2026 meeting of the City of Winter Haven Planning Commission to order. Jordan, if you would please take roll. >> Kevin Tyson. >> Here. >> Mario Manago. >> Here. >> Bob Lanpher. >> Here. >> Lorena Cadera. Wendy Winters. Colin Wells. >> Here. >> Ed Smith. >> Oh, I'm here.
>> Tina Summerlin. >> Here. >> And Craig Fuller. We have a quorum. >> All right. If you would please stand for the invocation and pledge. Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day and the opportunity to serve the City of Winter Haven. We ask that you be with us and guide us. We ask these things in your heavenly name. Amen.
>> 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. >> All right. Everybody had [clears throat] a chance to review the April 7th, 2026 meeting
minutes? >> I make a motion we adopt the minutes. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. We have a second. All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> All opposed, same sign. Okay. We minutes are approved. All right. I will move into a brief explanation of the hearing. Cases will be read into the record. City
staff will provide a presentation, and then commissioners will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff. Once questions have been asked, uh, we will close the planning portion of the hearing and open the public portion of the hearing. Anyone wishing to speak for or against a case may do so. We ask that
you limit your comments to 5 minutes. Uh, once everybody from the public has had an opportunity to ask questions, we will close the public portion of the hearing and reopen the planning portion of the hearing where we can ask additional questions or entertain a vote and a motion. Uh, anybody here who thinks they may
speak for or against a case, if you would please stand and Jordan will swear you in. >> It doesn't mean It doesn't mean you will. >> Yeah, it doesn't mean you will. Just >> have to. >> Just in case. >> Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this case shall be the truth?
>> All right, moving into uh, new business. Case number P- -26-1-S, request by 260 SW LLC for special use approval for a banquet hall located in the commercial downtown C-1 zoning
district. General location, 260 Avenue A Southwest. The area covered by this request is .15 plus or minus acres. >> Heather Royer, senior planner for the record. Before you on the screen is the zoning map. The subject property is located in
the downtown and is um, zone C-1 and surrounded completely by C-1. As you look at the aerial, you can see the subject property there located on the south side of Avenue A Southwest. This is a view looking at the subject property.
It includes the building as well as the um, paved area there. This is a view looking to the west. Looking to the north across Avenue A. And then looking to the east. 260 Southwest LLC, petitioner, requests
special use approval for a banquet hall located in the commercial downtown C-1 zoning district. The property subject to this request is located at 260 Avenue A Southwest and consists of a 3,200 sq ft building located on 0.15 acres. The applicant proposes to operate a banquet
hall at the location. The proposed floor plan for the proposed banquet hall is generally open space inside the building as well as an outside patio area to be set up specifically for each event. Hours of operation will vary based on booked events. Per section 21-96, the applicant has developed a security plan
that has been approved by the chief of police. A banquet hall with 3,200 sq ft of first floor area would require 46 parking spaces. Since the property is located in the C-1 zoning district, there are no on-site parking requirements. However, within the downtown quarter, there are
approximately 700 public parking spaces either on street, in a parking lot, or in the downtown parking garage. For the record, all public notification requirements for this request were met. Um, and in conclusion, the location of the proposed banquet hall in the city's downtown is consistent with long-term
goals to grow the social, cultural, and business core of the city. Minimum off-site impacts are expected as a result of this request. Additionally, the required security plan has been approved by the chief of police. Therefore, staff does recommend that the planning commission approve this request subject to the conditions in your agenda
packet. And this is the submitted floor plan as proposed for the banquet hall. I stand for any questions that you may have. >> Any questions? No? All right, we will close the public or the planning portion of the hearing and open the public portion of the
hearing. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this case? All right, seeing none, we will close the public uh hearing and reopen the planning hearing. I will go ahead and make a motion in favor of case number P-26-01-S, request by 260
Southwest LLC for special use approval for a banquet hall located in the commercial downtown C-1 zoning district. General location 260 Avenue A Southwest. The area covered by this request is 0.15 plus or minus acres as presented in the
fact sheet and with conditions. Recommended by staff. >> Second. >> We have a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed >> Same sign. >> Okay. Moving on. Case number P-26-2-S,
request by Samuel, forgive me, Annisette for special use approval for a large-scale drinking establishment located in the commercial highway C-3 zoning district. General location 221 Martin Luther King Boulevard Northeast.
The area covered by this request is 0.15 plus or minus acres. >> Before you is the zoning map. The subject property is zoned C-3 as well as the other properties that front along Martin Luther King Boulevard there. To the north, the immediate surrounding is
R-3. As you look at the aerial, there's the subject property. It is again located on MLK on the north side there and there is single family and multi-family that surrounds it as well as a convenience store immediately to the east.
This is a view looking at the subject property. This is a view looking to the east. This is a view looking to the south. And this is a view looking to the west. Samuel Annisette is the petitioner and requests special use approval for a
large-scale drinking establishment located in the commercial highway C-3 zoning district. The property subject to this request is located at 221 Martin Luther King Boulevard Northeast and consists of the 1,536 square foot building on 0.15 acres
originally constructed in 1960. The applicant currently operates Fantasy Island Restaurant and Bar, which was originally approved to operate as a restaurant. In September 2025, Code Compliance initiated a case after promotional materials for the establishment advertised disc jockeys,
foam parties, cover charges, and liquor sales. A subsequent site inspection by Code Compliance identified additional changes I additional changes to the operation, including the installation of a pool table, liquor bottles displayed behind the bar, and the addition of
outdoor patio seating. Based on these observed operational changes, the business no longer meets the definition of a restaurant as established by the city's code of ordinances, thereby necess- necessitating special use approval for operation as a drinking establishment. During the application
process for the state alcohol license, the applicant acknowledged the city's restaurant definition and represented the business would operate in compliance with that definition. Additionally, the establishment currently holds only a 2COP alcohol license issued by the state of Florida, which permits the sale of beer and wine only, and does not
authorize the sale of liquor as advertised and observed on site. Furthermore, the outdoor patio seating area is located within 150 100 ft of properties zoned R3, and therefore is not permitted under Section 2196 of the code.
Pursuant to Section 2196, the applicant has submitted a required security plan, which as of the date of the agenda publication remains under review by the chief of police. Approval of the security plan by the chief of police is required prior to the commencement of operations. A large-scale drinking establishment
with 1,536 sq ft of first floor area requires a minimum of 22 off-street parking spaces. The subject property currently contains approximately 10 legal non-conforming parking spaces on site. As part of the required site plan review process, the existing on-site parking will be required to be brought
into compliance with code requirements. If additional parking spaces are necessary to satisfy the minimum parking requirement, a shared parking agreement with property within 300 ft by legal pedestrian travel will be required. Any shared parking agreements must be reviewed and approved as part of the
site plan approval process. On the screen here, the blue hash area represents the 300 ft distance with pedestrian travel from the subject property. So, those properties that are within that radius could be considered. The applicant has submitted a land lease
agreement for two vacant parcels located approximately 160 ft east of the subject property. While these parcels are located within the allowable 300 ft distance requirement to qualify for consideration as off-site parking, they will be required to undergo site plan review
and approval for the development of improved parking areas. This is a picture of the the lots that have been provided with a lease. For the record, all public notification requirements for this request were met. In conclusion, staff's review yields the
following. The petitioner expanded operations from the originally approved restaurant use to a large-scale drinking establishment use after acknowledging during the alcohol licensing process that the business would operate in accordance with the city's definition of a restaurant. A large-scale drinking establishment at
this location requires a minimum of 22 off-street parking spaces in accordance with the ULDC. These spaces must be provided either on-site or within 300 ft of the subject property as measured by ordinary and legal pedestrian travel. The subject property currently contains the 10 legal non-conforming parking
spaces, which will be required to be brought into compliance through the site plan review process. Additionally, the petitioner's land lease agreement for nearby parcels proposed for off-site parking will require the site plan review and approval for the development of legal improved parking areas before those spaces may be counted toward the
minimum parking requirement. And the subject property is located within 100 ft of properties owned R3. Therefore, pursuant to section 2196, neither outdoor seating nor outside entertainment are permitted at this location. Staff does recommend though that the
planning commission approve this request subject to the conditions in the agenda packet. Um there are six within there. For brevity, I will not read them all out, but they do require um site plan, being able to meet the parking requirements, um and different look
buffer requirements. If you have any questions about those, I will answer those. I stand for any other questions that you may have. This is the floor plan that was provided. >> Yes, I I have I have a few questions. So, the the the addition of what they're asking for
is not part of the original attachment to the establishment before that was advertising beer alcohol sales, cover charges, foam parties. That's That was a separate building. >> No, those were located in this building. So, they were originally permitted and licensed as a restaurant, um and then
expanded the use beyond a restaurant to what would be considered a large scale drinking establishment, which requires special use approval. So, um that is what they're they're intending to get with this approval. >> Thank you.
>> Any other questions? No. All right, we'll close the planning [clears throat] portion of the hearing and open the public portion of the hearing. Anybody wishing to speak for or against? Please. If you would state your name and address for the record. >> Hey.
>> Good afternoon. My name is Kim Runner. I live at 1916 4th Street Northeast, uh which is relatively across the street from the requested business. A couple of concerns that we do have um regarding changing this into
a large scale drinking establishment. Um we're looking to see if there's any impact uh reports that have been done including I apologize if I have chicken scratch. Um, any types of traffic studies with it being a two-lane road. There are extreme
backups at various times of the day and evening including um very very a lot of emergency vehicles that travel to and from that really don't have an alternative way to get through um over to like Buckeye Loop where I or over to
First Street. Um, also is there any type of public benefit report that has been done to the community? How this could positively impact our area or negatively impact our area. We are also
Sorry. We're looking to see if there are any considerations for noise disruptions with it being a relatively residential area except for the business front. Um, we have loud noises. We have residents that are right behind, right next to,
and that can impact families including people with small children or people with who are elderly who don't tolerate loud noises. Also, the parking situation with it having a limited parking um on site or
with even the adjacent parking that you were talking about. Many people are not going to adhere or if the parking lot is too full, they're going to try to park on the side streets. Our side streets are not very large and if they're are parking on both
sides, you can barely get a vehicle through um except for small cars. A lot of our neighbors have larger vehicles. Um, so that does pose a problem. We've noticed when there's the parades on Martin Luther King Day, parking is full. We can't get down our streets.
Also, is there some type of crime report? With typically a large-scale drinking establishment, there tends to be more small petty crimes, but can also lead to larger crimes. And that is a very big concern because many of our families
here do have small children. And you know, all all types of children actually. Um And also the again with the parking, people will tend to park across the street of Martin Luther King. That could increase pedestrian versus vehicular accidents, which is something
that nobody wants to see in any area. Um so these are a lot of concerns that we have. Um and I'm hoping that these will be taken into consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. >> My name is Teresa Hancher. I live at
1918 4th Street Northeast. She's my neighbor, okay? Um my whole concerns is the traffic. I've come to City Hall a lot of times and I I'm happy that y'all did reduce the speed limit on Martin Luther King to 30 when people were
driving 50 and 60. I really thank you for that. But my whole concern is you're putting extra people in the community. All of these people won't be living in this community that will be coming to be patrons of this restaurant. Okay, the hours of operation. You know,
just like she indicated families. We do have families. Kids have nighttime schedules. I'm an adult. I'm a senior. I have a nighttime schedule also. You know, so what type noise noise volume would this bring to the community? The after hours
are it's just like the old clubs that I used to go to when I was young. Are we starting at 9:00 and ending at midnight during the week and on the weekend going to 2:00? What are the hours of operation? After the club is closed, what concerns is it for people hanging out in the parking lot?
Are they hanging out at 3:00 or 4:00? Will the police also make sure that these establishments are people are sent home or will they be to the point where they really don't care and they're just hanging out as long as they want to hang out? Because noise means a lot. When you
when you put anything within 200 yd of a family, I can hear every beat, every sound from any place that has bass within that corner. You can put something on First Street on the corner and I can hear down to Fourth Street at the at the corner of the Tastee Freeze
corner. Fourth Street is not a good street because it's already a high volume traffic street. You're talking about making the the lot for the extra parking for the 22 cars right on the corner of Fourth Street in that empty lot. Fourth Street is the number one busiest
street going out to Lucerne Park Road besides First Street going to Havendale. So, that's extra traffic. We already have accidents at that corner. Being that the road is one lane each way with the center medium, do you know I know how hard it is to turn left back onto
First Street to go back to Havendale between the hours of 7:30 and 9:00 or between the hours of 1:30 and 4:00 or between the hours of 6:00 and 8:00? It is very hard to turn left on that road to even go back toward Havendale or
First Street. I spend the majority of my time leaving my house going to Citrus Avenue and turning to go down to Sixth Street and coming back up to Lake Silver by going round by Polk to cut through all the traffic because you got you got lanes that require 4 or
5. The lanes going north the lights are short. So, the traffic is always backed up like my neighbor indicated. School time getting out, which we're outside of school right now, but school traffic is always backed up all the way to Fifth Street, Sixth Street. It's backed up to the junior
high school in the morning and in the afternoon. So, I would also really like your concerns. Just looking forward to making sure this is good for everyone, not just to pass someone's pocket, but for the whole community as a whole moving forward
because not just one person living this world, we all live here together. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. >> [clears throat] >> Hello. My name is Francis Campbell and I'm at 1926
3rd Street Northeast directly across from the store and whatnot. My concern is the killings that have been done there. And this whereas they okay as the vacant lot
right in front of me. But now since they put those signs up, nobody is parking there because everybody that was going across the street was parking in front of our houses all down the street. Then when everybody get together and get
happy, they go to shooting. I had a bullet come through my front room. Luckily, I wasn't in the front room. And it's been young children dying because of this. It's a
alleyway in the back of my house, a freeway there. People start parking all down that way. So my thing is okay, we got houses there. I don't mind people having fun,
but they have no respect for people's property. Not all that loud, filthy music that we hear. And they just keep It's just keep going on and on. So the only thing that, you know,
I don't know why we put those type places where houses and people are living and know, you know, that's not a party party area. You know, that need to be somewhere else.
But, since this is how, I guess, the system is going and you let people almost do as they please, this is what happened, but it's not really safe when, you know, you got bullets coming through your own house
and you're not even involved in that. So, my thing, period, is you're going to have the parking area over here, then everybody going to be walking up and down the street to get to
the place. So, that's going to be another problem. But, I don't know how to, you know, actually word it that, but it's dangerous and Avenue T been dangerous now for a good little while.
And seem like we keep bringing stuff on Avenue T to make it worse. So, I wish you all would think about, you know, the other older people that's there and don't want to get killed in the house just because
bullets flying everywhere. So, thank you and God bless you. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Good evening. I'm Patrina Morales and I'm representing 217 Martin Luther King. I do not live there, but my kids are the
owners of that resident. It's a resident that's been in the family for years now. And uh back in the early '80s, my mother had it. It was a daycare there. And I think that ran for about close almost 20 years. But, um my
brother had it and unfortunately, he passed away 4 years ago. But, he was uh in the process of making that property a barber shop. But, um he was within my few months of retirement and I know this is
irrelevant, but to get to my point, he was um he was killed in a car crash and he willed the property to his niece and nephews, who are my kids that um own it now. My daughter, who's 23, she's now a flight attendant, but she's working
towards renovating that business to be a spa. She's a licensed aesthetician. And when I told her about the letter, she became really upset. She was like, "Mom, my dream is being crushed before I can even get it started." I said, "Well, sweetheart,
this isn't the end of it. We still have a meeting to go through." And she says, "But, who wants to come and be waxed or have a facial or something when there's drinking going on next door?" I said, "That's true, but um
we'll see what we have to do." But, this young girl, who's 23, who's flying the skies every moment she gets because she's a flight attendant to raise up her money so that she can renovate this um this suite uh to her liking. And I feel
that I I share her feelings that um it's crushing her dreams before they can even get started by having this alcohol place next to it. We had no problem with the restaurant that was there. We've been neighbors for years,
but bringing in the heavy scale or large scale drinking, I think would really tarnish it along with number one, the crime. Number two, the crime. Number three, the crime. Number four, the crime. And um
it's just not suitable. So, thank you for hearing. >> Thank you for your comment. Anybody else? >> [clears throat] >> Good afternoon. My name is Emma Eli. I live at 1912 3rd
Street Northeast. It's right this place you're talking about right across the street from me. I've been there for 50 years or more. I have watched them change it from a
washing place to a gambling place to whatever you want to call it. And we have more than we can stand more than I can
stand because I I'm too old to listen to it. And now it's even worse. And if you can do something about it, I would like for you to do something about it. And where are they going to park?
That's the main thing. They usually use our street park on. Then we can't get out our driveway. That's not good. You get up and then you listen to the bad music
and it's if the music is awful. They play it so loud, it bounce off of your house and the windows start shaking. So, if somebody can do something about it, I would highly appreciate it. Thank you.
>> Thank you for your comments. Anybody else? Were you sworn in? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> My name is Robert Brennan and I'm also a resident of Buena Vista. I live at 1210 Sophia Boulevard. I also manage uh Fantasy Island restaurant and bar.
And I can agree with the people about the traffic, but the traffic is not in our control. It's been traffic on Avenue C now for as far as I can remember, especially during school hours. And the
parking situation, as was stated by the board, we have two lots that we have gotten for the parking. The with the addition to the parking that's on spot. Now, we have a parking
attendant that when our parking lot is full, they are pointed to the lots for our parking. Loud music is not allowed to be played in our parking lot at all, period. And our customers know not to park across the street in
the field or on the side of the streets because their cars will be towed. So, I came in, you know, just to kind of ease their mind with the parking, the loud noise. We have We haven't had any complaints, no police calls, or anything since we've been there.
So, I hope you'll take into consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Anybody else? No? All right, we will close the public portion of the hearing and reopen the planning portion of the hearing. Um Heather, I do have a couple
questions. How long have has the business been operating out of compliance? >> Um Do you not have that date in front of me, so I I do not want to give irrelevant, but it's been a couple months since it went to code compliance
hearing and it would the case would have started a few months before that. >> So, we're we're all we're evaluating at this point >> [clears throat] >> is approving this based on the conditions that you placed in there to bring it into compliance, but the way the business is operated
today is not changing. It's the way it's been operated. >> It's my understanding. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah, I'm I'm that's I'm in line with the same thinking. Um if if they have a
a security plan that's still in review by the police chief and we're asked to evaluate whether or not this would be benefit to the to the community or the business as a whole, can we revisit this after we find out some more detail about security plans for
security plans being actually approved and and compliance and how long they've been out of compliance to cuz right now it's kind of asking to asking us to agree to something or give the go-ahead on something where we kind of have some some questions about the compliance issues and whether or not the security
plan is in if within compliance. >> Well, you have you have those six conditions, right? So, this approval would be contingent on those conditions being met. If they're not, it says if you don't we're giving them a week. >> as well as anything that's a requirement of the code. So, having an approved security plan is a requirement of the
code. This is not the first time that um we brought to hearing and it hasn't got its final review and approval because there was an original draft submitted and then requirements were changes to be and then the resubmittal has not been able to be reviewed and approved yet by the police chief. So, I did an initial
review. Obviously, I'm not the chief of police, but it does have all the minimum requirements of the code, but the chief of police can require additional things to be added into the security plan. So, that we are waiting for that, but that would still be required for them to be in compliance and operation. For those that are in the audience as we
have had so many, do you want me to read the conditions? Okay, so these are the recommended conditions. Number one, a site plan shall be approved and all required improvements shall be made prior to using the subject property as a large-scale drinking establishment.
Additionally, if the parking requirement is met through the use of off-site parking agreements, those agreements shall be submitted at a minimum annually to the city's planning division for compliance review. At any time the minimum off-street parking requirement fails to be met, operation shall cease.
Number two, if the establishment plans to have an advertised or promoted entertainment event by an external organizer, they shall be required to hire a minimum of two off-duty officers to work outside the establishment for the duration of the event. When off-duty officers are hired, they will position
themselves outside the establishment unless entry into the establishment becomes necessary for a legitimate law enforcement purpose. If the establishment requests the off-duty officers, but the detail request cannot be fulfilled by any law enforcement agency, then a minimum of two additional
licensed private security officers shall be hired to work outside the establishment for the duration of the event. When utilizing a private security company, the officers shall wear something which identifies them as such. If off-duty officers or additional licensed private security officers are unable to be secured, the entertainment
event cannot occur. Three. If the establishment is at maximum occupancy, no more than 30% over the maximum occupancy as determined by the Winter Haven fire marshal or a maximum of 10 persons, whichever is less, they wait directly outside of the
establishment for admittance. Additionally, if the establishment is not at maximum capacity, then there shall be no loitering, gathering, and/or waiting directly outside the establishment other than those actively moving through a security line to enter the establishment. Four. No outdoor seating or
entertainment areas are permitted. Five. A minimum 8-ft opaque fence shall be installed and maintained along the western and northern property lines of the subject property. Six. In addition to grounds for revocation stated in section 2196I
of the Unified Land Development Code, failure to comply with the above conditions shall be deemed grounds for revocation. >> Okay. >> I have I I have a question with with regards to the fence. Is that at the actual restaurant location? Is And there's no
provision for fence at the parking at the offsite parking? >> We did not place one there. We placed requested for the 8-ft fence along the western and northern property lines cuz that's immediately adjacent to the residential next to the establishment.
Um because a standalone parking lot could be developed at those locations right there. >> There would Would there be a requirement for a buffer with a fence from a parking commercial parking to a residential? >> There likely would be a buffer. >> There likely just from the standard
code, there would be some kind of buffer that required whether or not it would require 6-ft fence or not. I can't speak without looking at that part of the code. Um however, that would be That would be a site plan of separate. So, the conditions have to be applied to
this property. This is the property that sent for the special use. The parking that's occurring down there is mechanism for them to possibly meet the parking requirement, but someone could come in for site plan tomorrow and put a parking lot at that location and we'll just follow the standard code.
>> I think part of my problem is I don't think I could vote yes at this point. I think I'd be more inclined to postpone this. Because they've been operating out of compliance. I would like to see a little bit more good faith on their part before I could say yes that I'd be
comfortable with this. >> I I'm um echo what you said, Ed. I I and I've heard what you all have commented and and your concerns. I share them. And I I can't get behind this
petition myself either. >> I I do have a question for the for the applicant himself. Um What What proactive measures up to this point have been made to address the concerns of making sure
folks do not park or be anywhere outside of the the current parking plan arrangement that you have right now. >> Well, the business is quite slow, but when you do have parking and and the parking lot is full, we have attendant
that's there, like I said before, that directs them to the two lots that we have for the additional parking. >> What are the hours of operation and days of the week? >> 7 days a week from 10:00 to 2:00. >> From what? >> 7 days a week from 10:00 to 2:00.
>> 2:00 a.m.? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Chair, if I may add something to on the parking. You know, I I mentioned multiple times that it's legal nonconforming parking that is on this property. So, as part of the site plan, it'll have to be brought in. It will be nowhere near 10.
As you can see, the about 15 10 to 15-ft wide strip property that is there to the the west is a city-owned parcel. Um the parking has been legal nonconforming in the majority of the parking spaces there uh extend past this property line. So,
any parking that is generated on the site plan will have to meet the requirements of the code and be in in completely within their space. So, they will lose even parking that they have on site um as well. So, I just want to >> And Heather, I assume that
with the additional two leased lots for parking, there are a lot of restrictions with regard to that for paving. And a site plan is that available for that at this point even? >> They have not submitted in. So, it'll still have to go through site plan. They will have to meet all of the
requirements of the code for surface material, um access points, storm water management, um and all of that. There also is a billboard that is located in the middle of the lot. Uh I showed it in the picture, but you can see the also the the shadow of it there in the
middle. That is going to limit as well what they can do for drive aisles and the parking that is on there. So, I don't know legitimately how many spaces they actually can create on there and whether between what they can create on site and there will actually be enough to meet the requirements. That's why
it's heavily conditioned that they have to meet all of these things. >> And those parking the the two additional lots for parking have residential homes around them as well. >> Um that is a single-family home to the north of that parking lot. >> But even that would require separate buffer when you do parking. So, like that the
>> We need a site plan. >> But not necessarily the site plan is staff-level review. That's not something >> I mean in in I I don't disagree with either of you. I'd but I don't I'm all for providing a path
to to conforming and being in compliance, albeit a difficult path. Um you know, so I mean I I'd like the option and I have I I appreciate the conditions. >> I think for me
with the offsite parking um all the conditions are for security on their actual property. That won't do anything for the cars loitering and parking down on the offsite parking.
What are there conditions? I I don't suppose you can we can we can put those on now. >> We can't put conditions on another property on their request, but that's one of I mean even if that was already an established parking lot or business and they were going to do a shared
parking agreement, it it's just for parking. So any standard code of, you know, would apply to that property as far as whatever commercial use or parking was on there. >> And that and that leased property, that's city property, correct? The the parking that's going to be at
that that's going to >> That's a private private Yes, they provided a a lease. The the narrow strip of land to the west immediately west of the property is a city owned lot and some of their non-conforming parking spaces expand over. That's also the
reason for the 8-ft fence on the residential but also there's not an infringement on the city parcel. >> For for the applicant, will that additional parking will that be extended with the same level of of
scrutiny to make sure that compliance is met in that parking that parking area as well as on that actual property itself? >> Yes, sir. We have security security in the area when we have people parking there. We have security out there making sure there's no loitering, no no
drinking, no loud music, etc. >> Mr. Brown, so you're already using it for parking while it's unimproved? >> No. >> Are you currently using it for parking when you have events? >> What if We haven't We haven't We haven't had events. >> But didn't you just say you have
security there in your >> I said we have we have security, yes. >> Uh when people are parking there now? >> I mean, we we don't have the drinking. >> But you're you're still using those vacant lots for parking is what is what you said? >> Yes, I'm sorry. >> Okay, thank you. >> But I I said it to the point of the of
the to the commission and I'm and I'm I'm in in line with that is that part of the approval process is also showing good faith. >> Yes. >> And making sure that okay, we made have
known about something. Now that we are made aware of it, but going into the establishment of of of W and B and an entrepreneur of this particular area of business, that also comes with the understanding that
maybe I need to also make sure that I'm fully compliant to as much as I know before I start branching out and asking for more grace on some some of this some of this stuff. >> I I think one of the bigger hurdles you're going to have is
that those empty lots don't qualify for parking today even if you even with a lease. They've got to be improved to meet the condition, which is paved, site plan review, you know, handicap parking, right? Like all the
all the things that go with it. So Yeah. >> So So here is my problem. This is my problem. >> [clears throat] >> You're asking us to take in good faith that you're going to do these things that the city is asking you to do when
you're already out of compliance, just admitted you're out of compliance even further than we thought. Um I'm I'm just really really uncomfortable with this and I I I don't know what else to say other than at this point there there is no way I'm approving this. I'm
going to vote yet no on this. >> I mean, with with with you just said, I've done everything that was asked of me by Heather and I thought once we got the
the lots and I actually turned in the lot information to Heather that it was clear for me to use. I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to use them. So, now that I do know, they're going to be used. >> Um
I'm >> I I think I yeah, I think the change I mean, the restaurant, you know, they're able to operate as a restaurant. >> Right. >> I mean, I think the change is a little premature. Um so does anybody want to make a motion or
>> Um I would like to make a motion against case number uh P-26-02-S request for Samuel Assenta for special use approval for large-scale drinking establishment located in the commercial highway C-3 zoning district.
General location 221 Martin Luther King Boulevard Northeast. The area covered by this request is 0.15 plus or minus acres. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right, we have a second. All those opposed to approving case number
P-26-02-SAI. >> I. >> All All opposed, same sign. All right, case is denied. Other business, comments from staff. >> Okay, I got a a handful of items here. Uh first item I want to talk about is
your July meeting date. It's July 7th. So, it's the Tuesday immediately after the holiday weekend. And we want to get out in front of this to make sure that we'll be able to have a quorum at that meeting. Um cuz if we're not, we need to make the
determination tonight to to move that meeting to a different date. >> I will be in Europe during that date. >> I I will be here. >> I'll be here. >> I will be out of town. Dance Nationals. >> [laughter]
>> And while you I I guess that's the moment to say as well as we we have going for the commission on Monday night the reappointment of those who wish to be reappointed. Bob asked not to be reappointed and so his replacement is being
hopefully appointed on Monday night. So, this will most likely be Bob's last planning commission meeting with us cuz we'll have a new person appointed. So, um I don't know. We don't have enough to say that we have a quorum cuz not everyone's here, but we can't we don't have enough to move this one move it. >> We don't have enough to move it either,
but I will say we've got we've got the new comprehensive plans on that agenda. >> As well as in What What did we have? What did you say? >> The we got to adopt a new comprehensive plan. And we've got some timelines we have to adhere to.
So, that's >> have the ability just to push the day? >> You could certainly >> Well, you can still make even if not one way or knowing one way or another you all can make a motion today to move the meeting. >> It can it can just be a few days, right? I mean, is that
>> No, I guess theoretically I mean, we'd have to check the availability of this room. But I know the Wednesday that week will be out because of city commission workshop. >> Yeah. >> So, my next recommendation if you still wish to have it that week would be
Thursday. I think it's the 9th. Otherwise, I recommend >> You're you're still going to be gone at that >> I'll still be >> I can but you'll be gone. >> Earliest I'll be back is the 14th. >> Okay. So, I I I think it with the night worker and everyone else, I think that might be and most likely hopefully everyone else would be back from
>> Okay. >> So, you'd have to actually >> would we would have to >> take a motion >> Yeah, but we would have to Jordan, you'll be able to send like an email to see who's available just and then if it has to be >> Well, no. You have to make >> We have we have to do it now. >> You have to take the action now. >> Well, but that's what I was saying. If
we take the action now and we find out that others can't be here, then we're Okay. We're not going to be >> I'll I'll make a I'll make a motion. [laughter] I'll make a motion to move the July meeting to Thursday the 9th. >> Second. >> It's seconded. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed same sign. [snorts]
All right. July meeting is moved. >> All right. Just kind of follow up on our last business. It's been a couple months, but we did have that lot we rezoned on First Street and Avenue U North E Northwest. That was approved by the city commission couple weeks ago.
Um so, that one is complete and then the last thing I want to remind everybody you should be starting to get some communication on your financial financial disclosure forms. Those are due by the end of June. So, just remind you to get those done.
That's it for me. >> All right. Comments from planning commissioners? Sorry to see you go. >> Well, thank thank everybody. I had a wonderful time and I appreciate your kindness and your wisdom. And thank you very very much and thank you
for your service. >> Comments from the public? >> No. >> All right.