Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon and welcome to the October 14th, 2025 city of Apakka planning and zoning meeting. If you would all please stand with me for a moment of silent prayer and the pledge. 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. During this evening's meeting, each item will have a time for the public to speak if they wish to. If there is any items that are not on today's agenda that someone would like to speak in reference to a planning and zoning issue, now would be the time to be recognized. Seeing none, we'll move on. Meeting minutes from September 9th, 2025. Do we have any changes, additions? If not, we need a motion. I make a motion to approve. Thank you, sir. Motion by Commissioner Washington. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Ryan. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number one, legislative ordinance 3131, smallcale future land use amendment 1920 Sheieler Avenue. Owners Marvin Wade Reed and Susan Thomas Reed applicant Jonathan Hules Mr. Song. Oh, Mr. How Yeah. Thought I'd trick you tonight. You got taller. Yeah. So, pinch handing for June son

tonight. Bobby H, planning manager for the record. Uh, this is a future land use amendment, small scale future land use amendment from county rural and county low density to residential low, which permits a maximum density of five units per acre. The site is 40.16 acres and is located 1920 Sheiler Avenue. The applicant is requesting the future land use amendment to city residential low in the order to develop a subdivision consisting of 115 single family residential units on the subject property at a total density of 2.92 dwelling units per acre. You may recall this came before the planning commission back in August. Uh the reason it is here tonight is because after first reading at city council, staff discovered a technicality in the land development code where the requested residential low suburban future land use did not correspond with the residential two family zoning that the planning commission recommended approval of. So therefore, that's why the applicant is requesting the um residential low future land use designation. Table 1.82 in the land development code requires that consistency. Uh the development program has not changed. Uh it is a total of 2.92 dwelling units per acre and 115 total single family residential dwelling units. As you can see the future land use of the area. To the north is residential low properties off to the east are residential low as well and to the south is um it's residential high which allows 10 units to acre. So the five is consistent with the surrounding area but the applicant has pledged to keep it at 2.92 dwelling units per acre. Uh the recommended motion from DRC is approval and the recommended motion from staff is approval. Uh myself and the applicant are available for any questions you might have. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Als. Anyone have questions of staff? No. Very well. The applicant here and does he have a presentation or just available for questions? Okay. Does anyone have

questions of the applicant? Very well. Is there anyone here from the public wishes to speak on this matter? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. Mr. Chairman, I can create the motion. Mr. Hules has been a good partner for us of the city, so I'm happy to do this. uh proposed to find the proposed change in the future land use designation from county rural and county low density to city residential low consistent with the comprehensive plan in land development code and compatible with the character of the surrounding areas recommending approval of the proposed change of future land use based on the findings and facts presented in the staff report and exhibits. Thank you sir. Motion by Commissioner Doomy. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Washington. Thank you sir. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item two, legislative ordinance 3135, smallcale future land use amendment 5118, Plymouth Sarrento Road, Clips Tavern. Owners David Leone. Hope I didn't butcher that. Applicants LPG Urban and Regional Planners location 5118 Plymouth Sarrento Road. Mr. Thank you. For the record, Bobby How, Planning Manager. Property is located at 5118 Plymouth Central Road and is approximately 041 acres in size. It is a parcel that you see with black and then the aerial shows the vicinity. Uh this is the most recent aerial that was available. However, the Wingspan Development has started construction where the red dot is. Public uh shopping center is just to the south of the

property. The applicant has submitted a future land use amendment from county rural to city mixed use. This item will be subject of an annexation request before the city council tomorrow evening. uh the annexation agreement that's attach that has been requested by the applicant with that has requested that the future land use and zoning be considered on the same city council agenda as the annexation. So thus what this is why the planning commission is being asked to consider the future land use of this evening's meeting. Uh as you see the future land use of the property to the west is mixed use to the east is in the county and the applicant is requesting the future land use amendment bring the property into the city as it was and specifically the village center zone of the Kelly Park interchange formbbased code district as it was a former bar in unincorporated Orange County uh that lost its non-conforming status. A tavern is a permitted use within the village center of the formbbased code area. And that's the applicant's reason for the request of the annexation and assignment of future land use from county to city and the subsequent zoning. As I mentioned, it's located in the village center of the Kelly Park informbased code area in which a bar tavern is a permitted use. The development review committee recommended approval and the recommended motion this evening is approval uh myself and I believe the applicant is here as well for any questions you might have. Very well. Thank you, Mr. How. Anyone have questions of staff? I do. Commissioner Washington. Okay. Um, the village center concept now u Tavern um is surrounded by uh other subdivisions that are coming out of the ground. Uh but now I'm I'm I'm thinking about the the whole idea of the village center concept much like uh wild oaks

that's in my mind as my reference point and wild oaks is bare ground what will be coming out of the ground and developed into a village center. So here's my my difficulty. The Kips Tavern has been there for years since 1976, I believe, but it's isolated. So, uh I I'm having problems seeing how the connectivity that we're looking for in a village center with roadways, pathways, other businesses. Uh it lacks that, right? And that's what's bothering me. So, so even uh in the paperwork, and there's a lot of it, and I read every line, I I see the staff says, "Well, yeah, it it meets the code for mixed use." But in the spirit of the village center, it sounds like staff is saying, "I don't think so." That's my feeling about it. So, go from there. Sure. So the village center is the most intense area of the formbbased code. Uh it's supposed to be like a pedestrian walkable area and that that's actually the intent that's put in the report as well and that's cut right from the purpose of the village center. Uh it says that the village center is the heart of the interchange study area and shall reflect a traditional neighborhood design and should incorporate transit oriented design principles. uh ground for commercial usage shall be required to contribute positively to a pedestrianfriendly environment. So it's intended to be a walkable pedestrian oriented area. The building was built in the 70s way before this KPI Kelly Park forbase code area was ever envisioned or thought of. Um and it was as we understand a bar in unincorporated Orange County. It's zone and the property is zoned agriculture in the

county. It lost the non-conforming status somewhere along the way. So the applicant has requested to annex into the city to establish the bar as a use back into the city. Um they have offered up an agreement which tries to bring up the property to as the village center standard village center standards as much as possible. So it to answer your question um in a long- winded way uh it does not truly satisfy the village center concept. Uh wild oaks would be a prime example. um and Publix across the streets in the village center. However, there are out parcels related that will have buildings up to the frontages of the road in the future such time those come in. So you you made my point. Yeah. And this is a a future land use which is a legislative matter. Um it's it's a policy decision of this board. Any more? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Question. Oh, okay. Anyone else have questions? Yeah. So, I read through this very carefully. When you say the village center, I envision a center. Where is the center? Center is with its if you picture the onem radius of the forest code area. The village center is a center east of the 429 and west of the 429. So, there's two areas that's a village center. It's primarily concentrated near the ed the intersection of Plymouth Srento Road and Kelly Park and it kind of goes around this property falls within that. Um, and let me see if I can blow it up a little bit here for you. So, kind of goes about like this and then off to the west it takes in the Cape um Wild Oaks properties as well and properties on the north side of Kelly Park Road. It's supposed to be pretty

much a downtown uh is the vision that was laid out when this code was written back, you know, 2016 2017 and it was adopted by the city council. It's their policy. It's their rules and regulations for the forb code area. Anyone else have questions of staff? I'm having difficulty getting my head around how this is in a village center. It's an isolated parcel surrounded by residential units. It's on a main highway which is going to be at some point in time expanded. the property directly south of it, if I read this correctly, is owned by the county and they're going to use it when they widen the road. This particular uh I was out there the other day, it has potential based on the latest plan for 11 parking spaces. what sports bar that I have ever gone to can be productive with only 11 parking spaces because it's not that there's other places close by for overflow parking. You know, the closest is Publix, but there's no sidewalks for someone to walk to this. So again, I can't get my head around the whole thing on how this is in a village center, right? I understand it also and do you have any response to that, Mr. H?

Uh, it seemed like he made more of a statement than than a question. Yeah. Very well. All right. Commissioner was actually going to piggy back up a little bit on what he was saying because it it the way it's written is not the way it looks. because it talks about creating a a safe vibrant pedestrianoriented village. Right. All right. Okay. Anyone else? Commissioner Right. So, Mr. How, what would you like to see happen to that property? Well, there's a number of uses that are permitted within the village center. Property is not in the city currently. It has to be annexed first and we're considering recommendation. So there's a number of uses but it has to be pedestrianoriented mixed use type uses. Um it allows I believe restaurants does allow tavern that's permitted use. Um a number of things can go there. So when you have a form-based code it's hard to say we want this use there because the building design dictates the type of use that can go in a building when you have a formbbased code. So form guides the type of uses that can go there. Anyone else? No. Yeah. Commissioner M. So Mr. How number two, the legislative one. Is this the one where we're considering bringing this into the city or is that number three? No. So planning commission does not consider annexations. That's only an action of the city council. Okay. Yeah. So, this is a recommendation of a future land use amendment which just is a legislative item. It's a policy decision. The standards aren't as high as they are in a quasi judicial hearing.

Very well. I do have one question. Um, and item E, it says, uh, the standalone commercial residential state be allowed if they are designed to conform to the urban form designated for this area. And I know you had spoken to a redesign or or update of the building. What do we have to to basically as enforcement of that or how do how can we be assured that it that will be brought up to code that it's not looks exactly like it does today with a you know small amount of parking and the way the building is now. So they've proposed an annexation agreement that would be considered by the city council tomorrow evening uh that would accompany the annexation. The annexation agreement says you will do one, two, three, four, and five to bring the property up to code. So it has what's called a pre-taking concept plan. Pre-taking prior to the right of way being taken by Orange County for Plymouth Sarrento and then a post-taking plan. So the how the property would be configured after the rideway from Plymouth STO has been taken through there. Uh the county has indicated they need 35 ft of rideway uh for Plymouth Srento needs on there. But that what's going in front of the council we don't have. You don't. Yeah. And I on the reasoning I'll touch on what they talked about and that's in the staff report. It pretty much I summarize the annexation agreement in the resoning staff report. However, it's an an annexation agreement is a contract and planning commission does not consider contracts. It's only between the It would just be helpful if we had the specifics of that. That is my only concern. All right. Very well. All right. Does the applicant here and does he have a presentation? over sheet. Forgive me. Hello. Let me adjust this. I'm quite

short. Hi, Kelly Turner, LPG. Um, with this property, uh, in the future, it's expected to have that front part of the property as part of the trail that's going to go through, which is going to allow for that pedestrian connection. Um, the owner has also stated he would put a connection on the west side of the property, but it it's right against a dog park. So, he would be willing to put a pedestrian access gate there. We just don't know how many dogs want to come to the tavern. Um, also, uh, as part of the post taking plan, um, right now we already have existing parking. Um, there is going to be 16 spaces. Um, the front is going to have there's already eight existing or seven existing. There's going to be nine um alternative surface parking as um you know consistent with the LDC and that's going to go on the northern part port portion of the property and then when the post taking comes through um that of course existing front property would need to get ripped up um for that trail to go in. So, there's going to be parking added to the rear at that time. And then that would be consistent with the um transit oriented development with having the parking, excuse me, parking services, parking services to the rear. But at this time, since it's um not a substantial redevelopment and the parking is already existing, um the parking can stay. And then once that of course is taken, parking gets ripped up and that's when we go ahead and add more parking per the annexation agreement in the rear. Does anybody have a question? One question. When they remove the parking in the front of the trail, what will be the total amount of spaces? So once that's done, there will be 14 spaces. And we did go ahead and look at the code and we saw that it was I believe um four spaces per thousand square foot plus four spaces. I could be wrong on that part, but we did look at the code and make sure that the post

taking had the correct amount of parking for the square footage of the building. Question, what is the um capacity uh of your business? First floor, second floor capacity. Oh, the capacity. Um we did look into that. Just off the top of my head, I'm trying to think of the exact number. We looked at building capacity and um square footage and so forth to make sure that everything was in line with code um and that we had the correct amount of parking and you know fire and all that good stuff. Um so I can say it was looked into. I don't have the exact number on uh in my mind at the moment. 54. Oh 54. Okay. So it's 54 and then looking for a little bit of an increase. Okay. So, um, of course you have to, uh, accommodate, uh, Orange County with the right away. You've agreed to that. So, uh, how close would that be to the wall? You have a concrete wall with some kind of bushes or something. How far away will that be from from the trail? I guess that's my question. Okay. So, once that's taken, we do have the knee wall along the front and there's a five foot buffer. So, it's a 3T concrete block with a rot with rot iron and then a five foot buffer. Five foot buff buffer. Yes. Trail. Five. Yes. Five foot. Okay. And the trail eventually would connect to where? Right now it's dead ended, right? It's um supposed to connect with the wingspan, the surrounding wingspan development. Um this is going to actually be situated in between two

parking areas of wingspan. So having something that actually faces the road um would further the you know walkability in the area rather than having you know a building ended up going uh getting demolished or whatnot and just having kind of a open area since by the time the taking's done there's not going to be really room to put a brand new building um in the area and then having the parking on either side it could be just dead space unless something's done now to go ahead and have it you know a nice commercial area where people can walk through, go ahead, go in, celebrate a birthday party, you know, watch the football game, um, and then go back to the new development or wherever they came from. All right. So, I believe there is no existing trail that you would connect to. So, um, there's plans for the trail in the wingspread wingspan development, um, that we're supposed to be connecting on either side, too. I see. Okay. And um this business will be familyfriendly. I believe it would be family friendly. Commissioner, you said the occupancy is 54 people, correct? Plus staff or is that including staff? It was 54 prior. Hang on, sir. If you want if you're going to answer the question microphone. Um it is 54 at this time. Okay. And you're looking at increasing uh we could potentially have an increase in the future. So where is everybody going to park? Um well we're hoping that people are going to walk there and then the um parking that's going to be put in we're going to have some spaces in the rear. Um I don't know if you have a copy of the post taking plan.

Yes I do. Um, but it shows Oh. Oh, awesome. Awesome. So, it shows some more parking that's going to be put in the rear and then there's going to be parking also on the north part of the property. Um, so the post taking has 14 parking spaces which was in line with what's already the existing area. So, we have 14 parking spaces for 54 people. We did look at the parking code to make sure we met the minimums and we did meet the minimums. Um, and also since this is supposed to be transit oriented area, we're hoping that most the people that come here, well, probably most people that come here would be on foot either from wingspread or, you know, up and down that road because the whole idea is to have, you know, a whole area where it's walkable and people are walking from place to place from Publix to the tavern to their home in Wingspread to the commercial they're putting in Wingspread or Wingspan, sorry. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. All right. Anyone else have a question? Commissioner Ryan, why do you want to be annexed by the city of Apaka? Uh, well, it has lost its non-conforming status with the county. Um, so that means it would be non-conforming as a tavern with the county and he would have to, you know, use it to do something else like maybe uh sell agriculture um rather which also doesn't really fit in with the vision in the area and the existing building would kind of go to waste. Since it lost its non-conforming status, it'd have to revert back to A1 uses. Fair enough. Anyone else? Okay. Um, I do have one question relevant to the parking, the development that's behind that. Is there going to be adjacent parking there that would handle overflow if that was the case? Uh, there will be parking there, but we don't have a parking agreement at this

time. Um, there's going to be uh parking in garage parking and regular parking in both u opposite ends of this restaurant or tavern. I know you're you're speaking of of foot traffic and I I don't I know how people are and there's there'll be a limited amount of foot traffic and again with that capacity and I realize that that's maximum capacity but I still think parking might be concerned here. Okay. All right. Very well. All right. Thank you, ma'am. You're welcome. Does anyone here from the public wish to speak on this matter? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. Mr. Chairman, I have a to start the discussion. I just I'll try to keep this brief, but I want to get it succinct. The reason I got into this whole rigma role of city government was I wanted to open a brewery right down the road from here. And um the reason that I again is got to know the land development code because I don't blame the city but I thought the land development code was very restrictive for the vision that I had for the property that I had secured as well as the vision that was communicated by the city government which is create a walkable downtown district. And whenever I look at this, what was was a rural tavern out, you know, agriculture community. What is today is nothing. And what can be in the future is going to be a quite a um suburban/ urban area with walkable districts. We have apartments, there's grocery stores, etc. the south. So my inclination is if these people are willing to put their money into opening this business, I don't see why we're going to stop them. That's my inclination. And I'm saying that being having sat in the shoes of a business wannabe business owner in a way just south of where we are today. And

you know I think if if I was able to execute on that vision because the city code made it exceptionally restrictive and overly expensive for what I wanted to do. If I was able to execute on the vision and the city had backed it, we would have a very nice start of a walkable district in downtown. And if these people are willing to put their money into maybe starting something out there, I'm certainly not going to stand in the way of them doing it. Very well. Anyone else? The only the only concern I have again is from a practical view, they don't have enough parking in that area to support the business. Um, other than that, I have, you know, really no concerns, but I can envision people, you know, they have a very successful business hopefully. They have people parking up and down Pumis Serena Road um causing traffic issues and and that if there was some way they could expand their parking um to accommodate the number of people they hopefully will be in the facility at one time, then I don't have an issue. But I do have an issue with the parking. So, can I can I step back on that one? Commissioner Dilly, that that's a great point, Commissioner. Um the the one ask I would have you is that we don't let that stop this business because I was told the same thing at my proposed building just south of here. Oh, you only have 15 spots and you know, oh, you're never going to be able to run a bar on 15 spots. You know, it's kind of a a chicken egg scenario. If the place is so dang busy, we'll figure the parking out. If it fails, then the parking didn't matter.

you know, and and I hate to say, you know, that it's like the infrastructure coming behind, but at some point, you got to take a stab at it and give them a shot to succeed. That's my point on that. Very well, Commissioner Ryan, I have a point also. If the parking capacity is up the code, is that right, Mr. How? Yeah, it's four spaces per thousand per the land development code. So it is up to code with their current plans I believe. So yes, how can you deny a property owner because of parking? You need to change the code if you don't like the parking parking capacity. Seconded. Anyone else? Very well. Okay. Ready for a motion? Scroll. I'll create the motion. Seeing that there's no immediate disqualifiers, there's no churches, there's no schools, I feel very comfortable doing this. So, I'll make the motion to find the proposed future land use amendment from county rule to city mixed use consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and compatible with the character of the surrounding areas, recommending approval of the proposed future land use amendment based on the findings and facts presented in the staff report exhibits. Thank you, sir. Motion by Commissioner Dumi. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Second by Commissioner Ryan. All in favor say I. All opposed? I motion carries. That was a 52 motion. Uh in favor for it.

Right. Item number three, ordinance number 3136, resoning KPI master plan, 5118 Plymouth Sarrento Road, Clips Tap, owners, David Chapone, applicant, LPG urban and regional planner, 518 Plymouth Srento Road. Mr. How for the record, Bobby How, planning manager. This is the companion reszoning to the future land use amendment that was just recommended for approval by the planning commission. It's for 41 acres of property and the reasonzoning is from county rural A1 to Kelly Park mixeduse interchange KPU KPIU with a village center character overlay to reestablish the bar the property as a sports tavern. Property is located within the Kelly Park forbased code area if it's annexed and specifically within the village center overlay district. As I mentioned, it's located at 5118 Plymouth Sentto Road and was a bar in the past in unincorporated Orange County that lost its non-conforming status. The applicant has submitted a voluntary annexation to the city for their consideration. As part of that annexation, there is an annexation agreement that has been drafted that reestablishes the property into a sports tavern and allows redevelopment of the property while satisfying certain criteria of the formbbased code and acknowledges there will be future rightway need for Orange from Orange County for rightway along Plymouth Sto. The concept plan, there's a pre and a post taking concept plan. This is the pre-taking plan and these conditions are outlined in the annexation agreement that will be considered by the city council tomorrow night. It will provide a 10-ft wide trail along Plymouth Sto that's constructed at the owner's expense. It's shown there on the plan. Provide a three-foot tall knee wall and landscape buffer parallel to the trail and it's shown on the plan as well. It's highlighted there. Provide restriped and enhanced paved parking area. Provides additional alternative surface parking.

provides a covered wood deck, provides formal site development plan for review and approval by the city council, which is consistent with the initial concept plan, meaning that this plan would have to go to city council for approval and come back through this board for recommendation of approval as well. And it renovates the existing building to incorporate a metal roof, new entry door, additional windows with awnings, and a wooden deck. In addition, a post-taking concept plan is provided that depicts reconfiguration of the property within 24 months of Orange County's acquisition through imminent domain of the property of portion adjacent to Plymouth Sarrento Road as additional rightway for road widening that will relocate the 10-ft wide pave trail, landscape buffer, three-foot knee wall, and pave parking to the side and rear of the building. Orange County has issued correspondence requiring 35- ft rightway dedication for Plymouth Sarrento Road as the road corridor is identified in Orange County's transportation element 2030 long range transportation plan. In addition, the county requires a covenant on the property regarding notice of proximity language that the property is located within 5 miles of the Sand Hill preserve. Development review committee recommends approval. However, it is noted that reszoning may not fully advance the broader vision of the Kelly Park formbbased code area. And the recommended motion this evening is approval. Uh if you have any additional questions, a lot of the questions would be kind of related to what we talked about on the future land use, uh myself and the applicant are available as well. Thank you, Mr. How. Anyone have questions of staff? Very well. Anyone have question of the applicant? Very well. Does anyone from the public here wish to speak on this matter? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I can create the motion. Very well. Uh I'll make the the motion to uh to recommend to find the proposed change and zoning from county A1 Citrus Rural to KPI MU Village center Kelly Park interchange mixuse consistent with the comprehensive plan at land development code and compatible with the character of the surrounding areas and recommending approval of the proposed change zoning based on the findings and facts presented in the staff report and exhibits. Very well. Thank you, sir. Motion by Commissioner Dummy. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Second by Commissioner Ryan. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? I. So opposed. Opposed. Okay. All right. How many were in opposition? This was quasi judicial. You didn't ask if we had exparte. Has anyone had exparte communication on this matter? No. Very well. May I ask uh Mr. Chairman, how many were in approval in favor of and how many were in opposition? Was it 43? Uh okay. 42. Five to two. Okay. Just like the last one. Okay. Thank you. All right. Item number four, special exemption 458 Oakland Avenue. Owners MCCA. Applicant Sophia Nasim. Mr. Hamza. Good evening everyone. For the record, Amir Hamza, planner one. The applicant has submitted a special exception request to allow the development of a place of worship center on the site

located at 458 Oakland Avenue and that is just south of East Main Street. These are the vicinity and aerial maps of the 458 Oakland Avenue site. The total area of the property is 2.12 acres and currently has an existing one-story residence building on the site. The property has a future land use of commercial and has a zoning of mixeduse downtown as shown on these maps. Here's a list of special exception review standards that the applicant must comply to according to a land development code. Here is a concept site plan of the proposed place of warship center. As you can see, the there's going to be a new um 6,000 through 400 around 6,400 square ft building to the to the west of the current site and of to the west of the current um existing building and the existing one-story um residences to remain. The development review committee has recommended uh approval of a special exception to allow the development of a place of worship center within the mix downtown zoning district. The recommended motion um for planning commission is to approve a special exception to allow the development of a place of worship center in the mixeduse downtown zoning uh district. Staff and applicant are available for further comments and questions. Thank you, Mr. Hamza. All right. Has anyone had exparte communication on this matter? No. No. I have a question for Mr. H. Okay. All right. Does anyone have questions of staff? No, I have a question for Mr. H about the judicial was a judicial. Okay. Go ahead. Um, so I saw some some u talk about it on social media, but I didn't respond to it, but I've read what what their concerns were. Is that part of something I'm supposed to report or u you you certainly can. I don't know the exact content or or how it was. It sounds like

more uh you you saw something on it as opposed to having a communication, but certainly there's no harm in disclosing it which would allow the applicant to ask you uh you know about any possible prejudice you may have had from the review of the or from seeing whatever it is that you came across. Okay. I read some concerns on social media about this special exception and to be and to full disclosure to you Mr. chairman. Um, I did reply to the same probably the communication he's saying, but I do I don't believe that's exparte communication because I did not talk with the applicant or any party that's directly affected by this. So, it can be an exparte communication uh even if it impacts if there's something that you read that impacts your decision, right? Um, but again, you you disclosed it. If you'd like to go into further detail, you're able to. Otherwise, the applicant is able to ask you about uh anything that they'd like to about that that particular happy to answer any questions. Well, I have a question if okay in this circumstance you're on social media or or let's just say social media because of this example and as a commissioner you give an opinion on the subject matter prior to the meeting prior to this. In other words, somebody says, "Well, you know, they shouldn't do it." Say, "Well, I think it should be okay." In in other words, would that not be exparte communication? You're in you're indicating which way you're going to vote or your thoughts on the matter prior to the actual meeting? That could be an exparte communication. Yes. So, the the the default setting or the safe setting would be don't comment. Play it safe. Correct. Don't don't get involved. Okay. Well, M Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to that, the the extent of the discussion that I participated in where I said we will look at the findings and facts and make a decision based on the facts of the case. That's it. Not any perceived judgment and not biases. We're going to look at the fact

not making an accusation. Yeah, I know. But I'm just saying clarify that it's one thing to say, I understand. I have people pigeon hole me all the time and go, what do you think about this? And I go, I don't know. We'll see you in the meeting and we'll make a decision based on that. I absolutely will not answer that question under any circumstances because of the sunshine law and our rules and that was my only point that I was making is to clarify that even if you say hm seems like a good idea or even you could be perceived if you just put a smiley face after they said well we should approve this what does that mean so to me the default setting would be nothing zero nothing involved once it's done somebody asks a question you can answer it here's why my my logic for voting on that. But as far as prior to the meeting, I would think in any agenda mine, quasi judicial or not, quasi judicial communications are allowed. Uh you can make them. There's a certain risk that comes along with them. And of course, just because there's communication doesn't mean that it's prejuditial. The idea of the disclosure is at least to put it out there so that that it can be asked about to prevent um or to to show that a particular communication is not in fact prejuditial. Um but uh certainly certainly uh if there's there's nothing to disclose that that's safe but um you can have communications and it still be a safe communication. Uh the process is there just so that it can be put out and asked about to ensure fairness and due process in the hearing. Well, if you were sitting at the table with me, I would feel comfortable because I could just look at you and ask. But in most cases, that's not going to be the circumstance. So that's okay. That that clarified it. All right. Any questions? Mr. Washington, I I I believe I understand what gentlemen are referring to and I saw something quickly in social media as

well about the occupants of this property. And to me, it doesn't matter who it is. You know, we are voting on the the rules, the land development code. That's all we're doing. Exactly. And um for uh you to be anybody to be influenced by Oh, well, do you know this? No, it's improper. It's out of order. All we're dealing with is a special exception for these folks to do something. That's all it is. So, which leads me to the other thing. The church existed uh there for many years. uh without a special exception. And they probably should have gotten one back back when, but who knows what happened back in the day. Things like that happen all the time. So, uh now because they want to construct this building, now it brings to the surface, oh, we didn't know we need to have the special exception. Fine. They're following the rules. So, it seems to me all what we're doing tonight is to approve the special exception because they wanted to construct a place of worship, which has been there all along anyway, you know, uh on this property. And um so to have all this dialogue about social media and what what they're talking about, it's mute. It's immaterial. So, I say we just focus on the issue. It's a special exception that for a place of worship in the multiple uh uh use uh downtown area period. I agree with you, Commissioner Mos. My my only question was whether it need to be disclosed that I read what they had to say on social media and of course I didn't respond.

So, Mr. Chairman, I have a question and I don't know if this is for I don't know who this is for, but it's for one of the three of you or or that type of thing. Um, in your opening, Mr. Hamza, in your opening, you said um something to the effect um to develop a place of worship. I I think that needs to be rewarded because there is a place of worship there now. It implies that there's no place of worship there. So you could say adding to creating a new additional place of worship, you know, a joint just just as a comment. The the other thing where they did not have an special exception, the special exception permit all these years and now it's been brought to light and there are comments in this uh packet that there are other places of worship in that area. Do we know do they have special exception permits for those as well or not? And how many do how many do we have and how many should have? Some of those places of worship, the existing ones have been there for decades prior to this code being adopted, which was adopted in 2019, which required special exceptions for places of worship in the downtown um many many decades in some cases. So, and I appreciate you saying that because my my next comment would then be is in the packet. I think there needs to be in the future there needs to be some wording about um this was grandfathered through. They did not have and they've grandfathered through because as I'm sitting there reading that packet, I'm drawing into question, okay, is there something that, you know, I realize they didn't have it. They've clearly stated

that. Now they're asking for a special exemption permit for the new building and the others. Is there is there potential repercussion in the way that we're going to make a decision tonight? And so I I just it would have been much uh easier for me to understand had that been written in the packet. Let me offer a point of clarification for you, Mr. Mock. Um the place of worship that is currently being operated on at this property, there is no special exception that's ever been granted for it. Correct. There's no BTR, business tax receipt that's ever been granted for granted for it. There's never been a fire inspection done on the premises or building inspection done on it. As far as we know, they moved in and started operations some years ago. There was never a special exception applied for, granted for it. they've decided to come to the city and ask for the special exception for the entire property. Special exception is a use on a property. So that would establish the use on this property um which would include the existing facility that they have and then the new 6,300 foot building that they're looking to construct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Okay, Commissioner Wood. Um, I just have a question going through the actual plans. There's a note here that um, where was that that they applied for a special exception with the county at some point when they started operations? Where is it stated in the plan? I'm trying to find that again. I saw that on the plan too during the review. U, Mr. woods. It's that we have no record of a special exception. And and if it was in the county, this property, as far as I'm aware of, since

I've been with the city, first time since 2017, has always been Next question. Was it ever in the county? It's always been city property. As far as I'm aware, it's always been city property. Yeah, it's platted as one of the original subdivisions of town of Apakka. That might be a scrier's error on the plans. Um, we see that sometimes too. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. and and in in reference to the the feedback or the the the social media thing and in reference to what Commissioner Washington said, I agree that our job is to look at the paperwork in front of us and make a decision on the content character area, what the city wants to do. In addition to that, if if there's a a push back on it, where where is the people that in in my mind, if it was really a problem or that special exemption was going to cause a problem or people were very much against it, then there would be someone in the audience speaking in that matter. In my mind, that that's just one of the way I look at it. A very important factor is what if there a public outcry and and we hear it, then we can consider that. But in this case, I I don't any and I know there was not any kind of public meeting on this. Correct. So I could repeat that. There wasn't any kind of public meeting or public notice on this. Correct. There was like in the beginning of the application the applicant is required to hold a community meeting with for property owners within 300 ft. They have to notify them and uh according to the evidence and the community meeting letter um the meeting was held but nobody showed up. Exactly. Very. All right. If there's nothing else, we're ready for a motion. Uh, you have to open the public hearing.

Oh, I'm sorry. Is there anyone from the public wishes to speak on this matter? Seeing none, we'll bring it back for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve a special exception to build a place of worship center in the mixeduse downtown zoning district subject to the exhibits and findings of the staff report. Thank you, sir. Motion by Commissioner Mott. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Woods. All in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion carries. There you go. All right. Do we have any new business? Any old business? No, sir. Very well. Meeting a journ.