City Commission - 28 Jan 2025

City Commission - 28 Jan 2025. Location: City Hall - Commission Chambers. Time: 05:30 PM. Agenda: City Commission - 28 Jan 2025 - Agenda - Html Meeting of the City Commission Agenda - Regular Session City Hall - Commission Chambers Tuesday, January 28, 2025, 5:30 PM PROUD Heritage | PROMISING Future CITY COMMISSION Scott Black, Mayor Normita L. Woodard, Mayor Pro-Tem Kristin Church, Commissioner Ann E. Cosentino, Commissioner James D. Shive, Commissioner CITY OFFICIALS Marieke vanErven, Acting City Manager Angelia Guy, City Clerk Patrick Brackins, City Attorney Peter Altman, Finance Officer Page A. MEETING PROCEDURES The City Commission will be meeting in person. As an alternate option, the public may attend virtually. The virtual meeting will be in “watch/listen mode” only; no public comments will be taken virtually. To join the Zoom Meeting by computer or smart device: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87280176542?pwd=XdPqdpyir3j1RaeWapSTyJAvaaaxtc.1 To join by phone, dial: 1 929 205 6099 Meeting ID: 872 8017 6542 Passcode: 101833 Public Comment: If you are present in the Commission Chambers, you will be limited to three minutes to make your comments as is the usual rule of procedure for City Commission meetings, except for matters heard in a quasi-judicial capacity. Public comments will not be taken virtually. Submission of Presentations: For security purposes, the City cannot accept jump drives or other USB devices. Please contact the City Clerk for more information. ** Republished to Add/Modify: - Updated Summit View II Staff Report Item G2 - Update Exhibit D Item G2 - Addition of Exhibit E Item G2 - Addition of Item E2 - Addition of Item E3 B. CALL TO ORDER B.1. Invocation given by Commissioner Shive then followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. B.2. Roll Call B.3. Changes or Modification to the Agenda B.4. Disclosure of any known conflicts of interest regarding an agenda item. C. PRESENTATIONS D. PUBLIC COMMENTS E. CONSENT AGENDA E.1. Approve Resolution 2025-01 Dade City Water Asset Management Plan RESOLUTION NO. 2025-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DADE CITY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE CITY OF DADE CITY WATER SYSTEM ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN (2025); PROVIDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS; CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Agenda Memo - Approve Resolution 2025-01 Dade City Water Asset Management Plan - Html Dade City Water System Asset Managment Plan 1-3-25 Resolution 2025-01 Water Asset Management Plan 7 - 396 E.2. Resolution 2025-07 Amendment to Park Rules and Regulations RESOLUTION NO. 2025-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DADE CITY, FLORIDA, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2023-27 AND RESOLUTION 2008-0965 TO IMPLEMENT RULES RELATING TO THE PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF DADE CITY; DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF THIS RESOLUTION; PROVIDING FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGNAGE RELATING TO THE ADOPTED RULES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Agenda Memo - - Html Resolution 2025-07 Amending Park Rules Exhibit A - Parks Rules and Fees 397 - 401 E.3. Approve Agreement 2025-04 with Plan Active Studios for an LDR Update Agenda Memo - Approve Agreement 2025-04 with Plan Active Studios for an LDR Update - Html Agreement 2025-04 Plan Active Studios LDR Update 402 - 409 F. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA (IF ANY) G. PUBLIC HEARINGS G.1. Summit View 1B Part 2 Preliminary Plan - Continued to February 11, 2025 G.2. Summit View II Preliminary Plan Agenda Memo - Preliminary Plan - Pdf Agenda Memo - Preliminary Plan - Html Summit View II Staff Report Attachment A Summit View II Preliminary Plan Signed and Sealed Attachment B 2021-05 Ordinance Rezoning PD-R Attachment C- Summit View II Landscape Plan Attachment D- Summit View II Parks Plan Attachment E - Neighborhood Meeting Summary 410 - 515 H. PUBLIC HEARING - INTRODUCTION & FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES H.1. ORDINANCE No. 2025-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DADE CITY AMENDING SECTION 74-38 (COLLECTION FEES; CLASSIFICATION) OF CHAPTER 74 (SOLID WASTE), ARTICLE 11 (COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL), OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DADE CITY TO AMEND THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE, RECYCLABLES, AND LANDSCAPE WASTE (YARD TRASH); PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE Agenda Memo - Proposed Ordinance amending Solid Waste Fees - Html 430 Sanitation History Ord. 2025-01 business-impact-estimate 2025-01 Ordinance Updating Solid Waste Collection Fees 516 - 524 I. PUBLIC HEARING - ADOPTION & SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES I.1. Ordinance 2024-05 - Article 3 and Article 5 Land Development Regulations ORDINANCE NO: 2024-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DADE CITY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY’S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 3, SECTIONS 3.3.2(A) RS DISTRICTS AND 3.3.2(B) RG: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS RELATING TO LOT AREA AND WIDTH; AMENDING SECTIONS IN ARTICLE 3 ENTITLED “LIST OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND SPECIFIC PURPOSES” OF THE DADE CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.2 MEASUREMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS, TABLE 5.1-2 ENTITLED “TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS” RELATING TO MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE INCLUDING ACCESSORY USES AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION AND SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Agenda Memo - Ordinance 2024-05 - Article 3 and Article 5 Land Development Regulations - Html Ordinance 2024-05 Staff Report Ord 2024-05 LDR Amendments Art 3 and 5_2nd Reading Attachment B - Affidavit of Publishing Ord. 2024-05 business-impact-estimate 525 - 540 J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS K. NEW BUSINESS K.1. Appointment of Planning Board Member to Seat 4 Agenda Memo - Appointment of Planning Board Member to Seat 4 - Html Johnathan McKeen-Chaff Dade City Board Application 541 - 543 K.2. Appointment of Planning Board Member to Seat 2 Agenda Memo - Appointment of Planning Board Member to Seat 2 - Html 544 K.3. Resolution 2025-04 Building Service Fund Declaration of Intended Use of Funds RESOLUTION 2025-04 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DADE CITY, FLORIDA, DECLARING ITS POLICY AND INTENTION TO UTILIZE EXCESS FUNDS GENERATED FROM PERMIT FEES AND OTHER CHARGES/FEES GENERATED BY THE BUILDING SERVICE FUND ACTIVITIES FROM THE FISCAL YERA 2024-2025, INCLUDING RESERVES FROM PRIOR FISCAL YEARS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING FOR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT; PROVIDING FOR LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER; PROVIDING FOR DIRECTIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Agenda Memo - Resolution 2025-04 Permit Fee Utilization - Html Resolution 2025-04 Permit Fee Utilizaiton (d.2) 545 - 547 K.4. RESOLUTION NO. 2025-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DADE CITY, FLORIDA, REPEALING RESOLUTION 2022-03 FOR THE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE CITY OF DADE CITY CEMETERY RELATING TO THE BEAUTIFICATION AND DECORATION OF PLOTS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR RULES AND REGULATIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Agenda Memo - Resolution 2025 - Html Resolution 2025-05Cemetary Rules Exhibit A - Cemetery Rules 548 - 558 K.5. Review and Discuss Draft of Ordinance 2024-06 Florida WaterStar Certification ORDINANCE NO.: 2024-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DADE CITY, FLORIDA, CREATING A NEW SECTION TO CHAPTER 98, ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 98-56 THROUGH 98-62 OF THE CITY OF DADE CITY ORDINANCES; ESTABLISHING FLORIDA WATER STAR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Agenda Memo - Review and Discuss Draft of Ordinance 2024-06 Florida WaterStar Certification - Html DRAFT Ordinance 2024-06 WaterStar Certification 559 - 569 L. CITY ADMINISTRATION ITEMS (IF ANY) L.1. City Manager L.2. City Clerk L.3. Finance Officer L.4. City Attorney L.5. Police Chief L.6. Interim Community & Economic Development Director L.7. Public Works Director L.8. Utilities Director M. COMMISSIONER ITEMS N. PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ALREADY DISCUSSED) O. NOTED ITEMS O.1. First Quarter Financial Report Agenda Memo - Financial Report as of 12/31/2024 - First Quarter - Html 1st Quarter FYE25 Financial Report 570 - 586 P. ADJOURNMENT FOOTER TEXT CHAMBER RULES: The Dade City Commission welcomes comments from the public regarding non-agenda items during the Public Comment portions of the meeting and agenda items as scheduled. Any person desiring to address the Commission shall secure the permission of the Presiding Officer to do so. Each person addressing the city commission shall do so from the podium, shall remain at the podium at all times during their remarks and shall give their name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record prior to beginning their remarks. Any person wishing to approach the dais from the podium to submit materials to the commission must first seek and receive permission from the presiding officer before approaching the dais. Unless further time is requested and granted by the city commission, each person addressing the city commission shall limit their address to three minutes. All remarks shall be addressed to the city commission as a body and not to any individual member of the city commission, city officer or city employee. No person other than the city commission and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the city commission, without permission from the providing officer. No question shall be asked of an individual city commissioner, or city official or city employee except through the presiding officer. Any person making obscene, impertinent, slanderous, vulgar, or abusive remarks or who shall become violent, belligerent, or boisterous while addressing the city commission shall be instructed by the presiding officer to cease making such remarks or engaging in such conduct. If the person fails to comply with the presiding officer’s instruction(s), then they may be removed from the Commission Chambers upon the presiding officer’s directive, unless permission to continue is granted by a majority of the city commission. Public Comment shall be governed by Florida law if the matter is quasi-judicial (variances, rezoning, etc.) Please silence your cellphones during all meetings. APPEALS: Any person desiring to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at any meeting or hearing will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon with the appeal is based. DISABILITY : If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled at no cost to you to the provision of certain assistance within two (2) working days of your receipt of this notice. Please contact the Dade City Clerk’s office, P.O. Box 1355, Dade City, FL 33526-1355; (352) 523-5052 for further assistance and information . Document: City Commission - 28 Jan 2025 - Minutes - Html Meeting of the City Commission Minutes - City Commission City Hall - Commission Chambers Tuesday, January 28, 2025, 5:30 PM PROUD Heritage | PROMISING Future Members Present Scott Black, Mayor Normita Woodard, Mayor Pro Tem Kristin Church, Commissioner Ann Cosentino, Commissioner James Shive, Commissioner Staff Present Marieke vanErven, Acting City Manager & Executive Assistant Angelia Guy, City Clerk Patrick Brackins, City Attorney Peter Altman, Finance Officer Kendon Daniels, Utilities Director William Toner, Public Works Director Isaiah Hollinshead, Planner II Members Absent/Regrets Evis Bushi, Community & Economic Development Interim Director A. MEETING PROCEDURES The City Commission will be meeting in person. As an alternate option, the public may attend virtually. The virtual meeting will be in “watch/listen mode” only; no public comments will be taken virtually. To join the Zoom Meeting by computer or smart device: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87280176542?pwd=XdPqdpyir3j1RaeWapSTyJAvaaaxtc.1 To join by phone, dial: 1 929 205 6099 Meeting ID: 872 8017 6542 Passcode: 101833 Public Comment: If you are present in the Commission Chambers, you will be limited to three minutes to make your comments as is the usual rule of procedure for City Commission meetings, except for matters heard in a quasi-judicial capacity. Public comments will not be taken virtually. Submission of Presentations: For security purposes, the City cannot accept jump drives or other USB devices. Please contact the City Clerk for more information. ** Republished to Add/Modify: - Updated Summit View II Staff Report Item G2 - Update Exhibit D Item G2 - Addition of Exhibit E Item G2 - Addition of Item E2 - Addition of Item E3 B. CALL TO ORDER 5:33 PM B.1. Invocation given by Commissioner Shive then followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. B.2. Roll Call All members were seated and present except Commissioner Church who participated by Zoom. B.3. Changes or Modification to the Agenda Item K.5, Ordinance 2024-06, was moved under presentation, section C. Amber Smith, with WaterStar, and Zephyrhills's City Manager Billy Poe were present to speak on the implementation of the WaterStar ordinance. B.4. Disclosure of any known conflicts of interest regarding an agenda item. Mayor Pro-Tem Woodard disclosed an ex-parte with Nancy Johnson where she received an email. Commissioner Shive has a couple of ex-partes on file. Commissioner Church also disclosed ex-partes with Nancy Johnson and a site view of Summit View II. Attorney Brackins said they could address those on the record during the hearing. exparte C. PRESENTATIONS C.1. Review and Discuss Draft of Ordinance 2024-06 Florida WaterStar Certification ORDINANCE NO.: 2024-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DADE CITY, FLORIDA, CREATING A NEW SECTION TO CHAPTER 98, ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 98-56 THROUGH 98-62 OF THE CITY OF DADE CITY ORDINANCES; ESTABLISHING FLORIDA WATER STAR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Several representatives were present to share an overview of the ordinance including, Tom Vill, Professional Engineer with Infrastructure Engineering Group located in Indian Harbor Beach, FL. Billy Poe, City Manager for the City of Zephyrhills. Robin Grantham, Lead Communications Strategist with Southwest Florida Water Management District. Amber Smith, Government Affairs Regional Manager for the water management district. The commission and the representatives discussed the item. D. PUBLIC COMMENTS D.1. Carolyn Parrish at 14406 12th Street was present to address several concerns, including City phones going unanswered, the Public Works Department and City light poles, and the code enforcement issues on a building. Peggy Woods at 36332 St. Joe Road shared her concerns about the St. Joe II development. Lee Taylor at business address 14245 7th Street and home 17451 Spring Valley Road, wanted to go on public record with her full support for Police Chief Walters. She hopes for a quick resolution and for Walters to get reinstated. Shirrea Lewis at 14829 12th Street addressed concerns about loud music being played in her neighborhood. Lewis said this issue has been going on for years. E. CONSENT AGENDA E.1. Approve Resolution 2025-01 Dade City Water Asset Management Plan RESOLUTION NO. 2025-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DADE CITY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE CITY OF DADE CITY WATER SYSTEM ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN (2025); PROVIDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS; CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Commissioner Cosentino, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Woodard to approve the consent agenda in its entirety. FOR: Black, Woodard, Church, Cosentino, and Shive AGAINST: None CARRIED. E.2. Resolution 2025-07 Amendment to Park Rules and Regulations RESOLUTION NO. 2025-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DADE CITY, FLORIDA, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2023-27 AND RESOLUTION 2008-0965 TO IMPLEMENT RULES RELATING TO THE PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF DADE CITY; DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF THIS RESOLUTION; PROVIDING FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGNAGE RELATING TO THE ADOPTED RULES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Commissioner Cosentino, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Woodard to approve the consent agenda in its entirety. FOR: Black, Woodard, Church, Cosentino, and Shive AGAINST: None CARRIED. E.3. Approve Agreement 2025-04 with Plan Active Studios for an LDR Update Moved by Commissioner Cosentino, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Woodard to approve the consent agenda in its entirety. FOR: Black, Woodard, Church, Cosentino, and Shive AGAINST: None CARRIED. F. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA (IF ANY) None. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS G.1. Summit View 1B Part 2 Preliminary Plan - Continued to February 11, 2025 G.2. Summit View II Preliminary Plan vanErven shared the City was looking for approval and City consultant Salmieri and City Planner Hollinshead would be presenting the item. Attorney Brackins shared this was a Quasi-Judicial Hearing. All Commissioners disclosed their ex parte forms. Brackins shared Johnson's email will be made public record and will travel with the case. Attorney Brackins swore in all who wished to testify. City Planner Hollinshead shared the staff report that was provided in the agenda (pg. 459-472) and reviewed the project with the commission. City Consultant Salmieri with Plan Active Studio took over on the analysis section of the staff report, beginning on page 4. Salmieri went back and listened to some of the questions from the commission and community members. 1) The particular section that said the preliminary plat should be approved finding the application complies with standards in article 7, all the relevant provisions of the LDRs and the relevant City ordinances and regulations. She wanted to be clear the PD is that particular statement would be for the application of conventional zoning. In conventional zoning, they would have multiple chapters to review against the preliminary plan. In a PD, they already brought forward an agreement that outlines their own dimensions, certain standards. A lot of times some of the questions are why aren't they reviewing others? It is because the complete intent of a preliminary plan is to only look at the general lot layout and design. It goes forward to even state that the next step in the process is actual construction plans. There is a reason why, it's more of a high-level review. She wanted to explain the review methodology. In ordinance 2021-05, the other thing when they have PD's, not everyone is going to have the same criteria. This particular PDs ordinance is 2021-05, specifically section 4 conditions of approval. She has reviewed the conditions of approval and pulled out eight. Criteria that were specific to per the approval of a preliminary plan. All of those items are reviewed, and they are different than what the LDR say in some part. The total of approved lots has been reviewed. Minimum lot widths and typical lot which were shown on the preliminary plan. Typical lot layouts, the identification of the ponds and flood plain areas are general at this point. Streets, multi-use paths, rights-of-way, landscaping, buffers, parks, open space areas have been identified. There are two criteria in the ordinance 2021-05 that address landscaping and then parks and open space. There are also some minimum tree planting requirements. All of those items have been reviewed. They are at the third item now for the preliminary plan and items that were required in 2021-05 also directly relate to a couple of land development regulations as well. Article 6, Development Standards, landscape general, has provisions in the conditions of approval. Some of the provisions were also pointed out in the landscape plan that was submitted. Salmieri double checked what they were. There is also commitment for zero scape, conditions of where fences are. Article 7 of subdivision standards looking at block standards, streets and required improvements. The only item in the required improvements is the thickness of the sidewalk. Everything else has been detailed in the conditions of approval in ordinance 2021-05. On the next slide, Salmieri shared the findings and recommendations in the staff report. Mayor Black asked what the differences were in the original recommendation and the Planning Commission. Salmieri said the Planning Board's recommendation was to request to have, before the final plat approval, there be a traffic study that specifically examines all the egress and ingress points to comply with all applicable laws and ordinances during the construction plan review and condition. Attorney Brackins asked Salmieri about the Planning Boards recommendation from the December 4,2024 is that was included on the staff report on page 3? Salmieri said yes, it is included on page 3. Brackins asked by her adding the slide was that simply an effort to add that recommendation to staff's recommendation that is still on the report. Salmieri answered correct. Brackins asked Salmieri if she reviewed the preliminary plan against the City land development regulations. Salmieri said she did. Brackins asked if she reviewed the preliminary plan against ordinance 2021-05. Salmieri said she did. Brackins asked her how much time she would say she spent on this matter. Salmieri said roughly around 30 hours. Brackins asked if it was her opinion this preliminary plan complies with City LDRs and ordinance 2021-05. Salmieri said it is. Commissioner Cosentino said this has a PD with it and it takes them on a different avenue versus traditional zoning. Why do cities go down PDs so often? Salmieri said she didn't know but a general answer is so a lot of municipalities do go through PDs so they could negotiate as well as the applicant can negotiate a variation in what the land development regulations call for. Alot of times, larger developments have different pieces that they are putting together that somebody would do a conventional zoning. Jessica Icerman, attorney for the applicant, at 401 East Jackson Street Suite 2100 Tampa, FL 33602, thanked staff for the effort they put in. Icerman thinks this is the most thorough staff report she has seen in a very long time. She has nothing to add at this time. She was available for questions. Rebecca Stalnaker at 36652 Blanton Rd. shared the problem she has is the curve. She pointed out three areas, the first area shows where the entrance would be. If they look directly across from it, it is Easterling Road, which she described as a little dirt county road. She is a 31-year retired FHP, DOT staff sergeant, so she knows somewhat about crashes and what causes them and how to maybe mitigate them. She sees a 4-way intersection in that curve that is going to be a traffic nightmare. The traffic engineer will look at the distance and curve, angle of the curve, etc. One thing they are not going to figure in was the human element. What she would like is to challenge them to do is think about what happens when they get to a four-way intersection. A fear is the commission will approve it and try to put conditions on it. A solution is the road going down further where they would be out of the curve, and this being modified. Nancy Johnson at 14714 Mount Zion Road asked the development team for the specific date Suwannee Lake and the wetlands were surveyed. She asked the commission to address how Southwest Florida Water Management District works. If this was done pre-hurricane and pre-flooding. She heard a definition of community involvement on the radio, and it surprised her. It was simply helping to improve your corner of the world. She would like to think their time spent at this commission meeting is trying to do that. In the process of coming up with the preliminary plan of Summit View II, somehow, there is giving back and not just taking from the surrounding area. There are three specific areas on the preliminary plan that concern her. First is the corner of Happy Hill Road and St. Joe Road, which currently is an unkept house and well. On page seven of the agenda, they can see that this lawn is not addressed on the preliminary plan. At the neighborhood meeting on January 9th, Douglas Wieland, who introduced himself as owner, stated in conversation that this was zoned commercial, and that as this area grew busier, it would need a commercial business. This entrance corner into the Dade City limits needs to be clear as to its zoning and use. This would be a great spot to give back to the surrounding area by making it a park versus a convenience store or no improvements at all. It would be nice if the City could acquire that piece of property as a future rural gateway park and also have access to Suwannee Lake, which is a part of the Pasco County watershed. This area is the second area of concern for Johnson on the preliminary plan. Lots 1-60 on page six and 363-381 on page seven will not allow Suwannee Lake to extend its banks with heavy rainfall. One area of a road on page seven shows directly touching a wetland area, with no green space between. Johnson asked the commission not to approve the plan as presented. Phillip Clark at 14135 Happy Hill Rd. was present to speak about his property located west of Summit View II. When Summit View II was considered previously in 2021, he was represented by his land use attorney, Ralph Brooks, who did appear before the board. His litigation attorney was Joe Edder. His interest was how Summit View II is going to affect the value of the property. Anticipation of the City Commission meeting 4/27/21, Attorney for the applicant contacted Ralph Brooks. Clark's agreement and endorsement of Summit View II PD. That email correspondence went off between the attorneys and him right until the afternoon of the meeting on Tuesday April 27th. His interest in undertaking negotiation was to ensure that the value of his property would not be adversely impacted by Summit View II and avoid any litigation. The subject line of each email was one word in the end quote settlement. On Monday 4/26/21 at 12:14 the attorney for the applicant applied some bullet points on the previous email. One of the bullet points was "no building between Happy Hill Road and the lake or St. Joe and the lake, incorporated into ordinance." The response from the applicant's counsel " Okay" Page 7 of the subdivision preliminary plan now shows a parking lot and existing housing garage in that area. The site plan from the 2021 ordinance shows only open space, storm water, flood plain, in that area. Another bullet point was " preserve the existing mature oaks" and the response to the applicant's counsel was "we are hoping to a condition such as the following, in the area marked on the site plan is open space stormwater flood plain, existing mature oaks will be preserved except where needed to accommodate stormwater ponds and flood plain compensation". As a result, Clark attended the 4/27/2021 meeting and he did endorse the site plan. He voted on 4/27/21. He thought it was in the best interest, not adversely affecting the value of his property. This evening, he is asking the commission to contemplate these changes, let the information that he hears today inform their votes regarding the future of the southeast corner of the intersection across from his house. Johnathan McKeen Chaff at 13608 Whiskey Daisy Drive shared since late September, the company that he works for has been working on flood damaged houses in surrounding areas. The significant damage to those homes was devastating and FEMAs rules are continuing to change. On page two of the plat map, this is where they can see it. Chaff pointed out the houses that were now near the lake. A few years ago, that was not a lake, and a man raised his cows there. The history of the lake is that it has quite a lot of variations in its size. Determining flood zones, according to FEMAs rules, as he has learned over the past year in his line of work, the contractor company that works on these types of damaged homes, it is redone on a basis after the flood events. The likelihood of those homes being in a flood zone, in their current plat map he would argue from a professional standpoint is high. From a professional standpoint he would say the homes that were going to be along the lake are going to end up in a flood zone. They may not be in a flood zone when they are built and sold, but they may be recategorized into a flood zone. He encouraged them to not accept this as-is because it is unsafe for the homeowners and their investment. Mary Harrison at 14041 Happy Hill Road, is an affected party had questions in regard to trees. Harrison said if this is a preliminary hearing for the site plan, they didn't think they were allowed to be working on Sumit View II yet. There are piles of trees on Summit View II and dirt piles. Harrison shared pictures of the site and said they are obviously starting construction on something. Harrison shared several other pictures and her findings of the project. Peggy Woods 36332 St. Joe Road was looking back on a settlement agreement in 2018. It stated the dirt was going to be removed, she thinks 450,000 cubic yards of dirt may be removed within 18 months of the effective date. Woods said the dirt continues to be removed through 2024. Woods asked how did that fit 18 months from a 2018 settlement agreement. Attorney Brackins said that development was for Summit View and not Summit View II. Woods pointed out there were tons of trees on the property and asked if they have a tree permit to take the trees out. When she had trees she wanted to take out, she had to get the county to come, and they had to mark every tree that was allowed to come off her property. The trees she was asking about were on the far east corner of the Summit View property. In the Planning Board meeting Member Karatinos asked Mazer about the number of cubic yards of dirt being removed. Mazer said about a million cubic yards. Woods said Attorney Brackins said they haven't even reached their 450,000 cubic yards. Woods wanted to know the true number of dirt removed. She is concerned they are doing things on that property before they have permission to. She agrees with the idea of the retention pond along Happy Hill. That lake flows all the way to the Withlacoochee. When she talked with DEO and was fighting this back in 2021, they told her it flowed all the way to the Green Swamp. When they alter the water flow, it alters the Withlacoochee River and the Green Swamp, which Woods thinks should not be allowed. The retention pond along Happy Hill doesn't really serve a purpose. Woods asked where was the park space. Every single park space on the property is a retention pond with a little walkway around it. Woods questioned how was that a park. Mary McKnight at 36210 St. Joe Road submitted into the record a resident report of the community meeting. She did not write the report but was asked to submit it. After a motion, the commission accepted the document into the record and shared it with the applicant. McKnight shared several pictures. She said this is important because this has been chopped off in the corner, so this is not the same looking parcel that it was originally. The ordinance that they are referring to, between the City and the project 2021-05 says that the development should be in accordance with what was submitted in the application as depicted in the PD master plan, exhibit c, unless otherwise stipulated or modified. The commission approved a PD master plan and she finds no modification to that in the Clerk's office. These plans should be in accordance with the original PD master plan on file, but they are not. The original plan includes the corner. For this reason alone, she believes this is not in compliance with ordinance 2021 and should be denied. McKnight shared several pictures with the Commission and her findings on the project. Ms. Philmon at 13542 Happy Hill said she is probably the most affected party. This entrance way is going right on the side of her house, which is next to her master bedroom, which makes it worse. She built her house in 1986. She had a newborn baby and a five-year-old at the time. The school bus was supposed to pick her five-year-old up on the curb, but the school board deemed it too dangerous for the bus to pick her child up. She had to drive down the road for the bus stop, where it was safer. Philmon said the only thing that has changed since then is more traffic. Philmon said right now, she can hardly get out of her driveway. People drive too fast on that road. Philmon is against this item. Attorney Brackins asked Salmieri on page 13 on the staff report about the preliminary plan and the white box in the northwest corner. There was a question raised about zoning, Brackins asked Salmieri what the zoning was on the parcel. Salmieri said it's zoned PDR in its entirety. Salmieri thinks some of the confusion is because there are multiple pages of the preliminary plan. Salmieri asked Hollinshead to display the pictures of the key to the preliminary plans. Attorney Brackins asked if it would require a change of zoning if it was developed commercial, which Salmieri said yes. Brackins asked if there is no current plan for any commercial development, Salmieri said she has not reviewed any. Mayor Black said the original county plan did, but they brought it in and changed it. Attorney Brackins asked to talk about the differences in master plans, preliminary plans, and final engineer construction plans. In ordinance 2021-05, there was a drawing that was attached, Brackins asked Salmieri what that was called. Salmieri said that it was the master plan. The master plan did have an entrance, and it did locate residential in the area and the preliminary plan that is before them today is consistent with the master plan. Brackins asked Salmieri what a preliminary plan is. Salmieri said the intent of a preliminary plan is the general lot layout and design of the land. Brackins said then it has to comply with the conditions of the zoning ordinance along with the LDR. Salmieri said that was correct. Brackins said even though the master plan is different than the current preliminary plan, is there anything inconsistent or inappropriate about that. Salmieri said no. Brackins asked if the preliminary plan was consistent with the design in the ordinance, Salmieri said yes. Brackins asked if the preliminary plan is more detailed than the master plan, Salmieri said yes. Brackins asked what was the final engineered construction plans, Salmieri said the final engineer plans would be the layout of every single pond, the engineering of it. All the gray infrastructure and everything that is underneath the ground, above the ground. It will have a survey, parcel data, etc. Brackins asked her if preliminary plans is subject to change based on final engineering, which Salmieri said yes. Commissioner Shive asked about the corner lot. The preliminary plan shows no development on that parcel. Can they come back and develop that at a future date. Salmieri said if they wanted to put commercial, it would be a modification to the PD and they would have to add commercial to it. Mayor Pro-Tem Woodard asked to pull up 2021-05 zoning amendment. On page one, it shows the property location, the date is 4/7/2021. She asked staff to pull up the agenda memo and go to number 5. Attorney Brackins asked staff to go to the top of the document to view the date, which was an agenda memo from the Planning Board in 2021 for ordinance 2021-05. Woodard said it was the actual zoning amendment and the PD agreement. This is where she was having some confusion. All her research when she goes back and looks at the original agreement, if the pull up the second page, it shows all the way to the end. How is it that now, it is before them, and it is not all the way to the end. Salmieri asked Woodard to show her the area that is not in there. Woodard said it was the same corner. Salmieri said the corner is a part of the preliminary plan. Brackins also added it is a part of the PD. Salmieri asked Hollinshead to pull up the staff report. Woodard said it is supposed to be a PD on that particular property now, when they pull that corner property up, it should not be showing as commercial. Salmieri said it was not showing commercial, if the look at the staff report it reads the same. Woodard asked if it could be advertised to be sold as commercial. Salmieri said there is absolutely no entitlements for commercial. Woodard said it is currently being advertised to be sold as commercial. Salmieri said she couldn't reference that. Woodard repeated the house on the corner is advertised to be sold as commercial. Salmieri said the application that is before them is a PDR, there is no commercial. She can't speak to an advertisement or what was for sale. Brackins asked if the advertisement for sale on the corner have any bearing on the LDR on the zoning ordinance applied to the applicant's request, Salmieri said none. Salmieri said it has no bearing, if someone purchased that land and it said commercial, and it did not have a zoning verification letter, someone would apply for a zoning verification letter. If an individual did that usually lenders do that, they would ask staff for a zoning verification letter. Staff would pull it up. If anyone asked for a zoning verification letter for this property, it would be PDR. Woodard asked if the information that was being presented to them now altered from the original plan that was there. Salmieri said no. Woodard clarified her question and said in 2021, when this was approved, is that the same thing that was coming before them now. Salmieri said there have been several things that have changed. The property boundary has not changed. The assignment to land, PDR, has not changed. The entitlements on the property is at 496. The preliminary plan shows 381. The master plan in her opinion is consistent with the preliminary plan. They can't be one to one because they are different. To her, the only thing that stands out is the reduction of units. Commissioner Shive said what he thinks Woodard was trying to get at was there was some discussion about the original PD Master Plan. The original preliminary plan was shown to the audience. They were between Mr. Clark and the developer at the time. Some of the streets shown going horizontally east and west are now going north and south. There is a difference along the green space along Happy Hill. He thinks that is what Woodard was getting at, and she agreed. Shive said there was a change. In the ordinance 2021-05 it says conditions of approval; the development shall be in accordance with the application plans and information submitted by the developer as depicted in the PD master plan. He asked Brackins how are they able to now say the preliminary plan and PD masterpla