Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd to call to order today's meeting of the Planning Commission for 12/02/2025. Could I have a roll call, please?

Chair Snyder. I'm here. Mr. Wilson. I'm here. Mr. Hale.

I'm here.

Ms. Sherber. Here. Mr. McKeon. Here. Mr. Young. Here. And Mr. Jasper.

Here. Thank you. I have a set of minutes from November 17. Do I have a motion or suggested revisions? Mr. Chairman? Yes, Mr. Wilson.

Yes, I'll move to approve with a couple of corrections. On Page three, we've changed the name of our former City Manager from Marty Black to Mary Black. I think he'd rather be Marty. And on page six, there is a phrase with the stipulation of which has been repeated twice, it just doesn't make a lot of sense. With those two corrections, I would move that we approve the 11/17/2025 regular meeting minutes.

Very good. Do I have a second?

Mr. Chair?

Yes, sir.

I second it as amended.

Thank you, sir. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Chair was aye. Okay. Do we have anyone signed up for general audience participation not associated with the application?

No, we do not.

Thank you very much. And first up today is site and development plan petition number 20Five-thirty2SP, the Epiphany Cathedral parking.

That's a mouthful.

Staff is Brittany Smith. The agent is Greg Mayhew. And the African owner is Frank Dwayne Bishop of Diocese of Venice. This is a quasi judicial hearing. I have a memorandum that says this is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 11/15/2025 as required by the City Of Venice Land Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. Let me open the public hearing and ask the attorney to question board members regarding any ex parte communications or potential conflicts of interest.

Anyone has a potential conflict of interest, please indicate that now.

Yes. Excuse me. My wife and I are members of the parish.

Can you remain fair and impartial and make your decision today based solely on the record presented to you?

Yes ma'am.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other possible conflicts of interest, if you've had any ex parte communications that are not presently part of the

record, please place that into the record. Start with Mr. Jasper.

None. Kent McKeon, none.

At site visit only.

Site visit, no communication.

Site visit, no communication. Where's some music?

Site visit, no communication.

None.

Do we have a phone somewhere? What are we hearing?

Really nice.

Okay. Amanda, you'll make sure we get speaker cards for you. No. Not yet.

We need to have a training session.

Okay. Amanda, you'll make sure we have speaker cards from everyone. Let me turn to Britney. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Britney Smith for the record. I'm a planner here with the City of Venice and I have signed a speaker's card. We're here today to talk about site and development plan number 20.

Hold up, Britney. Brittney, go ahead.

Site development plan petition number 2532SP for Epiphany Cathedral parking. The agent is Craig Mayhew with DMK Associates and the owner applicant is Frank J. Duane, the Bishop Diocese of Venice. General information, the address of the property is 225 North Harbor Drive. The request is to redevelop an existing shell parking lot to a new paved parking lot for Epiphany Cathedral.

The parcel size is approximately point eight five acres. It's in the Island neighborhood, and the application the updated application was received on 07/23/2025. Project description. This project was previously before you and was denied by the Planning Commission on 05/06/2025. This was initially brought before you with different access points off of Park Lane and that has now been switched to what is the current existing access point off of Manatee Drive.

It is the redevelopment again of the Shell parking lot to a paved parking lot with landscaping and a sidewalk and a pedestrian crosswalk on Harbor Drive North links the parking area to the cathedral. This is an aerial map of the project. Here is the site plan for the project showing the access off Manatee Court. For existing and proposed conditions, we'll look at future land use map, zoning map, site photos and surrounding land uses. This is the future land use map showing institutional professional properties to the North.

To the South we have high density residential and institutional professional. To the West we have open space functional and moderate density residential. And to the East we have mixed use downtown. This is a zoning map of the property. To the North, you'll see OPI.

To the South, you have OPI and residential multifamily. To the West, we have recreation and residential family, and to the East is Downtown Edge. Here are some site photos of the property and its existing condition. Surrounding land uses to the North are church owned properties. To the South we have a Catholic Charities building.

To the West, Prentiss French Park, and to the East, Epiphany Cathedral School. For planning analysis, we're gonna look at comprehensive plan consistency, the land development code compliance and concurrency and mobility. For comprehensive plan consistency we looked at strategy LU 1.2.4B institutional professional describes the permitted uses as office religious school uses. Those are all included. The proposed project is for off-site parking for professional offices, cathedral and associated school buildings for a fifth new cathedral.

So in conclusion of finding a fact, analysis of the land element strategies applicable to institutional professional future land use designation. Strategies found in the island neighborhood and other plan elements have been provided and this analysis should be taken into consideration upon determining comprehensive plan consistency. Looking at the land development code, this petition has been processed with the procedural requirements of Chapter 87, Section 1.9 of the land development code and has been reviewed by the TRC. The proposed plan complies with land development code. We read it for uses parking, lighting, landscaping requirements as applicable.

And the remote parking is within 1,000 feet of the principal use structures, the cathedral and school as required by table 3.6.7 and the total number of spaces for the Epiphany campus remains compliant. Responses to land use compatibility analysis and the decision criteria are included in the staff report and attached to the agenda for your review. So in conclusion of finding a fact with the land development code regulations, the site development plan has been reviewed and deemed by the TRC and any issues identified during TRC review have been addressed through the review process. Concurrency and mobility. No concurrency application was submitted.

Only one that is really relevant to this project and was captured in the TRC review was by the engineering department which did consider that the project is compliant and does not exceed a twenty five year, twenty four hour storm event. For traffic analysis, the existing use of the parking lot will not change and the total number of spaces is actually reduced slightly. So in conclusion, upon review of the petition, the associated documents, comprehensive plan, land development code regulations, staff report analysis and testimony provided during the public hearing, there is sufficient information on the record for the Planning Commission to take action on-site development plan petition number 2532SP.

Thank you, Brittney. Your presentation says that the engineering department looked at the storm water?

That's correct.

Will SWIFT MUD also be involved in this?

Engineering is here to answer any questions you might have but we do not know of a SWFMAD permit on file. The applicant may be able to speak to that more.

Will one be required?

The applicant would be better at speaking to that than I would.

Okay, very good, thank you. Any other questions or Britney? Okay, thank you. Mr. Mayhew.

Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here today. My name is Craig Mayhew. I'm a President of DMK Associates. I'm the agent for the applicant.

With me today is Erica Kelly, she's the project manager. We would like to just kind of clarify a few things and be here to answer any questions you have. I know at the last time we were here we probably sufficient, didn't address the storm water issues or and we understand that the some of the neighbors had some issue with the access point and we believe we've addressed all that and we're here today to convince you of that. First of all, I'd like to maybe talk about the drainage, let's do that. There may be some misconception that the existing parking lot is basically impervious.

Right now that compacted shell does not absorb much water if anything. And in terms of meeting the land development regulations for the parking and landscaping and all the other requirements, our impervious area is less. So we have less impervious under a proposed design than we do under the existing condition. So therefore, as you might think, imagine the runoff is going be less. But on top of that, we're providing a stormwater retention area which will capture the runoff from the site.

It will treat a certain amount of water which is as required by the water management districts, DEP and the City of Venice. So that first flush gets captured and gets treated which does not get taken care of presently. As far as flooding and that, now the water just runs right off. We have less impervious, so we have we're also holding back the water. So under our calculations, we've done the calculations, we've done the studies, we've submitted it to DEP, we have a self certification permit from the DEP and it's been reviewed by staff.

And for the design storm, the twenty five year storm under the existing condition, there's point one seven cubic feet of per second leaving the site as our peak discharge. Under the proposed condition we're at 3.21. It's a 23% reduction in water flowing to the city's drainage system. And again, as an aside, our site is 0.85 acres. We're a very small portion of the entire drainage area that this is draining to.

So but nevertheless, we are withholding or holding back more water and storing water on our site than what we have right now. So let's see if I've missed anything. A few things about the asphalt and that sort of things. It's not necessarily drainage related but it's related to the site itself. Because we're having to meet the codes and buffers and landscape islands.

We have heat, we don't, there's no heat islands out there, right? I mean you have excuse me, water or heat coming off the asphalt or the shell of the parking now. We're going to have landscape islands and buffers and plantings which will absorb water and also provide shade and heat reduction. So that's definitely an enhancement from the existing system. We have because of those buffers, we actually have less parking spaces.

So when we talk about traffic and that gets into the next discussion about access and mobility, there is going to be 66 spaces as opposed to 80 plus spaces that were there before. So moving into access and mobility, which was another concern, we understand that the neighbors had an issue with maybe cars coming in that off from the

Manatee. The,

I'll get it

here. Not Manatee but that's where we have it now but Park Lane Drive. So off Park Lane Drive, we've moved the access to where it is now. We're having less spaces so less traffic and the city signed off on that that we know they concur that we're not going to have any more traffic. So we I think we've alleviated that.

One of the original reasons we put the parking entrance on the other side was to remove traffic from right around Harbor where people might congregate and have a cup coming in on that side. So in hindsight, I think where it is now and where we're proposing is probably the best place to have it. So we've done that and other improvements, enhancements to the site is that by meeting the code we have adequate parking spaces that are marked. Right now people are just parking willy nilly so for pedestrian safety and vehicular safety, it's better that we have legal spaces that are sized properly. We have signage marking to direct people where they need to go and have lane widths that meet the standards of the city Of Venice.

So this is everything in all these categories, we're making enhancement and that's all we were trying to do. Right now it's just the people go out there and park and it's kind of a mess. Last couple we're to that. Sidewalks as well. So So there is some sidewalks but it's not connecting completely. So we made connectivity on Park Lane.

Right. And then additionally in the northeast corner of the parking lot there's actually connectivity to the crosswalk which was not there before. So people aren't just be randomly crossing the road.

So we've improved some pedestrian mobility and access to the church. And so I think that's pretty much it. I'd like to open up to any questions to clarify anything you may have.

You mentioned lighting, you want to address that any further as to what the impact the lighting is going to be on the neighborhood?

Well whatever lighting, the lighting is

Minimum photometric plan.

It has to the photometric plan has to meet the requirements. They're not shining light off-site so it has to meet whatever the city lighting plan is for that. That's pretty much all I can say on that. It's meeting the requirements of the city. Okay, good. Questions? Bill?

Sorry about that. It seems to me I recall last time showing on the site plan that there was some kind of a looked like two drains and a pipe that was going down through the center of this. Is that something that existed currently or is that something that was added in that's not there now? Just can you tell us a little I bit about

believe there's a water line that runs through the site that's existing. So we're not messing with that

at all. It will be an existing pipe that's there. Yes, it's

a water water main.

We're adding.

All we're adding is a storm water discharge pipe.

Do you want to show that?

Yes, could you put that up so Okay. Folks could see Yeah. That's what I remembered seeing.

So yeah, there's a

I don't know if

I can point to it on here. It's terrible getting old. I can't see it. Yes. So here there is a 12 inches water main that runs across the property that we are not impacting.

And then the storm water pipe is the only other pipe.

That's the one that's right there. And that goes into existing other drainage It's that's

the storm water and like I said this is not changing into the patterns, we're not adding like I said we're actually

That takes in all the storms that are required by swift mud so it's not even going to drain into the catch basin until it's like 1.1 feet of rain inside that storm water pond. So it's not just going from the bottom of the pond straight in there.

The weir is up off the bottom of that so the first bunch of water doesn't leave the site until it gets up over the top and then it's controlled through a weir to basically store to the top of that pond for the one hundred year storm.

And that was where the city had the TRC had said when that water gets off and starts running off that site, they didn't see where there was any issues with Correct. Okay. That's what we're hoping we start with.

Yes, Mr. Jesper.

We changed some of the grading in the slopes since the last submittal. So there are some like minor changes to it.

I read these drawings that the from dry pond that the water direct is directed directly into the storm water pipeline, not into the street and then down the storm drain. Is that correct?

Correct. Thank you.

Any other questions? Everybody good?

But please remember, our pond is going to hold for about seventy two hours or until it clears the weir. So it not going to just discharge.

Well, key factor is less water flowing out with your proposal than what flows out today.

Exactly.

Correct. Thank you. Do we have anyone signed up to speak today?

Yes, I have four public speakers.

Four, okay.

They each have five minutes and the first is Robert Bostick.

Okay.

Grading and drainage of the site plan? Yes.

Mr. Bostick, my name is Robert Bostick. I live on 330 Tarpon Street we deal Just a little closer to the north. We deal with a persistent drainage problem in the area. Our system, there's four.

I can stand on my front porch and see four outfalls and they do not drain during a storm. My problem with this site plan is if you follow the topo even though it wasn't a very detailed top o, the original natural flow of the water was to Manatee And Park Lane. And now it's being diverted and all coming back onto Harbor Drive. Harbor Drive goes into the piping system. Can you see if I

Yeah, we can see it. Okay. If you, no, can't see when you do that. Do it do it down here on the Oh, do it. Yeah. Yeah. There you go. Then we can also To help. Okay.

It goes into this the pipes goes into this storm drain. This really is

Yeah.

This has topo on it. I I

I don't mean it's topo, that's fine, thank you. It goes into this storm drain, it calls it a catch basin on here, but it's like eight inches higher than the road. So it really doesn't work as a catch basin. And then pipes it across Bayshore about whatever the width of Bayshore is 30 foot into a ditch, into a pipe that enters my yard. That instantly fills up during a heavy storm because if you drive down there and ever look at it, you get halfway through the the what they're using as the parish now and the water flows towards Tarpon Street.

And then we get during heavy rain storms we not only get water coming from that direction, we get it from Nassau Street draining on to Tarpon Street also. Our problem there is it drains through my yard and my neighbor's yard. And it causes a lot of damage of, it drains through three of us. 326 Tarpon Street, 330 Tarpon Street, and 304 West Bay. And they could not be here today.

They tried to make it. It all flows right down West Bay. All that water comes down. It's like a river during a heavy storm. I do give it to storm water maintenance.

They have been out there cleaning out the pipes. They're trying to stay on top of it. But the system is very inadequate. And taking the natural flow of the water and diverting it even at the rate that the lesser rate is still going to be large impact on us because we didn't get but maybe a quarter of that parking lot flow before. And now we're going to be getting whatever is retained and charged out.

And I felt that this plan should have never passed city approval because they took the natural flow of the water, diverted it to another direction that impacts residents downstream and knowing that the system is wholly inadequate and our backyard is not a drainage easement, we have a five foot drainage easement. When this water comes it's like 16 foot wide, eight inches deep. And it's pretty intense. And the storm water, the my neighbor Andrew has also 304 West Bay has shown the city the amount of water that flows down through there. So I just, I think there's other things that can be done on the site retainage even as far as designing it to retain what all of the water with on the site like other developers do on projects around town and that's all I have.

Very good, thank you.

Who's next?

Next speaker is Douglas Sniff. Kniff. Kniff.

It's good to be here with everybody. It's good to see everybody here. I'm at 304 Bayshore, and I basically have the same problem that Bob does with his property. He lives right next to me. And the drainage system that currently goes Down Bayshore is not even adequate to handle the current flow of of water that comes during a quantity of rain that could come down

in a

short period of time. And and my yard gets flooded as well currently. So even if they add a little more to this, their drainage system they have it going down the base shore drainage system, which is currently inadequate as it is with the current flow. And even though there is I'm kitty corner from this parking lot on the downhill side of it. So any water that gets diverted to go down Bayshore on the storm water side is is just gonna exacerbate the problem that's already there that's not being taken care of by the city drainage system storm drainage system.

And that's my primary concern. I don't know if the engineers have have dealt with trying to retain a larger amount of of of downpour in a short period of time or not adequately. But it's hard to say at this point if we, you know, before the job is done. But after the job is done, it's gonna be too late to make that determination. So it's it's just I'm not I don't feel too comfortable that it's adequate to handle where it's being drained based on the parking lot.

I agree that the current parking lot at Shell doesn't have a good drainage system. It's it doesn't there's one little drainage across the street from me that is at the corner of the parking lot and then there's a drainage across the Harbor Drive there or Bayshore on my corner, there's a drainage there. But it still won't handle the heavy downpours that come from time to time. And so my concern is that I'm not convinced that the retaining of the water is gonna be adequate to to handle it as well as the system that they're draining it into. That's my concern.

The only other concern I had was I was just curious as to whether on this project, whether the city was going to be contributing any financial means to either towards towards the project or towards the parking or to alleviate any of the drainage that we currently have that's I feel is currently inadequate as Bob pointed out. That's all I have a concern with. Anybody else? Very good. Thank you. That's all I have for today.

Okay. Thank you.

If I could have those questions answered.

Who's next?

Next speaker, Cynthia Biotrill. She passes and then Sandra Ellen. She's passing.

Okay.

There's no further speakers.

No further? All right. Mr. Mayhew, would you like to address any of the comments you've heard? Yes.

I just want to reiterate, you know, what I had said before that we are sending less water under this development proposed condition than in the previous because we have less impervious area and we have storage. And the piping system all there's a network of pipes. So and inlets. So they all end up going to the same place. So we worked with city and they've agreed through their review and acceptance of our where we're connecting, that we're connecting in the same basin where the water goes presently.

So we aren't adding any more flow to that system or to that neighborhood or any anything definite what it already does. It will flow off-site wherever it does sheet flow presently, get into inlets and make its way down through the same pathway that we're connecting to. And so with that, we're there's always an issue, existing conditions the runoff and sometimes it will gather higher than the the inlets. There are certain design storms. You'd have to talk to staff about whether there is there really is an inadequacy of the system, but that's not anything that our client and our application is causing or actually alleviating some of that.

So but again, a lot of there in certain requirements for level of service, it's acceptable to have flooding. So some people may say, well, hey, there's water standing there. Well, come back and a few hours later it's gone.

Can I just have a clarification on something? Sure. Took it before when we were talking that things basically were the same. It was fairly infervious before and it's only slightly more infervious now, but everything else was all things were staying equal and you were putting out less water than what it was currently, which in that's the case what happens elsewhere around is nothing to do with this project. You know, you're putting off less water, so I get that. Then I heard someone say you're diverting it differently than it was before. I wanna make sure that that gets appropriately answered for everyone. Yeah.

I it looks

like it gets gets diverted differently because of the underground structure, the pipe.

Yeah. We're connecting it but it's

still the same amount of water is coming to the same place at the end. Yes. Regardless of how it works around to So get it's less water than what currently is happening now.

Yes, exactly.

Thank you.

Other questions? Yes, Pam.

Just a clarification, it's less water and it's more metered, meaning it's dripping not dripping down, but it's less coming out over time.

Well, it's controlled through the control structure and has that storage provides a place for it to build up before it leaves the site. And so in that case and it is true like in a lot of we're kind of a unique case where it's already we're actually reducing where that you can see the site was covered with that compacted shell where we're actually creating more green space. A lot of places you're starting out all green space and you're adding asphalt. And then we come in and we say, hey, we're taking care of the storm water and there could be more volumes of water going off-site even though you're holding it back. But in this case, it's a unique case where I feel confident that exactly what we just said that it's we have less water going off-site.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Thank you.

Thank you.

Brittany, any additional staff comments or anything from the engineering department? Very good. I knew he wasn't going through the day with that coming up.

Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Steve Barron, Stormwater Engineering Manager for the City of Venice. I did want to provide a little more context, elaborate a little more on the question about diverting the water that Mr. Bostik had. I am familiar with the issue that they have on Tarpon Street and West Bay Drive. I've met with Mr. Bostik and Mr. Smidor before. So I can touch on that subject too, but I'll start with just diverting the water. If you look at the site now, if you really analyze the topography as Mr.

Bostik mentioned, it broadly just sheet flows north, but there is a split. Some will go to the Northwest corner, some will go to the Northeast corner in existing conditions. And this was a discussion that we had with DMK early on and they asked us which direction would you like us to send the discharge from the stormwater pond. And after looking at it, we decided that it would be best, most beneficial to send it to the East. If you look at this from a watershed perspective, there's that split is a watershed boundary where portion drains towards what we call Outfall 15, a portion drains towards what we call Outfall 17.

Outfall 15, that basin has major flooding issues in the Parkside Drive, Parkdale Drive Streets. During intense rainfalls, they'll flood up to the homes. I believe it will enter the homes in some cases. Just in the last couple of years, we've had several storms that have created those conditions. And we believe that the issue that's on Tarpon Street and West Bay Drive is more of an isolated issue than it is a watershed issue.

We don't believe there's an inadequacy in the trunk line, the storm water trunk line that conveys storm water through that basin. So there's both basins experience issues, but we believe that Outfall 17, that basin has more capacity to handle some runoff, which was it's worth noting that we earlier this year, Kimley Horn completed our stormwater master plan update. They included several projects for consideration and one of their projects was a stormwater treatment system within Prentiss French Park. And the discharge for that they had diverting towards the Outfall 17 Basin right by this property. So they analyzed our whole watershed model and felt that the Outfall 17 Basin had more capacity and could alleviate some of the flooding issues in the Outfall 15 Basin.

So what we're looking at here on this site is kind of a smaller version of that. We have a split and we have the opportunity to send it one direction or the other or both directions. And we decided that it would be best to send it towards the east and that was what we advised DMK to do. And it's another thing worth noting is that because they have a retention pond, will be capturing all the runoff on the site up to a certain amount, the peak flow, the peak discharge off-site not only has it decreased from what the total is now, it's also delayed. It won't be happening at the same time that your peak discharge will be leaving the site as it is now, it just discharges immediately.

And that I do think will provide some benefit that they may observe on Tarpon Street. Standing there, you probably won't be able to tell, but I believe that it will be beneficial to them, that delayed discharge, even though it might be slightly greater than what is going that direction now, the delay will benefit them. So I think that what we advised DMK to do is what we felt was best for the site. And there is some judgment call on our part, the engineering department as to decision. But they were advised to do that and so they did what they were advised to do.

Let me make sure I fully understand this now. Sure. So what I'm hearing is that Citi probably has at a high water event problems at both the outflow of fifteen and seventeen. Little worse at fifteen and seventeen today, but they're both at a high rain, high event, both gonna have issues with outflow.

Yeah, the issue that I mentioned, you know both have issues. The one that is on Tarpon Street West Bay Drive, mentioned is more of an isolated thing. That's largely due to just the topography of the area. West Bay Drive I think is roughly four feet lower than Bayshore Drive. So a lot of the water they're getting is overland sheet flow directly onto their street. It isn't necessarily coming out of the storm water system.

Right. What's within the pipes. So what's being proposed here might lessen what happens on 15, it might increase what happens on 17, but you're thinking that that's a better solution than what's there currently?

I think there will be an increase in water that's going out to Outfall 17. I don't believe it will increase the flooding issue that they're having on Tarpon Street and West Bay Drive.

Because we're delaying it in the retention pond.

Correct. Yes, there's the delay and we don't, like I said, a lot of the issue they have is coming from the water that's flowing over the land or off the street itself. It's not necessarily coming out of that storm water trunk line that the water is being sent to.

Yeah, it's hard judge the whole big picture here. That's what we're trying to Yeah, you are. But we're dealing with one small part of that and trying to figure out what its impact is one way or the other. Correct, yes. So, okay. Very good. Any other questions? Thank you. If there's nothing else, let me close the hearing. Do I have a motion?

Go ahead Bill.

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as the local planning agency finds this petition consistent with the comprehensive plan in compliance with the Land Development Code and with the affirmative findings of fact in the record, moves to approve Site and Development Plan Petition No. Twenty five-thirty two S. P.

Thank you. Do I have

a second? I'll second it.

Thank you, Mr. Jasper. Is there any discussion? To

where I'm coming from, from the way I understand it. As far as this piece of property, they can't be held responsible for what's happening like if it's coming across the road or whatever, that's that's not their issue. So I can't hold that to them. I look at this as we're hearing from the experts that it's not that different now with the you know with the what it has currently to what it's gonna be in the future and they're actually gonna retain and have less water coming off of there. So from that piece of property, that's the way I understand it.

You know, I I was opposed to it last time just because we didn't get that kind of an explanation. I mean, that that's we needed to hear that, the public needs to hear that. So, that relieves the concerns that I had. Now I'm not saying that they don't maybe have some real issues with with water at times, but this particular situation is not exacerbating that and that's the way I have to look at it for this particular decision.

Very good. Anyone else? Hearing none, can I have a vote please? And site plan is approved seven-zero. Thank you.

All

right. Oh, there's so much more. Mr. Clerk.

Good afternoon, Mr. Snyder and Planning Commission. Hope you all had a nice Thanksgiving. Glad to see you all back for a quick meeting. And then we have canceled the next meeting.

Folks, if we could ask you to go ahead and move out if you're leaving, we have a few other items to deal with. Could I ask you to move out, please? Thank you. Okay, Roger.

Yes, just back for a quick meeting and then we've canceled the next meeting kind of for the reason that we I think we had one item, so we pushed that to the first meeting of the year, which is on January 6. So you will have a meeting that day. We've got three applications. For that day, you've got a comp plan amendment of conditional use and a variance. So you will have a meeting on the January 6.

Beyond that, I just want to let you all know that we had our staff, Seaboard kickoff meeting yesterday with the consultants once again. So they're back on board, Dover Cole and Associates that did the original master plan. This is going to be more of a technical plan, so it's more staff intensive than last time with public intensity that we had with the Charette for three days and all that. That's typically not going to occur in this situation. We're looking at more of the ground level technical standards, the new road cross sections for the new road that they proposed and also probably a section of Seaboard as well, looking at the parcelization of that new road and those properties in there.

So that's pretty exciting, getting back with them and getting into more detail as to what is expected of this next phase. Pretty excited about that. Parks Master Plan, I think the request for proposals or qualifications is going out this week. So that will be moving forward as well once we get a consultant on board. So at this point, we're just kind of waiting for that to get advertised and see what kind of response we get.

I think the expiration is sometime in January for them to submit their actual proposals. So things are moving forward, it's gonna be an exciting year, a lot of work this year for our department and obviously we're all excited about the Centennial that got kicked off this weekend with a parade. So a lot of good things going on for this next year to year and a half in the city and especially in our department, a lot of things to be working on this year. So we're excited about it.

Very good. Any questions of Roger? Any comments from Planning Commission members for today? Seeing none, we're adjourned.