Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I know, right?

Well, I know they're struggling.

I'm like, and they push a bunch of stuff back in the classroom. And I'm like, these people have been living in, it's killing my soul.

I'm like, it's a non-profit. It's a big deal.

I don't know. Good morning, everyone. We're going to get started here.

Welcome. We're glad you have joined us for today's meeting. The Municipal Planning Board, or MPB, is an advisory board to the 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 meeting will be presented at the City Council meeting on October 20, 2025. for approval of recommended actions. Any person desiring to appeal a recommended action of the board should observe the notice regarding appeals below. Caution, untimely filing by any appellant shall result in an automatic denial of the appeal. We'll go over general rules of order for the meeting. 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, 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 Order govern the conduct of the meeting. The City of Orlando encourages courteous civil discourse during in-person and online settings. Persons making public comments virtually are asked to conduct themselves with the same rules of the quorum as they would in a traditional public meeting. 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, September 22, 2025, to schedule an appearance before City Council in accordance with Chapter 2, Article 24 of the City Code. Items identified with two stars are quasi-judicial matters or implementing actions that are to be conducted subject to Florida Supreme Court ruling and Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder. The board's decision must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Persons dissatisfied with a board recommendation in such matters may be entitled to a de novo or a 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 a two-star item must be filed with the Municipal Planning Board Recording Secretary by 5 p.m. Tuesday, September 23, 2025. There is a $500 non-refundable fee for this 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. Madam Secretary, do we have a quorum?

Yes.

All right, thank you. I'll call this meeting to order at 9.03 a.m. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice.

All right, we'll open up with a consideration of the August 19, 2025 minutes and a waiving of the reading of the minutes.

Chairman, I move waiving of the reading of the minutes and acceptance.

All right, we have a movement by Board Member Brown. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Board Member Hall. All those in favor, please unmute your mic and say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. If the MPB has not adjourned for the day or voted to take an earlier lunch break, the board will complete the agenda items being reviewed as of 1230 PM. and we'll 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 that the item be pulled and placed on the regular agenda. You may then speak on the item when discussed on the regular agenda. Please complete a speaker request form on orlando.gov forward slash public comments. For those of you joining in person who would like to write a public comment for any item on the agenda, please fill out a speaker request form and hand it to the board secretary. For those of you joining virtually, use the raise hand feature and turn on your camera. Dial star nine if you're on the phone to request to speak when prompted. All right, we'll get into announcements. So starting off, got some news. So we're going to say farewell to Elizabeth Deng after 22 years of serving the city of Orlando and the planning department. Certainly the board here will miss you, and I know the city will as well.

Well, thanks so much, Ryan. I'll miss you all. And it's been a wonderful 20 years plus with all of you. So I'm excited for new adventures, but I will certainly miss you all too. So thank you.

All right, best of luck moving forward. And we'll move on with that to the consent agenda with Ms. Dang.

Item number one is a deferral, but I will be reading it out. This is Woodlands at Baldwin Park. The applicant is Kiana Neves with Kimley Horn, and the owner is Jane Manohar H. Trustee. The location is 1343 Sassoon Avenue. Part A of this request is annex 2025-10001 to annex the subject property into the city limits of Orlando. Part B is GMP 2025-10007, changing the future land use designation from Orange County's low-medium density residential to the city's residential medium intensity designation. Part C is ABN 2025-1000, abandonment of a 216-foot segment of Siva Street east of Sassoon Avenue and a 250-foot segment of Moosh Avenue south of Sunrise Boulevard. Part D is zon 2025 dash 10003 establishing an initial zoning of plan development for a 232 unit multifamily development. Part E is MPL 2025 dash 10024 master plan for a multifamily project with 232 dwelling units in two and three story apartment buildings. The recommended action is deferral of the request to the October 21 2025 MPB meeting at the applicant's request. Item number 2 is Voyage Wine Tasting Room. The applicant and owner is Daniel Gonzalez with Voyage. The location is 898 East Washington Street. This is CUP 2025-10017, a conditional use permit for alcohol sales within 1,000 feet of a school. The recommended action is approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Are there any raised hands on Zoom for this item? We did not receive any in-person requests. There are no raised hands on Zoom. So we'll move on to item number three. capital improvements element. This is a city-initiated application that applies citywide. It's case number GMP 2025-10010, amend figure CI5 and policy CI2.2.14 of the capital improvements element to reflect the five-year capital improvements program and recommend that the city council include the CIE projects in the CIP. The recommended action is approval of the request. Do we have any raised hands on Zoom for this item? Seeing none, we'll move to item four, the Lorna Dunn Senior Housing. The applicant is Megan Dietz with Baker Barrios. The owner is the Housing Authority of the City of Orlando. The location is 1617 West Central Boulevard. Part A of this request is GMP 2025-10013, Change the future land use designation from residential low intensity to residential high intensity. Part B is ZON 2025-10007 rezoning from R1 to MXD2 mixed office residential. The recommended action is approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Do we have any raised hands on Zoom for this item? Seeing none, we'll move to item five, Eliano's Coffee. The applicant is Jonathan Hules with Lowndes. The owner is 14155 Boggy Creek, LLC. And the location is 14155 Boggy Creek Road. Part A of this request is GMP 2025-10014, change the future land use designation on 0.58 acres from Orange County's rural designation to the city's urban village. Part B is GMP 2025-10016, create subarea policy S.42.1 for maximum development program on the property. Part C is ZON 2025-10008, establishing an initial zoning of planned development with the aircraft noise overlay for construction of an 860 square foot commercial use. Recommended action is approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Do we have any raised hands on Zoom for this item? Seeing none, we'll move to item six, which is the Airport Commerce Center Warehouse. The applicant is Zahra Abid with Barrios Engineering. The owner is La Rua Development, LLC. And the location is 9197 Boggy Creek Road. This is case number MPL 2023-10048, a master plan approving the framework for future phased warehouse development. Recommended action is approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Do we have any raised hands on this item? Seeing none, item seven is the Lee Vista Boulevard at Wooden Pine gas station. We do have several speaker requests for this item, so we'll move it to the regular agenda.

All right, thank you. Does anyone on the board have a conflict to declare? Okay, which case is that? Which case? Sorry.

Okay. For item number one, my firm represents the applicants. I will declare a conflict on that item.

Thank you. All right. I'll bring it back to the board for any comments on the consent agenda. Or a motion. Is this on item seven? We can move that to regular agenda.

Okay, no worries.

Okay.

Chairman, I move approval of the consent agenda as amended.

I second. All right, go ahead.

All those in favor, please unmute your mic and say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, consent agenda passed unanimously. We'll move on to.

Who was the second for that motion?

Ms. Moreno. All right. With that, we'll move on to the regular agenda with item seven, Lee Vista Boulevard.

Good morning, members of the board. My name is Raquel Lozano. I am a planner two with the City Land Development Studio. I have reviewed the 7-11 gas station and car wash for this case, MPL 2025-10011. The project proposal is for a 711 gas station with a 4,853 square foot convenience store and 14 gas pumps with a detached car wash. This proposal includes a minor modification from the PD to allow the convenience store building to be more than 20 feet away from the Lee Vista Boulevard and Wooden Pine Drive. And to clarify, this property is zoned within the Beltway Commerce Center PD, which provides this specific requirement about the 20-foot front yard setback. This property is undeveloped, approximately 1.2 acres, and is at the intersection of Lee Vista Boulevard and Wooden Pine Drive, located in District 1. Here you can see the future land use map and the zoning map. future land use for this property is urban activity center and the zoning once again is the beltway commerce center pd also within the aircraft noise overlay i provided an aerial view to show the development around the surrounding property and then zooming into the site itself to show what is abutting the property I'd like to point out that this property is located near conservation land, industrial, which includes warehouses and a self-storage unit as well. As you can see, the site is undeveloped. There are no trees. There are some shrubbery at this intersection. And it also abuts an Orange County lift station, not within the boundary lines of this lot. So for some background about this property, in the early 2000s, it was annexed into the city from the county. In 2013, the Beltway Commerce Center DRI development order was rescinded and the PD was in place to supersede the terms and conditions of that development order. The PD master plan The PD lists the specific land uses permitted within the zoning district. The subject property is identified as Site B within the PD, which allows for retail, office, hotel, and church uses. Site B defaults to AC2, which is Urban Activity Center uses and development regulations. The submitted master plan provides light retail via the 7-Eleven convenience store and provides fuel sales as well through the gas pumps, and an accessory car wash use as well that is detached from the convenience store. All of these proposed uses are allowed within our zoning district for this site. So here I provided the general development standards that we have for AC2 and then what the applicant is proposing to do. And we have the site plan as well. So you can see that the proposed pumps and fuel canopy is located near Lee Vista Boulevard, which is why the applicant is requesting for a minor modification from the 20-foot front yard setback to make such accommodations. And they also provide a driveway plan to show how the circulation would be conducted. And you can see to the west of the convenience store, there is a detached car wash location. For the landscape plan, the applicant is required by code to provide landscaping along the right-of-way as it abuts Pine Drive and Lee Vista Boulevard. And they provided renderings of the convenience store itself and elevations of the convenience store. which has a maximum height of 21 feet and four inches, and then elevations of the detached car wash, a maximum height of 15 feet and four inches, and then the gas pump as well. Once again, the applicant has provided a site plan, a landscape traffic circulation and utility plan with their master plan submittal, along with a narrative description, a topographic survey, traffic impact analysis, and elevational drawings for the convenience store, canopy fueling station, and detached car wash.

It's not showing up on Zoom. Change that. Yes. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you so much.

The City Code establishes requirements for gas stations or automotive services regarding the setbacks for the fuel tanks and also for the vehicular access and circulation driveway widths and general standards for such services. There are also requirements established for accessory drive-through car washes. The PD establishes that the city planning official may also approve minor modification and design modifications to signs, landscaping, driveway locations and other minor changes addressing the applicant's minor modification for the front yard setback standard. As notable conditions for approval, The planning division requires a final site plan determination to be approved prior to permitting. So once again, it'll have to go through another review process that is conducted administratively to make sure that they meet code. And they must comply with the development regulations for the Beltway Commerce PD and the default AC2 zoning district. For urban design, a revised site plan and landscape plan will be required for to accurately show the right-of-way and landscaped areas and transformer location. And a minimum three-foot landscape buffer must be provided between the vehicular use area and the building, the convenience store building. The proposed building must also meet the city's transparency standards as well. For transportation, there was a minor addendum created to address some of the analysis and condition for approval. Specifically, we have met with the applicant multiple times to review their original conditions and analysis regarding the traffic impact analysis. And after further discussion, Transportation has revised their condition to allow that if the applicant were to remove the separate right turn lane from the project, they must submit updated traffic study data for review and consideration prior to permitting. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of this master plan MPL 2025-10011, subject to the conditions of the staff reports. Does anyone have any questions at this time?

I do, and I apologize. I represent these folks on other projects, and so I don't want there to be any color of conflict here. My concern is that the studies that the city has done on the speed of the traffic there on Lee Vista Boulevard that occurred without any traffic signal at Wooden Pine and Lee Vista. And the huge industrial development to the south is required to put that signal in there. And I would maintain that the 85th percentile speed as measured along westbound Leavista Boulevard will go down considerably once that light is installed. And I would also encourage the city to require that industrial developer would put in that system, that traffic control structure there at Wood and Pine and Leavista to make it an intelligent system so that a speeder heading westbound Leavista will get a red light. A bus will always get a green light. and program the computers so that it maximizes safety to put the traffic there, but discourages speeding. With that, it doesn't seem to me that it's necessary to install right turn lanes in and out there on the north side of Lee Vista at the southwest corner.

Thank you. Is there any question for the staff before we move on to the applicant?

Yes, I have one question. Is this project going to affect the lift station that's currently there on the corner?

I'm sorry, can you repeat that again?

Is this project going to affect the lift station that's currently there on the corner of Woodland and LeVesta?

No, they have not conveyed that they would be affecting the lift station at all. And that's owned by Orange County. So it would be best to coordinate with them just so they have notice of that project.

I have a question. Is it in the plans that it's mandatory that this light be put in here prior to this project? Or is there a timeline on this light? And if so, who is responsible for the financial aspect of putting this light in?

So we have discussed about the pending light signal. I will refer to our transportation team, but that is one of the items we've been discussing with the applicant with regards to the condition for the separate turn lanes.

Good morning, everyone. Mike Sayas with the Transportation Department. In regards to the signal traffic light, can you guys hear me? Perfect. Thank you. In regards to the signal traffic light, it was a condition on the South PD. I was informed that the permits were approved as of early this year, but there is also another permit for right-of-way work that needs to happen before the signal traffic comes in. So as of right now, we are targeting the timeline for the traffic signal in 2027. When we did the review of this project, the 7-11, we analyzed the existing conditions without a signal traffic light there because we need to address the code as it is. In regards to the financial question, one of the things that I got the information as well is that it's in the developer's agreement and the responsible for that is the developer of the South PD.

Yes, true.

Yes. Yes.

And do they have a timeline of 2027 to have it completed?

For construction, yes.

Thank you. Any additional questions? All right. Would the applicant like to speak?

Good morning. Robbie Moon with KPM Franklin, 6300 Hazeltine National Drive, 32822. I know there's public opinion. Should we comment on that now or wait for them to do that second? Or how does the timing work, Ryan?

You can comment on anything you'd like. The public will come up and you'll have a chance to return.

Okay. Well, I'll just comment right now what's on the table. First one, I just commend the planning staff. Raquel's been great. facilitating meetings with staff so it's been a great process happy to be here today so i guess the item right now we want to chat about is just the uh the traffic signal we understand it's you know under construction and proposed to be under construction in 2027 if this project were to move forward we'd be probably completing construction around 2027 coinciding with the construction the signal so our request is to allow i guess to remove the turning requirement understanding that we'd be coming in with the construction of the signal. So it's an operation when we're opening versus us waiting till 27 for it to be constructed, then doing a signal that would, you know, introduce significant delays to the project three or four years, which we can't afford. So we currently just request you consider, you know, the future signal being under construction when this is opening. And I'll be happy to, you know, comment on the public comments afterwards.

All right, thank you. Any questions for the applicant at this time?

In other projects, the pioneering agreements where the applicant will fund an improvement and then be reimbursed by those who are required to do it at the day. I just wonder if pioneering agreement might be appropriate in this case so that the cell 11 can move on quickly from the traffic light and then be reimbursed All right, thank you.

Board Member Bastian.

Yeah, I just want to understand a little bit better. A couple of things. Number one, is this exhibit that we received from somebody? Was it you?

Yeah, that was just to illustrate, you know, some information backing up the signal.

Okay, so that, I have numbers one to nine there. What do they represent?

That was for other items showing that there's currently posted speed limit signs there at 25. There's rumble strips, other items. That was for another demonstration. I think the idea was to show that as opposed to that 25, we understand the AI models predicting higher speeds and they maybe counted higher speeds going more than 25. And they have an OPD park out there in Rebel Strips. They're trying to control the traffic speeding. But we believe the signal will indefinitely stop the traffic and facilitate safe entrance to this project here. Thank you.

Any additional questions? All right, thank you. And we will now open it up for our public comments.

First on our list is Michael Valenti. Are you on Zoom if you can use the raise hand feature? Yes. So go ahead and unmute yourself. Please state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes.

Good morning. I'm Michael Valenti. I live at 5504 Wooden Pine Drive. I'm a resident of the Pinewood Reserve Community, which sits at the end of Wooden Pine Drive. I'm most concerned about the construction of the proposed gas station due to concerns for its close position to an active bald eagle nest. I have been volunteering with the Audubon Society for the past three seasons monitoring this nest. The eagle pair recently returned to the nest at the end of August, and they've been working on nest upkeep since then. The Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act gives protection to bald eagles against disturbance, and the law defines disturbance as agitating or bothering a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, injury to an eagle, a decrease in its productivity by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or nest abandonment. by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. My main concern is that the construction work is within the nest's 330-foot buffer zone and that this poses a threat to the eagle's breeding and feeding behavior and has the potential to cause them to abandon their nest. I reviewed the 27-page staff report regarding the proposed gas station and I found no mention of the presence of this eagle's nest. which concerns me that the developers may not be aware of it. I want to make sure the board is aware of the nest with an active breeding pair of bald eagles and consider the need for further permitting through the Migratory Bird Permit Office of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I'd be interested to know if there's a plan to ensure construction does not disturb the eagle nest that is within the 330 foot buffer zone that the US Fish and Wildlife Service recommends. And has there been a permit applied for, or is there plans to obtain a permit through the Fish and Wildlife Service? Beyond the permitting, is there a consideration for the time of year that construction will be done? This particular pair of bald eagles has shown up every year for at least the past three years in late August. They typically lay their eggs in December, and the eagles have hatched out in late December, early January, with the young birds fledging in late April. And I'm curious to know if there's been any consideration to time significant external construction to avoid the breeding equal season. And that's the conclusion.

Thank you.

Next up, we have one ailment. Please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes.

Good morning. I'm Juan Aleman, and I live at 5985 Wooden Pine Drive. I'm here to express Pinewood Reserve residents' concerns about the proposed 7-Eleven gas station at our neighborhood's entrance and just over 120 feet away from a natural conservation area. This proposal raises safety, environmental, and socioeconomical concerns. Over 170 people have signed a petition opposing it. Pinewood Reserve residents feel strongly connected to the preserve and its wildlife, a key reason why our families chose to plant our roots here, and a key selling point from Pulte, the construction company. A clear example is the eagle's nest directly in front of the proposed gas station parcel. And also, historically, our community has been concerned about deer being hit because of reckless driving in the area. We're very concerned about an increase in traffic that is already a problem due to the DMV driving tests and three-point turn practices blocking the traffic flow on Wooden Pine Drive. Also, nighttime noise from 24-7 operations, which can force out nearby wildlife and compromise our quality of sleep. In addition, after multiple car break-ins, our community has worked hard to reduce crime. Our neighborhood watch captain even received an award from the Orlando Police Department last year. Yet FBI data consistently shows that convenience stores and gas stations are among the top locations where violent crimes are reported. We believe this proposal can undermine our efforts and may not align with our safety goals as a community. Property values are also a risk. Studies show that gas station incidents, fuel tank leaks, for example, can significantly impact the result value with a large enough radius to affect every single home at Pinewood Reserve. That said, in an effort to reach a common ground of understanding, with the proposed gas station's ownership, residents are putting together a comprehensive list of conditions to be included in the conditional use permit, aiming to protect our neighborhood's best interests and lessen the impact to our goals as a community. Examples include limiting late-night operations, implementing traffic controls, relocating the proposed dumpster right next to the community's athletic trail where people jog and walk by every day, encouraging positive activities that will bring the right kind of people, like food trucks on the evenings, for example, etc., Commissioner Jean Gray has offered to support by scheduling a community meeting in the coming weeks to discuss these conditions. We invite the ownership to participate. By showing up and working with us, the ownership will show that they care about the Pinewood Reserve community and will be a responsible neighbor in all the years to come. We ask the board to please support us as well as we strive to have a common ground of understanding with the ownership. Thank you for your time and I wish you a very nice day.

Thank you.

Do we have any raised hands on Zoom to speak on this item? Seeing none, that completes our list.

All right. I'd like to return it back to the applicant if you'd want to respond.

Again, Robbie Amun, KPM Franklin applicant. I appreciate the public's comments for this project. I think, one, we can agree this is a planned unit development, and this is a by-right use. And the PED was established prior, you know, putting conservation in one area and our development in another area. With the Eagle's Nest, you know, backing up, so it's used by right, but it's a process. And we're part of this process right now with the master plan. We're going through the motions. And we know there's a bald eagle's nest and protecting is part of our process. There is a federal permit in place right now for that bald eagle's nest. It expires in 2028. It was established for the construction of the neighboring mini storage development. Part of that permit, we're required to have a biologist on site to monitor the eagles. We have to follow seasonal rules, and we have to report to Fish and Wildlife. This is the same approach that was used for the mini storage unit, and it's the same approach we'll use. And it worked well, making sure the eagles aren't disturbed, hence the eagles are still there. They refer to these as urban eagles now. They've kind of learned how to adapt in this kind of environment as well. So we're aware of the eagles' nest, and we'll have the proper federal permits in place to handle that. Traffic is always a common concern of generating more traffic. A gas station typically is going to capture the existing traffic in the area. This is on the way to 417 through the dump sites. There's a lot of passing by traffic already. They'll be capturing trips, not really generating new trips outside the area. With the noise, there's going to be occasional fuel deliveries in the morning. And then people come in and go on using the gas station services. But it won't be more than the dump trucks passing by frequently making a lot of noise, the air brakes. So we don't see a large noise generator. uh concerns of leaks and contamination that's understandable but you know these systems are more robust now you know they have secondary containment devices that's going to be installed with common safeguards that follow local state and federal rules so i think technology has come a long way to protect the the fuel containment devices We understand the dumpster in the rear may be unsightly that we put it into the rear to not have it on the frontage street, but it will be within an enclosure and will be surrounded by landscaping as well. So we're doing our best to protect, you know, kind of make a dumpster as pretty as possible. And also a trip traffic. You may notice in the site plan, there's a shared driveway between the mini storage and the gas station. We were afraid that could be a cut through. So we, there's a speed bump there and a stop sign to prevent the people from leaving that residences from cutting through the gas station area, trying to do a shortcut. And also we understand the heavy traffic going to the dumps. We had a dump truck speeding by there. The signal will definitely mitigate that and make this a much safer intersection for everybody in place. And then again, you know, I think the owner would probably be happy to talk to the HOA or the residences. We want to make sure this is a meanable process for both parties. So we'll be happy to coordinate that meeting too.

All right. Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant? If you do, please put it on the list there. I'll start with you and then I'll go to Ms. Kendrick-Trader.

Um, so you do agree to sit then with the community, um, with the district one's help, I guess that sounds like there's going to be some sort of a Mr. Great commissioner gray is going to sit with the community. So you are willing to sit and work around some of their suggestions or questions I'm assuming.

I'm looking at my client now. Yes.

So you're willing to work with the community is what I'm saying, because I do understand their concern with crime and hours of operation and cleanliness and the dumpster and a lot of the issues that they did. mention our concerns i think for any community considering that the houses are located literally right there and there is no exit for those homes except past the 7-eleven so as long as you're willing to at least work and work with the community yeah i think we're willing to sit with them and hear hear them out and speak to them more directly okay great thank you all right board member kinder trader

Thank you. I just had a couple of questions. So did I understand you to say that you're asking for a change in the staff recommended conditions of approval as it relates to the light versus the turn lane?

Yes. In addition to approval of the project, we're asking the staff to consider removing the caveat of coming back in with a traffic study in the future to avoid having to turn lane. We're requesting you to consider that there's a current traffic signal permitted and proposed for construction in 27, which would align with the opening of the 7-11. So requesting that you remove that, I guess, remove the requirement of a turn lane.

Okay, and I think to follow up on one of the questions, are you aware, and this might be a question for staff, what's the commitment for that light to be done? I know that a developer, I guess, has committed to complete it, but if they don't move forward with their development, will that light still be installed?

I understand the exact inner workings, but I do know it's a 2.7 million square feet of industrial. I understand there's some sort of trigger that requires the signal to be in place before they get a CO. And there's a lot of earthworks happening now, so I know they're heavily invested in the project. So it's not a permit sitting inactive that's actively under construction.

And I was also wondering, are you guys going to get a water management district permit or have you already done that? And what type of a permit would you be seeking?

Yeah. So in addition, again, it's part of the process where we're getting the city permit. We'll go to water management. There is a master pond out there, but this technically being an industrial use, we'll be required to provide pretreatment. So there'll be additional shallow dry swales that treat the first flush before it goes to the master pond. We'll be getting a FDP and water sewer permits as well.

I'm trying to understand, are you going to get an individual ERP? Are you modifying an existing ERP? It's going to be a modification. So it'll be a modification to the existing master?

Yeah, it should be a minor modification to a master.

Okay. Because I'm just trying to figure out if there's another entry on the bald eagle issue. Because obviously, if you're going through the water management district, if there's an endangered species, you're going to have to go through that process to have some type of consultation, I would assume. And can you just confirm for me that that's the process you anticipate going through? Yes.

Yes, ma'am. Application to water management also gets forwarded to the Fish and Wildlife Commission. So that will be that they will. they'll point out the eagle's nest and ask for documentation, which we have, so good point.

I just wanted to confirm you weren't doing a letter mod or something that might not go through the consultation process.

Correct, yes ma'am.

Okay, that's all I had.

All right, thank you. And I've got one more question. Maybe it's just a clarification regarding the traffic signal. In terms of whether or not a signal can work in place of the turn lane, we'll defer to the city staff to comment on that. However, when that comes online, and if it is in tandem with the construction of your site, I would think there would need to be some surety that it would be in place before. So would you consider not having a CO issued until that light is in place?

I mean, is that a condition you can make and we can talk about and then a council kind of finalize that?

I think staff would determine if that would be it. I think that would be a recommendation we could make if we want to. But I think, again, if it weren't in place, you went forward with a site plan that contemplated the idea that that signal is going to be in place. You didn't put the turn lane in. And then, of course, it doesn't happen for some reason because you can't control the other construction. We just want some kind of surety in place. Okay. That's all I've got.

Any other questions?

Good. All right. Thank you. With that, I'll staff to comment.

Before you move to motions, I just want to highlight some of the things that we work with the applicant through the last couple of months. So the staff report, as you guys seen it, is the work between city staff and the applicant for the last couple of months, right? So one of the flexibilities that we added in the language and the addendum that you guys saw this morning is that if the applicant wants to pursue the elimination of the diesel lane, they need to do data collection. So the TIA requires a warrant analysis for the diesel lane that when the 85 percentile speed limit gets higher of 35 miles per hour, the warrant analysis will approve the diesel lane. That's why it was required because the data that we have from October 2024 shows the 85 percentile at 46 miles per hour. Now, we added the flexibility there that if the applicant wants to eliminate that, they will need to do the data collection and show us now with current data that the 85 percentile is below the threshold to warrant that analysis. So that's there in the staff report that you are going to approve. And if it is below that threshold, the condition of the diesel lane will be eliminated, will not be applicable. right the second portion is we allow the applicant to work on other options to make sure that we can work with them to move forward to the approval process because as of right now we are targeting a timeline for the traffic light of 2027 but this project may come before Now, traffic light, as we know, may work to slow down traffic, but as of right now, we don't have any data to show that. So it would be an assumption. We provided other options to the applicant to make sure that they can address that as well. If I may, some of the options were not providing any access out of Lee Vista and just working out of Wooden Pine. And when the traffic light comes, they can do the analysis to show us that the diesel lane is not required. Other option was just to provide a ride out only that is not going to require the diesel lane as well. And then when the traffic light comes, they can accommodate their ride in. It was not something that they were content with that agreement. So the last agreement that we show us is that we are still requiring the diesel lane has ease with the data that we have. But if they can show us with the data collection currently at the 85 percentile is below the threshold for the wiring analysis, we are more than willing to work with them to eliminate that requirement.

Thank you for that clarification. Any additional questions for staff before he takes a seat?

Yes, not to be redundant or anything, but I'm trying to understand the drawing that was given to us. So if I'm looking at this properly, the only entrance it looks like is coming from Woodbine, not New Vista. Is that correct? Or am I seeing this wrong? So the only entrance to the 7-Eleven is going to be off Woodbine right at a four-point intersection at Lee Vista, correct?

No, there are two access points as proposed in the site plan. There is one right in, right out of Lee Vista on the south in between the storage.

So there's going to be one off Lee Vista as well?

Well, as proposed in the site plan, it is, but it's depending upon the conditions of approval of the staff report.

All right. Board Member Kendig-Schrader.

Good morning. I just wish to add a comment or rather a question for the board. So as you just heard before you, there was a discussion between the property owner and the applicant and a community member. So they had mentioned that they are willing to work with each other to address some of the citizen concerns. I would appreciate clarification if the board is comfortable with staff handling modifications to the site plan based on these discussions that they have, and if they provide any additional conditions for this site and hours of operation based on this community meeting, or will this need to come back to the board following the community meeting that they host? So that is something for your consideration that I would greatly appreciate clarification on.

Thank you. We'll discuss it when we get to that segment. Thank you.

I had a transportation question. So I just want to make sure I'm clear. To me, it sounds like we're hearing on one side that it's almost like an either-or with the turn lane and the light. But I'm wondering, it sounds like what I'm hearing from staff is, We're going to have, right now you put the conditions in place you believe are necessary based on current conditions. And you are allowing the applicant the opportunity to deal with staff to submit additional studies to show that there is an alternative solution. that may be appropriate based on conditions that exist when they submit that traffic study, which may be closer to the time that this light is ready or even after, depending upon their timeframe and depending upon the construction of the light. Am I understanding the big picture clearly?

Yes.

Okay. And then the only other question that I had was, It sounds like this industrial site that is responsible for the light is being graded and it's got some at least horizontal construction activity going on right now. What are the triggers? What's the competence? Have they already triggered the requirement for this light in their agreement by virtue of doing horizontal construction? Or what triggers the solidification of that commitment?

So the information that I have again is that there was an approved PD and a developer's agreement that requires and was agreed upon from the developer and the city for the traffic signal line. In regards to the timeline, the latest information that I have is that there is work in the right of way and after that the signal line will kick in, but it's a requirement of the PD and the developer's agreement.

Okay, so it's a requirement for them to obtain a building permit, a CO, a horizontal building permit, site... When is it locked in, I guess, is what I'm wondering. Do they...

Okay. They just need to have that before the CO.

Okay. Thank you.

Board Member Bastian.

So my concern here is that we're... considering to give relief to one particular developer based on the actions of somebody else. So I agree that if there is evidence they can prove that they don't need that extra lane, that that should be based on their own studies, not on somebody else's action. The second piece is that... As everybody mentioned here, we have absolutely no guarantee on timing. Road projects are notoriously for taking longer than expected. And even if we approve and even if that light happens, we're creating a condition where there's going to be potentially an interim scenario where it would be an unsafe condition. So it's not a question, but I think that it's my two cents, whatever it's worth.

All right. Any additional comments before we close? public comment and we'll turn it to the board.

Okay, with that, we can- Hi, my name is Keith Grayson. I'm the Assistant Division Manager down in permitting. So I'll let some clarification on what you all approved today. Because I heard one of the members say that prior to CO, CO what? A building or the site? Makes a big difference. And so I heard someone asked a question also, and I don't know if the applicant truly understood this, the industrial is now responsible for the light. If they decide to defer, and they decide to do the light, or he's committed to he's going to build the light, if the industrial goes away, that's a lot of money compared to a turn lane. So I just did some clarification because it's really big.

I think if you can meet with our transportation folks and kind of coordinate on the permitting side of it, they have a lot of background on that part of it in terms of the industrial developer and the lights.

I just want to make sure that at the end of the day that when it comes to them trying to get a CO, it's not an issue with the building official based on some technical issues about transportation and the timing of it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Move approval staff recommendations.

Let me close public comment and then return it to the board and then we can go through there. And so with that, we'll bring it back. Is there any discussion we'd like to have or emotion if you'd like to entertain it? I see Ms. Kendrick Trader has a comment up.

I just wanted to clarify that my question about the CEO related to the existing condition of approval for the industrial site. I was not proposing a condition of approval on this project. I just wanted to know what was already in place. So just for clarity, if I led to any confusion.

Thank you. And then Board Member Barrett has a question.

Well, not a question, but more of a comment in terms of moving forward with voting on the project with comments that have been brought for today. I'm confident voting on the project that the comments that was mentioned becomes part of the approval process for the project.

All right, thank you. Yeah, and just general comment. I mean, I think I'm in alignment with everything discussed today. I think the important thing would be that if the developer would like to consider an alternative to the staff conditions for approval, you'll need to submit your own traffic analysis that proves that out and shows that the alternative would be effective. And lastly, I would say, as we discussed up here, We wouldn't want there to be a scenario where you're depending on another developer to put in a traffic signal that you're depending on for approval. So we would want some surety that that installation would be complete before your site is open for use and issued a CO for use. So that's the only comments I have. The board would like to discuss those conditions further. We entertain it. And of course, emotion as is, if that is something we want to explore.

For us to discuss what the conditions are.

Okay. Can you put the addendum up on the screen for the board to look at the text, please? And if any board members have their staff reports open, it's right on the cover page of the addendum.

Thank you so much for your patience. I have pulled up the addendum for the staff report for this case. Specifically, it calls to the analysis provided for the traffic impact assessment. And then once again, referring to the revised condition of approval. contingent that the applicant provide new data to support that no de-cell lane is needed for this site.

Can you scroll down just a little bit so we can see the end of those conditions? Yep, that's good. Thank you.

Sorry, I'm trying to scan to see if, you know, they can submit a report and that report could say that they could remove the decel lane if it were to come up with results that indicate that. It doesn't mention anything about the signal, of course, as that's not in their control unless they install it. But if the report, of course, does say a traffic signal would allow them to remove the decel lane, I think we would still want to know that that. light is in place prior to them opening their site for use, in my opinion.

So based on our conversations and transportation, you can definitely correct me if I'm wrong, but the original staff report is stated that transportation was requiring a desal lane, and that is whether or not light was going to be there. So this is the original staff report where it required that the applicant provide that separate turn lane. was specifically looking at the site and what is currently there. So even if there wasn't anticipated traffic light, that desal lane was recommended for that reason. After multiple meetings with the applicant, they did do more research to see that traffic light was going to be installed in the near future, but that, as we've discussed today, is not a definitive course of action, as you know, things may occur where that light is no longer able to come up. So that's why this decel lane was originally a condition for approval. But now the transportation team is providing some flexibility provided that the applicant provide new traffic data that's sufficient to justify such a request.

Thank you.

All right.

We have another comment from former Bastion.

Okay, I'm going to reiterate what I just said 10 minutes ago. We should not be placing either relief or conditions of approval on one particular application based on somebody else's action. So as far as I'm concerned, they're correct that if there is some sort of agreement between this developer and the industrial park, if they make it as part of their development agreement, then it's for the board to decide or for the council to decide. Until then, we should proceed as staff has recommended.

Sure. Agreed. And I don't think it's dependent. Surely they could build a signal if they'd like to. You know what I mean? The point is a signal needs to be in place if they were to leverage that. But they can go ahead with their analysis and if the analysis says that a signal could replace the need for the D cell lane, still the signal's got to be in place, right?

But again, the signal does not depend on them. So the signal should not even be a part of this conversation. It does not depend on their application. It's not part of their actions. And God knows if it's going to happen. We know that there's a very likelihood that it will happen, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the product.

I think we're saying the same thing, just in a different way. So I agree with you.

And if I could just clarify, so the decel lane is required regardless. And if after the traffic signal goes in, the data on the speeds on the road does change, they could ask for that different condition. But we don't know for sure that that will be the case. So the decel lane could be required either way. So their option could be to just build it all up front Or they could decide not to get that curb cut approved and wait until the signal goes in, wait to collect the data, and then see if the city would approve that. But either way, they're not relying on the other property owner to build that for them.

Right. In other words, it's about the data.

Correct. And nobody knows what the data will be because the signal is not there.

I understand. Thank you for the clarity. Any additional questions, comments, motions?

I would like to propose a motion.

So I propose a motion to recommend the approval of the 711 gas station convenience store and detached car wash subject to the conditions of approval provided by staff.

All right, we have a motion from Board Member Bastian. Do we have a second?

I second.

Second from Board Member Moreno. All those in favor, please unmute your mic and say aye. Aye. Any opposed? I asked your name. I was like, thank you. All right, and that completes our agenda for the day. We do not have any appeals updates. So with that, we will adjourn the meeting at 10.03 p.m. Thank you.