Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay.

Welcome, everyone.

We're going to go ahead and get started. If you don't mind, please make yourself comfortable. We are glad you have joined us for today's meeting. The Municipal Planning Board, or MPB, is an advisory board to City Council comprised of citizen members who voluntarily and without compensation devote their time and talents to a variety of zoning and land development issues in the community. All MPB recommendations are subject to final action by City Council. We anticipate the minutes of today's meetings will be presented at the City Council meeting on February 23, 2026 for approval of recommended actions. Any person desiring to appeal a recommended action of the board should observe the notice regarding appeals below. Caution. An untimely filing by any appellant shall result in an automatic denial of the appeal. The Board is pleased to hear all non-repetitive public comment. Large groups are requested to name a spokesperson. When you are recognized, state your name and address, direct all your remarks to the Board, and limit your comments to three minutes per item or as set during the meeting. Robert's Rules of Orders govern the conduct of the meeting. The City of Orlando encourages courteous civil discourse. When acting on items identified with the letters GMP, the board is acting in its capacity as a local planning agency pursuant to and in accordance with section 163.3174 of the Florida statutes. Items identified with one star are legislative matters or policy setting actions and are to be conducted according to standard public hearing procedures. Appeals of one star items must be filed with the city clerk's office before 5 p.m. Monday, January 26, 2026 to schedule an appearance before city council. In accordance with chapter two, article 24 of the city code. Items identified with two stars are quasi-judicial matters where implementing actions are to be conducted subject to the Florida Supreme Court ruling of Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder. The Board's decision must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Persons dissatisfied with the Board recommendation in such matters may be entitled to a de novo or new hearing before an independent hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2, Article 32 of the City Code. A request for a new hearing or an appeal with respect to two-star items must be filed with the Municipal Planning Board Recording Secretary by 5 p.m. Tuesday, January 27, 2026. There is a $500 non-refundable fee for the appeal. The MPB Recording Secretary may be reached at betsy.brown at orlando.gov or 407-246-3365. any person who desires to appeal any decision at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for this purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made that includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is made thank you for participating in your government and making orlando truly the city beautiful if you don't mind we'll please stand for the pledge of allegiance Madam Secretary, do we have a quorum?

Yes.

All right, I will call the meeting to order at 9.05 a.m. We'll start off with a consideration of the December 16th, 2025 minutes and any motion to waive the reading?

I'll make a motion.

All right.

We have a motion to waive the reading of the minutes in a second. All those in favor, please unmute your mic and say aye. Aye. Any opposed? that's unanimously if mpb is not adjourned for the day or voted to take an earlier lunch break the board will complete the agenda items reviewed as of 12 30 p.m and will pause for a half hour lunch break at the conclusion of that item in accordance with section 286.0114 florida statutes any member of the public can be heard on any matter before the board today if the item is listed on the consent agenda you may ask the item to be pulled and placed on the regular agenda you may then speak on that item when discussed on the regular agenda you may complete a speaker request form in advance of the meeting on orlando.gov forward slash public comments or fill out a speaker request form and hand it to the board secretary please note participation must be in person virtual participation is no longer accepted for public comment All right. And with that, I'll hand it over to Mr. Burton to go over the Cinegenic.

Good morning, everyone. We have eight items on the consent agenda. One is pulled to be a regular item. That would be number three, 1600 Aaron Avenue. And there's two deferrals that I'll mention as I go through the consent agenda. So the first item on the consent agenda is the Chick-fil-A drive-thru. Applicant is Rose Stapleton. The owner is Compton Properties. The location is 2885 South Orange Avenue in District 4. The project planner is Sean Elordi. It is a conditional use permit to expand a non-conforming use with an additional drive-through under the file number CUP 2025-124. Number two on the consent agenda is the jungle room. The applicant is Carly Paluzzi. The owner is Vassar LLC. The location is 2322 Edgewater Drive in District 3. The project planner is Laura Ying under file number CUP 2025-125. It's a conditional use permit to allow alcohol consumption within 1,000 feet of a church. Number three will be pulled to the regular agenda. At last count, there are seven speaker requests and one speaker request from the applicant. Number four, the Starwood GMP amendment is proposed for deferral. The applicant is the city of Orlando, owner of Beachline South Residential LLC. The location is 13131 Weeble Hootie Road, District 1, project planners Yolanda Ortiz, file numbers GMP 2025-1018, change to future land use designation from office low intensity to conservation within the Starwood plan development. This is a deferral item, so the recommended action is deferred to the next meeting on February 17th, 2026. Number five is Shadow Ridge Industrial. The applicant is Garth Ritter, owner is Family Investment Company. Location is 5300 Lee Vista Boulevard in District 2. The project planner is Calandra Jones and Raquel Lozano. First item number A is GMP 2025-119, change future land use designation for a portion of the property from neighborhood activity center to industrial. And B, zoning ZON 2025-111, rezoning from neighborhood activity center with aircraft noise overlay district to general industrial with aircraft noise overlay district. And finally, a master plan, MPL 2025-164, a master plan for a small distribution flex-based warehouse park. Recommendation is approval of the AMB request, but the deferral of the master plan to the next meeting on February 17, 2026. Number six is a GMP refresh land development code amendment. The applicant is the city of Orlando. There's no owner because it's the code. The location is citywide in all districts. The project planner, Shannon Stegman. This is filed under number LDC 2025. 1008 Amendment to the Land Development Code Chapters 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, and 68 to update references and ensure consistency with the recently adopted Growth Management Plan updates, the recommended action was approval of the request. Number seven is a Walmart gas station. Applicant is Matthew D'Angelo. The owner is Walmart Stores East LP. Location is 6095 North Garden Road, Goldenrod Road. The district is in District 1. Project planner is Jim Burnett. The file number is MPL 2025-1054, master plan and a convenience store with a gas station on a Walmart out parcel. Recommended action is approval of requests subject to conditions and staff report. Number eight, finally, is Starwood Neighborhood 12. The applicant is Sarah Meyer. The owner is Carlsbad Orlando LLC. The location is 13131 Rewa Hoodie Road. It's in District 1. The project planner is Michelle Gibbs. This is filed under number MPL 2025-162. It's a master plan for a 95 dwelling unit development consisting of 49 single family homes and 46 townhomes. The recommended action is approval of the request subject to the conditions in the staff report. And that concludes the consent agenda.

Right. Thank you. Can I ask for clarification on item three? Was that deferred or is that on the regular agenda? Yeah.

That would be on regular agenda because it's got seven speaker requests and the applicant can speak with you as well. All right.

Thank you. All right. So is there any conflicts that the board needed to clear at this time?

Number seven and eight for me.

All right. Seeing none, we can move on to... Consideration of the consent agenda. So reminder, it's items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8.

With the exception of 5C, it's deferred.

Thank you.

We have approval of the consent agenda as amended. Second. Second.

All right, we have a movement from Board Member Brown, a second from Board Member Hall. All those in favor, please unmute your mic and say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, consent agenda passes unanimously. We'll move on to the regular agenda for 1600 Aaron Avenue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is 1600 Aaron Avenue. This is GMP 2025-117. It's a change in the future land use designation from PRI, public recreational institutional, to residential low intensity and a plan development rezoning to convert a former quest site to a community assembly public benefit use. I believe it's a church. Mr. Jim Burnett will be giving you a presentation. Thank you.

An ageist comment.

There we go.

Thank you, sir. Item three.

The GMP item is represented by Deidre right here.

and so we have 1600 aaron community assembly public benefit use which is a church gmp case numbers gmp 2025 10017 and the rezoning the pd rezoning is zon 2025 10010 properties located at 1600 aaron avenue That's on the west side of Aaron Avenue between Cepeda and Cassius Streets, east of South Ivy Lane in the West Washington Shores neighborhood, West of Bruton Boulevard, District 6. Here's an aerial photo of the property. right here in the middle with all the streets around it all residential uses uh to the northeast east south west you do have eccleston elementary school to the north and carver middle school to the northwest uh the requested um the requests are one uh future land use change from public recreational institutional to residential low intensity. And the second part is a rezoning from P, public use, to PD, plan development, with default R1 zoning, that's single family residential, to allow a phased community assembly public benefit use. That's the church and associated activities. Previous history goes back to 1952 when the Eccleston Crippled Children's Home and Hospital was formally dedicated. 1955, initial building was constructed, dedicated in 61 as the 42-bed Eccleston Callahan Crippled Children's Home. 1962, Central Florida Sheltered Workshop was created. 65, property was annexed into the city. 2010, the Central Florida Shelter Workshop was dissolved. It became Quest Inc. And then in 2022, the Quest seized operations at the 1600 Aaron Avenue location. And then a year later, the property was purchased by the current owners. And then late in 2023, the previous applicant applied for a GMP amendment and rezone and a conditional use permit to convert the former quest site to a 200-seat church. cases were withdrawn in early 2025 per neighborhood concerns about increased traffic and potential incompatible residential uses via the default r2a zoning so here's the pictures of the site this is the view from aaron looking at the existing buildings And then a view towards the south end of the site where it abuts single-family homes. And then the view from the rear abutting South Ivy Lane. Site survey. There's six existing buildings and parking and some open space in the back. This is a phased plan, a phased development. So phase one, they're proposing just improvements to buildings one, two, and three, and improvements to the parking. Phase two, which would come along in years three through five, here's your existing buildings in the front. They want to revamp this building into a gymnasium. And then years five through seven is when they would convert these two buildings into an early child development center, do a play field back here, and then also would have some additional parking in the back with an emergency exit onto South Ivy Lane. Here's the elevation as you would see it from Aaron. And then there's the rendering of the revamped building for the church. Final landscape plan. They had a neighborhood meeting just this past Saturday and we attended and Residents there were concerned about generally with traffic and child safety using the sidewalks in front of the facility. And to that end, the applicants agreed to offer up another condition that was added as an addendum. And that's basically under the item of maintenance of traffic. The owner-applicant was shall have an approved MOT plan with trained individuals to assist traffic and pedestrian movements when the proposed church is having Saturday services or other during the week. And I noted that this MOT comment condition, very similar to one that's in the transportation section of the report. So from all that, we're still recommending approval of the GMP future land use map amendment and the PD rezoning in that they're consistent with the growth measure plan, the land development code, and the PD zoning amendment criteria as contained in chapter 65 of the land development code with the following conditions. There's multiple conditions, but I'll put a few of them in this PowerPoint. Land use and zoning, ongoing development, redevelopment within the proposed Brazilian SDA church PD must be consistent with the development standards provided within the draft PD ordinance and the default R1 zoning designation. Intensity, sites limited to an FAR of .30, that means no more than 54,885 square feet of heated and air conditioned space. Impervious surface, under the default R1 zoning, the maximum impervious surface is 55%. Building height, buildings are limited to three stories or a maximum 35 feet unless otherwise specified. Signs, they're entitled to a sign to be in the front. Has to be no bigger than 32 square feet. no taller than six feet uh residential characteristics um fencing buffers if walls are not allowed in the drainage utility easement on the south lot line then all lot line fencing must be septet style aluminum or faux wrought iron capacity maximum church capacity at completion of phase three cannot exceed 500 seats That's when you get through phase three. Master plan approvals required for each phase. So beyond this public hearing, there'll be additional master plan approval needed for phases two and three. And then that maintenance of traffic comment that I added in the addendum. Urban design noted that there'll be a letter of determination with a parent's review of prior to permitting to ensure compliance with all the conditions in the staff report. Minimum 15% transparency is required on all facades facing Aaron and then 10% on all other building facades. And then transportation at the time of final site plan determination, the applicant must revise the Northeast access point along Aaron. As the current proposal is not supported by transportation department applicant is required to revise the access point to maintain the Northeast connection in its existing location, allowing the intersection to retain its current configuration as a four legged intersection. And then via implementation of what I just read. Applicant will be required to remove parking spaces at the northeast corner to accommodate the necessary Connecting infrastructure and to ensure safe transitions as such the applicant must provide a revised parking table calculation at the time of final site plan determination And finally the access point along South Ivy Lane shall be limited to emergency access only Lastly A minimum 100 parking spaces are required based on the maximum phase one seating with no maximum. The applicant is currently proposing 105 parking spaces for phase one, which meets code for phase one with parking for subsequent phases to be determined when those master plans come forward for those phases. That's all we have. Any questions?

I have one, and I think it's just for painting a vision of clarity here. So with the existing future land use being public recreational institutional compared to what the request is, could you describe what types of uses would be allowed on public recreational institutional so it's clear for the audience?

Public recreational institutional, it's changed through the years, and most recently, public recreational institutional is for government-owned uses. So that's why this cannot stay under public recreational institutional, and it has to go to... to a different land use category and a different default zoning since we're doing a PD. So under the default R1 zoning, your other uses would be single family homes.

Okay. Would it be possible under this current future land use designation to do things like a community center that's publicly operated?

If it's a privately operated community center, then it would need to come back to the board as a master plan.

Okay. Thank you. That clears some things up. Anything else from the board?

Yes, I have one quick question. The surface ratio that you have for R1 cannot exceed 55%, right? That's for the entire project? Cannot.

Okay.

Because the development look like it may exceed more than 55%. That's why.

It looks like it does. And that's why as a phase development, phase one may meet it. But as they proceed forward, they'll need to tweak their numbers significantly.

make sure that it stays under 55 they'll have to come before you for review yes okay all right anything else from the board before we ask if the applicant would like to speak all right thank you at this time the applicant will will address the board

Good morning. My name is Pastor Ryan Amos, 1605 Sunset Avenue, Orange City, Florida, representing the Florida Conference Association of Seventh-day Adventists as its vice president. I also bring with me Jose Venegas.

good morning board um we just wanted to um clarify we've held a couple of meetings with the community that we uh or one early in november and the recent one that you see on the uh addendum here um we've done everything possible to try to um work with the community as close as possible we also held a meeting with the local commissioner um trying to build more trust and sort of understanding of what our project is And we feel like we've kind of met those concerns and believe that the application should continue to move forward. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. With that, we'll go to the public and you'll have a chance to come back and answer any of those questions that they may have.

A recording Secretary Betsy Brown will announce the name. So when she announces your name, please come to the mic and state your name and address for the public record. Thank you.

Sam Brown.

Good morning. I'm Sam Brown. I led the 1649 errand across the street from 1600. My concern with all this growth, I think you guys kind of put a commercial, like one poor First Baptist right in our front door. And we're kind of concerned with the traffic that it's going to bring. And if you pass this... This ordinance here to give them more growth. If they get a charter school, soccer field, we see parents coming 24 hours a day, picking up kids, dropping off kids right in our front door. And I don't think that's something we need. We put up with Quest, and we finally got Quest down to be good neighbors. This thing is going to be 24-7 that we're going to have to deal with. This church can have functions all day, every day. And I think it's just too much for this neighborhood. It's already out of place. It's too big. And I just vote against the change here. I think it's too large for this area. It's too rural. We're in a neighborhood. To a rural street in the neighborhood, 25 miles an hour with speed bumps. There's no four lane highway that they can access when they leave. How many cars? 50, 90 cars? You're going to have like, just like first bout, there's a cop out there directing traffic coming out, you know? I don't think it's good. I don't think it's a good idea. And I hope you vote against it. That's my opinion. And if they get a charter school and a soccer field, Mr. Jackson got to put up with the lights on a soccer field in the back of his house and kids running around. I don't know where this thing's going to end. I just see it going way, way beyond something that's tolerable for a neighborhood. That's my opinion. Thank you.

The next speaker is Adam Choi.

Good morning. My name is Adam Choi and I live on 4328 Cassius Street, directly across from the project where a lot of children go by and I see a lot of traffic just speeding by and Nearly several kids almost getting hit and it's just too dangerous. And for the traffic that they're asking, I don't have a problem with it, but it got to be more security for the children in the neighborhood because the traffic is just uncontrollable there. That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Shalina Choi.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Shalina Choi. I live at 4328. I live at 4328.

Pull the mic down a little bit. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Shalina Roberts, last name Choi. I live at 4328 Castro Street. My concern is, is this a lot of traffic already? And then building more traffic with the community that we live in, it is too dangerous for kids to be, you know, going across those streets. And it's a lot of kids already go across the street enough. And the teachers have to come out there. They have to come down the road just to save one kid. So that is not good. just to have extra problems that's problems already there. So there's microtransmitter trafficking and just, it's just too much going on in that neighborhood completely. It's not a good idea. We already dealing with too much problems. So that's all I have to say. Thank you everyone for hearing my speech. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Cynthia Harris.

Good morning. Cynthia Harris, 12 Channing Avenue, Orlando, 32811. In 2024, the Orlando Brazilian SDA held a community meeting to propose changes to the property formerly known as the Quest Building. Residents raised substantial concerns regarding land use compatibility, traffic safety, and historic preservation, a reasonable alternative used as a training or community facility. was suggested. Following that opposition, the owners withdrew their petition and placed the property on the market. The current proposal is legally and factually inconsistent with adopted planning standards and fails to meet the required findings for rezoning approval. There are approximately 55 churches within a two-mile radius of 1600 Aaron. Adding a 500-seat Church to this location constitutes a public nuisance under Chapter 823 Florida Statutes and conflicts with Section 166.021 Florida Statutes, which authorizes municipalities to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Under Section 163.3177 Florida Statutes, land use decisions must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Planning guidance and the staff report recognize that facilities of this size are intended for four-lane arterial access, not two-lane residential streets. This proposal introduces high-volume traffic into a residential neighborhood. creating foreseeable safety risks for children, seniors, and pedestrians in violation of accepted concurrency and compatibility standards under Chapter 163, Part 2. The applicant has also indicated intent to utilize access from South Ivy Lane despite Section 3.3 of the staff report explicitly limiting their access to emergency use only. There is no enforceable mechanism presented to ensure compliance, raising concerns under Section 162.06 Florida Statutes regarding code enforcement limitations outside of normal operation hours. Alterations to access along Aaron may result in loss of property lines, degradation of neighborhood character, conflicting with section 163.302, which requires zoning regulations to protect neighborhood integrity. Finally, this property has documented historic significance as the site of the first hospital for crippled children with an existing historical marker on the property. Failure to preserve this resource conflicts with the intent of Chapter 267 Florida Statutes governing historic preservation. Once that history is gone, it is gone forever.

I'll add one minute.

I only need 30 seconds. This rezoning opens the door to gentrification and strips residents of their right to shape their own neighborhood. For these reasons, the applicant has failed to meet the legal burden for rezoning approval. This request should be denied. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Andre Howard.

Good morning. My name is Andre Howard, president of Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association. My address is 4266 Booker Street, obviously Orlando, Zippers 32811. I'd like to make some clarifications on some things that I heard, if I may start there. Firstly, there was a meeting on Saturday, and it was a brief meeting. There were a few people there. The reason is, On Friday afternoon, signs were put out in front of the church that said free giveaways because they do have a thrift store area in the back where they give items out. There were five signs out there. There were two to say free giveaway, one in the middle, small sign, that said community meeting. And then the other two were free giveaways. Fortunately, one of our resident passed and saw that sign and took a picture of it and sent it to us. And that way we learned about the community meeting. Other than that, we would not have known. Okay. So we got together, called people so that we could be there for that meeting. And I just need to clarify that because had it not been for that neighbor seeing it, we would not have been at that meeting. Okay. Another thing, the meeting was at three o'clock. And we got this information about 1.45. So we had to really hustle and bustle to get people to be there. Another thing, it was on Martin Luther King's holiday weekend. And that's when a lot of our people in our community are at events, the parade downtown. And we even go to the parade in Eatonville, which is about two o'clock. So I'm saying in my mindset that there was some strategy to this. and it was an ill strategy. Now, also with the public recreational that was just mentioned, they did not mention a soccer field. When we were there, we were on a tour, and Pastor Ryan did tell us that they were gonna put a soccer field in the back, okay? Now, hearing that, that means traffic. If there's a soccer field, there are gonna be soccer games, and that means traffic. We also just heard that the Willie Mays exit will be for emergency use only, which means all of that traffic is going to be coming down Aaron to get in, not to mention all the traffic that is coming for the services and all. But this is just too much, too much, too much traffic. So our focus is the traffic, the safety, and, of course, the rezoning, because if you rezone, we're going to have all these issues, okay? Now, in my readings, I read something that said that churches with up to 500 membership should be on four-lane highways. That's it.

I've added a minute.

Thank you. Should be on four-lane highways. That's in some of the writings that I got, and it's in there twice. And it relates, it refers to the multiple traffic that is condensed onto a four-lane highway. Imagine yourselves, put yourselves in our shoes, if you will, please. And imagine living directly across from this, and that you've lived in this community for years and years and years, that only have two lanes all the way through. And now they're wanting this traffic. And we're comparing this to First Baptist that has horrendous traffic as it is. So that's a four lane. And now we're talking about a two lane with all this traffic. Thank you. Thank you.

The next speaker is Michael D. Jackson.

My name is David Jackson. I live at 4319 Cassius Street here in Orlando. To the Municipal Planning Board members, good morning. I had the opportunity to attend Eccleston Elementary in 1963, and I graduated from Eccleston and went on to Carver. I've been in this neighborhood. We ask that you remind them, the property owners, that they represent our God in dealing with his people. In being notified of meetings, we were disrespected by not only not receiving timely notice of meetings on these issues, but the last minute notifications are, was, and is disrespectful. to the citizens of this community. I ask that you please remind this church that we don't deserve the disrespect they have shown us by ignoring fair play on dealing with our community. While I am not against the church being in our location or expanding in the future, their action does not represent our Supreme God, our Lord Jesus or Christianity. Trickery, disrespect, underrepresentation has all played a disappointing part in this process. We need help and we need help now. In being given time, education and information in a timely and respectful manner. I cannot say that I am surprised given the atmosphere of today's churches and politicians. No matter We deserve to know their present and future plans on the property without any hidden agendas. Since we can't seem to get the proper help, can you help us and prevent us from being hoodwinked? Can you stay this situation? Can you pause or table this process for us? Can you present the fact that we need decency and honesty when dealing with this situation to those you report to for us? We can come to a resolution easy if handled respectfully. My concerns, the safety of the children and families with additional traffic should the road be built from error anticipated and the new construction The large church causing traffic safety issues. Also, the information given on the phase three and the future government use. All we want is inclusiveness and fair play.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Mary Maxwell.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mary Maxwell, 1425 Brewton Boulevard. I don't need no paper to tell you what I want to say this morning. I want to know when are you going to listen to the residents who lives in these communities? Two years ago, they said no. They didn't want anything out there. You didn't listen to them. So what you did, you went around and you decided, whoever decided and voted on it and agreed to it, let's rezone, okay? So when you rezone, you can put whatever you want to put. But my questions have already been asked about the traffic. We already have an infrastructure problem out there already. Flooding? speeding, it's a mess. And then you have a school, which is Carver, right in the back. Now, come on now, when are you going to listen to the residents, the constituents, and I'm speaking directly to our commissioner today, we put you in office to represent us, to keep us informed. That's the problem. We are not all informed. Just because I live on Brewton Boulevard, they live on Aaron, I live eight blocks. from where that's going to be. Brewton Boulevard is the thoroughfaster everything that comes out into our community. So don't tell me that I should not be notified. We should be notified, all of us out here, because it affects all of us. You cannot get to Aaron Quest without coming down Brewton Boulevard, without coming down Columbia, without coming down Cepeda, without coming down Kirkland. You come through the neighborhood to get there. Be up front with us about what you're doing. You bring in one thing, you bring in two. And like he just spoke, Osaka... What are you doing? Pushing us out. We know what you're doing. But I tell you what, whoever it is, there's a man that sits high and he looks low and he will take care of it all. The church that's coming, we know your plan. But that's all right. You all vote however you feel you need to vote. But please let the residents know what's going on. Let us be honest with us. We build Washington Shores, an all-black neighborhood, but it's not black anymore. We don't have attorneys to read all of the the little dots and crossing the T's, and we don't have all of that to help us. So we expect someone to sit down with all the residents, not two or three, that's going to say, okay, and let us decide, have some input as to what is best for us and our children and for us to grow up in. That's all I have to say, because the question is, it's going to be a traffic problem. You talking about a church? You talking about a soccer? You talking about a hospital? You talking about a pediatric? On Tulane Lane? Thank you. I'm back.

Thank you.

The final speaker is Raphael Martins.

Good morning. My name is Rafael Martins. I am pastor of the local church representing Florida Conference. I just would like to say that the Brazilian community is willing to serve the community, the Brazilian community and the neighbors. That's all that I have to say today. Thank you very much. Thank you, neighbors.

Thank you. And that completes our public speaker request for today. I will ask if the applicant would like to speak once again.

So thank you, board. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. A couple of things that I want to share with you guys is, you know, two years ago, we came to this board with the ask of a church in that area. We have owned the property since then. We have never put it on the market. It has not been for sale. What our plan was, was to hear those members of the community that brought those concerns to us. They came to those meetings. This is actually, we've had five meetings on this property, three under the original requests, and then two on this one. And so as we've had these meetings, we listened. If you notice that in the very beginning, the first one was an R2 designation. And as we met with the members of the community, their concern was that if my church was to fail, if my church was to fold, that it would become apartment complexes and create more and more problems. So the fear was that the church was going to sell the property and it was going to become that anyways. And the answer is no. I don't normally sell properties. Most of my properties I have actually held on to since 1909. Very seldomly do we sell a property unless the church itself exceeds the need of that property. With that being said, we also know for a fact that we changed it to R1 to meet that need of the community. We said, we're hearing you. We're listening to what you are saying. The second concern that we heard was traffic. And so with that, we paid a large sum of money to have a professional traffic report done so that as we stand here, we can say it's not my opinion or your opinion, but rather a professional engineer has studied the property and said, hey, this is the impact that it will have. And that report is attached in the information that you have. Finally, I want to address this concern about deception or anything that may be going on because the reality is we're not trying to be deceptive at all. The reality is the city has a process and we followed that process. The city asked for documents. We provided those documents. The city has a process for mailing people and notifying people. They essentially give us a charge that says, okay, this is what you need to pay to do the mailings that need to be done. and we paid those fees. So with this, our application, we believe, is consistent with what we're asking for. We believe that we have acted in good faith in terms of what we want to do. All of our drawings have been at all of the meetings. All of the drawings were submitted to the city. And so again, We understand the concern over the traffic and we understand children. We want to protect the children just as much as they do. And so that's why we talked about how can we meet those needs. The very last meeting... There was a new concern that was brought up, and that was the stacking on the road and what could we do. And so we said to the community that we're willing to create an MOT plan that allows our church to control the traffic on our property and what happens there. So in every step of the way, we have tried to be responsive to the community, to those concerns, to try to address them, because ultimately we do want to be a good neighbor. And so with that... Jose, you have anything else you'd like to share?

The only thing I'd want to share is that the conditions of the report are clear. Should we not abide by them, we'd be breaking the law. So we want to reinforce that.

All right. Thank you. Does the board have any questions for the applicant at this time?

Good morning.

Good morning.

Sorry, good morning.

One of the questions that was brought up by the residents was about hours of operation. Do you have any comments on that?

So typically, and I say typically because as any church, there might be an activity or event that occurs, but our typical service is between 9 and 1 on Saturday. We're Seventh-day Adventist, so we believe that church is held on Saturday, which is contrary to the other churches in the area, Sunday. So as we consider traffic, we're not going the same time as every other Sunday church. This would be a Saturday operation. Typically during the week, we have limited activities. There might be a game, there might be a youth meeting, there may be something, but typically our main area where traffic is going to be the biggest concern would be Saturday mornings between 9 and 1 p.m., and that's typically where our Now, you might have a meeting at the church, you might have a prayer meeting, you might have a Bible study, but you're not going to have every single day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, cars in and out of the place. I would believe it would actually probably have less impact than a normal business as we're not there every single day.

And for the future operation of the child...

The ECEC in phase three, early childhood education.

Yes. I'm assuming that will be the equivalent of child care or same drop-off hours.

Yes. So when we get to a phase three, that would be a typical school drop-off type situation.

Okay. Thank you.

So in fact, that would be seven days a week or six days a week.

So that would be five days a week. We don't typically operate child centers on- But you'd have Saturday services, so it would be six days. Six a week, yes.

So that would change what's happening currently, correct?

Yeah, well, currently there's nothing happening at the property other than storage.

So it would change it to six days a week of traffic?

Yes, that potentially could, yes. Okay.

I don't see attached to the traffic study did the city do a traffic study or did you only do the traffic study.

The traffic studies commissioned by the city, there's a very specific rules that. The requirements of that specifically.

But we did it in accordance to the city's requirements.

Good morning, everyone. Mike for transportation. So in order to do the traffic study, we met with the applicant's engineer to have a methodology meeting. And after they submitted the traffic study, which we analyzed, essentially the conclusions showed that there are going to be potentially 380 daily trips. out of which 25 are going to be during p.m. peak hours and 17 during a.m. peak time hours. Those are for weekdays. And then on Saturdays, it showed that it will be 245 trips, out of which 135 will be for the a.m. peak hour.

So this was a prediction of future traffic studies, saying the 25 trips daily?

Yes.

So the school is only going to hold 25 children?

No. So the traffic study was used for phase one. Our conditions stipulate that have they growth and continue to come for phase two and three, we are going to analyze the development program at that time to see how many students they will have to see if we need to update the traffic study.

So they would have to come back?

Oh, yes.

So each phase would require an approval?

Yes.

So this blanket, if we agreed to this, would not be for the whole phase? It would just be for the first phase?

That would be a planning question.

Jen Burnett again. Yes, we stated that this is a phased plan development. which phase one is part of this PD, and that phases two and three will come back likely for administrative master plan. Because it's a small site, it fits the criteria for an administrative master plan for phases two and three. And like Mike said, they'll have to update the traffic study to reflect any increases in attendance and school use or what have you.

And then I have 1 more question if that's okay to you, Jim, I'm assuming that the city is the 1 who sent out the notices to the community for the meeting.

We okay. We provide the applicant the 400 foot. Radius notice list. And to use, to send out their notices.

Okay, so they send.

You know, we have separate, you know, the applicants send out separate notices for any neighborhood or community meetings that they're doing separate from the notices for this meeting. 400 feet radius.

So who sent out the notices for the specific meeting that was on January 17th?

The church.

The church. Did you send it to the 400 foot radius of probably 20 to 30 homes?

So it is my understanding. And again, I didn't do it directly, but it was my understanding that the pastor delivered notices to the people that were directly there. He left them. He spoke to those who were home at the time. And then he also delivered those to the houses.

If there was not somebody home at the time, don't they legally have to be sent through the mail?

That's not a requirement. Okay. They're hand delivered in order to continue to build community bonds. The pastor literally walked them street to street.

And then again, this is the fifth meeting. All right.

We're going to, if you don't mind, I'm going to move on to the next, the next comment. if there's someone in the public that would like to make public comment, we have closed, but there is, you can't fill out a speaker request.

Good morning, Board. I'm Commissioner Bakari Burns for District 6. So first of all, I'd like to say thank you all for volunteering your time to serve on this board. And so I just wanted to provide a little clarification and kind of why I stand on this issue. The Seventh-day Adventist Church did reach out when they submitted their first plan. The community responded, and it was the concern of one, as the applicant mentioned, that if the church didn't work out, that they would be able to build single family or apartments on this facility. The residents also expressed their concern about the number of seats in the church. I think at that time it was planned for 200 seat church. And personally, I feel that what's being presented and planned today is too intense for this property. One of the things you hear, they say they talk about the five meetings. I had a meeting with the applicant a couple of months ago, and I requested that they specifically and intentionally do the outreach to the residents, gave them specific residents to speak to. And on the other night, I found out that that type of outreach was not done. I think there is some, you know, some outreach that is prescribed through the ordinance of reaching out to people within 400 feet. But if you really want to build goodwill and show that you're a good, you will be a good neighbor, you would go beyond what's prescribed. All right. One of the things that I'm concerned about was, again, there was the 200 seat church. They say they listen to the church. to the residents and came back, but now they're proposing a 500-seat church. So if you listen to the residents, you wouldn't have come back with a more intense use. Also, I feel that there was some level of a disregard for the residents' concerns because the outreach that you would expect if you're saying you want to be a good neighbor did not happen. All right. So again, I just wanted to express my concerns, the intensity. I would hope that there's an opportunity for maybe this to be tabled or deferred and give the applicant the opportunity to truly engage with the residents. So there could be some type of reasonable resolution or there can be some agreeance on how the community moves forward with this, with them as a neighbor. So thank you for your time. And again, thank you for volunteering your time on this board.

Thank you, Councilman. I'm going to move over to Board Member Hall and I'll come back to Marcos.

Yeah, I'd like to make two comments. Number one, as a religious institution, they will not be paying ad valorem taxes going forward. So I think it's entirely just to impose upon them traffic improvement requirements, and in particular, intelligent traffic signalization to try and minimize the risk to children and pedestrians and provide for more of the new mobility, such as the scooters, the e-bikes that are proliferating like crazy out there, seems to me that those improvements to accommodate pedestrian safety should be imposed upon the applicant.

Over in Bashan.

so thank you commissioner for your comments i tend to agree with everything you said i think that the questions and the concerns we have heard are about scale and about the infrastructure that exists there to accommodate the different scale and development um it appears to me and i cannot say that for sure but it appears to me that notification procedure for this public meeting might have been insufficient um i was under the impression and jason you can confirm here i always thought that we actually had to mail notices just just to clarify mr chair and marcos mr bastian is that the public meeting this meeting is scheduled it's advertised in the newspaper

as well as, and that is the requirement of the law. In addition to that, there are courtesy notices that are sent out to the radius. Now, we provide that list to the applicant should they wish to conduct their own meeting of if they want to do outreach to the community. It is not a legally required notification that goes to those residents. And they can choose to do whatever they want with that notification list. They can go and visit everyone individually. They can mail them an invitation. They can put up signs. They can do whatever they need to do. They even want to meet with the commissioner and find out there might be additional people that they might want to talk to. So it's their meeting, essentially, not a city meeting, not a public meeting. And so it's just, it's a matter of, it's not legally required when you conduct a meeting, a community meeting, which is the applicant's meeting and not the city's meeting, they can do what they want with that list, if you will. So it's not required that it be mailed to them. Thank you.

Thank you for the clarification. So it appears to me that whatever was done, what we heard here from the neighborhoods that has been insufficient. The last thing that I would comment is that Even though we have a proposed management plan, the management plan will not be enough to offset the actual lack of infrastructure that we're going to have there specifically for drop-off. And the reason I asked about the drop-off for drop-off schools for this to operate as a child enrichment or early education center is that you're going to end up with stacking that will go beyond the property lines. And even if you do have a management plan, you're still talking about one entry and exit, both of them on errand. And so that would be a concern to me. So without additional improvements, I think that that's an issue of scale.

Sir, can I respond to your comment, please? Absolutely. So that is, again, in phase three. So what you're currently discussing and voting on is phase one. Phase one is only the church. And so with that being said, as has been said in this meeting several times, I will have to come back for phase two. I will have to come back for phase three. And so my understanding is, you know, we're having to upgrade the infrastructure as our facility grows. This is not a two-year plan or a three-year plan. This is a 10-year plan because under a planned development, it's essentially an agreement with the city as to what this is going to be over the next 10 to 15 years. And so respectfully, as I'm hearing you talk, I'm being held for a building that's not even built, that's not even in phase two, it's actually in phase three. And so while that does have a future use, and yes, that is something that will need to be addressed as we submit our updated traffic plans, we don't have a ECEC or a daycare in phase one.

Thank you.

Board Member Barrett.

So as we address phase one, with phase one, the impact that you're going to put on the community based on the amount of traffic that's going to be coming through the community. Board, explain to me your maintenance of traffic for that. Are you having any kind of pedestrian safety? I know you just stated that you are going to do some sort of a plan and get it approved, but for the community's sake, explain to us, the community, the board, the community, what that looks like.

So let me address that. So specifically, the question that I would say to you as we're looking at this is number one, our first process in addressing traffic was to conduct a city sanctioned, city approved traffic study on the property. we actually went as far as not doing it for 500, but for doing it for 750 to make sure that there were no variables that we missed. So our traffic study took into account 750, not even 500, because we truly want to understand what this is going to do in terms of traffic, because we heard loud and clear traffic. We heard that. And so as we did that, we said, OK, our traffic study came back essentially minimal impact. And so you can read that report for yourself, but as such, the church is also going to be aware that while we understand that it should be minimal impact, there are gonna be times, specific time when church lets out or lets in, that there's going to be more than typical traffic in the region. And so with that, right now, the facility is empty, okay? It has been empty since 2022. And so as that being said, anything that goes into that area, any business, any type of development whatsoever is going to increase traffic some. I mean, that's just the fact that it's empty versus being occupied. is going to require additional traffic. But as we've looked at it, again, our professionals are telling us that we have sufficient movement around the property to be able to say that our cars will be able to come in, they'll be able to park, And so with that being said, our MOT is simply this, having certified people who are trained in traffic control to be able to help people find their parking spots, to make sure that cars are not stacking up on Aaron Avenue, that the movement through the property continues to move forward to make sure that we're not creating a hazard on the road. And again, our hours of operation are different than the school, except until phase three, as was pointed out by the council. But again, our hours of operations are not on Sundays. They're on Saturdays. And we are taking into account that typically school is shut down at that period of time. So we believe that we can efficiently control the flow throughout the site and that using trained people in our organization that are certified in that traffic management. So we're going to have to get people certified for that to be able to make sure that the cars continue to flow.

I just have a hard time understanding minimal impact. There's no impact now. There is going to be an impact. So I'm just a little confused with that report. I haven't seen that report. So I just have an issue with that report.

Okay, guys.

Good morning, transportation. We met with the applicants engineer in the methodology meeting to set up the parameters for the report. The report is only for phase one. It's going to have traffic, but based on the report findings and the existing conditions taken into account for the background information, it's only go to 17 AM new trips and 25 PM trips. The report itself is to address capacity. So right now, the conditions that are there are going to be able to address phase one of this application. Now, here in the community, if they are concerned about safety, we run a brief analysis on our side and the crashes that we found there are And I don't know if my supervisor, Jack, can chime in here. But essentially, there are two things. There's capacity and there's safety. The report that was conducted addressed that there is enough capacity to address this application. Now, if the community is concerned about safety, we can talk to them to see if we can do a different type of analysis to address the existing conditions that they have addressed.

I have a question about the analysis. So the analysis of what he's done, was it done physically with, you know, with the strips that are out in the road that clicks the number of cars or was it done strictly from driving?

geographically from paper so it's two two things so the background traffic is existing so they need to do the counts right and then we take into account based on ite variables what is going to be the new added traffic based on the use that they are trying to apply for okay

Because what I have found in a lot of the traffic studies done in these communities is it's done on paper, basically. And it's not done physically where you're actually physically seeing what's happening in the community, specifically since there's a school right next door. And I know how it can get with backup on traffic. And from what I've looked at in the pictures, I don't know if it was taken into account that there are gates that are right there on that road entering the church. So it looks like the only way to enter this is through the residential community. Is that correct? And it's on a two-lane road. So would that not cause a backlog? Even if it had the same number of cars, wouldn't they just be sitting there?

So the gates would be open during church. Again, the gates were a requirement that was placed on the property by the city when it was operating as Quest. The gates would remain open. They're basically manual gates. One of the other concerns that the... community had was they didn't want people on the property doing drugs or, you know, other concerns, things going on that shouldn't be going on. So again, the gates are a result of a requirement from the city that was placed upon Quest prior to us purchasing it. But during church hours, the gates would be wide open as to not block the traffic. So they are both Right now, they're all mechanical, meaning that there's no slider, there's no gate code or anything that has to go on. They're basically closed, chained with a lock, and then opened up if there's an activity or an event.

Good morning, Jacques Coulon, Transportation Planning Division Manager. So I just want to address a couple items. One, as Mike mentioned, we did do, safety is first and foremost top of mind for us. So we did do a quick look back at the immediate surrounding streets and intersections for this site. As was mentioned, it's been vacant for a while. But over the last five years, we saw six reported crashes with no major injuries or anything. So that's over the last five years. That doesn't mean that there aren't safety concerns, but. These are lower speed streets. So and there is no, at least for the immediate streets, any sign of recent crash history. Now, that's not to say that we don't need to keep looking at this as you bring more traffic, as you bring more, hopefully more pedestrians. We want people to walk and be safe. That's something that we can continue to look at. And I would encourage if there are any specific, even today, specific concerns that the residents continue to reach out to City of Orlando Traffic Studies to look at those issues. But from what we found in the reported crashes, there really isn't any widespread issues immediately around. Regarding the traffic study, as Mike mentioned, that is something that... Code would typically require any time that there's 1,000 or more net new trips. We heard that there were concerns from the community, so we required that traffic study to be performed, even though it's less than that 1,000 threshold. And for the busiest times would be those Saturdays, which don't typically line up with what you see as peak traffic in a lot of neighborhoods. Will there be impact? Yes. Anytime you have a new use, there is impact. And particularly in assembly use, you tend to have a lot of people arriving and leaving around the same time versus store or residential people coming and going all day. But from a capacity standpoint, as well as a safety standpoint, there would be impacts, but we did not see anything that kind of rose above our typical thresholds of making the system not operate. Impacts, yes. We appreciate the applicant's willingness to look at that MOT, how to help safely get people into the site and out of the site during services. We typically see the biggest kind of congestion or everybody leaves service at the same time, but there are also those congestions going in. So that is something that we would require the gates to be open. Anytime that the site is open, the gates need to be open.

Did you investigate if it was one way in and one way out?

For the traffic pattern itself, Mike, so both are full access? Yes. So both access points on Erin Avenue would be full access. Now the operations that goes into when they mentioned talking MOT, maintenance of traffic, that's something that they and why we also required a final site plan is we want to make sure that we're getting into those details. No, you know, nothing against the folks who go to the church. We're not that concerned if somebody's kind of queued up on property to leave. But if you're queued up on the public roads, that's where we have much more concern. So that's something that would come out of looking at that kind of final MOT plan and the routing on the site for the operations.

Any additional questions for traffic while we have them?

I do have a question.

Is there any particular reason why the exit point on Ivy Lane was just for emergency?

So Ivy Lane is... much more residential, and it's not completely built up, and have as much access as Aaron has. As Mike pointed out, one of our conditions is to realign for that northern access point to the full intersection. And so really focusing there to help minimize some of the impacts to the overall network.

And at any point, was there any discussion? I don't even know if the extension of the Cepeda right away is even an option. I know it will probably be cost prohibitive for them considering the scale of the development, but is that a viable right away for future extension?

There is enough room for that expansion. The traffic study showed that the site, as proposed for phase one, can operate without the roadway there. But there is adequate right of way. And with the driveway connecting there, that would not prohibit the extension of the roadway in that area in the future.

OK, thank you.

Board Member Brown?

I have a question, and I guess Mr. Burnett may be able to answer it. On the impervious surface ratio, if I understood correctly, they've already met the requirement or the conditions for 55%, and that any Additional phases would have to adjust that, but they would still be limited to the 55%.

They'll need to clarify their plans as part of the final site plan determination that they are still meeting the 55% for phase one. And then if they come back for phases two and three, we'll look at it again to make sure they stay within 55%. So 55% is the hard, fast ISR calculation for the default R1 zoning district.

And just for my edification, the phase one includes the 500 seat?

No, phase one is up to 250. Okay. They don't get to 500 until they get through phase three.

Mr. Burnett, while we have you there, to make things clear, as we get into Phase 2, 3, further into it, today we're focused on Phase 1, and that will be the subject of our voting. But for clarity for everyone, you said Phase 2 and 3 would be administrative, so it would not go through full process back to this board.

Would likely be administrative unless you mandate that they come back here to this board for Phases 2 and 3.

Thank you for that clarification. Any additional questions? Last comment there from the applicant.

Yeah, just additional information on the backup onto the street. We've taken care to design the site to hold about 1,000 linear feet of queuing. So if you look at the site plan, the final build-out site plan, you'll see that the queuing, the ability to queue up, should it be necessary, is approximately 1,000 linear feet.

Thank you.

If that concludes any comments from the applicant or any questions for the applicant by the board, I would bring it back to the board for discussion and consideration of any motions.

I think at the very minimum, it should be postponed for further community discussion. That's my opinion. And based on Commissioner Byrne's recommendation, I would have to vote no unless there was some sort of a a delay or something of that nature to where we could have more community discussion in regards to what's going to take place in the community. I just don't feel like there's been enough community involvement. That's my opinion.

Thank you.

I myself share same sentiments. I will have to vote no as well because there's a couple of things. I'm thinking more in the future. where this project, I don't understand why it's dumping the traffic onto a residential street opposed to say Ivy Lane, that's a four-lane road. Don't know why that's not being used more in this project opposed to a two-lane residential street. So to me, there's some things that still need to be worked out and hashed out that I just don't feel comfortable voting in favor of this project.

Board Member Basher.

i just want to clarify something uh mr burton that uh continuance is an option for us today a recommendation uh to continue the case you could certainly go in that direction if you wanted to and you could give direction to the applicant to um

reach out to the community and do their best efforts to clarify and notify people based on the discussion today. Right. And continue the items. It wouldn't be re-noticed, but it would be continued to your next potential meeting, which would be February 17th.

They already have a city council meeting though, right? Scheduled?

No? No, it would come back before this particular before because you would not have a recommendation to go to the city council. So it would come back before you. Now, if you defer the item, it would be re-noticed, if you will, I believe. Right. So it appears to be... Let me get clarification for my turn.

That's correct. You're not required to continue it to the next meeting. If it's continued to the next meeting, that's a date certain. It won't have to be re-advertised by the city. If you just continue it, let's say a couple months or not on the date certain, we would be required to re-advertise. It can take longer than a month.

I remember correctly.

Yeah, it just appears to me that a continuance might be, well, it might be appropriate procedurally. I just don't know if it's going to have much result because what it appears to me is that the church believes that they have done what they can. And the community obviously have expressed that that's not the case. We don't have a problem here only of communication. We have a problem that there's a discrepancy between what the church needs to do for their site plans to make sense and what is, according to the community, the appropriate solution. So I don't know how much a continuance would actually accomplish here.

It's the pleasure of the board, of course.

Board Member Reed.

I guess I would just say, I mean, I think we are only voting on phase one. So I think we should remember that's what we're voting on today. We can say that future phases have to come back to this board. So I would be fine making that a condition. If that made people more comfortable, the board members more comfortable with voting today.

Thank you. My thoughts are similar. I think we've had a lot of discussion about the ultimate plan, and there's been a lot of concern and well heard and well considered, I think, by this board, as you can see, in the impacts of the ultimate plan and what that could have. And I think that was the greater traffic concern. It's the greater loading of the site for different uses that are going to be there, a childcare center, soccer fields, you name it. Um, but today we are considering 225 seats, um, of a, of a phase one plan.

250. 250. Sorry. 250 for clarity. Um,

And so for that reason, you know, let's just, let's keep clear and also say that we have levers to pull that say each of the steps that folks are concerned with that would drive up the utilization of the site more significantly and cause more traffic impact can be asked to come back here for more public conversation, public discourse, which is very well welcomed. And if public meetings have been in the opinion of the public, um, Not up to expectation. This venue becomes that place by law. And we've experienced that here today. I will say there was a conversation about, and I wanted to see to some point how it played out, because I thought it was an important question to the applicant about how were those notifications handled. And the answer of, I don't know if those were delivered or not. It's not a great answer. So I would ask in the future when these phases happen that we make sure that the best effort is done to make those advertisements and things happen. But To the point of the public, let's make sure those things do go out. It is discretionary. You did check all the boxes. But it's a significant presence in the neighborhood of the residents that are here today. And I think they do deserve to have adequate notice and likely above and beyond notice if the goal is to be a good neighbor and a community-serving resource. With that... My position on this is that with, you know, the application has submitted 250 seat occupancy, the traffic report supports that, is that today it seems in compliance. And with an MOT plan that is put in place for their site and they've agreed to do that, it can help mitigate traffic concerns during peak hours on Saturday. Now, as this does progress into additional phases, I do think it's adequate, given the presence of today and the concerns with additional uses, that it comes back to this board on phase two and three and back through a full process with counsel for approval of a master plan. And with that, I'd be in favor if that were the condition, but I'd love to hear from the rest of the board on feelings on that.

So before we move for... approval with conditions, or even for continuance, I would like to see if the board has enough support for a denial recommendation. I'm not saying that that's going to happen, but I would like to, I would not like to move or trade into an approval to see if we can, if we have a denial that fails, then we'll move to approval with conditions or a continuance. Can we do that?

Yeah, I think I'd like to hear from the panel here if we can, and I think we can shake that out on where they are and where they stand.

So in that, I would like them to move with a motion to deny the request.

I agree.

So we need a second.

I'll second.

Second. Second.

We have a second already. Before we move, do we want to hear from everyone and hear their point?

Am I jumping the gun here? I'm sorry.

I just kind of wanted to hear from everyone. I don't think everyone's had a chance to speak, so we understand their position on the matter.

I apologize for that.

So you want to start, Hassan?

Please do.

Okay. Okay. So at this point, I'm more inclined to support a continuance to let the applicant work with the neighbor, but I do have a question, kind of a fundamental question on the comprehensive plan designation and rezoning. Um, if I recall what you had indicated was right now, the plan has changed. So my question is, is there a valid zoning in place on this property? There is not. That is my concern about us taking no action. Um, I'm going to support a continuance so they can get together with the residents, try to work things out, get more information for us on the traffic, look at being required to come back to us for any future phases, and also some potential operational hours, which are the same things that we've discussed previously in these situations. So that's why I stand, and that's why I stand there.

Thank you.

I support a denial based on everything that was presented today, and specifically the commissioner's recommendation. I'm going to go with Commissioner Burns, who's familiar with the community. I'm not familiar with the community, so I have to go on the experts. And in this case, it would have to be the commissioner. So I'm going to side with that and say deny.

Obviously, I already stated my position, so let's keep going.

I would be in support of phase one, but with the condition that it does come back for any future phases.

Likewise, in support of phase one, given the same condition.

I would support a continuance.

I don't remember all. Thoughts?

I agree. Continuous makes sense to me.

And I support denial.

And this is board member Marino. I would support a continuance for the reasons that were stated. I think some more community is required. I understand. recently with a community that was historically not respected and the minimum requirements that the city has for outreach doesn't apply to every single situation. I think in this situation, a little bit more outreach. I agree with the gentleman who said having a you know, community meeting on Martin Luther King weekend, you know, the community did not feel engaged. And I think that this church could possibly be a good neighbor just as the quest school was a good neighbor, but they need to make the community understand and they also need to get the community's input to assuage any issues that could come up. And I think that needs time and a little bit more outreach. So I'm in favor of the continuance.

Thank you, Board Member Moreno. So with that, I would ask... Can the board decide what we're looking for in a continuance from the applicant? I think some statements have made, I think it's more community meetings. And I would ask if that comes back, what result are we looking for? Because ultimately, if it doesn't, if the solution... Please, Mr. Burnett.

I can't let you know that the applicant has asked that the board voted up or down and not continue. Because they've been in this... They've been in this situation for three years now. So it's about life.

Can I address this? Please do. OK. So a couple of things. We've spent two years after the last meeting where it was pulled to try to address those ongoing concerns. My church has paid a mortgage on each of that property through that entire period of time. They have paid taxes as they do not receive their exempt status because they do not have an active use on the property. As you've stated to me, the city of Orlando has left me with zero zoning on the property, meaning I can't even turn around and sell this property if I wanted to, because I still have the only person who can buy this property according to your code is the city government. So I'm concerned because the ongoing discussion here, we have had five meetings Three the last time, two this time. And my concern is the issues of I'm trying to figure out what am I going to be able to resolve? Because clearly it's the community does not, as Ms. Maxwell, I believe her name was, stated, we don't want anything there. And that's a concern. Again, or we've been told, well, this is what we want on the property, which is not consistent with the mission and vision of my organization. Again, at a certain point, we respectfully come to you and ask you to follow that the city has looked at this. The planners have looked at this. We have done everything that we're legally required to do. And again, because one meeting, Again, when I said that it wasn't handed, that I didn't, again, me personally, I covered the entire state of Florida for the church. The local pastor, Raphael Martins, who shared and spoke today, was the one that was responsible for handing out those flyers. So again, it's my direct knowledge. I don't want to say something that's wrong. I'm going to tell you that to the best of my knowledge that that was done. But as we sit here, this has already cost me over $300,000. and has left me with no options. And so with that being said, I've had requests like, we should be in control of your church. We should have people added to the board of your church, or that we should hand over control of a portion of what we do on the property to the community. These respectfully are not things that any organization would be able to agree to. We've agreed to join the community advisory board to say, okay, let's have an opportunity to have these conversations. If we can be a good neighbor, let's be a good neighbor. We have said we'll schedule a meeting twice a year to be able to talk with community leaders to figure out what's going on and how we can be a part of the solution. At the end of the day, we're trying to figure out the law states what we have to do. We've provided that to the committee, and we're trying to figure out, like, how much do we have to bend in this conversation? Again, we're trying to be a good neighbor, but I can't hand over control of my property to somebody else.

Thank you very much. Sorry, public comment has concluded. There is a motion on the floor.

So based on what the applicant just requested, I think that we should put two motions on the table in this order. The first one will be a recommendation of denial.

We can, if we'd like, we can proceed with the motion on the floor. And now that we've all had our chance to accomplish.

And then if that fails, then we'll take the next one.

If it fails, then you would make another motion.

So with that, I would like to make a recommendation of denial.

Second?

I'll second it.

All right. Let's do a roll call on this. And again, starting with Ms. Kendrick-Schrader.

No. Aye.

Aye.

No.

No.

Aye.

No. Aye. No.

I'm telling you. I'm trying to tell you.

Or I've noticed that the motion would fail.

Motion fails. So we may come back and the applicant has said that they do not wish a continuance. We could do that anyway, and they could pull their application. We could also move to an alternative motion with conditions if we wish to proceed in that manner. Again, I think our positions are clear on what we would like to see, additional community meetings out of the continuance. Um, we could also make a motion for approval with, uh, a series of conditions and again, having them come back for additional community meetings, additional approvals from this board and council as a part of that, uh, request. So we have, we have control over that as well. So I'd like to point that out and also have discussion, entertain any motions that come out of it. I'm happy to illustrate a motion that, that, uh, that would meet my opinions. But again, open to hearing the board's recommendation. And Ms. Kendig-Schrader, did you have a comment?

There we go.

I'm prepared to make a motion for continuance. And with all due respect to the applicant, it is our job to evaluate the criteria as presented to us by the applicant, the staff, and the audience, and decide that we have enough evidence before us to feel comfortable to make a decision. And I think that we have heard today that we do not believe that we have the evidence to be able to approve this. So with all due respect, if you would like to withdraw your application, but for me personally, what I would like to see, I'm going to move a continuance to a date certain, which is our February meeting. I think, We have heard the concerns of the board and of the residents and of the applicant to give time to have those addressed. So at this point, I would like to move continuance to the February board meeting.

Second, Board Member Brown. All right. Once again, do a roll call on that, starting with Ms. Kendrick-Trader.

Yay. Yay.

Yay.

Yay.

Yay. Yay.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

Motion passes unanimously for a continuance to the next meeting of this board.

Thank you all.

Thank you, ma'am.

We don't have any other items on our regular agenda, but for other business, I would call up Mr. Paul Lewis, our Chief Planning Manager. He gives an update on appeals if we have any. Is Paul in the room? There's no update.

No update today. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you all for attending. And with that, we're adjourned at 1044 a.m. Thank you.