Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. Welcome to the May 15th, excuse me, 13th meeting of the Apka Planning and Zoning Commission. If you would please join me to stand for a moment of silent prayer and the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all during tonight's meeting Each agenda item will have a time for public comment relative to that agenda item. If you are here and you have a comment that is planning and zoning related and is not on the agenda, now would be the time to speak. Seeing none, we'll move on. Item number one, the approval of the meeting minutes from April 8th, 2025. Does anyone have any corrections or changes? No, sir. All right. Wear a motion. I make a motion to approve the minutes uh meeting minutes from April 8th, 2025. Thank you, sir. Motion by Commissioner Washington. Do I have a second? Second by Commissioner Norwood. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Item number one, special exemption to request to allow child care facility in an RSF- A1

residential single family estate zoning district. Owner Richard Chandler. Applicant Camila Nerra. location 4410 Chandler Road and 4420 Chandler Road. Good evening. Good evening. This is Jensen, planner at the community development department. The applicant has requested a special session permit for a child care facility at 4110 and 4420 Chandler Road. The total size of the property is about um 5.12 acre. Um the property has a future land use of residential very low suburban and the zoning of RSF1A. The properties are currently used for residential purpose and are vacant. The surrounding properties are residential with a single family homes. According to um land development code section 4.2.2C, 2.C. A child care facility is allowed to use with the approval of a special section. The developmental review committee has recommended approval of a specialization permit. The recommended motion for the planning commission is to approve the specialization permit to allow a child care facility at the subject properties. Staff member and applicant are available to answer any questions. Thank you, sir. Does anyone have questions of staff? Commissioner R. Okay. I only have one. Um, can this exemption be limited only to child care or can once they get the exemption down the line convert it to something else? No, this is this will be only special exception for child care facility. Okay. So, it can only be used for child care.

Yes. Okay. And is there any plans for the lots to the west of it? because there's two vacant lots behind it. Um, that's not the subject property for this project. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Ryan. Okay. I emailed several u questions yesterday. I assume you received it. Yes. Okay. The first one is why isn't the owner and applicant asking to reszone the property to a commercial or um educational use zoning? Um so so the future land use is residential and um we would not support to change the land use to um commercial or official office use. However, per um land development code child care facility for child daycare is permitted with a um special exception permit. So um we believe that um reszoning or change the land use is not necessarily not necessary and then also um child care facility uh is only permitted to use in mixed use zoning area and multif family residential area residential zoning and other all of the other zoning requires a special extension permit. So, um, special extension permit for this zoning was necessary. A special permit? You mean like a like a um this exemption or I mean special exemption? Yes. What is the benefit of of this child care being zoned residential as opposed to commercial or educational use zoning? You want me to take that one, June? Okay. So, the special exception allows the planning commission to in the code, it allows it a lot more conditions to be

placed on the use. If it was an outright permitted use, the only conditions that could be placed on it is is setbacks, landscaping, stuff like that. There's about a list of 12 criteria that's outlined in your staff report for a special exception that an applicant has to fulfill. Um and that's ultimately the determination of the planning commission to ensure that it meets those criteria. Child care require child care facility requires a lot of uh state oversight. Um what is the maximum number of children that can attend that child care facility? That's under a state uh statute. I believe it's per square footage. It's in the building code. The depending on the of the structure. Pardon me, Andrew Han, city attorney. It would depend on uh the size of the structure and what is led by fire code as as we said. Um just would remind the commission that this is not a home occupation type of facility. This is a special exception for um you know what essentially is a my understanding and and discussing this with staff is uh that this is not a um not a residential facility. It's not a residential facility, but it's own residential. It's not a home. So there's not a uh it's not a house that somebody lives in. I I don't as I as I understand state law, I don't think that's allowed. And I'm only at a home in a residential area. My understanding is they only allow five children. Mr. Ryan, this is a commercial daycare center. It's not a residential one. The residential ones, you are correct. If somebody runs one out of their house, it's limited to five per state law. However, this is a commercial use. I believe several years ago, one was

approved by this board, a daycare facility um off of uh Lester Road if I recall correctly. So, it's it's in residential area, but it's commercial, right? I just I I just have a problem with that. Um what are the is there any restrictions on signage for the residential lot? Yes, there is. Um so per code uh wall sign show um wall sign and window signs are not permitted in residential zoning. However um freestanding signs are permitted. Okay. Now on in the project summary line seven um it states that it's safe um entrance and exit. Is that correct? Did I read that correct? So per the applicant, they're going to demolish existing buildings and then they're going to build a new commercial building for daycare center and they're not going to use the Chandler Hills road which is dirt road that you mentioned. They're going to create new um access from the Jason Dwelling Parkway. Well, it doesn't it doesn't say that um because summary doesn't mention that, right? It's safe entrance and exit currently which is not ingress and ingress is reviewed per the land development code when they submit a a de development plan for review. That's when that is handled at the development plan. You're only considering the use on the property at this stage. Nothing else. Well, why was it mentioned here? Whether it's going to be safe entrance and exit. That is a question the applicant has to answer that's in the report. Everything's reviewed per the land development code once a development plan is submitted. So from my understanding what they're trying to say is that they going to provide a safe um access from the public

right away. They don't have a um concept plan yet. Uh and then this is just for the use. So um when they submit the development plan, I'll make sure they provide a safe access from the public right away. It it doesn't talk about the future. It talks about now. But anyway, Chandler Road is who is um is that a city road or is that a private road? That's a private road. Where's the entrance going to be to the facilities? I'm sorry. The where's the entrance going to be for the facility? So, okay. Um, would you be able to answer? Is it going to be off of Chandler Road? Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. We're falling back into that track. Excuse me, ma'am. Please finish the question with staff and if this needs to be referred to the applicant we'll when the applicant comes up then we'll ask that question. If it needs to be referred just say we'll refer that to them. Okay. We don't want to start changing people at the podium and recognize people. You're recognized now. So let's move forward with that. Okay. So the daycare operator will not reside in the place of of business as required by state law for residential zoning. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? So, the daycare operator will not be residing in in that facility for daycare center as required by state law for um residential zoning property. Um I would defer that question to that's the applicant's question if they're going to be a caretaker on the property. I sent you that that that question. We got your email, sir. Yes. And that's a question for the applicant. Yes, we would defer that one to the applicant. I have a question.

Commissioner Washington. Okay. Um All right. Just real quick, the there's a residential home there now, right? This is just a special exception to use the property for a child care facility. I understand that. Right. You're correct. Right. Is the existing building going to be uh torn down and a new building constructed? That's what I heard from the applicant. They plan to demolish the existing uh buildings and build a new commercial building for daycare. Okay. Thank you. Very well. Thank you, sir. There's a st applicant please. Good afternoon. My name is Camila. Is there any questions for me? Yes, I do. What is the advantage of having that property zone residential as as opposed to commercial educational youth zoning? So, when we approached the city um they asked us what land we were interested in purchasing. We showed them the land and they asked us what project we wanted to build in it. We told them that it was going to be a daycare facility and they said that the land um we could apply for a special permit. Um they have show us the process which we have followed through to convert this land into a commercial into a special permit so we can build a daker which you can do under under commercial zoning or educational use zoning. Correct. The daker would be a commercial day. Yes. The building will be a day, a facility. So what is the maximum amount of

children you got to have in your facility? The facility will be 15,000 square feet and by DCF we have to have 35 square feet indoor per child so we can have a maximum capacity of 250 children. That sounds like a commercial building to me. I think it should be a zone commercial. I'm finished. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? No. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. All right. Does anyone from the public here wish to speak on this matter? Very well, ma'am. Please, please come to the podium. Oh, no. Sorry. And give us your name and your address for the record, please. My name's Nancy Brown and uh my residence is one two three four or one two three F Street in Apakka. And I just have a question about it. Now, if it's scheduled, I mean, if it's residential, then what's to prevent them from building a house on it? Well, it has a house on there now. Well, there's a house on it now. Um, are you talking about a hypothetical in the future? Yeah. Um, I mean, with 200 and some kids, you put a house on there, that's going to be even more. Well, no, ma'am. Once once the the facility is built there, if they tried to come and permit to add a house, a residential house, that that that wouldn't be allowed because I think if correct me if I'm wrong, Bobby, that they would be way over the density and plus of a special exemption on that piece of land for this

use only, not for residential. You're correct. So, it would be just for this use, a commercial daycare facility. Correct. Do you understand? Yeah. I I just once once we've allowed this Mhm. say the daycare goes out of business and the or say if they stay in business, they decide they want to build something else that they they cannot. They can't go build a house behind the daycare for somebody to stay in. That's not going to be allowed because now that property has been zoned for child care only, not residential anymore. Okay. I just didn't understand that part. No, they're not going to be able to add another thing to the once they're the the plan comes and we approve the plan for the square footage and they're not going to be allowed to put another building on that property and certainly not a residential one. Okay. Not without going through an entire process which would be this is this is all new to me and I just didn't understand No, I understand how they can do that. No ma'am. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else have questions or excuse me have a statement from the public? All right, seeing none, we'll bring it back to staff or bring it back to the board. I do want to ask a question, Bobby, real quick. Um, for clarification, if we theoretically, as Commissioner Ryan had asked, zoned that commercial, just hypothetical, zoned it commercial, and the daycare went away, then it was would be a commercial building could or commercial operation could literally be established there to where with this exemption, if the daycare ceases to function or or closes, it's still residential. Correct. So in theory, somebody could buy the lot, bulldoze that building, and build a house on it, but they could not go in there and put a convenience store. You're correct. So the protection of not making it commercial to fit this in, whether whether it's warranted in that area or not, I'm saying that by making the

special exemption, it limits that to where in the future, nobody can use it for a commercial use. They can only use it for this daycare and only if we approve that. Well, that's a that's a commercial use right there. So I don't know what difference that makes. Well, I understand that's why it's a special exemption as opposed to if we change it to commercial. Now, anybody in the future who owns that property can use it for a commercial use. What we're doing here, if we approve it, they can only use it for the daycare and only this circumstance. I I have no problem with commercial buildings. We need commercial buildings. Okay? Why do you want to restrict commercial buildings? It doesn't make any sense to me. The daycare I'm sure the the daycare is not going to fail. There's a big demand for it right now. It's not going to fail. If it did fail and they went for another commercial commercial building, as long as by up by code, I don't have a problem with it. We need commercial buildings. We don't have enough in that area to support all those. Um, but correct me if I'm wrong, and I I don't remember exactly, but it it's surrounded by residential homes. Yeah, but it's on the main drag and and it's outside of the um it's outside of the uh subdivision. Okay. It looks like if you drive by it, it looks like a a commercial building. I mean, commercial lot, you know, you would never know it was zoned besides the house being there. Residential point. It's right in the main drag. It's not It's like what you're saying. It's not like it's inside the the neighborhood. I'm I'm not disputing your point whether it's warranted there or not, or whether it's approvable or should be approved or not. All I'm just saying is that by not changing commercial, it kind of limits them from doing commercial in the future. Now, if somebody say the daycare goes away, say somebody buys a property, wants to make commercial, then it comes back in front of us and we have to approve it for whatever commercial use. I have no problem with commercial buildings as long as it's confirmed correctly. May I interject? Okay. Sure. Do we? Commissioner Ryan, I think you hit the nail on the head whenever you're talking about the demand for this kind of business. Every time one of these

facilities opens up around this town, it seems like it goes on waiting list almost instantly. they are so busy and over overs subscribed almost in a way. And when you look at the surrounding areas, there's a lot of of of homes and upcoming subdivisions in that area. I, you know, I think this is going to be a a good use of the land out there. And I certainly understand what you're saying about the commercial, but I'm comforted in the fact that it is a residential and somebody can't buy them out and put a real nice Circle K out there because it is a residential area. I like the fact that it is residential and even if they're going to build a commercial building, it can't be repurposed for the latest iteration of Walgreens or something like that. That's my point. Is there any other commercial lot? Um I'm sorry. Um Mr. How is there any other commercial lots on that road? No, sir. Pardon? No, sir. No, sir. Have you Have you driven out there? Have you driven by it? Yeah, I'm driven by that. Okay. I mean, I think the demand out there is is huge for something like this. I agree. I just want them to do it. Yeah, I I hear you and I I understand where you're coming from, but I think uh chairman's point of the fact that they can't build a gas station there if the daycare were to fail, which there's no indication that that's going to happen. um that I think that the thing about being residential is somebody could repurpose it back to a house if something happened. But if it's commercial, then they can repurpose it to Walgreens or a gas station or a Starbucks or something else and then that's a whole different can of worms out there in that residential area. So I'm comfortable with the special exception just for that reason alone. Okay. Anyone else? So that said, if anybody if you if you all want to move on, I'm happy to create

the motion uh to approve the special exception. So I'm making a motion. You okay that chairman? I'll make a motion to approve a special exception permit to allow a child care facility at a property located at 4410 Shandler Road as well as 4420 Shandler Road in the RSF-1A residential single family estate zoning district. subject to the exhibits and findings of the staff report. Thank you, sir. Motion by Commissioner Dumi. Do I have a second? Second. We have a discussion now. We can have a discussion. Yes. Yeah. I'm not sure it's legal to have um more than five children in a residential area for I think I sent you an email. Did you look into that, Mr. Hand? I did, sir. And that's what I was attempting to explain. So this particular what's been proposed is actually regulated by the city's code. This isn't the of course any kind of daycare facility is going to have stringent state regulations but we're talking about zoning here. Uh the type of facility that you mentioned is not so much a facility all it's more of a home occupation. So it's it's a completely different standard of uh that's applied to a much much smaller use of a daycare the city. So if that were going to be in a residential home, normal single family home, that would be the type of facility that be allowed. But that's not what's being I understand I understand what you're saying and I understand what you're coming from. But my understanding of state law is you can't have a commercial building in residential area zone residential and to have more than five children. It has to be out of a house basically. That's state law as I understand for that type of That's why I emailed you to to check on that. Correct. and and that is a very specific type of daycare facility uh that can occur in a residential use. Now the city has its own regulations uh as far as zoning goes and what the city has done

by special except excuse me that's true but state law supersedes city law well we're talking basically apples and oranges here sir because we have a small type of facility that is governed with very specific rules by the state and that's not what's being proposed. The state does not regulate to the level that that we're the state does not they do there there is of course uh you know a tear down comprehensive plan type system but ultimately the city's zoning while it has to be in compliance with the state comprehensive plans and so forth is the city's zoning and so the city has done is allowing the types of facilities that are being discussed in a residential area via a special process where they normally wouldn't be allowed but that is a different type of facility than the type of facility we're discussing that is a home occupation type of facility. So the rules don't overlap. There's specific set of rules for the type of facility that's been proposed here. There's a specific set of rules for the type of facility that would be operating in a single family home with a residing operator uh who lives in that home who would be very very limited to the amount of children and the type of care that would be provided. And and that's just not what we're talking about here. No, I I understand that. But state law supersedes city city u regulations and they do not will not they won't allow more than five children to be um in a daycare center in a residential lot if it were that home occupation type of of daycare facility. You'd be absolutely right. But that's not what we're talking about here. So the state law that applies specifically to that type of daycare facility does not apply. There is no overarching state regulation that says you cannot have other types of daycare facilities in residential zoning. This particular facility with on the city's use table uh at least been testified that this would be uh

compatible with the city's use table and there's not an overarching state regulation that prevents you all from uh making that decision. I I think you're mistaken, but we'll we'll move on. I I I think the semantics is what we're missing here. Five children allowed in a residence as a daycare center as opposed to saying it allowed in residential because there is residential areas that have daycare centers in them. And there's and you go to a little tight state here, there's more than five kids in it. That's why we're making the exception on this particular one. But I think I think the state law is clear, but like I said, I you know, I emailed you to Mr. Han to to research it and u he come up with a different conclusion. Okay. Well, we rely on him for the legal part. All right. I need clarification. Okay. Commissioner Washington, and maybe I didn't ask the right question. The existing uh house there, is it being torn down? has is the existing property being torn down? Yes. Per the applicant. Yes. Okay. So, it be a brand new building used for daycare. Yes. New building will be used for daycare. Okay. And uh what would be the upside in terms of the number of kids in this building? I would like I have to defer that question to answer by obligate. They said 200. Uh uh no no no no no no. If we can recall her to the stand, but not we're not talking from the audience. Your name and address for the record, please. Camila Na. So the facility that we're planning to build is a daycare facility of 250 children. 250. Okay. So currently our plan it's we just did

all our surveys. We don't have any plans yet, but the plan is to build it on the land, the backend land that it's far from the house. Okay. So, we give um enough space to be from the school and then the entrance and the exits will be through the main road. All right. I can I can see it because you have five acres to work with and you can knock down the house, put in a bigger building and have parking D. Okay, that's good. I'm clear. Thank you. Okay, just for the record, the house is going to be removed. So the right now I cannot say yes or no because the building is going to be in the back end land. If we need more space then we will demolish the house. That's not what commissioner that's not what we've been discussing here. That's right. We've been discussing at the house the lot was going to be clear and my motion was the expectation that that lot would be cleared and a new building would be constructed not a building behind the existing building. No, because it's Chandler Road 4410 and 4420. Right. So, but um we don't have we don't we can demolish the house. We don't plan on using the house. It's just because the other lot is back end. We said we can start construction here and it's also far away from the other residential um house in the back. So, we wanted to give them their privacy as well. We don't want to build um next to them. Uh so maybe in that case I should strike my motion and we could create a special exception. You're you're you very you may do that. Yeah. So, hold on a second. Now, if you need us to demolish the house, we can. We have no issue. It's going to be a daycare facility, right?

Because we don't want a daycare behind an existing house. My motion is going to be predicated on the fact that that house is going to be demolished and you guys are going to construct a new building there. Yeah. And your motion, it says right here, it says the planning commission's role is you may approve, deny, or approve with conditions. So the condition would be the de demolition of the house. Okay, we can do that. There's not a problem, right? But uh what I it whatever you tell me it's what we will do. We just want to build a taker facility. If we need to demolish the house, we will do. So do you have a question? All right, Commissioner Ryan. Mr. Wow. Why did you recommend the commercial I mean the residential zoning as opposed to commercial property already has a residential zoning recommend the special exception? Yeah, the recommended special exception was because we believe that there was the house was going to be demolished on the site. So the code has a whole list of special exceptions per zoning district I think which we've talked about already uh where you can have certain uses within zoning districts that you have to fulfill so many criteria that's noted in the code. The staff report didn't say anything about deming the house though. That's what we believed your your vote you can either vote to approve deny or approve with conditions. If you don't go with the staff report that is your prerogative and you can choose to deny it. No I understand that. I was just pointing out that you were talking like Anyway, I guess you just forgot to put it in the staff report. Anyone Anyone else? Anyone else have questions? Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. All right, bring it back to the board. Can Can I add something? I'm sorry. Go ahead. Can I add something? Yes, ma'am. So, um Mr. Doomy, um I just want to I have the survey here. So the house that you're talking about is right here. This is the

dirt road and this is Jason Douly. Yeah. So we are purchasing these two lots right here. This lot it's flat high and we were planning on building the facility from here this way because the school was here and last time we were here they told us you know um how because of the proximity of the school. So the the reason why we decided to build it here is because it was farther away from the school and it will have an entrance from the main road. So we will not have to make our families go through the dirt road. So that's the reason why we decided to build it in 4420 Chandler Road. that they are we can demolish and this can stay um back end or for parking but that's the only reason we decided to do it um not because we want to use the house for residents right but it's also I don't I don't think it would be workable to have a commercial road as a dirt road for a daycare so I mean that's just not going to work so you would have to demolish you would have to demolish and you'd have to create a standard road up to the city standards to service the location off Jason Dwelli Parkway out of Jason I think that's what you're saying but you're you're correct you're kind of going on a sideways talking about dirt roads and we don't want that no we are not using that we don't want we don't want a dirt road going to a daycare correct me neither I don't want my families to I don't want my families to go through that city code would not allow a dirt road to be accessed for that So, let's talk. Did you have anything else? No. So, up here is as is a board is a motion. I'm going to create a motion with a special exception to approve it. Go ahead. Uh, one question I

have. Sorry. Sorry. I didn't go ahead, Commissioner Wood. Um, this is for uh Bobby, you can probably answer this for me. This has to come back to us again to approve the lot and everything. If the building's under 25,000 square feet, the land development code says no. However, it's the discretion of the director to make that determination. I'm not the director. I'm not the community development director. I'm the planning manager. But in the acting role, I would make that determination that it would come back to the planning commission as there's concerns with the surrounding residents. Seems like there's been concerns raised tonight about access the home access from Jason Dwelly Chandler Road. So I think they would necessitate bringing it forward to public hearings. So that can be included in our motion. Yes, you can make that motion. Yes. Wow. Okay. I think I know better. Okay. So let's back up here. Are we good? Uh, I'll create the motion for the to recommend a special exception predicated that the house is torn down, the new building's constructed, and the roads are brought up to city code. Correct. Does anybody have anything else you want to see in there? Well, do we want to make it uh predicated on us reviewing? And we could do that, too. I'm okay with that. You guys like that? Okay. Makes I'm I'm fine with that. Does anybody have any I mean I would like to ask that you put you know 20 mature oak trees on there but that's not going to happen. So 25 uh 25 okay you okay with the motion? Yeah. Okay. The only thing commissioner Chandler Road is not a city road is private right and it wraps around up to a new subdivision that we approved not long ago and it it connects to Kelly Park Road. So we talk about Chandler Road. Do we need to define what part of

Chandler Road they would be obligated to upgrade? Chandler Road is a private piece of property. Yeah. Um the Chandler Road that you're talking about on the project that came forward several months ago. That applicant dedicated right away to the city uh for uh construction of that Chandler Road. I believe they're going to do construction of that Chandler Road right away as part of their project and that was Chandler Hills I believe was the name of that case. Okay. So, it's going to be improved. Yeah. Good. And now how far uh will it come down and wrap around towards the applicant's property? No, it's in a different area altogether. It's off of uh Kelly Park Road. That portion Chandler Road you're referring to. This is off of Jason Dwelli. Okay. Well, still my question still is valid because you know from Jason Dwelli, you're going to have Chandler Road as their we're saying we're asking them to improve that road, but we probably need to tell them how far. No, I think that's a great question. I what I meant whenever I was talking about approving the road was on the property itself, the road on the property. Defer to the city engineer. He wants to address the Chandler Road issue. Good afternoon, Vladimir Simonovski, city engineer for the record. Chandler Road is actually from what I see on the map on the property appraiser, it's the little road that goes to the house on the west side that is in the back of the current house. So that's a separate property and there's another property just to the south of that. The other road that goes that wraps around goes into the subdivision, it's called White Dalia Road, I believe. So that's unrelated and it's that's a public road. So basically what we're going to request from the development once gets into into approval process it's going to be to provide a legal access easement cross access easement from these two properties they're going to combine into one to the other two property to the west

side because just for safety reasons public safety of course uh that driveway it's not acceptable at this point and just too close to the to the other road that leads into the subdivision. Do you know do you know the width of Chandler Road? Do you know the width of the Chandler Road? Uh, no. It's hard to tell from that area. I can't see. That's probably a small maybe some millings, maybe some little paved section, but it looks like the remaining of it is probably dirt road going to the back of the house of the second house on the west side. Is the owner here, the property owner? Yes. Yes, I believe so. I just want to know what the the Hang on. Sir, could you Could you please Yeah. Could you please go name and address for the record, please, sir? Yes, sir. I know you've been holding on to that road for a long time. Hold on. Sorry. We need your name and address for the record. Richard Chandler 4410 Chandler Road and 4420. Thank you. How How long is Chandler Road? What's the length of it? Miles. It's a mile to go straight through that subdivision. What's the width of the of Chandler Road? 15 feet. 15 feet. So there's not enough room to put two lanes there. No, it's just the needs. Thank you. That all you need? Anybody else have a question? Thank you, sir.

No, they don't have to. Commissioner, I would just point out that any discussions of our testimony, so we would we need to be able to to hear the Mr. Chandler says the Chandler road is go for a mile. So those paths there which are coming down. So basically my concern is my opinion I don't think there should be access to the to those two lots to channel road because it's only 15 ft across. Excuse me. Excuse me. Thank you. Does that make sense to you? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Right. Excuse me. Can can you please if you haven't have a conversation please take it outside. So Mr. I think you should add that there should be no access to Shandler Road since it's only 15 ft wide. Okay. And it cannot be brought up to city standards. Okay. So then I have a question. I'm okay with that. But let me ask a question of the applicant. If we're going to talk about Chandler Road, does that and my question is does that change? Ma'am, can you please come back? Nice. This takes a little longer, but it's good to make it all clear. Chandler Road, is this If we have no access to this road, does that affect your business plan? No. Okay, that's it. That's it. Okay, I'm ready. Whenever you guys are ready. All right. And and there is a concern with 250 kids. How many cars? And I realize a lot from that neighborhood, but it does seem to me that that's is a lot of traffic. That's going to be 250 vehicles in the morning, in the afternoon, or 200 vehicles or whatever it is. So that's a that's goes into that thought process

too with the load on the road and the new subdivision. So that really has nothing has nothing to do with the zoning, does it? It has to do with making a special exemption to add something in that neighborhood that adds 250 vehicles in that neighborhood. Yeah, I think it does. You're right. I'm stand corrected. All right. All right. Okay. Go ahead with your motion. New motion. I'm going to make a motion to approve a se special exception permit to allow a child care facility in a property located at 4410 4420 Chandler Road in the RSF1A residential single family zoning district subject to the exhibits and findings of the staff report with the following four conditions. Condition number one, the existing building is demolished. Condition number two, all roads are upgraded on the property for good e eress and excess according to city code. Condition number three, the building before it's built comes back and is reviewed by the planning commission again. Condition number four, there is no access granted to Shandler Road. Is that viable Bobby? Yes. Okay. All right. Very well. Thank you, sir. Motion by Commissioner Dumi. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Washington. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? I oppose. Motion carries. All righty. Number two, ordinance 3098, smallcale future land use amendment 25501 Rock Springs Road. Owners Miguel Khaled. Location 25501 Rock Springs Road. Mr. Song. Good evening. This is Jon planner at the community development department. The applicant has a requested a small scale

future land use amendment for the property located at 251 Rock Springs Road. The property is approximately 9.63 acre in size is currently vacant. The current future land use designation is county rural and the applicant requested to amend it to RVLS residential very low suburban designation which allows up to two dwell units per acre. Surrounding properties has a future land use of county rural with a residential use and office with school. The developmental review committee recommends approval and the recommended motion is up to approval. Approve the future land use amendment from county ro to RBLs for the property located at 251 Rock Springs Road. Staff member and oblant are available to answer any questions. Thank you sir. Does anyone from have a question for staff? Commissioner Wood. This may be a premature question, but how are they going to handle storm water? Um, I've been looking at the other areas around there and I really couldn't find any um retention ponds or was that going to be handled down the road? I'm sorry, I missed your questions. Could you please repeat the question? Storm water, how is that going to be handled on this lot? Is this premature to be asking this question? So that's something we we will concern when they turn in the um when they when they apply apply the development plan. Okay. Um as of right now we are only concerned about the change the future land use and zoning. So we have not looked up the Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

Anyone else have questions or staff and correct me if I'm wrong? That's in the Waka protection area. Yes. Right. That's why they have special rules about their water drainage and runoff there, don't they? Yes. Um Orange County has sent me send us email requesting um the state the special condition about their um WAVA uh notice note about the WAVA um study areas. And um if you if you may um I would like to defer that question to applicant. Okay. Hi Elizabeth Crane on behalf of the applicant. Um you're asking about the Wakiva protection area that's to the back of the property. Correct. So it's our understanding that so this this development is going to kind of mirror a development that's over at 2600 Rock Springs Road. um obviously not right there against the Wiva protection area, but there's going to be no homes that are back up against that area. So, we're going to be in compliance with the county's requirements. Okay. My question was more directed towards Commissioner Wood's question about the And I know that there's I think there's different rules for water runoff in that protection area. Is that correct? Yes, I believe so. Okay. So, it would have to follow those rules. Yes. Okay. All right. Anyone have a question for the applicant? Thank you, ma'am. Of course. Does anyone from the public here wish to speak on this matter? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the board for motion and discussion. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the

change in future land use designation from county rural to RVLS residential very low suburban. Find them the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan 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. Thank you, sir. Motion by Commissioner Mott. Do I have a second? I second. Second by Commissioner Wood. All in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number three, ordinance 39099, change of zoning 25501 Rock Springs Road. Applicant Elizabeth Crane. Location 25501 Rock Springs Road. Mr. Song. For the record, this is Jones on planner at the community development department. The applicant also has requested reszoning for the property located at 251 Rock Springs Road, which is approximately 9.63 acres and currently vacant. The applicant has requested to reszone the property from T transitional to the RSF1B residential single family district large district. Um the surrounding area includes county rural residential zoning and in institutional use for Rock Springs Elementary School. The developmental review committee recommends approval and the recommended motion is to approve the resoning from T transitional to city um RSF1B for the property located at 251 Rock Springs Road. Staff member and obligant are available to answer any questions. Thank you, sir. I do have one

question. It's RSF1B which says according to this five units per acre, but then it says future land use very low suburban allows two units per acre. Yes. Is the applicant here? Do they have a presentation? I don't have a PowerPoint presentation, but happy to kind of explain what they're planning on putting on the property. Um, basically 18 single family homes. Uh the price point is 850,000 per home, which um the applicant has done two studies on that support those findings for price points. Um they're going to be 85 ft wide lots, so large lots um not packed in multif family. So question, is it a gated community? Not gated. The city has to pave the streets, huh? Um I believe The developer will be putting in the impact impact these papers streets. Right. All right. Thank you, ma'am. No problem. All right. Does anyone from the public wish to speak on this matter? Farewell, sir. Please. Your name and address for the record, please, sir. Uh, good evening. My name is uh Jeffrey Manzo, 163 phase 3 Apoka. So, I'm just uh concerned with the I believe they they say it was 14 houses and now I'm hearing is 18. So, uh I don't know. But my question is what type of fencing they're going to build with the other uh surroundings uh houses uh for the privacy and if it's just

going to be uh low fans, high fans or or what kind of fence. And also if this is going to affect the taxes because uh it's changing from rural to residential. Um this is going to be like city city taxes now and it's going to affect our property. Okay. Um I can answer a couple of those questions. It might have to refer to staff if whatever your property is zoned for and your tax rate is going to change because the property next to you has changed unless your property was encompassed in that property. You follow I can hear me fine. Um do you understand that your property is not the tax rate won't change on yours? In other words, if somebody built something next to you and the tax rate was going to go up because it was commercial or whatever, it's not going to affect your tax rate there. You follow? Yes. Unless your property, the zoning is changed or something changed or it's annexed into the city or it's into Orange County and goes into the city, your tax rate's not going to change. Um, your second question about the density that that I I I don't have an answer for that, but maybe Mr. Song or Mr. How can ask that because here when I asked the question if it's going to allow two dwelling units per acre, well, there's nine acres we put in 18 houses. That's a little more than two dwelling units per acre. So then that's not following what it says here, which confuses me. The future land use and this is we're changing the zoning, but the future land use says very low suburban, two dwelling units per acre. So I have also have a question. It's capp part of the comprehensive plan. It's capped at two dwelling units per acre because they're in the Wakiva. There's policy within the comp plan that says anything within the Wakiva is capped at two dwelling units per acre. Okay. But it's not in Wakiva. This

property is in the Wakotti study area. Yes, sir. Okay. Maybe I I'm I'm confused here. I'm I'm dense. Comprehensive plan overrides. Okay. Zoning 9.63 acres, 18 dwelling units. 9* 2 is 18. Yes. I'm sorry. 9* 2 is 18. Okay. Yes. So, no no we don't round up. No green area, no nothing. They have to account for that. That's the maximum density they can get. They have to put put on open space, storm water, streets. You can discount probably 20% of the site for all that stuff right off the top when you do site development. Right. Okay. So, it's that I understand that. Okay. Does that answer your question, sir? Does that help? Yes. I I just have a follow-up question on the zoning. uh it seems that everything in the area is changing from rural to something else and eventually you know I don't know if everything else change and you're surrounded by every every property sur that's around your property is is city then by default that will be it will have to change to city we will be forced to change zonings too that's that's Not necessarily true. I understand your concern that you everything is changed. Yeah. They they can't force you to change your zoning on your property because the property next to you is zoned different. That's not going to change. Now, I understand your concern of having building around you. But if you're low density residential and you're on a 5acre lot, nobody can change that zoning or force that to be something different. You could apply and ask for it, but they're not going to change that. But I if I'm understanding what you're asking, they're not going to change your zoning. It's not going to change your taxes. Now, it will have an effect that you'll have houses close to you around you that you maybe not have

now, but it's not going to change your zoning or change your your tax rate. Okay. And um the other question was the the fencing. what what plan the contractor have on uh separating the the property. Okay. That would be um something in when they bring the plot plan or the plat to be approved. Am I correct, Bobby? Yeah, that's dealt with during the development review plan stage. This would be under 25 dwelling units. So, your land development code does not require it to be a public hearing. as it's under 25 units, they go straight to DRC level approval. Only thing that would come back here is the plat. That's it. Correct. That's what I'm saying. The flat plan. So, as Do you understand what he said? Mr. House said there there's not a requirement in this case for them to put a barrier, a wall or a buffer zone between you and that property. But you could voice your concern when when it comes back here for the flat plan. You could voice your concerns about that. Understood. Thank you. Well, I appreciate the gentleman's concern and I understand what Bobby had to say, too, but he needs a comfort level of knowing is going to be a fence or a stone fence around the property. That's that's what the gentleman's asking about. He deserves an answer. Yeah. I'm going to have 14 new uh I don't know, eight new neighbors in the back of of my property. So that's that's concern. Yeah, we can do that. So what kind of fence is bu being built there? All right. All right, sir. If you have any more, we'll have the applicant come back and we'll ask that question and you can get an answer. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir, ma'am. Thank you, Elizabeth Crane. On behalf of the applicant, um, we

actually discussed this at the community meeting that we had before even annexing the property into the city. The developer is planning on putting up a fence that will have to be in accordance with city code. So, whatever the height requirement is for that, that is what we will be doing. But it is their intention to have a fence and not be bad neighbors. Okay. Do you know what type of fence you're planning on using? I don't know what type of fencing they're using yet. And doesn't the city code isn't that a sixoot fence is the max? Yeah. So, that the the gentleman that was just speaking was asking if it's a high fence and it's not. It's a six foot fence. That's answers his question directly at the maximum six foot maximum or they can decide to to do something different. They can go higher if they want, but they're as a but as a practical matter, they are putting up fencing and putting a barrier up. Right. But if you went higher than six foot, don't you have to go back and ask for an exception to that? Correct. And that's a whole different Well, hopefully it won't be a PVC fence. I'll make a note to the developer about that. A comment, considering the price point of the homes, I would think the residents could enjoy something better than a regular plastic fence. You say price point is like 600, 650 or something. 850. Excuse me. 850. Yeah. Well, gentlemen, did you Sir, I'm sorry. I didn't get I want to make sure he understands what's being said. No, you can speak directly to me. Sir, did you did you understand that? Yeah. Okay. So, they are going to put a fence. All right. Any more questions? All right. Does anyone else from the public wish to speak on this matter? Name and address for the record, please. Angela Msina, 123 FA Street. I just wanted to I guess basically ask her if

we're allowed to be talk to them regarding the fence type. Yeah, of course. Like will we get to find out when you guys are meeting and all that stuff? Um because we have the same concern. I don't know when we backed up to you guys. Yeah. So, we have two more meetings in front of the city commission um which obviously come to you then and I can give you my business card. So, if you want to discuss once we get further down the road to the planning. Thank you. All right. Anyone else in the public wish to speak on this matter? Very well. Bring it back to the board for discussion to a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to find the proposed change of zoning from T transitional to RSF-1B residential single family district-l large lot consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and compatible with the character of the surrounding areas. Recommend approval of the proposed change of zoning based on the findings and facts presented in the staff report and exhibits. Thank you, sir. Motion by Commissioner Washington. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Second by Commissioner Ryan. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Item four, ordinance 3101, rewrite of the comprehensive plan. Good afternoon or evening now. Bobby H, planning manager. I'll be going over this presentation. Myself, Dr. son and attorney hand as well. Um you as you'll recall there have been several workshops in regards to the rewrite of the comp plan. First one was in September of 2024. The last one was in February of this year and this ordinance proposes the rewrite of comprehensive plan with the exception of the transportation

element. And we contracted the city contracted with the regional planning council in 2021 to conduct have them conduct the rewrite. uh representatives couldn't be here this evening due to illness and joint workshops were held back in September of 2024 and February 11th 2025 for the comprehensive plan and that was between the city council and the planning commission. Following these workshops, staff incorporated the requested changes and comments that were given by members of the community, the planning commission and the city council into the final document that was handd delivered by the lovely members of our staff to your houses. Yes, he was lovely. We sent the good-looking guys, not the ogres. So, the comp plan is like a big map for the city's future growth that outlines long-term visions and goals for at least 20 to 30 years. And keep in mind, this is a policy document. It does not establish regulations such as what we've been talking about with the land development code on some of the previous cases. Land development code for example provides specific rules for development such as building size setbacks from property lines, lot sizes and driveway lengths. It does carry the comprehensive plan carries legal binding authority provides the foundation for zoning codes and development regulations. So basically it is the base and the land development code is based upon the comprehensive plan. Keep in mind the comprehensive plan in cases does override the land development code such as the density that you considered in the previous case. It provides the policy foundation for local planning and land use decisions and all jurisdictions within the state of Florida are required to have a comp plan. The rewrite includes the following uh updates to the future land use element. There are some things that have carried over from the previous comp plan to the proposed new draft of the comp plan. updates to the housing element, infrastructure element, conservation, recreation, open space, capital improvements element, intergovernmental coordination element,

which are all required elements, and the incorporation of a new resilience and sustainability element. Uh we compiled and completed data and analysis of each element to guide and support the goals and objectives of the comp plan. So basically all the goals and objectives that you see when you first open up the comp plan, they're all based on data and analysis, data inventory and analysis. Uh that's how all those policies are derived and that's in any comp plan that you would look at within the state of Florida. Um also within the comp plan we did incorporate as you recall Wild Oaks had a a workshop joint workshop. Uh we incorporated some of the town center standards that needs to be in the comp plan in order for that uh land development code policy to take effect. and it basically touches on density uh within the Wild Oaks area which was already approved through a development agreement by the city council back in 2022. So, our recommendation this evening is approval of ordinance number 3101, a rewrite of the comprehensive plan in its entirety and authorized staff to transmit it to the Florida Department of Commerce. I will um turn it over to attorney hand. We have learned of some new legislation that has been approved by the Florida legislature known as Senate Bill 180, which will kind of styy some of the uh things that we have sought out to do. Um, and I'll turn it over to Mr. Hand. Uh, thank you, Bobby. Thank you, Bobby. Pardon me. I just said thank you. Thank you. Um just going over Senate Bill 180 and and what has occurred uh on the last day of legislative session that Friday or what would have been the last day of legislative session had it not been extended. Uh there was a bill presented and it was amended uh at the last minute and that includes some of the provisions that I'll discuss tonight. It's a very lengthy bill, but uh there are two of note and one in particular of note. And um in the last section of the bill, uh the one that's most directly relevant to the the comp plan rewrite here, uh there

is some legislation that if this bill becomes a law, uh would affect every county in Florida. It cites uh federal disaster declarations for Hurricane Debbie, Hurricane Helen, or Hurricane Milton. any county that is named in one of those declarations, the bill is applicable. With those three declarations, they cover the entire state of Florida. So even though it's not stated in the bill that it is a statewide law, it will be a statewide law if it becomes a law. And what this law does is it states that any municipality within those counties and of course the county governments, the governments of any special government uh may not propose or adopt any moratorium on construction, reconstruction or redevelopment of any property damaged by hurricanes. Um, that municipality uh or county may not propose or adopt more restrictive or burdensome amendments to its comprehensive plan or land development regulations or propose or adopt more restrictive or burden burdensome procedures concerning review, approval or issuance of a site plan, development permit or development order to the extent that those terms are defined uh by Florida statutes. So essentially and one other important thing I'll I'll point out is that this is retroactive uh would be retroactive to August 1st of last year. So uh this could affect not things uh going forward that municipalities have done just not only future legislation but past legislation as well. Uh so that is the import here. Of course this directly affects the comprehensive planning process. The bill does not contain any um any any any details as to what more restrictive or more burden sum is. So we're left simply with the rules of statutory construction at least until it's interpreted to uh make that deduction uh which appears to be very very broad in its nature. uh accordingly uh while most

of the provisions within the comprehensive plan as I understand it at least the amendment are are not more restrictive some may be and if this bill becomes a law in other words if the the governor signs it or or does not sign it depending on the date that it's presented to him uh as long as he doesn't veto it will become a law uh anything that's more restrictive in the comp plan uh may not be um allowed to be in the comp plan and this particular restriction runs in for a period of two years. It'll be uh until 2007 that this particular piece of legislation is in place. Um there is another provision within the bill and I won't go into as much detail with this one. uh this is perspective looking and in the future if a d disaster declaration uh includes a particular area county and so forth then that county would be prohibited or local government within the county from uh creating more burdensome more restrictive uh regulations for a period of a year from the date of the disaster declaration. So we know we have at least if this bill becomes a law uh two years of uh these requirements being in place unless the courts is amended at the next session and there is the potential that this may be an ongoing type of situation depending on what type of hurricanes and disasters we see uh during hurricane season uh for the next uh foreseeable future. Okay. Does anyone have questions? I do. Commissioner Washington, what would his restrictions look like? Well, I think uh and of course without any guidance from the legislature, it would be any type of potential restriction that is is more burdensome. So, we could look at examples. Um you

know, comprehensive plan may not maybe Bobby you could. Yeah. So, I know one of the main things was this increase in open space. And I I believe that was some of the concern from from some of the council members, planning commission members, city council members. Um upping that to like 30% on some sites. That could be one thing. There is a policy that we identified that limits density north of uh Sebastian Springs Lane on the east side to one dwelling unit per acre. Currently, the comprehensive plan limits it to two dwelling units per acre because it's in the Wakiva. That could be considered to be burdensome. So, we might have to do away with that. One of the things also is the removal of the uh HDR25 policy, high density residential, which some of you I believe were on the planning commission when that was approved, allows 25 dwelling units per acre in certain areas of the city. Uh we might have to put that back in because that could be seen as taking away rights from somebody. Uh we have a policy in the comp plan currently that if you have a in the draft the proposed comp plan if you were on city utilities and you contiguous to the city you'd be required to annex into the city uh that might have to be removed as well u because you'd be forcing an annexation on somebody. So those are some examples. Also the resiliency element uh resiliency sustainability element that's a brand new element uh that could be seen as burdensome on somebody we that might have to be removed altogether. I have a question and and maybe I'm missing something here or maybe you can give me a little bit of oversight. What was the goal? In other words, what did what were the politicians trying to get brownie points by doing this? What is the goal of that changing that rule? Uh is it to stop a county like say if I own a house and the hurricane tears it down

now I've got to go to a code level that was way past what I had or I couldn't rebuild my house in the manner it was. I I don't understand what the goal of that is. It is a disaster management bill and uh of course not being present there but do seeing from the the rest of what's in the bill as well as things I've read about it. I think the idea the legislature uh is is putting forth is exactly that, sir. It's to to not interfere with any kind of reconstruction efforts and to make sure that reconstruction can proceed um I won't say as quickly as possible, but without new or additional burdens than may be in in place that were in place prior to last year's hurricane season or at least on prior to August 1st of last year, the date to which the the bill is retroactive. So that seems that that would fit a very narrow definition. In other words, homes that were built to a standard between that date and today or the next hurricane would be affected, but anything built prior to that would have no effect. Not quite following as as far as will it affect existing uh existing buildings and it's damaged by the hurricane. Well, there there could be things in the comp a local government could create new regulations and so forth or comp plan amendment that would affect a particular reconstruction. Um, so yes, I mean the bill would encapture some of that, but again, I think to your your point, at least what I'm taking, it's a very specific type of problem and we have very very broad legislation ident, you know, trying to address a very specific problem. Well, it's a sweeping thing that affects everything we do to to take one to to resolve one circumstance. That's not really that common. Okay. All right. It is an unusual piece of

legislation and that is certainly true. Okay. Anyone else questions? Go ahead, Commissioner. Yeah, they have a follow-up question. Um, in our comp plan, we're saying that the first floor has to be above the 100 uh year flood plane. Correct. I think section 4-1-2. Yeah. And I believe that is in the current comprehensive plan. Yeah, I believe you're referring. Let me that was I took it out of this book. Yes. Yes. So that's the draft. Yeah. Um I believe that policy has carried over from our current comp plan. So based on this law, if my property, if my current resident was at 25, I can rebuild it at 25. I don't have to go to the 100. That would be my understanding. Yes. Yeah. And we couldn't enact new legislation to force you to go up to 100, for example. Okay. All right. Commissioner Ryan, the list um the laws you're talking about uh sounds like to me it's like they want to um grandfather in any any houses that were built with the old code. In other words, you have to bring them up the current code. Is that correct? uh at least for it's it's it's not so much uh that specific that it's it's regulating our grandfathering structures in but it is essentially freezing from a certain aspect a local government's ability to create you know what is referred in the bill as a more burdensome regulation so you can't make things harder on builders in other words uh so from a certain point of view yes I think that's uh that's accurate u but it's essentially freezing and it's for a period of I mean, it's not indefinite. Uh it it it does have a timeline and

it's tailored to to deal with this these past hurricanes from the from the preceding year in 2024. So, I got a question. Hypothetically speaking, that portion of the bill, there's many many other portions of the bill. So, I'm only discussing two two portions. It's a massive bill. So hypothetically speaking, given that the comprehensive plan is kind of think of it as like the uh the cap over the land development code, right? Does that prohibit us from changing the land development code to making say green space raising it from 20 to 33%. Yes, it's not just the comprehensive plan. So I'm kind of picking on the comprehensive plan because we're we're specifically talking about it right now, but the bill goes on with moratoria. uh limits moratoria for reconstruction. It limits uh any type of land development regulations and it limits the procedural aspects uh as well to um essentially grease the wheels and allow reconstruction to uh occur uninhibited. So it it goes beyond just the comprehensive plan. Yes sir. Someone else pivoting back to this comp. Can we are we good on the the comp plan? So, Mr. How when you say the comprehensive plan is a policy and that it is not the land development code, but yet there seems to be some crossover where the comprehensive plan is is is the um initial authority um and then if I understand correctly then the land development code gets into very specifics. You got it correct. Yes. Although there are some specifics in the comprehensive plan. Yeah, it's it's that's a good way of explaining it. There's some things on comp plan that

are very specific. Comprehensive plan in a lot of cases it overrides what's in the land development code such as the density we considered at an earlier case. The zoning allowed five units acre. The comp plan only allows two maps that overrides it. But you're absolutely correct in your summation of it. So is there any value to getting those two more um congruent with each other so that you don't have conflicting you know two dwelling units five dwelling units and and then trying to interpret which one is the more superior. Yes. So what we would do once the comp plan is finished the new comp plan is adopted and finished back and redo the land development code to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Okay. So, so at some point in the future, there'll be a um review and rewrite of the land development code. Correct. Yes. Okay. Because as I read through this, I have questions and I was sitting I printed them out. I'll give them to you. Okay. Um it's probably 15 18 pages. Oh, wow. And um I was that was my biggest you know is this the comprehensive plan or is this more the or is there some crossover between the two because I certainly wouldn't want to you know mix them up but I'll give that I'll give it to you. Appreciate it tonight. Thank you. Well, given given your com that I'm definitely against this because I think that in the comprehensive plan if you're saying that we should harmonize the two the comprehensive plan to me we absolutely have to go 33% land devel or 35% green space in this city. We need to have our green space be congruent with Orange County. That's my opinion and based on the fact that I believe we need to

protect our ecology and our trees and what makes the city beautiful and I would like to see that in the comprehensive plan if that's overriding the land development code because I really think that belongs in the land development code but if you're saying right however if I understood the attorney correctly that could easily be construed as burdensome and restrictive at this moment. for two years and put on hold for period of time. Yes. You know, for for a two-year period of time going back to August of 2024, right? So, while I understand what you're saying and I understand that you could do that, um, you probably shouldn't do that until after 2027 and hope that there's not been a disaster between now and then, which would also extend another year for every disaster. I would advise you, I'm not discounting, I agree with what you're saying wholeheartedly, Mr. Doomy. I I think open space additional is good. However, the legislature has the upper hand on us now. We're at their mercy. But the thing is, you know, this this needs to be this is really where it should be in my opinion. This is where it should be, not the comp plan. But if what was just stated was that the comprehensive plan is kind of the superseding document, then that's where it goes. I would rather see it here. I'd rather see this fixed and done correctly, but that's not really our wheelhouse. But if we're voting on the comp plan, we need green space. We need to increase the green space. And if and if you're saying we even if we did it today and it doesn't go into effect in 2027, I would feel more comfortable with that than kicking the can down the road and saying we'll address this in 2027 when it could go in effect because it's not going to say that that that it can't just because we put in there it would go in effect in 2027 whenever that law expires. it's not

going to be thrown out that it's never going to go into effect. That's my point. I don't believe I'm wrong on that, but somebody Let me clarify. We're we're voting on the rewrite of the comprehensive plan, not the specifics of the rewrite. Correct. Right. So, you're we're requesting you make a recommendation tonight on the rewrite of the comprehensive plan. Um we had planned to take it to city council next week, but we're going to need some time. We would like your recommendation either to move forward either approval or denial of it, which whichever, but we're going to need time to look at what's burdensome. And I threw out some of the things from examples from this current or the draft that could be construed to be burdensome. And then once we narrow that down, then we'll take it to city council and then transmit it to the state for their review. And then it goes back to the city council again for adoption. It goes back to the state of Florida. So it's still a three or four month process afterwards. And for clarification for the purposes of this particular provision, it's applicable between uh August 1st, 2024 until October 1st, 2027. So for that period, that's where the city would have an issue of creating more burdensome regulations or policies regulations in the LDC. Uh of course policies and um within the the comprehensive plan and that would refer to green space. What is the the number on that bill? 180 and particularly uh section 28. I'd be happy to I can look it up. I just curious. Sure. Can Can I ask one more question on this? Go ahead. Just for clarification, Mr. Hand because we put it in here, it would be non effective, but it would go into effect on October 1st, 2027. Is that correct? Or would it strike the whole document as being null? No. At this

point, I think what uh what what I'm hearing Bobby say right is this is not at law yet. It's still a bill. We have an enrolled bill. We haven't engrossed an enrolled bill. Uh probably will become a law. Seems like it might seems very likely that it will. Uh that being said, at this point you have a finished product comprehensive plan and so it's fine to take a look at it. But if this does become a law, then yes, certain parts of it may need to be dismantled and uh a comprehensive plan update could be adopted sooner than later. just some of those portions may have to be taken out and then there would be a new process if the city wanted to continue pursuing those policies uh within you know at at the earliest if the stays the law if it becomes the law and stays the law as it's written now at the earliest October 2nd 2027 I mean I like the comp I like the changes that were made in the comp plan but I just feel like if we miss an opportunity kind of tighten up on some of these green space requirements. Now, we may not get it again for a long time. Well, I I think the the problem is that it's going to get their hands are tied. If we all voted unanimously we want the green space changed and that the they can't do that at this point, but they can do it and it won't go in effect till a October 1st 2027. That's what I understand. Well, it' be it would be well, it wouldn't be in place. you'd still have to go there's timing lines when it goes through transmitt hearings and so forth to to the state and so no I mean it basically the city could take the work product and shel it and then restart the process to incorporate those once the Senate Bill 180 moratorum is no longer in effect would be essentially what uh the procedure that the city would be looking at. Well, this is the proverbial fly in the ointment because I don't I don't really want to discount all the work you guys have done on this because you've done a lot of work, but I

mean this is a very strong I feel very strongly about the green space issue. Well, I mean that we had the workshop, right? And it was brought up there too, but it was brought up there and it was also discussed that that really belonged in the land development code and I believe that's where it does belong in the land development code. But if we're not going to change that, then I feel obligated to put it here. Well, Mr. How didn't say that the land development code wasn't going to be changed. You said it's going to be reviewed. It'll be reviewed and eventually it will be changed to reflect the new comprehensive plan. If the new comprehensive plan rewrite gets adopted, then we'll have to go back and make sure things are consistent because the land development code has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. So, that would be the next thing that we would start. That would be after the adoption of the comp plan. And that's my point is that if the comp plan says that we have to increase the open space, then we have to change the land development code to harmonize it based on that statement there. And that would be one of the things, Mr. Jimmy, that we would have to review in the comp plan to see. It might just be a vague policy that says preservation of open space shall be required on sites. We got to go back and take a look at it and see if it specifies a number then yeah I don't really like the number being specified in the comp plan. I like it being specified and our code specifies 20% right on most sites. So that might be where we run into an issue at so I'll just make a comment. I'm not an attorney. I will say from experience in dealing with um the state of Florida legislature and some um legislation etc and that type of thing. I I would um recommend that we approve this at this point in time. Obviously, um the the the department has to go back

and now assess these two this this bill and see if there's anything that is not um in in favor of what this comprehensive plan is. and that in October of 2027, while I don't like the fact that you'd have to come back at this again, it for me it leaves it cleaner to come back again after the fact after this timeline is expired because if it gets too cumbersome, too convoluted, um I I feel that there's a potential exposure for litigation which then just costs even more money to the city. Um, we might prevail, the city might prevail, but not after there's been a large legal expense to try and prevail. So, it's it's while I I understand, you know, Commissioner Doomy and his, you know, thought process and what has been shared, it's I just would say suggest that we go, okay, here's what we got today. Obviously, you're going to delay, you know, city council because you need, you know, time to review. Okay, then there's that. Okay, now it goes to city council with the new bill. Then it can go from the city council. Then it goes to the state of Florida. Then it comes back to the city council. Then it go back to the state of Florida. I mean, this is a long process of multiple entities reviewing, you know, the the the process. And believe me, when it goes to the state of Florida, their first thing that they're going to look at is specifically for this bill with any municipality, county, entity in the state of Florida, do they believe? And and I would be shocked if they didn't come back and say, "You need to rewrite this because this is not in, you know, if the bill is signed." So to your point, the bill, the governor has

till July 1st to sign the bill, correct? Or let it go into law. Why don't what would be the consequence of tableabling this discussion we're having tonight till the July meeting and what what would that what harm would that cause to the city? We would ask that you either give us a recommendation of approval or denial tonight for it. Um that way we can look into a little bit more as to what needs to go forward and what can't go forward. In my opinion, my professional opinion, I believe this draft has encompassed everything that both workshops have uh had between the planning commission and the city council. Uh we had public input through the internet. I think it'd be best if we get a recommendation tonight from the planning commission. I I agree with you, but I just I I have a hard time getting to approving something based on what somebody else may or may not do, and we won't know for six weeks. Well, if we don't know if it's going to affect us, we can't we can't stop in our tracks and wait for them. We move forward. What if it doesn't pass and we we put this off and and drag it out and drag it out? We don't have any control over them. So we we pass or deny or make our recommendation on this and whatever happens happens. We don't have any control over that and we can't stand here and just you know twiddle our thumbs waiting on them to make a decision. So it sounds like there's probably a majority up on this board that wants to agree to to move this forward and that's okay. But if I if I decline to do that I'll tell you the reason my no vote would be because of the green space situation open space. So that's fair. Okay. That's that's completely fair and you can add that to the record. You can vote no and say why. All right. Any more questions? Commissioner Wood Bobby, this is um the one thing I see missing from the this uh

comprehensive plan and it may not have to be included in this is protection for adjacent property owners. That would be in the property rights element. Um, which you sent me, right? Yes. And it's really I I take a look at some of the developments around here. Mhm. and the lack of communication and ownership between the uh the developer and adjacent property owners where things are agreed to and then things are changed between them and the city in certain cases and the adjacent property owners are not notified. Um, I see cases where property lines or relationships um weren't were misconstrued and that um developers were allowed to go on the adjacent property owners and make improvements to their property at the uh detriment of the adjacent property owners. And one of my major concerns is also when everything's done. Um what type of indempification does the adjacent property owner in the city uh have with what was built? Um you know two examples we're going with right now is Border Lake and Clear Lake. state obvious and this predates your department. I understand that. But the city's has multi-million dollar bills coming on both sets of properties that we now have

to eat. The developer came in, they did what they did and moved on to the next project. Uh also during the construction cycle um they're invading adjacent property owners um property to complete their job to make their micro world without taking consideration the macro world. um code enforcement. When you come to the city, they say, you know, it's a civil suit. Well, what does that have to do with the what's in front of us right now? Well, that why I'm asking is should this be included in into the uh comprehensive plan, some type of protection for the adjacent property owners? Protection in what way? We're we're here to protect the adjacent property owner. That's our job. But when we move when it moves beyond us and it goes to city council and then it gets approved and the actual work begins, what type of protection is there for the adjacent property owners? It's out of the protection. If you're talking about somebody egressing into somebody's else property, that's for the police department or for code enforcement. That has nothing to do with us. I'm I'm not saying it has to do with Well, you said they were going on somebody else's property and that was your I'm just trying to to narrow this back down to the the subject matter at hand. Well, as I said when I started my question, does this belong in the comprehensive plan? What specifically? Uh protection to the property owner. Define protection of property owner. That's a very broad thing. Okay. That's like saying safety. It covers everything. Invasion. I'm the developer. Okay. I was I'm the

developer. I'm doing my thing and I come on to the adjacent property owners property to do police issue code violation issue. Not a planning and zoning and not and it's not we're not going to write in the code. Oh, um rule number such and such. You're not allowed to drive on the people's property next door while you're developing. That that makes no sense. It has nothing to do with this. Well, that sounds like trespassing. Yeah. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand. But what you run into the issue is that the city doesn't have the teeth to go in and enforce it. They That has nothing to do with planning and zoning. That has to do with the code enforcement. Has to do with the police department. That's a property owner would have to call the police department. If the property owner calls the police, we're not involved in that. We don't call 911 and it rings here. Sounds like trespassing to me. Yeah. That has absolutely nothing to do with this. That's why I asked the question. Yeah, it would be a trespassing issue. Usually, if you are doing construction and you need to get on the neighbor's property, you get a construction easement to go on their property. That's usually how I understand it. Okay. That's that was my question. Okay. All right. Anyone else? All right. Bring it back to the board for a motion, please. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance number 3101, the rewrite of the comprehensive plan in its entirety with the exception of the transportation element as authorized by staff to transmit to the Florida Department of Commerce. If I could just interrupt, it's a public hearing, Mr. Chairman. Oh, I'm sorry. I Okay, I got distracted. Y'all got me wound up. Okay. Does anyone from the public wish to speak on this matter? Very well. All right. His motion can stand. Correct. I can say it again. No, you're good. I'll second it. Okay. Motion by Commissioner Mottz, second by Commissioner Ryan. All in favor say I.

Any opposed? Yeah. Name. Thank you. Would you like to state why you're opposed? Simply for the reason that I believe we need to address the open space, green space, contiguous area, and harmonize with Orange County sooner rather than later. So noted. Very well. Motion carries. I would like to make I don't know if this maybe should be with new business or old business. If we have something like this that's going to be a long contentious thing. This needs to be put at the end of the meeting. We we've got three applicants that have to sit here through this that really doesn't relevant to them. So I think in the future let's try and put that at the end of the meeting if there's going to be a long drawn out. We can do that. Um this is based on the way the agenda is set up. It's based on the ordinance numbers. So everything's in numeric order. Okay. Well, why can't you? So, you're saying we can't do that? You You so wish you could change the discussion. All right. My apologies to the people here. Had to hear our long drawn out discussion there. All right. Item number five, ordinance 3103, smallcale future land use amendment, 438 North Park Avenue. Owners Nicholas D'Angelus and Stephanie D'Angelus. Applicant Nicholas D'Angelus. I hope I'm saying that right. Uh 438 North Park Avenue. All right. Oh, did a hazing ritual on a mirror. I forgot to change the slide. I'm sorry. Oh, for the record, Amir Hamza. Good evening everyone. I'm a planner. Uh the applicant has submitted a small-cale future land use amendment from county low density residential to city commercial for property located at uh

438 North Park Avenue just north of Burger Street and south of uh East Summit Street. These are the vicinity and aerial maps of the 438 North Park Avenue site. The total site area is 0.66 acres. The applicant is requesting the future land use amendment to be able to sell the property as a commercial property. Um the future land use as mentioned before is a county low density residential and proposed to change to commercial which has a floor area ratio of 0.25 totaling max of buildable um 7,187 square ft of buildable square footage. zoning is transitional which is also proposed to change to community commercial zoning. The development review committee has recommended approval. The recommended motion is to recommend approval of the future land use map amendment from county low density residential to commercial for 408 North Park Avenue based on the findings and facts presented in the staff report and exhibits. Thank you sir. Anyone have questions of staff? All right. Very well. Is the applicant here? Did they have a presentation or available for questions? Okay. Anyone have questions of the applicant? Very well. Does anyone from the public here wish to speak on this matter? Pretty much out of bodies, I would assume not. All right. Bring it back to the board for a motion. Motion County subject to the findings of the facts presented in the staff report and

exhibits. Thank you, ma'am. Motion by Commissioner Norwood. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Mott. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Item number six, ordinance number 3104, change of zoning, 438 North Park Avenue. Onus Nick or Nicholas D'Angelus and Stephanie D'Angelus. Applicant Nicholas D'Angelus, 438 North Park Avenue. For the record, Amir Hamza. Um, the applicant is requesting a reszoning from transitional zoning to community commercial zoning for property located on 438 North Park Avenue, just north of Bergus Street and uh, south of East Summit Street. These are the vicinity and aerial maps of the 438 North Park Avenue site. Again, the total site area is 66 acres. The applicant is requesting the reszoning of this property to be able to sell the property as a commercial property. from the previous um um PowerPoint. Um the future land use is is proposed to change from county low density residential to uh commercial and uh it zoning is transitional currently and is proposed to change to community commercial to match with the proposed uh commercial future land use. The development review committee has recommended approval. The recommended motion is to recommend approval of the change of zoning from transitional zoning to community commercial zoning for 438 North Park Avenue based on the findings and facts presented in a staff report and exhibits. Thank you, Mr. Hamza. Any good questions of staff? All right. Anyone have questions of the applicant? All right. Anyone from the public wish to speak on this

matter? All right. Bring it back to the board for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll make another motion. Find the proposed change in the change of zoning from T transitional to CC community commercial compatible with the character of the surrounding areas. Recommending approval of the change of zoning subject to the findings and facts presented in staff report and exhibits. Thank you, ma'am. Motion by Commissioner Norwood. Do I have a second? Second by Commissioner Woods. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Site plans Oaks at Kelly Park phase 3B replat. Requested a recommend approval of Kelly Oaks plot 3B replant. Applicants Genevieve Labura parcel location 2027472753 2759 2765 Abor Dune Avenue Mr. H for the record Bobby how planning manager applicants requesting a replat of lots 225 through 228 of the oaks of Kelly Park phase 3B to accommodate a lot line shift to allow for utility construction. These are existing lots. There's existing infrastructure that you can see on the aerial photograph and the addresses are to um on Arborune Drive. Lot 228 has decreased in width by 15 ft and lot 225 has increased in width from 55 ft to 70 ft. This is in the formbbased code area. Remember there are no minimum and maximum lot size requirements in that area of the city. There are no additional changes to the plat. This is consistent with the major development plan construction site plan with Florida statute 177 which is platting development review committee recommends approval and recommend a motion is approval. Myself and the applicant are available for questions. Very well. Thank you sir. Anyone questions of staff?

Okay. Anyone have question of the applicant? Nope. All right. Do anyone from the public here wish to speak on this matter? Very well. Bring it back to the board for discussion and motion. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to recommend approval of the Oaks at Kelly Park phase 3B replat. Thank you, sir. Motion by Commissioner Washington. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Ryan. All in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Do we have any old business? Do we have any new business? Meeting a journal.