Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Staff present tonight are Dagmarie Segura, Deputy Development Services Director, Mike Rhodes, Development Services Director, Naysa Borquette, Deputy County Attorney, Joe LaFaso, Assistant County Engineer, Joy Giles, Planning Manager, Annie Silloway, Principal Planner, Caitlin Apker, Senior Planner, and Tammy Brushwood, our PNZ Board Clerk. Tonight's meeting will go as follows. Staff will introduce each item. The applicant will present their item. Audience members wishing to speak will next be heard. Audience participation requires that each speaker complete a comment card and give it to the clerk. Comment cards are located out in the lobby. Please check the box if you'd like to make oral comments. Written comments are also welcome. Speakers should restrict their comments to information directly related to the item being heard. When called, speakers should approach the microphone and clearly state their name and address for the record. The board may ask questions of the speaker. After all speakers have been heard, public comment will be closed. The applicant will be given a chance for rebuttal. Any items shown such as videos, presentations, pictures, or maps must be left with the clerk for the public record. Items shown from electronic devices should be emailed to the clerk. A motion will be made and then seconded. Board discussion may occur and will conclude with a vote. I will request a roll call vote for any split votes. Starting with our agenda items, the acceptance and approval of the proof of publication. Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Next, we'll move on to approval of the minutes from the June 3rd, 2026 meeting. Does the board have any changes or do I have a motion?

I move to approve.

Second. In favor? Aye. And moving on to public hearing item number one, this is the Tatra Townhomes Rezone. We have a request to continue this item to our next scheduled meeting date of August 5th, 2026. Caitlin?

Yes, that is correct. The applicant is requesting a continuance.

Okay. I move we continue 2026-0481 to our next regularly scheduled meeting. Second.

Chairman, may we add the specific date on the record in time? It's August 5th at six o'clock, August 5th at six o'clock PM.

Add that to my motion.

Okay, motion and a second. I do have a comment card here. Given that this item will be heard at the next meeting, is there anybody here who'd like to speak that won't be able to make it to the next meeting and be heard at next month's hearing? Okay. In that favor? In that case, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item is continued. Item number two is the Mission Barbecue Special Exception. Kaitlyn Afgar again. Thank you.

Good evening. Kaitlyn Afgar, Planning and Development Services for the Record. The applicant is requesting the approval for a special exception to allow a restaurant within 1,000 feet of a school to obtain an alcohol license in the PD Plan Development District on 0.57 acres, located on the south side of West Lake Mary Boulevard, east of Sun Drive. The property has a future land use of commercial and a zoning designation of PD planned development. The restaurant is part of an existing shopping center and is identified in the e-tour PD as lot two of tract D. The Mission Barbecue establishment currently operates as an existing bonafide restaurant and requests a special exception in order to serve beer and wine for onsite consumption. A bonafide restaurant is considered an establishment where the majority of sales and profit is from the serving of meals and not from the serving of alcoholic beverages per the Seminole County Land Development Code. Section 30.6.6.2 of the Seminole County Land Development Code requires that any establishment selling alcohol beverages for consumption on premise shall maintain a minimum separation distance of 1,000 feet airline measurement from lot line of the establishment to the nearest lot line of the school. The subject property is approximately 501 feet from the closest school, known as the Arbor School of Central Florida, and thus does not meet the 1,000 foot separation requiring the special exception. The proposed development is consistent with the special exception criteria as stated in the following slides and in the staff report. The subject property is within an established shopping plaza where there are other restaurants and commercial uses of similar nature. The requested special exception for an alcohol license is consistent with the commercial nature of the area and is ancillary to the property's function as a restaurant. Considering the property is within a shopping plaza, traffic patterns and calculations have already been accounted for to support the commercial use. The site gains access via the internal drive aisle that connects to some drive, thus reducing any curb cuts onto a main arterial. Adequate parking meeting the Seminole County Land Development Code standards is currently being provided onsite. The existing restaurant is consistent with the comprehensive plan in that the future land use of commercial allows for a variety of commercial establishments intended to be located along major roadways. Lake Mary Boulevard is a principal arterial roadway, therefore the restaurant meets this intent. Within this planned shopping center and along the West Lake Mary Boulevard corridor exist numerous restaurants that serve alcohol. The subject property is not in proximity to residentially developed areas. This area is considered a major commercial node and the ancillary serving of alcohol by a bona fide restaurant is considered customary in practice. In compliance with the Seminole County Land Development Code, the applicant conducted a community meeting on May 1st, 2026. Details of the community meeting have been provided in the agenda package. Staff requests the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the special exception and associated development order as per the motion projected on the slide above. Thank you.

is questions of staff.

I have, yeah. Caitlin, I'm disappointed in you guys. You noticed everybody based on code distances, but your notification list, you notified neither one of the schools. Why was that? You met the code on distance, but I guess the schools are far enough back that they didn't make it. Correct. So do we hear from any of the schools or do we know what they have to say?

I have not received any notification from the schools.

But they maybe don't even know about it, but okay.

Perhaps.

Thanks. I just don't understand, but okay.

Is the applicant present? Would you like to come? Hello. Good evening. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record, and if you'd like to give us a presentation. Absolutely.

So my name is Deborah Main. My address is 4335 West Lake Mary Boulevard, Lake Mary, Florida. I am representing Mission Barbecue. Just to let you know about our beer and wine sales at other Mission Barbecues in the area, it's less than 1% of our sales. It's more so a condiment, per se, than an actual, like, what our total sales are based on. And I can prove facts from other locations, the Oviedo and Claremont and all those. We're just trying to kind of compete with our surrounding restaurants, offering, you know, a beer with a bar, you know, pulled pork sandwich or something like that. But that's all.

Very good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of the applicant?

No. Anybody from the public?

I don't have any comment cards, Tammy, but is there any member of the public who'd like to speak in favor or in opposition to this item? Okay. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Board discussion? Motion?

I'd like to make a motion. I find that the request meets the identified portions of the land development code and I recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the special exception and associated development order to allow with conditions a restaurant within a thousand feet of a school to obtain an alcohol license in the PD planned development district on 0.57 acres located on the south side of West Lake Mary Boulevard east of Sun Drive.

Okay, all in, oh, second.

I'll second it.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No? Very good. That's great. Item number three is the Kentucky Street Special Exception. Annie Silloway.

Good evening. Annie Silloway with Development Services. The request is for a special exception for a proposed 143-foot monopole communication tower and four variances to the required separation distance from properties with existing single-family uses. The request has been evaluated in accordance with the provisions of Seminole County Land Development Code, including Section 30.6.7, which establishes performance standards for communication towers, including setbacks, separation from uses between towers and height. Section 30.3.1.5A, which establishes a special exception criteria, applicable additional use standards in the A1 criteria. Sections 30.6.7.3B, Table 1, which establishes the variances criteria for communication towers including aesthetics, impacts, compatibility with abutting properties, additional provisions per Section 30.6.7.1 and consideration of Section 30.43 , which establishes a standard variance criteria applicable to all variance requests. During this presentation, I'll walk you through each of these required evaluations. At the conclusion of the presentation, staff will provide its recommendation for both the special exception and the requested variances. The applicant is requesting approval of a special exception to construct 143 foot monopole communication tower designed to accommodate up to three wireless carriers. The property has a future land use designation of higher intensity planned development airport and is zoned A1 agriculture. Subject property is approximately 1.67 acres, meeting the minimum required lot size and lot width of the A1 zoning district. The applicant proposes to place the communication tower in the northeast corner of the vacant site. Special exception is required for the communication towers within A1 zoning district. And the special exception request shall be evaluated for compliance with all applicable sections of the Seminole County Land Development Code. Pursuant to Section 30.6.7.3, communication towers must maintain a minimum separation distance from existing single-family residential uses of 200 feet or 300% of the height of the tower, whichever is greater. unless a variance is granted. Such variance may be approved upon findings that the proposed tower minimizes aesthetic impacts and remains compatible with surrounding properties. The proposed tower height is 143 feet which requires a separation distance of 429 feet. Four variances are being requested from the required separation distance of 429 feet, measured from the outer extremity of the base of the communication tower to the property line of the parcel that has an existing single-family residential use. The tower is proposed to be located approximately 111 feet from the nearest property line of a residential use. The remaining three residential parcels are located at a distance of 141 feet, 307 feet, and 308 feet from the base of the proposed communication tower. The applicant has obtained consent from all affected property owners for the reduced separation distance. After review of the special exception request, the Board of County Commissioners may approve the request if it is determined that the use requested meets the following special exception criteria as shown on the screen. The proposed 130-foot monopole communication tower would negatively impact the character of the surrounding residential area with this encroachment intensified by the minimum separation distance of only 111 feet from the nearest residential property line. While the tower would generate de minimis traffic and telecommunications facilities are allowed within the HIPAA P future land use designation, its proximity to nearby residences creates adverse effects despite its passive nature and limited noise. Although the tower meets the A1 zoning district's required side and rear setbacks, it does not meet the required 429-foot separation from four adjacent residential properties. Promoting the applicant's request for a variance, the applicant has demonstrated that the tower complies with the variance required 1500 foot separation from other existing towers based on the GPS verified location data. The subject property and surrounding parcels are zoned A1, but the HIPAA P future land use designation signals a long-term transition away from agriculture toward airport-compatible development. As this area grows, new uses will align with that direction rather than agriculture activity. The proposed monopole communication tower, a passive and low-intensity facility with no daily traffic, noise, or onsite activity fits the intent of this future land use framework. Staff finds the proposed communication tower generally satisfies the special exception criteria of Section 30.3.1.5. However, because approval of the special exception is contingent upon approval of the associated variances, staff cannot support approval of the special exception unless the variances are approved. A variance may be granted if it is found that the aesthetic impacts of the tower are enhanced, that compatibility with abutting property owners is maintained, and the approval of the tower location would be consistent and further the provisions of Seminole County Section 30.6.7.1. Staff finds that the proposed 143 foot monopole galvanized finish and eight foot opaque vinyl fence provides some visual mitigation by reducing the tower's overall visual mass and screening the ground equipment compound. However, the fence does not screen the tower itself and the Seminole County Land Development Code identifies the required 429 foot separation from residential properties as the primary means of minimizing visual impacts. The proposed setback of approximately 111, 141, 307 and 308 feet substantially reduced the required buffer and staff finds the proposed mitigation measures are not sufficient to offset the increased visual of the tower. Although the affected property owners submitted letters of support, staff finds the requested variance remains inconsistent with the code's intent to maintain compatibility between communication towers and nearby residential uses. The required separation distance was established. to protect residential areas, promote compatibility, and further broader public welfare objectives, and staff finds the magnitude of the requested reduction does not maintain the level of protection contemplated by the code. Staff further finds that the proposal is generally consistent with the code's objectives in accommodating additional wireless communication infrastructure, encouraging co-location through a tower designed to support up to three wireless carriers, and providing sufficient information for review. However, the proposal does not fully satisfy the code's objectives regarding appropriate tower setting, protection of residential areas, minimization of visual impacts, and maintaining compatibility with adjacent residential properties because the requested variance substantially reduces the required 429 feet separation distance. That serves as the primary protective buffer established by the code. While the proposal supports the expansion of wireless infrastructure and incorporates design features that reduce some visual impacts, staff finds those measures do not adequately compensate for the significant reduction in the required residential separation distance. Therefore, staff concludes that the requested variance is inconsistent with the applicable evaluation criteria of the Seminole County Land Development Code and does not support the approval of the request. Standard variance criteria is staff evaluated the request against the six required variance criteria. First, while the proximity of the surrounding residential properties limits tower placement on the site, staff does not find that these conditions to be unique or substantially different from the other similarly zoned properties. Second, staff finds the need for the variance results from the applicant's decision to locate the tower on a site that cannot meet the required residential separation distance. Third, staff finds approval would not confer a special privilege because the variance process is available to all similarly situated properties under the same standards. Fourth, staff finds the strict application of the Land Development Code would not deprive the property of rights commonly enjoyed by other A1 properties. as the site retains all permitted uses within the zoning district and the applicant is responsible for demonstrating unnecessary hardship. Fifth, while the applicant has located the tower in the northeast portion of the property to maximize separation from nearby residences and has obtained letters of support from the affected property owners, staff finds the property retains reasonable use without the variance. Finally, staff finds the request is not in harmony with the intent and purpose of Chapter 30 because it substantially reduces the required residential separation distance established to protect compatibility and minimize visual impacts. Although the proposal includes monopole design and an eight-foot opaque fence, staff finds these mitigation measures are not proportionable to the magnitude of the requested reduction and does not support approval of the variance.

Thank you.

So staff finds the proposed communication tower generally satisfies the special exception criteria of section 30.1.5. However, the requested variance would substantially reduce the required 429 foot residential separation distance, undermining the compatibility and visual protection established by the land development code. and proposed mitigation measures do not adequately offset the magnitude of the requested reduction. Staff recommends denial of the requested variances and the associated special exception. If the Commission chooses to proceed with the approval of the variance request, staff requests the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the special exception to the Board of County Commissioners. And just to let you guys know, there was a community meeting held on April 8th and the details are in your agenda package. So the requested action is that staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny the requested variance due to the required separation distance between the proposed communication tower and existing residential development because the special exception is contingent upon approval of the variance. Staff cannot support the special exception unless the variance is granted. So staff recommends the following motion as shown on the screen. And thank you for listening, and that concludes my presentation. Thank you, Annie. Are there questions of staff?

Is the applicant present?

Okay. Chairman, can I just make one clarification for the record? The slide that Annie showed that said if you decide to approve this request, those are the conditions that staff would suggest be associated with the approval. Those conditions can be found in the agenda packet. On page 88, it's in the development order, the draft development order. Give us a handout, too.

Oh, perfect. OK. Is the applicant present? Yes.

Can I? I have a PowerPoint.

Can I?

I just spread out. Is this microphone on? While they're working on that, I'm Mary Dodie Solick, 121 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1500, Orlando, Florida. I am legal counsel for C4 Towers, who is the tower developer in this particular application. Tim O'Shaughnessy is the principal of C4. He's here with me tonight. And I'm waiting on my PowerPoint. I have a hard copy if you want me to just put it on the Elmo. There's a soccer game tonight. I want to keep you here. OK, good evening. I have an aerial here for you. I want to just give you a little bit more background about this particular location. This is Kentucky Street. This is Cameron. This is Lake Jessup. All of this property here is owned by the city of Sanford. It's their utility works. The City of Sanford also owns all of this property over here. So we're surrounded on the north and on the east by City of Sanford property intended for utility uses. So you already have sort of an industrial use affecting this particular neighborhood. We pushed the tower location all the way up in the northeast corner so we could move it as far away from residences as possible. So here's our site plan. The tower compound is up here. It's a 139-foot tower with a 4-foot lightning rod, which makes it a total height of 143. And you multiply that by 300%, and that gives you your setback of 429. We have an FAA approval for a 155-foot tower, but if we did a 155-foot tower here, we would increase the variance significantly. length on these four properties to the east and southwest, and we wouldn't meet the variance to the residential structure that's on this property. So I advise my client to lower the height so that we could minimize the variances, at least not have to need one from the residential property that's right here. It's a 70 by 70 foot leased area, 60 by 60 foot compound all up in here. The tower has a 38 foot fall zone radius, so in the unlikely event of tower failure, it would fall completely within the parent tract. The access comes off of Kentucky and runs along the southern boundary of the property and then all the way up the eastern property line. As Annie mentioned to you, this is an area that is zoned agricultural, and there are some residential structures out there, but there is an underlying high-intensity airport future land use, which means this property, this area, will be in transition. The agricultural zoning is really more of a holding pattern out there. This is an elevation drawing of the tower. We're showing three co-locators on it at 139 feet of steel. That's about the most you can get on it. You also only have three licensed carriers left in your marketplace. This is a T-Mobile anchored tower, but there will be space on the tower available for AT&T and Verizon as their needs and their budgets allow. We anticipate that all three carriers will end up on this pole. Eight-foot fence, opaque fence at the bottom. We have landscaping around the compound. As Annie's mentioned, we meet all of the performance criteria related to fencing, landscaping, property line setbacks, et cetera. So this is the setback map, but I've got a better map that I'm going to show you in just a minute. Annie mentioned consents. This is a section in your code, section 30.6.7.3, subsection B3. This is what your code reads. Reduced separation distances may be reduced by the planning manager when written consent as set forth in a recordable instrument is obtained from all property owners within the applicable separation distance. There are four properties that have a residential structure on them that are within the applicable setback distance. We submitted notarized written consents on forms that the county had approved for all four properties, but the planning manager refused to reduce the separations. So we come in and look at your code and we look at the environment and we see that you anticipate that separation reductions might be needed and that if you gain the consent of the affected property owners, those reductions can be achieved. So we walked in with our application complying with this code section and relying on this code section. You have this table in your staff report. These are the separations provided. I want to point out a couple things to you. The owners are listed in this column here. You have one Baker Financial Solutions, Stephen Fair, GEB Properties, and Ronald Shaw and Johnny Mayshaw. I'm going to start with the Ronald Shaw and Johnny Mayshaw. Our landlord on our property... is Johnny Shaw. This property is owned by Ronald Shaw and Johnny Shaw. It's adjacent to our subject property. So our landlord, essentially, is the property that is right next door. And that is the only one of these four properties that have homestead exemption. All of the three others... are, well, I don't know, investor. I know that Steve Fair is an investor. He's purchased that property as a long-term investment hold. But the other two are owned by LLCs or by corporations. These are not family homesteads that we are seeking the separation from. I'm going to set this aside for a minute, but I do want you to note this column on the far right. This is the actual setback to the residential structures on each of those properties. Your code requires that we set back from the outer base of the tower to the property line on which the residential structure is located. Annie showed you that map that had the four red lines. Each of those red lines just went to the property line of the property with the offsite structure. This might be a little hard to read, but I had our survey, our engineer measure the actual distance from the base of the tower to the actual structure on each of the properties. Most of these are these long, skinny, irregularly shaped properties, very deep. And when you do that, you come up with different numbers. So on the Shaw property down here, this is the property that is next to our subject property. The setback to the property line is only 141.7 feet. The setback to the structure is 561.6 feet. You go to Baker Financial. That is this property right here. I'm sorry. That's this one up here. No, it is this one. The setback to the property line is 308.8 feet. I had it wrong. I was right the first time. 308.8 feet, but to the structure it's 341.10. That's really the only one where the distance between the property line and the structure is not that great. The fair property, the setback to the property line is 111 feet. The distance to the structure is 473.6 feet. And on the GEB properties site, the setback is 307 to the property line and the distance to the structure is 569.3. I'm going to put this back up because I think this is a better representation. So when the staff talks to you about not supporting the variances because they don't meet the intent of the code to provide the buffer, the visual impact buffer to the structures, there are unique circumstances out there that demonstrate that On three of the four properties, the distance between the tower and the structure exceeds the 429 feet. There really is buffering out there. We have met the intent of the code when it comes to the buffering, the separation between the tower as visual impact and the structure itself. None of these structures that we need to be set back from face the tower. They either face Jessup or they face Kentucky. So we would argue that we've met the intent of your code and that there are unique circumstances out there given the layout of these properties and the locations of the homes that demonstrate that we are meeting the setbacks and every single one of those property owners has okayed it. None of them object. They've all signed notarized written consent. We don't have... Many choices out in this area. Here's our subject property. All of this is the agricultural zoning HIPP future land use. We have fairly dense residential to the west and to the southwest. You have to set back from residential zoning and residential structures to meet a 429-foot setback. on a rectangular piece of property, it would require a 3.4 acre piece of property to meet the setbacks. We can't provide service out in this area and meet a setback anywhere else out here due to the dense residential that's nearby. So I'm going to walk you through the variance criteria. And I would argue that we do meet the variance criteria. Number one, these were the questions posed to me. What are the special conditions and circumstances that exist that are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved, which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district? Towers are inherently tall structures. We cannot make them short. No other structure or building that's approved in the agricultural zoning district is subject to residential building separation requirements. That is a unique or special circumstance. And how are these not the result of the actions of the applicant? No other property in our search area could meet separation requirements. But we've come to you with a property where none of the affected property owners object. How would the granting not confer on the applicant any special privilege that's denied to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? No other buildings or structures in agriculture or zoning are subject to the same residential structure separation requirements. The unnecessary and undue hardship being imposed is the staff's failure to recognize that we submitted notarized written consents from all four affected property owners agreeing to a reduced separation. The variances requested are the minimums that will allow for the minimum tower height needed by the three wireless carriers in your marketplace. And I remind you that we lowered our height from the FAA-approved 155 to 139 so that we would eliminate the variance to the structure directly south of the Shaw property. And the variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of your zoning regulations and not injurious to the neighborhood. We pushed it all the way up into the northeast corner as far as we could near the city of Sanford's wastewater treatment facilities and their proposed facilities to the east. We have maximized the separation from all of the residential structures. And we requested the minimum height we need to get three carriers on there to provide the service that is needed to this community. With that, I would ask for your approval. Do you have any questions for me or for Mr. O'Shaughnessy? Do we have any questions of the applicant?

No?

We'll give you a chance for a rebuttal. We'll check the audience first. I do see some handouts, some emails in opposition to this item that have been provided by our clerk. But is there any member of the audience here tonight that would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this item? Come on up and state your name and address for the record.

So my name is Ravi. I live in 4410 Foggy, Oakland, just south of the property that they're proposing. It's a dense community called River Run Preserve. So a lot of my friends are also from the same community representing here. We are opposing the setting up of this tower, considering various things. That is being, of course, the county has already highlighted all the objections that is not fitting that requirement. On top of it, we also oppose because of the many conditions. One of them would be it affects the value of our properties and also the aesthetics when we are Sitting in our properties, we can see the tower. We don't want to see the towers. So that is not a requirement. And we identified this property just two years ago. And we bought this property. And already, it is kind of changing. I prefer to recommend to keep the property in a residential zoning itself instead of converting into commercial zoning. And in terms of the property availability, just north of West Lake Mallee Boulevard is all completely industrial land available. And if you see the listings, there are hundreds of listings available in that neighborhood for sale on lease. So that can be considered for setting up this tower instead of affecting the residential zoning areas. So that's, thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other member? Go ahead and come up, sir. Yeah, Tammy will get him up there, but could you state your name and address?

My name is Raghu Kundurthi, and I live on 491 Rainfall, northeast of... this particular, southwest of the particular dense community that the C4 Tower lady rep had actually referenced, right there, right across the northeast abutting area of the tower, proposed tower site, you have the Galileo School, and you have a 90, close to 90 house, residential area, which is completely occupied. And the demographics of the age groups are infants to 40s and elderly. The reason I bring this up is I come from a telecommunications background. When a tower is put out by any of these wireless providers, the type of the wavelength is important. Is it LTE? Is it WiMAX? Is it CDMA? Is it GPRS? Is it 5G? which is why none of the cities in the country would ever allow an urban area to be, or close to an urban area which is densely populated, ever be picked as a site for a cell tower. And the other point is, coming to aesthetics, all the cell companies, wireless providers, have virtually made it important that a tower be completely camouflaged with decorative, I guess, canopies. That's another factor. Now, coming to this particular site, which actually is Kedikee and Skyway, you have a Boomba Sport Complex, which is constantly heavily occupied by children. And you have the residential area that we live in. where we, during the entire school season, when the Galileo School is in session, we take that route, Cameron, to go do our shopping at the Publix. So that's heavily traveled. It's not lightly traveled. The traffic is very high. Now this particular cell tower location, which is basically around the intersection of Kentucky and Jessup, is right very close to Boomba Sport Complex adjacent and abutting the southwest densely populated regions during the school season as well as otherwise too. So in that context, Having coming from a telecommunication background, I've seen at Kansas City, where I live, there was a lot of, not protest, but certainly awareness as to why we should not have it very close to any region which is developing fast with more residential population coming in. That's my point. Thank you.

Sir, will you stay and fill out a comment card for Tammy, please? Is there any other member of the audience who'd like to speak in favor or in opposition to this item? Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Would the applicant like a chance to rebut?

Just a couple of points, and I'm going to work backwards. The cell tower generates very, very little traffic once it's constructed, usually one vehicle trip per quarter per carrier to come out, inspect the tower in a light duty vehicle. I would venture to guess that the high intensity airport future land use of that area will generate far more traffic in the future than the cell tower ever will. The last speaker seemed to object to placing the tower in an area that's growing or near the sports complex or where there's a lot of activity, but that's exactly what drives the need for it. The people out there in their homes, at the schools, at the sports complex, at the airport, that density is what drives the need for additional coverage. So we need to be where the people are. That's how we get coverage to those folks. And the first speaker and this speaker are, I did some quick measurements today. The first row of homes south of Kentucky Street in that neighborhood to the south is over 650 feet away from the tower. So we meet the residential separation requirement from that tower. And that is your means of addressing visual impact is that setback. And we far exceed that from those residences to the south. Tim, anything else? Do you want to add anything? Tim would like to say something. He's recovering from knee replacement surgery.

So my name is Tim O'Shaughnessy, 4526 Ender Street, Orlando, Florida, 32814. So basically there's a real need coverage out here. There's no coverage out here. I spent about eight months, nine months out here looking for the right property. I'm from Seminole County Elementary School. middle school, high school, similar community college. So I care about the people in this neighborhood. So I care about anybody I go site to site. So this thing looks like it sits in the water treatment plant. If you go out there, there's nothing but a bunch of really high-growth stuff and whatever. But I thought I did a really good job siting the thing. I talked to all the neighbors consistently.

reached out reached out to everybody i could and this is what we came up with there's no other property but there's no coverage out here there's just no coverage and it's the best i could have done that's it thank you okay board discussion or a motion i have a question of staff uh the city of sanford property i guess it's to the east can you tell me what the underlying land use is on that property no i my question is the staff not you i'm sorry

Deputy Director. The future land use for Sanford is airport industry and commerce.

So it's a business type?

Yeah, this property is also included in the small area study that we did a couple of years ago and it's being designated as a mixed use area.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other board discussion, questions, motion?

I just make a couple comments, I guess. I appreciate the fact that they had four letters from the property owners that they believe were impacted. I think, though, that I'm a little concerned here that we all know that the demand for towers is increasing. We're going to see more of these. There's a big need. And I just don't want to see us set a precedent but there's some pretty good, I know it from the tower to the house, as she pointed out, was quite a bit of distance, but if you really looked at to the property line, which is what the code says, it's like a 75% variance. So, you know, I'm worried about the precedent we set because we're going to see more towers if there is a need. So I'm not quite sure what to do here myself. I'd like to hear from some of you guys.

I'm in the same boat. I do agree, and I appreciate, first, all of the background work that you all have done. I appreciate that. This was a lot of work and a lot of information. But I tend to agree with you on setting the precedent. I know we have a big need for cell phone towers, especially with everything that's happening and that's going to happen around the airport. but I don't necessarily, and I appreciate the eight months worth of searching, but I do tend to agree that, you know, I kind of put myself in the position of being there, whether I'm a homeowner living in a rented house, right? I'm sorry, a tenant living in one of those rental homes or a homeowner. And I'm not sure if that's something that I would want to look at. And I know you're aesthetically you're making it look nicer but i'm not sure if that's something just because it's so close that i would be comfortable with so that's i'm ready to make a motion if nobody else has any

I got a comment to make. The purpose of a special exemption is because it's not exactly meeting the code. And my opinion is as long as the people that it's going to directly affect aren't opposed to it, and as long as that variance is going to create some kind of value to somebody, And in this case, it's not just as somebody. This is going to be an entire community. This is going to be people that are going to be residing there. This is going to be people that are going to be passing through there, touring through there. I think the benefits outweigh the concerns of establishing a presence. That's the whole point of a variance. So I don't know what with your motion, but I'm actually supporting it.

No, and I appreciate that, what you're saying. But I do think that, like I said, this would create some problems in the future. I do know that we do need additional cell phone towers, obviously, with the growing population, especially the businesses and the residences. But I think that there's another place for it. I think that there's another location for it. Do we have a motion? Anybody? I'll make a motion. I find that the requested variances do not satisfy the applicable criteria of the Seminole County Land Development Code as presented by staff and recommend the denial of the requested variances because the approval of the special exemption is contingent upon approval of variances. The Planning and Zoning Commission further recommends the denial, I do, of the special exception.

I'll second that motion.

Okay. All in favor of the motion which is denying the special exception? Aye. Opposed? Aye. So the special exception is denied. Or that's what's being transferred to the board, right?

Yeah. And the variance is the motion was for both.

Okay. Item number four. Isola. Am I saying that correct? Isola. Retail PD major amendment rezone. Annie Silloway.

Okay. Good evening. Annie Silloway with Development Services. This application is to consider a rezone from PD plan development to PD plan development to permit and restrict outdoor storage exclusively for Building 2 within the Isola Retail PD on approximately 3.25 acres located on the west side of Longwood Lake Mary Road, 300 feet north of Ronald Reagan Boulevard. The applicant is requesting a rezone from PD plan development to PD plan development to permit outdoor storage exclusively to Building 2 within the Ayasola Retail PD. The subject property has an industrial future land use designation, which allows a maximum intensity of 0.65 floor area ratio. The intent of the industrial land use designation is to provide appropriate locations for a variety of heavy commercial and industrial uses oriented toward wholesale distribution, storage, manufacturing, and other industrial uses. On February 8, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners did approve the Isola Retail PD permitting C3, heavy commercial and very light industrial uses, while prohibiting certain uses, including but not limited to marine sales and service, mechanical garages, and outdoor storage. The applicant is requesting approval to include the use of outdoor storage on the developed site limited to the southwest portion of the development and restricted to the tenant occupying building 2. The proposed outdoor storage area will not impede or adversely affect on-site traffic circulation within the existing developed site with accessing coming off of Longwood Lake Mary Road. An existing dumpster enclosure is located within the proposed outdoor storage area and will remain in place. The applicant has provided a letter of acceptance from WastePro confirming that the proposed additional fencing around the storage area is acceptable provided that adequate access to the dumpster enclosure is maintained for service and collection operations to ensure uninterrupted service. So WastePro has identified the following conditions for continued service. The dumpster enclosure and surrounding storage area must maintain adequate maneuvering and access space for service vehicles during scheduled collection times. A gate combination, lock code, or other approved access methods must be provided for the exterior gate to allow drivers access. to the dumpster enclosure for servicing as necessary. And the proposed outdoor storage will not add any impervious area, therefore the applicant is not required to modify the existing stormwater pond. The existing development meets the review criteria for the PD, and the PD zoning is consistent with the industrial future land use, and such as C3, which are permitted within the IASOLA retail PD, typically allow outdoor storage of parts, supplies, and materials within an enclosed or fenced area. The applicant is exceeding the arbor requirements of this code by proposing to install three southern magnolia trees, each with a minimum three caliper inch and minimum height of 10 feet around the outdoor storage area. And they are going to be providing five parking spaces near the front of the site to accommodate customers and employees who use bicycles for transportation. The applicant does meet section 30.8.5.3d one through four of the plan development criteria. The proposed plan development zoning classification is compatible with the surrounding industrial development and is consistent with the allowable use and intensity provisions of the industrial future land use designation. That includes adequate buffering and opaque fence to provide visual screening from Lake Mary, along with Lake Mary Road and adjacent properties. So staff finds the requested PD zoning classification to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant did conduct a community meeting on April 27th and the details are in your agenda package. And the ISL Retail PD amendment rezone is proposed to be heard on August 11th by the Board of County Commissioners. So staff requests the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the ordinance enacting a rezone from PD to PD as per the following motion provided on the screen. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Annie. Are there questions of staff? Is the applicant present? Yes.

My name is John Frith, Frith & Associates. I'm the engineer on the project, and we concur with the staff's notes and approval. And if you have any questions, Bob Bezzola, the owner, is here also. We can answer any questions.

Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant? No? Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any members in the audience who'd like to speak on this item?

Okay.

In that case, do we have any board discussion? Any motions?

I'll go in. I'll make a motion. I find the request meets the identified portions of the Seminole County Land Development Code and recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the ordinance enacting a rezone from PD plan development to PD plan development and approve the associated addendum number one to the development order and master development plan on approximately 3.25 acres located on the west side of Longwood Lake Mary Road, 300 feet north of Ronald Reagan Boulevard.

I second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. Very good. Item number five, the Sanford Commerce Center small scale future land use map amendment and PD major amendment rezone.

And if you would just bear with us for one moment longer, we are having technical difficulties again. Thank you.

Office supplies. This is a nice presentation.

Okay. Good evening again. Annie Sillaway with Development Services. The applicant is requesting a small-scale future land use map amendment from commercial to industrial along with a rezone from PD plan development to PD plan development to allow development of 144,000 square feet of flex space intended for a mix of commercial and industrial uses on 17.23 acres. On November 15th, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners approved a request for a small-scale future land use amendment from commercial to industrial on approximately 9.9 acres, along with a rezone from A1 agriculture to PD plan development on approximately 22.3 acres, known as the Orange Boulevard PD. The purpose of the request was to allow commercial uses permitted under the C1 retail commercial and C2 general commercial zoning districts on lots 1 through 4 and to allow industrial uses permitted under the C3 heavy commercial and very light industrial and M1A very light industrial zoning districts only on lots 2 and 3. In 2024, lot 1 was removed from the PD, reducing the acreage from 22.3 acres to 17.23 acres and was replatted to combine lots 2 through 4 into lot 2. And that is lots two through four on the screen for you guys. The purpose of this land use amendment and rezone is to allow those C3 and M1A uses throughout the entire PD on lot two, instead of restricting those uses to a designated area. The applicant is retaining the original entitlements previously approved by the board, including but not limited to a maximum floor area ratio of 0.65. a maximum building height of 35 feet and a building setback of 100 feet for a two-story building and 150 feet for a three-story building along the west perimeter adjacent to the residential Bookertown neighborhood. The previously established prohibited uses also remain in effect including mechanical garages, lumber yards, construction companies with outdoor storage, highway striping companies, paint and body shops, office showrooms without assembly, or manufacturing and service stations with gas pumps as an accessory use and communication towers. The applicant is also maintaining the existing 25-foot landscape buffer along the west portion of the site to preserve the established buffer. So in addition to retaining these entitlements, the applicant is proposing three modifications to the PD. The first one is vacating the west 70 foot platted access drainage and utility easement to allow expansion of the proposed flex space warehouse building, which would otherwise encroach into a portion of that easement. And the second one is amending the future land use designation on the portion of land previously known as Lot 4 of the Orange Boulevard PD from commercial to industrial and adding permitted uses consistent with the C3 and M1A zoning districts. And third, increasing the west perimeter building setback from the previous 50 feet for a one-story building to 60 feet. The applicant is also requesting a parking reduction as follows. So the Seminole County Land Development Code does require manufacturing concerns and warehouses, which require one space for two employees plus one space for a company vehicle. And for general business retail office, the first 1,000 square feet is four spaces per 1,000 square feet. And above 10,000 square feet are three spaces per 1,000 square feet. So what is proposed by the applicant is that for warehouses is 0.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. General business retail and office is three spaces per 1,000 square feet. And due to the allowable mixes of uses on site, staff does not support the parking reduction as proposed by the applicant and recommends the following. So we as staff are proposing a minimum parking ratio of two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. This recommendation does reflect the wide range of permitted uses proposed within the Sanford Commerce PD. And because of these uses vary in intensity, staff determined that a consistent minimum parking ratio of two spaces per thousand square feet is appropriate and can be reasonably met by all permitted uses within the district. Access to the subject site is proposed through lot one to the north, which connects to Orange Boulevard and Urban Major Collector Road. And Orange Boulevard currently operates at a level service of A or B, depending on the direction and time of day, and has a programmed improvements in the county's five-year capital improvements program. The developer will be required to construct a sidewalk extending to the north boundary line of the subject site, allowing the future developer of lot one adjacent to the north to complete the remaining sidewalk segment and connect it to the existing sidewalk along Orange Boulevard. The applicant has met the PD review criteria as the requested small-scale future land use map amendment and PD major amendment allowing C3 and M1A uses are consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. Although residential uses lie to the west, the north and the east are established with industrial development reflecting the area's broader pattern of heavy commercial and industrial uses. The PD sets limits on FAR, the uses, setbacks, buffers, and height, and the applicant provides added benefits including the SEPTED features and an innovative flex space warehouse supporting economic development and a substantial west side buffer adjacent to the neighborhood. And the project meets the Arbor Code requirements and adds internal pedestrian and bicycle connections to Orange Boulevard. The subject property does not have any existing trees on site. However, the developer proposes to plant a substantial buffer along the west perimeter of the development adjacent to the existing residential neighborhood. As an infill project, the proposed development is consistent with the Central Florida Regional Growth Vision. It also supports policy TRA 2.43, which promotes infill development to maximize the efficient use of the existing transportation network within urban areas. And additionally, the project is consistent with policy FLU 5.4.6, which encourages employment and industrial uses adjacent to residential areas, provided that compatibility is maintained. To ensure compatibility with the adjacent Bookertown neighborhood, the applicant will provide a 25-foot landscape buffer and an increased building setback of at least 60 feet along the west portion of the site. Staff finds the proposed industrial future land use designation and the PD zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant had a community meeting on May 14th of this year and the details are included in your agenda package. And this item is scheduled to be heard on August 11th to the Board of County Commissioners. So staff requests the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners adoption of the ordinance enacting a small-scale future land use map amendment and concurrent rezoning ordinance per the following two motions, as you can see on the screen. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Annie.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions of staff? Is the applicant present?

So close. That's fine.

Just that's enough. Yes. Yeah. All right. Hey, guys. My name's Drew Thigpen. I'm with Pelican Industrial and excited to talk to you all tonight about our proposed Sanford Commerce Center. I think it's always helpful to know who you're talking to. As mentioned, Drew Thigpen. I am one of four of the owners and founders of Pelican Industrial. We were started in 2021 when my college roommate and I traded in our orange Clemson shirts for a couple of Navy Blazers. grabbed two gray hairs to lend us some credibility, and now we are a company. And we have been focusing exclusively on the development of the type of projects that we'll be talking to you all tonight ever since. Some quick highlights. This is right at $30 million total cost to deliver this project through to occupancy. It'll estimate, we generate, we estimate it will generate right at a quarter million dollars annually in new tax revenue. One item that we have started to emphasize at our projects is that we are committed to deliver this project in a single phase in under a year. I think we've all seen the construction announcement. Everybody's excited, and all of a sudden it's three, four years of the orange construction fencing, the dirt trucks going in and out. That's not what this is. We'll be in and out, fully delivered and occupied in under a year. And then lastly, one of the things that we're really excited about, we'll get into here in a second, is that this is a job-creating product and project for Seminole County. What are we trying to do? What we develop, what we focus on is a hybrid project. It's called a number of different things depending on where you're at. We call it Shallow Bay. It's called light industrial, commercial service, flex, all sorts of things, but it is a product that basically straddles Shallow Bay warehouse and single story suburban office. So what we're looking for are tenants that from the front, this is the front of an actual building of ours. You are perceiving this as single story office. You have real brick cast in the elevations. You have large eight foot bay windows. You have storefronts and canopies. You can approach this and feel as if you're going into office space. And then from the rear, we have those industrial loading features that these businesses need to operate. And this is something that's significantly undersupplied in most all of the markets that we go to. We're in North Carolina, South Carolina. We're about to break ground on our first project in Greater Orlando in Oakland, and we're in Texas. We see throughout all of those markets that This is the product no one's focusing on. Everybody from an industrial lens is developing for Bezos and Musk. They're developing for the 500,000 square foot tenant, not the 10,000 square foot plumber. That's what we're trying to do. This next slide tries to speak to that and answer the question that we get all the time, which we can't really answer, is who are you leasing this to? Who are your tenants for each project? The reason we can't answer that is because this is an entirely speculative program. We build every one of our projects without any idea who we're going to lease to. where that larger type of product is focused on, hey, there is an Amazon in the market, a Walmart looking for 500,000 square feet. Let's build a project for them. We focus instead on the demographics. Hey, this area is growing. It meets the threshold that we know will warrant growth. business creation to service all of those rooftops so that's what we're focusing on as opposed to specific tenants and so because of that we don't know the answer of exactly who we're going to lease to it's going to be who's looking for space when we deliver but what you'll see with this pie chart is it's an incredibly diverse rent roll which allows us to stay well occupied stay consistently consistently full regardless of some of the macroeconomic cycles that you'll see when you're betting on one specific sector. Our side, and you mentioned this, so we're bracketed north-south by Orange Boulevard and I-4 and then to the west by the Bookertown neighborhood. This is our site. This is the site plan that we've put together, worked on staff with. A couple of things to highlight that are very intentional. If you'll see, this is kind of oriented, not north-south, but basically plan right and left are your north-south directions. In each of those, the outward facing exterior will be that office appearance so from the exterior of the site on both the north and the southern facing view so along orange boulevard and i-4 you will see this and then the other important thing is that to what is kind of planned top but in reality to the west that's the bookertown neighborhood that we wanted to ensure that they weren't viewing and perceiving all of those loading activities. And so we oriented the buildings perpendicular to that neighborhood so that those lines of sight would not be seeing those loading operations. And then there's a 25-foot landscaping buffer as well as 10-foot screening walls that extend out, again, to ensure that none of those residents are feeling the large-scale impact of this development. And then the last thing to highlight, those four stormwater ponds, those are already approved by St. John's Water Management, they're already improved by Duke, they're already constructed, so they are in place and we tie into them. This rendering, this just kind of confirms that the design for this project will be the same as the picture that we showed. This would be the perspective of someone right up there in that top right corner looking back towards our project. Annie walked you all through the current plan. This is my attempt to do the same. And then the next slide is really just highlighting what we're changing. So as mentioned, we're currently a three lot site. Two of the lots allow for the C3 and the M1A uses that we're wanting to add to that leftmost triangle piece. And we're looking to just make that one comprehensive plot that has all of the shared uses across it. And then to highlight what was mentioned, we were actually able to work within our site plan layout to increase the minimum current 50-foot building setback to the west up to 60 feet. So add an additional 10 feet away from that neighborhood. One item that we weren't able to get consensus on with staff was around the parking. So as mentioned, it was requested of us to provide two spaces per 1,000 square feet. Having developed exclusively this product, we know that what we have provided is already significantly over part for these tenants. We simply couldn't accommodate the 280 plus spaces that that would require. What we did was we tried to provide you all context in two different ways. The first way we analyzed it was, how do our tenants physically set up this space? What they typically do, what we see across our portfolio average is about 75% of the space is warehouse. and 25% of it is office. And when you take the 0.5 spaces per 1,000 square foot for warehouse across 75% and then the remainder at that 3 per 1,000 square foot of office, you end up with 161 spaces required. And then secondly, we had a traffic engineer analyze this site, determine the required parking that he came up with. It was 167 spaces. Each of those, they're actually quite similar, which was encouraging. We saw that each of those were providing about 10 and 17 more spaces than that. So confident that we will have more than enough parking. I've never seen any of these projects be more than half filled from a parking standpoint. So this would be our request is that y'all would support this parking reduction. And then just to summarize, it's actually just shy of the 144,000 originally proposed. We're now down to 142,800. Quite rare that we come back with less square footage than originally thought. And again, it's focusing on supporting local service-based tenants, investing $30 million and hoping to create right at 250,000 a year in tax revenue. And that's it, unless you all have any questions.

Are there any questions of the applicant? Is there anyone here to speak in favor or in opposition to this item? I see none. Do we have any board discussion or a motion? Questions?

I have a question. Annie, I have a question for you. Just real quick. minimum parking requirements of two spaces that you're requesting. You're requesting that we adopt the ordinance and that we pass this, but nowhere in the request does it mention the change of the parking spaces.

in the staff report or the development order?

In the request where you're asking us to make, right here.

Oh, in the motion. Oh, I can probably answer that. So staff is putting forth their motion, which staff is, their motion is based on the DO containing what staff's proposed, not staff, what the code requires parking and what staff is proposing for parking, which is two spaces for 1,000 feet. if you would want to approve this matter, this item, and instead use the applicant's methodology for parking that they put forth, you would have to include that in the motion.

Is that what, that's what you were asking, correct? Otherwise it's the two parking spaces. Yes, otherwise it's as presented by staff. Understood, okay, I just wanted that for clarity. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other questions, board discussion? Motion.

Andy, did you look at what their other projects and how many parking spaces they used in similar flex space projects?

No, I did not.

So you don't know if their numbers are correct based on the fact that they could be more than adequate based on their experience in flex space in other locales, correct? I mean, they could be right.

If I may. We did not look specifically at their projects, but based on previous experience and data, when we have uses or development that is in a flex space that combines uses from C1 all the way to industrial, we find ourselves in the predicament that retail use such as daycare, gyms, churches, they occupy these uses. The applicant mentioned that it is market driven by the area, and that's what we see in this area. Staff were concerned that if those type of C1 uses are also allowed in this PD, we may have a problem with parking.

Okay, but they're his tenants, so if he does not provide enough spaces, people are not going to rent the space, quite honestly. I mean, and did you guys feel how you were going to let him, you've got a difference of about 100 spaces. Did you figure out how he could provide those, or did you make any suggestions to him on the site plan? Could he provide those?

That's why our recommendation for the ratio is, That was our proposal. We did not agree that what they were proposing was going to be sufficient. It's hard to determine. I do agree that typically you see a 25% of office space. on this type of development but the issue mostly is because of the C1 uses. Those C1 uses are general retail which it could have a greater impact. I don't know what typically in this type of uses that the retail use could be from 10 to 20 percent of the total square footage of the development.

And your calculations was just two spaces per 1,000 feet.

Correct. That would be like the middle grounding between what the code requires and what they are proposing.

And the applicant said how much was going to be office space of... 20% did he say?

He mentions that typically based on, and correct me if I'm wrong, that in their experience is 25% office and 75% industrial. Right? Correct. That's correct. Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Can I add a little bit more though?

I don't think that's necessary. What? We don't need additional testimony from the applicant, do we? Do any of the board members? I think that we're.

He didn't get a chance to. I mean, he had a chance to ask the applicant, but.

It's true.

But if.

A little bit. I won't. Yeah. Okay. I will let him. We're going to let him. Thank you.

Okay, yeah, sorry, still Drew Thigpen. Can we just, if y'all could pull up the site plan, one thing that I would just add, because everything Dagmar was saying is totally correct. One thing that is unique about this product, especially from a parking standpoint, is if kind of the example that was used, a church comes, which is now not going to be 25% office, 75% warehouse. It might be the exact opposite. It might be 75% office, 25% warehouse to store pews or something. What happens is their need for all of that Operational space in the rear if you want to go to that. Oh, do I have it? their need for all of that rear loading space which that's a hundred and seventy feet between each of those buildings that all gets eliminated and so what we have done is we have striped that that rear loading if you do need to add additional parking we very rarely have to do it but it is a significant amount of flat paved readily available parking that we can essentially grab and add to when we need. And so it's just a way for us to say, hey, this is what we're pretty confident we're going to have. But if the market did dictate that we need to handle a higher parked user, we have all of that area in the rear of the building to stripe and to accommodate. And then the last thing I would just say is the .65 FAR was mentioned. We're sub .2. So the only way for us to make more parking work is for us to add more square footage to make the economics work. And right now this is the least impactful way that we could make this project pencil, and it requires the site plan and the parking that we proposed.

So let's say you do end up with a tenant then that you need to add in the additional parking. What's your estimate on how many spaces you can actually add in any one of those? It's a good question.

So let's see. We are, I'm going to go get my calculator real quick. So we are, 178 spaces and that's across 11 rows. So basically each vertical column is 16 cars. You could easily fit eight in the loading, which would be 130 additional parking. And that would be with no parking in kind of an interior spine road. If you wanted to take it as maxed out as kind of right in between buildings two and three, that's another probably 50 parking spots. You could probably add 150 additional parking spots. Again, just so you all know, I know we've got to consider this. We are heavily focused on this being a warehouse-heavy product. For our product type, not to get too into the weeds, but what people don't want to see is the creep of you started at 20% office, then you became 30%, then you became 50%, now you're 100% office, and In the real estate world, no one really wants 100% single-story office right now. So where we have a real attractive market is at that office is just a support function for how these businesses operate versus it's the primary driver.

I guess I'm looking 10, 15 years down the line, though, and then what your future tenants might look at at that point. over 100 parking spot difference between what the code is calling for and what your proposal is is significant. What do you guys think?

I agree with you. Yeah, I tend to agree with you. And especially you don't know necessarily the mix. You yourself said you're not sure of the mix, whether how much is going to be industrial and how much is going to be office. So that is a concern of mine. And then what happens if a tenant comes in and they do require more space, how quickly are you going to react before the other tenants have issues with that? So how long is that process going to take to do something about it? And if you have the opportunity to make additional parking spaces now, why aren't you going ahead and striping them and working with staff that way so that this isn't an issue?

It's a good question. We expect that to be where loading operations are happening. So we don't expect there to be parking. That's not the primary driver for it. I understand everything y'all are concerned about. What if we put a project-wide office cannot exceed... 50% cap, something where, to your point, if the world changes, if this is something that's more attractive for office, we know that we're capped at that threshold. And we know that with what we've provided and with what we can stripe, and we could put together a proposed striping plan, that we could always meet that threshold.

Is the concern for parking office though? It sounded more from the staff comments that it's related to C1 uses. So if we're going to start restricting or capping uses, we want to do that. Is that what I understood you to say?

Correct. And the C-1 uses, they are already entitlements from the existing PD. When we were in the negotiations of the uses, our recommendation was to limit those retail uses, but we understood that they wanted to keep their entitlements.

When I say office, I'm focusing on the actual build out, the footprint of office. If you had 50 percent of your space was office with cubicles, with kitchen, bathroom, whether that was C1, C2, that's the amount of space that will need people to park and support. So that's what we've seen happen in other places is put a cap on the actual amount of office because that's what dictates largely the parking.

I think staff was a little heavy-handed on what they asked for, but at the same time, I think you're a little light. Can you get up to, say, 200 spaces, commit to a minimum of 200 spaces?

If showing where we would stripe them in a proposed loading court stripe plan, I would be okay with that. We can't. accommodate anything more from a dedicated parking only standpoint. If we could show it as what it would be from an overflow parking standpoint, which all of our building rears have pedestrian access. They're totally accessible. Some people have made these buildings entirely office, and they'll take out the rear loading core, and they'll put in windows. So it's totally doable. We've moved around this site plan. To get a little further into it, you can see all plan bottom. There's a bunch of overhead power lines that bracket this site. It's really limited in how it can be laid out. So we had to get Duke's buy-in. We had to get St. John's buy-in for the stormwater ponds. And it leaves us pretty limited on how we can move it around. So day one parking. This is pretty fixed, but we could show a proposed augmented parking plan that shows where we could stripe the loading to get to a higher number.

If you could do that, or if you can't do it now, then how are you going to be able to do it in the future? That's where my question was initially, where I guess Dan was asking. What happens if you have a tenant that is going to need more parking? How quickly are you going to be able to react? Now you're saying that it would be, well, you can't make those changes now in the event of that being an issue. How are you going to make those changes if it does become an issue? So I think that, you know, in order for it not to be an issue, I think that, you know, kind of what Richard is saying, there could be, you know, a compromise here.

Yeah. No, it's... I should explain this better. So we will build this project and there'll be four empty boxes. There'll be no space that's built out in between them. We will then engage with brokers to go out and find tenants. And when we meet with them, they'll say they need 10,000 square feet, 15,000 square feet, 6,000, however much. And we will discuss, okay, that comes with we have delivered you 8 parking spaces, 12 parking spaces, and those are the parking spaces associated with this square footage. If they said that's not enough, then prior to them ever occupying, us signing a lease, or us building out their space, we would evaluate can we stripe in the loading court to do this. Sorry, I thought you had a question. So we would evaluate that. We would work with staff to make sure they bless that. And then that would all be part of the scope of work that we deliver to the tenant so that prior to them occupying, we would have gone out, actually striped those parking spaces. They have the parking they need from day one.

If you had 50% of the spaces for office and 50% for industrial, how many parking spaces would that require?

I didn't know there was going to be so much math on this. All right, let's see.

If I may, can I ask a clarification question? Are we talking about the loading areas that's presented on this plan that you're thinking to add those parking spaces? Yeah. And those are going to be worth... I forgot, the rolling doors, are they going to be designated loading and unloading areas at the time that the building is built?

When we deliver them, yeah, that's how they will be delivered.

The reason I'm asking these questions is because the Land Development Code specifically prohibits that. It says that if you have loading areas, they shall be designated for those loading areas. So that's why I wanted the clarification. If there is any other areas, like the area across from the building that they want to designate additional parking, they can do that. But the areas that are in front of those bay doors, they will have to keep them.

Are there potential safety issues in that scenario too? Because you're not talking about four buildings with four single tenants. You're talking about, I think I saw 17 tenants. So you have a situation where, I mean, is it possible in your other projects, you have a situation where you have a couple of tenants in a building that are actively loading and using those bays while the tenant next door is trying to park and place it?

It's a good question. So you would have to put in, again, the striping, bollards, curves, everything you need to ensure that there's none of that kind of conflict of operations. I guess I'm a little biased on this.

Whenever I visit a Not a site like this, but a situation similar to this, parking is always a nightmare when you're driving in and around it. You've got large vehicles. You're not just talking about residential trikes or light duty vehicles that are driving through there. You've got delivery of whatever the individual tenants are going to be working on and needing to use. And again, it's my own personal experience with it, parking is tough. And so when we're looking at a site that it's short over 100 parking spaces from what the code is asking for, I think it's where we might be looking for trouble here.

I do think the staff, I think the code asks for too much, I'll say that. But I said earlier, I think they're short. So I was looking if there was a compromise to get some more spaces.

And I agree with Richard. And I do understand that if you have to say, okay, those are allocated spaces, then all of a sudden that determines your ratio of future tenants and that's where you're going. You don't want your hands tied. But in order to, I think, work with what the code is and what you want, I do believe that there could be more of a happy medium. Because, I mean, 178 versus 286, that's a big swing. Yes, I know the big question, and this determines your profitability, and that's what you're kind of waiting for in the future, is how many do I need? You don't know. But what Dan is making a good point, and the larger vehicles, especially if you have industrial, you have larger vehicles, plumbing company, delivering products, I mean, that's just a lot. And so I do think that we need to have more concentrated you know base space delivery space and have that kind of separated from the parking and and and you know just designated parking and a little more so so i do tend to agree with you

If it's the pleasure of the board and the chairman, I have a recommendation. You can make a motion to approve it as it is proposed and we will continue working with the, if the applicant agrees, we can continue working with the applicants going over the uses and maybe limiting a little bit more of uses from the retail and find a happy medium if that's an agreement, if they are in agreement.

I like that. Yeah, we'd appreciate that and we'd support that.

And have that completed by the time that we got in front of the BCC.

Okay, if that sounds safe for our purposes. because they would be in, what we would be putting in the recommendation would be at the two spaces per 1,000, the higher number, right?

So as the requested action is written, that's what the idea of the two spaces per 1,000, okay. I'll make a motion. Make a recommendation. to enact a small-scale future land use map amendment and concurrent rezoning ordinance per the following two motions based on staff's findings and the testimony and evidence received at the hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request meets the identified portions of the comprehensive plan and recommends the Board of County Commissioners adopt the ordinance enacting a small-scale future land use map amendment from commercial to industrial. also based on staff's findings and the testimony evidence received at the hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request meets the identified portions of the Seminole County Land Development Code and recommends the Board of County Commissioners adopt the ordinance enacting a rezone from PD to PD and approve the associated development order and master development plan on approximately 17.23 acres located on the south side of Orange Boulevard, approximately one-half mile east of Oregon Street.

Do we have a second? Did you also want to include in your motion that there's direction to staff to continue to work with the applicant on the parking ratio?

I thought that was understood.

I mean, the motion you made, Dan, puts them at 286 spaces because that's staff's report that you're adopting.

Right. We have an informal agreement between both of them that they're going to continue to work together. I don't know if we need to formalize that. Do we? Should we?

I would say, yeah, add that to the motion. Well, it would be reflected in the minutes that way, and then it would be brought to the board that way, and then the board would know what your direction to staff was and what your concern was with it.

With that motion, though, the applicant's going to go forward, and I hope he realizes that, with 286 spaces. So if he never makes a deal, that's what he's got.

That would be your recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board, yes.

That's his motion.

It wasn't my recommendation. Well, so the 286 spaces is what the code currently calls for.

No, it doesn't. The code actually calls for more. That was a compromise that staff Was that correct? That's not how I understood it.

Yeah, that's correct. The code requires, and I agree with Mr. Chairman, it's way over park. So that was kind of like the happy meeting for us.

I'm happy to make an amendment and amend the motion with the understanding that staff will continue to work with the applicant on working out the appropriate number of parking spaces. Does that work?

Sure. Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? That was our final item. Director's report. Do you have anything for us tonight?

No, ma'am. We're continuing moving forward with the land development code update. The second reading will come forward in front of BCC. July 14, and then we're going to be moving to the next round of amendments for the comprehensive plan and legislative updates.

Very good. Does the board have anything else to discuss?

I just have one thing for you. I'm still a little upset with the mission barbecue thing that your staff didn't at least reach out to the two affected parties, which are the two schools. And I think you should do that before the commission hearing.

It's passed and it's going forward, but... Yeah, we will make sure.

If I was one of the commissioners, I wouldn't be asking that. Did you reach out to the schools? Your answer so far is no.

Yeah, and yeah, they were not notified because they were not part of that vote.

No, I understand that, but obviously they're sitting there. I mean, that was the two effective parties. That's what the variance was for.

Okay, yeah. I would just also note, too, that the mailing notification isn't the only notification. The property's also posted, too. Just for the record.

Okay, for the record. I mean, I think the school really, I mean, one of them's a charter school, which means it's owned by a company. So, okay.

Okay. With that, meeting adjourned.