Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Ms. Starr, would you like to do roll call, please? Yes.

Chair Philip Lantry.

Present.

Vice Chair Russell Alexander.

Present.

Member Megan Marshall.

Present.

Member Dawn Grigsby. Present. Member Ruby Bridgeforth.

Present.

Member Teresa O'Dairtree. Member Amit Patel.

Present.

Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, first order of business is approval of the minutes, if we approve. Did everybody get a chance to... Read the minutes. Is there a motion?

I'd like to move to accept the minutes for the meeting of April 21st, 2026. All right.

We have a motion for approval. Do we have a second?

Second.

All right. Motion and a second. All in favor of approval of the minutes from the last meeting or the meeting on April 21st, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Nope. All right. Motion passes. All right. First action item. is resolution number 2026-079R. This is for the cut factory, and this is a conditional use number CNU26-00001.

Good afternoon. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission. Thank you for taking your time out of your schedule to be here today. Once again, my name is Sean Raja, and I'm a senior planner with the Community Development Department. And tonight, I'm here to present DRC case number CNU26-0001, the Cut Factory, which is accompanied by resolution number 2026. The site, as seen in the aerial, is part of a larger shopping plaza, more specifically Unit 6 of the Publix shopping plaza located at the intersection of Old Canoe Creek and 13th Street. The current future land use for the site is commercial, with a zoning designation of Highway Business HB. The applicant currently operates a barbershop at this location as their primary use, known as the Cut Factory. They are seeking to enhance the existing primary use by providing on-site consumption of beer and wine as an accessory to their existing services. Per City of St. Cloud Land Development Code, Chapter 3, Article 6, Section 3.6.7, an alcoholic beverage establishment in the HB zoning designation requires conditional use approval. Additionally, no structural changes to the site are being proposed. On screen is a graphical depiction of the current future land use, which is commercial. And here we have the graphical depiction of the current zoning designation of Highway Business HB. Staff has reviewed the request for conditional use. and recommends approval of resolution number 2026-079R with the following stated conditions. Condition one, the approval of the requested conditional use does not constitute the approval of the provided concept plan. Changes to the site will require approval of a site development plan and any additional plan approvals required by the Land Development Code. And condition two, The disapproval is for the cut factory located at 4415 13th Street, Unit 6 only. Upon this business leaving the subject property, the conditional use shall expire. For the proposed conditional use, CNU 26-00001, staff requests that the Planning Commission recommends approval with the conditions as stated by staff of Resolution 2026-079R. Thank you for your time and considerations.

Thank you. Is the applicant here? Would you like to come forward? You don't have to, but you can if you'd like. Do we have any questions for city staff or the applicant?

I do. I have a question just to kind of solidify it being contained to said unit. Cause I know people will step outside, they'll smoke, do whatever that they can't typically do inside. Um, can we add, or is it proper to add language in the second condition of approval to state inside unit zero zero six only?

I believe, Mr. Morganson, if they speak it into the record, we can add that to the recommendation to the council.

Commission can add conditions as appropriate as the commission decides, whether it was stated or others that the commission feels are appropriate.

I think that would be helpful for enforceability and lack of, there's no confusion anywhere. Everybody knows that the alcohol needs to stay inside the unit.

Good evening, Tisha Manning, Deputy Community Development Director. The alcohol license issued by the state mandates that and it will be inside the unit.

Yeah, I just wanted to make it crystal clear just because the state isn't always around and people are outside and they're not always going to catch it. So maybe it would be helpful for the city to be able to enforce that as well.

Correct.

I have a question about the first condition. we don't expect any changes to the site or anything like that, right?

That is correct.

That's just a strict language to say, you know, if you do plan on making any changes, they have to be approved separately. That is correct. Okay.

So it's a place to have your hair cut. When people walk in, they can also purchase beverages. They're not giving them away like at a lot of places. You'll walk in and say, oh, would you like a glass of wine or something? This is actual selling of it. And that's why this is a,

I believe that would be a question for the applicant.

Yes, that's correct.

Can you come to the microphone so it's on the record?

Sorry, I just got out of work, by the way.

Okay, so you just state your name and your address and all that for the record.

My name is Freddy Ledesma. I'm the owner of, well, half owner of the Cuff Factory. And yes, basically, The client will have the, it's a way to enhance their experience, come in, get a haircut, maybe have a drink or two after a long day at work. As it pertains to, you know, alcohol outside of the barbershop, no, it's basically you come in, you get a cut, you have one beer, maybe two, and you go home. It's not a hangout spot. It's not a bar. It's more or less like, you know, maybe when you go to a restaurant, you have a drink, you eat, and you go home. That's basically it.

Interesting concept.

I have a question. It's like the open container you serve or customer can take on buy and then they open and drink?

No, no, that is strictly for consumption at the barbershop. No buying to take home. They can go to the Publix next door and buy a six-pack if they like and then take it home. Our, the way we want to do is you buy, you consume, At the location, you go home.

So how the, like, food safety-wise? Because you barber cutting still there, right? Like, hair cutting also there?

I'm sorry, I didn't understand.

Like, you cutting hair cutting also that same locations?

Yeah, yeah.

I think what he's asking is there's a lot of restrictions for hair cutting establishments in terms of sanitary, you know, and things like that, so consuming beverages or food seems to conflict with that. So I think what he's asking is, are you able to get that approved by the state as well to serve alcohol at a place that you're cutting hair?

Well, I was under the assumption that we first had to get the approval of the condition used to then have the health inspector come in and oversee that, I guess. Okay. So, I mean, but we're not going to serve anything in a glass per se. It's basically, you know, you pop over the bottom, you give it to them. I don't feel that, you know, the hair is going to be an issue.

Yeah, the scope for tonight is... Yeah, I mean, it's not in our scope, but I think he was just asking a general question. Okay. Anything else? No. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Thank you. I've got a question for the city. Yes, sir. So this would be a conditional use permit to sell alcoholic beverages. Now, what happens when they decide to stop cutting hair and just sell alcoholic beverages?

The sale of the alcohol beverages on-site consumption would be an accessory use to the barbershop. And as stated under condition number two, the approval for the cut factory upon this business leaving or the conditional use expiring, whatever the business use is, this conditional use will expire.

They'd have to come back. So they couldn't just quit cutting air and continue selling beer under the same name?

Correct, because we stated that it would be for on-site consumption only. So if they're selling beer, if they're selling and drinking within the location, but we're not permitting a bar at this location based on this conditional use. But if the county commission would like to add that Condition within you can speak on the record and we can add it.

Is there a way to bring up that the conditions stated the way I read the second condition was it the On this business leaving the subject property or I guess you're suggesting or discontinuing you so yeah the business But isn't that what accessory use means

It's only an accessory to what the primary function is, is cutting hair. The accessory is the selling of a beer or something in that. Hair cutting goes away. That accessory use goes away.

Correct. But if you as the commission would like to add that to the record.

No, because if that's the rule, why would we keep adding things to, if that's the rule, that's the rule. I don't know why we have to add more verbiage in there. I don't think, I don't, I'm

The way I read it it says it's a conditional use for alcoholic beverages nothing about it And I'm just I'm sure he's not gonna stop cutting hair and just start selling beer But I guess my point was for the Commission the condition number two upon this business leaving the subject property So there's an argument that if they discontinue the barber activities the business has Departed but I don't think it's you know, ill-advised if you want to clarify that condition to state, upon this business of cutting hair ceases to operate, the subject condition of use expires as well. I don't think that's a problem. It's really a clarification, if you will. It's whatever the commission wants to do on that.

That's all I got.

Okay. I have a question. How does this affect children in the barbershop. This is a very unique situation here. Do you serve children? Yeah.

You have to come to the microphone. State your name again, please.

Freddy Vadesma. To answer your question, yeah, we do offer services to children. Obviously, we will not be selling alcohol that goes without saying to children, to minors. If the parents want to consume maybe beer, which they probably won't, to be honest, well, that's up to them. But obviously the barbers, I do not permit any smoking or alcohol consumption by my fellow barbers. So basically it's an adult beverage. If an adult wants to have a beverage, I mean, they could purchase it, but... I don't think that should affect us in any way.

And actually, there's a lot of places that offer you a drink that are not, this is a conditional use because you're going to sell it, but there are every place that I go to, they'll offer you something to drink if you want a glass of wine or something. Well, I'm just talking about places that cut your hair. If you go in there for a salon, oftentimes they offer it, but this is something to be sold, so that's where I think this is coming in, so, right? It's fine.

Yeah, I see it's no different as a restaurant. Like I said, you go to a restaurant, you have a meal, you're with your kids, you want to eat a glass of wine because you've had a long day. I mean, I don't see it any different as that.

I assume you've researched this and there's other establishments that do the same, right?

We have a fellow barbershop, my partner, He has one at the other Publix Plaza where the DMV is at. The cut factory by, I'm sorry, the blueprint by cut factory. They have that model there as well. It's been approved and they haven't had any issues. And that's been approved for, I don't know, like four years, five years.

Okay.

Yeah, and they've been totally fine.

Do we have any other questions? Before we move into public comment. All right. At this time, we will allow for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience this evening that would like to speak about this ordinance or resolution? Okay. It doesn't look like there's anybody that wants to provide public comment, so we will close the public comment session. Any further discussion? All right. At this time, I would like to call for a motion. Any more?

I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of resolution number 2026079R, based on the six-factor land development code and incorporating the conditions of the resolution, number one and number two.

All right, we have a motion to recommend approval, including the two conditions that the city has suggested. Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, we have a first and a second. All in favor of recommending approval, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Aye. Opposed. Oh, you're opposed. Okay. Say, if you don't mind, just say nay. Nay. Or no, either one's fine.

Ms. Marshall, you were an aye. Yeah, sorry. I wasn't close enough. Was that with the conditions that we both discussed?

Yes, with the... All right, let's back up. If you want to add your condition, technically we would need to make another motion.

Yeah, what was passed was the adoption of the conditions as stated by staff.

As stated by staff.

Yeah.

That passed 4-1, affirming that Ms. Marshall's vote was an aye, which...

It was. Did you want to clarify that our conditions were added to that motion?

Yes.

Well, I mean, technically we did vote. So we voted and passed it. It was four to one. Mr. Patel, you are not voting at this time because we have a full commission.

Just so you know. You do get to vote if one of the members is absent. Completely permitted to participate fully, just not going to be able to vote with this full commission here tonight.

But for the record, the motion passed 4-1 with Mrs. Bridgeforth being the only nay. That's correct. That's correct. Okay. Okay. All right, so the next one is ordinance number 2026-27. This is a land development code amendment, and this is CDA 26-00004. This is a request for an amendment to ordinance, or I'm sorry, amendment to chapter three, Performance and Sighting Standards, Article 14, Use Regulations.

Good evening. Tisha Manny, Deputy Community Development Director. Yes, so the ordinance before you is CDH, I'm sorry, it's 2026-27, and it is for project number CDA-226-00004. So on about April 16th, this has become before city council at a couple workshops you guys may be aware of. I'm just trying to work out some of the things in our land development code when it comes to how restaurants are treated throughout the entire city. So on April 16th, the city council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amending section 3. And the amendment is to support the economic activities throughout the city as well as focus on the downtown area which is specifically the entertainment district. So in section 3.14.5E specifically is the section that we're speaking of. It's going to remove restrictions on restaurants having entertainment activities. And this is restaurants throughout the city. So right now, as our code stands, if you have pool tables, high top chairs, live entertainment, you play music, all of those things, our code states that you can't be classified as a restaurant. So in the day and time that we're in now, where people, they want to have an experience when they go to restaurants. So we just think those things, of course, we can take those things out. give our free industry the ability to be free and offer some other type of services. So specifically here we're going to, we're suggesting or proposing to remove pool tables, video games, a stage, live entertainment, illuminated or non-illuminated signs, advertising alcoholic beverages, permits dancing, or which has music, that plays at a level above 70 decibels. So we also updated our noise ordinance. So those areas are being struck through because again, we want to allow restaurants to offer entertainment and as far as the noise ordinance, the decibels because it's covered under our noise ordinance. We're also proposing to remove the section that says the dining area shall contain tables or chairs or booths of standard height. Again, this goes to restaurants being prohibited of having cocktail height tables. And the tables shall meet or exceed the minimally accepted standard of 256 square inches per table space per patron. Again, just trying to remove some of those restrictions off a restaurant so that they can make the free choice if they want to have high-top tables, low-top tables, and still be considered a restaurant. we are adding language to this section and this language is specifically for the entertainment district. So the past two slides that will cover restaurants throughout the entire city, but this section is specific for restaurants in the entertainment district only. So that is pretty much our downtown area. Um, and so what we're adding or proposing to add is the provisions of 3.14.5 a through C and E shall not apply to establishments located within the entertainment district. And so A through C is basically, again, the pool tables. If they meet all of those things, they're good, but these are the additional requirements for those restaurants. The establishment is in full compliance with the conditions and requirements of the applicable license to sell alcoholic beverages issued by the state of Florida for the establishment. The establishment does not charge a covered charge at any time. The establishment does not contain illuminated or non-illuminated signs advertising alcoholic beverages visible outside of the establishment. So those are the things that we're proposing to add to the language, because right now they can have signs outside of their restaurants if they're in the entertainment district. We're saying we want you to only be able to show those on the inside, those to be visible on the inside. And I'll go back just to kind of explain it. And also, if you want to have any type of live entertainment or any type of activities at the restaurants within the entertainment district, you cannot charge a cover charge. That's the language we're proposing to add. We're also proposing to add that they have to be licensed, which most of them are now. We're not saying they're not licensed, but we're saying we're gonna restrict their licensing to the state requirements. And so to give you a little bit more clarification, one of the other requirements criteria to be a restaurant, a full service restaurant, is you have to have a full kitchen on site. So we're saying if you are licensed through the state as an establishment to serve alcohol and the state classifies you as a restaurant, then we're going to classify you as a restaurant. We don't have these additional requirements for you to be a restaurant. and that's what this language is proposing. So prior to this meeting, we had not had any public outreach, but then subsequently, right before the meeting, we did receive a letter from the public. That letter has been provided to you in front of you. When you read through that letter, and this is just my synopsis of the letter, they were speaking specifically for a fourth condition, which we had originally added, that said restaurants in the entertainment district would have to close at 1159.

So you removed that?

Correct.

In between the time that this letter was issued? Or they issued this letter based on that language that was removed subsequently?

Correct. They issued the letter based upon the language that had already been removed. Correct. Yes. So this is a staff-initiated ordinance, so I am here to answer any questions for you.

So one thing that confuses me is... I follow along with everything that you said, but in the language, it appears that under 3.14.5, full-service restaurants is being added. It's underlined. I mean, it's being added, right?

Correct.

But I don't understand why it's being added, because if you scroll down to D, Article D, it says it shall be exempt... from the provisions of 3.14A through C for full-service restaurants. So why are we adding full-service restaurants if later it says that they're exempt?

So why we added it to that title, and I know you're saying to the purpose of the ordinance, it's because we're speaking of it throughout the rest of the language, but we didn't identify it in the top where it identified cocktail lounges and all of those things. So we're just adding that language to say.

So you're just identifying it as an establishment?

Correct.

Okay. Yes. Okay. That makes sense. I was a little confused about why that was added, and then in Article D it says that they're exempt from that.

Correct. We're just identifying it as an establishment.

Ms. Grigsby?

No? I have a question, but it might be for you, Jack. As it relates to L number 3 and the signs, The Supreme Court said that local government can't regulate the content of a sign. How does that flow with it being specific to signs advertising alcoholic beverages?

I'm not looking at the language in front of it.

Yeah, you can borrow mine. I just don't know if it needs to be vague just to be in compliance.

Wow, she brought up the Supreme Court. You're looking at provision L on page 304?

Yeah, I just would want us to be in compliance with them saying that local government can't regulate the content of a sign, so if we need to rephrase it to fit...

Establishment does not contain illuminated or non-illuminated signs advertising alcoholic beverages visible outside of the establishment. That's the language?

Yeah, the advertising alcoholic beverages. We'd be regulating the content of the sign.

We're not regulating the content of the sign?

I don't know if that speaks to the content.

We're regulating the location of the sign. But saying that they can't have it. Outside.

Yeah. If there was already a sign outside there, like advertising the establishment or something. Like at a church, you see it, and they can put any kind of words they want on the bulletin board.

The way I read this has to do with location. I don't think it has to do with the content.

I want to skip. Sure.

There's an Article B where it says these establishments shall be located at least 500 feet from another establishment. I mean, wouldn't that preclude any other establishment selling alcohol from moving in within 500 feet of one that already does?

Are you specifically talking about in the entertainment district or throughout the city?

I think throughout the city.

So throughout the city, yes, there is spacing requirements. In the entertainment district, under their particular section in our code, some of those requirements have been rewritten because we have specific requirements for the entertainment district. But yes, throughout the city, we do have distance requirements.

Okay, so that would only apply to any establishments outside of the entertainment district.

Correct.

So any restaurant that served alcohol couldn't be within 500 feet of another restaurant that served alcohol?

That's correct.

Unless they're in the entertainment district. Don't they already have that everywhere?

Correct. It's already written in our code. He was just reading what's in the code, and that's why I specifically said, are you speaking of the entertainment district or outside? Outside.

No, I think what you're suggesting is we already have restaurants. We already have restaurants within 500 feet of each other. From entrance to entrance. That both sell alcohol.

Is that what you're? Yes.

Like Tequila House to the Japanese restaurant. That's probably close.

Correct. So when we start looking at the code, we have to also look at when were the ordinances established and if those restaurants were already existing.

Go ahead.

I would think in order to have more business, we would want to have restaurants closer together that would be able to sell alcohol.

Correct, but that part of the ordinance was not what was coming up. What was coming up was the serving of alcohol in the entertainment district, and this ordinance is focusing on being able to allow restaurants to have those type of entertainment things happen, pool tables, live entertainment. Those other considerations of A through E, I believe it is, are already in effect. We're not making any changes to that.

The other question I had, so it talks about high-top tables and other things. Is Chili's a bar or a restaurant?

Chili's is a restaurant.

But they have high-top tables and a literal bar in it.

Correct. And that's the reason why we're removing this from our code so that those restaurants would not be in noncompliance for having those things.

Okay. And the restaurant, a restaurant is anything that has a full service kitchen that is licensed as a restaurant. So The noise levels, that part's being removed, but could that affect noise within residential communities?

The noise levels is being removed because it is covered under our noise ordinance in a different section of the code.

But this will require, I'm not saying this is new, but a full-service restaurant would not be able to display signs, whether they're lit or not, advertising alcohol.

Outside. Outside. Correct.

Right.

We don't want to be turning into no Pottersville around here. We're keeping it nice and tidy.

Well, I think some of the things that's in there is already what's out there. So does this affect any existing?

You're correct, Commissioner Alexander. So the reason why is because right now we have a lot of restaurants that are in noncompliance because they do offer these things. They do offer live entertainment. They do permit dancing. They play music. A lot of our restaurants are in noncompliance to this code. So again, multiple workshops happen. Some of the business owners came out. There was a lot of discussion surrounding this. We want to allow the economic diversity in our city. So that is the reason why we are at the point where we need to propose a code change so that we can still allow economic diversity and our restaurants are not in non-compliance and potential code enforcement violations because they're playing music.

Yeah, there was just a lot of confusion on this one because with the letter and we're looking in the letter like where does it say that they can't operate after 1159? Okay, well is there anybody here that would like to speak public comment wise? We can open public comment. Anybody? Okay, no public comment. We'll close the public comment session. I mean, I don't really have an issue with it. I think, you know, it's always kind of difficult when you look at changing language, right? You just never know how it's going to affect certain things. But it seems that you're trying to make it easier for restaurants to do business here in downtown St. Cloud and have less restrictions, right? Anybody else?

It makes complete sense I mean we're trying to have an entertainment area if we don't have any entertainment and there's too many rules It's you know that was in a day and a time now. It's changing and if we're not going to have a noise issue throughout People playing it on their cars and driving through town and everywhere else Why would we have you know limitations like that in our city? It's I think it's logical make, make life easier for everybody.

All right. Uh, so then can I get a motion please?

What is this though? Is this a, I don't find it on my sheet. Is it a 16? Is it 16 findings? No, it's just an approval of the ordinance.

Okay. Based on the proposed by staff and the information presentation.

All right, I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance in number 2026-27 as recommended by staff. Second.

All right, we have a first and a second to recommend approval. All in favor of recommending approval for ordinance 2026-27, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

No.

All right, so motion passes four to one with member Alexander... Voting no. Okay. Next one is ordinance number 2026-32. And if I remember correctly, I think this one is actually two. We want to read them in together. Right? I assume. Oh, do we want to read the next two in together for the Stephanie... Lee Rothstein Memorial Park. Okay. So the first one is ordinance number 2026-32. This is for a comprehensive map amendment, and that is CPA 26-00005. And then the second one is ordinance number 2026-25, and this is a zoning map amendment, number ZMA 25-00023.

Good evening, everybody. Thank you for your time. My name is Tatiana Montero. I am the Associate Planner with Community Development, and I will be presenting today this Stephanie Lee Rhodes Memorial Park, DRC case CPA 2600005 and CMA 2600006, accompanied with their resolutions 2026-32, 2026-25. In front of you is the aerial view of the proposed subject property. North of it, it's the current, what we know as the Stephanie Lee Rose Memorial Park. These are two additional parts to the south of it. Move over here. So the existing future land use of the parcels are employment and industrial. The proposed change is to move them to parks and open space. The existing zoning is A for agricultural and the proposed zoning change is OR, open space and recreational. It's about 27.26 acres. As I stated before, the northern parcel to this object property is current developed as the Stephanie Lee Rothstein Memorial Park. And Stephanie Lee Rothstein Memorial Park was re-sewn agricultural to our open space recreational through a previous resolution 2025-55 back in November 13 of 2025. As I mentioned before, this is the existing future land use, industrial unemployment for the subject properties. And this is the existing zoning, agricultural. And the staff recommendation is a motion to approve ordinance 2026-29 and 2026-30. Do you guys have any questions? It's a city proposed. Yes?

I would like to thank the city staff for adding back the legend at the bottom corner of the map. So thank you for that.

Mr. Chairman, just backing up the ordinances in flat, I think there may have been some crossover. The matters that are being addressed here are Ordinance 26-32 and 26-25. I think you're referring to the...

Correct. In a previous time, the parcel to the north was already changed under the resolution 2025-55. You're correct. You said going back to the maps? I just want to see the map. Sure. This one or the aerial?

No, this one, I guess this will work. I'm just trying to get the bearings here. Got you.

The green rectangle on the top is what you guys know as the Stephanie Rose Park, as it is. So this is the two partials south of it.

What is the orange rectangle? Is that a mouse?

Yeah. Is that what that is? It's the minute counter. Oh, that's the minute counter.

We can remove it.

It's conveniently covering up.

The legend.

The legend, yeah.

Yes. South of 192.

But I do appreciate the legend.

Follow the state street, so. I'm seeing Indiana Avenue. I'm just trying to, I don't know the park. I'm thinking it's backed in there that I don't see that park. It's got to be near. Well, Indiana Avenue and...

It is north of Verena Street, east of Missouri Avenue. I don't know if this helps you.

Yeah, because it's tucked in there. You can't get in there. Yeah, there's fields. That's right. Okay.

All right. A lot of kids play soccer in that.

Yeah, you got to take that hard 90-degree turn.

Yes, exactly, exactly. When you're trying to get out of traffic on Canuck Creek Road, you know.

So open space and recreational, what does that mean?

This is the appropriate use that we will need in order for this to be the designated park.

So it's just a park?

Yes.

Swings and playground kind of park or just open space?

As far as I know, it's just open space. As far as I know, we don't have any. We're actually adding open space into the city? Yes. Let's go. And this will help add to the inventory of open space that we have on the city. As of right now, I don't believe that there is any proposed plans for development in this area. So as of this moment, it will simply be part of what we already have as a Stephanie Lee roasting Memorial Park.

Well, we look forward to future infrastructure to make this a park. Possibly.

Do we? Possibly. I don't think we do. We have a tax referendum.

This is going to stay open space. We don't want to go down that rabbit hole.

Open space. Do we want to hear the next one, or is there any more?

Well, I mean, one is for the comprehensive map amendment, and the other one's just for the zoning map amendment, so it's... we can discuss them together, we just have to make separate motions. When that time comes.

Yeah, I don't know if you guys were done. She still has to read.

I provided all of my presentation. I'm just hearing if you have any questions.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Okay, so yeah. There's only part is done. Do we have any other questions before I go into public comment? No. Okay. I don't. We'll open up public comment. Anybody in the audience? Like to make any public comment? Okay. Doesn't look like it, so we'll close the public comment session. Anything else we want to discuss on this one?

Just be sure to take them one at a time.

Yep. If not, I'd like to call for a motion on Ordinance Number 2026-32, which is a comprehensive map amendment.

I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 2026-32 based on the 16 findings within the land development code. Second.

All right. We have a first and a second. All in favor of recommending approval, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion passes 5-0. And how about ordinance number 2026-25? Do we have a motion for that?

I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 2026-25 based on the 16 findings within the Land Development Code.

Second. All right, we have a motion for approval and a second. All in favor of recommending approval for ordinance number 2026-25, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, motion also passes 5-0. All right, next one is Ordinance Number 2026-29, and I believe we'll also read 2026-30 together. So the first one is Public Safety Facility Complex, and it's a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA 26-00007. And then the second one is Ordinance Number 2026-30, also for the Public Safety Facility Complex. This is a Zoning Map Amendment, number ZMA 26-00. Dash 00006.

That is correct. And it's again me, Tatiana Montero from Community Development presenting Public Safety Facility Complex. This is DRC case number CPA 260007 and CMA 2600006 accompanied with the ordinance number 2026-29 and 2026-30. And in the aerial, you guys can see the subject property. It's about four different parcels that are being proposed for this public safety facility complex. The existing future land use is mixed use, and the proposed future land use is institutional. The existing zoning is mixed use, and the proposed zoning is peep professional, about 46.11 acres in total. This is the existing future land use. It's mixed use. And this is the existing zoning of the subject property. And the staff recommends approval of the ordinance 2026-29 and 2026-30. Do you guys have any questions at this time that I can assist? You want to go back? I need my map.

It's nice having the legend on there, right?

Just on my... Yes, Phil. It's great. On my footnotes, it's just duplicated both of the cases. So on my first case, if you look at the bottom of it, it's under my CPA case. My next few pages of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 cite the ZMA case.

Just for your information. Absolutely. Thank you.

You're welcome. So where public safety complex is right now, that's behind where the wording is on this map up here. That's where... the traditions or whatever that little, that complex. So this is in further, isn't there like a water or a pond or some type of canal that goes through there?

I believe the south border of the dashed line aligns with the road, the future road that would go through between St. Cloud, I'm sorry. What's the name of that elementary school?

You're thinking of the drainage canal that goes through states and then comes there. There it is.

The canal is in the top area of the subject property, right before, I don't know if you can appreciate it on this map is right next to the residential area. So the top rectangle in the top area, that's where the canal stands.

Okay, and so is that top yellow rectangle that's going to be developed?

It is part of what we are, it's part of the subject property. I don't have any specifics as of the plans for the full development. I know that we're currently reviewing a site development plan, but it is part of the project. And would they come out on...

What's the, is this Canoe Creek over here? Yes. Yeah, would they come out? Would that be the entrance exit? It won't be through Budinger, like out towards Budinger there, right? Because that's a whole separate. piece of land.

I cannot speak on that just yet because this change only speaks to the future land use and the zoning. As I said, it is my understanding that the full project will encompass different phases and different buildings, possibly police headquarters and other city departments that are going to be moving in. I know right now we're reviewing site development plan for the 911 and the emergency dispatchers kind of like offices.

Plus you said this is just one of a few other places that are being proposed, so this is not, right?

This is the main, as far as I am aware. Oh, all right.

Yeah, and we're Definitely in need of a public safety complex.

Too far. There you go.

And hey, it's that much more land that won't be houses.

All right.

At this time, we will open for public comment. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Did you fill out a form?

No.

Okay, you'll just have to fill out a form. You don't have to do it right this second, but we still do the forms, right?

No.

We do, and the clerk either has some of them by the entryway. We'll get them and just turn them in before you leave.

Okay.

Thank you.

Carolyn Mathis, 2410 Temple Lane, St. Cloud. I live on that map or crossed east of the land that she's just describing. Okay. And I received a letter about it, which is why I'm here. And I was trying to find out if any of that land is going to be upset because I have a house in there.

It doesn't appear so. I mean, this is primarily the area. I don't know if we can bring back up the map.

Yeah, can we bring the map back?

But this is primarily the area on the west side of New Creek Road. Right. So there's nothing impacted in your neighborhood if it's, you said Temple Terrace, right?

The other one, because it's a little bit bigger.

Okay. Yeah, I'm seeing it there. Okay, well, that was just my only question, if that was a plan in the future, because I didn't know otherwise why I would have received the letter.

Because they have to send it if you're within, is it 500 feet? 300.

300 feet.

So you're within 300 feet. They're required to send you a notice any time that something's going in front of the planning commission or the city council for a zoning change or anything like that. They have to send you a notice because you're within 300 feet of the subject property.

Well, I have another question. It's not directly related to this map, but I know there's going to be changes to the the roads through there? Will there be other meetings like this when that starts to happen?

So that probably won't be handled by this commission because I believe that's a state road. It's either a state road or a county road. I'm not sure. There may possibly be workshops through the city of St. Cloud. I'm not sure, but definitely I don't see it going in front of this commission.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks for coming in.

We appreciate you being involved in your local city government.

All right.

Do we have anybody else that would like to speak in the audience? Okay. At this time, we will close the public comment session. Any other discussion?

Not at this time.

suggested edits to the staff report. That was a good catch, though. I didn't catch that one.

Thank you.

All right. If there's no other discussion at this time, I'd like to call for a motion for Ordinance Number 2026-29, which is a comprehensive plan amendment.

I would like to make a motion to recommend approval for resolution... 2026-29, based on the six factual matters within the Land Development Code.

The 16th.

The 16th, I'm sorry.

All right, we have a motion to recommend approval. Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Everybody in favor of recommending approval for Ordinance Number 2026-29, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, motion passes 5-0. Next one, could I please get a motion for ordinance number 2026-30, and this is a zoning map amendment.

I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 2026-30 based on the 16 findings within the Land Development Code.

All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, all in favor of recommending approval for ordinance number 2026-30, say hi. Hi. Hi. Any opposed motion passes five zero. Next we have ordinance number 2026 dash two four. This is for Nova road out parcels. And this is a zoning map amendment from community center core to community center or community center core County to community center core city. Uh, and this is ZMA two five dash zero zero zero two two. So essentially, I believe it was annexed into the city.

That is correct. Good evening. Ralph Keith, Associate Planner with Community Development. Tonight, we'll be presenting DRC case number ZMA25-00022, Nova Road Out Parcels, ordinance number 202604. As you mentioned earlier, these parcels were annexed at the end of 2025 via Ordinance Number 2025-37, and later received a future land use through the Future Land Use Element, Ordinance Number 2024-50. So currently, the future land use is JPA Community Center. The existing zoning is Community Center Core County, with the proposed zoning of Community Center Core City. The development is compatible with all surrounding areas and will have no adverse impacts on city facilities. Currently, the minimum dwelling unit per acre is 18 with a maximum of 40, as well as those annexed to the city limits for your ordinance 2025-37 on May 27, 2025. Here is a graphic representation of the parcels along East Earl O'Bronson and Nova Road. This is the future land use. As well as the zoning, but of course it is pending, so the map doesn't show a color as of yet.

Wow, you're using hatches now, huh?

We're getting fancy. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance Number 202624, and likewise, it is requested that the Planning Commission also recommend approval of Ordinance Number 202624. Staff is available for questions.

So can you just clarify for the Commission what constitutes or what can be built on a parcel that is labeled as Community Center Core? That's pretty broad, right?

So it is a mix of uses. So the parcels to the north are going to be residential. Of course, they've already have started building. The ones to the south that are the subject tonight are commercial, and those uses can range from retail to convenience stores with gasoline pumps, drive-through restaurants, things like that. So they are required to put in at least 40% of commercial uses.

What is the existing area that's kind of the little rectangle? Is that a lift station or something?

The little divot? No, that's a gas station.

No, no, no. I'm talking about on the far right of the... And the second parcel next to it. Yeah, next to where it says Angel Way.

I believe it is a lift station.

Okay. I'm just looking at the map.

So we can't build where there's a lift station. You can't really see too well on the area of the show.

Oh, the notch. I see.

You done studying it?

Yeah. Oh, yeah. You can... Yeah, any... Feel free to comment or...

I'm assuming this is just the technicality because it was county and city and we're moving it back in the city. We have to. Yeah, exactly. That's correct.

Proper zoning.

Do we have any questions? No? Okay. Then I guess we can allow for public comment. Is anybody in the audience tonight... here to speak about this ordinance. All right, then we will close public comment. I mean, I don't have any questions. Nobody else does. All right, at this time I will call for a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 2026-24 based on the 16 findings within the Land Development Code.

All right. We have a motion to recommend approval. Second. We have a second. All in favor of recommending approval for ordinance number 2026-24, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Next order of business is our next planning commission meeting, which is scheduled for July 21st, 2026 at 6 p.m. And can I get a motion for adjournment?

So moved.

All right, second? Second. All in favor of adjournment, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, meeting adjourned.