Village Council - Regular Meeting

Alright. Good evening. We're gonna call this meeting to order. This is the village council meeting for Tuesday, March 10, just

on

time. I'd ask you to all please stand for the invocation by deacon Bob to be followed by the pledge.

Please bow your heads. Heavenly Father, we thank you for the gift of democracy that we practice tonight. We thank you for the gift of these good people on the dais who have given their lives and time for their community. We thank you for the gift of the good people here that want to lend their voices to this community. Heavenly Father, we're not a perfect people, but we are people that want to work together. Heavenly Father, give them wisdom, the one on the dais and the ones out here in the crowd. Help us to have wisdom to figure out how best to work together, how best to serve our community. Ask your blessings upon us in your holy name, amen.

All right. Thank you all for being here tonight. Mister Barnes, what do we got?

Brings us to the approval of the agenda, and staff recommends the approval of the agenda with the following amendments. One is to move public hearing item 8H, ordinance number twenty twenty six dash zero nine, which is establishing the Village Landing Community Development District to public hearing item as 8C. All other public hearing items after item 8C will change respectively. Secondly, we'd like to add resolution number twenty twenty six-fifteen, project Tango, to the regular agenda as item 9A. And lastly, we recommend pulling item 7E, which is the item related to the Lake Worth Road and 120th Roundabout construction, and pull that. And staff will bring that back at a future meeting. With those amendments, we recommend approval of the agenda.

I'll move to approve as amended.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, agenda is now approved.

All right. At this point, we have a presentation and some proclamations. The first item we have this evening is recognition of Connie Sterling, twenty twenty six school related employee of the rear. And Mr. Williams is here to present this item.

Good evening, counsel. It is said that investing in education pays the best dividends. And I'm so glad here in the village of Wellington, we are committed to supporting our schools, our educators, as well as our staff. Tonight, we are here to recognize a member of the Palm Beach County School District. And her name is miss Connie Mimi Sterling, who was just awarded the school related employee of the year.

Now, she oversees payroll, she manages field trips, as well as ensures that the front office, and we all know how hectic that could be sometimes, runs very smoothly. She plays a vital role in success of Equestrian Trails Elementary School. It is said that miss Sterling embodies exactly what it means to serve an education. And those words don't come lightly. Those words aren't said over a single event.

Those words are said over years of service, which equates to one word, consistency. So on behalf of the village of Wellington, miss Sterling, we would like to say thank you for your service. Thank you for your professionalism, your dedication, but most of all, thank you for your heart. Your heart for the students, your heart for this community, and your heart to make an impact. And with that being said, before we bring up miss Sterling, we'd like to bring up principal Manning to say a few words.

Good evening, everyone. Not quite sure what to say after that. He, like, stole all my words, but

It's a hard act to say.

Ms. Sterling has made my transition to Equestrian Trails as a principal amazingly easy. She is the runner, the ruler of the school. They always say that the admin assistant runs the campus, and she truly does. But she is amazing.

And I know he talked about running the front office and field trips and those sort of things, but we have a program called Watch Dog Dads, where our dads come in on Fridays and they give out proud ponies to our students. And when those dads come in, Ms. Sterling, which the kids don't know, she dresses up as the dog. And she goes around and takes the pictures with the students, and she's in a lot of the photographs, and she absolutely is a joy on campus. You know, it's hard to find someone that every staff member feels comfortable to come in and speak to, and Connie is that person.

She is the one that you can go to for anything, whether you need a shoulder to, you know, have a tear go on, or you just need a hug, or you want to share some exciting news. And she is there for everyone, the students, the staff. She's been there since it's opened. So in 2003, the official school year, 'four. But she opened the school. She has seen parents go through that now or students go through that are now parents. And she continues to be a huge piece of the community. And we just love her to death, and so excited, too, that she received this award.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone. It is such an honor to represent the Wellington area. I love my job. I love going to work every day. All the kids call me Mimi. I've got three of my grandkids there with me now. I have another one coming in August. I love Wellington, love the school, and love everybody. Thank you all very much. I've been there, it seems like forever. Twenty seven years, I believe, now. So it's such an honor to receive the award. Thank you all.

Well, we're all very proud of you. Because as everyone knows, we make education a priority in Wellington. And we love that we have great teachers. And we love when they're all recognized. Everyone in the school district to us is still counted, you're teaching something someday, some way to some child. So thank you for everything you do every year for twenty seven years. I just realized I've been doing this for twenty seven years as a lawyer, which also seems like a really long time. It's only worse with children. It must seem longer. But thank you so much for what you do every single day, making a difference in the lives of our kids. So we can't thank you enough. You make us proud. Thank you.

You for having us here, too.

What else? I'm sure.

Your nomination video was spectacular. We've all had a chance to see you, right, when we come to the school for Read for the Record or any of those kinds of things. You are one of the happiest, most vibrant people, and that's all the time. And so we are lucky to have you not only for those kids and for your school, but for all of us. And we're really, really thankful and congratulate you for winning this well deserved honor. And we hope that you're not leaving anytime soon.

I have to wait

for all my grandkids.

There you go.

Okay. That's see, that's good. I

have more coming.

There you go. There you go.

Councilwoman? First of all, want say congratulations.

Thank you.

Second of all, thank you so much for your dedication. What was said of you is I highly commend you for doing that. It takes a lot. And it's important to the kids because they won't forget it. So thank you. Thank you for your dedication. Appreciate you.

Down to this side. Anyone wants to go first?

Just you can tell that you truly love what you do and translates into all of these great achievements. And we appreciate that. And I know all of your families and students appreciate that. So thank you, and congratulations. Thank you.

As a mom of children with at the elementary age, I just know how important it is to have a positive environment to go to and feel safe at school. So thank you so much for creating that type of environment for our children.

And I think we're gonna take a picture with you.

We come to the middle of Oh, yeah. It's

true. How's it going?

It's cool.

Good. Doing great. Yes.

Congratulations.

One,

two, three. Congratulations.

No way.

Thank you.

And take all your goodies. Thank you. And this. I'm gonna carry it all. I'm being little helper. And and and

and she is bringing you more

to carry.

Oh my

Back to you, Jim.

All right. Brings us to our next presentation item is this year's presentation of audit results for the fiscal year ended 09/30/2025. And Ms. Quickel is here with her team.

Good evening. We're happy to continue all the wonderful way to start the meeting with more happy things. We present our audit for the year ended 09/30/2025. Our auditor is here and, mister Moises Arcesa will start. I'd like to first thank our staff who works on this.

This is primarily handled by miss Anna Acevedo, who's the director of financial services and administrative services. Unfortunately, from family reasons, she could not be here tonight, but she is just the backbone of this and tremendously important in this process. Also, Marisol Pearson, who is her bonded partner almost, they have been working together ever since I've been here almost thirteen years on this and do a fantastic job. We do have Marisol couldn't join us either, her daughter broke her ankle, So she's dealing with that. And then we have a new member of our staff, the Chief Financial Officer, Kadim Ramirez. If Kadim, if you'd stand up. And she worked very hard on this audit as well, but she is here tonight. So I'll turn it over to Mo to give you the story on the audit.

Thank you, Good afternoon, honorable mayor and village council. My name is Mo Rieser. I'm with the firm of CBIPS CPAs. And I'm here today to present the ACFR. You have it as part of today's agenda package. And I'm going to make reference to certain printed page numbers and also the PDF page number if you'd like to follow along.

And the printed is out of the book?

Yes. The ACFR, the annual comprehensive financial report for the fiscal year ended September 30 is over 150 pages. I'm going to highlight some key areas for this presentation. The first one being printed page 16 or PDF page 21, which is our independent auditor's report. It has our firm's letterhead on it, and it's addressed to the elected body.

And it first starts off by the opinions paragraph, making reference to what we've audited. And as mentioned here, we've audited the financial statements of the village of Wellington, Florida as of and for the fiscal year ended 09/30/2025. The second paragraph is what I believe the most important paragraph, which is our our opinion. In terms of a financial external audit, we conclude or provide a conclusion by providing an opinion on the financial statements. So as mentioned here, in our opinion, the accompanying financial statements referred to above present fairly in all material respects the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the village as of 09/30/2025.

In essence, it's a clean opinion or also known as an unmodified opinion. In terms of a financial external audit, it is the highest regard that one could receive, and it's the only opinion type you as an elected body want to be associated with. So as such, I congratulate the village, the elected body, and management on receiving a clean opinion on the fiscal year ended 09/30/2025. Following the independent auditor's report, if you would like to follow along to the management discussion analysis, it's printed page 20 or PDF page 25. The management discussion analysis is about 13 is 13 pages long.

And I would suggest if you were gonna read the entire section of the document in its entirety, it will be the management discussion analysis. These 13 pages compare current year fiscal year 2025 versus 2024. Throughout the MD and A, you will find quantitative analysis of comparing either the statement of net position, as well as the changes in net position, as well as budget versus actual. And the nice thing about not only does it provide quantitative information comparing the activity 24 versus 25, what management has put together in this section is a dialogue of the underlying reasons or factors that are driving those changes. So underneath every table and chart, management has put together a summary of what is causing the factors or what are the factors causing these changes during fiscal year 'twenty five as compared to fiscal year 'twenty four.

After the MD and A, we reach the first financial statement. If you would like to follow, I'm now on printed page 33 or PDF page 38. And this is the statement of net position. This is similar to a balance sheet where we reflect all the assets, short current term, as well as long term assets, deferred outflows, liabilities, and deferred inflows, which the difference of the formula of assets plus deferred outflows minus liabilities and deferred inflows equates to net position or also as equity. As noted here on printed page 33, the largest assets that the village holds as of year end is its investment portfolio.

The investment portfolio as of year end is just shy of $174,000,000 And the second largest asset is capital assets. We use that as a term for property, plant, and equipment. The largest liabilities on the books as of year end is a bonds payable related to the Wellington Athletics Project, as well as the net pension liability that's recognized in terms of participation in the Florida Retirement System. When we equate net position, we do have three classifications. At the bottom of printed page 33, the first one being restricted for.

These are the resources that have been set aside that are restricted by external parties for certain uses or activities. The second component would be net investment in capital assets. What have we invested in our property, plant, and equipment net of outstanding debt? And then the last one would be unrestricted, which equated to 55.2 for governmental activities, 19.3 for business type activities, and village wise 74,500,000. If you turn the page with me to printed page 34, or PDF page 39, we reach the statement of activities.

The statement of activities is a full accrual profit and loss statement. We start off by presenting all the expenses based on function and program. That's the first column to your left. Then we net out the program revenues. Those could be charges for services, operating grants, capital grants, or contributions based on each function or program. At the bottom, we segregate general revenue types. Those are considered non exchange transactions as required by U. S. GAAP. And these are typically your taxes, property taxes, discretionary tax, utility service tax, communication service tax, and so forth.

Total village wide, our change in net position was $39,200,000 a positive 39,200,000.0 We began the fiscal year with an open equity of 459,700,000.0. You consider the net change in position of 39.2. That aggregates to an ending equity or net position of 498.9, just shy of half 1,000,000,000. Following the statements, we have the footnotes, but I do want to follow along to our internal control report on printed page 132 or PDF page 137.

Okay. All right. I'm with you.

Okay. On printed page 137, we have our internal auditors report our internal controls or financial reporting. On the first page, page 132, we explain to the reader, or educate the reader, what a deficiency in internal controls is. That's in the third paragraph. And we distinguish that between a material weakness or a significant deficiency.

And at the bottom, as mentioned, we conclude that during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we considered to be communicated to those charged with governance. If you turn with me to printed page 133 or PDF page 138, you have our report on compliance. We did perform a financial external audit, And we do focus on the accuracy and completeness of the financial statements being reported on, in which we provide an opinion. But in regards to the Florida Auditor General, they do require us to follow government only standards, which entails compliance testing. As mentioned on the top of the page, we did perform certain tests of compliance with provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements.

And as such, based on the limited procedures performed, our tests did not disclose any instances of noncompliance. That's on PDF page 138 or printed page 133. What were the grants? If you turn with me to the schedule of federal awards on printed page 137 or PDF page 142. This schedule, the purpose of the schedule is to reflect all the grants both at a federal level and state level which the village applied for, received, and expended during the fiscal year.

Total federal awards expended equated to 1,600,000.0, and total state awards aggregated to $1,300,000 So total expenditures of both federal and state awards were just shy of $3,000,000 ending the year at $2,900,000 We tested two programs, being on the federal side, we tested the COVID program, and on the state side, we tested SHIP. SHIP is the State Housing Initiative Partnership Program. And on printed page 139 or PDF page 144, we concluded that we have no items to report in terms of federal awards or state financial assistance. That was the last section within the ACFR I wanted to cover. Separate and apart from the ACFR, on March 2, we did also release our communication letter to those charged with governance.

That covers significant estimates, and also we use this as a tool to communicate to the elected body any difficulties in performing the audit. This year, in particular, we were responsible in collaboration with finance staff to perform three audits. We audited and performed an opinion on the ACFR, Given the fact that the village exceeded the reporting thresholds both at the federal and state level, we performed a federal single audit, and we also performed a state single audit. So it was a very robust year of ask and a request for us to get, for the village staff to help us and collaborate to get this done in early March. And we were able to do so.

And I want to thank everybody that was involved in helping us. Do ask for a lot of questions, a lot of support, and it is a lengthy process. With me today is my colleague Elias. But it was not just us two here. We had a larger team this year, given the fact that we were performing three different types of audits. So I do want to thank Tanya, Anna, Kadim, and Marisol for all their assistance and support throughout the audit process. We started this back in October. So it takes some time. That pretty much summarizes our presentation. And I'll open up to any questions you may have.

I have one question. Yes. For everyone watching who's not a CPA, what is the takeaway from your audit?

So in terms of a financial external audit, there's different types of opinions. And in this case, the village of Wellington received an unmodified opinion, which is the highest regard. But just in South Florida, we audit over 60 government entities between municipalities, public utilities, and districts. And we're not shy to identify recommendations and findings. And we had none to report. And that is not common. There's always We tried.

We tried. We tried. Yes,

we tried and we followed the audit standards. But again, very good results. And being able to perform three audits and complete them in this time is very impressive. So thank you for allowing us to be of service.

Well, thank you for your service and your help. And a huge thank you to our team who seems to always manage to have a clean audit every year, because you guys do an excellent job, you and your team and your new team member.

They're amazing.

So yes, we thank you every year for this. Anyone want to have any comments or questions on the audit?

I want to just go over a couple of things. So why do we do this audit?

We're required to have an external audit, and we're very pleased with that. It is a good summary, especially now for some of you, you know, going out, you leave knowing what great shape you leave the village in and that's every year. We see where things are and our auditors help us all throughout the year when we have different projects, different things happen. Wellington's a big ship. We have different things going on all the time and we discuss things with them, how to handle it, how to address it, to try to keep everything in good shape.

And that's the fiduciary responsibility for this, investing the funds. He talked about the 179,000,000 we have that we invest. We take all that very, very seriously. It's taxpayer dollars, and that's what we are accountable for, and we are here to answer questions about it any time.

And so when you say we're required to have it, is that by statute? Correct. And I know you walked us through at the beginning that this is a clean, unmodified opinion relative to the audit and all of the finances of the village.

GREGORY DELL: Yes.

And you said there's no that's the highest score Yes. You can get? Result. High. Okay. Better word. Okay. That has we have had clean, unmodified audits going back how far?

Wellington has always had clean, unmodified audits. There have been times when we have had some material difference discrepancies or significant deficiencies, but that has not been since 2014. And so we're very proud of that as well. MR.

Right. There haven't even been any discrepancies in more than MR. 12. Eleven years over two different audit firms.

MS. Correct.

And I think that should also be noted for our residents. And having made those points, I again, I want to echo what the mayor said. I want to thank you all for being our partners. And most of all, I want to thank you, Ms. Quickel, and the whole team for all you do in regards to making sure that we are

We're happy to do it.

Transparent and financially responsible each and every year. Thank you.

Anyone else have comments, thoughts, questions? Councilwoman Sylvester?

J. I want to thank you for the presentation, and thank you to the staff. I just have one critique. I do believe that there should be some sort of PowerPoint as you're doing this that people can follow along to, just so they can see some of these documents that you're discussing, they're kind of just looking at you talking. Just for to make it even more transparent than it already is, and if there's a place that they can go online and look at this.

Or

We actually have it posted. We posted it prior to this meeting on the website, and we issue a press release about it as well, and that will be going out at 07:15.

Perfect. Thank you.

John John will agree with me that as a trial lawyer, nothing's more exciting than putting up a spreadsheet as exhibit three times. Really catches the jury's attention. They love that. But it's a good idea. People should be able

to see

what we're talking about.

Well, and they will have access to all the information. I want to thank you and your team once again. This is my tenth and final year going through this process. WILLIAMS: And every year, we get a clean opinion. And this is the

one time when finding nothing is great.

We like that.

JULIE Yeah, exactly. But it is a lengthy process and a thorough process. So for anybody who's wondering if we're transparent and we're financially responsible with the village's, you know, dollars, this answers all of that and more. So thank you again to you and your team and to the auditors.

I want thank the department directors too. They provide lots of information. The auditors speak with some of them directly, the key departments, and work with them. It is truly a team effort.

True. That is true. It takes everybody. So and it's a it's a year long process. It is. It starts over as soon as it ends. So we thank you for your tireless work on that.

I just want to say echo everything everyone said, but I do want to add that one of the things that the Village of Wellington does really, really well is transparency. Thank you. And I to me, that speaks volume. And we continually get all kinds of awards. We continually get shout out with whatever we do. And that speaks of the village. The leaders, the directors, Ms. Quigley, any department Wiggle, sorry.

That's okay.

Any department, it's always the very best of the best. It's a commitment. And this is proof of what the best is is. Thank you. This report. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We're done. Thank you.

Appreciate your time. And all the hard work that went

into this.

Mr. Barnes, back to you.

All right. That ends presentation and proclamations. At this point, we have the approval of consent agenda. Is there a motion?

As amended.

As amended.

Is there

a motion?

So moved. Is there a second?

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, consent agenda is passed five-zero.

And before we move on to the next item, if you recall, we did change we took the Lake Worth and onetwenty project off of consent and pulled that item completely. One thing I'd like to ask counsel is to go ahead and continue and reaffirm the last direction that you provided to designate Mr. McGovern to continue working, since the reason we pulled it off was to continue working on the matter. So long as Swiss government can keep doing that.

And while we're on that note, although we had a very, very productive meeting, there is still a possibility that a lawsuit would need to be filed. And so I would like authorization to proceed with that if necessary, and fairly confident that we can avoid that. MR.

Let me say that the meeting was very constructive. It addresses a lot of issues, not only the portion of the corner that we're dealing with in regards to the roundabout, but there's also some traffic safety issues associated with the entrance or the back entrance into Grand Isles and Polo Park, and also going all the way up 120th towards the Aquatics Complex and then down the back of the Aquatics Complex and Wellington Athletics all are still sort of involved in this. So I do think it is important that we give Laurie the authority to file the lawsuit, because that may be an important legal vehicle to moving this rapidly forward.

I agree with that. Anyone else have thoughts, comments on the issue?

I agree. With that?

All good at giving Laura the authorization.

Yes. Uh-huh.

You are authorized.

Thank you.

Hopefully, don't have to file it

if can't

reach a resolution. Then mister McGovern will also remain the counsel appointee. Yeah.

Then you why don't I change horses? That's a bad idea.

Alright. That brings us to public hearings. First item is item is resolution number 2026Dash07, which is a Lotus two master plan amendment. And mister Stillings and miss Kramer are here.

Resolution number R2026Dash07, a resolution of Wellington, Florida's council for a master plan amendment for certain property known as Lotus Wellington 2, a mixed use project totaling 52.44 acres, more or less, located on the West side of State Road 7, approximately half a mile north of Forest Hill Boulevard, as more specifically described herein. Modifying the master plan and conditional use approvals by abandoning the conditional miniature golf indooroutdoor entertainment use, increasing the conditional daycare use from two ten to two thirty students, adding a combined restaurant and retail use, and a freestanding restaurant use, and to modify conditions of approval providing a conflicts clause, providing a severability clause, and providing an effective date. Mayor, this is quasi judicial.

Disclosures? We'll start down here. I'll call you. Do your thing first.

Sorry. So if you intend to be heard on this item tonight, would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay. Ex parte disclosures, please.

Hospital bedentunia, you can go first.

And staff of LOTUS. And what did you discuss? The actual project itself. And can you be fair and impartial? Absolutely, yes.

I met with staff. I met with the representatives of the applicant. And I spoke with, I think, all of the members of our Planning and Zoning Board, except for for mister Robert, I don't think I talked to him about this matter, and I talked to them about what their thinking was and how they reached the resolution that they came up with when it was presented to them. And with that, I can be fair and impartial.

I spoke with staff, the applicant's team, and I believe John Bowers from Planning and Zoning about the application and the changes they're looking to make. And I can be fair and impartial.

I spoke to staff and Jeff Robert of Planning and Zoning, and just generally about the new changes and the project, and I can be fair and impartial.

I spoke with staff, the applicant and the and his team, including Rich Kasser, who has since departed. Johnny Meyer, Tatianaakis, John Bowers, my husband. I spoke about the changes that are being proposed, and I can be fair and impartial.

Okay. Thank you.

Hi. Good evening. This is Damian Newell with Planning and Zoning Division. This request is for Master Plan Amendment twenty twenty five-01MPA Resolution 20 '20 six-seven. I'd like to enter the files into record. The applicant is Lotus Fountain two. The agent is inside studio. They are requesting a master plan amendment.

Mister Newell, can you make sure your microphone is turned on? Thank you.

This is a master plan amendment for more specific commercial pod A and B. The Lotus two project is located approximately one mile north of the Forest Hill Boulevard and State Road 7 intersection on the west side. As illustrated on this slide. The project is 52 acres. Has a mixed use land use designation and a multiple use plan development designation.

The applicant is requesting to remove the entertainment use and replace with a 8,000 square foot combined restaurant and retail building, an 8,500 square foot freestanding restaurant building, requesting to increase the daycare from two ten to two thirty students and to modify conditions of approval for the Lotus two project. At the 10/15/2025 planning zone adjustment board meeting, the board did recommend approval of the 8,500 square foot freestanding restaurant and the daycare increase, but not the removal of the entertainment use. And recommended the applicant provided the council with the name of the freestanding restaurant, and the pop stroke termination letter. LOTUS did provide a response, which is provided as staff report exhibit F, which is page two ninety seven of your packet. At this time, staff would like to turn it over to the applicant for their presentation on the proposed project and an update on the what they've done since the PZAB meeting.

Good evening. For the record, Brian Terry with Insight Studio here on behalf of the applicants, LOTUS, this evening. Again, I appreciate the opportunity. We're trying to put the final piece of the puzzle together for the overall development. And I'll give you a brief overview.

Damon did a good summary. And then Nicole, who is with Colliers, she's the Executive Vice President with Colliers, is going to give you a bit of an update as to the leasing progress and the openings that are related to Lotus One, and then how that also interacts with the PAD A, specifically the parcels that we're going to be speaking about here mostly this evening. And then Jim Gild is here on behalf of ownership, who certainly can be available for questions at the end of the presentation. So I think we're all very, very familiar with the site location at this point in time. And I think that what I really want to focus on, again, is we understand what we're here for this evening, is really finding alternative use for pod A and re envision what that parcel could be.

Pod B is a slight increase of the overall intensity of the proposed day care. It was two ten. We're asking for an additional 20 children that's associated with the pod B. Again, as was mentioned, the removal of the indooroutdoor entertainment and then a replacement of the 8,000 square foot restaurantretail building, which you'll see is referenced as Building 1A. And then Building 1B would be the 8,500 square foot restaurant use.

So I'll just touch on pod B because it's a simple part of this. Again, an addition of 20 students is being requested to this application. PCA B recommended that that move forward. The building's designed to accommodate significantly more than that. And so we're just asking for that additional increase to sort of maximize the potential and the service that that daycare can provide the community. Here's an aerial of progress. I certainly appreciate it. I know some of you have been on the property with us. We've kind of walked around different aspects of it and given you tours of the progress that's gone on there. LOTUS one obviously is well developed, certainly a lot of spaces are opening up.

LOTUS two, as you can see, and it progresses very quickly, almost on a daily basis at this point. You've got the daycare that's on the bottom left hand side, which is very nearing completion and request for CO, I think, is imminent. Obviously, the clubhouse for Lennar, the townhomes are under construction. A series of single family homes, as you can see in the aerial, are also being built with the model center and sales center getting ready to open. The area in yellow is what is the Pod A, so essentially the three acres that we're going to speak to mostly this evening.

So when we were in PZB, this is the proposed plan. Again, we're talking about a master plan modification, but obviously we're all very, very familiar with the property and how all these components interact with each other. So we need to be looking specifically at the plan itself. As you can see the daycare's on the bottom. Again, that Building 1A is the mixed use building, which would have potentially the restaurant. And the retail uses, the 1B, is the proposed restaurant. I don't think it's any secret. We've had this conversation in the past. The expectation is that it will be Seasons fifty two. That is, and I'm sure that can be spoken to, working and ready to sign a lease.

We need to get through this process to make sure that we have something that they can sign a lease on. And so that proposed plan had 192 parking spaces. Again, it was a little over parked. It was really with the intention of making sure that it would function well for the restaurant user. So after that meeting, obviously there criticism and conversation around the plan itself.

Concern with it being a building with a parking lot in front of it, that there wasn't really any public access, there wasn't a public space associated with it. Obviously a conversation about the entertainment use and how that all interacts and how could this really be rethought. So again, as was mentioned, Building 1B was approved and Building 1A was not. And so really we've worked and I appreciate Damian and certainly Tim and staff. And we've worked through a variety of conditions of approval over the course of the past couple months and to get everything sort of resolved and clarified.

We're really down to this one singular condition of approval that is the point of emphasis here tonight. And so what we worked on was an idea obviously, Nicole is going speak to the leasing side of it. But from a design side, what can we do to make this parcel more interactive, more public usable, more attractive, and really be a better benefit to the community? And so what we're proposing is language in blue, as opposed to the language that is in the condition in your staff report. And it's allowing for that 8,000 square foot restaurant retail building.

But then in addition to it, adding an equal amount courtyard, plaza, community gathering space that would be associated with this development parcel and open to the public. So as you can see, the concept is that, again, the building on the bottom, which is just off the screen, but would be the restaurant parcel. But now instead of the parking spaces that were proposed in front of that, we've reduced about 30 spaces, created an open lawn concept, a community space that really can interact well with the restaurant, can create outdoor spaces associated with the dining and the restaurants that would be available within this Building 1A. And then certainly, a flexible programmable open game lawn area with some focal features, seating, a variety of things. Again, it really changes the dynamic of what that building can become, and certainly what occurs on this development parcel.

It brings a level of that green space, a level of opportunity of entertainment and gathering that was missing from the plan that went forward to PZAB. Some of our inspiration, you know, these are some local examples. Lake Nona up in Orlando has a very similar space associated with some of the restaurants within that development. Park Place down in Boca has some similar spaces, Alton and Jupiter. And then just some character images.

Again, the intention here is that we can create a space that folks will use, you know, while you're waiting for dinner at Caesar fifty two, or whether you're, you know, dining within the restaurants that's in that new building, there's a new opportunity here that doesn't exist. So again, our proposal is for the 8,000 square feet, a mixture of uses, again, the restaurant and the retail. And there's been a significant effort done on the marketing side from the leasing component. And so I'm going to stop for a second. I'll let Nicole Fontaine take it from here and speak to a little bit of her efforts.

Hi. Good evening. Thank you for your time and consideration. So this slide is showing we have some a great tenant mix of restaurant, retail service users and entertainment concept. So we are excited that we have three tenants open now.

And if you can see, within the next three months, a majority of the tenants are going to get open. And right now, we have in permitting for Elite Golf, which is a simulator golf concept. And then we have Cluck Face Chicken, Garden Butcher, which is like a healthy prepared food concept. And then two office users.

Next slide.

So the next slide shows the entertainment concepts that we are focusing on. Some the big entertainment concepts really have been looking at K Park because it is a much bigger project. So that has been a little bit challenging to get them interested in our project because it is on a much smaller scale. So we went after, like, food cooking classes, candle making classes, you know, kid concepts. But unfortunately, those concepts are not looking to expand into this market.

And a lot of the candle making concepts just aren't doing good in general, unfortunately. And then, like, we went after some indoor pickleball concepts, but we weren't able to acquire that the building size of the building that they would need, movie theaters. A lot of these type of entertainment users, as I said, they're much larger scale that we would not be able to accommodate. We did get Bolero at one point interested, but they just, right now, don't have the capital. Funding is really tough right now.

So we weren't able to mail them, unfortunately. And then we do have some restrictions from Lennar, Seasons fifty two. That also makes it a little bit more challenging. We're trying to work with Seasons fifty two because right now they're only allowing us 3,000 square feet of food services. But we do have a lot of interest from fast casual users who do want to be here. And that's it. Any questions?

So this comment here is Seasons fifty two doesn't want those other uses in the adjacent building. Is that what this is telling me?

Yeah. Well, they're concerned about parking. So they just don't want to have a lot of food uses there because of the concern about parking. But that is something that we are trying to work through with them see if we can get allowed some more square footage because that is a lot of the interest right now.

I have a question. If we could go back to the slides with all the names of the businesses. I'm not sure what slide number that is.

This one?

One I believe. That one. Do you have solid leases signed on all these businesses that you're mentioning here?

Yes. Yep. They're all completed deals.

But this is all in LOTUS I? That's all LOTUS

I.

Yes. Okay.

The next slide over was all the places you tried to put in on this pod Correct.

A.

Again, think the directive that we were asked to go do is continue to look for that entertainment user. And, you know, again, the pool is just so big, I think is what we've heard. And I know Nicole and the Lotus Group have been chasing a lot of different opportunities. I think that what we have now is a little bit of more of a unique plan, something that lends itself to potentially, again, some more restaurant users, Some different again, like was mentioned, season 52 has some concerns. Having competing nighttime parking available, they'll have valet.

We've kind of worked through their criteria. But certainly, there's already 3,000 being proposed. The remainder of it would be retail. I think there's again the lease isn't signed. The expectation is that there's still an opportunity to negotiate some component to that if we can add some additional restaurant opportunity.

But I'm not the one negotiating that, so I shouldn't be speaking for you on that. But again, the reality is it's a much better plan. I think there's a new opportunity with it. And it's going to open some doors that weren't otherwise there. But what we come down to is, again, the recommendation by PCAV saying that we must do an entertainment user when it's not an entertainment user that's interested or available to the property, restricts the completion of this project.

So we're talking about three acres. We have a very good tenant taking up at least half of the property. We're gonna be left potentially an empty pad for not sure how long that would be chasing a ghost, frankly. And so, again, we all have taken a lot of pride in the development of this. I know this council has been involved for multiple years.

You know, we want to bring it to fruition and completion within a reasonable amount of time. And this is that last puzzle piece. And so, again, I think we've taken great strides to come up with a new concept, a new plan, create some open space, create a public opportunity that will really make this as dynamic as other aspects of the Loews development are. And, you know, again, it's a good move in the right direction. We certainly would appreciate your support as we continue the conversation.

I know you guys, I'm sure, have questions. We're here to answer whatever we can. And I will take this last second to just say, Councilwoman Siskine and Councilwoman McGovern, Hopefully, all best wishes for everything that is in your future. I've always had the pleasure of working with you. And again, it's just best, best luck going forward for sure.

Thank you. Thanks.

Mr. Stellings, you have any report? Please go ahead. All

right. I'll continue staff presentation with an overview of the LOTUS two approval with the master plan that was approved in 2023. It to allow miniature golf entertainment, office, daycare, and a 172 residential units. Open space recreation and gathering space throughout the project. This slide does show the current approved residential site plan with the residential and commercial uses.

And it does show the the Lotus 2 project to the south. As stated previously, again, the main discussion is the the use as recommended. Staff is recommended the the freestanding restaurant used to be approved. Which also the PZAB has recommended that. And also the daycare use increased by 20 students.

In summary, the main, applicant is requesting to allow the removal of the entertainment use, and increase the day care capacity, and to allow the freestanding restaurant and the combined restaurant retail use. Policy, the Wellington Conference plan policy does encourage projects along the State Road 7 corridor to provide gathering spaces and entertainment uses. So that is one of the the policies of the conference plan. At the 10/15/2025 PZAB meeting, they did recommend approval with the conditions as outlined in resolution twenty twenty six zero seven, which does not does not remove the entertainment use. This does conclude staff presentation.

Thank you. Do we have this is a public hearing. Is there a motion to open public hearing?

So moved. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Public hearing is now open. Madam Vice President, do you have cards on the item?

No, not on this item.

Does anyone in the audience wish to speak on this item? Seeing nobody, is there a motion to close public hearing?

So moved. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Public hearing is now closed. Council has questions. And I know Councilman McGovern is probably going to have the most questions because I know this has been his thing. But I will start off by saying, we've been at this for a long time.

The prior counsel started this project a few years ago, and it's evolved a lot from what we first approved. We initially approved this with you know, there was a lot more excitement about the original plan. I'm sure for your team there was more excitement about the original plan. We had an ALF or an ILF, which is going to be senior living, minimal traffic, and a pop stroke for entertainment, which was an exciting concept, along with Cooper's Hawk, which we got, and the La Z Dog, which we're getting. But then the senior center the senior living went away, and we got more apartments, which brings more traffic, which makes people cranky.

And then we lost the pop stroke, and we're not getting anything equivalent to replace the pop stroke. And I understand the efforts you all made to find something, and it's hard to make you make it's hard to force someone to operate a business on the site that they don't wanna operate on the site. So I appreciate that. I don't know where I'm coming down on this yet, but I want you to understand we have a level of frustration as to what we thought we were getting for our residents and what we're winding up with for our residents. It's gone from what we thought was going to be something you know, better to something that's maybe just good. And that's a little disconcerting for those of us who've been with this all along the way. But I think I'll just look to my right here because I'm sure he has something he wants to say. Everyone else probably does as well, but we'll start with you.

Can we go back to the list of restrictions from Lennar in Seasons 52? So here's my concern. The the approval if we take LOTUS one and LOTUS two together and we brought all the changes that lead us to this part, I don't think this project would probably have been approved without the ALF changing the things, taking away the POP Street differences. I don't think in its totality this project would have been approved. I also think that the sale which was also unknown at the time that the approval was given to Lennar that takes away some of the uses that our residents probably would have wanted and found acceptable.

Right? Skating rink, ice rink, pool hall. These things this takes this takes away the right to have potentially have a brewery unless it has a full service kitchen. So it concerns me that in making the lotus portion more financially viable, we have restricted what I think our residents would have wanted. I don't follow, but I want to follow the two points.

When we say the green space that's going to be like Lake Nona, like Alton, that kind of thing, those that even Mr. Terry, as you told me, at downtown at The Gardens, there's a plethora of stores and choices there that people would then have to come and use that green space. I don't know if we only have a couple of stores in this 8,000 square foot retail building and whoever's waiting for Seasons fifty two that mostly has reservations and valet parking, I don't know who's gonna use this. I don't know what it I don't know what it does. So can you give me

more of what the vision there is if we were to approve this? And that that was my question also. Like, what's the draw to come to this site if you're not waiting for dinner or coming to this restaurant? Because it's just it's not something that's gonna draw the other site's too far away for people to walk over there and use this green space. So I'm trying to understand while it looks like a nice spot, maybe if we were at the other part of Lotus, it would get a lot more use. But up here, it's kind of on an island that's going to look great. But I think it's not going to be used. We're trying to understand what the draw is for anyone to come to the site unless you're having dinner on that footprint.

Right. Excuse me. So the space itself again is, let me go back to a plan maybe that helps to see that. It was a couple of different items. One, we wanted to better the connection to the residential. So there's a significant number of homes that are being built here. Obviously the relationship to the clubhouse, an opportunity to come here. We do think that that will get used by some of the residents within the community, especially with the fast casual dining opportunity that's going to be in there. We are programming a way again for it to be flexible. Also potentially seasonal, right?

So there can be a Christmas tree, there can be aspects of different holidays that get celebrated and different, again programmable, so we can have these lawn games. It's different components that occur within that space that will help to attract. Again, it is small enough that it works well within the context of the site and engages with the buildings and the users that are there. Again, this isn't it's 8,000 square feet. It's equal to the size of the building.

So I think it's a good size. It's not oversized for that space. And it will create a dynamic that just wouldn't have otherwise existed. Understanding there's minimal tenants within this, potentially three to five in this entire pod A. But it's still beneficial.

It certainly creates a much more attractive frontage along State Road 7 in a public space that I think will get used. In connection with the parks that again, there's the Sunrise Park, which as you saw in the aerials, is built now. There's the Plaza Park. And it's overall again just trying to continue the series of green spaces that exist throughout Lotus so there's always that experience that you come upon each time you're visiting one aspect of the community.

John, additional questions, follow-up?

I mean, I guess there is. Let me ask the next part. You said there's an expectation of Seasons 52. Tell me what the expectation is versus the certainty of.

I'm going to defer to Jim or Nicole to answer that question.

Good evening, council members. Jim Gilda for Lotus Group. There's a lease for seasons 52. It is basically sitting on the shelf waiting for approval of this, if it is approved or however this is approved, in order to move forward. It's negotiated out.

We're down to basically finalizing some of the time line issues related to how this plays out to move it forward. I mean, like Brian has mentioned before, I cannot lease something that does not exist yet. When we did start looking at this parcel and looking at what is a realistic set of uses that provides some sort of experience, be it eating or experiential retail, some sort of destination, something to go do, you know, not necessarily a sports activity or anything else, just looking at what makes sense for something that's this size on a State Road 7 corridor next to residential, you know, we did go after a bunch of different users after we, you know, really exhausted a lot of the potential, you know, large scale entertainment users. And again, those large scale entertainment users are all, you know, private users with you know, similar facilities of restaurants and a bar and an eating space and then some sort of activity. So in terms of the lease for Seasons fifty two, it's ready.

Can I say it's signed right now? No. Because we are, you know, here today reviewing this project.

Speaking of leases and issues and I know it's not before us here, but I want to give you a chance here in the room to address this issue of the news reports relative to Cooper's Hawk and litigation and that you aren't a good partner or whatever the case may be? Because I discussed it briefly in my lead up meetings with Mr. Terry and with Mr. Kasser. And it seems like there may be certainly two sides to that story.

There has been a long history of, quite frankly, the beginning, difficulty with that group, that restaurant group, which is a corporate group based out of Chicago. I can say it's the most difficult group I've dealt with on this entire project in terms of dealing with site constructions issues, the build out, fighting over fine print in lease in terms of what one term with one change of a word means versus, you know, the intent of it. So, yeah, it's a little bit messy with Cooper's right now. We're working towards addressing it. But, you know, when you have these business disputes at times, they take a little time to resolve.

Do I wish that it was a better relationship with Cooper's Hawk from the beginning? Yes, I do. But it just did not materialize that way throughout the entire process. And like I said, we're working to get that issue resolved with them.

And how does that impact the overall operation of LOTUS-one and the LOTUS-one site?

It doesn't. They are suing for some TI money that they are owed. And we are in a dispute with them regarding what the technical rent commencement date is for them, based on the lease language and interpretation of the lease language. So that's what it boils

down. They're not trying to get out the lease. They just would like to pay you less money than what you think they're

They want to they have a particular date that they believe that the lease states that their rent commences. And our counsel and our side says, no, that's incorrect. Our interpretation is this. So until that issue is resolved, you know, we it's very difficult to move forward with, you know, the remainder of of the deal with them in terms of taking care of TI issues and

moving Well, and everybody has issues in in in that then. Them and

you. Correct. So we're going back and forth right now with each other. But they're open, they're operating, they're moving ahead with business as planned. There's no plans to interrupt them on-site or do anything to affect them at all. It's just gonna be down to the logistics of the contract language and basically the attorneys, you know, fighting it out, quite frankly, until there's a resolution or a settlement.

Okay. As it's been represented here now by Mr. Terry, there's some thought that the PZAB recommendation was approve one and not the other. Is that what we're saying,

Mr. Terry?

Right. They approved the restaurant use and then did not remove the entertainment, the indoor and outdoor entertainment use. So again, that's the handcuffs that forces us to work with under the confines of users that fall into that use category within the code.

They approved the use of Building 1B for Seasons 52 and approved the expanded at the day care, but they didn't approve the change you want to make to what is Building 1B?

JOSEPH Correct, unless you guys understand it differently. But that is my understanding. And so, again, that would mean that the actually, I'll ask the question just to make sure we're all on the same page. That would mean that the entertainment use is still on the property, right? And would still be I guess I'm asking the question now. Think we

I guess the question we followed what PZA recommended, what would that mean for the Lotus property, right? If they've approved if they've said they recommended approval of the Seasons 52 on half of the parcel, but they didn't recommend taking the entertainment use off, what would that mean if that if we decided to adopt PZAB, what would that mean for LOTUS going forward? Right? Is that the question basically? I think we need to know.

So the yes, the entertainment use will still remain. What that use is was not defined. It did give them the opportunity to provide some direction in terms of what uses they would be would have at the site, but it didn't define the use itself. It just says entertainment. So that that would remain if the council was to adopt it as as recommended by PZAB, it would just state entertainment, but wouldn't provide a clear you know, miniature golf or any other type of use.

Which would mean that you could go ahead with season 52 but until you found an acceptable use for the other parcel, that lot would remain open and undeveloped.

Correct.

Right? Correct. And it would stay that way until something was approved that with entertainment use they came on, at which point you'd then have construction on that site to build whatever it is that was approved.

Correct. Okay. If I can

find entertainment user, yes. Or

they could come back to us with acceptable mixed use that's not Jared and candle making store that we're not doing now and a bank. Right?

Correct. I wanted to

be clear that the condition as it's printed in the resolution now, while it defines a use as retail restaurant entertainment, it has TBD for the size. And so there would be a need to come back to council to approve the square footage and add it basically to the development program.

And if I may, I think that might be an area where we can potentially look at today and specify. You know, obviously, I am working with Seasons fifty two to get their lease done. They're antsy. I'm antsy. Everybody's antsy. And they did have some lease conditions which were restrictions. Is it signed into the lease yet? No, it's not. Is that something I am willing to work with on Seasons fifty two and figure out? Yes, it is.

And I think I can get there. So with that being said, you know, if we're looking at an 8,000 square foot building, if there's more of a comfort level to define kind of that mix of uses that would be in that building, for example, four or 5,000 square feet is gonna be geared towards a restaurant dining food experience and the remaining square feet would be geared towards retail and or an entertainment use, we could do something like that. So you're not pigeonholing all of it into maybe a retail use that maybe you're not comfortable with. It gives us more flexibility or it could be gives you more flexibility to get more restaurant type users in there or food users or ice cream users that could obviously engage that plaza space, which is I think really the overall intent of having that there is to be able to have that use of being able to do outdoor dining and activity, draw some of that activity from the building out into that space. And you're really going to accomplish that primarily with a food or beverage user.

Which season fifty two doesn't want, really.

Doesn't want technically, but like I said, the lease is still under negotiation and they're antsy, I'm antsy. This is development. It's always a negotiation. So am I willing to make that commitment and push Seasons fifty two if we were to look at the square footage of that building and say, okay, 5,000 square feet of it has to be geared towards a food related use or concession type use or food related use and only the remaining can be to something that might not engage the plaza space, I'd be willing to do that.

Did Just Salad pull out? Or is that still

I have an LOI that I just reviewed this afternoon.

Okay. And I've had discussions with Mr. Kassar.

Sure.

And he's mentioned that there your rent is higher. So do you really think a salad place is gonna make it long term with your your higher rent?

I do with when you look at the actual cost of the ingredients versus what they charge.

Come on.

I think they're fine. Mean, they're selling a chicken poblano salad for $18.95 and you have an ingredient cost of

it's Less than that.

A lot less than that. I think they'll be okay. But they're also in the business to underwrite what they can deal with in terms of their costs, in terms of staff overhead. They're doing their market research to see the demographics of the area. So if they're coming to me and they want the space and they're willing to pay the rate and they're a credit tenant, then in terms of the metrics that have been reviewed, I have to rely on them to some extent that they know what they're doing and can make a successful business out of it.

There's you know, obviously, Pop Stroke was more exciting. Sure. Lotus One is coming on great. If you drive around Wellington, we have a lot of strip malls that aren't doing so well. So

Mhmm.

The last thing I think any of us want is to approve another failing strip mall type So I mean, I I do have some concerns. And also, I know our residents were excited about pop stroke. I know you can't make that happen.

I can't. I think in terms of some of your concerns about the strip mall, I think there's a little bit of a distinction with this property because of the way it's positioned. You know, it's all interconnected on that west side of State Road 7 to the entire hospital campus. So you're going to be able to drive into the hospital on Forest Hill and basically go through all of those parcels all the way up to the north tip of Lotus Wellington 2. And a big driver of that traffic is obviously the two additional cuts on State Road 7, but especially the traffic signal that we constructed on the Lotus Wellington 1 site, which allows people to go north instead of having to go, you know, to that intersection at Forest Hill and State Road 7.

And that connection is actually under construction by the hospital right now. They were clearing it today. And I know they're at the drawings are done and permitted because I did those. And I believe they let a construction contract. So they are in the process of getting that Main Spine Road connection done. You know, and from the start, we've always believed that that interaction with the hospital property is gonna be critical for, keeping users and traffic for basically all the users of the property, for your multifamily users, your medical office users, your entertainment, your small service users, your restaurant users, all of those people because it will drive traffic kind of through those properties north and south.

And are you still considering Jared and the bank?

The bank is out. And Jared, I am not considering right now.

Okay. And why is the bank out? And when did that happen?

The bank is out because they could not underwrite the rate. It's a community credit union.

And why are you not considering Jared now?

I'm not considering Jared now because we have, you know, a change where we have this plaza space where we could have a more interactive user of some type in that building that enhances that plaza and brings people out into it. You know, and that's one of the main reasons why I'm willing to push seasons in order to get some more of those destination food type users or users that were gonna be drawn out into that plaza space in terms of their lease conditions, which I think I can get there. That's the primary reason because the

plan I wish has

changed we had

more of a plan now here today instead of none of those things are happening now, but seasons is definitely gonna happen, just like Pop Stroke was definitely gonna happen. And I just wish we had a more comprehensive plan of what was going in there, because the other side's exciting. But if we approve this, then maybe you just throw it together and finish it. And I would hate to see that happen. So I'm really struggling with voting yes on this because Sure.

I mean, I mean, I under

I don't think it's there yet. I don't think you really have your plan. And I hate to say yes and then come up with something even worse than Jared and the bank and the candle making place. Well, let me

just ask as a follow-up to that. So if these modifications get approved, there's no more efforts to do entertainment or experiential, that's it.

We will try. If we can find somebody that will want to be in the space and actually be in the building PROACTICAL LIVER PROACTICAL PROACTICAL LIVER

PROACTICAL No, I know.

We're not looking for a guarantee. I know. But are you still going to put those efforts out, those outreach efforts?

We are still trying today to get some sort of entertainment based user. And again, that definition of entertainment could be, you know, it's fairly broad. I mean, there's outdoor entertainment, there's indoor, there's, you know, it's is it athletics, is it more of a you know, like a cooking class or a service sort of entertainment. But we are putting effort into trying to find that use and especially users that we can basically draw out onto that plaza space.

I think just for clarity too, if you see in the blue what we had requested is the retail restaurant and adding the entertainment component, making sure that that remains in the approved use table so that, again, as we go forward, that that left that door open and

it wasn't

just about the retail or the restaurant.

Yeah. Wouldn't want to close that door. Would want that to be still on the list.

I have a question

for Ms.

Cohen Mr. Barnes.

Don't know.

For whoever. Was not part

of original

when this all started. Is there any stipulation in the contract where something has to be built at a certain time with these buildings, Building 1B And 1A?

I think Mr. Stillings can answer that, but I think that the retail and restaurant portion was required to be built before the COs for the

Yes. I can answer that briefly. For Phase two that we have under consideration today, basically, was one pod had to be built out first and CO'd before you could get all the COs until you could get a certain CO number for the single family residential. So one had to be done in order to hit that threshold. That's why we're that's why we self performed the daycare and are building that ourselves and found the user and are pushing that along because that directly links to the build out of the single family in the towns.

For Phase I, we had to have a specific amount of square footage either CO ed or CC ed, which is a certificate of completion, which applies to an in line building where you're building a vanilla box and your tenants are coming in and doing the certificates of occupancy. And for that project, it was basically the four in line buildings that we built and one of the restaurant outparcels. So all those conditions have been met in order to permit the residential to move forward.

Councilwoman, if you look on page four zero eight, it's condition number seven that refers to the relationship of the commercial pod and the What

page did you say?

Four zero eight. And it's it's as it's as mister Gulda defined.

I'm intimately familiar with all the little ins and outs of this one.

My concern is that I I'm it it appears that there is a struggle of what can be put in these buildings. And there was a slide. If we could go back to the slide where it said not interested interested or or doesn't doesn't have have a a

There you go.

Am I to assume that these are the ones that you've reached out to and had a conversation with and just like it says here, no interest or no interest in the site, that there's been a conversation with Correct. All of

These are all users that the broker of record, which is Colliers and Nicole, have reached out to to have discussions with. I'm sure there's probably a few others that have come up along the way casually.

Wait, we can't. Yeah, if you want to talk, have to come to the mic. If you just make it, that's fine.

Yeah, I'll just briefly say I'm sure there's a few others that have come up casually that, you know, as she's done her, you know, work on other projects, bringing this one up. But this was like a definite list of, you know, people that we went after. It's an odd little size because it's the parcel is too big to be small and too small to be big. So you're in that in between size of if it was another two acres, could you get a bigger type entertainment user there? Maybe.

You'd probably have a better shot at it. But it's not. It's at three acre size. And when you start looking at some of these indoor entertainment users where they have like a large, basically, box style building and then you have to have the parking to accommodate it, you would end up with basically a large box sort of structure with a parking field around it.

That's Sure. But if you had one of those, you could come and ask this council for variances in regards to all of that type of thing.

Two different

Possibly. But you also have the market dynamics of what that user wants in terms of parking and space and everything else. If yes, I could come and look for a parking variance or a shared parking study. But if that particular user says, I need this much parking for my use to make this business viable, it doesn't matter. It's just like when you put a Publix in and the Publix has their little book of templates where they have 10 different versions of Publix and they have a certain amount of parking they need in a parking field on a certain distance to their main entry. So, you know, some of these users are, you know, have very particular standards about, you know, how access works, how visibility works, how parking works, etcetera.

If you don't mind, I would like to add to that. Again, the reason why it's three acres is because it was specifically designed for a user. So again, none of us wanna be here this evening because pop stroke isn't But here the reality is is the reason why the curb cut is where it is is because of Pop Stroke. The reason of it's three acres and it is the size it is because of Pop Stroke. Everything was designed around them. And so, you know, again, we went through the approvals, everything, you know, that's why it is exactly what it is. So now we're trying to, again, make use of this three acres in a different way. And it is a bit awkward.

And I think everyone is happy with the Seasons fifty two solution. Think that's an easy lift. And I think the day care expansion is a minor change. I just think, speaking for everyone from what I've heard, I think we'd like to see something more concrete coming out of not concrete more firm coming out of this other building that's going to be better than just a couple, you know, strip mall type stores, in part because you're on an island. There's not a lot of draw to go to this place anyway.

So I'm not sure how successful a little a one off store up here without anything else to do in that area is going to be anyway. Down south, you have a lot of mix of uses so that you can walk around and do things. This is like a destination footprint, and I don't know that the stuff we've heard about other than Seasons fifty two is a destination draw. So I think so I think you need a destination draw for this other half of the parcel. And I know you're trying to find one.

Correct. I'd like to give you

the time to find one.

It's just hard to find one if I don't have something that I can show that's at least somewhat concrete in terms of there's an envelope, there's this much square footage available for it, This is how it parks. This is how it works. And then this is the timeline for moving forward. That's the primary, you know, issue with that. And, you know, and as I did mention, you know, I am more than willing to take a look at that 8,000 square feet and put some conditions in terms of what user profiles or use types can be, you know, divided between that 8,000 square feet, if that provides, you know, a little more surety or comfort for everybody.

But, you know, as our as Nicole has mentioned, our users that we've had look at it have been primarily food related and some personal services.

Well, I guess having heard the concerns we have tonight, what's your what is your what are you asking for right now? What is what would you like us to approve?

Well, right now, again, we're asking for the the 85 or the 8,000 square feet with the potential of food, retail, and entertainment. That is what our request is. And then I think what Jim is indicating that he was willing to put some some tighter guidelines on the square footages of each of those to, you know, again, we've all heard the concern about certain retailers. If there's if we limit the retail square footage down to something that it wouldn't accommodate for that potential user, maybe that's a way to sort of provide some protection. DAY: If it's limited to 2,000 square feet, we're kind of now

Yeah, now we're

discussing it all coding here. But again, all we can do is we have to request uses. This council approves uses, not tenants. I understand that the concerns are there, what we're dealing with. So I think Jim's proposal is is fair. Like, let's talk about making it, you know, for whatever. You propose what's the best

For way to do example, I said if you 5,000 square feet of the 8,000 has to be a restaurant entertainment use, that's fine. And then the remaining 3,000 can go to retail personal services.

Does that square footage mix give you the ability to attract the tenants you want to get?

Yes. I mean, when you think about what bays are, bays are typically 1,500 square feet 1,500 to 1,600 square feet. So when you look at how you can slice the pie, like 3,000, it's like two fifteen hundred square foot bays on the small end, and then the remaining could go into the restaurant or entertainment use. That's how I'm trying to think of it in my head in terms of that division, the 1,500 to 1,600 square foot per bay, boom, boom, boom, boom. And then you combine bays or don't.

How many retail restaurants are there?

In Lotus Phase 1?

In Lotus, uh-huh.

Oh, geez. Cooper's Hawk, Lazy Dog, Muya Burger, Cluck Face, Kira Sushi, Foxtail, Turning Point, Not Pot, The Garden Butcher. I got that. So that's eight. It's either eight or nine that are in Phase one.

So two of them are the larger outparcel, the quality sit down restaurants. And then the remaining are the in line bays, which are, I guess you could call it fast casual or some of it's kind of quality turning points, really quality sit down. And then some of the others are more like fast casual. And then the other users are a Pilates studio. I'm talking to a yogurt place right now.

That's not done yet. The Four Elite Golf, which is the golf entertainment simulation user. And I think there's also a wellness use, a degree wellness, which does like cryotherapy and injections and, you know, health related things. And then the office users above are a dentist, a hospitality firm, real estate company, What else? A general contractor. And there's one or two others. But it's all professional services upstairs.

And some medical.

And some medical, that's right. Yeah and there's another medical user coming up there right now, the Venus Aesthetics. I think it's a plastic surgeon or something like that.

Mean, it's difficult for us because we want you to succeed, obviously. We I don't want these uses to be here. You don't want to be here with this application because you had other plans for this also. Correct. So the question is what's the best result from where we are today, not where we wish we were today?

Can we also discuss, when we talk about you have the lease and needing to work with Seasons fifty two, it seems to me that there is, just looking at the least list of restrictions, I think there may also have to be some kind of conversation potentially between all of us and Lennar. Because those conditions that Lennar has are also problematic. And I'm not I'm also failing to understand why that you agreed to those. I understand you were paid a very, very, very, very large sum of money for that land. But I don't understand why we agreed to those conditions that are hamstringing this process, and then that becomes my problem.

I don't understand that. MR. At the

time that contract was put together, Popstroke was not a problem. That's the timing reality of it.

But by the time that contract closed, pop stroke was gone?

Recall. It might have been right around the same time or shortly thereafter. It was similar timing. But by the time it closed, it was in that similar time frame.

So if I were to take this go back to the condition. Again, everything else in the everything else with the conditions has all been resolved. If we were to just modify this to 8,000 square foot retail restaurant commercial guarantee the eight we'll make it

5,000

square feet Restaurant entertainment. Restaurant. I'm sorry, say that again. Restaurant entertainment. Restaurant entertainment. And then 3,000 max retail for a total of 8,000 square feet with the 8,000 square foot required patio space or plaza space would be the way that we would propose changing that condition based on this discussion.

Can we go back to the restrictions from that slide?

And these are the ones in the contract with Lennar, or are still not discussed since then?

No. These are contract Okay. Restrictions, which is pretty typical with whenever they build something next to commercial, if they can control some of it.

Councilman McGovern, from the list, of the restrictions, what on there would you want him to negotiate?

Well, for example, we have heard from residents and people and going all the way back to the now state representative, former mayor, the current mayor, have talked to folks wanting to have potentially a brewery, for example, which wouldn't be allowed under number one. Okay.

Right? So these are things that maybe you can go back to whatever he said, you should go

back and negotiate. If there was a skating rink or an ice skating potential now, maybe there isn't because of the close proximity to the one on Lake Worth Road. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that that's an out we can't even consider it. I think that there's a potential that if it were high end, and I don't know what the concept is, right, I'm not in this business, but billiards, restaurant, pool, bar concept could be an entertainment use that would be, but that's prohibited. I don't even know why that's prohibited. It seems like a strange thing to prohibit to me. Right? I understand no adult oriented establishments. I understand no gun range or shooting galleries.

I get that one if I was trying to have a home neighborhood next to there. I get that. Right? I potentially get disco and dance hall. I'm not sure that I totally get comedy club, for example. But maybe some of those have some sense. But right now, we're in a position where everybody has to be at the table to try to make this work to be something that we all want it to be. And And what I'm just throwing out there is that that may have to also involve Lennar.

It shouldn't just have to be us that just And

have you talked to Lennar about saying if they have any flexibility in changing things? Have not. Okay.

Okay. I would suggest that based on some of the things that Councilman McGovern said that you have those conversations because we all love breweries,

you know?

It could go well for you.

So if that is an issue right now in terms of that, could I propose that we move forward with and I'm not sure how this works, you know, resolution wise, but could we at least get to the point where we have the Seasons fifty two, the daycare, an amount of square footage in that building approved and kind of this format, and then we can always come back and look at in another application or however this would work, the user.

Terry seems concerned by that suggestion.

Yeah. Because because

he is right. Because we're we're here. Right. The very he's he's right.

We are very sure See it on my face?

The drama was I

I mean, I love seeing everybody, but I was hoping this was my last LOTUS

meeting. So

were we.

Me too.

That's not gonna happen tonight.

You're gonna

be back.

And I understand, O'Brien, it's it is a slippery slope because you're, you know, you're in a point where you're trying to, you know, legally, you're approving uses, you're not approving tenants. So, you know, it's one of those areas where

Which a lot of people don't really understand that we don't

approve tenants. Approve Yeah, use legally cannot approve tenants. I mean, approve use types.

Can you make it a condition of the approval that they have the discussion with Lennar to try to eliminate some of those?

To open up their options to get.

I'd be willing to absolutely do that and provide a letter, if that's what you want to see from Lennar that we've discussed.

I don't think we want a letter that says, hey, you talked to them and they said no. And here's a letter that says they said no.

But you can't

But that's

not you can't condition something on You can't place a condition that they may or may not be able

to fulfill.

Well, I'm not suggesting the condition. You're suggesting the condition.

Well, I was suggesting that you condition on at least reaching out to them.

I'm not suggesting that condition either. I'm saying that that just needs to happen. I don't care whether that's required or not required or what it is. I mean, to me, I'm gonna be a no tonight unless you can walk me through again what the 5,003 thousand breakdown is and why that is beneficial to you and to and to us. Keeping in mind that it is my firm position that our residents want some kind of entertainment use there.

I think they would be good with the Seasons 52, but they want some kind of entertainment use there. And everything, everything short of an entertainment use that it has come from you all based on the rent that is seemingly being charged there are things that I don't think our residents want. I'm sure they're great for paying the rent, but they're terrible for what the village is really looking for.

Understood.

Walk me through the 5,003 thousand and how it helps.

If those are the magic numbers, let's just say those are the magic numbers, the 5,000 in terms of the general use profile that would be in the resolution would be restaurant entertainment user. For example, we have Just Salad has submitted an LOI. That could be a possibility. Could I have

Just Salad can go in 5,000 square feet, can they?

No. But 5,000 gets divided up in the base.

Oh, no. No. No.

So you would have, again, I think I think the intention is you could have a just out at 3,000 square feet, then you could then fill in a 1,500, 1,600 square foot, maybe it's the ice cream parlor, maybe it's some other food centric use that goes in there. And ultimately the intention of when I brought that up was to limit the square footage of the retail down below a number that was problematic for you know one of the tenants who was considering the space. You know what I mean? So we're bringing that down to now you have a limited amount of retail space that could be potentially a dark spot on the plaza, which we don't particularly want. I think we have an opportunity to have lights on, to have activity, to let it engage with the Seasons fifty two and have some uses there that would, again, benefit from that space.

So by limiting the retail, you're providing more opportunity in the food centric side that is going to benefit that area.

I thought we were talking about a 5,000 square foot restaurant.

It could be that too.

Not that we're going to divide this back down, because I think that if we put more of the small there, maybe I'm not an expert in this, but if we put more of the, let's say, bays divided up as at 1,500 square feet, as Mr. Geldis said, that we're putting one, two, three of those 1,500 square foot things there, I think that now we are starting to undercut what's at Lotus I, aren't we?

No. Because the bays in LOTUS one are based on 1,500 square foot modules. That's what Cluck Face has rented. That's what Muyaberger has rented. Turning Point rented two of them. So they rented 3,000

square So you feel that there is there is still room for another three of those on top of what's coming into Lotus One that isn't yet? Absolutely.

Our primary interest in this parcel has been food related. And we've been trying to balance that with this other restriction, which I'm willing to go to bat for. The primary users have always been food related. When you have retail that's not anchored, your primary users are going to be food related destinations.

So smaller bays are will make Seasons fifty two happier versus a bigger competing restaurant on Correct. The same

And the reality is when you build commercial like this, you're building stuff in 1,200 to 1,600 square foot bays. I mean that's how these buildings are designed and you either release one, two, three, four depending on what you need. And then as the tenant mix changes over the years, you combine bays, you separate bays, everything. It's not a fixed you don't do fixed module of one three thousand, one five thousand, one ten thousand. You just don't do that.

I mean, notwithstanding Mr. Terry's desire not to come back, you could approve the change of day care, the other changes to the conditions. You could approve the 8,500 square feet for the Seasons 52. You could approve the 8,000 square feet for the other building with the uses to be approved at a subsequent date and then condition it that they can come straight back to council and not have to go back through the entire process. They

just simply The entire process, right, is just PZAB in here. Right? Mean, you're gonna say it's gonna come directly here as to what the Yeah. Don't are 8,000

reasons this needs to go back to PZAB. Right.

Right. It would

just simply be defining the user of that 8,000 square feet and or or however they've they've they've parceled it out. But at least then they have the 8,000 square feet to work with and and know what they have on the site.

I think that's probably the best compromise we can come up with based upon where we are right now because that ensures we get some of the things we want and gives them an opportunity to continue to look for the other thing that we want that is still missing. Do you have any thoughts?

I can agree to that. I think that's fair.

Brewery. Well, it's not allowed by Lennon.

Is it allowed by Seasons fifty two, though? I mean, it would have to be under 3,000 square feet.

If we're dealing with a 3,000 square foot number. Again, I have to

I don't know how big Right. Breweries

Right. But he can negotiate

that note.

Let's I mean, let's be realistic. Right? I mean, yes, he's got some he's got the opportunity with season 52. Lennar, what is their motivation to come back and, you know, agree to something different than what has been signed a

good partner with you all in the village. Right. Going forward That's

not as motivating for some people as you might think it would be, I

mean, I just I want to set our expectations. You know, let's not rely on that as being the thing that gets us out of this situation we're in. I think that certainly season 52, they wanna be here. I think Jim is committed to trying to work with that to increase that opportunity for the restaurant piece. I mean, think I understand if I understand you're saying, we get the the plan is essentially approved with those uses with a condition that says we gotta come back with a final mixture of what those tenants would be. That'll give them the opportunity to go out, shop it with the with the new plaza space. It allows them to move forward with the season fifty two lease,

get that on

is account that

with no restriction? Is that with and you're suggesting no restriction, no division of the 8,000. They just have the 8,000, and they're coming back with what whatever is gonna go there.

Yes. Is that better? I can deal with that because at least I have something I know what I'm going to market with and I can actually show them and say, here's the building, here's the space, here's the parking, entertainment user A, restaurant B, personal service user C. That gives you the

most time. Flexibility to get to find

gives me the ability to say, to actually show a product that I have to put on the and what it's gonna be.

And curate those mixture of those uses that are gonna be the most dynamic and work the best. You know, think that's what really

struggling It's always a struggle with this stuff because it's like chicken and egg. It's like you have to have something visible, approved with some sort of anticipated timeline to get to a point where somebody can actually program their business into their two or three or four year development plan. But until you have some sort of approval like this, where I can at least have the building, I can get the civil drawings updated, I can get the civil permits updated, I can get all the nuts and bolts that need to be cleaned up to be able to put a shovel in the ground done. And then you know, it really gives a more certain time frame of when I can deliver a space.

And as another I mean, the one thing to keep in mind, too, is that, as Mr. Terry mentioned, you're the uses, not the tenants. Because at the end of

the day, you're going to

want to ensure the long term flexibility for the development to evolve as the businesses evolve and go in and out. Just as the market changes, You you see it in all the centers throughout, you know, the county and the country.

I would love to entertain a motion along the lines of what mister Stillings suggested if someone wants to make it.

Can you restate it, please?

So essentially, if you look on page four zero two, it's the condition as presented with the exception that the it would be, I guess, 8,000 square feet would be TBD. Right? That's what we're saying.

And that would come back to us to approve whatever the uses they bring to us.

Yes.

Not that it would skip PZAB because there's no reason to add that extra layer.

Well, would yeah. That would be part of the condition.

Right. Build that in.

you're fine with that too?

Mhmm.

And they're agreeing to it?

I agree.

So are you going to make the motion that Mr. I'll make that. Stillings

Yes. Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, passes five-zero. Thank you. Luck.

Thank you

for We'll working see that three of you again. Thank you,

guys. Appreciate it.

See you over the holidays, mister Terry.

Alright. Mister Barnes. You ready? He said, yeah, he said go ahead.

All right. Brings us to our next item, which is Resolution No. 2020 Six-eight Wellington Village, formerly known as Cape Park, conditional use for building height. And we will have the item right after that, which is ordinance number twenty twenty six dash zero nine, establishing the Village Landing Community Development District.

Resolution number r 2026Dash08, a resolution of Wellington, Florida's council approving a conditional use for certain property known as Wellington Village mixed use plan development, totaling approximately 71.27 acres, more or less, located on the Southwest Corner of Stribling Way and US 441 State Road 7 as more specifically described herein to allow a maximum building height of 86 feet for building h, 42 feet for buildings d one and d two, and forty seven feet for Building G 4 within Pod B, providing a conflicts clause, providing for severability, and providing an effective date. Ordinance number 2026Dash09, an ordinance of the village of Wellington, Florida, establishing and naming the village Landing Community Development District, making certain findings regarding the district, describing the external boundaries of the district, naming the five persons designated to be the initial members of the board of supervisors, providing consent for the exercise of certain powers, providing for conflict, providing for codification, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

So one of the items is quasi judicial. If you intend to be heard on that item, would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Next party disclosures, please.

The applicant and the team and staff, just regarding the hotel. And I can be fair and impartial.

Thank you. For me, just staff and Jeff Robert of PZAB and just projects in general, and I can be fair and impartial.

Thank you.

I spoke to staff. I spoke to, I think, Mr. Ryan. And I spoke to John Green. I believe that's all I spoke to about this issue, and I can be fair and impartial.

I spoke to staff. I talked to the applicant. I believe that I talked to Mr. Drehaus, Mr. Bowers, and Mr. Michigan at the PZAB. And I believe that I spoke to Mr. Green at the ARB. And And the substance there was simply about the hotel, why the height was necessary, where it was going to be placed, and how it fit in with the rest of the project. And I can be fair and impartial.

I spoke to staff regarding the hotel, and I can

be fair and impartial. And are we combining the public hearings on REPRESENTATIVE:] both items?

Okay. Thank you. Wait, what's the second item?

The CDD. The CDD.

Oh, the CDD. Okay. Was the back.

We moved it up. Sorry.

Okay. Good evening. Corie Lynn Kramer, Planning and Zoning. Before you tonight is Petition twenty twenty six-two, Conditional Use Request for Building Heights that Exceed 35 Feet for four buildings within Wellington Village Pod B, also known as K Park, located on the Southwest Corner of Stribling and State Road 7. I would like to enter all files into the record at this time.

Building H is a hotel and is requesting a height of 86 feet. Building G is a two story restaurant with a height of 47 feet. Building D1 And D2 are three story mixed use buildings with a height of 42 feet. Throughout this presentation, you will hear in the staff report, you will hear K Park and Wellington Village used synonymously. The agent Urban Design Studios, on behalf of the applicant, is here to make their presentation, followed by staff's presentation.

Good evening, sir. Good evening. Thank you, and good evening, mayor and council members. Lindsay Jean Louis with Urban Design Studio on behalf of Related Ross. And the request before you tonight is consistent with the text amendment your council approved in December 2025 to, get council approval for buildings above 35 feet in height.

Those specific buildings that we're requesting are Building D 1 and D 2, which are both 42 feet in height, Building G 4, which is 46.38 feet in height, and Building H, which is the hotel at 86 feet in height. On February 10, of course, your council approved, the larger master plan and rezoning for the site. On February 18, we had a unanimous unanimous approval from the planning, zoning adjustment board, for the condition use height request. And then on 02/25/2026, we went before your architectural review board to review the architecture of those specific buildings requesting the height. And this just outlines the zoning code text amendment, specifically outlining the process that buildings above 35 feet now have to go before your council for approval.

In addition to some supplementary standards required for buildings requesting that additional height, which we'll detail later in this presentation. So we're all familiar with the site and the master plan concept with Pod B and related Wellington Village being located on the Eastern half. And just to outline the overall building structure, there's 19 buildings on the site. The majority are one to two stories. Our buildings are requesting that height above 35 feet are strategically located central and south to the site.

And Building G 4 is two stories, but again, requesting that height above 35 feet. All Buildings D 2 And D 1 are three stories, and Building H is six to seven stories. So this allows a variation of heights throughout the village, but we focus the most intense height to the center of the site. And this just outlines the specific buildings we're requesting and the relevant height. So the first building that we're asking for the additional height is on Building D 1 And D 2.

This technically functions as one building, but the request is for two as it's separated by bridge. This is a mixed use building with office use inside of it. And as you can see, really in the rear there, can see the, hotel. The next building that we're requesting the height increase on is Building G 4. This is a restaurant, two story restaurant building with increased, ceiling heights with, component of event space.

And really that main height portion you can see is at that gable. The code definition requires us to take that height at the midpoint of that gable. So at the midpoint, that's 46.38 feet in height. But again, it's offering that lake dining experience. And then lastly, we're requesting the height for the hotel at 86 feet.

This will be the tallest building on the site. But as you'll see later on in this presentation, it's strategically designed not only with setbacks that are sufficient for the adjacent uses, but also landscaping that will be able to soften the architecture as well. So with the code amendment established in December 2025, there were additional supplemental requirements to again protect that additional height. I'll walk through each one. Any project requesting the height above 35 feet must be on a minimum of two acres in size.

Part b exceeds this as we provide 24.05 acres. Buildings within the residential e f g and h land uses shall be located with the planned development and shall be within 500 linear feet of a collector road or a road with a higher classification. We actually have a mixed use land use, so this doesn't apply. But even still, we are within 500 feet of State Road 7, which is a principal arterial. There's also a conditional setback requirement, which requires that we provide one foot of additional setback beyond the minimum requirement for every one foot in height exceeding 35 feet, and we do meet these setbacks.

And then lastly, for buildings adjacent to residential, we're required to provide two feet of additional setback for every one foot in height exceeding 35 feet. Our POGB is not adjacent to residential, but even when assessing Farmington Estates to the south, we would meet that setback requirement. And this is a graph of the building heights and the required setbacks that you see in the second to last column. We comply with or exceed all of the required setbacks based on those additional setback needs. There is also design criteria where the code amendment outlined that we have to meet at least three of the five design criteria, one of which being a parking structure that results in less paved area.

Another being eco design facilities such as EV charging stations, green roofs, and solar panels. Our project will be providing a minimum or at minimum 2% of the provided parking as a EV charging stations or EV charging spots. Fundings for privately improved and maintained public amenities, lead based design at a level of silver or higher, and lastly, providing a minimum of 30% of the units at, 80% to a 140% of Wallington's area median income. We are complying with the three requirements that you see highlighted in green by designing to a minimum lead level silver, by providing privately improved and maintained public amenities and pedestrian screen shapes enhancements, and we're providing electric vehicle charging stations throughout the site. Now for the hotel, there's an extra layer of, requirements that we have to comply with being that is is the tallest building on the site, and there is a allowance in the new code text amendment that you can request for one building within a PD 20% above 72 feet, which was the prior, village height max.

To request that 20% addition, results in 86 feet, which is what we're requesting tonight, it has to be limited to one building within the PD, and Building H is the only building requesting that height increase. The story height shall be a minimum of 11 feet. We meet this requirement. And then there's an additional setback requirement where we have to provide two feet for every one foot and setback above 35 feet. And as you can see on the following side, we do meet these requirements.

In red, you'll see the required setback based on that two to one ratio, and we significantly exceed that setback requirement on stripling and four forty one by providing more than 600 feet of setback. And then to our south property line, we meet our setback by providing a 145 feet of setback. Within this code text amendment, there is also additional landscape requirements. And to simplify it, there's essentially two pools of additional palm heights that we have to provide. We have to provide 25% of our provided palms to have a gray wood higher than one third of the building height.

And then there's another bucket of 25% of our provided palms that have to have a gray wood over 12 feet. Also, you may recall in the earlier master plan amendment that we received and approved a deviation to the foundation planting that it doesn't have to be adjacent to the building. It could be within the proximity as long as we're meeting the equivalent square footage otherwise required. So our palm requirements in the foundation planning are assessed on this deviation. We meet the requirement for D 1.

The trees highlighted in blue are our palms, royal palms particularly that are 22 to 24 feet of our gray wood height that meet that 25% requirement. We provide eight trees, eight palm trees in the foundation of D 1, and then we provide six royal palms that exceed not only a third of the building height in gray wood, but also exceed 12 feet in gray wood. Similarly, so for D 2, we're actually providing six palms in D 2, and all six palms are exceeding that one third of the building height and then the 12 foot height requirement. For Building G 4, which is a restaurant that is on the water, we're providing a total of four palms along the building foundation. Again, all four palms being provided exceed one third of the building height in Greywood as well as exceeding 12 foot minimum Greywood height.

And then lastly, for the hotel, we're providing, a pretty good quantity of palms and similarly so, we meet the requirement. We're providing one third of the building height in gray wood as well as exceeding 12 feet in Greywood by providing 14 Washingtonia Palms, which are going to be 28 feet in Greywood height, and then additional Royal Palms that will be 22 to 24 feet in Greywood height. The next series of slides will just show some site views as it pertains to the impact of the height. The first is an existing view from State Road 7 looking west. And here we see the site superimposed, very faint in the back.

You can see the, hotel and again that's set back more than 600 feet from the property line in addition to the, swale and right of way area from the, roadway on State Road 7. This is a point of view from the existing Life Church parking lot. Wall landscaped, so the hotel's pretty screened similarly so here. And then only as you get more towards the north portion of the site, might see more of the hotel up close. But again, this portion is set back a 145 feet from our south property line or their north property line.

We have also provided a rendering view of what those guests in the hotel from the 7 story would be looking at. So on the left, you can see the existing view from the site, and on the right, you can see the proposed looking north towards Stribling. And we have also provided the same view looking south. So the left is the existing view, while the right is the proposed view looking towards Farmington Estates. And then not only with the landscaping, but with the significant distance from our site to Farmington, there shouldn't be any privacy concerns or any direct views into those residential properties. That concludes our presentation. We have representatives related as well as urban design studio ready to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay. So in January 2025, council executed the purchase and sales agreement with Related Ross and Education in motion to purchase the property upon receiving its entitlements for mixed use development. In April 2025, council approved the village initiated comp plan amendment, changing the future land use designation to mixed use. On February 10, council approved the rezoning, master plan, and conditional use request to develop a mixed use project with residential, commercial, office, a private school, and a hotel. On February 24, the conditional use for the school was approved.

The request before you tonight is required by the conditions of approval of that adopted master plan resolution, the adopted project standards manual, and the LDR since all buildings are taller than 35 feet and are required recommendations from PZAB and ARB prior to council consideration. Proposed buildings are centrally located within Pod B and adequately separated from the residential uses with over 500 feet from Farmington Estates to the South, 1,500 feet from Oakmont Estates to the West. Point of view images were provided in the staff report from various locations on-site, including from the Top Floor of the hotel looking south to Farmington Estates. The LDR and the adopted project standards manual require increased setbacks for buildings taller than 35 feet. The buildings eligible for 72 feet or more require an additional two foot setback for every foot above 35 feet.

This table provides the required setbacks based on the height of the buildings compared to what's going what is going to be provided. All buildings meet or exceed the increased setback requirement. The LDR requires taller palms within the foundation planting areas around the buildings to soften the visual impact of the building. Over the next few slides, you will see the palms circled in blue and in purple. The palms circled within those slides have a gray wood of 12 to 28 feet depending on the height of the building.

And all required landscaping is a condition of approval and must remain as long as the building remains. Any and all landscaping that dies, becomes diseased, or disfigured must be replaced. Prod projects that propose buildings greater than 35 feet in height are required to include at least three community benefits. The applicant is providing electric vehicle charging stations throughout the site, privately improved and maintained public amenities, including promenades and plazas, and lead designed Florida building Florida Green Building Design Certification, silver or higher. The community benefits are required to be shown on the site plan are included in the conditions of approval within the resolution.

In addition, buildings that are eligible for the 72 feet may request an additional 20% for a maximum building height of 86 feet, and each story has a minimum height of 11 feet, meets additional setback requirements, and is the only building that is of that height within the project. Building H does meet all of these requirements. And last, the architectural design. All buildings provide four sided architecture with windows that occupy a minimum of 40% of the elevations, incorporate projections and recesses with varied lengths and depths, provide repeating patterns with color, texture, and material changes, and are designed with an overall architectural theme that meets the guidelines within the adopted project standards manual within our land development regulations. The request was unanimously approved by PZAB at their February 18 meeting.

An ARB unanimous recommendation of approval with architectural recommendations to modify the design so that it is more compatible with the suburban rural environment for the hotel, as currently designed is very urban, stark, lacks character and charm, according to ARB. Based off the analysis provided in our staff report, staff has determined that the request meets the criteria of the comprehensive plan and the LDR, and it complies with the requirements of the conditional use. The conditions to approve are provided for in the resolution. And this does conclude our presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions you may have.

This is a public meeting. Is there a motion to open a public forum?

So moved. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, it's open. Any cards on this item? No. Not

on this item.

Anyone here wish to speak on this item? Seeing nobody moving from their chairs, is there a motion to close?

Move to close. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Public hearing is now closed. Questions for staff and the applicant. Let's start with the first question for the applicant that was raised by ARB, their comment that the hotel is urban stark and lacks charm. First of all, assume you disagree with that. But are you making is there tell me why the elevation you've chosen fits in with the entire project and why you think you disagree. Sure.

Good evening. Kevin Ryan, development executive at Bladed Ross, responsible for leading this project. Muncy will just bring up the facade, please. Well, I would say there's a certain element of subjectivity in that point of view. But I think it was maybe a little bit broader in the actual discussion with ARB.

And partly it was a little bit about warmth, bringing a little bit more warmth into the building. But I would say that we have a very talented architect working on this. And it was somewhat intentional that we wanted, in this village like environment, to have something that had, not overly urban, but sort of somewhat of an urban feel. So there is the elevation that I think you're all looking at. You know, it has a lot of variety in terms of having a base and a top and a lot of recesses and setbacks and opportunities for color variation.

So we did say that we would take the recommendations of the ARB into consideration. We are only in design development right now. So we are even on our own looking at refining this design. And also I think that, you know, I think there's going to be some great opportunities in this facade at night, because we'll be doing architectural lighting on the building as well. And at the motor court, at street level, has a lot of, I think, character and charm.

I mean, was surprised by the cut. It didn't seem pleasing to me, but maybe I have I

think that you would have to probably go, there was a particular reference image that was shared, and it was, I think, somewhat more, Nora, it was a little bit, maybe a little bit more Spanish Mediterranean influence. It had lighter colors in terms of beige, and it had a little bit more landscape built into the side. So I think there's some opportunities to see more landscape in this, in the courtyard in particular, and as I said, some color variation. The center section that you see aligning with the canopy will have a more defined material than the sections on the east. That's not really evident in this. So it will be part of bringing more character to the building facade.

I understand what they're saying, but I also know that you have so many different looks going on with all the different buildings, and I think it'll blend in and look fine. I have no issue with the look of the hotel.

Right. I agree with the councilwoman. I mean, we've had Mr. Manfredi here on multiple occasions to walk us through the various mix of looks that we're going for in the project. And I think that just based on the level of everything that we're trying to that you all are trying to bring here, right, the hotel is not going to be some eyesore in the midst of this other beautiful mixed use environment that is trying to bring retailers of a very high level.

I mean, has to all fit together and be of a certain aesthetic. I mean, think that we all know that and that that's inherent.

Yes. I would actually comment that I think this particular design does well in bridging and merging some of the more traditional looking components of the project and some of the more contemporary. So while it does have a lot of detail that would go with a more traditional look, at the same time I think it feels pretty fresh in terms of being somewhat more of a contemporary building as well. And I would emphasize, please look at the ground level too, because there'll be a lot of what people experience and feel is going to be a great motor court. On the left is a restaurant that connects into the lobby of the hotel as well.

And we're bringing a lot of glass and light into the ground level. And vegetation in the courtyard. Actually, think this rendering does not have a we anticipate putting a signature specimen tree in the center of the motor court as well, which will help bring, I think, a lot of character.

I think a lot of people were troubled by the height. But based upon where this sits in the project, it's very much in the middle, and it's very far from everything. So unless you're right in it, looking up at it, driving by, driving around, walking through, it's not going to jump out at you.

It is set back a long way from almost every direction.