Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Meeting the City of Winter Haven Planning Commission to order. Jordan, if you would, please take roll.

Kevin Tyson.

Here.

Mario Manico.

Here.

Bob Lanford. Here. Lorena Cadero. Wendy Venters. Colin Wells.

Here.

Ed Smith.

Oh, I'm here.

Tina Summerlin. Here. And Craig Fuller. We have a quorum.

If you would, please stand for the invitation and pledge. Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day and the opportunity to serve the city of Winter Haven. We ask that you be with us and guide us. We ask these things in your heavenly name. Amen. 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. Everybody had a chance to review the April 7th, 2026 meeting minutes? All right, we have a second all those in favor say aye aye all opposed same sign aye Okay, minutes are approved. All right, I will move into a brief explanation of the hearing. Cases will be read into the record. City staff will provide a presentation, and then commissioners will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff. Once questions have been asked, we will close the planning portion of the hearing and open the public portion of the hearing. Anyone wishing to speak for or against a case may do so. We ask that you limit your comments to five minutes. Once everybody from the public has had an opportunity to ask questions, we will close the public portion of the hearing and reopen the planning portion of the hearing, where we can ask additional questions or entertain a vote and a motion. Anybody here who thinks they may speak for or against the case, if you would, please stand and Jordan will swear you in. It doesn't mean you will. You don't have to.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this case shall be the truth?

All right, moving into new business. Case number P-26-1-S, request by 260 SW LLC for special use approval for a banquet hall located in the commercial downtown C1 zoning district, general location 260 Avenue A Southwest. The area covered by this request is .15 plus or minus acres.

Heather Reuter, senior planner for the record. Before you on the screen is the zoning map. The subject property is located in the downtown in zone C1 and is surrounded completely by C1. As you look at the aerial, you can see the subject property there located on the south side of Avenue A Southwest. This is a view looking at the subject property. It includes the building as well as the paved area there. This is a view looking to the west. looking to the north across Avenue A, and then looking to the east. 260 Southwest LLC petitioner requests special use approval for a banquet hall located in the commercial downtown C1 zoning district. The property subject to this request is located at 260 Avenue A Southwest and consists of a 3,200 square foot building located on .15 acres. The applicant proposes to operate a banquet hall at the location. The proposed floor plan for the proposed banquet hall is generally open space inside the building as well as an outside patio area to be set up specifically for each event. Hours of operation will vary based on booked events. Per Section 2196, the applicant has developed a security plan that has been approved by the Chief of Police. A banquet hall with 3,200 square feet of gross floor area would require 46 parking spaces. Since the property is located in the C-1 zoning district, there are no on-site parking requirements. However, within the downtown corridor, there are approximately 700 public parking spaces, either on street, in a parking lot, or in the downtown parking garage. For the record, all public notification requirements for this request were met. And in conclusion, the location of the proposed banquet hall in the city's downtown is consistent with long-term goals to grow the social, cultural, and business core of the city. Minimum off-site impacts are expected as a result of this request. Additionally, the required security plan has been approved by the Chief of Police. Therefore, staff does recommend that the Planning Commission approve this request subject to the conditions in your agenda packet.

and this is the submitted floor plan as proposed for the banquet hall i stand for any questions that you may have any questions no all right we will close the public or the planning portion of the hearing and open the public portion of the hearing anyone wishing to speak for or against this case all right seeing none we will close the public uh hearing and reopen the planning hearing I will go ahead and make a motion in favor of case number P-26-01-S, request by 260 Southwest LLC for special use approval for a banquet hall located in the commercial downtown C1 zoning district, general location 260 Avenue A Southwest. The area covered by this request is .15 plus or minus acres as presented in the fact sheet and with conditions. Recommended by staff. Second. We have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Okay, moving on. Case number P-26-2-S, request by Samuel, forgive me. and a set for special use approval for a large-scale drinking establishment located in the commercial highway C3 zoning district, general location 221 Martin Luther King Boulevard Northeast. The area covered by this request is .15 plus or minus acres.

Before you is the zoning map. The subject property is in C3 as well as the other properties that front along Martin Luther King Boulevard there to the north surrounding is R3. As you look at the aerial, there's the subject property. It is, again, located on MLK on the north side there. And there's a single family and multi-family that surrounds it, as well as a convenience store immediately to the east. This is a view looking at the subject property. This is a view looking to the east. This is a view looking to the south. And this is a view looking to the west. Samuel Anistad is the petitioner and requests special use approval for a large scale drinking establishment located in the commercial highway C3 zoning district. The property subject to this request is located at 221 Martin Luther King Boulevard Northeast and consists of the 1,536 square foot building on .15 acres originally constructed in 1960. The applicant currently operates Fantasy Island Restaurant and Bar which was originally approved to operate as a restaurant. In September 2025, Code Compliance initiated a case after promotional materials for the establishment advertised disc jockeys, foam parties, cover charges, and liquor sales. A subsequent site inspection by Code Compliance identified additional changes additional changes to the operation, including the installation of a pool table, liquor bottles displayed behind the bar, and the addition of outdoor patio seating. Based on these observed operational changes, the business no longer meets the definition of a restaurant as established by the city's code of ordinances, thereby necessitating special use approval for operation as a drinking establishment. During the application process for the state alcohol license, the applicant acknowledged the city's restaurant definition and represented the business would operate in compliance with that definition. Additionally, the establishment currently holds only a 2-COP alcohol license issued by the state of Florida, which permits the sale of beer and wine only and does not authorize the sale of liquor as advertised and observed on site. Furthermore, the outdoor patio seating area is located within 100 feet of property zoned R3 and therefore is not permitted under Section 2196 of the code. Pursuant to Section 2196, the applicant has submitted a required security plan, which as of the date of the agenda publication remains under review by the Chief of Police. Approval of the security plan by the Chief of Police is required prior to the commencement of operations. A large-scale drinking establishment with 1,536 square feet of first floor area requires a minimum of 22 off-street parking spaces. The subject property currently contains approximately 10 legal non-conforming parking spaces on site. As part of the required site plan review process, the existing on-site parking will be required to be brought into compliance with code requirements. If additional parking spaces are necessary to satisfy the minimum parking requirement, a shared parking agreement with property within 300 feet by legal pedestrian travel will be required. Any shared parking agreements must be reviewed and approved as part of the site plan approval process. On the screen here, the blue hash area represents the 300 foot distance with pedestrian travel from the subject property. So those properties that are within that radius could be considered. The applicant has submitted a land lease agreement for two vacant parcels located approximately 160 feet east of the subject property While these parcels are located within the allowable 300 foot distance requirement to qualify for consideration as offsite parking, they will be required to undergo site plan review and approval for the development of improved parking areas. This is a picture of the lots that have been provided with the lease. For the record, all public notification requirements for this request were met. In conclusion, staff's review yields the following. The petitioner expanded operations from the originally approved restaurant use to a large-scale drinking establishment use after acknowledging during the alcohol licensing process that the business would operate in accordance with the city's definition of a restaurant. A large-scale drinking establishment at this location requires a minimum of 22 off-street parking spaces in accordance with the ULDC. These spaces must be provided either on-site or within 300 feet of the subject property as measured by ordinary and legal pedestrian travel. The subject property currently contains the 10 legal non-conforming parking spaces, which will be required to be brought into compliance through the site plan review process. Additionally, the petitioner's land lease agreement for nearby parcels proposed for off-site parking will require the site plan review and approval for the development of legal improved parking areas before those spaces may be counted toward the minimum parking requirement. And the subject property is located within 100 feet of property zoned R3, therefore pursuant to section 2196, neither outdoor seating nor outside entertainment are permitted at this location. Staff does recommend, though, that the Planning Commission approve this request subject to the conditions in the agenda packet. There are six within there. For brevity, I will not read them all out, but they do require site plan, being able to meet the parking requirements and different buffer requirements. If you have any questions about those, I will answer those. I stand for any other questions that you may have. This is the floor plan that was provided.

Yes, I have a few questions. So the The addition of what they're asking for is not part of the original attachment to the establishment before that was advertising beer, alcohol sales, cover charges, phone parties. That was a separate building?

No, this was located at this building. So they were originally permitted and licensed as a restaurant. and then expanded the use beyond a restaurant to what would be considered a large-scale drinking establishment, which requires special use approval. So that is what they are intending to get with this approval.

Thank you. Any other questions? No? All right, we'll close the planning portion of the hearing and open the public portion of the hearing. Anybody wishing to speak for or against? Please. if you would state your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon. My name is Kim Renner. I live at 1916 4th Street Northeast, which is relatively across the street from the requested business. A couple of concerns that we do have regarding changing this into a large scale drinking establishment. We're looking to see if there's any impact reports that have been done, I apologize, I have chicken scratch. Any types of traffic studies, with it being a two lane road, there are extreme backups at various times of the day and evening, including very, very, a lot of emergency vehicles that travel to and from that really don't have an alternative way to get through over to like Buckeye Loop Road or over to First Street. Also, is there any type of public benefit report that has been done to the community? How this could positively impact our area or negatively impact our area? We are also, sorry, We're looking to see if there are any considerations for noise disruptions, with it being a relatively residential area, except for the business front. We have loud noises, we have residents that are right behind, right next to, and that can impact families, including people with small children or people who are elderly who don't tolerate loud noises. Also the parking situation, with it having a limited parking on site, or with even the adjacent parking that you were talking about, many people are not going to adhere or if the parking lot is too full, they're going to try to park on the side streets. Our side streets are not very large and if there are parking on both sides, you can barely get a vehicle through, except for small cars. A lot of our neighbors have larger vehicles. So that does pose a problem. We've noticed when there's the parades on Martin Luther King day, parking is full. We can't get down our streets. Also, is there some type of crime report with typically a large scale drinking establishment? There tends to be more small petty crimes, but can also lead to larger crimes. And that is a very big concern because many of our families here do have small children and you know, all, all types of children actually, um, And also, again, with the parking, people will tend to park across the street of Martin Luther King. That could increase pedestrian versus vehicular accidents, which is something that nobody wants to see in any area. So these are a lot of concerns that we have, and I'm hoping that these will be taken into consideration. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

My name is Teresa Hancher. I live at 1918 4th Street, Northeast. She's my neighbor, OK? My whole concern is the traffic. I've come to City Hall a lot of times, and I'm happy that y'all did reduce the speed limit on Martin Luther King to 30 when people are driving 50 and 60. I really thank you for that. But my whole concern is you're putting extra people in the community. All of these people won't be living in this community that will be coming to be patrons of this restaurant. The hours of operation. Just like she indicated, families. We do have families. Kids have nighttime schedules. I'm an adult. I'm a senior. I have a nighttime schedule also. So what type of noise volume would this bring to the community? The after hours are just like the old clubs that I used to go to when I was young? Are we starting at 9 o'clock and then at midnight during the week and on the weekend going to 2? What are the hours of operation after the club is closed? What concerns is it for people hanging out in the parking lot? Are they hanging out the three or four? Will the police also make sure that these establishments or people are sent home, or will they be to the point where they really don't care and they're just hanging out as long as they want to hang out? Because no less means a lot. When you put anything within 200 yards of a family, I can hear every beat, every sound. from any place that has base within that corner. You could put something on First Street on the corner, and I could hit down to Fourth Street at the corner of the Taste of Freaks corner. Fourth Street is not a good street because it's already a high-volume traffic street. You're talking about making the empty lot for the extra parking for the 22 cars right on the corner of Fourth Street and that empty lot. Fourth Street is the number one busiest street going out to Lucerne Park Road besides First Street going to Havendale. So that's extra traffic. We already have accidents at that corner. Being that the road is one lane each way with the center medium, do you not know how hard it is to turn left back onto First Street to go back to Havendale between the hours of 7.30 and 9? Or between the hours of 1.30 and 4? Or between the hours of 6 and 8? It is very hard to turn left on that road to even go back toward Havendale or 1st Street. I spend the majority of my time leaving my house going to Sears Avenue and turning to go down to 6th Street and coming back up to Lake Silver by going round by Polk to cut through all the traffic because you got lanes that require 4 or 5. The lanes going north the lights are short, so traffic's always backed up. Like my neighbor indicated, school time getting out, which we're outside of school right now, but school traffic is always backed all the way to 5th Street, 6th Street. It's backed up to the junior high school in the morning and in the afternoon. So I would also really like your concerns. Just looking forward to making sure this is good for everyone, not just to pass someone's pocket. but for the whole community as a whole moving forward. Because not just one person live in this world. We all live here together. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello. My name is Frances Campbell, and I'm at 1926 3rd Street Northeast, directly across from the store and whatnot. My concern is the killings that have been done there. And where I stay, okay, it's the vacant lot right in front of me, but now since they put those signs up, nobody's parking there. because everybody that was going across the street was parking in front of our houses all down the street. Then when everybody get together and get happy, they go to shooting. I had a bullet come through my front room. Luckily, I wasn't in the front room. And it's been young children dying because of this. It's an alleyway in the back of my house, a thruway there. People start parking all down that way. So my thing is, okay, we got houses there. I don't mind people having fun, but they have no respect for people property, not all that loud, filthy music that we hear. and they just keep, it just keep going on and on. So the only thing that, you know, I don't know why we put those type places where houses and people are living and know, you know, that's not a party area. You know, that need to be somewhere else. But since this is how I guess the system is going and you let people, almost do as they please, this is what happened, but it's not really safe when you got bullets coming through your own house and you're not even involved in that. So my thing, period, is you gonna have the parking area over here, then everybody gonna be walking up and down the street to get to the place. So that's gonna be another problem. but i don't know how to you know actually word that but it's dangerous and avenue t been dangerous now for a good little while and seem like we keep bringing stuff on every duty to make it worse so i wish you all would think about you know the other older people that's there and don't want to get killed in the house just because bullets flying everywhere. So thank you, and God bless you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening. I'm Katrina Morales, and I'm representing 217 Martin Luther King. I do not live there, but my kids are the owners of that residence. It's a residence that's been in the family for years now. And back in the early 80s, my mother had it. It was a daycare there, and I think that ran for about... Close, almost 20 years. But my brother had it, and unfortunately he passed away four years ago. But he was in the process of making that property a barber shop. He was within a few months of retirement, and I know this is irrelevant, but to get to my point, he was killed in a car crash, and he willed the property to his niece and nephews, who are my kids that own it now. My daughter, who's 23, she's now a flight attendant, but she's working towards renovating that business to be a spa. She's a licensed esthetician. And when I told her about the letter, she became really upset. She was like, Mom, my dream is being crushed before I can even get it started. I said, well, sweetheart, this isn't the end of it. We still have a meeting to go through. And she says, but who wants to come and be waxed or have a facial or something when there's drinking going on next door? I said, that's true, but... We'll see what we have to do, but this young girl who's 23 who's flying the skies every moment she gets because she's a flight attendant, to raise up her money so that she can renovate this suite to her liking. And I feel that I share her feelings that it's crushing her dreams before they can even get started by having this. alcohol place next to it. We had no problem with the restaurant that was there. We've been neighbors for years. But bringing in that heavy scale or large scale drinking, I think, would really tarnish it, along with number one, the crime, number two, the crime, number three, the crime, number four, the crime. And it's just not sitting well with it. So thank you for hearing.

Thank you for your comments. Anybody else?

Good afternoon. My name is Emma Eli, I live at 1912 3rd Street, Northeast. It's this place you're talking about right across the street from me. I've been there for 50 years or more. I have watched them change it from a washing place to a gambling place to whatever you want to call it. And we have more than we can stand, more than I can stand because I'm too old to listen to it. And now it's even worse. And if you can do something about it, I would like for you to do something about it. And where they gonna park? That's the main thing. They usually use our street park home. then we can't get out of our driveway. That's not good. You get up and then you listen to the bad music, and the music's awful. They play it so loud, it bounces off of your house, and the windows start shaking. So if somebody can do something about it, I would highly appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Anybody else?

Were you sworn in? Yes. Okay. My name is Robert Burnham, and I'm also a resident of Oakland Haven. I live at 1215 Sophia Boulevard. I also manage Fantasy Island Restaurant and Bar. I can agree with the people about the traffic, but the traffic is not in our control. It's been traffic on Avenue T now for as far as I can remember, especially during school hours. And the parking situation, as was stated by the board, we have two lots that we have gotten for the parking, with addition to the parking that's on the spot. Now, we have a parking attendant that when our parking lot is full, they are pointing to the lots for our parking. Loud music is not allowed to be played in our parking lot at all, period. And our customers know not to park across the street in the field or on the side of the streets because their cars will be towed. I came just to kind of ease their mind with the parking, the loud noise. We haven't had any complaints, no police calls or anything since we've been there. So I hope you'll take that into consideration. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Anybody else? All right, we will close the public portion of the hearing and reopen the planning portion of the hearing. Heather, I do have a couple questions. How long has the business been operating out of compliance?

Thank you. Do you not have that date in front of me? So I do not want to give a relevant, but it's been a couple months since I went to a code compliance hearing, and the case would have started a few months before that.

So all we're evaluating at this point is approving this based on the conditions that you've placed in there to bring it into compliance. But the way the business is operated today is not changing. It's the way it's been operated.

That's my understanding.

Okay. Any other questions?

I'm in line with that same thinking. If they have a... a security plan that's still in review by the police chief and we're asked to evaluate whether or not this would be benefit to the to the community or the bend as a whole can we revisit this after we find out some more detail about security plans security plans being actually approved and and compliance how long they've been on compliance stuff because right now it's kind of Asking it asking us to agree to something or give the go-ahead on something where we kind of have some Some questions about the compliance issues and whether or not security plan isn't if within compliance Well, you have you have those six conditions, right?

So this approval will be contingent on those conditions being met if they're not it's as a Conditions as well as anything that's a requirement of the code So having an approved security plan is a requirement of the code. This is not the first time that we brought to hearing and it hasn't got its final review and approval because there was an original draft submit and then requirements for changes to be, and then the resubmittal has not been able to be reviewed and approved yet by the police chief. So I did an initial review, obviously I'm not the chief of police, but it does have all the minimum requirements of the code, but the chief of police can require additional things to be added into the security plan. So that we are waiting for that, but that would still be required for them to be in compliance and operation. For those that are in the audience, since we have had so many, do you want me to read the conditions?

Yeah, if you don't mind, I think we're better off reading them into the record.

Certainly will. Okay, so these are the recommended conditions. Number one, a site plan shall be approved and all required improvements shall be made prior to using the subject property as a large-scale drinking establishment. Additionally, if the parking requirement is met through the use of off-site parking agreements, those agreements shall be submitted at a minimum annually to the city's planning division for compliance review. At any time the minimum off-street parking requirement fails to be met, operations shall cease. Number two. If the establishment plans to have an advertised or promoted entertainment event by an external organizer, they shall be required to hire a minimum of two off-duty officers to work outside the establishment for the duration of the event. When off-duty officers are hired, they will position themselves outside the establishment unless entry into the establishment becomes necessary for a legitimate law enforcement purpose. If the establishment requests the off-duty officers but the detail request cannot be fulfilled by any law enforcement agency, then a minimum of two additional licensed private security officers shall be hired to work outside the establishment for the duration of the event. When utilizing a private security company, the officers shall wear something which identifies them as such. If off-duty officers or additional licensed private security officers are unable to be secured, the entertainment event cannot occur. 3. If the establishment is at maximum occupancy, no more than 30% over the maximum occupancy as determined by the Winter Haven Fire Marshal or a maximum of 10 persons, whichever is less, we wait directly outside of the establishment for amendments. Additionally, if the establishment is not at maximum capacity, then there shall be no loitering, gathering, and or waiting directly outside the establishment other than those actively moving through a security line to enter the establishment. Four. No outdoor seating or entertainment areas are permitted. Five, a minimum eight-foot opaque fence shall be installed and maintained along the western and northern property lines of the subject property. Six, in addition to grounds for revocation stated in Section 2196I of the Unified Land Development Code, failure to comply with the above conditions shall be deemed grounds for revocation.

I have a question with regards to the fence. Is that at the actual restaurant location? And there's no provision for a fence at the parking, at the off-site parking?

We did not place one there. We placed a request for the 8-foot fence along the western and northern property lines because that's immediately adjacent to the residential next to the establishment. Um, because a standalone parking lot could be developed at those locations right there. There would, would there be a requirement for a buffer with a fence from a parking commercial parking to a residential? They're likely just from the standard code. There would be some kind of buffer that required whether or not it would require a six foot fence or not. I can't speak without looking at that part of the code. However, that would be a site plan of separate. So the conditions have to be applied to this property. This is the property that's in for the special use. The parking that's occurring down there is a mechanism for them to possibly meet the parking requirement. But someone could come in for site plan tomorrow and put a parking lot at that location and we just follow the standard code.

I think part of my problem is I don't think I could vote yes at this point. I think I'd be more inclined to postpone this. Because they've been operating out of compliance, I would like to see a little bit more good faith on their part before I could say yes, that I'd be comfortable with this.

I echo what you said, Ed. And I've heard what you all have. commented in in your concerns i share them and i i can't get behind this petition myself uh... i do have a uh... question for them for the applicant so

What proactive measures up to this point have been made to address the concerns of making sure folks do not park or be anywhere outside of the current parking plan or arrangement that you have right now?

Well, the business is quite slow, but when you do have parking and the parking lot is full, we have a attendant that's there, like I said before, that directs them to the two lots that we have for the additional parking.

What are the hours of operation and days of the week?

Seven days a week from 10 to 2.

From what?

Seven days a week from 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock.

2 a.m.?

Yes, ma'am.

chair man something to on the parking you know what i i'd mentioned multiple times it is legal non-conforming parking that is on this property says part of the site plan to be brought in it will be nowhere near ten uh... as you can see the uh... fifteen ten to fifteen foot wide strip property that is there to the the west is a city on uh... the parking has been linked legal money for me and the majority of the parking spaces there extend past this property line. So any parking that is generated on the site plan will have to meet the requirements of the code and be completely within their space. So they will lose even parking that they have on site as well.

So I just wanted... And Heather, I assume that... With the additional two lease lots for parking, there are a lot of restrictions with regard to that. For paving and a site plan, is that available for that at this point even?

They have not submitted in. So it'll still have to get through site plan. It will have to meet all the requirements of the code for surface material, access points, stormwater management, and all of that. There also is a billboard that is located in the middle of the lot. I showed it in the picture, but you can see also the shadow of it there in the middle. That is going to limit as well what they can do for drive aisles and the parking that is on there. So I don't know legitimately how many spaces they actually can create on there and whether between what they can create on site and there will actually be enough to meet the requirements. That's why it's heavily conditioned that they have to meet all of these things.

And those parking, the two additional lots for parking have residential homes around them as well?

That is a single-family home to the north of that parking lot, but even that would require a separate buffer when you do parking so like I Don't disagree with either of you I but I don't I'm all for providing a path

to conforming and being in compliance, albeit a difficult path. I'd like the option, I appreciate the conditions.

I think for me, with the offsite parking, all the conditions are for the security on their actual property. That won't do anything for cars loitering and parking down on the off-site parking what are their conditions I don't suppose you can we can we can put those on now we can't conditions on another property right that's one of I mean even if that was already in this established parking lot or business and they were going to do a shared parking agreement it's just for parking

So, I mean, standard code, you know, would apply to that property as far as whatever commercial use or parking was on there.

And that lease property, that's city property, correct? The parking, that's going to be a... Yeah, that's a private...

Yes, they provided a lease. The narrow strip of land to the west, immediately west of the property, is a city-owned lot. And some of their non-conforming parking spaces expand over there. That's also the reason for the eight-foot fence, one, the residential, but also to make sure there's not infringement on the city parcel.

For the applicant, that additional parking, will that be extended with the same level of scrutiny to make sure that compliance is met in that parking area as well as on the actual property itself?

Yes, sir. We have security in that area. When we have people parking there, we have security out there making sure there's no loitering, no drinking, no loud music, et cetera.

Mr. Brown, so you're already using it for parking while it's unimproved?

No.

Are you currently using it for parking when you have events?

We haven't had events.

But did you just say you have security there in your parking?

I said we have security. When people are parking there now? It's a restaurant. I mean, we don't have the drinking.

But you're still using those vacant lots for parking is what you said? Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you. I thought when you told us to get it that we can use it once we got it.

But to the point of the commission, and I'm in line with that, is that Part of the approval process is also showing good faith and making sure that, okay, we may have known about something, now that we are made aware of it, but going into the establishment of wanting to be an entrepreneur of this particular area of business, that also comes with the understanding that maybe I need to also make sure that I'm fully compliant to as much as I know before I start branching out and asking for more grace on some of this stuff.

I think one of the bigger hurdles you're going to have is that those empty lots don't qualify for parking today. Even with a lease, they've got to be improved to meet the condition, which is paved, site plan review, you know, handicap parking, right? Like all the things that go with it.

So here is my problem. This is my problem. You're asking us to take in good faith that you're going to do these things that the city is asking you to do when you're already out of compliance, just admitted you're out of compliance even further than we thought, right? I'm just really, really uncomfortable with this. And I don't know what else to say other than at this point, there is no way I'm approving this. I'm going to vote no on this.

I mean, what you just said, I've done everything that was asked of me by heaven. And I thought once we got the lots and I actually turned in... a lot of information to Heather that it was clear for me to use. I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to be using it. So now that I do know, it won't be used.

I think the change, I mean, the restaurant, they're able to operate as a restaurant. I mean, I think the change is a little premature. So does anybody want to make a motion or...

I would like to make a motion against case number P-26-02-S, request for Samuel Acinta for special use approval for large-scale drinking establishment located in the Commercial Highway C3 zoning district, general location 221 Martin Luther King Boulevard, Northeast. The area covered by this request is 0.15 plus or minus acres.

Second. Second. Second. Second.

All right, we have a second. All those opposed to approving case number P-26-02-S, say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. All right, case is denied. Other business, comments from staff?

Okay, I've got a handful of items here. First item I want to talk about is your July meeting date. It's July 7th, so it's the Tuesday immediately after the holiday weekend. and we want to get out in front of this to make sure that we'll be able to have a forum at that meeting because if we're not, we need to make the determination tonight to move that meeting to a different date.

I will be in Europe during that date.

I will be here.

I'll be here. I will be out of town. Dance nationals. And while you...

I guess that's the moment to say as well as we have going for the commission on Monday night, the reappointment of those who wish to be reappointed. Bob asked not to be reappointed, and so his replacement is being hopefully appointed on Monday night, so this will most likely be Bob's last planning commission meeting with us because we'll have a new person appointed. We don't have enough to say that we have a quorum because not everyone's here, but we don't have enough to necessarily move it.

We don't have enough to move it either, but I will say we've got the new comprehensive plans on that agenda.

As well as an allocation. What did you say?

We've got to adopt a new comprehensive plan, and we've got some timelines we have to adhere to. So that's... Do we have the ability just to push the day?

You could certainly... Well, you can still make, even if not knowing one way or another, y'all can make a motion today to move the meeting.

It can just be a few days, right? I mean, is that... No, I guess theoretically, I mean, we'd have to check the availability of this room. But I know the Wednesday that week will be out because of City Commission Workshop. So my next recommendation, if you still wish to have it that week, would be Thursday, I think, the 9th.

Otherwise, you're still going to be on it.

I'll still be back. I'll be back. Earliest I'll be back is the 14th.

Okay. So I think with the ninth worker and everyone else, I think that might be and most likely hopefully everyone else would be back from.

Okay. So you'd have to actually take a motion. And we would have to. Take a motion. Yeah, but we would have to. Jordan, you'll be able to send like an email to see who's available. Just. And then if it has to be... We have to do it now.

We have to take the action now.

That's what I'm saying. If we take the action now and we find out that others can't be here... Then we're...

Okay.

I'll make a motion to move the July meeting to Thursday the 9th. Second. Seconded. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. All right. July meeting is moved.

All right. Just kind of follow up on our last business. It's been a couple months, but we did have that lot. We rezoned on First Street and Avenue U Northwest. That was approved by the city commission a couple weeks ago. So that one is complete. And then the last thing I want to remind everybody, you should be starting to get some communication on your financial disclosure forms. Those are due by the end of June. So just to remind you to get those done. So that's it for me.

All right. Comments from planning commissioners? Sorry to see you go.

Well, thank everybody. I've had a wonderful time, and I appreciate your kindness and your wisdom. And thank you very, very much, and thank you for your service. And all of you as well.

Thank you. Comments from the public?