give us the benefit of hearing what the concerns are and giving
us a little bit of time to work through it while the state reviews the comp plan amendment. Okay. Um you guys have concerns that you want to talk about tonight so they're aware. Yeah, that's fine. Number one is self storage.
Okay. Pretty sure pretty sure you know I've reached my limit on those things. I um hotels. Motel. That one caught my eye. I don't think that's appropriate. Right. Um I would say that probably from
the commercial space. I guess I would want it to be somewhat limited to to be fitting more to a neighborhood. I don't think you guys have plans on a big box store. You're not going to open a super Walmart there. Um but if we approve something that's
that's forever, right? Um any other concerns that you guys have on on the uses that they have listed as allowable? Well, they definitely spell out hardware which would allow Home Depot.
Yeah. And again, I feel like that's I don't think that's very unlikely case already. But that same light, I don't allow a Dollar General. Yeah, sure. I I don't think we really have the latitude to pick and choose. I don't disagree. But
um um yeah, the hotels and motel caught my eye. Um I understand the concern about self storage. Um and I guess in some way if there's any way to to make the size more appropriate for our neighborhood. I'm assuming you're looking at a multiple retail like a
almost a strip mall kind of idea. Um, but I'd like to see that spelled out a little more clearly to alleviate at least the concerns of the people around that they're not going to be inundated with a a place serving, you know, 500 people at a time. Um, I think that's probably what everybody's freaked out
about. Any other What do you think about the wholesale and distributing service? A lot of people complained about Bernie Little, the falls of the distributed
tra. Well, I guess I would want to know what what limited wholesaling and dist distribution services means, right? Is that like a BJ's or a Costco or something like that? Is that what that type of use would be typically in that?
We are Mike Keely again for the record. If they're developing a plan, my question is at this point, what's the hurry? Wait till the plan is done. come here, present to the to the council what your
plan is so we can see the plan and see what what's the intent is, what the direction is. Um 38 acres is quite a bit of property. So like Mr. Griffin said, it's like, you know, you could put Lowe's and Home Depot in there. Not that
that's necessarily what they're going to do, but you know, with what's outlined, yeah, it could be an Amazon distribution warehouse or rooms to go or, you know, you name them because you're right next to the park, both parkways, Panther and Sebring.
And as well too with the, you know, back to the traffic study thing, that's a two-lane road scenic going between Sebring Parkway and Panther Parkway now. So, and it's been literally has been used as a racetrack for years,
which is a problem in and of itself, but you know, particularly that traffic studies two years old. Okay, that was before you're deciding to put in 243 homes on the west side and another what was it 600 and some or 400 and some on
the east side. Plus, you still have another lot to the south of theirs that's, I believe, zoned R3 right now for multif family that still has the potential for somebody to come in and do something. So,
traffic's definitely going to be an issue and there's definitely going to be, you know, further traffic study done as opposed to to what you currently have. But say my main thing, you know, what's the what's the hurry? If you're working on a plan, finish your plan.
the other Matt Deetman, 3466 Sparkling Drive. Um, I guess my question would be uh more towards Mr. Swain. Is there a way to unilaterally do the approval of the zoning with the plan at the same time so we know kind of what we're dealing with before we get into it? Because once it's
done, it sounds like it's done. whether they have good intentions or something falls through and somebody else wants to buy that commercial property. What does that look like? What does it become? What do we have for options to actually know what we're getting into as we open up those gates? To answer your question that you can
handle them together, we typically have the ordinances passed separately, land use versus zoning. Does that answer your question? I think he's asking it does and and Mr. Johnson's been very forthcoming and and talking with me about some of their
plans. And I think, you know, we're talking about responsibility of of what we do. I think that if that is an option, I think that's our best option for the residents. I I think that that makes sense. We're already getting a lot of change to the dynamic of our neighborhood. And I think if that is an option, I think that's something as much
as it's not the normal avenue. Uh if it can be done, I think that would be the responsible avenue to do. Shelton Rice, for the record, I don't know if you've seen us back there. We've been talking with our client trying to kind of analyze this and uh do what's appropriate. So, here here's kind of our
thoughts. We we've heard some additional comment here. uh we recognize the concerns that you guys raised and that's not the intent and we see that that plan development as contemplated even though it's not this item is is really um not what we're intending to do. So I think
it may make the most sense and I I'll ask your city manager and you guys as the city council and Mr. Swain, if you think it's appropriate, we we're comfortable continuing this to a date certain, setting it out. Give us a little bit of time to re-evaluate this. We've already got some ideas about, you
know, adding in some things related to compatibility so that there's maybe some more standards, um, limiting some of the building size or what could be there to kind of help cap what those uses could be. We still think there's a Goldilocks approach in here that allows some uses,
a little bit of a variety of uses without having to say this is exactly what's happening. and right where it's going, but also addresses the concerns that we're kind of hearing. So, may not be a perfect outcome for everybody. Certainly starts heming our client in on what they may ultimately be able to do, but uh we're willing to do that if that
would be the uh interest of this board. So, is your preference then to table a motion and so you guys can work on it some to continue both this item and to be specific? I just compliment you on your level of professionalism.
All all of you. Thank you, sir. Um, specifically, this would be related to ordinance 1549 and ordinance 1544. Uh, that would give us time. Of course, we'll run that by staff. We'll talk with staff and kind of have some conversations. We'll go back. We'll be
watching these videos, right, to to hear that input. Uh, the residents are welcome to communicate with us. I think they have some of the contact information for our engineer and others. We can we'll try to stay in touch with folks to to try to bring about something that everybody's comfortable with. We're we're not trying to shove anything down
anybody's throat. We want to do a project that everybody's proud of, that Gapway's proud of, that the city's proud of. So, uh, we'd ask that you guys continue this item. We appreciate everybody coming out. We're happy to to speak with them more to hear some more of their thoughts. Uh, we do think it's appropriate for commercial. We think all
of this still makes sense. We think there's a way to get there. So, appreciate your time. We're not trying to ham you in. And I think we all agree that is a a good place for commercial. Listen to comments. around people. So, we're here for you
guys and them. Yes, sir. Thanks. I think there's Yes, sir. I think there's a middle ground. I think we can get to where we need to. Thank you so much for your willingness to work with us. Yes, sir. I think you have hearing. I do. Any other questions or comments before I
close this here? Okay. Um, so for the benefit of the audience, We be revertising once the applicant is ready to bring for or have it considered again. I think that would probably be appropriate. Yeah, absolutely. So is the
the way that we do this we make a motion to table. Is that appropriate? Yes, sir. But would you table specific? You can you can lay it generally on the table then you would bring it off the table by a subsequent motion. But bring it off the table but it would
be a complete another advertising. We don't to date. Correct. I'm just trying to understand that because if we advertise it, if we don't do a date, I think when they tell us they have a date in mind, we will have a motion to take it off the table, scheduling it for the date that
they have in mind and then advertising it out. So everybody, that's what I was thinking. Okay. All right. Can I can I put them together? Yes. The two items. Okay. I move that we table uh items 10E
and 10F for ordinance 1549 and 1544 to a later date pending further information from the applicant. Second we have a motion and a second.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Sorry, Stewart. Yes. All right. Thank you. So, we are going to move now to item number um 10G. This is public hearing and ordinance
number 1546. Going to open the public hearing. Mr. Swing. Ordinance 1546 is entitled an ordinance amending the 2030 comprehensive plan of the city of Sebring Florida. set amendment being known as amendment 25-01cie
specifically amending the adopted capital improvements element by updating the 5-year capital improvements plan transmitting set amendment to Florida Commerce for information providing for severability and providing for an effective date. Good evening uh Jennifer with the
regional planning council and this is really kind of housekeeping in the comprehensive plan. The amendments here are consistent with the city's adopted budget. And really, this is uh kind of those those
infrastructure items to have to meet level of service standards in the comprehensive plan and also really good to have as um if you apply for any grants as well, you can reflect that in the comprehensive plan. And I think city staff is here as well if you have any
questions on the projects themselves. Any questions or comments from council? Questions or comments from the public? Right. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing.
Retain a motion. Make a motion we approve ordinance 1546 as presented on first reading and schedule second and final reading July 1st, 2025. Second. All right. We have a motion to second.
Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. We're going to move on to business from the audience. As a reminder, um, per our policy, you have three minutes each speaker. And our first speaker up is Mrs. Rebecca Wills
talking about the open container on the circle. I know it's not been brought up um for a vote or anything like that and you guys are just looking into it and I am just really proud to see the amount of activity on our circle. Um it's really
been brought back to life with our restaurants and um other people who have businesses there. Um, I am against having open container policies. I know some things
have been compared to um, Jacksonville and even Winter Haven, but I want to say we're still Sebring, Florida. And, um, I like our uniqueness of what we have on the circle. Um, and I'm all for people
going out and having a meal and a nice drink and being responsible. Um, being the mother of a child who was killed to a DUI driver, um, I really wish we would not be pushing so much alcohol in our
downtown area. Back I did a small bit of research in the Jacksonville uh, Riverwalk area. They do not allow their open container special cups into their city parks. The circle where we have pingpong and cornhole is a city park. Um
I'd also be curious to know how we are going to regulate that as a city. Um is that going to create more police officers on duty? Is that going to be more expense? What about the cleanup? Who's going to be monitoring how many drinks people have? who's going to be
monitoring who fills their special cup up from their own private vehicle instead of paying for the drink at our local at our local um establishments. So, um I love seeing the kids at the park when they walk home from school.
And I know it's summertime now. Um but those kids are still walking home on Thursdays and Fridays after um sporting events and other school activities. And I just don't feel like our downtown area needs to be a place
where we are walking around with open containers. Most of our establishments have had HGTV come and support them with um nice patio settings with chairs and tables and that that should be the
extent in my belief of that. So, I just want to encourage you guys as you further discuss um and take this on that you really consider the liability, the traffic and patron liability that
this could cause. 20 seconds left and that's I'm done. But thank you. Thank you. And you guys are doing a great job. Thank you. All right, Miss uh Stephanie Wartz, I'm going to speak by the municipal golf
course for Course. Hi, good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you for letting me come here today and for the work that you do. I have petitions here. um a total of 442 signatures for residents in our community who have a
huge concern regarding the $1 a year sale of our golf course and our Catty Shack restaurant. And I wrote all these notes and I wrote this great speech with big words and instead I'm going to just talk to you from my heart.
CattyShack and this golf course provide us with a place to take our families. For for nearly 20 years, Catty Shack has been a cornerstone of our community. We have our birthday parties there. We have our wedding receptions, our graduations,
our funeral services. It's part of our community. We take our hearts and we invest it into our community by going to these local places. It concerns me that this $1 a year deal, do we have
guarantees? Do we have why are we do why did we just invest money into that golf course if this was something that was going to be planned if we knew about it ahead of time? My concerns also lead me to
we don't have a lot of places in in Sebring that are sponsored by the city for our people, for our community, for our children, for both our super young and our young at heart to be able to go out, enjoy their surroundings and in and
have it be affordable. you know, we're losing that. And it just it makes me sad to think that we may be losing a standard, a cornerstone
for what. We don't know what is he going to do. Are there stipulations? Are there? And not to take any respect away from the black men's and what they're doing for our community because they are doing a great deal. I just think this is the wrong use
of our property and the funding just for our city. Thank you for your time. And who do I need to give these to? All right. We have Miss Deborah McN also about the Sebring Golf Course. Deborah McNall, a member of Sebrurn Golf
Course. Have been a member for many years. As a matter of fact, I taught lessons there for a lot of years and we got a lot of children in the community started in golf. We also had a lot of senior programs that were run after in the evenings for both men and women.
Those have all fallen by the wayside in the last few years. And it's really sad that the golf course has gotten to the point that you would rather give it away than do something positive. I know for a fact there's at least one, if not two other golf course owners in
the county that would give you the same deal that you promised Mr. Blackman. And those people would allow it and guarantee it would stay a public course. And I want to know why this committee
has not responded to um Andy who owns Country Club of Sebring because I know for a fact he has communicated with this group as well as a gentleman in Avon Park and I just feel that this golf course is
something that this city needs to keep providing. If Mr. Blackman really wants a golf course, there's Harter Hall right across the street. And apparently it was several years ago that he was promised MUN and he probably could have gotten in
on Harter Hall at that point. So I think we need more transparency and we need to be more responsible with our golf course as well as Catty Shack of course, but a lot of it is in management and running and having a background in golf as well as business.
There have been a lot there can be a lot of improvements. Thank you. Okay, there is no city's attorney business. Correct. All right. So, we're going to move on to item 13A, city manager project report.
Uh, no material changes. I will tell you that u President Stewart, myself, uh, building official met Sunrust discussed some next steps forward. So, we'll be looking to come to council
at some point. to talk about moving forward with capital improvement items. We believe probably the best thing to do is is work on those capital improvement items first,
take care of the envelope of the building, then potentially move into a situation where we might contractor or something that natural Obviously, with any building that was, you know, built decades ago, there's
going to be some work to be done. What was the cost per square foot? $60. Yeah, it's an unbelievable deal. Um I mean, if we put double that into the building, it's still a good deal. It comes in the parking lot. Um so, I'm I'm really glad
to see us moving in that direction. I think that we'll have to figure out the timeline and investment and how to do that going forward to get it prepared. But um awesome awesome deal for the city. I'm really excited to see moving forward and then vacating some of our current blets and recouping some of our
costs. I see. I agree. And on that note too, just want to give a shout out to Steve Woodworks too. The transformation over the last even what 10 days has been unbelievable. Seemed every day they're making progress and
they're out there working real hard. Anything else? Scott, before we move on, I I meant to do say this in council members comments, but happy birthday to Scott, our city manager. He is he is officially 72.
I'm so happy that you got to spend your birthday here with us talking about zone. Well, I was in his office a while ago and they have all this black tape taped up there and where it said the fountain of youth while I was there it slid down. So,
all right. Item number 14A, last but not least. Second. All right, we have a motion and second. Please call the roish. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.