Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon and welcome to the December 9th, 2025 city of Apakka Planning Commission meeting. If you all stand with me for a moment of silent prayer and the pledge to the flag 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. During this tonight's meeting, each agenda item will have a time for people from the public to speak. If there is something that is not on the agenda that is planning and zoning related and you wish to speak to the planning commission, now would be the time to be recognized. Right. Seeing none, we'll move on. Approval of minutes from October 14th, 2025. Any changes or additions? No, sir. No, sir. All right. A motion and a second. I make a motion. And I second it. All right. Motion by Commissioner Ryan. Thank you, sir. Second by Commissioner Washington. Thank you, sir. All in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Public hearing number one special exemption 95 and 135 Herman Smith Road owners Marilyn S. Braw Trust applicant Jonathan P. Hules

any this is quasi judicial has anyone here had exparte communication on this matter? No sir. Very well Mr. Hamza. Good evening everyone. My name is Air Hamza. I'm a planner. Uh the application has submitted a special exception uh request to allow outdoor storage on the sites located at 95 and 135 Hermit Smith Road. These are the vicinity and aerial maps of the of both properties. The total area of the combined properties is a total of 12.26 acres. The 95 Herismid Road property is currently being used as a garage repair operation and the 135 Hermit Road is currently vacant. The property has a future land. The properties both properties have a future land use of industrial and has a zoning of light industrial. Here's a list of special exception review standards the applicant must comply to according to the land development code. This is a proposed uh site plan of the prop of the outdoor storage facility. The development review committee recommends approval of the special exception to allow outdoor storage within the light industrial zoning zoning uh district. Uh the recommended motion is for planning commission to allow approve a special exception to allow outdoor storage within the light industrial zoning district. Staff and uh applicant are available for further comments or questions. Very well. Um, anyone have questions of staff? Commissioner Ryan. Yeah, just I have just one question. Yes. Um, as I read the uh planning um land development code a while back, I thought they were had to give a 30-day notice in the newspaper

and this notice was dated November 14th. It has to be a notice of two weeks uh from the meeting, not 30 days. So, 14 days. Okay. Anyone else have questions of staff? All right. Is the applicant here? Do they have a presentation? Oh, Mr. Chairman be uh just before staff goes. Um Mr. Hamza. Yes. Um as I read through this, this is currently an operational business. They're just looking to expand. Uh that is um better for the applicant to answer. One of the properties is a garage um uh operating center, but um the other one is vacant. So both are they're trying to allow the use outdoor storage for special exception for both properties. The applicant can uh explain more detail. Thank for the record. McGregor Love 215 North Eola Drive here on behalf of the applicant. the land use attorney uh here uh for the applicant this evening. We also have uh our engineer uh team our engineering team if you have any technical questions but uh Mr. to your question. Um there is an ex there are existing uses for these two properties. They're actually both in terms of the use and the um the way that they're being used, they are nonconforming um legally non-conforming. Uh which means as a matter of law that that could continue in perpetuity, but because uh if this is approved and developed, it will be brought up to uh to code. Um so the legal non-conforming use will be abandoned. Um a and it will be it'll proceed with this special exception approval according to the uh city's land development regulations. But if you have any specific questions for me or for the engineers, please do let me know. Anyone

else have questions of the No, sir. Very well. Thank you, sir. All right. Is there one anyone here from the public that wishes to speak on this matter? Seeing that none, we'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the special exception to permit outdoor storage in the IL light industrial zoning district subject to the exhibits and findings by the staff report. Motion by Commissioner Mont. Thank you, sir. Do I have a second? I second it. Second by Commissioner Wood. Thank you, sir. All in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Public hearing number two, ordinance number 3117, change of zoning PD resoning master plan and PD agreement on North. owners 1 PM S1 Rio LLC, HMF LLC, Charles P. Stallings, Kim L. Stallings, Eugene E. Stallings Jr., and Crystal Denise Stallings. Applicant is PE care of Aaron Strucker. All right. I don't know you, young lady. What's your What's your name? Good evening. Jean Sanchez with the community development department. I haven't seen you up here for a while. I know. That's right. You've had a break for me. Um, excuse me. This is a request to recommend approval of ordinance number 3117, reszoning from county A1 to Citrus R.

County A1 Citrus Road to City PD plan development. The site is located at the northwest corner of Onich Road and State Road 453429. It's approximately 196 acres in size. The subject property is surrounded largely by county rural lands with the Onage South PD to the south and existing use is primarily vacant land with scattered single family residences. The future land use is residential estate adopted as ordinance number 3108 on November 5th, 2025 and consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and density of one dwelling unit per acre. Adjacent zoning includes county A1 to the north, east, west, and city Kelly Park interchange mixed use to the south. The PD includes a master plan and PD agreement governing development standards, infrastructure, open space, and facing. A master plan, excuse me, proposes a gated subdivision with 196 single family detached homes using a clustered layout to preserve large contiguous open space areas as well as m multiple storm water ponds, tree preservation tracks, and perimeter buffers. The project provides at least 50% required open space that includes the tree preservation areas, recreation lawns, and landscape buffers as well as a multi-purpose trail system. The two primary access points are on ditch road, each with turn lane improvements, internal circulation is a looped private road system with sidewalks and stubouts aligned with onage south for connection. The project may be built in two phases with the amenity, excuse me, amenity center required in phase one. Amenities includes resort style pool cabana with

restrooms, covered mailbox, ski, recreation lawns, multi-purpose trail system integrated with open space. The master plan establishes the estate style rural character and vision for the northern JPA. The DRC recommends approval. The recommended motion is to recommend approval of ordinance number 3117 reszoning the property from county A1 to city PD along with the master plan and PD agreement finding the request consistent with the comprehensive plan land development code and compatible with the surrounding areas. Staff and applicant are available for questions. Thank you, Miss Sanchez. Anyone have questions of staff? Commissioner Ryan, I just have one question. Um, with all this development around the Orchard Road, which wasn't designed for residential traffic, is there any uh plan to reduce the speed limit? I'll defer that to the applicant. I have a question for staff, too. Luke Classman, 1828 Engineering. I think you're referring to Onage Road, correct? That goes east west south of the property. Uh, and on my pron. It's okay. Yeah, road is a county road and while we've talked to the county about potentially reducing speeds, right now they're set as they are. Um, we are looking to do roadway improvements, but there's no plans by the county to adjust this the posted speed limit of the road. So, you can't ask the county to lower the speed limit. The entrance on on the east side of the development, there's a blind curb there. I I wouldn't call it a blind curve. It's we're definitely taking advantage of where we're connecting to so you can have as much visibility as possible connecting on the north side or the outside of the curve so that we can see as far as we can. Um we picked that

location on purpose in coordinating with the county staff and with the transportation uh engineers. This is the location recommended for the the best visibility that we can get for this project. Mr. Did I hear you say it was gated? Yeah, it's proposed to be gated to be private roadways. Question. All right. The staff or the applicant? The gentleman. Okay. Very well. Commissioner Washington, Mr. Applicant. Okay. We know that this project is Omnich North opposing to Onage South. Correct. Immediately facing each other, right? across on from each other on the west side of the entrance. Yeah, the two entrances, the western entrance for Onage North and the northern entrance for Onage South, both are directly across on this road from each other. Correct. So, they both share Onich Road to get to either project. Correct. So, are there any uh plans to widen the road, put in turn lanes to make it easier for people to position himself to make a right turn or a left turn where those uh subdivisions come together? Yeah, there there are plans for Onage Road. It's hard to see on this map, but if um but I can give you a better example, but there's turn lanes, left and right turn lanes on road for that western entrance. across the mand south. In addition, there's left and right turn lanes on for the eastern entrance for this. In addition, the applicant's going to have to um pay some additional fees to Orange County for the mitigation and they're looking at potentially doing a signal at FE and audits in the future. So, they're paying the proportionate share is what they call it. Did you say they have to put they will they may put in a signal? Would you say that? In the future. Yeah. They're going to have to pay a portion share of any fees due for the u signalization of the intersection.

Thank you. Anyone else have questions? Now, Commissioner Wood, um the uh question I have is the entrance that matches with Andre south. Mhm. Is it the east entrance or the west entrance? It'd be the west entrance. The east entrance is on what I would call the bell curve of Detroit. Yeah. There's a there's a water body. I don't know if it's a name lake to the south of that. Okay. Thank you. No problem. All right. Anyone else have questions of the applicant? Thank you, sir. Thank you, Miss Sanchez. Anyone from the public wish to speak on this matter? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. Mr. Chairman, it it This is a quasi judicial. So this one's a standard public hearing. Oh, number two. This one says, my paper says quas judicial. Sorry, it does and apologize for that. But the land of code for planning commission on this matter, it's a legislative or standard public hearing. So sorry about the oversight. All right, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion. Okay. Uh, I re I make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 3117 reszoning the subject property from county A1 agricultural to city PD plan development as well as the master plan and PD agreement including the PD resoning consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and compatible

with the character of the surrounding areas based on the findings and facts presented in the staff report and exhibits. Motion by Commissioner Washington. Thank you, sir. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Second by Commissioner Ryan. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Public hearing number three, legislative ordinance 3140, future land use amendment 1030 East Sandpiper Street, owners Lincoln Douglas Hayes and Lauren Elizabeth Hayes. Applicant Lincoln Douglas Hayes. Mr. Hson. Good evening everyone. So um the applicant has submitted a small scale feature land use amendment currently from in progress and changing to residential very low suburban for property located at 10:30 East S Piper Street which is located between Uler Road and North Thompson Road. These are the vicinity and aerial maps of the 1030 East San Piper Street property. The total site uh is has an area of 1.79 acres. The applicant is requesting a future land use amendment of the property to be consistent with the proposed zoning and to be able to apply for a special exception application at a later date to develop an accessory dwelling unit. The feature land use as mentioned uh is uh currently in progress and proposed to change to residential velobur. The zoning is uh currently transitional and proposed to change to residential country estate. The development review committee has uh recommended approval. The recommended motion is to find the proposed change in future land use designation from in progress to residential brail suburban

compatible with the character of the surrounding areas and to recommend the uh approval for the future land use amendment. Staff and applicant are able for further comments or questions. You're welcome. Mr. Hamza, can you define what in progress means as far as the existing future land use? So in progress basically mean it's similar to the zoning of transition where there's no proper designation of a feature land use and the the property owner would have to do a future land use amendment to give a proper future land use um future land use through a future land use amendment which is what is being done right now. Very well. Thank you. All right. Anyone have questions of staff? No. Very well. Is the applicant here? Do they have a presentation? Your name and address for the record, sir. Uh, good afternoon. My name is Lincoln Haynes. This my wife, Lauren Haynes. Uh, 10:30 East San Piper Street, Aopco, Florida, 32712. All right. And uh my family and I are here in support of the future land use amendment uh related to the ordinance number 3140. Our home was uh annexed uh to the city prior to us buying it and we just want to uh have the correct zoning. Uh we have a plan or we have we are a multigenerational family including our elderly parents and the future plan that they talked about was trying to build an ADU on that property so that we can provide care for my parents there. Very does anyone have questions the applicant? Very well. Thank you sir. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Anyone from the public wish to speak on this matter?

I'm Mary Smothers. I live at 10005 San Piper Street uh just across the street from from the Hannes. I uh just request that you grant their their request to have for this change. I would like to see them be able to do with their property what they would like to accomplish for their elderly parents. I am all in favor of that. Thank you. I'm Patricia Ruer. I live at 1063 East San Piper Street and I welcome them to do what they need to do. We have it's available. Thank you, man. Bravo. You had neighbors come in support. That's good. That's a first. All right. Bring it back to the board for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that find the proposed change in future land use designation from in progress to residential, very low, suburb, and compatible with the character of the surrounding areas. Recommending approval of future land use amendments subject to the findings and facts presented in staff report and exhibits. Motion by Commissioner Norwood. Thank you, ma'am. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner M. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Chairman, I would add that uh I would hope that my children would do the same thing that you're doing for your mom so I can live with them. But that's super number four public hearing

ordinance number 3141 change of zoning East Sand Piper Street. owners. I have a big mouth. They can hear me. Location 10:30 East San Piper Street. Mr. Hams. So, this is the same property but for the reszoning. So, the applicant is requesting a reszoning from transitional to residential uh country estate zoning for property located at 10:30 East San Pepper Street, which again is between Osler Road and North Thompson Road. These are these are the same vicinity and aerial maps of the 1030 East San Pepper Street property. And again, the total site uh total area of the entire site is 1.79 acres. And again, the applicant is requesting the reszoning of the property to be uh consistent with the with the proposed uh future land use that was just approved. And then um and then uh the the so that they could also be an uh ad they could also uh develop an ADU at a later date with a special exception uh permit. As mentioned before and shown on these maps, the future land use uh is uh in progress and now is proposed to change to residential veil suburban zoning is transitional proposed to change to residential country estate. The development review committee has recommended approval. The recommended motion is to find the proposed change in the change of zoning from transitional to residential country estate compatible with the character of the surrounding areas and to recommend approval of the change of zoning. Again, staff and applicant are available for further comments and questions. Thank you, sir. As this is quasi judicial, has anyone on the board had expart communication on this matter? No, sir. Very well. Anyone have questions of staff? Sir, I imagine we don't have any

questions of the applicant. Where can I move in? They already have enough. They don't need more burden. Leave him alone. All right. Is there anyone from the public wish to speak on this matter? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the board for a motion in a second. Mr. Chair, go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that find the proposed change in change of zoning from T transitional to RCE residential country estate compatible with the character of the surrounding areas recommending approval of the change of zoning subject to the findings and facts presented in the staff reports and exhibits. Motion by Commissioner Norwood. Thank you, ma'am. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Washington. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Public hearing number five, ordinance 3147, Paluchi Acres Plan Development Reszoning and Plan Development Master Plan. Owners Palooi Acres LLC. Applicants Daniel O'Keefe Schutz and Bowen LLP. Location generally located east of Vic Road and east of Jason Dwelli Parkway north and south Ponan Road. Mr. How? Thank you. Good evening. Bobby How, planning manager. For the record, uh the property is generally located east of Vic Road, east of Jason Dwelli Parkway, north and south of Ponaman Road, east of Pitman Road, and east of Ponan Summit Drive. You can see on the vicinity map, it's a large black property that's on the screen. It's a 6 618.36 acres in size. Currently has a zoning

transitional residential single family estate, mixeduse, eastshore gateway. It has future land use and zoning designate or zoning designations and then future land use designations, the mixed use, residential, low, suburban, residential estate, and commercial. commercial uh future land use designations were approved by the city council unanimously I believe back in October. Applicants requesting reszoning of the property to plan development to allow a PD consisting of,034 lots that's comprised of single family detached and town home units. Two non-residential properties that are proposed at the northeast and southeast corner of the intersection of Ponaman Road and Jason Dwali Parkway and those are right here as you see there the red color on the screen there. and a 145.56 acre dedication of parkland to the city that's located on the south side of Punkin Road. That is this piece of property right in here. It's proposed to be dedicated to the city for a park. The maximum density that is proposed is 1.67 dwelling units per acre, which is less than the maximum density that's permitted in the assigned future land use designations. Uh the properties to the south have future land use designation that allows three and a half dwelling units to the acre. Your comprehensive plan has a policy that limits development densities to more no more than two dwelling units an acre north of Ponen Road and they're under that with this plan. Of the 616 acre or 618 acres, 200 are proposed to be dedicated as conservation. 147.76 are dedicated as open space and 12.2 acres are dedicated as rights of way. The PD master plan proposes the dedication of 145 acres as I mentioned to the city park as a city park and 3.71 acres located on the south side of ponan road to Orange County for open space and storm water for ponan road. PD master plan proposes both residential non-development and non-residential development on the north and south sides ponan road and only residential development on the east side of Vic Road

which is this property here. There was a 40 acre track that was unanimously annexed in by the city council I believe in August or September of this year. Um and that went through the annexation process through city council. Master plan proposes development of the two non-residential lots on the north side and south side of Pankan Road. The 8.92 acre parcel located on the northeast corner Jason Dwelli and Ponan Road which is this piece right here. And then there's a 4.9 acre parcel located on the southeast corner inter of the intersection adjacent Dwelli Parkway and Ponin Road which is right here. As I mentioned, the council had unanimously recommended to approve the future land use designations to commercials on this property right here. This has a mixeduse future land use designations. Commercial development is permitted currently as a right on that property. Access to that parcel is access to the city park would be through the commercial parcel right here. It's a right in right out proposed off of uh Ponan Road for the residential portion of the development. As I mentioned earlier, total of 1,034 units are proposed in a mix of 876 single family detached and 158 town home lots. You can see the property on the east side of Vic has some town homes within it as well as some larger lots on the outside and then some of the smaller lots and then town homes are concentrated on the north side of uh Ponam Road as well. Rear loaded lots range from 40 and 34 feet in width. Single family detached lots are front and rear loaded. Front road front loaded lots range from 95, 85, 70, 60, and 55 feet in width. Sounds like lottery numbers. I was reading them so fast. Uh town home units are proposed in six and eight unit buildings. PD master plan proposes 25 foot wide landscape buffers adjacent to the existing residential subdivisions. And you can see that outlined on the plan here, here, here, and over here. Uh back in the summer as

well, there was a ride ofway, what we call a paper rideway that was vacated through the city council. Uh half of that section was vacated. So there'll be a maintenance agreement required for that in the future. parcels located at the northeast corner of Jason Dwell and Ponin Road as I mentioned earlier is 8.92 acres in size and access accessed via a full access point on Jason Dwelli Parkway and a ride in right out on Ponin Road. Parcel located on the south side of Ponin Road south of the intersection of Ponin Road and Jason Dwelli Parkway is approximately 4.9 acres in size. It's by accessed via a right in write out that's located on Punkin Road and you can see it on detail on some of the plan sheets that's part of the PD. Permitted use within the uh PD master plan for the non-residential portions are clued but are not limited to coffee shops with a drive-thru component, bank or other financial institutions, childcare facilities, and restaurants. 347 347.76 acres are preserved as open space. This is the phasing plan which is proposed within the PUD. This is the open space plan which shows that everything in green would be preserved as conservation. This is the city park and over here and then the other green is some conservation areas as well. As I mentioned there's 145 acres preserved for this city park as a conservation area of passive park. 54.44 acres are reserved as conservation. 13.82 are reserved as landscape buffers. 108.77 acres are reserved for port storm water ponds and 2.16 acres of the non-residential areas are reserved as open space. Amenities include a pool, cabana, tennis courts, sports facilities, playgrounds, tot lots, outdoor fitness stations and or picnic rest areas. In addition, a 15,870 linear foot trail will be dedicated to the city in the parks area. You can see

that outlined in yellow on here. And then there will be a 6,000 6,290 linear foot trail will be constructed in the Ponen Road rightway. It's in the bluish color here, uh, which is Orange County. That would be owned and maintained by Orange County. And then a 16,250 foot linear foot internal trail system that's owned and maintained by the HOA, the master HOA. The applicant held community meetings on January 13, 2025, March 5th, 2025, August 4th, 2025, and December 2nd, 2025. Proposed use of the property is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the designations that the property has. Orange County Public Schools has indicated capacity for proposed development is available and vested if there's not an increase in the amount of units that are proposed. The locations served by the following schools. Rock Springs Elementary, Wolf Lake Middle, and Apakka High. PD master plan details a 30- foot wide dedication of rightway on both sides of Ponen Road to Orange County to allow for future widening of Ponan Road. There's an email correspondent which is in your packet from the county indicating that this is a sufficient rideway amount for Orange C for Punkin Road. The PD master plan also proposes the future vacation of a port portion of Pitman Road that currently extends to Punkin Road and it is right here. Uh the Pitman Road permits access to the Hammock Estates subdivision. I believe there were several of you that were on the board when that subdivision went through. Hammock Estates is located here to the east of the property. And to access it, you have to go up and around and down to Pitman Road of Pitman Road to access the subdivision. Pitman Road permits access to the Hammock Estate subdivision. In in the future, the portion of rightway for Pitman Road is vacated. Access to Hammock Estates would be proposed proposed or would be via proposed roundabout on Punkin Road. This is the roundabout right here. So access would go up that way for Pitman Road and then

there would be a stubout that's proposed on public street that would to connect to the east as well to allow access ultimately over to Ponin Road as well. Approval of the PD master plan does not authorize vacation of the portion of the Pitman Road rightway. That would have to go to the city council. The applicant would have to petition the city council to vacate that right away and would have to go through the appropriate process and that's done by a resolution. An in-depth overview of transportation will be provided by the city's transportation coordinator, Bill Wharton, who's here tonight. The development review committee recommends approval. The recommended motion is approval. Um, and then what I'd like to do now is turn it over to Mr. Wharton, and he will go over the transportation uh section of the project. Give me one second, Bobby. Does anyone have questions specifically of staff? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Ryan, go ahead. Will this project have access to Rogers Road? Rogers Road? Yes. Pardon? Did you say Rogers Road? Rogers Road. Well, it will have access to that substandard Rogers Road. Yeah. And they're proposing improvements on Rogers Road. And we can detail that in the transportation section of the presentation, which Mr. Wharton is city staff. Road be we brought up the city standards before they have access to it. That would be a question during the transportation section of the portion. Mr. Wharton is city staff. So that's why I'd like to have him talk about transportation because I know there'll be some questions related to transportation. Yeah. One more question. Um there's a substantial amount of uh protected wetlands on this project. Who's responsible for maintaining these uh wetland? Is it the city or the HOA? If they're dedicated to the city ultimately be the city. Sometimes in some cases wetlands are dedicated with an easement to St. John's the river the water management district. But sometimes it would be the H city would be required to maintain the u the protected wetland. Yeah, it dep if the wetlands are dedicated to the city. There could be or

there could be an easement agreement sometimes. I've seen that where an HOA is responsible for that. It just depends. I don't know which way it's going to go. Not yet. Not at this time. Yeah, we're at the resoning stage right now. Yeah. Commissioner Washington, couple things. Um, did you say Pitman Road will be eventually taken out of service? The plan? Yes, sir. The plan proposes the vacation of Pitman Road, which is, let me go back to that shot where you can see it better. So, as I'd mentioned, Pitman Road goes up like this. It's here's the curve on Ponan. You come down Pitman Road is right there. If you recall, I don't remember if you were on the commission when Hammock Estates came through. I was. Okay. So that was part of their agreement is that they had to basically bring Pitman Road up to standards to access it. And the way it works right now, Pitman Road is I'll say kind of like a giant driveway to access the Hammock Estates subdivision. And uh if my recollection is correct, when Hammock Estates was coming through, number one, there's a DA for Hammock Estates that does not allow cross access into Rock Springs Ridge. Right. It's my understanding that the property owner would not allow access down to Punken Road. So that's why Hamburg or Pitman Road goes up like this. Okay. Yeah. So yes, they are proposing a possible vacation of Pitman Road, but the city council would have to approve that in a public hearing. Okay. Well, that that's interesting because um even when you drive up Pitman Road and you make the right turn and then you go to Dan and you make another right turn and then you come into the subdivision. Well, there are a couple of houses up there, right? Yes. So, uh okay, if if Pitman Road is vacated, how those folks are going to get to Punk? The plan would be to access it through

the roundabout and go up like this. And then Pitman, if you go back to the Hammock Estates subdivision, if you drive down, and I know the houses you're speaking of, there's some up here and then down here. Uh the Pitman Road would go up like this and over. And I believe this would just be the section that would be vacated. Okay. Okay. All right. Um, you might want to you're probably going to tell me you're going to defer this to transportation specialist. Uh, because I have a question about the roundabout. Is that you or could be the other gentleman? Yeah. And Bill can talk about that in his presentation. All right. Well, let me stay with something that you can talk to. Is that right? All right. Uh, the uh tortoise go for tortoise has been an issue for years. Right. So now sounds here like the developer is going to remove the tortoise, right? So, you can get, and it's pretty standard for all developments that come through, you can get a a permit for relocation of gopher tortoises from Florida Fish and Wildlife and take them to donor sites pretty much. Okay. All right. Um, and this might not have anything to do with this conversation, but as you know, Rock Springs Ridge has been wanting to restore its golf course for years and right this area where you have the goofer tortoises has been an issue. Yes. How to get not get rid of how to relocate those tortoises. So does is this the solution for Rock Springs Ridge? No, it's a separate item alto together. Rock Springs Ridge, their golf course, as you mentioned, is possible redevelopment of it. I've not heard anything in years, honestly, from anybody about that, but there's a a site, long story short, off of uh Kelly Park Road. It's a 50 acre parcel where there's a gopher tortoise easement on that, but I don't know if that would be the recipient site for this or not, but we're at the resoning stage. So, go for tortoise take permits are usually issued with the construction site plan, and we

won't issue approval of that until we have that permit in hand. Thank you. All right. Anyone else have a question? I have I have question. It may be more um of an administrative thing, but you you did say that there were four community meetings. You even uh specified dates in our packet. There was a signin sheet. Yes. For the December 2nd meeting, right? But there was not a summary, right? Um will we get that? I I like looking at the summary because the summary includes all of the questions and concerns that the people in that community have. The reason that the summary was not provided was because we didn't get it in time. We had to have the packets finished a week ahead of time. Okay. So that's why Okay. All right. Bill, it's your show. Good evening, chairman, board members. Bill Warden, transportation coordinator in the public services department. My first time before you. The as you know, projects like this go through trans traffic impact analysis. A traffic report that looks at the area roadways, not just roadways, but the intersections as well. starts out beginning with the existing traffic on the roadways and at the intersections to see what level of service and what kind of condition the roadways are operating under to begin with. Um the uh developer has had his consultant pro provide the dist the traffic report and the city has reviewed that. The report itself represents that under existing conditions today all roadways and intersections are operating at a satisfactory level of service.

The report also go into loading the roadway network with project trips all the way out to complete buildout and they do an analysis on that. The results of their trip is that the roadway sections and the intersections operate at a satisfactory level of service at this time as well. Now the um developer has numerous access points into and out of uh his development and according to the land development code. the uh development will propose to put in the right and left turn lanes at all of these intersections working towards a safety for the roadways themselves. Um as you know the um the main roadway pumpkin is Orange County uh roadway uh the Orange County traffic division is where this development we've met with them. the developer has has met with them and they are in agreement with uh the uh improvements along Honkan Road so far. Um I'll be happy to answer any other questions you may have. Have a question. All right, Commissioner Washington. Two questions. Um there is the um roundabout that's planned, right? Correct. It's still in still in play. Is that correct? Yes. All right. Uh when I saw that uh I did not have a good reaction. The reason why is that uh down on Byan Road a roundabout was installed to provide access to a subdivision that was just built there. Right. It's a horror story. It's to me it's just too small. When you're going down Vineyard Road, you're going at speed. You know, you're supposed to put a speed

limit, but you can't help but almost stop to get into that roundabout and then keep on going towards the pocket. This is just a comment that I hope that the roundabout that you're thinking about up there on podcast road is larger than the one down on Ben. You don't want traffic to stop. You want to be able to move the traffic around. That's what I think. You can tell me differently. You can say, "No, Howard, you're wrong. We do want them to come to a stop." That's a different story. But can you That's my issue. Can you give me some insight on that on how will this roundabout be large enough so the traffic will be able to slow down but not come through almost a stop? I will have to defer that to the developers representative who's here. And that's one of the things we probably need to do with the traffic study. The roundabout itself was not in the traffic study that was provided to us because this was done several months ago. Um but you know, primarily the the function of a roundabout is to slow traffic down for safety reasons and operated properly. They do exactly that. It's just particularly here in America, they are still new to us and so you still always get the push back. But the the intent is to control traffic. You have less crashes at uh roundabouts than you would have at a regular signaliz or or stop controlled intersection. I'll yield to you, but you got to yield back to me. Okay, I'll yield back to you. I just want you because you mentioned you mentioned the uh traffic impact analysis. Does that does it identify like potential issues

that may come about like what he's what he's talking about, what may happen with the traffic calming device, the roundabout and whatnot. Does the analysis identify what may be an issue in the area when when they do the traffic impact? It it does. It gives gives us an idea of where it may be extra heavy traffic trying to go through the going going through an intersection or not. Fortunately, it seems like under the the conditions, both the existing conditions, but when you add all of the project traffic that everything still continues to operate smoothly. And then part of the helpful part of that is again the um the deceleration lanes going into the project itself. Will there be other traffic calming devices besides that roundabout? As far as I'm aware, that's the only one. But again, I'll I'll point to the the developers representative and let him answer that. Anyone else? to you. Oh, okay. Thank you, Commissioner. All right. Uh, it's the last one and then I'll be quiet. All right. Uh, this project had three four meetings with the community, which is fantastic. I've never seen that before with this many people going to those meetings. And I looked at the names on those list and you had some very influential people who live in Oak Hill and uh I'm sure they're the ones who had issues about the traffic coming out of Oak Hill onto Pankan. Uh can you tell me what will be done to appease those people? Do they have specific areas that they're

concerned about? Well, was in the I mean the ability to get out in and out of the road can something about uh line of sight elevations or something. I'm not quite sure exactly what they were talking about, but it's in here. Right. the the best I can say is again all the intersections still operate at acceptable level of service. Um you know during the rush hour even your best design intersections may have some delay on them. So there's not you know can't guarantee that that's not that's not going to happen. Commissioner Wood, right? How many entrances and exits or I'm sorry how many exits and entrances are on this particular plan? Access points into the um I think the total is like 12 or so do you recall? Yes. And all of them come out onto park park Vic um Dwelli throughout the whole development. Yes sir. How many of them come out onto park camp? I'm sorry. How many come out onto Palm Camp? Come out onto Palm Camp. I think I counted six. Oh, I'm sorry. Are you asking about the volume of traffic or I'm asking about the actual entrances and exits? I counted I think I counted six on on straight on. Yeah. Yeah, that sounds about right. Okay. My concern in that short of a distance, it will be a disaster on every Monday through Friday morning of people going out to uh work because you're not metering them out. You have six metering points.

I'm sorry. Commissioner Woods, there are two proposed on pumpkin that's in the report. Uh I'm just going to read from the report briefly. Um uh the proposed development will will be accessed by multiple driveways including three proposed driveways on Rick Road, two proposed driveways on Jason Dwelli Parkway, two proposed driveways on Ponan Road and one driveway on Pitman Road and one driveway on Rogers Road. Okay. I must have counted them wrong. Okay. Cuz you know with all the traffic coming out onto that road. Yes. know how long it's going to take the county to do anything with that road. Um, we need to come up with a way to meter the traffic better with, you know, a skew in and out that makes sense. And I'll leave that to the transportation people. Yes, the um the developer is going to contribute his property towards rideaway up and down Panken Road to be widened at a at at a later time when more development comes on and eventually the roadway will become congested. So the rideway, a lot of the rideway will be there. Um once the road is widened into four lanes, that's going to affect the intersections along the way as well. Yes, I understand. That that time the safety can be addressed at those in at the same time. But it takes a while after the the uh development is done for the roads to start going in the expansion. So you're going to have a number of years where you're going to have a major traffic

issue along there with all the other developments up that way. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Any more questions? Staying in line with the traffic there on Vic and Ponin. And um just a an observation uh question. I know you do traffic studies where they put the boxes and put the little rubber things across and and it records all vehicles that go across that. Um, first of all, do you know when the last study was done and do those studies break out by um segments of time? In other words, heavy traffic, you know, rush hour morning, rush hour afternoon, etc. When was the last traffic study done on Punkin, for instance? Uh, I'm not sure when last one was done by the city, but for the for the uh traffic study for this project, the traffic count should have been done recently, this this year, right? So I I would one of the things you know because uh hot topic here in Apakka is development infrastructure and transportation. I really believe that when uh presentations are made to the planning commission and to the city commission in that presentation needs to be included traffic study before and projected traffic volume after by breakouts, you know, major traffic. While I'm happy to hear that there's

right of wait going to be granted from the developer, etc., and that type of thing, I'm not hearing anything. Everything's the future. And if Ponan Road and were to depend upon Orange County to be the determining factor of when Ponan would be widened, um I'm not comfortable with that language. At this point, I need to hear concrete things. Concrete when it reaches this. So, in other words, um I live off a bin. They built five apartment complexes and I can tell you in a half a mile the traffic volume increased probably 12,000 in one half mile and that is using the statistical data that you all use per dwelling unit. Right? So what I'm saying is so that we can you know because we're going to have development, we're going to have development. I need to see concrete information printed that I can read and that anyone else can read that we have discussions pre-tra volumes, projected traffic volumes. I just I think it's I think it's foolish to not have that information available when it is there. But you have to really, really, really dig to try and find it. And the average person's not going to go through that process. They'll just basically come up and say, "This is a traffic nightmare." So, I think those of us in positions of responsibility. We need to step that game up and have that information available. And that's perfectly good request. And

that information is available in the report that the uh developers traffic engineer put together and that's something we can supply to the to the board and the comm and and the commission. I I would like to see that. I think it needs to be prominent because uh when we talk about you know any development this development or any other one you have infrastructure okay you have the the buildings that are going to go in there that but the the real crux is the infrastructure transportation utilities etc you know that type of thing and Um, we put a lot of information toward what houses look like and what's this going to look like and what's this going to look like and somewhere over here. If you can see my hand. Nope. Okay, you get my point. Yes, sir. I I would I that's Mr. Chairman, that's one thing I'm going to press hard from here on out from the planning commission. I want to see that information. I don't want to have to look on the 92nd page on the bottom. Right. Understood. We'll get that to you. Okay. Um, one thing I I I would respond to that, Commissioner M, again, we're back to the chicken and the egg thing. It's I if you take it out of the the trapping, let's let's use the schools as an example. So, do we tell them they make we refuse the development because the roads won't support the development. Would that be the answer to that? I mean, I'm just putting that hypothetically out there. They follow they build a subdivision,

the schools catch up. when this this comes in here and if you read the the LOS for the road, it says that they have the numbers here saying not the number specific numbers, but that it will meet the LOS standards of the proposed build out of the development. I've read that. So, I want to know what the number is. Okay? Because right now I'm just sitting it's satisfactory. Well, satisfactory to you and satisfactory to the next person and satisfactory the next person are all arbitrary. I know there are studies. I know there are specific things that this road can handle X amount. And the the question that I always want to have, okay, fine. I'm I'm fine with that. What happens when that doubles? What happens when it triples? Well, when do you reach the break point that Orange County then is motivated to widen Panka. And so what I'm saying is um I mean honestly if I were there I' I'd be requesting a traffic study yearly on Ponan Road to be able to show the traffic flow because you've got this little section. You'll have that traffic. But I think what we're not necessarily looking at is how much through traffic uses there. Bignyan is as you know Commissioner Washington said he's very familiar and so am I. Bignyan Road for years was the major artery from 441 to Winter Garden and it still is even though you have the 429 that that's not even people that live on. So all all I'm saying is I understand what you're saying, commissioner or

chairman. I get that, but and I'm not, you know, I'm not opposed to certain things, but we've gotten to the point that we can't just keep, you know, this is satisfactory. This is, you know, meets standard. What standard? I want to know what the standard is. What's the next level of standard? What's the next level of standard? This is Mike Woodward. He's with Kimley Horn. He was our traffic guide who reviewed the plan. He can probably explain that a little bit clearer than I can. So, I'll turn it over to Sure. Thanks, Bill. Um, so when we were looking at this, we kind of had a similar type of question of, okay, well, if it if it's satisfactory, what does that mean? And what sort of a buffer is there after this project? And so I can tell you that uh there are going to be a noticeable amount of additional cars both on Ponan and on Vic. Both of those roads have quite a bit of existing capacity. And matter of fact, if you look at a lot of the concerns from the community community meetings, they were more about speeds on Ponam Road and uh concerned about how how it's tough to navigate through there when there's all these curves also. So just back in terms of numbers, the standard of where we would say Ponaman Road is broken is right under 15,000 vehicles per day. Um, and that takes into account the characters of Pon Road characteristics, uh, the lane widths, the fact there's oftentimes not turn lanes and and several of those other factors. If it was a a a road that was um had other characteristics, the maximum volumes that you'll typically see on a on a two-lane road get up as high as 19,000 vehicles. And those are just some industry standard numbers. So, Ponan

already has a limit that's considerably less than uh maybe a what you would call like a perfect two-lane road be being that it's at around just under 15,000. Now, once this development is finished, once it's complete, all the cars are on the road, um the total volumes will be right around 10,000. So, there's still significant buffer. There's still additional time, additional vehicles that can come from other developments prior to this road needing to be widened. It's definitely time to have those conversations and start looking at when that time frame is. But I can tell you that a project or a number of projects that are of similar magnitude to to this one that's that's in a a proximal area that's kind of close is is what it would take to get you up over that around 15,000 uh vehicles per day, which again is much much less than uh the the 20,000 that can often be accepted. Um, as far as peak hour goes, that's we always we kind of start with daily trips and then we look at the peak hour, meaning the worst hour of the day. And the peak hour trip was similarly uh upon completion of the project, Ponan Road will be right around 2/ird of the way towards capacity. Um, similar on Vic Road, you're closer to needing to widen Vic Road than you are Ponan. And Vic Road also has some some vertical curves that are uh limit the site distance and and really cause need for improvements to be sooner than Ponan Road. But as far as uh guessing the exact timing, it's really going to be dependent on other development and other things that are happening in this area. The problem is the city will annex both side of the road and not the road itself. And this the city council wants the county to bring up the city standards to road up the city standards,

but there's no incentive to do it. So, we're stuck with these inefficient roads because the city and the county and the developer don't get together and get that road fixed. You know, I don't care who pays for it, but the road needs to be fixed. You know, there's several cases around where the city annex both sides of of the road, but not the road itself. And another question I have is will this development have access to Rogers Road? Yeah. The the a portion of the development will have access to Rogers. Yes. Okay. Who owns Roger Road? Rogers Road. It's a city road. City road. Is it is it up to city standards? Previous develop excuse me. The previous developments that have been approved were all deemed to be sufficient. So Rogers was deemed sufficient to support those developments. Okay. The road itself, is it up to city standards? Yes, sir. It is. It is now. Yes. I haven't been on there a while, but a few a few uh years ago was not up to city standards. Yeah. There's several developments that are out there that use that as their primary access to get down to I think it's Lester Road, right? Yeah. But it is up to city standards as far as I understand. Yes, sir. Okay. Anyone else? Very well. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak on this matter? Sir, the applicant is here and has a presentation as well. Mr. Chairman, the applicant is here and they have a presentation they'd like to make. Yeah. Good evening everyone. And SA Watson and Bowen, 300 Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801. Um, first of all, I want to thank you all for the opportunity to speak with

you this evening. I also would like to thank um, city staff and the city attorney for working with us. We've been working on this project for close to a year at this point. We are very happy to be here in front of you tonight. So because our conversation in the city's presentation was so comprehensive, I would like to jump into answering some of the questions and answering some of the discussion points that we had just this evening if that's all right with you all. Okay. So most of the the comments were pertaining to the traffic and so we have our traffic consultant here who's able to answer and address a number of the comments. Thank you, Alyssa. Uh, good evening. Muhammad Abdullah, Traffic and Mobility Consultants. Uh, what's our new address? 988 Woodcock Road, Sweet 200, Orlando 3283. Um, as uh, thank you for all the questions and commentary and uh, and appreciate what uh, my colleague Mike Woodward, the city's consultant, came up and and uh, presented, but just wanted to add a little bit of color and and address some of these questions. Uh I believe uh Commissioner Washington asked about the uh uh roundabout and and how that functions just to uh discuss you know the Binyan roundabout versus uh what what we're proposing here. Uh I think the comment was you have to come to a full stop to to navigate the roundabout. that roundabout particularly was designed in a certain way to to really act as a not just as a an access uh device and and a a an intersection but also a traffic calming device. So it was intentionally uh designed to bring the traffic down. Our target was anywhere between, you know, uh 7 to 15 miles an hour as you enter the roundabout. So, we were really working to bring that traffic down in that

residential area that's transitioning um in in on Bingan Road. So, it's it's it's built into the design. Uh here uh we have similar goals. I don't know that we'll be targeting the same speeds. They're different roads and uh different but the the goal is to bring the traffic to uh a a quite a slow pace as it enters the roundabout. That's that's how we essentially bring some traffic calming to this. However, here we do have other elements that we're contending with including grades and and curves and making sure that that the traffic is moving at a speed that is commensurate with the function of the road and and the uh the expectation of the residents out here. So, so it we have a lot more space to build the roundabout here than we did at Bignyan. So, so we have a little bit more um uh ability to to work on the engineering to make sure that this functions per desired standards. Not that that one didn't it was a little bit more ground. This one we have a little bit more space. So, so we have a little bit more uh freedom to work with how it's going to uh operate. I'm sorry to hear that. Thank Thank you. So, yeah, quite a bit of thought and staff has been uh city staff as well as county staff have been very uh uh helpful in working this out. And as we continue forward with the project, hopefully with with y'all's approval, uh there'll be quite a bit of engineering that goes into that. Um there there were questions on the access points and and the uh density of traffic. As as Mike mentioned, there will be more traffic obviously on the road. the the roadway has uh sufficient capacity today. Uh so I think the question was about knowing the traffic

today versus the traffic when it happens uh at at buildout. So the study looks at the traffic as it sits today uh or at the time of the study which was a few months ago. Uh so that's considered how's it operating today and then we layer onto that other projects that are coming online as well as this project. Uh so so all of those uh data points are nodes. Now it is technical so the report is long but there is a table in the report that shows you the level of service the the the volume to capacity. So the service capacity that's being used up at every step of the way and I believe it's table four in the report. So it is you know a kind of a onetop you can see everything. Um, as far as as far as the uh you know, when would would the road be improved? As you heard from Mike, uh this is you know, this road has it's not going to rank up there on the uh on the uh uh priority list as it's it has quite a bit of capacity left in it. Now, the challenges with this road are uh traffic calming. I think there was a question, is there more traffic calming other than the roundabout? And indeed there is uh there is a curve to the north close to where Pitman excuse me Pitman currently comes into uh Pankan. So the proposal is to eliminate that access. That's a that's a dangerous intersection that's been u uh problematic from a driver safety perspective. So the the the goal is to eliminate that intersection and not have people coming out it in those curves. But also the the other goal is those curves are currently what we call super elevated. So so that when you're going through the curve, you can go through the curve at higher speed. They bank it

just like you do at NASCAR. You bank the curve. These curves are banked so that you can go faster around the turn. It's intended for safety at higher speeds. the in order to improve the safety of the curve and bring down the speeds, what we're proposing is to eliminate that bank and bring the road to a normal creme. And then as part of that also add lighting and add a median so that as you're going through the curve there's not only are you are you curving at a normal speed, there's a median. We're separating the cars so they don't bump into each other and we're lighting it so that it's very clear that you're going through a space that is not a straight road. Uh again, those are ongoing. There's quite a bit of engineering that's going to go into that, but that's the concept that we're committed to as part of this uh application to to to work through and get permitted. Um and finally, when we looked at where to access the road, there was a question about access. There were several iterations on how to access Punkin and how to uh uh make make sure that the traffic works efficiently and safely. So, we went through several iterations of analysis with the county involved, with city staff involved to really optimize the plan, not for necessarily the the the property and the development, but more so for the function of the road itself. So, so what you're what you're seeing here is really taking into account the flow and the safety of of traffic on Punkin Road. I'll uh I'll finally touch on I think there was a question about Vic Road as well and and the access on Vic Road uh and what what what's happening on Vic Road. Yes, there are some pretty uh challenging

vertical curves, ups and downs and sight distance issues. uh part of this uh development. Obviously uh they will we will make improvements at the access points to uh to be able to connect but the ultimate improvement is the city already has budgeted for the design and this applicant will be uh a a participant in that process for the design for the fourlaning and essentially smoothing out of uh Vic Road. So that becomes a four-lane divided smoothed out roadway where all of these sight distance challenges are addressed. So that's that's already moving forward in the works. Now it's it's important to remember that all of this is going to happen over a number of years, but this project as well is going to happen over a number of years. It's not like your approval today and tomorrow there's going to be, you know, 10,000 uh new cars on the road. uh that this is probably you know 7 to 10 year project that will that will uh happen. As those things are happening the roadway improvements are happening and in the zoning uh the reasonzoning there was a commitment that there would not be one residential lot sold north of Punkin Road until the Punkin Road improvements are in place. So there's quite a bit of road work that's going to happen that precedes the residential development with this. So the so the traffic is really coming out uh that the traffic improvements and roadway improvements are coming out ahead a lot of a lot of the impacts. Well, who's paying for the road improvements? So punk go ahead. The developer will be paying for the punk and road improvements which is quite unusual. It's going to be millions of dollars that will be required in connection with the turn lane improvements, the roundabout, the the

smoothing of the curve, removing the the bank, etc. So, that's going to be done by the developer. They are not going to be receiving impact fee credits from the county on that. That's going to be coming out of this project. So, just to clarify, that's an existing problem today that this project is enabling a solution for, and we've committed to be doing that at the beginning of this project. So that's going to be coming along. We can't have an access point to any of the development that connects to Ponin without having those improvements constructed and that's we've committed to that in the PD. So we understand that the traffic is a concern and we've been here and have been working with the city and Orange County and PY has already which is the developer has already started um working with the county and the traffic consultant on putting together design plans for the Ponkin rideway improvements. So I did want to to bring that to light as that'll be the developer who's going to be paying for that. Um, also to clarify with respect to Rogers Road, there were a few comments. Um, while there aren't any improvements that are ne necessitated by this development, the developer has going to be continuing to look at that as they move through the peritting process. So, if it is determined as they work with the city, because Rogers Road is a city road, if there are improvements that are needed, such as striping, maybe a little bit of widening, um, that's something that the developer is willing to talk with the city about. Well, on page three, it says many many residents made comments about Roger for believing as substandard, which which a few years ago what definitely was and not safe. So So that tells me is still substandard. Um I I cannot vote yes on this if you're going to if Rogers Road is not going to be brought up to city standards. I I

believe Mr. How is mistaken. That's my opinion. So again, we're willing to work with the city on this. We are a re at the resoning stage. So we are very early on in the process. We are going to have to be coming through with an MDP along with then construction plan. So there's going to be plenty of time for those commitments to be made and I can let our traffic consultant also talk to that. You have to realize that safety there's nothing more important than safety. So that that's our my priority at least. uh just on on the Rogers road uh as so basically as we go through the uh permitting engineering and permitting that is one of the requirements of the city that we connect to standard city roads. Uh so a road that is substandard is required to be brought up to standards as part of the city's requirements. As as you know, Rogers Road further south was was uh essentially improved and and ribbon curve was put in. All of that happened because the development accessed the road and the city basically required them to bring the road up to standard. This would be no different. So when when we get to the engineering stage, we will will be required to demonstrate to the city that the crosssection is up to standard. And if it's not, part of the uh uh permit would be to have to bring Rogers Road as an access road up to city standards. Otherwise, they wouldn't give us access to it. Who's going to pay to bring Rogers Road up to city standards? I'm sorry, sir. Who's going to pay for the improvements on Roger? It it would be the applicant that would have to do that. and we acknowledge your your concern about the safety. We completely understand that. So, just to touch base on Ponin, we had mentioned that there would be street lighting. There is currently no street lighting. The Ponkin road area that we're talking about is a little bit over a mile long. It's a very, very long stretch of road. They

are talking about uh proposing we've excuse me we have proposed and have committed to street lighting along Ponin to add the safety along with the right-of-way dedication is going to double the size of the roadway in addition to the roundabout improvements. There will be a trail that will be installed that will be a county trail. It's going to be pushed all the way back to the north portion of that added 30 ft. So, and it's going to be wider than the existing sidewalk. We understand that there are some issues with the with wash out with some of the areas on sidewalk um along Ponkin and so that's going to also address those concerns as well. So you'll have an added safety benefit along um this whole area of see button. I always get this wrong. This whole area here will have a trail system. That's good. Um, does a is a developer going to guarantee they won't connect to Rogers Road until Rogers Road develop city standards? I believe that is the requirement, but I'll let the developer Yeah, that sorry, Erin Strucker, PY Homes. Um, as as mentioned, it's certainly going to be required by the city if the city is deemed it is not up to standards. Um, I know there's varying opinions on if it's standard or substandard. I think there's um standards within the city and Bobby you can or anyone from the city staff can certainly correct me if I am wrong that um there's a documented engineering standards manual that states what that has to be. So it's pretty black and white. Um again, this is very preliminary for that portion of the area because it's not a capacity concern with some of the other roadways and a safety concern be it that Ponkin was in terms of the level of detail we have at this stage in the process to fully um know if

with 100% certainty it meets or does not meet city standards. But we will do that evaluation prior to construction plan and prior to um construction of that phase of development in connection to Rogers Road. I see on the bottom of page three you addressed some of the concerns, but you did you left out Rogers Road, which makes me wonder, I mean, it sounds like it's easy fix on your part. What I believe we can agree to is that if it is determined that it's a substandard road, it will be brought up to code before the development is started or finished before construction of this of the residential units. Typically, those off-site improvements are done concurrent with the on-site roadway improvements and and thus before any homes or residences are constructed in that phase, it would be required to be completed um as a condition of the approval for likely that major development plan when that comes back before um before I think does that come before planning commission and then uh city council. So, you'll see every single one of these phases. We'll come back before the public hearing process um again in the future to discuss um the details specific to each individual phase. Well, I think it's very generous for the developer to bring the Roger Road up to city standards. I would I would u I'd like to see somebody do it. Like I said before, I don't care who does it, but it needs to be done. Understood. And I did just want to bring up onto the I'm sorry I was hitting the wrong button because you know so the purple area right here is the area the pod that would be developed in connection and would be the only pod that would be using Rogers Road. So just to clarify and this is much further along in the

process. This project is contemplated to be approximately a 10-year buildout. So this would be much further down the roadway. Yeah. Each color here basically represents a separate development phase. So as you can see um seven phases of development of which that's one of the last phases. Yes. Anyone else questions? Yes sir. Thank you very much. Anyone from the public wish to speak on this matter? Seeing none, we'll bring back it on the screen. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we recommend approval of the zoning of the subject parcels from T transitional RSF1A residential single family estate and MUSGT mixeduse Eastgate East Shore Gateway to the PD plan development district and approval of the PD master plan based on the findings and facts presented in the staff report and exhibits. Motion by Commissioner Norwood. Thank you, ma'am. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner. I'm sorry. discuss again. Yeah.

Anyone else? All right. Motion by Commissioner Norwood, second by Commissioner Mott. All in favor say I. I I Any opposed? No. Motion carries. Mr. How, please tell city council why I voted no. It will be in the report. Thank you. Yeah. And I believe you're required, if I'm not correct, uh, attorney to disclose why you're voting denial. You need to state that. Not for each individual, only if that is the will of the majority. Okay. But we'll put it in the report. Thank you, Mr. H. All right. Item number six, public hearing, ordinance 3143, certified recovery residences. Thank you, chairman. I'll be presenting this one. Uh this uh and of course you you hear from me just as you did with the platting ordinance that came through uh when there's a mandate that's involved uh from the Florida legislature, and that's what we have here. Um to start with a recovery residence and just defining recovery residence before we get to certified, but that means a residential dwelling unit, the community housing component of a licensed day or night treatment facility with community housing or other form of group housing which is offered or advertised through any means including oral written electronic or printed means by any person or entity as a residence that provides a peerupported alcohol-free and drugfree living environment. Uh when it comes to certification, there are various levels of certified recovery residences that cater to different stages of treatments um beginning with a minimum of nine months of sobriety. And so these are the types of facilities on various levels that uh are are are contemplated by some legislation that came through within

this last legislative session that requires um essentially what's included in the ordinance before you tonight to to be accomplished by local governments prior to January 1st um 2026. uh pop Apka is uh in a this would be adopted before the deadline, right? I think everything goes through. Apka is in somewhat of a I won't say unique position, but really ahead of the game because most communities are not going to be adopting this by that particular deadline. There's not a penalty for such, but Apka is on track to meet that state requirement. Um what the legislation requires is that prior to this January 1 deadline uh the uh the governing body of every county and municipality within the state of Florida adopt an ordinance that establishes procedures for the review of these types of facilities and includes a process for uh allowing an applicant to request reasonable accommodations to essentially pro receive relief from what would prohibit uh any kind of land use regulation that prohib prohibit establishment of these facilities. And so what you see in the body of the ordinance, there's also some requirements uh as far as deadlines go um and during an administrative process for a local government to process these in a particular fashion and respond to it and make sure that's done on the administration portion. But I think the meat and potatoes of what you have in front of you tonight uh is this special exception process which puts um these uh facilities into the principal use table and uh sets them up with special exceptions within these particular zoning categories. So that it does come back for uh or it does it does certain

criteria are um considered by staff in reviewing these applications and making the decisions where ultimately these facilities can go and that's what you have in front of you. If you have any questions I'm happy to answer them if I'm able to. To be clear, that means that to do that they would still need to require a special exemption prior. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Any questions? Commissioner Wood, deed restricted communities, um, they may have in their bylaws where you can't have commercial enterprises, nor could you have rental houses. Does this ordinance supersede their bylaws? What this ordinance does is it provides relief from uh or it requires that local governments uh take certain steps to um it's a good word uh basically lessen some of the regulation on these type of uh facilities. Now they're not all commercial. You know these are some residential facilities. to answer your question that goes beyond the scope of really what I can answer because each uh that's all private regulation and and what we have and what's being before what's seen before you tonight is uh solely uh addresses uh local government regulation. Um now with the right or with the criteria and so forth there is a uh one of the criteria is whether the requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary to afford the applicant ultimately what they're looking to do. And so while it's not within the scope of the local government to consider um specific deed restrictions or you know you are looking of course the character of land and what specifically is being requested. In other words, everything's

going to be an ad hoc uh consideration. And whether or not a deed restriction prohibits uh a facility or certain residential component that's contemplated here is going to be an ad hoc termination and something that would be need to ask uh essentially to uh private council for the area you know if it's an HOA or some sort of a deed restricted community uh for the attorney for that HOA or deed restricted Will the community be made aware prior to the approval or is this done and then hey by the way this is going to happen in your community? Well, you still have the application and the process that uh going through the city's process. Um as far as special exception notifications still go through the typical notifications and processes that the city has enacted. So there would be notice required even if it's an administrative decision. More questions. Um just a comment Mr. How I obviously Mr. Shepard and I know that this is part with state statute and understand that part but Mr. how the notification process that we're talking about generally uh if I'm not mistaken there's a required notification within certain amount of feet. Correct. So for I'm sorry. Go ahead. Correct. I would like to propose that if there was a request for special exemption in a gated or deed community that it not be a notification by feat. It' be a notification by the whole community. Can that be done per statute?

You're talking about a different notification something. Do do you understand what I'm suggesting? I understand what you're suggesting. Okay. In the notification that a state statute, not ours, the notification requirements. So our code for special exception requires 300 ft notification sent for by a certified mail. There's also a community meeting that's required to be held the applicant supposed to do that prior to submitting an application. Then it gets advertised in the newspaper as well. What is the state requirement and there I thought there was for special exceptions. Well the state of Florida is just their notification requirements. There's in statute there's advertising requirements for ordinances and things like that. For ordinances it's 10 days notification local. Yeah. Yeah. So as far as mailing notification stuff, I believe that's a local issue though. Okay. And and for clarification, just from the the question about the homeowner association, my understanding was always that the city, county, or state ordinances or laws would always supersede what the homeowner association enforcement is in this in in their in their requirements of their laws. Um, and and this I mean looks to me like the purpose of this law was to put in place in every municipality the ability to request this as a special exemption. Correct. In that the the motivation behind writing this law was to force that to where it had to be a process to allow that to happen within each city. some form of relief to uh for lack of a

better term supersede land use regulation. Yes. Okay. That being said, even you can still have situations where uh even if something is permitted uh by right within a city that it can still not be it's not inconsistent to have a deed restriction that prohibits something from happening. I I I can't really go beyond and and discuss, you know, the what we may see or may not see in in certain HOAs, and I I can't get to the spec specifics of that, but that could certainly come into play. And so this is not necessarily superseding uh you know if there was something that was in conflict then then perhaps but um uh again we've got several there's there's fair housing and several mandates that are that are mentioned here both state and federal regulation. So, it can it can get complicated, but I I think the point is is that we're looking at you can't be in a situation where a pop can say, "Hey, you can't do this." Now, there may be tears and so forth that make it not so doable down as we trickle down into private um covenants and so forth, but but that's not what we're talking about here tonight. And the reason I asked that, what comes to mind is the, for lack of a better term, the chicken ordinance that that was passed years ago about having chickens in the neighborhood. And I there was a conflict between a neighborhood and somebody wanting to do that and it was allowed within the city. And then I thought that was the end result was that the if the city allows it, the homeowner association, unless they have a specific thing, they can't come up and arbitrarily say no, you can't do that. depending if they had a covenant that pre-existed prior to uh an application or something coming uh before. So, in other words, if there's not something, but again, we're talking about hypothetical, but if there's a situation

where you have a deed covenant, private covenant says you can't do a certain type of activity. Uh what's a good example? Certain rental ordinances and so forth, the city may allow rentals to occur within a broad area. But if if there's a HOA that that has a prohibition um you know and that's a a binding covenant that pre-existed then then that would you know govern um I don't know what happened with the chicken situation but uh uh if there wasn't an existing covenant and they were looking to create a covenant after the fact that may have been an issue but um I'm not aware of the facts of that but but certainly it depends on timing depends on what the covenant says depends on the um depends on what the instrument is that creates the restriction. Do do you have the state statute number? I do. Thank you. I believe it's it's right there cited in the staff report as well. 397.487 first page. You got it. Nope, it's not on the case 397.487 subsection 15. Hey, Commissioner Washington. No, he was just completing the statute. All right. Okay. Any more questions? Commissioner Wood. So what you're saying is if the covenants already has the restriction for rental and commercial in it that this would not override it. No, I'm not speaking to the specifics of that at all. I'm just speaking in hypothetics about hypotheticals about deed restrictions, what could happen. And it's really not something I can't go

into the specifics of how this could impact uh private. There's too much. Okay. There's too much. It's it's too dependent upon the factual situation for me to to really cover that. No, I was just interpreting what you were saying earlier that if the instrument matters, the timing matters. Yeah. What the restriction is and the content of the restriction matters. Uh what the regulation is matters, the location matters. These are all relevant factors. So I'm just pointing to that that may be a relevant factor uh whenever this comes up as an issue. Okay. Thank you. Very welcome. All righty. Is there anyone here from the public wish to speak on this matter? Right. Bring it back to the board. A motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we recommend approval for ordinance number 3143. Motion by Commissioner Norwood. Thank you, ma'am. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Ryan. All in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Number seven, ordinance number 3145, police and fire EMS municipal impact fee increases. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. My name is Glenn Sherman, finance director. Tonight, we want to we're bringing before you two ordinances um ordinance number 3145 and 3146. The first is the police and fire EMS municipal impact fee increases. And the next one relates to our parks and recreation. I have Mr. Sean Oacio here with me and he's going to give you a presentation, but I do want to share with you some of the history and where how we got to this point. We started

with the workshop on July 17, 2025 where Mr. Henry Thomas with Raph Tillis presented the municipal impact fee study results to our council. Um, Mr. Thomas provided an overview and recommended impact fee rates compared to the existing rates. In addition, Mr. Thomas explained the implementation process for the increase exceeding the statutory limits of 50%. At the August 6 to U 2025 council meeting, u Mr. Thomas and and Mr. Sean Oacio presented the study results again before the council and the council recommended approval or gave approval to proceed with the implementation process. That implementation process included two public hearings because of the extraordinary circumstances behind the increases. That first workshop was held on November 5th. The second one was on November 19th. And also we had the first reading of these ordinances on November 19th at the regular council meeting and they were approved. We're here today December 9th before the planning commission for recommendation of approval. Our plans are to take it on the December 17th council meeting for the second reading and upon approval at that December 17th meeting uh we that would be the effective date of the increases but we cannot collect them until 90 days after that. So I have Mr. Shan Oacio here to give you an overview. Good evening. Uh for the record, Sean Oasis, Ref Talis Financial Consultants. I've been the project manager uh on behalf of Craft Talis working with the city in updating the the uh police,

fire, and uh parks and recreation impact fees that we'll be discussing tonight. As a uh excuse me, as a quick agenda for what we're going to be covering this presentation, there'll be a little bit of discussion on some basics on impact fees and some of the legal considerations associated with them. We're also going to discuss on a high level basis the method by which we designed these fees and then the major assumptions included in the analysis and then go over the summary findings and recommendations and discussion on implementation. So a little bit of background primer on impact fees. These are fees that are paid by new development that result in an increased demand for municipal services whether that be police or fire or recreation and so on. Uh these fees are specifically used to pay for growth related capital facilities. So the money that you collect from these types of fees, you can't use them to pay for any sort of operating costs or for uh replacement of existing type of assets. These are just for growth related expansion and um equipment and capital. And the the benefit to these fees is that it avoids having growth related costs. So as as your city grows and as that places demands on your police department, on your fire department, on parks and recreation and you have to incur additional costs in order to provide the same level of service to your community. These fees help um not burden your existing residents with some of those costs. It's it's causing growth to pay for a portion of it itself or growth paying for its own way here. Um with that, the fees have to be um reasonable and equitable to to all parties. There's a a dual rational nexus test which essentially it's it's a two-prong test that says when you're designing these fees, you have to design them using the capital cost associated with growth and then when you collect these fees, those revenues that you get from the impact fees, you then have to use them on growth related projects. So, it's making sure that you have the growth related costs built into the fee then go towards the growth related projects that you're going to use them on. Uh these fees have to be based on

reasonable level of service for the community. Um, in the case of the city, there's, you know, again, we're looking at police, fire, and parks and recreation. So, we're talking, you know, officers per thousand population, acres per thousand population, and so on. Um, these fees cannot be used to meet any sort of deficiencies that you may have. So, an example would be if, let's say, the the desired level of service for the community is two officers per thousand population, but currently you're providing uh one and a half officers per thousand population. the additional capital cost that the city would have to incur to bring the the standard up by bringing on those additional officers and the additional you know vehicles and equipment and those sorts of items. You could not use these fees to pay um to pay for those items because that would be essentially trying to make growth subsidize that portion. So it's only for expansion related uh capital and then these uh these fees are then adopted by Oregon's process for the city. uh some um preliminary uh legal considerations. So these fees are governed by what's called the Florida Impact Fee Act. Uh that's section 163 of the Florida statutes. Um it was created back in uh 2006. Um previous history related to case law and and some other items. Uh in recent years, these uh this this bit of legislation has been updated numerous times um with some of the most recent changes taking place this year in 2025 that will actually be taking effect in uh beginning of 2026. So some of the requirements from the Florida impact fee act associated with the design and having of impact fees is that these fees have to be calculated based on most recent localized data to to the community. So recent being defined as within the past four years and uh localized to the community has to be specific to the city. So, as a part of our analysis, we made sure to use the the city's existing asset records, uh, capital improvement program, you know, so planned expenditures, uh, your existing call data, you know, population projections, all those sorts of items, all within the past year. Um, some some other items here, you know, the the

impact fee act requires that these fees be accounted for in their own separate funds. The city already does that because the city has these fees in place and has had them in place for years. Uh, there's some other items here. One of the ones I wanted to call out near the bottom is uh the general government does have the burden of proof in the challenge of of an impact fee. That was one of the changes that took place a number of years ago. And uh as far as the timing of these fees, you cannot collect them before the issuance of a building permit. So some of the more recent changes uh that taken place with the impact fees is uh with respect to implementation. So, it used to be you could just, you know, have your your impact fee study to justify the cost increases. You'd go through your ordinance reading process, you know, first second read and adopt the fees and then start collecting them. However, they they set um some restrictions in the statute recently or relatively recently where now it's it's a function of the level of the increase and there's a prescribed phasing protocol that's a part of the statute as well. So the the increase if you're proposing an increase of up to 25% then that increase has to be phased in over a two-year period of time uh evenly. If the increase is higher than 25% but uh up to 50% then the increase would have to be implemented over a 4-year period of time evenly. And then if you're proposing an increase of anything greater than 50% then you're actually capped by the statute at 50% level with that four-year phasing protocol. However, when they were um updating the statute, they deal they did build in um some provisions there um that you can bypass those phasing requirements and you can bypass that fee maximum component um if you have what are called extraordinary circumstances. And so we'll get into that a little bit further in just a moment. Um one other thing in the statutes is that you you can't update these things uh more than once every four years. So they they let you get a bite at the apple once every four years now. So, uh, with respect to extraordinary circumstances, it's more of, um, a set of procedural

requirements. They didn't actually define what constitutes extraordinary in the statute. They leave that up to the the elected officials in the governing body as a legislative finding. Um, but the procedural requirements are that there needs to be a demonstrated need study that justifies the increases and the need to implement them over and above the the phasing requirement and the the the 50% cap. There has to be two publicly noticed workshops specifically devoted to discussing those uh circumstances which again as Blanch mentioned in the introduction that the city has already gone through those pro that process and then the there's a a voting requirement of at least twothirds of the governing body uh vote in support uh in order to implement through that uh protocol. Uh one thing I I'll mention is this these set of um procedures are changing in January but you you won't be subject to that because the the implementation will be set for for later this month. But it's just important to note. And so with that here, what I have on on the top uh first set of bullets and second set of bullets is the extraordinary circumstance um steps in uh their existing form. So again, you have to have the demonstrated need study, which would be you know the the the impact fee study justifying the cost side of everything and then the fees and then uh also the the um the the need that you would have for for exceeding that uh two to four year plan. uh the two meetings and then the two-thirds vote like I mentioned before in its revised form that'll take effect in January uh January uh 2026 you'll still be able to increase fees um over the 50% cap there is a required phasing component now whereas before like right now you don't have to do that uh starting in January you would have to phase it either through two or four year period of time it does require unanimous vote of the governing body um and if you have an updated impact fees in uh five years and then you actually can't implement through that approach. So just some changes there as to what's going on with the statute. It's been an area where they've done quite a bit of changes in the past few years. So we just wanted to to notate that on the

front end here. Uh quick overview of a calculation methodology. Essentially what we're trying to do is uh come up with a a fee per unit. So a calculation of a cost per unit. And so we're developing a projection of units. So that would be residential um you know population uh forecast for the the next you know 15 20 25 years projection of residential dwelling units as well as a projection of developed uh res non-residential square footage so non-residential commercial space developed um we're looking at the service level criteria for each group. So on the police side you know officers per thousand parks and recreation side acres per thousand on the the fire side we're looking at staffing we're looking at at calls and you know insurance rating and so on. And then what we're then doing is we're we're looking at the the total investment that the city has made in each respective department. I I'll use police as the example here. The the total investment that the city has to date. So that'd be everything that's invested in, you know, station facilities, equipment, vehicles, and so on. And taking those capital costs and then looking at them and going based on the rules in the statute, what's allowed to be included in the impact fee? Because that's another set of changes that they did was they they've started to to limit what you can include in these fees. So um we go through the exercise of going through all the fixed assets of the police department, fire department, parks and recreation department and looking to see which ones can be included, which ones need to be excluded. Uh the ones for exclusion are any assets that have a shorter useful life than uh less than 5 years. And um you have to include a major capital infrastructure. So we we look at the the existing investment, you know, that you have to date. We look at the plan near-term future investment in each of those respective departments. what's in your multi-year capital plan for the city, you know, are there any new stations? Are there any new um, you know, parks? Things of that nature. And we then look through those projects and also do the same exercise. What can be included? What needs to be excluded? And then we take that net bucket of costs, if you will, that that the sum total of those

two items and we aortion it on a perunit basis. Um the way we um do that is we look at um when it comes to the let's say the police and fire side, you know, where that fee is applied to both residential properties and non-residential properties. Um so we look at, you know, the city's call data, response calls to try to aortion some of the cost based on demand. We're looking at square footage for the city in terms of developed square footage based on property appraiser records. We're also looking at Census Bureau data with respect to um estimates of where essentially where people spend their time. And so trying to aortion those costs between residential function and non-residential function. And then from there we have now we have the the costs for residential, the cost for non-residential and we divide them by that unit forecast that I mentioned a few minutes ago. So in terms of the proposed rate that's then designed for the residential side, it's on a per dwelling unit basis. And on the non-residential side, it's either applied on a per thousand square footage or on a per room basis depending on what land use category it is. uh moving into major assumptions. So as far as that unit forecast I mentioned, you know, we look back at uh your historical population growth and on an average basis, you've grown about 2.9% per year for from fiscal year uh 2020 to 2025. Um then when we look forward based on, you know, planning data and other items that we have from the city, um it's uh projected to increase at about 1.7% per year on an average annual basis through 2050. um you've had um uh some some good growth in in the near term here and sorry I lost my place in terms of uh overall forecast you know we're looking through uh 2020 uh 2023 you know population is about 58,000 uh 2050 about 92,000 is the estimate at buildout rough estimate right now about 120,000 um so there is you know still significant growth in the future um in terms of the existing investment in uh capital assets and level and the

level of service by each respective department. Currently today um for the police department uh on the books as of the the study there's about 10.7 million in total assets. Now of that total amount like I mentioned before we have to go through it and then pull out what what's actually includable. So of that 10.7 4.9 million is is being included in the fee analysis here. Uh for fire total assets is 19 million. Uh the amount that's being included in the fees though is about 14.8 8 million and uh for the park side it's about 22.3 million that's being included in terms of level of service for the police department. Uh currently the city is providing about 2.17 officers per thousand of population. Um when it comes to what we see around the state you know somewhat um you know observationally on average it varies between you know maybe 1.9 2.5. It it depends on the community and their unique population uh dynamics and what they're providing. you know, certain communities that may have uh very high seasonal influx of population, maybe um you know, like some coastal communities that are big, you know, spring break destinations, they might have, you know, a higher variability in their level of service, but on an average basis, it ranges around two to two and a half. Um so the city is in in line there with, you know, the average of what we see in other places. In terms of level of service on the fire department side, uh your level of service is more timebased. And so that's a service time of 5 minutes and 20 seconds at 90% of the time for first response calls. And that's being met. And the city is providing um a level of service that is given a rating for ISO of a rating of one, which is the highest rating you can have for fire department. Um on level of service for parks and recreation, the city's target is 3 acres per thousand. However, the city is exceeding that providing approximately 8 acres per thousand right now. So, in terms of all the level of service requirements, you are meeting what the targets that the city has set for itself and those are all being met um and projected to be met going forward. So, that's you know the existing

investment and the yellow and the level of service side. On the forward-looking side, in terms of major capital improvements, you know, for the police department, the the total multi-year capital plan is about 86.1 million, of which $80 million of that is included in the fee analysis. Um, some of the major projects in there, the public safety uh complex, the police department's allocation of that, it's about $54 million. There's also a training facility in there for about $25 million for the uh fire department. total capital plan for the the multi-year period is just under $51 million. Approximately 41.8 million of that is included in the analysis and that includes the fire department's allocation of the public safety complex. That's about $32.3 million. And then also a new station that's being uh added, station number seven at $6 million. U there's also another 1.5 million in vehicles and supporting equipment that goes with that u fire station as well. Uh for parks and recreation, the total plan for the multi-year period is about just under $17 million of which about 26.1 million is included in the fee analysis. Uh some major projects there, you know, land acquisition about 20 million, some new soccer fields, uh tennis and pickleball courts at your various facilities. So then in terms of the uh sure details of where I think we need to streamline this a little bit. Sure. We don't need to know what dollars and cents are going to each and every Can I Can I ask a question? Sure. I got a couple questions. Are fees in line with other Florida cities of our size? In other words, is it is it mid-range, high range, low range? So, uh actually, if I can jump a slide ahead here. Yeah, there is a a comparison survey that we did for um for Apopkco. So, I have one for each fee type. There's a police, then a couple slides later there's fire, and a couple slides later there's parks

and recreation. On the police side, you are on the higher end of the fees. We're we're very high. Yeah, that's God, that's substantial. Now, how do we justify that? Well, it's it's based on the cost for your community. So for instance, if we look at the total investment in the police department today, like I mentioned earlier, it's about $10 million 10 maybe 11 million in total assets. The plant that you have that you're implementing over the next five to six years, I think was 80 plus million dollars of additional investment again for that public safety complex and the training facility for the police department. So, one thing that you'll see and one thing that we see when we're looking at these types of fees is when it comes to communities that are currently um undergoing a significant capital investment to improve upon facilities, especially at today's dollars with all the inflation that's occurred with construction costs. Those fees are going up higher for for communities that are are updating them now. And for you know like like if you look on the on the low end of the comparison um let's see you know some of these communities what what what the comparison doesn't show is when was the last time some of these communities either had an update in their fees or what level of fee did the city choose to implement versus what the fee may have been calculated to be at its fully burdened level. Um so those are those are other items that aren't shown here. Uh but on the police side it would be the high end. I have a couple more questions. Yes sir. Um the projected population I believe is low I think. I think Commissioner Moore stated on um social media that Apakka alone um population rose by believe 7%. That was last year and you've got an average of 2.9 and then it goes down even lower to 1.9 up to uh 20 2050. That's just my opinion. I think your projection of population is low. Um, another thing is you have impact fees per resident dwelling units. Are are they the same for a th00and foot uh dwelling unit as it is for a 5,000 foot

dwelling unit? Uh, so if I go back um so that is the fee per 1,000 square feet. So if so it scales residential. I'm sorry that's commercial. I was talking about residential. For residential it's applied on a per dwelling unit basis. So it's irrespective of the size. You have a th00and square foot drawing unit and a 5,000 foot drawing unit. They pay the same impact fee. Yes, sir. I think that needs to be adjusted in my opinion per square footage or per thousand square foot. That's my opinion. Okay, that's all the questions I have for now. Okay. Um, anyone else? Okay. Um, can you put the the the comparison chart back up there with the local fe I'm looking at that and and I'm there's a lot of cities that are missing here that that aren't that touch us directly. I'm curious. There's not a KO is not there. Winter Garden's not there. Windmir's not there. We got Palm Coast and Deltona and Warman Beach. Um, and they're all incredibly low. But irrespective of that, the highest one on there is City of the Land. We are right next to them right now at 747. We're proposing to go to uh 1116. That seems like an enormous jump. When's the last time we changed our fees? When's the last time we raised our our impact fees? The last time the police impact fee was updated, I want to say, is about nine years ago. Okay. I thought it said in in your thing that if it wasn't done in the last five years, it wasn't allowed to go over the 50%. That's a new change that was built into the the statute for the the recent uh year that's coming up. That's just and it's

maybe I'm alone here, but that seems like an ridiculously high number. We're going to be literally double of what Alamont Springs is or Mount Dora or ignore these other St. Augustines irrelevant to us. Um, city of Loki, we're still more than double them. City of Claremont almost double of them. Edgewater and our existing, we're almost, you know, I mean, that just seems we're incredibly high in the first place. So, we're going to go even further from that. And I understand, you know, maybe that discourages a lot of building and I know a lot of people, a lot of the residents are like, "Stop building houses. Stop building houses." And and I get that, but that just seems like a ridiculous number. So, so I have a question. kind of in line with what the chairman just said, if it's been nine years ago since there was an impact fee adjustment here in Apakka, then we go back here and you cannot do the extraordinary circumstances. Correct. That's if you were to wait until uh beyond January 1st. Oh, so we're trying to get this in so we can get the big fee before that. Okay. Well, this process was started back in in July. As Blanch mentioned, the some of the initial briefings took place in July and August and we've been going since then. Okay, I understood. Okay. So, we haven't raised it in nine years and we're at we're the second highest of all the cities here. We haven't raised it in nine years. And that's making the assumption that none of these other people have raised there in nine years, which I doubt. I I imagine some of them have. That just seems like a ridiculous number. Well, some of these communities have updated theirs in recent years. Uh, Port Orange did theirs about I want to say maybe four maybe five years ago. Uh, City of Claremont did theirs about I want to say maybe three years ago. Um, Edgewater did theirs I think maybe two years ago. They're still half of what we have now and then we want to go 30% or 40% 50%

past that. Well, it's it's a a function of the the costs that are built into the plan. So So maybe our government's out of control. for spending entirely too much money because that just looks ridiculous to me. I mean, that's just my opinion. Go ahead. Anybody else have questions? Well, one of the things that one of the things that he mentioned was is that um although he's verbally just stated, he said this does not show when the last time that they increased their fee. And if you said one of them increased it three years ago and that you can only do it every four years, then it's high high potential that that entity could be raising their impact fee within another year. The other question that I would have when I looked at this graph before was of of these um is there any crossover that the county is covering some of the cost through the sheriff's department? You know, because we're specifically looking at the police impact v comparison here. Uh, and when I looked at this, I was like, "Wow." You know, I mean, even our current one, other than Dand, um, and and then, um, Edgewater, the city of Edgewater, everybody's so low. So, I'm sitting there going, how can you have that that low? Is there some crossover that the sheriff's department? Now, if you go on to a couple more slides where you have the next um graph, you'll see that there is a couple more graphs that are coming up where we're not the highest. Right. Right. And and to your point um you you're correct on your first point. Um when um the the communities that we're seeing that are going through these updating process now, we're seeing significant increases across the board. It has to do with, you know, uh I'll give an example. Well, a firet truck about six years ago, a standard engine was about, you know, half million dollars give or take. Now they're going for a million dollars, $900,000, you know, plus. You know, an aerial, one of

the the big ladder trucks, used to be about a million million, too. Now they're going for about $2 million. That's just the the cost inflation in the past five, six years that that's been experienced. So asset acquisition costs are a lot higher. Uh construction costs are a lot higher. So, a lot of the communities that are doing big improvements to whether it's public safety complexes, new fire stations, new parks, uh, new police stations and so on, um, they're seeing significant increases as well in their fees. Um, so that I just wanted to to add that there. So, when I looked at this PowerPoint and I read through the whole PowerPoint, the one question, one of the questions I came up with is when you talk about cost etc., Is that today's cost or is that an average cost over that period of time of what you think you're projecting that item to cost? So the costs that are included on the existing asset side are the assets on the books through the study date and for the projected costs those are based on the capital improvement plans as adopted by the the city's uh budgeting process or as a part of the budgeting process. So it's it's those cost estimates based on what the city has come up with for those costs. I believe at that time we have not inflated the costs. Okay. Um to to your uh your your second comment about shared facilities and shared benefit. One on here that I can speak to is for instance the city of Deltona they have the lowest total comparison. However, that's because their fee is very nominal. It's I want to say it's $70 or something like that. It's very small. It's because the bulk of their services is provided by the county and essentially the only assets that they're recovering as a part of their impact fee is just a single building that they have that then the county runs everything through. So they don't have a lot of capital investment to recover in their fee and you know it's a unique situation compared to the city where it actually owns and operates and maintains its whole police department fleet and everything associated with that. So there that's another differential that these comparisons don't always show is is that level of um interaction. Let me ask another question. So, how much did the city pay for this study?

I'd have to check to give you an accurate answer. I don't know offh hand. I don't Well, I have a question. Yes. I'm sorry. Um, do you have you were you have a comparison of the the cost increases and that do you have a comparison of the the dollars per citizen of the the budget for the EMS and the fire and the and the parks? A comparison of that with other cities? When you say dollars per citizen, you mean we're we're asking for to raise the impact fee to fund the police department and the EMS and to fund that. That's that's what we have here. So, do we have the numbers saying that, okay, the city of Winter Garden spends $1,000 per person on fire and EMS and Apopka spends $1,000. Do we have that comparison to see what our numbers? I'm looking at this and thinking maybe our budget is out of whack there. And do we have a comparison of that to where we can say city of Winter Garden spends $500 per resident on police and fire? What do we spend compared to them? Well, that's on an operating side and uh impact fees are not related to operations. They're related to the capital investment associated with bringing the assets onto service. So, that's that's not encompassed as a part of this. So, we don't have a comparison like that, but it still begs the question. I understand how it's allocated is that that's a detail. I'm just asking an overview. Why why do we need this much money versus everybody else? What's the justification for that huge amount of money to raise arms back? I'm just thinking that's going to make the people that want to build or construct is just going to all they have to do is go a mile that way or a mile that way and they can build and spend a half money on the impact fees. If you build 500 houses or a thousand houses, $100,000 for impact fees,

you follow my that that's my whole logic and reason. But anyway, I I I hear your concern. Um what I would mention just observation is anecdotal um is that a lot of the communities that actually have higher impact fees, we don't see the decrease in in growth that you might expect because remember what the impact fees are funding as the the the um the services that you're providing to the community. Let's say on the parks and recreation side, you know that you're providing those amenities, you're providing those acreage and open space places and everything. So to some extent those are even things that are used by developers to market the community and you know market the properties. So anecdotally in the communities you know some of the ones we worked with you know Winter Garden and some others when development came and said um if if you go through you know let's say increases like this we're not going to develop in the case of Winter Garden this was years ago um they said we're still going to implement the fees anyway and the growth still can. So while it does have the potential to impact new development of course you know just price elasticity demand and that kind of thing um what we at least observe is that it doesn't necessarily impact it in that manner. You know, for instance, if you look in, let's say, South Florida, there's just a recreation impact fee in some communities down there is $56,000 per house. So that they can vary um you know, materially and still have uh development. Okay, I understand. Yeah. Yeah. This is this is capital. Yes, sir. This is projected capital. So you're talking building, equipment, vehicles, etc. This is not personnel. Um, you know, there's been discussion for several years about a new police building, you know, potentially being built, and I think that that's what's in here. Yes, sir. Um, when you get to the fire uh department, it, you know, it talks about station 7, the the equipment to build that out and build that out. So, this is this is talking about capital um and when you have the growth and development, if you're going to continue

to move forward. So, if you have 2.17 police officers for every 1,000 and you have another one, well, um I don't know if each one of those police officers have a car, if you put two in the car or however that's done, then that's the police department's, you know, um responsibility and how they do that. But, you know, as you get more police officers, you got to get more cars, right? Uh more vehicles and that type of thing. So, that's what we're talking about here. Yes, sir. I just have a question on the graph. If you could go back looking at the cities listed, you mentioned Deltona. They don't have any services in police. It's all done by Valuchia County. Can we could this be done like for like like who's building more u a new public safety building? who is expanding their police force that they need the additional infrastructure when you get to the fire department who's building another fireous or multiple firehouses. Comparing us to the city of Deltona is not a valid comparison because their needs are not the same of our needs. So what it would be helpful if we would have the comparison of like needs not just a random selection of cities because what the Lucia County supports the local municipalities is different than Orange is different than Lake. Um, so is there a way that this can be presented differently that we would have a more I know you can't be

complete apples to apples, but this is apple to limits. Um, it's a comp more of a comparison like to like. It was meant to be more just, you know, general central Florida. Um, in order to do a comparison like that, there's a quite a lift of research involved because we'd have to get all of the capital plans for each of those municipalities. We'd have to essentially do a similar analysis to see which ones are actually renewal and rehabilitation of existing facilities which can't be included versus expansion of facilities and associated with growth. So, we'd essentially be doing like a mini study for each of those entities to try to get it on that granular and super comparable level. Could you do one that's maybe more comparable in size in terms of population? You know, that could be uh something that could be put together. That's a it's a little easier to do there. But, uh, generally when when these are put together, it's just meant to be a snapshot survey of a region. So, all this information you're work working with is a public record, correct? Yes, sir. So, I mean, there should be some system involving AI that can gather this information or request this information and then do an analysis on that. It it varies because um different communities have different budgeting processes. So for instance, some communities as a part of their publicly published um uh budget documents and capital planning documents will have not only the list of projects and the spending curve throughout time, but they'll also have detailed project writeups for every singular project within that as a part of that document. However, some uh municipalities don't publish in that level of detail and instead we'll just publish the summary total projects and total spending curve and that um detail information that would speak to the character of the items I mentioned earlier wouldn't be available. So, so sir, you're saying it's not feasible to do a record request on these cities. Well, I mean, it's going to be irrelevant to our discussion tonight. Not going to happen now. We have to work with that we got in front of us. We're not going to get any more information tonight.

Well, no, but okay. I mean, that's fine. We were just there's a whole lot of details and explain this how the impact view works that I think isn't necessar. I'm trying to expedite this a little bit. Sure. So, if I just skip ahead to the next comparison then for the fire side, um you know, similar graphic here. Again, uh significant movement upwards on the comparison. Your your current fee for uh fire for a single family uh unit is $78 per dwelling unit. That would be increasing to $1,14 per dwelling unit. Now, we're still on the upper end. Yes. And for just a comment if I may, the city of Baltimore Springs, if I'm not mistaken, fire um is done by Simo County. Well, they they pay county for those services. But how much, you know, how much of it is subsidized by the county? It's a comment. Just a comment. I don't think losing money on it. So, um, with this comparison here, one thing I wanted to to mention was, uh, City of Claremont, like I mentioned, they did their fee study about two, three years ago. They're the highest one on the comparison right now. Uh, City of Palm Coast just did their, uh, impact fees, um, back in, uh, June. So, they're also, that's why they're on the higher end as well because they have significant investment. And so, I guess I just use that to help illustrate what I mentioned earlier. the ones that are doing these studies more currently, you know, in the in the near term are seeing more significant increases because again the costs have have increased significantly for for these capital assets and facilities for each of these service types for parks and recreation. Then the current fee level is $1,60 per residential dwelling unit. That would be

increasing to uh $1358 per dwelling unit. In this case, um you'd still be below the the average of the survey here. Uh the survey being about $1627 per residential dwelling unit. And again, but you'll see um you know, uh city of Claremont on the far right, uh city of Palm Coast on the far right. Uh Orman Beach did theirs probably about five years ago there on the further right and and so on. Port Orange on the higher end as well. So again, it's it's part of it's a function of timing. Some communities have, you know, waited a long time to do these and when they do have to go through that exercise, there'll be some some catch up. So, in uh terms of combining all those together, the uh total fee per uh residential dwelling unit would then be for for police, fire, and parks and recreation service. Uh currently is uh $2,515 per residential dwelling unit. Um just slightly below the the average of the municipals, municipalities that were surveyed at about $2559. they would be increasing to $3578 per dwelling unit. That's an increase in totality of about 42%. And again, you have um those communities I mentioned that are more recent in their updates are leaning more on the right side of the comparison there. So, I don't know how far we into the weeds we want to get in terms of implementation concerns and and those requirements. Um, I'll let you guide me there, but essentially the because of the significant nature of the increases, essentially what what we're saying on the slide is that because the increases are higher than what the the statute generally allows for of that 50% protocol, the city has um elected to pursue the implementation through the extraordinary circumstance provisions having those uh two workshops on the circumstances which I can discuss the circumstances in the very slide here.

So again, there's been high population growth. Again, based on the information we had, you know, the permanent population had increased by almost 22,000 residents since 2010. Um, that's like I said, an average about 2.8% per year on an average annual basis. Uh, the state average over that same period of time is about one and a half percent. So, you know, when you're comparing to the state, you have been growing at a very high rate. uh continued population growth is projected for your community necessitating the expansion of the capital facilities you have. So as growth is coming in, it's placing demand for additional police officers, additional fire facilities and and additional parks and so on. And so it's that growth that's driving the need for these projects and it's the costs of those projects that are then driving the increase in the fees themselves. Uh like I mentioned earlier, the the other prong of this is the significant increase in the asset acquisition and construction costs. You know, using the example of police vehicles, uh currently they're in the plan. The vehicle and supporting equipment to get that vehicle into service is about $65,000 per vehicle. Uh previously about 5 years ago, uh those vehicles were about 40,000 uh in the $40,000 $35,000 range. So significant increases there in the capital investment associated with the vehicle. Uh when it comes to essential fire apparatus, those have almost doubled. Uh fire engine previously was um and this was back in um uh 2019, it was about half a million dollars, like I said earlier. Currently in the plan, the new engine is about $900,000 and those are still going up. Uh in terms of uh cost to construct facilities, uh the cost of construction have increased materially. When we look at just the materials construction index, uh it's about a 40% increase in just material costs since 2019. So just the materials themselves have increased and then the labor and and all the expertise to then bring those facilities uh up have increased materially as well. So you're in an environment where you have a lot of growth that growth is requiring you to add u facilities to maintain your level of service to the community but then those uh capital facilities that you have to bring on to to provide that level of service are also increasing at a at a very substantial rate in the past

few years. And then the the other uh item to consider was uh the impact to the existing residents if the fees are not implemented at their full level. So to the extent you want to accomplish all the same projects, you know, that the city um elected officials want to go through with doing that public safety complex, doing station 7, doing the additional park facilities and those sorts of items. to the extent that those projects still need to be you know that money still needs to be spent and the fees aren't implemented at the fully calculated level then the differential and the revenues that you you you're not getting have to come from your existing residents instead of being paid by the growth that's causing the need for those facilities. Um, in terms of uh an estimate of some of those costs that would be put on the residents just on the residential side, um, in terms of uh, police, fire, and parks and recreation, it'd be a total uh, capital cost burden about $72,000 just between 2026 and 2030. So that would be another, you know, $700,000 that the residents would have to take on as opposed to being recovered through an impact fee over that period of time. No, we did some questions before, but uh if you want to I I have to be honest. I think some of your numbers, not that I'm a an accountant, but I think your numbers are somewhat conservative on on which end? Just, you know, um by the time you get a new apparatus truck, I think it's got to be over a million. not 900,000. Well, that's uh that's what's built into the the adopted city capital plan. So, that's what we have to use. Oh, I'm not I mean I I'm just I'm just making a comment. I understand you have to have a methodology. You have to draw a line somewhere and you have to get a number out there. But ultimately when it comes down to it, I mean, one of the things that I'm hearing is, you know, some of the even the um uh you know, the um wastewater stations, you know, they

they give a number and by the time it's built, it's you know, doubled. You know, it's just you know, it's just what it is. when and just an example since you mentioned wastewater um the the city of Mount Door recently updated their wastewater impact fees and when um when we looked at their uh capital facilities because again it's the same exercise just different units right um their existing embedded treatment facilities for wastewater on an average basis were about $13 per gallon in terms of cost per gallon of capacity that that facility could treat. the new facilities that they're bringing on board to provide service to growth are at about 42 to $43 per gallon of capacity. That's the the significant nature in of these capital inflation items that are impacting folks. So they're doing they're doing more quantity and cost more per gallon. Usually it's other way around. There's no economy of scale here. Well, for them it's the cost per unit of capacity is higher than what they currently have in service. So it does cost more now to build um similar capacity amount. Yeah. But I'm just talking about the cost per gallon to process. Well, it's not the operation of the facility. It's not the the cost per gallon of treatment. It's the cost per unit of the the facilities themselves. Okay. The facility will last for 20 years probably. So that's amver. Well, they can certainly advertise it, but you know, I mean, it'd be very simple if you said that a bag of concrete costs a dollar, but to build this new um system with the concrete, the concrete the bag of concrete's $40 instead of, you know, $10. It's just it's just that the capital costs are more expensive. Yes, they can still treat the same amount and it probably doesn't cost that much more to treat, but just to build the physical property or, you know, the physical building. Well, do we need to the impact fees to cover all these expenditures and all these things here? Because what's not

being mentioned is okay, the impact fees on what? How many houses we got coming out of the ground? How many houses we got now, Bobby? Like 10,000 coming out of the ground that are permitted at this point. um county paluchi which you have just voted to in title or at least recommended that's 1,34 so I would say 5 to 10,000 is a conservative estimate yes that's the tax base of what 2500 3,000 per house for a year sure you don't look at your tax bill it hurts well all those house come out of the ground also pays for that infrastructure so I think there's that that's there's two sides of that we're voting on approving this tonight to then send to the city council or what are we voting on? This is just Oh, recommendation. Okay. To the city. I have just one quick question. Already approved the first reading and you know, we've been through several workshops. We Sorry, we apologize for not getting here sooner. We just learned of this potential requirement. So, that's why we're bringing it before this commission. Now, just one quick question just for information. How many different municipalities does your organization provide these services for? How many municipalities do we provide these types of services for? Yeah, like you provided to Apaka. How many other municipalities do you provide these services to? Because I know you do more than just this, right? Right. Um, goodness. Um, I mean, just in terms of of municipal impact fees, I've done I've probably been a part of three dozen plus, maybe four. There other colleagues in my office that work with other municipalities that have also done similar amounts and and even more depends on, you know, how long they've been around. So, we've done, you know, on the water and sewer side, we've done easily well over a 100 plus um of water and sewer type impact. We studied municipals. I want to say

probably something comparable to be honest. I I that's that's a number I don't keep because the the other side is we have quite a few practitioners in our Florida office that also do these types of analyses and so we don't I don't track their amount. So, but in in terms of of doing this type of work, uh we do these types of studies and you know all throughout the state of Florida. You know, I part I've participated in studies, you know, going from the panhandle to South Florida. We have uh folks that do them in Georgia. We have folks across the country that do these types of things. So, we do have quite a bit uh breath of experience in that. I just can't quantify the the exact number for you. All right. Anyone else have questions? All right. Bring it to the board for motion and board. Just one one clarification. Um it was brought up that this is a recommendation. This is a a land development regulation as well. So, in the motion, um, if you're if you're moving to approve and make a positive recommendation, just recommend that you include a consistency finding with the comprehensive plan. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Forgive me. Yes. Go ahead, sir. I'll do that. Okay. For um just for clarification, Miss Sherman, is this considered the second reading? No, it's not. Okay. So So this is not the second reading, so it can't be voted on yet. Um, one thing a question I had on the police impact fees. We were at the highest for the last nine years. What I know in the fire department, there's a lot of things that they had gotten over the last five years with all the building and everything, but what did the police department get at that

high impact fee um rate over the last nine years already? What capital improvements did we get uh from that? that what why do we need to raise it up even that much more for the police? And the other thing is a year and a half ago at the budget meetings we were discussing you have 20,000 more uh units coming in or 10,000 whatever the number might be. Um those people create garbage. Is aka still doing its own waste its own garbage? Why are we not charging impact fees? Because yes, we're charging for every person we pick up from, but you put in four new or six new apartment complexes, you need a new truck. You put in, you know, 600 new homes, you need a new truck. So, why are we not putting the impact fees in this? While we could, while we could start out from zero impact fees, we can go above 50%, we can get a reasonable impact fee to cover the waste um cost of capital improvements with that. Um, that's another consideration that the city probably needs to make. But those are just my concerns over this. What did we get, you know, from the the high number rate of impact fees so far at the police department, um, fire department. We're also, you know, you spoke about the cost of engines and things like that. We're getting a half a million dollars a year from the county to cover the north side of the town. We should have a brand new engine every year because um, that money is kind of going away somewhere. You know, the budget is reflective of the amount of money we bring in to the fire department, but that extra 500 grand, man, we should be sitting here pretty with all brand new fire engines. So, it's all I have to say. All right. Thank you, sir. All right. Bring it back to the board for a motion. If I could share some additional information, if you don't mind. I'm sorry. The If I can share some additional information if you don't mind. Um when

the impact fees were implemented back in 2016, it included the public safety building at that particular time. And at that time, the estimated cost was 25. Well, they factored 25 million. So now we're estimating that public safety building to be about a hundred million. So that's what is driving some of this is not all all of it is not coming out of the impact fees because you can only do certain portions. Some of it is coming will have to be covered by the general fund. I just want to share. Thank you. Question about that. Did that increase because of inflation or did we enlarge the project? The 100k is inflation basically. I mean right now we're trying to make sure we stay at that level you know because that's what's you know we've been factoring in all of our studies. But a lot of that from as I understood it when I first came here it was 50 million and now we're looking at 100 million. So every day is is is going up. That cost is going up. He shared with you 40% on that construction cost. So things are going up but we're still growing and we still have these needs and we're running out of space. Do you think uh these new costs are affected or caused by tariffs? Not yet, but I think it will be impacted by that. Yeah, the new tariffs. I know. That's what I said. Tariffs. I think it will be cost of 57 to 70%. I mean, that's my industry. The cost of living is up like 20 25%. Construction costs are up almost 60%. So, what she's saying sounds completely accurate. What it was in 2019 is going to be double that minimum. The same way a 5,000 foot house was $400,000, now it's a million dollars. Yeah, it is.

It's not. So, we're trying to deal with it as timely as possible because things are continuing to go up. Wait for the housing market to crash. Construction prices will go down. Oh, please don't. Please don't. Not again. All righty. Any more questions? All right, bring it back for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the impact fee increases for the police, fire, parks, and recreation. I have to do one at a time, right? Correct. Yes. Let's do Yes. Two separate ordinance. Let's do police and fire first. Recommending recommending approval for the impact. Yeah. Um and the consistency ordinance 3145 in conjunction or consistent with the comprehensive plan comprehensive plan. All right. I second it. Motion by Commissioner Mott. Thank you, sir. Do I have a second? I second it. Second by Commissioner Woods. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? No. No. Motion carries. No. All right. Now we have the same thing. Uh number eight, ordinance number 3146, parks and recreation municipal impact fee increases. Same. I don't know if there's any more public comment, but the same washing that load of laundry again. Ran out of Okay. All right. Anyone have questions about this one specifically? No. All right. Anyone from the public

wish to speak on this matter? You're the only option. Okay. I I have a question. Sure. Commissioner Ryan can't rewall. How much are we uh losing every year on camp wall? That's a difficult question to answer to say that we're losing. I mean, I heard it was like $800,000 a year, you know. Is that possible? Is that really I mean, we we do have some ongoing operating expenses, you know, to maintain the facilities and we are generating some revenue. In my opinion, I think we need to cut our losses there. Uh yeah, several options, but I I don't think it's it's worth 800 losing $800,000 a year on that project. Yeah, my opinion. Understand? Anyone else? All right. Bring back the board for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend that we make a recommendation to the city commission to approve ordinance 3146, parks and recreation municipal impact fee increases consistent with the comprehensive plan. Excellent. Motion by Commissioner Rott. Thank you, sir. Do I have a second? I'll second. Second by Commissioner Norwood. Thank you, ma'am. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. I vote no because of camp wall money pick. Do we put that in the vote? Thank you very much. All righty. All right. Do we have any old business? Do we have any new business?