Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the City of Sebastian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, July 16th, 2026 to order. And we will begin this evening with a pledge to allegiance. To the United States of America and to the Republic for which Roll call, please.

Mr. Reno?

Here.

Ms. Battles? Here. Mr. Carter?

Present.

Ms. Kottenberg? Here. Ms. Kinchin? Here. Ms. LaRusso? Here. And Mr. Garten?

Present.

I have only one brief announcement this evening. First of all, I'd like to welcome all the members of the public who are here tonight and let you know that you are welcome here, and we appreciate your input. If anyone in the public plans to be speaking to us tonight on the matters that are on our agenda, At the back of the room, you will find an oath card, which we need to have you fill out, because this is a legally bound meeting, and we need to know who's speaking and what they said, and we record everything here. But sometimes we don't quite get the names right. So if you intend on speaking tonight, please fill this out. And when you do come to speak to us, please make sure that Microphone is in front of you and say your name and if it's not a really simple name, please spell it. Thank you. First order of business tonight is approval of the minutes of the meeting from June 18th, 2026. Commission members have had an opportunity to review the minutes and the chair will entertain a motion.

Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that we accept the minutes of the June 18th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

I'll second that. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Motion is carried. The next order of business this evening is public hearing. Would you read that for us, please?

Certainly. This first item is a public hearing. It's a legislative item, and it's a recommendation to city council for a code of ordinance amendment to make a recommendation to city council regarding the proposed amendment to the code of ordinances involving Chapter 10 alcoholic beverages.

Could we have a staff presentation, please?

Good evening. So in May of this year, we received an application for a textual amendment, TA 26002, in regards to chapter 10 of the code of ordinances for alcoholic beverages. So some background about this is that the way the code is currently written, it talks about being near churches and schools. And there's provision in there right now for restaurants. And so when the application was presented to our office, we looked at it and said, okay. And so the request tonight from the applicant is that the following section be added. The sale of beer and wine for off-premise consumption by a convenience store with the appropriate state license. And so the last time that this section of the code of ordinances was updated was in 2011 and that's when the provision was put in there for restaurants. And so I believe the applicant is here tonight to answer any of your questions and with that I would be happy to answer any of your questions as well.

Thank you. We'll open this to discussion by the No.

I have no questions.

If the applicant is here, I would like to perhaps have them come forward and speak so I can get a little bit more background on this. Okay.

Good evening. For the purpose of your record, my name is Tim Campbell. I'm an attorney in Lakeland, and I've had the pleasure of working with a client in the city of Sebastian for a couple years now. at the corner of Schumann Drive and US 1. And they've been working on this property. We actually did a swap with the City of Sebastian because each of our parcels were a little, the configuration wasn't very good and it was mutually beneficial. So we did a swap to kind of shore up each of the parcels. All along we intended to do kind of a combination of commercial retail uses and convenience store. So once we got into the later stages, we understood that the city of Sebastian has this ordinance, which a lot of municipalities and counties do, that has a distance requirement for churches and schools, but it includes beer and wine. And what we did is shared with your city attorney and your staff examples from other jurisdictions in the vicinity of the city of Sebastian, both counties and cities, who a lot of them don't do that anymore, but they also, the others have exemptions for convenience stores because they're governed by a license, the beer and wine license with the state of Florida. And so to kind of be consistent with other jurisdictions in this vicinity and to not restrict the location of convenience stores because there aren't a lot of locations that lend themselves to this type of use, we've requested that. there be this exception for convenience stores who sell beer and wine in accordance with the state license that's issued to them. And so we stand available for any questions that you have and respectfully request your recommendation of approval for this text amendment.

Did you have some questions? No.

Linda?

I have a question and I guess it reverts back to the 2011 when we allowed the restaurants. We said 51% of their sales must be food. Did we have any way of having them prove that to us? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. Is something like that going to kind of cover within the convenience store?

That language is, well, Your first question, that language is part of their alcohol licensing requirements because it's a different type of alcohol license if they're a restaurant and more than 51% of their sales is food. So that's something that would be governed by that state agency, ABT, would govern that, and we wouldn't really get into that. If that's the way they're licensed, we're not going to be out there adding up receipts as people walk out or anything. So we kind of leave that to the state to deal with.

Okay, great. Now I'm going to throw another one out. Reform smokers, sorry. Cigarettes. If you're going to be close to a school in that. Obviously convenience stores do sell cigarettes. They're supposed to, I think, what is it, 21 or 18 the age?

I'm not sure if it's 18 or 16. But again, that would... Those restrictions would be put upon the convenience food store the same way alcohol they can only sell to people over 21. So while those items might be sold in a convenience store, they wouldn't be sold to the children at a neighboring school, just like they wouldn't be sold to children anywhere else.

I guess the last thing is what happened in our town. I don't know how many years ago we had a convenience store that was selling the bath salts. Obviously, they got closed down. I guess it's just a concern. When you're close to a school, I was a teenager. Besides stealing my dad's cigarettes, I did go out and buy them. And I know what you're saying, it's state rule, which then would bring our law enforcement in to monitor things of that nature?

I can share, just having had experience with beer and wine and alcoholic beverage sales, that the state of Florida is very strict about their enforcement and their inspections and their surprise visits. This is a citywide... ordinance change, so it doesn't really apply just to our site. Our site is near a church, not a school. But I think your city attorney's right that the state of Florida does have very good enforcement, an enforcement arm and practices with respect to both the sale of beer, wine, and alcohol, and with respect to cigarettes. And he's also right that in a restaurant, you have more of a difference between they're either a restaurant that serves some alcohol or they're a bar and that's why you hear about that distinction and that issue with the state law for a convenience store it's really a smaller percentage because they're also selling other things and they often sell gasoline along along with it so you're right it is something that of course is important to be monitored and watched But I've experienced in representing people, the state's very aggressive in enforcing those things and finding operators who are not operating in accordance with the law and trying to allow people to buy things that they shouldn't be buying.

Okay. Well, thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

My only note would be I think it might be prudent since we're already changing the text as part of this to add in there. I see it's 450 feet. Is that door to door? Is that property line to property line? Maybe adding in just for clarity so it's not left up to interpretation since we're revising it now at this point. Just something to So noted.

OK. I don't really have any questions about this either. And I do know that due to the fact that all sales nowadays pretty much go through electronic registers and everything is available, it can be checked. And I'm sure that the state makes sure that it's all checked. And they have the right to audit At will. And they do.

They do have that authority, and they exercise it.

You're right. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and board members, and I'll stand available for any additional questions you may have. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak regarding this item? Anyone on Zoom?

There is no one on Zoom.

Thank you. The Chair will entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, I'll make a motion that we make a recommendation to City Council regarding a proposed amendment to the Code of Ordinance Chapter 10, Alcoholic Beverages.

I'll second. I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Roll call vote, please.

Mr. Carter.

Yes.

Ms. Gottenberg? Yes. Ms. Kinchin? Yes. Ms. LaRusso? Yes. Mr. Reno? Yes. Ms. Battles? Yes. Mr. Garten? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Our next item of business here tonight is a public hearing, quasi-judicial hearing. And if our attorney will read that for us.

Yes, item 6B is for recommendation to city council regarding a preliminary Platte-Cross Creek phase three, a development of 19.44 acre subdivision consisting of 38 single family units with proposed stormwater and utility improvements and ingress and egress easements. Current zoning is RS-10, which is residential single family. And future land use is VLDR, very low density residential, up to three units per acre.

Okay, thank you. Do we have a staff presentation?

Yes, we do have a presentation, but I believe the applicant would like to go first, Madam Chair.

Applicant, please.

Good evening. My name is Wesley Mills with Mills Short & Associates. I'm the engineer record for the project. Tonight we're here to talk about a preliminary plat approval for a standard subdivision. Our design first, our team for the project, the owner applicant is Lexner Development. And our firm, Mills Short & Associates, was a civil engineer for the project and also the landscape architect. I think most people are familiar where the site is located. It's at the southwest corner of Cross Creek Lake Estates. That has been, I guess it was developed probably around 2010. And then we are directly west of Cross Creek Lake Estates Phase 2, which is currently under construction and is being finalized. Just taking a closer look at the site and the surrounding area. So to our north, which is on the right side of our sheet, that's the original phase of Cross Creek Lake Estates. To the east of our property line, which is down, is the phase two of the project, which is under construction, about to be finalized. And then to our western project boundary, we have a portion of Shakespeare Street, and then we also have a project called River Oaks of Sebastian, I think is working its way through the entitlement process with the city. Next, I'd like to talk about the zoning and the existing uses around the property. As you can see the site is located in between RS-10 for zoning all sides other than the River Oaks project, that's a PUD. All of the properties around us are zoned RS-10 and the future land use is very low density residential. So what that is, it allows for up to three units per acre per zoning. Cross Creek Lakes, the initial phase is somewhere between one and two units an acre. The phase two is about between one and two units per acre. And then our site is about two units per acre as well. So it's compatible with the surrounding land uses. I want to take a moment here with this slide and just kind of give some background on the project and our property. Our property was annexed into the City of Sebastian in February 2020. That was our second reading before City Council. And in that public hearing, they also designated a future land use and a zoning on our property. And that annexation, the future land use, and the zoning was all voted unanimously by City Council for approval. One thing that was interesting when I was going back through the meeting minutes and watching the videos from those public hearings is that the name of the ordinance when our project was being annexed, but also with the future land use and the zoning was Cross Creek Lakes Addition. So the ordinance actually names our project through the future land use and zoning as an addition to Cross Creek Lakes. That's kind of a tongue twister there. So it was always envisioned that this would be a phase of that initial development. And so with that, we started the process. And I'll go into a little bit more detail about that. just focus on the project. So the project's approximately 19 acres. Our land use is RS-10. We're proposing 38 single family home sites or residential lots within the subdivision. All of those lots meet the minimum 10,000 square foot area that would be required. So we're not asking for any waivers or special conditions or anything like that. And many of our sites are over that 10,000 threshold area. Our front setbacks are 25 feet, rear setbacks are 20, and side is 10, which is compliant with the zoning requirements. We're also required to provide 50% open space. We have 61% open space. And then we incorporate landscape buffers around the perimeter of our project. So next is just a visualization, a colored rendering of our proposed site plan. So I'll start from the right-hand side of the slide. And that will be our main entrance, which is on Yearling Trail, which is within the existing subdivision that's there down. And then we have a meandering street and several cul-de-sacs. But we also have a secondary access on the southern portion of the project. And I'll get into a little bit more detail about that in the next slide. But that secondary access, why we put it there is to be compatible and set up for River Oaks. River Oaks is, I believe the PD is approved, but they're working through the site planning process and land development permits. They are proposing to extend Shakespeare from 510 up into the limits just just past the limits of our secondary access so that's going to be a paved road and then after that that roadway that paved road terminates and it becomes a stabilized road and the intent is that it will be provide a secondary access from cross creek lakes at states to allow traffic to give a secondary access to allow traffic to head south on Shakespeare and tie into 510. So that was also mentioned in our annexation. One thing that was brought up through city staff and also city council was this property was kind of the puzzle piece to give Cross Lake Estates a secondary access and kind of be able to allow traffic to also move to 510. So with the subdivision, we have some amenities. First, as you come into the main entrance, you'll enter to, like, a larger park area. That's where we'll have our mail kiosk. We'll have some walking trails that go along the lake. And our portion of the project will not be gated, so it will be for the benefit of everybody within the community, and there won't be any restrictions. And then right as you come across that curve, Until that Shakespeare Road is extended and completed by the River Oaks project, we provide a secondary access, it's called EMS access. And what that is, is it's a stabilized road with sod on top of it, so no cars or residents wouldn't perceive it as an exit. It would have signage for the fire trucks, and it would be a secondary access only for fire trucks to be able to access the neighborhood if they needed to. moving on just a little bit more detail onto that shakespeare roadway extension so i we annotated the plan in blue to just show you the future roadway extension and overlaid it over our plan And you can see that that pavement section ends probably 25 feet past our secondary access. And so we will have a T-turnaround there until that road is built to allow anybody that, like a trash truck or a fire truck or whatever, if they happen to turn up to that last lot, they have a way of being able to turn around and come back out. But at some point when River Oaks gets developed, that T turnaround would be removed and the driveway connection would be tied into Shakespeare. And then after the termination of that pavement, then you'll have your EMS only access. These are just some of the renderings of what the product type will look like. We see this as an addition to phase two. So it's envisioned that the builder that's currently in phase two building right now, they would continue on. It would be a continuation of their product line that's being built there now. So this is a single story and then an option for a two-story house. With that, I will open it up to any questions you may have for me. I'd be happy to answer.

We'll start with the committee members. Do you have any questions or do you want to wait until after the staff? Okay. We'll take the staff presentation next.

Thank you.

All right, good evening. My name is Jim Mann. I work for the community development department here for the city of Sebastian. And tonight we have an application for a preliminary plot for Cross Creek Lake Estates phase three. Project applicant is Luxor Development LLC and the engineer of record is Mill Shorts and Associates. So the request tonight is for a preliminary plot for 38 single-family lots. The current zoning is an RS-10, which is a residential single-family, minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The current land use is a very low-density residential. The acreage for the site in question is 19.44 acres. Provided there's a location map The subdivision, as you can see, Phase 2 is directly to the east of this. The original subdivision is to the north. River Oaks would be on to the west. And you also have part of the highlands on the west as well off of Lighthouse, Shakespeare, and Memorial Avenue. And to the south is vacant agricultural land within the county. So some details from the project. I know Mr. Mills went over this pretty quickly. in depth, but it's a total of 38 single family lots. The proposed density of this subdivision is 2.03 units per acre. Recreation, open space, open space requirements for all subdivision is 50%. Weather providing is 61%. And for the public portion of the park that's required for all subdivisions, they will provide a recreation in lieu payment. for the fair market value of the surrounding areas. And that will be a condition of approval, as you see in the staff report and the resolution that will go in front of City Council. For some of the zoning details, it is an RS-10 zoning. Mr. Mills did go over the setbacks. You have a front setback of 25 feet, a side setback of 10 feet, and a rear setback of 20. That's for the main structures. There's also a secondary frontage for corner lots that would be applicable to 20 feet. if it faces two roadways. Some other matters that we have for the subdivision, they are providing a 20-foot wide right of way dedication on the western border of the subdivision that will align with the new Shakespeare extension and provide adequate right of way because as River Oaks, when they develop their project, they will also donate 25 feet of right of way for the continuation of Shakespeare. That was also a condition of approval for the resolution and the staff report. The applicant is requesting an adjustment request for street lighting requirements. In our subdivision code, we do require street lighting for all new subdivisions, but as with their declaration of covenants, each individual lot is required to provide a street light at the end of their lot that will be maintained by the private ownership. And they have to provide this lighting before they can get their certificate of occupancy for that individual home. So with that subdivision code, if we are requesting a different or an adjustment to that, it is an adjustment. Otherwise, in the rest of the code, it would be considered a variance. So we are requesting an adjustment being granted for the street lighting requirement from our subdivision code. And as we went over the details, you can see the layout here. It was also in the other presentation. But if you look right, that would be the northern portion. And that roadway connects to Yearling Trail on the north side. And again, this is 38 lots with stormwater tracks. And the eventual connection to 510, once River Oaks finish their preliminary plot and their construction, they will have their secondary access. for Cross Creek Lake Estates in general to State Road 510. So staff recommends that Planning and Zoning forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council and approve the preliminary plot for Cross Creek Lake Estates Phase 3 with the conditions listed in the staff report. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

Thank you. I think we'll ask the members of the public who are here and wish to address this to come forward now. The first we're going to ask anyone who is opposed to the project. And again, please make sure you filled out an oath card and that you state your name clearly. Yes.

So hello, my name's Brian Fisher. I live on Shakespeare Street, and I don't understand why we're even here today. Because about a year ago, we all got together, we did the same thing. The planning zone recommended something to the city council about extending Shakespeare. Everybody was in here talking about how it's such a bad idea. Eight foot road, one way, no sidewalks, small community. including the associated memorial and the other roads that connect to it. So at that time, River Oaks, they went ahead and said, okay, you can build your houses, but don't extend Shakespeare. So why are we here talking about extending Shakespeare one year later? That's the part I just don't understand. And the city recommends, every time the city recommends with the builder, And we all show up and say, this is a horrible idea. And then the zoning committee just passes it through. And then we're all going to show up here in another couple of months or weeks. There'll be another 150 people in here complaining about how you shouldn't extend that road. So when the road is denied to be extended for many, many good reasons, why are we all back here talking about it again? Can anybody answer that question for me?

Usually we save the answers, but I will tell you that we don't make the decisions the City Council makes the decision And if the City Council made that as part of their decision That's where it lies To do this again after it was already denied once then the City Council said that was okay They make the final decision though.

I'm talking about after that final decision on Rivers River River Oaks Why do we even have a new recommendation? for something that was already denied once.

I can only tell you that the City Council makes the final decision, and if the City Council made the decision to include this, that was their decision.

Okay, so then I'll just wrap up by saying, Mr. Secretary-Engineer, please think of some alternate plans because there's going to be a lot of people.

Madam Chair, the rules of our meeting, speakers are to direct their comments to you. To the Chair.

Okay, to the Chair. To the chair, could you please let the civil engineer know that they should probably come up with alternate plans? And to the city that keeps constantly bringing up this stuff, this is a terrible thing, and I don't understand why we keep doing this. Our residents have to come. How would you like it if they put another 400 cars on your street or extended it out to US 1 or 510 on the street you live on? Think about that.

Thank you.

Did you do the speaker oath card? Excuse me. Did you do the card?

Also, Madam Chair, if I may, this will be more efficient if you let everybody speak and then do the responses at the end.

Sometimes I just find it hard to resist. Sorry.

Understood.

Hi, I'm Colleen Cherry. I live in Cross Creek. I have about 30 minutes, not three minutes, so I'll make it quick. I'm not sure everybody knows the history of Cross Creek. Fisher built it 10 years ago. Excuse my language, but he screwed us and sold it to D.R. Horton and didn't tell us. So we had no idea. So now we have 35 homes. It seems like nothing. You guys are approving 900, 700. We were about to take over our own community and have our own rules. DR Horton came in, changed our rules. We can have construction through our community. It's negatively impacting many, many people besides the endangered wolf that's on the property and the gopher tortoises. We won't even go there. There's people here because they're going to have a road in front of their house. And I do believe Mr. Mills said we're not going to be gated. Our docs say we have to be gated. The builder is allegedly D.R. Horton. I went to them two months ago, stood in their face and they said, we don't know what you're talking about. We don't own that property. Who's Luxor Development? I have no idea. But what I do have in February, we have a bunch of criteria that had to be met for this to move forward. One of that criteria was River Oaks. I can say with pretty strong confidence that River Oaks only went forward because of these 38 homes. They did not do anything until the last Hail Mary passed. River Oaks was a dead deal. They didn't do anything. You guys all know this. Again, why are we here? You are ruining our life. We had a closed community. We have a lake that's 44 acres. Very unusual. That's why I live there. The gates were closed. We have bicycles. We have older people, mostly seniors. It's not 55 and older, but it is seniors. Our gates are open. We have construction traffic. We have infrastructure. We have all kinds of people coming through because our gates are open now. Now they're telling me I'm not going to be gated. DR Horton opened our docks and said, you can have front-facing garages. That's not what we bought into. They said that we can't have fences. We have this huge monstrosity of a fence. Please come to the community. The gates are open. Now we want to add 38 homes? I, as a homeowner, will never have control of my home because planning and zoning in the city keeps saying, it's only 30 homes, it's only 35. There's 130 of us, and now you've added 50%. We'll never have control of our HOA thanks to planning and zoning in the city. I'm really sorry. I love living here. I can't believe I'm considering leaving because it keeps going on in this general area. The poor people outside our fence, God bless them for what's going to happen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Carol Blyle, spelled B-L-I-L-E. I live at 609 Yearling Trail. I and probably more impacted by this than anybody else in this whole place. That entrance comes out in front of my house. I'm going to have traffic 24 hours in and out of that one entrance. Not only is it going to be through the daytime, but the headlights are going to be coming through my windows all As long as there is a car moving, I will see it. I am not opposed to phase three. I know it's going to happen. I would just like for them to look at an alternative way of entering and exiting. I personally think that they should look at the curve coming up to the 600 block They could put a stop sign and carry that street straight through. That's all I had to say other than the fact that if this goes through with that main entrance in front of my house, I am looking at moving. And I love my house. And I love the community that I live in. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Linda Schlosser. I live at 605 Yearling Trail, two houses down from Carroll. And when they turn left, the flashing of the headlights is going to go right past my house. One of the things I want to understand how this new development is going to take care of the wildlife that we have there. We have state protected gopher tortoises, including babies. What are they going to do with that? Um, city, the zoning people said that, Oh, they'll just relocate them. I don't even know if they know they're there, but I know they're there and Florida wildlife knows they're there. I would like you guys to take that into consideration and ask them those questions. The other thing is along with what Colleen said, we were almost there to taking care of our own HOA. And now, again, another group of homes is added. Not the kind of homes that we bought into, not the kind of HOA covenants that we bought into. And everybody is going to be driving past my house every time they come in and every time they go out. And all the trucks and all the street equipment and all the sewage making equipment and everything they need to do the infrastructure It was horrible the six months they were doing that with phase two. Now you're calling this phase three. Are those people buying into our covenants? No, they're just changing our covenants. What we thought we were getting into is now suddenly what someone else says is okay. That's not what I bought into, and I hope you guys will consider that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Patty Blade, 1725 Shakespeare. I can't believe we're going over this again. I have enough from all these meetings to wallpaper my house. It was town council that said Shakespeare should never be extended. It's not a road that can handle traffic. There are kids riding bicycles, there are people walking. I have trouble backing out of my driveway without hitting somebody walking. Now you want to extend it to 510 and the traffic will be horrific. This is a quiet neighborhood. Town councils, they have been down there, they know it. Brian Jones said, a little piece of heaven, leave us alone. You can come off 510, you can stop it at Sea Grape and make a turn around there, okay? This is not feasible opening Shakespeare. This started back in 2000 with leaving that street one way. Occasionally we have somebody going the wrong way. There has been somebody killed down that road back in the 90s by somebody going the wrong way. I am begging you to please leave us out of your plans. Another thing, DR Horton, how many houses are you going to let them build in this city? I mean, when they build these developments, why do you have to stick 350 houses? 510, at some point, maybe 20 years from now, you're not gonna be able to drive down that road. You are building development after development in this town that was a quiet town. I work in a law firm in Vero. It takes me 40 minutes to go, when I hit the Sebastian line, to get all the way up to Roseland during the traffic. What are you doing to this town? Running it into the ground? Think about it. That's all I have to say because I'm madder than hell.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone in favor? Anyone on Zoom?

No one has raised their hand.

Thank you. And now do you have anything further to add, staff?

I believe the applicant wants to address some of those responses.

Thank you.

Thank you. And this definitely could be my fault. I probably didn't explain this very well from the start. The first thing I heard, and I heard it several times throughout the public speaking portion, is this project will not extend Shakespeare. We're not touching Shakespeare. We're not improving it. We're not extending it. All we did as part of our application was provide a provision that if River Oaks gets approved or built or whatever and they extend Shakespeare, we have an entrance set up to be able to alleviate traffic. But our project's not proposing any additional trips on Shakespeare or extending it or anything like that. I just wanted to clarify that. And then I heard some concerns about environmental. So we received our St. John's water management permit, and as we go through that process, there's a drainage component that looks at the engineering side of it, but there's also the environmental component. And in that, FWC is also involved. So we have our St. John's permit. We went through all those environmental reviews to ensure that if there are any endangered species on site, that we have the proper procedures in place to mitigate those per all the state requirements and city requirements and things like that.

Excuse me? I believe that your proposal also states that environmental inspection will be updated?

Yes. Thank you. Before construction starts, we will do 100% gopher turtle survey. Yes.

Thank you.

And then one other item I'd just like to touch on is I said that our portion of the project wasn't gated, but the community will remain gated, and we're not removing any gates as part of this project. Just our particular phase will not be segmented from the other, the main portion of the subdivision. With that, I'm happy to answer any other questions.

Any commissioner have questions for the applicant?

I just have one question. The main concerns about is there any possibility of an alternative road? I don't see it here, but to make the folks who have spoken, their main concern was the road, the headlights, people coming and going. Was there any other study for an alternate road that would satisfy the people that come here today, this evening?

There really isn't another alternative other than Shakespeare. If we took all of our traffic and put it on Shakespeare and from the beginning of our initial conversations with staff, we understood that that was a no-go.

Linda, any questions? Ms. La Russa?

I have a question. Being that this is different phases, could each phase have their own separate HOA? I don't know if that's for you or for our attorney.

I think probably, and yeah, I'm no attorney. I think technically they could, but I think in the past, at least on the research that I did, is there's one HOA, the same restrictions that regulate the Phase one is the same one that regulates the phase two and phase three, so they all pay into the same restrictive covenants. I understand that whatever restrictive covenants exist today is what this project will be under, unless amended, I guess.

Okay. Thank you.

I just have some questions about the free-flowing well. Has that been capped yet? Or is that part of that demo for the existing construction building? I didn't see anything on the topo about an existing well. It just showed one well for the...

It has been capped.

It has been capped, okay.

During construction, it will be abandoned.

Okay. But is that well an irrigation well, or was that for the buildings that are there? It's the irrigation for the... Your shield tying into an existing water main on the southeast corner of the property, is that there?

Yes.

That already exists?

The existing, we're tying into the existing infrastructure that runs through phase one. Phase two?

Well, this would be the east of there. So is that there? Is that existing already? I mean, I have aerials, but they don't show any.

We are making a connection, yes, there, to loop the system.

So that doesn't exist yet?

Our water line doesn't exist, but the one that was required by Phase 2 is in place.

Okay. I guess this other question would be for staff about the streetlights. So the streetlights are going to be put in as the houses get built, or all the streetlights are going to be put in on all the properties?

The streetlights will be built or in place when the houses are built.

Okay.

So per house? Per house. So you might have two houses and no streetlights, and then a house with streetlight?

Correct, yes.

So in other words, the homeowner is going to be responsible for their electricity to that lamp?

That is correct. It is in their covenants and restrictions that they provide the streetlighting for the neighborhood.

Okay. That's all the questions I have.

Thank you, Miss Battles.

Okay, so I guess I just wanted to start off by saying I sympathize with a lot of you guys speaking earlier. I too live in Fisher Development, and I would just say I would be pretty upset if that happened in my community, so I can sympathize. I know when this came before us last, there was a proposed connection on Yearling Trail to the, sorry, the name of the road's escaping me. Shakespeare, yes, sorry. To Shakespeare, yearling to Shakespeare. And I remember being very concerned about that access and the ability to everything from gating and queuing, there being a lot of issues with that proposed connection. I am glad to see that this application is not showing that access and is showing a alternate solution which I'm glad to see that there's no connection proposed. I think my first question as it relates to that is, what's behind the 25-foot right-of-way dedication the entire length? And maybe that's more of a staff question, because it seems to me like it may only be needed up until the point where the... proposed access is going to connect, or was there some other idea behind that from staff? And I guess I'm just trying to think of like what's behind the entire length of the dedication.

So initially when the application came in, I think this really kind of stems back into when the addition was adopted in the ordinance when the annexation happened. The right-of-way dedication was going to be in place just in case future needs of Shakespeare would be widened all the way up to that termini or that northwest corner of this development. Currently, the River Oaks PUD is in their preliminary phase right now. So they're going through reviews. They've submitted their first review, and we've provided comments. They're getting ready for their second submittal. Now, what they're going to be proposing is, constructing Shakespeare from State Road 510 all the way up to, as a paved surface, up to this secondary entrance for the subdivision. And then it will continue on as a stabilized surface up to the Shakespeare Lighthouse turn, which will provide still the gate for EMS personnel, but it will just be a stabilized surface with park benches and walking trails and whatnot. But

Restricted essentially for no regular traffic, just for EMS traffic.

No regular traffic, correct. But that right-of-way dedication will continue on into the northwest portion of this subdivision because just in case future needs for the widening of Shakespeare were to occur, the right-of-way would be there for us to actually develop a two-way road.

Okay. Okay. That's sort of what I was thinking, but I'm glad you kind of explained that and so everybody could kind of hear the background and kind of the idea behind it. I guess moving to the gated versus ungated, I hear what you're saying when you're saying this particular phase will be ungated. and the remaining existing will be gated. Can you walk me through what that's going to look like at the intersection of Willow and Yearling? How is that intersection going to operate and function with the existing community being gated and the new community not being gated? Where's that gate going to be, and how is that going to operate?

It would operate very similar to phase two that's under construction. Okay. And so you would come into the main entrance of the, it's called the overall development. And then this is just a road off like any other, you know, segment of the community.

So, but I guess where I'm going with this is like, if somebody is, in the community that's there is queuing to get out of the gate or get into the gate. They're going to be queuing on the property, like this phase? Like is the gate going to be on this phase for queuing or?

I wish I could see what you're...

Okay, yeah, can you, I guess if you pull up maybe the site plan.

There's only one gate at the apartment community.

I understand that, but I guess... Because there's no fence on here or gate on the site plan, it's hard to visualize and see where that's going to be in relation to the drive. Does that make sense?

We won't have a gate.

Ms. Battles, are you referring to the EMS access?

No, where Willow Court and Yearling Trail intersect, where the... Folks that came to speak, were there houses? So the primary access point there that is being pointed out.

Meaning like a vehicle leaving this segment of the subdivision and turning left or turning right?

So where would the gate be for queuing purposes on that site plan?

There won't be a gate. It just is an addition of the subdivision. So our portion is not gated off from the other. It would just function as one subdivision.

OK, so there would be a gate at?

Wherever the existing gate is to the entrance up.

OK, power line. But will there be a gate then at the access near River Oak?

there will be, you're talking about like when a drive actually gets installed there?

Well, I guess my, the point I'm making is that, you know, if we're going to approve a site plan with an access with, you know, for the intent of a expansion to five 10, uh, I think a gate at that point would be prudent because as these residents are mentioning, they're living in a gated community. They want to, you know, make sure that they're living in one in perpetuity. Right. That's what they signed up for. So, yeah, I mean, I would think that there would need to be a gate there. Is that correct?

It's not shown on the site plan, but you're right. And I see what you're saying. And we'll make provisions to make sure that we're not opening one segment of the community when the intent is to be a gated community.

OK. I guess the only thing I would say then is when you make that addition to the gate, just make sure like the proper queuing and whatnot is allocated on the site plan. Because I think that's what we're reviewing today, right? And recommending is a site plan. So it would be good to have that on the plan that we or council ultimately reviews.

So what we can do is I have to go back and double check, but I believe River Oaks is a gated community off of 510. And so that would be the sufficient portion to provide that gate at that access point that will eventually connect to the secondary access to this subdivision. But I can point that out or I can clarify that. Also, if we decide that we want it to become a gated access, We could also add that to the conditions of approval for the subdivision. And then we can provide the details in the construction drawings after this preliminary plat has been approved. So what happens after preliminary plat is they submit for their construction drawings to obtain their LDP so they can provide the infrastructure or build the infrastructure for the subdivision. And we can show those details in the construction drawings if we want to make that as a condition.

Yeah, I mean, I think we definitely should because in the event that that gets a separate project, you know how these things work sometimes where another project is completely separate than this project and then things get lost or whatever. And then if there was ungated access, those people could come through the committee and exit on the other side of the committee. So I think that that's probably prudent. The other question I had was with regard to the on the plan there's FPL roadway lighting but I hear that there's going to be individual lighting. Was the FPL roadway lighting for somewhere specific?

I think that initially when we set this up we were thinking kind of more like a conventional subdivision and then as we worked with staff understand the history and why that's being requested. So it's just a leftover note, yeah.

And then, sorry, one, this is my last question. So the 20-foot EMS access that is between lots five and six, Is that driven by something in particular? Because my understanding was that the reason that there needed to be this secondary access with this community that would solve the required EMS and the multiple access points for the entire community. So I guess I'm wondering what's driving that other EMS access and then If there is a particular code or requirement that's driving that, I'm assuming that is going to be taken to the existing Shakespeare Road, right?

Yes, it will be taken to the existing Shakespeare Road. To the best of what I listened to today when I went back through the public records and listened to the previous approvals, when Cross Creek Lake Estates phase one was approved. It was always envisioned that there would be phases. But on that plan that they came in with, they didn't identify these parcels as phases. They identified them in the restrictive covenants. They talked about future phases and how it would be handled. But because it wasn't included on the original approval, staff was directed to look at our project in phase two under the requirements of a new subdivision. And so under the requirements of a new subdivision, you had to have the two access points. So that's my understanding of how that whole double access comes into play.

Yeah. Jim, can you elaborate on that?

Sure. So our comprehensive plan has a policy that any subdivision over 25 units or more requires a secondary access. for that individual subdivision. So as this subdivision came into play, it didn't have the secondary access point in place. But when the addition, as you see at phase two, when it got approved, they were required to put a secondary emergency access along power line. which is just south of the main entrance that is gated. And that is in place now. So what we decided to do, because this does not have a secondary access point for this phase of the subdivision, we required them to have at least an emergency access point. And that's where you see this 20-foot wide EMS easement that will be gated. It will only be accessible to emergency vehicles only in a time of need. It will not be through or through traffic or any of that. It would only be accessible for emergency access. So that's why we had them have that in place for this phase. So they would have that point of entry because if you think about it, this phase is in like the very southwest corner of the subdivision and it loops around. It would probably, it's almost a mile and a half from that main entrance point to this point in the subdivision so that's why we required that secondary access off of Shakespeare originally it was a little further south closer to the lighthouse roadway system on the south side and we did have them modify it to move it a little north so it intersects with the memorial street or avenue and Shakespeare so EMS would have a two-way roadway system coming in and out to make it more accessible if needed

I guess my only thought on that is I feel like we are treating in some ways the subdivision as one whole subdivision with all phases and in other ways we're treating them as different. So, I mean, I'm not against, I guess, having another emergency access, but I'm just curious as to how that came about because I thought this whole second access thing was what was driving the whole community, right, to make it as one cohesive community. And this access on this is kind of something that the original development needed. Yeah, just something to think about.

Excuse me. Excuse me. No comments from the floor. No comments from the floor, please.

I don't have any further questions.

Thank you. To kind of go off of that, the secondary access point, I know they had mentioned some other public hearings with city council, and there was a secondary access point originally designed that would have been off of Shakespeare. But council did decide at that point that that secondary access would not be designed, and this addition would be the one to provide that secondary access, and it would not directly connect to that Shakespeare section and reference to everybody that spoke to about that council meeting.

Thank you. I just have one question. Forgive me. I did not notice sidewalks. We're not doing sidewalks, correct?

We are. We'll have a sidewalk that runs through along the entire.

OK. All right. Thank you for that. And as far as that emergency exit plan, In all things, we need to have an exit plan. And man, is there natural gas in the subdivision?

I don't know that answer.

I mean, if there were a dramatic issue, people need to get out, and they need more than one gate to get out. So I understand the theory behind an emergency exit, and I have no problem with it whatsoever. And that's a good place for it.

Thank you.

That's all I have.

So with this, staff still recommends approval of cross-degree estates phase three with the additional condition of the gated access on the, we'll work with the applicant on making that, the timeline for that gate to be installed, but it will be provided, the design will be provided at the construction drawing phase.

If there are no other questions from the commissioners, we will entertain a motion. No, sir. No, sir. Your time is over. Motion, please.

Somebody? Okay, I'll make a motion to recommend to council approval with the conditions Jim had outlined plus the addition of the gate at the secondary access. Do we want to read off the conditions? Okay. Correct, five conditions, yes.

Roll call, please.

Yes. Ms. Battles? Mr. Carter?

Yes.

Ms. Kottenberg? Yes. Ms. Kenjen? Yes. Ms. LaRusso? Yes. Mr. Reno?

Yes.

Mr. Garten? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. We have no, on our agenda, we have no unfinished business. We have no additional new business. So we therefore adjourn.