City Council - Regular Meeting

you Thank you.

Good afternoon and welcome to the June 22nd, 2026 meeting of the Orlando City Council. We're going to begin today's proceedings today with the invocation and pledge of allegiance offered and led by Commissioner Roger Chapin.

Thank you, Mayor. Please bow your heads if you would like to. Heavenly Father, we give thanks for the city of Orlando, a community blessed with vibrant neighborhoods, dedicated public servants, thriving businesses, beautiful parks and lakes, and people from every walk of life who choose to call this place home. As we gather today, we are mindful that many families recently celebrated Father's Day. We give thanks for the fathers, the grandfathers, the mentors, the coaches, the teachers, and the role models whose guidance, sacrifice, and example helped shape future generations. We also remember those who celebrated without their fathers, fathers who celebrated without their children, and families carrying the weight of loss. May they find comfort, strength, and peace in the memories they cherish and the love that endures. As our nation commemorates 250 years of the American experience, we give thanks for the generations who have served our country and helped preserve our freedom. We especially pray for the men and women in our armed forces serving away from home today. Watch over them and their families. Grant this council wisdom, humility, and grace. Help us listen with open minds, treat one another with respect, and always place the needs of our community above our own. May our decisions today honor those who came before us and help create a brighter future for those who will follow. Amen.

Amen.

one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, let's call the meeting to order. Madam Clerk, would you call the roll and make a determination of quorum, please?

Commissioner King. Here. Commissioner Ortiz. Here. Commissioner Chapin.

Here.

Commissioner Sheehan. Here. Commissioner Rhodes. Here. Commissioner Burns.

Here.

Mayor Dyer.

Here.

Mayor, you have a quorum with all members present.

Thank you Madam Clerk. First item of business is consideration of minutes from the June 8, 2026 City Council agenda review and workshop meetings motion by Commissioner Ortiz, second by Commissioner Rose. All in favor indicate so by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? And so the motion carries. We have no awards presentations today so we'll go right into the Mayor's comments and before we have our next meeting, Commissioner Sheehan's birthday will arrive on July 6th. Commissioner Ortiz, can you help us here? There we go.

Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, dear Commissioner Sheehan. Happy birthday to you.

All right, two days after Commissioner, or two days before Commissioner Sheehan's historic birthday, we also have a historic event, which is the 250th anniversary of the founding of our country, and we are gonna have a spectacular fireworks at the fountain display, and I would invite everybody there. We have food vendors, kids play zone, festivities throughout the day, and the fireworks display will be at 9, 10 p.m. sharp. I have two things on the agenda today. One is Fire Station 5 relocation. We are going to consider the purchase of three properties along Crystal Lake and Taylor Avenue near the Soto Target for the future replacement of Fire Station 5, which has been serving our community for over 70 years and was instrumental in our response to Pulse. The other one is a LAP agreement, local agency program agreement with FDOT, which I think we've been working on since I have been mayor. And that is for Virginia Drive, Forest Avenue, and Corrine Drive. It's a 2.6 mile corridor that is going to be beautiful when we finish this project. that we're going to move on to the consent agenda which is the number of items acted upon through a single vote of council we give each of the members of council an opportunity to comment on items on the consent agenda as well as to update you on important happenings from the districts we rotate the order that we do that and today commissioner chapin is first up

Thank you, Mayor. I know we've got a lot of people here for a lot of important issues, so I'm going to keep my comments brief. I would like to say that I had the opportunity last week to participate in several events honoring the victims taken from us in the Pulse tragedy as we celebrated and marked the 10-year anniversary. I want to thank all of the city staff who helped organize these commemorations each was beautiful and meaningful and i particularly want to thank mayor dyer and commissioner sheehan for the leadership that you've displayed since that tragic day and even until today will skip over some of my other comments but i also also wanted to highlight item 13k1 which is again the agreement for the fdot resolution for construction on corinne drive i'm excited to see that this long-awaited project is finally going to move forward thank you mayor thank you commissioner commissioner sheehan uh thank you mayor um and thank you for helping me celebrate my medicare birthday

I'm proud to have made it this long. I didn't think I was going to live this long. I would have taken better care of myself. So anyway, on the agenda today, there is the 3D2, the HPB minutes with concerns over the ordinance that we're going to be reading today. And I'll have more comments later on that. Corrine Drive, again, that goes through District 3 and 4. This is a very important corridor, and I'm glad to see we're finally going to do something because this was a place where they widened Virginia in a weird way to get the railroad to get tanks and bombs and things like that in the Naval Training Center. Well, because of that, it's unusually wide, and we have a lot of speeding problems and everything like that. So narrowing this down, actually, Virginia Drive is wider than I-4 in some places. So narrowing this down, doing this project is going to make it a lot more pedestrian friendly. I'm glad to share this project with my colleague and maybe see this come into fruition before I leave, hopefully, at least some project to see some progress on the project. But, you know, it's very well needed and I'm delighted to see the hybrid beacons. Those are very important because it's a very dangerous place to walk. I walk it every single day. Also on the agenda on the CRA, we hang Christmas lights. I'm glad that they're adding the Yola House. The guys that were doing that got a little upset because people kept vandalizing their lights. And I understand them being concerned, but that's what happens in a public park, so we're just going to go ahead and pick that up. And I just want to point out that we have two restaurant incentives on the agenda today. We are having investment in downtown, and we should be understanding that there is investment happening in downtown, unlike what's been said in a lot of the things that have been going on. So again, that's all I had, and thank you so much.

Mr. Rose.

Good afternoon, mayor commissioners and everyone in the audience. Few things. If you haven't been downstairs to check out the portraits, the city of Orlando's hosting purchase of pulse. It's an exhibition of the 49 victims from the post tragedy. It'll be until August 23rd. Thank you, Flynn Dobbs and the team for continuing to keep our gallery going and commemorating and celebrating the lives who were taken from us. um i want to thank ea um so every year uh as you for those that don't know um ea sports is right here in the paramore community and um part of their community impact is they when the games come out they bring our youth in so we had a football competition and they continue to engage the youth with um getting their feedback and playing the game. It's a whole big thing where they make a whole like collage. I don't know if we go back to the days where we've got PlayStation games physically, they had a cover. So EA does like a whole cover for the kids. So I make sure to incorporate Commissioner Ortiz. When I do anything, I make sure the Englewood kids zone is part of it. So I don't just do the three zones that are in the district. So Englewood came in second place. But I think it was a little bit competition with Mercy Drive, Holden Heights and Piramore playing. college football sports. Recently around the city in the area we celebrated Juneteenth. This is a day that marks the end of slavery in the United States and honors the resilience, strength, and contributions of black Americans throughout our nation's history. As we reflect on the journey toward freedom and equality, let us also recommit ourselves to building communities where opportunity, justice, and dignity are accessible to all. I celebrated several events, and first I want to thank the Office of Community Affairs for leading the charge on a joint community resource fair with Commissioner Burns and myself at the Grand Avenue Neighborhood Center. Thank you to FPR for making it a seamless activity. Thank you, Rodney and team. I joined the Pine Hills Community Council for a cleanup in the Pine Hills Corridor. i participated in a stop the violence golf cart rally with a promoter called another chance so ultimately we go from the pine hills community to paramore and we stop at various apartment complexes and talk to the youth about stopping the violence we kind of give them information about programs and we also give them skateboards and helmets for them to have some activities I also want to thank Reggie McGill and the team for 100 Black Men Gala. For those that don't know and have never experienced, 100 Black Men is a wonderful organization that mentors our youth and sends them off to college. Not only high school students graduated, but also making sure that the alum they keep in, they continue to give scholarships and keep them motivated for a successful future. So may we continue to learn from the past, celebrate progress, and continue to work together toward a brighter future. So for those that don't know, the Small Business Enterprise Office was kicked off. On the third Monday of every month at the NEC at the Fashion Square Mall, there is a collaborative meeting that's held with Orange County and the City of Orlando. April 21st, we launched the SBE program, which provides small and locally owned businesses in the metropolitan area opportunities to participate in city development and procurement contracts. I am proud to say that as of today, we have certified 59 businesses that are in our directory. 28 of these 59 are businesses that are registered with the county. And so for those that know, that's a big milestone here in our region. For anyone doing business in the city, it has been a long time where you would just be certified with one entity versus the other. Now if you are certified with both Orange County and the City of Orlando to do business seamlessly. We will continue to work to make sure we support our local small businesses. Commissioner Chapin and I cut the ribbon. For those that don't know, there are two Coke distribution centers here in District 5 and 3. The new center opened 180,000 square feet. Warehouse, $84 million investment here in the city of Orlando. There are job opportunities available, and I will be posting about those for anyone looking for employment.

On to the agenda.

I will give comments about the historic preservation once we get to that ordinance. But 3D5 and 4D, I'm proud to support Tropics Lounge as we bring another small business and restaurant into the downtown corridor. 3E1, so I don't know for those who haven't been here. I sit on the Orange County safety swim safety task force. And so I'm glad that we are receiving some funds to help 160 Children in the area to help with swimming lessons through our F. P. R. And for C. I'm glad to support Blue Coast Borough LLC going to 4 10 North Front Avenue. And that's all I have.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Burns.

Thank you Mary good afternoon fellow commission as well as all who are in attendance today. Want to announce on June 17th, I hosted my district wide town hall glad to say that there were over a 150 participants. And this was a time that we showcase what was going on in the district. HAD THE SEVERAL OF THE CITY DEPARTMENTS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THE RICHMOND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD WON THE AWARD FOR THE MOST ATTENDEES AND SO AGAIN THEY WILL BE GETTING A FINANCIAL AWARD THAT GOES TO SUPPORT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I'd like to say thank you to the Smith Center staff, our meal sponsor, as well as our presenter, OUC, the reliable one who shared great information with our community about how they can conserve, save money, as well as other services that are offered by OUC. Also, the supervisor of elections, Supervisor Casterdental, as well as our entire city team who tabled economic development, SBE, emergency management, solid waste, housing, FPR, code enforcement, as well as public works and OPD. uh during that district 6 town hall i did give a snapshot of kind of district 6 to date and it showed some of the activity that has happened since i was elected in 2020 so real briefly we 6.67 million dollars were received by homeowners in district 6 for housing rehabilitation that's 106 households that received funding to assist with home renovations the average award was 62 000 with the largest award being 131 000. so i will encourage anyone who's interested in this program we still have funding uh please reach out to my office or either of the commissioners off because this is not a district 6 initiative it's a city-wide initiative BUT WE'VE JUST BEEN VERY AGGRESSIVE IN DISTRICT 6. SO AGAIN, EXCITED THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO HELP 106 HOUSEHOLDS ACCESS $6.6 MILLION IN HOME RENOVATIONS. ALSO, SINCE 2020, THERE'S BEEN $63.5 MILLION IN GRANTS RECEIVED SPECIFICALLY FOR DISTRICT 6. 38 grants, 10 grants exceeding $1 million. So again, thank you to our grants team here at the city. They do a great job in securing this funding for our districts. Also, we awarded over $75,000 in scholarships to help our students with their educational endeavors. 57 plus scholarships were totaling over $75,000. Also, when we talk about affordable housing, 71 affordable units have been completed. WITH ANOTHER 353 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN THE DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE. OVER 5,000 BACKPACKS AND SUPPORTED SEVERAL SENIOR CENTERS. SO SINCE 2020, YOUR DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN BUSY AND I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO PAL ONTO THESE NUMBERS. As Commissioner Rose mentioned, I had the pleasure of attending the Juneteenth Resource Fair, so I'd like to thank Marcy and her team for pulling together this important resource fair. A lot of good information was shared. We had a lot of good vendors, and I think a good time was had by all. Just a few upcoming events. On June 23rd at the National Entrepreneur Center, how to do business with the city of Orlando workshop that will happen from again at the National Entrepreneur Center from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. So if you're interested in learning how to do business with the city, please come to that to that session. Also, and this is really a push for small and local business businesses to be certified as Commissioner Rose just mentioned. Also, on July 1st at 630 at the Grand Avenue Neighborhood Center, we will be having a community meeting regarding the Piedmont Yard Apartments. This is a community meeting where the community can hear about the development, ask questions, provide their feedback, and just learn more on the timing of that development. also on July 3rd balling after dark this is a opportunity for our Orlando Police Department and our youth to compete in a in a safe environment this is happening that the next one is at Grand Avenue at 8 o'clock so if you know of youth who are looking for things to do encourage them to go to balling after dark also On July 8th, we're planning for the District 6 OPD community meeting with Chief Smith that will happen at the James R. Smith Center at 6.30. And then also, I continue to have my satellite office hours on the second Wednesday at the James R. Smith Center, on the fourth Wednesday at the Grand Avenue Neighborhood Center, and on the third friday at the l claudia allen senior center and may i do have uh some comments on some of the ordinance but i'll save those until then and that completes my updates thank you thank you commissioner commissioner keane thank you mayor uh good afternoon everyone here in person and also online congratulations uh commissioner sheehan on your birthday soon to come

Last week, my office hosted the first meeting of our e-bike safety working group, bringing together OPD, OFD, Orange County staff, City of Orlando staff, Nemours Children's Hospital, local HOA leaders, and principals from several of our schools, middle schools and high schools in District 1. I want to thank Senator Carl Scaramo Smith and Representative Rita Harris for taking time out of their busy summer to join the conversation as well. was an important step in developing solutions that improve safety for everyone, especially our young children. I appreciate everyone who took time to participate and contribute to this collaborative effort, and it will continue to have these meetings throughout the summer and during the school year. Mayor, on the consent agenda today, I'd like to highlight three D6. First is temporary use permit for BEEP at the Lake Nona Town Center. BEEP is an autonomous mobility technology company headquartered in the heart of District 1. In Lake Nona, I'm very excited to see them expanding their operations and adding more transportation options in Orlando. And 3J1, I'd like to share my excitement for the new Southeast Government Services Building. Today, we will vote to approve Seth Palmetto and Madison Smith for their creative services on sculptures and interior mixed media paintings. And I can't wait to see the final product. Based on their portfolios, it should be a key feature of my new district office. And with that, Mayor, that's all I have for this week.

Thank you. Commissioner Ortiz?

Mayor, you're going to love me. In lieu of the amount of people we have here that they came for a particular purpose, I'm going to keep my comment for next City Council, and I'm just going to move to adopt the agenda. Fabulous. Thank you.

Motion by Commissioner Ortiz. Who had the second? Commissioner Rose. All in favor indicate so by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? And so the motion carries. Okay, if you're just here for consent agenda, now would be a good time to make your way out. Anybody up for that? All right, you're in for the long haul then. OK without objection recess the City Council meeting and we'll convene that CRA meeting for a is meeting minutes of the advisory board for May 22nd motion by commission rose. I commission she in all favor indicate so by saying aye aye those opposed. So the motion carries. All right, David will be.

Yes, thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mayor. Good afternoon, Commissioners. So Commissioner Sheehan, as you mentioned, this item is an amendment to our We Hang Christmas Lights contract for this upcoming year. I'm happy to say that we are again going to be expanding the offerings that are happening throughout downtown for the holidays. One of which is a new retro neon zone, which you may say that doesn't sound very Christmassy, but it will definitely be Christmas-themed, and there will also be several interactive components to get kids engaged with neon seesaws as well as neon stump pads. So excited to add that. Some other components that we'll be bringing, the festivities down into the core as well as into our Thornton Park District. Our lights throughout the trees that are going to go from Lake Eola all the way down into our Thornton Park Business District. Doing the same along Magnolia in our CBD to really connect all of our festivities with what's going on at the Front Yard Festival. And we'll have some other installations right at the History Center where we have a full interactive mapping of the History Center. to just add to that holiday cheer. The total cost of the contract is $274,439, and I'm happy to address any questions.

Motion by Commissioner Rose, second by Commissioner Sheehan. Discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate so by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, then motion carries. David?

Thank you, Mayor. Our next item is a restaurant program. As Commissioner Sheehan mentioned, we have two restaurants that we're considering today. The first of which is Blue Coast Borough LLC, which is not the name of the restaurant. It's Devante. It's a French-themed restaurant. It's going into the ground floor of the Society Building, which is directly across the street from the courthouse. It'll be a first-generation space there. They've leased about 3,000 square feet. And have a number of other establishments, one of them being Blue Coast Burrito in the packing district. They own a coffee establishment in Claremont, as well as several others, not only in Central Florida, but the state as well. They'll be making just under $800,000 of improvements in that space, of which they qualify for about $313,000 of CRA funding towards those tenant improvements, in addition to $50,000 in rental assistance. for a total award of about $363,000. And I'm happy to address any questions.

Motion by Commissioner Rose, second by Commissioner Sheehan. Discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate so by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. And 4D.

Our next item is another restaurant that was also mentioned during the opening comments. This is for Tropics. So Tropics is a Jamaican-themed restaurant coming into the ground floor where Pine and Orange intersect. So the last establishment you may know that occupied that space was TD Bank. They own multiple other restaurants as well. They are here in the Orlando area. It's Negril Jamaican Restaurant on Kirkman as well as Silver Star. They are also spending about $785,000 in order to build out and retrofit that space for which they qualify for $210,000 in tenant improvement allowance assistance from the CRA and an additional $50,000 in first year's rental abatement. So the total award from the CRA is $260,000.

Motion by commissioners second by commission she in discussion. Hearing none all in favor of motion indicates so by saying aye aye as opposed and so the motion carries for the business David.

That is all man.

Thank you then we will stand adjourned as to the CRA without objection and we will reconvene the City Council meeting. Madam clerk that brings us to hearings 9 a you want to read that course.

One moment, Mayor.

I surprised you. That doesn't need to be read. I'll read it then. Third amendment to the second amended and restated development order for Florida Hospital, Orlando Development of Regional Impact, District 3. I move approval. Motion by Commissioner Chapin, second by Commissioner Sheehan. Discussion? Oh, actually, I have no request for public comment on this. Madam Clerk, any request? no public comment mayor okay and the hearing shall close all in favor of the motion indicate so by saying aye aye those opposed and so the motion carries okay this one you can read madam clerk which is hearings ordinances on second reading ordinance number 2026-18 an ordinance of the city council the city of orlando florida relating to the downtown historic preservation overlay district imposing a temporary moratorium for 36 months on the requirements

processing and consideration of certificates of appropriateness prior to the erection, alteration, restoration, or demolition of exempted historic landmarks or structures within the downtown historic preservation overlay district, adopting findings of fact, providing for extension of early termination of the temporary moratorium, and procedures providing legislative findings, and for separability, correction of scrivener's errors, and an effective date.

Okay, motion. Second. And a second. I wanna thank everybody that is here to speak on this matter. It's a testament to how much people care about Orlando and our neighborhoods and our history and also wanna thank our Historic Preservation Board for the great work that they have done in protecting Orlando's historic neighborhoods, particularly the five predominantly residential historic districts. But our downtown district presents a different set of challenges and revitalizing large scale commercial buildings in the heart of the Central Business District requires balancing of historic character with economic viability and long term investment. The proposal before us temporarily shifts the review of projects to the Appearance Review Board, which is the same board that reviews all the other major commercial projects throughout downtown every day. It creates a more consistent, predictable process for owners while continuing to respect the historic character that makes this area unique. Predictability counts, and it often is the deciding factor on whether an investor chooses to move a project forward. This proposal does not eliminate demolition protections or erase Orlando's history. Requests for demolition still have multiple layers of approval, including review by the historic preservation office. This temporary change is designed to remove barriers to investment while preserving everything that makes this district special. Commissioners, I know that you received a copy of a letter from the Department of State about this possibly impacting our status as a certified local government. I want to be clear, the city attorney has reviewed the letter, believes the action would not jeopardize our certification. However, in abundance of caution, these temporary procedures will not take effect until August 10th to align with approval of the proposed rebate program to incentivize reuse and renovation. We remain committed to historic preservation. We're not looking to implement, and we are looking to implement an incentive program and continue to have HPV review of improvements in the other five primarily residential historic districts. David, you ready? David Barilla, our Executive Director of CRA, and Jason Burton, Planning Division Manager, will lay the process out.

Thank you, Mayor. There we go. All right, thank you again, Mayor and Commissioners. Just wanted to review some of the items discussed during the first hearing several weeks ago. As you remember, we talked a lot about investing in downtown. We're in an exciting time in downtown's history. We have an immense amount of project, an immense amount of work, all moving forward to change the trajectory of the downtown that we have into something that I know we are all truly proud of. All of that work is being guided by the DTO Action Plan. So as you know, the DTO Action Plan started in the context of really charting an actionable course to make sure that our downtown was everything, not just that we wanted it to be, but what we knew it could be. It was vision-driven, it was research-based, and it's a strategic framework of actions, 14 specifically, that start to take down block by block the context and the character of downtown and structure it in a way that can ultimately be utilized for decades to come. So some of those projects, which you will know of, are things like the Canopy, which is going to occur underneath I-4. We have our immense Lake Eola Gateway project that will be starting here soon. Art Squared, which is already delivered right there on Orange Avenue, which is a great place to go. during the day or even for an early evening. Our Lake Eola master plan, which we are on the cusp of starting as well. And you see a number of other projects along the right hand side, which I'll highlight a little bit later in the presentation. We also talked about just some of the large scale investments that have occurred in downtown over the last 15 years. These specifically are investments of over $5 million. Those are the yellow areas really that you see on this map to help orient yourself. You can see Lake Eola there kind of in the center. And then our central business district is really highlighted by those three pink spines. That is Orange Avenue, obviously, Magnolia, and then Roslyn. The pink on this map showcases really all the investments that the city and the CRA are making to really change the aspect of our downtown. It's the two-waying of streets, it's the canopy, all of which is focused on the core. And what you can see by this map is the context of where that activity from a private perspective has been focused on from a large scale. If you did take this map back another 10 years or another five years, maybe a 20 year or 25 year map, you would see additional growth as Commissioner Sheehan pointed out last time with the plaza as well as 55 West, which would be in that green area. But the context is really of our recent past, we've seen growth. We're very proud of it. It's over $2 billion and over 20 projects that have come into our downtown and make it all it is today. And we've heard and seen different contexts really in the core and wanted to make sure we're aligned as we continue to chart the course forward. So what's happening right now? So as you know, we have Magnolia underway as we speak. We're about 60% complete on that. We'll hopefully be done here in the late summer, early fall. In just the coming weeks, we're going to be starting our work on Church Street. That's that picture on the bottom left there. Literally taking building face to building face and creating a pedestrian-friendly, walkable environment that we can ultimately hope to host Not only many large-scale investments, but just the day-to-day activities when you want to come downtown with your friends, with your family, to enjoy the core of our city in an active and vibrant space. Just above that you see 30 South Orange, which is on the corner of Pine and Orange. which has been a vacant lot for many years, but it was a part of an acquisition that the CRA was successful in making. With that, we're looking to bring a great respite location with a park that provides a little bit of a getaway from all the hustle and bustle to that extent that might be around you in the core. To the right is probably the biggest project. That is the two-waying of Orange and Rosland. Again, taking building face to building face and really all of the area that the city controls and making sure we're doing everything we can do to set the table for a successful and vibrant downtown. And then the other project down on the right, that's One North Orange. So it's often referred to as one of Orlando's original skyscrapers, it was another property that the CRA was successful in purchasing in order to reintroduce it to downtown. I think it's a great context to really what we're discussing today. This building in and of itself sat vacant for probably almost 20 years. The last occupying owner, so to speak, that had it activated was the county. When they sold it, it sold to an investor who was never able to make that project work. It went to foreclosure. It went to another investor who ultimately saw the same challenges. The CRA was successful in purchasing that because we knew that we needed it to be active. We needed it to play a role. In the downtown that we know we wanted to have and we're getting ready to release that to the market later this month And ultimately hope to get to partner with a developer on that Before the end of the year and that context is great It also kind of shows us the challenge that as much as well We know we would like to do this for every building that may have some deterioration and things like that in downtown We don't have the means to do it. We need to make sure that that we have the right policies and programs in place that the private sector can kind of pick up where we have to put the baton down so we all can work together on moving downtown forward. So some of the challenges, so to speak, that we've heard both from members of the community as well as property owners and business owners are really what we want from downtown. I think we're all aligned on that context. One of the top things that I hear is that people want more activity. People want more vibrancy in that context. And I tell you, when you talk to the business owners or even the property owners, They want that too. They also are asking us to consider more predictability from that side so that they can make investments into the core that will work. A lot of the properties that have been under discussion for years find themselves in to be some context of not being set up in the right way for businesses of today and are wanting to make investments so they can sure to activate them. We all know the best way to preserve buildings is to have them activated. and not be vacant and left to deteriorate over time. And we're ultimately looking to have a district that is vibrant and active and that all can enjoy. So now I'll turn it over to Jason to talk a little bit about the review process.

Afternoon, commissioners, mayor. I'm here to explain the alternative processes that are proposed in this ordinance to be put into place and in alternative to the historic preservation review process. Just to note, this is to provide a consistent review and process for large scale commercial projects. There's a proposed temporary pause on the need for a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Board. As an alternative, the Appearance Review Board is the proposed authority, and they are responsible for reviewing all the different proposals outside the Historic District within the downtown, within the CRA. and that's proposed for the construction and renovation of buildings within this Downtown Historic District for 36 months. The ARB, like mentioned, reviews all the other projects that are within the CRA, the Community Redevelopment Area. What is being utilized by the ARB is the Downtown Design Guidelines. used to review projects. Those are based on general urban design principles rather than the more specific Secretary of the Interior standards for historic preservation. The goal isn't adaptive reuse and revitalization of different buildings in the historic district. The goal is not demolition of buildings. Permits for any demolition of buildings would still require staff-level historic preservation review, and I explained that in more detail at our last hearing. And certainly approval of demolition cannot occur until a permit is issued for a replacement project, which still requires A or B review. And I'll turn it back over to David to explain the incentive program.

So some of the desired outcomes to that extent that we hope to be able to achieve and see over the course of this item is we really want to, as the mayor put, find that appropriate balance between preserving historic preservation and also the long-term sustainability and economic development that we're looking for to have a vibrant and active downtown. We want to encourage properties to be invested in. We don't want them to deteriorate over time. And we want to make sure that they are occupied so the community can benefit and get exposure to them and partake in everything that they play a role in in our downtown. We want to encourage creative and broad reuse of properties in downtown. Encourage property owners to redevelop parcels with the highest zoning, the highest area of zoning in our city is our downtown. And if we're going to ultimately continue to meet some of our growth projection calculations, we need to make sure that we can utilize those areas that are zoned for the highest intensity. And we want to make sure that our investments with the DTO action plan, as I mentioned, over $200 million, is probably the largest coordinated public investment in the history of our downtown, doesn't stop where we put our shovels down. That the private sector can pick up at those lines that we have, what we don't control on their buildings and their properties. So that all of that, it goes to be about an active, vibrant, and exciting downtown. So with that, I'm happy to address any questions.

David, did you skip over the incentive program?

I might have, actually, Mayor. There it is. I clicked enter one too many times. Thank you very much. One of the components, and you mentioned this in your earlier comments, Mayor, is especially from the CRA's perspective, we are committed to historic preservation. That is why we ultimately took on One North Orange, because we knew we had to have a front row seat in seeing something of that caliber get returned to the market. But with this as well, the CRA advisory board will consider its July meeting. And then you all sitting at CRA will consider in your August meeting a program that will look to come alongside property owners to preserve the historic elements and character of properties. With that, what we anticipate that to look like is having a ten year tax increment rebate to between 50 and 75% of the added value by those investments. what we're really looking for there is for those property owners to preserve the historic and architectural quality and elements of those buildings so they continue to play a role not only in our core but also in the history of downtown orlando and now i'm welcome to take any questions okay questions and questions only commissioner chapin

Mayor, you mentioned the letter we received from the Department of State. When I read it, some of the examples that were given felt like they were pretty far back in our rear view mirror. What kind of dollars are we talking about? Do we know?

We've received two grants under that program in the last five or six years. And they were grants of, I think, $50,000 each that what we got out of it was we didn't have to match the $50,000.

I'll be addressing that in my PowerPoint.

So it's been nominal let's just say that there have been other grants that aren't tied to that They were listed in one of the articles in the newspaper Okay further questions Commissioner Burns I had a question it mentioned a 30-day Notification time period that we we have not complied with and

And I know that we were going to delay this, the effectiveness for about 30 days. Would that allow us to comply with that?

Well, we don't think that's applicable, but we have delayed the implementation of the ordinance 30 days, so it would comply with that.

So delaying it 30 days would comply with the state's requirement to notify?

We don't think we'd need to comply with that. However, in abundance of caution, that would comply.

OK so again the land it will make us it compliant with the 30 day note that would be legal advice, yes, that's legal advice we've received right, OK, yes, thank you.

Any others? Okay, turns out we do have a few people that would like to speak on this matter. So there are 32 people and what are 32 requests. So what I will do is I'll call three names at a time. You'll come to the podium, give us your name and your residence address, and you will then have three minutes. So the first three are Mark Line, Dean Hill, and Katie Shook.

Good afternoon, mayor and commissioners. I come before you as a preservationist, but not a hardcore preservationist. I also believe in my community and want to see it grow and prosper. But I want to remind you of how important historic preservation has been in many other communities. Park Avenue today is a flourishing community in Winter Park. They have historic properties. Winter Garden. has prospered considerably in past years with Plant Street, with historic properties. Our own Thornton Park does very well with historic properties. And if we want to reach out to South Beach, if they had destroyed those Art Deco buildings many years ago, we wouldn't have what South Beach is today. And the same thing is true in Tampa. So we know that historic properties can be used profitably and for economic development. I want to say to David, thank you for a good presentation from the DTO, but I also have read that very carefully and I found nothing in that report, which was well researched, that said anything about historic properties being an impediment to economic development. So I'm hoping today that we can look for perhaps a different solution, or at least the process to help us find a better solution than to put at risk what I'm concerned about, particularly our other properties on Church Street.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. Dean Hill, Katie Shook, Jennifer Evans.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council. Good to see some of you again. My name is Dean Hill, and I'm the interim executive director for the Orlando chapter of the American Institute for Architects and also the Orlando Foundation for Architects. And I would like to personally invite you and everybody in this room to the opening of the brand new Orlando Center for Architecture and Design, or as OCAD as we like to call it. We will be opening at 150 North Orange Ave in the Fulcrum Building, and we hope to have a soft opening sometime in August. On behalf of the members of AIA Orlando, we respectfully request reconsideration of the proposed three-year moratorium that would suspend Historic Preservation Board review of planned development projects within downtown Orlando. AIA Orlando supports the City's efforts to encourage investment, redevelopment, and revitalization within our urban core. As architects, planners, and design professionals, we understand the importance of fostering growth, expanding housing opportunities, and maintaining Orlando's economic vitality. We share the city's vision for a thriving downtown and recognize the need to remove barriers that may hinder thoughtful development. However, we are concerned that the proposed moratorium may move too quickly and eliminate an important layer of professional review before alternative solutions have been fully explored. Historic preservation has consistently proven to be a catalyst for economic development and urban revitalization. Across the country, communities have leveraged historic preservation policies adaptive reuse incentives, and preservation review processes to stimulate investment, increase housing opportunities, enhance walkability, and strengthen neighborhood identity. Historic preservation is not an obstacle to redevelopment. It is often one of the tools that makes redevelopment successful. As Orlando continues to evolve, we have an opportunity to demonstrate that progress and preservation can work together. We believe the best outcomes emerge when diverse perspectives are brought to the table and when decisions are informed by thoughtful analysis rather than accelerated timelines. We respectfully ask the City Council to reconsider the proposed moratorium and gauge stakeholders in a collaborative discussion regarding long-term strategies for downtown redevelopment and historic preservation. Together, we can develop an approach that strengthens Orlando's future while honoring the history and character that contribute to its identity. Thank you for your consideration and your continued service to our community. We welcome the opportunity to participate in future discussions and assist in developing solutions that Orlando residents can be proud of for generations to come. Sincerely, Lindsay Piant Perez, AIA Lead Fellow and 2026 Chapter President for AIA Orlando. Thank you.

Okay, Katie Shook, Jennifer Evans, Craig Osler.

Good afternoon, Mayor and commissioners. My name is Katie Shook. I live at 14 North Lawsona Boulevard. Sorry, my name is Katie Shook and I live at 14 North Lasona Boulevard. Last year I bought my first home which is a 100 year old bungalow in one of Orlando's historic districts. I chose that home specifically because I love historic architecture and the character that older neighborhoods bring to our city. I understand why preservation matters and I believe we have a responsibility to protect the places that tell Orlando's stories. And that's exactly why I'm here today in support of this proposal. as a homeowner i want to see our historic neighborhoods preserved but i also want to see our downtown thrive the success of our neighborhoods and the success of our urban core are connected a vibrant downtown makes orlando a more desirable place to live work and invest and that benefits all of us what i when i walk through downtown or the downtown historic district today i don't just see beautiful buildings i also see vacant storefronts and underutilized spaces that could be filled with businesses, restaurants, and activity. As someone who's invested personally in a historic district and a historic home, I understand the importance of protecting our past, but I also believe we have to create conditions where historic places can continue to be lived in. worked in, and enjoyed by future generations. I want to live in a city where our historic neighborhoods are strong, our downtown is vibrant, and our oldest buildings are not sitting empty, but contributing to the life of our community every single day. That's why I encourage you to support this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Jennifer Evans, Craig Osler, Jill Vaughn.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Jennifer Evans. I live at 520 East Church Street in downtown Orlando. I'm here to speak about my personal experience owning and restoring and developing historic properties. For 28 years, I lived in a 170-year-old home that was on the National Trust. I bought a 100-year-old commercial building, and I was a partner in developing a readaptive use of an old textile mill that was over 100 years old, but it was vacant for 30 years. I know firsthand that historic properties, whether home or commercial, are at their best use when they are occupied. I'm very passionate about historic preservation, but this new review process allows for adaptive reuse, for our most important anchors in our central business district. This new review process allows for architectural excellence, but also protects these buildings from being demolished because it will go through a robust review process, including the last vote of yours. So my personal experience and my passion supports historic preservation But they are at their best when they're occupied. And so I hope that you will vote in favor of approving the moratorium so that these historic properties will be brought back to life, which is what we need in our city. Thank you.

Thank you. Craig Ussler, Jill Vaughn, Tim Giuliani.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. Craig Ussler, 800 North Orange Avenue, Suite 200, Orlando, Florida, 32801. The first thing I'd like to say is something I said last time, just in the sense that I respect all sides of this issue. It's an interesting conundrum when you have everybody wants what's best for downtown. There's just sort of differing opinions on how to get there. So that's actually quite interesting that both sides want the same thing. It's just a matter of what process you go through. And so I tried to keep that in mind as I've balanced my thoughts on this, as we all want downtown to be better. I've spent my whole professional career in the real estate investment and development space in downtown Orlando, and I want to see it do well. And I also understand and respect the idea that historical context plays. I believe that this process we're putting forth is really kind of the best approach to kind of swing the pendulum back a little bit. I think we're just a little bit out of balance on sort of the restrictions of what the historic preservation process does versus some of the economic development objectives. I want to be careful to point out that's not really a result of HPB. Some of this has become about the HPB board and the people on that board. That's not what this is about. It's the process and the rules with which that board is bound. So a private owner or developer walks into the office and says, what can I do with my property? And you're basically told not much. It's very restrictive what you're allowed to do. And so the vast majority of projects never make it to the HPV board. a project getting rejected by the HPB board is almost it's just a very small number of the projects that are actually contemplated so what happens is projects are essentially never starting because at staff level they just get sort of told what they can and can't do and it's become I think Sadly, it's become an impediment to development. So I'm not even really happy about this. It's just the way it is, and that's the way it's functioning. So it's become sort of this problem in the sense that you just can't get as much done as we would like. So that's really been my focus as I've thought about this over the past couple weeks. It's just a process, really more at the staff level it needs to fix, and I think sort of by revising it the way we've talked about today, we can get to a better and more balanced outcome. Thanks.

Thank you. Jill Vaughn, Tim Giuliani, Joe Nunziata.

Good afternoon, mayors, commissioners. Jill Vaughn, 333 South Garland Avenue, Orlando, Florida, 32801. I serve as the President and CEO of the Downtown Orlando Partnership. And from my office in the Truist Plaza, I look out five days a week at the vacant buildings along Church Street. It's a visible reminder that some of the most important blocks in Downtown Orlando have not seen investment or the activity that they deserve. I also personally have witnessed trespassing and vandalism of these buildings from my office window. When properties remain unoccupied for years, they become more vulnerable to neglect and to deterioration. Vacancy does not protect these buildings or strengthen the district around them. As someone who values history, architecture, and the character of downtown Orlando, I do not believe the answer is to disregard our historic resources. They are part of what makes downtown distinct. However, We also have to ask whether the current process is helping these buildings find new life. That is why I'm here today in support of this temporary moratorium. It gives the city a defined period to evaluate a different review process while maintaining oversight and assessing the results. The goal is to encourage thoughtful reinvestment and adaptive reuse. on these buildings that have been vacant or underutilized for too long. When these buildings are occupied, they can once again contribute to the life of downtown by supporting businesses and bringing people to the street. I recognize the concerns raised by residents and preservation advocates. But this is a temporary measure. It's not a decision to abandon preservation. It's an opportunity to determine whether a different process can better support the protection of our historic assets and encourage economic development and the future of downtown Orlando, which I am sincerely passionate about. And for those reasons, I respectfully support the approval of this ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you. Tim Giuliani, Joe Nunziana, Jason Kelly.

Good afternoon. Tim Giuliani, 810 Euclid Avenue. Good afternoon. I'm here to speak on behalf of the Orlando Economic Partnership in support of this ordinance and temporary suspension of the historic planning review of development in the Central Business District. We appreciate the opportunity to come together as you provided two weeks ago to discuss this important issue. And ultimately, we all have the same goal, which is creating a culturally vibrant downtown that anchors our regional economy. We commend the city for bold investments in the heart of downtown Orlando. And leadership like this is essential to catalyze the kind of economic development we all want in our urban core. However, to fully experience downtown's full potential, then we must ensure that private investment can be deployed, filling vacant offices and storefronts, starting new businesses and maximizing the city's public investments. We need to focus on adaptive reuse. Today, private development in the central business district has stalled and several buildings remain vacant. It is rare for a city to have this type of overlay in their downtown core, particularly as a major city like ours. The proposed temporary suspension would streamline review and approval process and reduce that uncertainty to bring more projects for your review. Importantly, this is a measured approach, striking a balance between the need for private investment and historic preservation. Alongside the potential incentives for adaptive reuse, it creates a window to invest while respecting the historic urban fabric that defines our downtown. OEP values our partnership with the city, and we look forward to continuing to work with you to improve our downtown. Thank you.

Thank you, Joe Nunziata, Jason Kelly, Steve Garrity.

Good afternoon, Mayor, commissioners, and staff. My name is Joe Nunziata, and I serve as the CEO of Accresure Mortgage. My address is 189 South Orange Avenue, Suite 900, Orlando 32801. We're headquartered right in that location. We have about 700 employees. I also own and have owned multiple properties in the downtown historic district. I want to begin by saying that I care deeply about this city. Orlando has provided incredible opportunities for my family, business, and for thousands of others who has chosen to invest their lives and livelihoods here in Orlando. I also believe we have reached an important moment for downtown. Today, too many storefronts sit empty, too many buildings are underutilized, and too many people are choosing to spend their times elsewhere. As a business leaders whose company is headquartered here, I see the impact every day. The challenge is no longer simply preserving our past. It is ensuring that downtown remains vibrant, relevant and economically sustainable for future generations. Historic preservation plays an important role in protecting the character and identity of our city. But preservation and progress should not be viewed as competing priorities. In fact, they should work hand in hand. As a property owner, I have experienced firsthand how lengthy and unpredictable the approval process can be and how it can unintentionally discourage investment, even for relatively modest improvements. When investors, business owners, and property owners face uncertainty, projects are delayed, opportunities are lost, and buildings remain underutilized. I support this temporary change because I believe it creates more predictable paths for investment while still respecting the historic significance of these properties. The best way to preserve a historic building is not to leave it untouched. It is to keep it occupied, maintained, and contributing to the life of the community. A thriving historic building filled with businesses, residents, and activity honors its legacy far more effectively than a vacant one does. This proposal gives us an opportunity to encourage reinvestment, support adaptive reuse, and bring new energy to downtown Orlando. We can respect our history while creating the conditions for a stronger future. I support this effort because I believe in downtown Orlando, and I want these historic buildings to remain not only a symbol of our past, but active contributors to our city's next chapter. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Jason Kelly, Steve Garrity, Luana Gelser.

Good afternoon, I'm Jason Kelly of 526 South Higher Avenue. My great grandparents, Amos Roberts and Bessie Wigglesworth arrived downtown in 1925. More than a century later, our family's still here. I'm a proud fourth generation Orlando resident who loves the city and is fiercely protective of its history. I'm president of the Lake Davis Greenwood Neighborhood Association, a graduate of the Mayor's City Academy. a member of the Mills 50 District Board of Directors and the chair of its design committee. I previously served two terms on the Lou Gardens Board of Trustees, and I'm now serving my second term on the Historic Preservation Board, which is why I chose to speak today. Everyone gathered in these chambers cares deeply about Orlando's future and wants to see downtown thrive. As the Historic Preservation Board approaches its 50th anniversary, Orlando should be strengthening its commitment to preservation. Instead, this ordinance strips vital protections from the most iconic buildings in the oldest part of our city, opening the door to their loss. That's a disservice to Orlando residents who trust us to safeguard our city's architectural heritage for future generations. We must not abandon that duty. These buildings were here long before us. If we do our job right, they'll remain long after we're gone. How you vote today will help define your legacy. It is not too late to do the right thing. I urge you to vote against this unpopular ordinance and protect Orlando's treasured historic places from unnecessary demolition, because once they're gone, they cannot be rebuilt. Please don't be on the wrong side of history. Instead, cast your vote to preserve it, because this place matters. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Steve Gell, Steve Garrity, Luana Gelser, Cindy Parker.

Good afternoon, Mayor and commissioners and staff. Thank you so much for your time today. I am Steve Garrity with Highways Properties at 201 East Pine Street, located in downtown Highwoods. The company I work for owns about 1.7 million square feet of Class A office buildings. We've been growing with the city beautiful for the past 27 years. We love downtown, for sure. It's what we call best business district. It's very, very walkable. Our office buildings are about 88% leased, and our customers continue to remind us that they would love to continue to walk downtown and see and enjoy beautiful things on Church and Orange Avenue, but unfortunately, there's no place for them to dine or enjoy. These buildings are beautiful, for sure, but they need to be loved and not neglected. I'm in favor for this proposal. It brings current vacant and underutilized properties back to life. This temporary approach, a very thoughtful way of balancing preservation and revitalization. It reduces the building decay while enhancing and highlighting the building's character for all of us to enjoy. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Luana Gelser, Cindy Parker, Justin Core.

Luana Gelser, 815 Hill Street, Orlando. What will they say about your footprint? And the question was posed to us two weeks ago, why now? And my answer and my response was, because you can do it. So I'm speaking on moratoriums, and they should not do harm. Remember, everybody, this is what's happened. Tinker Field, National Protective, gone. The wetlands, national protected, gone. The Paramo community had a moratorium, no more homeless shelters or social services programs in that 1.4 square mile radius. Every time this council wants to do anything in that, they rescind the moratorium. So I'm questioning you, your ability, will you do the right thing? If you rescind this and your past history has indicated you will continue to do what you've always done, make sure the special interest groups get what they want. You have a lot of things in place to protect our community, but you look the other way. I remember so many years ago, the council voted to tear down the McCord department store. They voted that day and that night it was gone. All of these things have been happening because we have things in place to protect the community. But for some apparent reason, what would they say about your footprint? What would they say about you? And what they're saying is you do not honor what the community is saying. And when you need something to change, you just change it. And then you'll put it back and say it's for the good of the community. I'm watching you on Bob Carr because it's in Creative Village. And it's a national protected building. However, I know if we go to sleep, it might get torn down. Only because of your history. of what you've done in the past is what we're questioning, especially Luana Gelson. Last time I questioned the staff, ability to see what was going on, and I called them incompetent or they just didn't know what they were doing. The Huffington Post came down and did a story, and we proved exactly what we were saying was true. So all I'm saying is you can say what you want to do, but your action speaks louder than words, and your action says you're going to continue to do this. That's why another 37-story building is getting ready to go up by a church. Come on, guys. Why so quickly? Why now? Because you can do it. But is it fair to everybody in the city of Orlando? Is it fair to us? I'm judging you on what you've done in the past, and what you have done has done harm. Moratoriums should not do harm. Thank you.

Cindy Parker, Justin Core, Richard Kilby.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Cindy Parker. I live at 309 Cherokee Drive in the Cherokee Historic District. My husband David and I have lived there since 1983. So we have been 43 years living in a historic district. I've served previously on the Historic Preservation Board. I served as chairman of the Historic Preservation Board. And the last time I appeared in City Council before this body was on behalf of the Historic Preservation Board when I was chairman in 2003, and there was the public hearing to grant the demolition permit to what was then called the J-Mont block, and that's where the Plaza building is now. As the previous speaker said, within hours of that demolition permit being issued, demolition began on those historic buildings. And within just a few days, the Orlando Sentinel had a front page picture of the developer of the Plaza project standing in front of a pile of rubble with his arms raised in the victory position. And when I hear of this moratorium, that's all I see is that pile of rubble and a developer in the victory position. Please don't do that to our downtown. The previous speakers have been eloquent, including the staff and citizens, but I've heard One of the speakers said this proposal is for a block by block takedown. He didn't mean to say what I heard him say, but a block by block takedown means demo, demo, demo, demo. And you talk about using the highest and best use, the highest density zoning in these adaptive reuses. Well, you can't do that without a demo. So I urge you, please, put on the brakes, consider other ways to solve the downtown problem, and please oppose this moratorium. Thank you.

Thank you. Justin Kord, Richard Kilby, Megan Kord.

council justin core 236 south lucerne i own an old house i own an old building i have done the old building rehab it is expensive it is costly and although i have done that i am not a hardcore preservationist so i'm not here to speak from that perspective i want to speak to this primarily as policy and i think On its face, it is bad policy for quite a few reasons. But first, let's just be honest. I think the city's perspective here and the CRA's perspective here is primarily to increase the tax base. That's not a bad thing, but I think it flies in the face of what a lot of the residents are asking for. It flies directly against that. If it was purely about activating Church Street, we could incentivize the current owners to activate Church Street. That is doable. We've sat on our hands here for way too long without activating Church Street. Five, six years, we've let this thing just deteriorate. We've let the buildings deteriorate. And last two weeks ago, I spoke about developer induced blight. I believe that even more so now that we have allowed many of these properties to become blighted for this purpose for today. So I think also this policy creates a perverse incentive because there's a lot of owners Nunziato was one. I mean, there's a lot of property owners who have spent money downtown, who have continued to spend money downtown, who have tenants in their buildings, who have invested in their buildings. And for many of them, they actually won't have enough time to take advantage of this 36-month period. So on its face, I think if it's good policy and you believe it is good policy for Church Street and downtown, why the 36-month period? I think that makes no sense because at the end of it, If we demo, demo, demo, as Cindy said, what do we have to preserve? There'll be nothing left to preserve. So I think we got to really reconsider this policy as it is written and either we believe in it thoroughly and we might as well do away with all historic preservation or we bring project by project before the city and then council can overrule the board time and time again. It's very possible. I see you shaking your head and I know this has happened because they haven't been brought before the board. So it hasn't even had a chance to go through the proper protocols of resident boards that are in place for this purpose. After demolition, there is no reversibility. I mean, we cannot take the 36 month, we pull this back at 36 months, it is irreversible. So I really think it's important to remember that we just cannot undemolish a landmark. Once that happens, it is over. We need a better way of going about this. I heard David speak about the immense amount of research. And I agree, there was a lot of research being done. None of it spoke to the historic buildings being in the way of revitalizing downtown. We want these buildings to be activated. We should activate them. And if we want, if the goal is adaptive reuse, then we need to change the way this ordinance is written in the first place. Thank you.

Thank you. Richard Kilby, Megan Core, Joy Dickinson.

Hello, my name is Rick Kilby. I live at 1818 Curry Ford Road, about two miles from here. I'm a history guy, and I'm going to stay in my lane, talk a little bit about Lorna history. Last July, I gave a talk at the History Center called From Railroads to Roses, the Evolution of the Church Street Block. In preparing for that talk, I was reminded that the story of Orlando is written in its historic buildings. If we lose those buildings, we do not just lose bricks and mortars. We lose the people, the struggles, and the dreams that built this city. We lose part of Orlando's soul. Joseph Bombay arrived here in 1873, paying $10 from an ox cart ride to what was then a frontier settlement. While waiting for his citrus groves to mature, he carried the US mail on horseback between Orlando and Sanford. When the railroad arrived in 1880, Bombay's warehouse became Orlando's very first railroad depot, and he became the city's first ticket agent. In 1886, he built a hardware store across from the station that still exists today. That building anchored the Bombay block on Church Street for 80 years. William Slemons came to Orlando in 1886 and opened a dry goods store on Church Street. During the 1920s boom, he built the tan brick Slemons building. His family served Orlando there for decades. In 1973, Bob Snow gave it new life as Rosie O'Grady's Good Time Emporium and helped spark a downtown revival. In 1911, J.A. Collier, a successful black tailor, built a two-story commercial building at 27 West Church Street. It housed a bakery, a dry goods store, a drug store, and Collier's tailor shop. At that time, he was the only black landowner in downtown Orlando. His building is not just part of black history, it's part of Orlando's very important history. The Slemons Building, the Bumby Building, and the Nicholson Collier Building are not obstacles to progress. They are landmarks that are the physical record of who we are. It took 150 years for Orlando to gain the patina of history that makes the city beautiful more than just another place on a map. So why would we put that at risk with a rushed, ill-conceived moratorium? Once these buildings are gone, they are gone forever. No vote and no redevelopment plan will bring them back. We owe the people who built this city and the generations that follow better than that. Thank you.

Megan Coy, Coy, Joy Dickinson, Brian Wilson.

Good afternoon, Council. Megan Core, 236 South Lucerne Circle East. First, I want to thank each of you who took the time this week to speak with concerned citizens about this moratorium. Regardless of today's outcome, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to listen and investigate this issue with what little time we had. We all share the same vision for downtown. We want a vibrant city with restaurants, shops, and activity day and night. I live nearby and regularly walk to the Dr. Phillips Center. Events like the Front Yard Holiday Festival showcase what downtown can be. But we also see and experience the same blight that you do. And it's not only in the downtown historic district. So I think it's unfair to blame it on that alone. I follow DTO 2.0 closely and have been excited by its promise. Yet some proposals have left me wondering who they were designed for, specifically projects like the pocket parks and Lake Lucerne, which seem to reflect a larger pattern of ignoring citizen needs and concerns in favor of paying consultants and developers to tell us what we want. We've seen this play out before with the plaza and 55 West. Now we're going to do the same thing again and hope for different results. There's a saying about that, but I won't repeat it here. With high interest rates and construction costs, what happens if historic buildings are demolished and redevelopment stalls, another vacant lot for years like we've seen with the Orchid Ballroom? Preservation isn't an obstacle. It's a proven investment through existing incentives and tax credits. I also want to clear up some misconceptions I've heard from council and staff about the Historic Preservation Board. The board is not an anti-development body. It's simply citizen oversight. In the last five years, the board has approved every proposal from the downtown historic district. We have approved modifications that improve street activation, converting windows into doors and adding a balcony on Wall Street where none previously existed. To my knowledge, only two proposals for projects on Church Street have been submitted since many of those buildings changed hands in 2021. One was approved and one was withdrawn before coming to the board. It's difficult to argue the process doesn't work when few have tried it. The historic preservation officer, who's an architect with a master's in historic preservation, does use the Secretary of Interior standards when working with applicants, but those recommendations can be refused and projects can still go before the board. The board, while considering those standards, is not required to follow them. We can and have granted exceptions in the interest of adaptive reuse and responsible development. emphasis on responsible the hpb also has no authority over interior renovations like ada improvements as long as they don't affect the exterior facade growth and preservation are not competing values if we lose our historic fabric in pursuit of the next big project we lose the very character that makes downtown worth investing in it all i respectfully ask that you listen to the citizens for once and vote no on this moratorium thank you joy dickinson brian wilson val mobley

Hi, everyone. My name is Joy Wallace Dickinson, and I live at 614 East Washington Street. I'm an Orlando historian, writer, and longtime advocate. for preserving our community's history. And I'm struck today by how much everybody here basically wants the same thing. We just disagree on how to get there, I think. And also some of us want to be included rather than told to move aside. But I'm here today, especially to highlight a letter that was sent to you all by Melissa Wiley, CEO of the Florida Trust for Historic Preservation, which is the statewide nonprofit group that advocates for Florida's historic resources. The trust strongly opposes suspending historic preservation protections in downtown Orlando. Its letter reminds us that the downtown historic district established in 1980 was one of Florida's earliest local historic districts and there are many others. Orlando's preservation program began 50 years ago in 1976, our nation's bicentennial. And for decades, the city has recognized that preservation and responsible growth can and should advance together. The proposed ordinance would set aside that carefully developed system for three years. During that time, some of downtown's landmark buildings could be demolished without the normal review or an opportunity to discuss alternatives and mitigation. This is not a minor procedural adjustment. It's a major change with potentially irreversible consequences, as many speakers have pointed out. Sunday's Orlando Sentinel editorial last questions that deserve answers. What evidence shows that the historic preservation board has prevented need needed redevelopment? What obstacle is so serious that the entire system must be suspended? And why must the decision of this magnitude be made so very quickly? Historic preservation does not mean freezing downtown in time. Buildings can be adapted, expanded, and given new uses. That's our hope. The preservation process exists to just manage that change thoughtfully, not prevent it. Before the city removes these protections, those who understand historic buildings, planning, development, and downtown neighborhoods should have a seat at the table. I urge you to consider pausing this ordinance and establish a genuinely public deliberative review involving all interested parties, including the Historic Preservation Board and Orlando's preservation community and architects. Orlando can pursue an energetic and prosperous downtown without discarding the safeguards that protect what makes it so very special. I know you'll proceed responsibly and in good faith. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Brian Wilson, Val Mobley, Raymond Cox.

Good afternoon, Mayor, council members. My name is Brian Wilson. I live at 507 Palmer Street, as well as downtown at 1 South Orange Suite 200. You know, as many people have said today, it's an interesting situation where everybody wants the best for downtown Orlando. And when I think of downtown Orlando, I think of the historic district. My building is at the corner of Main and Main, which is orange and central is one of the oldest buildings in Orlando. And my partners and I purchased it seven years ago and set about doing exactly what everyone here is encouraging people to do. The adaptive reuse of a delinquent, underutilized building for the modern use. It was a nightmare. People often ask me, would I do it again? I would not. There's no way the money we spent to make this building reactivated will return its investment. And I think that's the reality that we're confronted with today in a world of rising costs. To understand the process of taking one of these old buildings and making it for modern use is a matter of satisfying the building department, the fire marshal, potential tenants, as well as the historic preservation board. The fire marshal and the building department have very objective realities of what you're allowed to do. My experience trying to navigate that while navigating the historic preservation board was one of subjective opinions about what was desired, often that flew in the face of what the fire marshal or building department was telling me was possible. The net result is I was forced to do things that, and let me take a step back. I'm a history major. I live in an old house. I own an old building. I'm passionate about old buildings. But they do need to change to be useful in 2026 and beyond. Some of the changes I requested, I was denied with comments such as, well, we just don't like the way that looks, or why don't you make this two feet bigger or two feet higher? Well, in the real world, what that resulted in, and in my experience, it's removing a failing awning and trying to activate the corner with light and glass to make it a vibrant corner. And every step of the way, I was fought on that process. It resulted in my partners and I spending probably in excess of a million dollars to deliver the awning that is there today, which is beautiful. My building is beautiful. I'm thrilled with the way it turned out. but it was unnecessary to reactivate that corner. It would have been more vibrant. It still would have been respectful of the historic characters of the building, but maybe slightly different than everybody's vision for it. And that's where this moratorium comes into effect is that if you want money invested, you need to be able to have a series of objective realities that people know going in of what's going to be allowed, not allowed, so they can see if it's worth doing. As a building owner, at the end of the day, that's what's going to determine, and that's why I'm in favor of this moratorium. Thank you.

Thank you. Val Mobley, Raymond Cox, Tana Porter.

Now, see, you've already started the clock. I haven't even said anything yet. And I was supposed to be able to say my name and address before you start my time. Val Mobley, 226 West King Street. Okay, I'm hearing that we need to enjoy the core of our city. We need more activity downtown. That's agreed, but who wants to come down here? There's no shopping. There's no retail stores. Very few restaurants. They've left. I don't really know why, but very few restaurants. People do come to the Dr. Phillips Center, and then they go home. They do come downtown to walk over to the Kia Center, and then they go home because there's nothing to do down here unless you want to go to a bar. That's a whole different story. OK, so I read the ordinance, OK, and it uses the word demolition six times. So I keep hearing that demolition is not on the table, but yet here it is. OK, let's talk about let's talk about wait a minute, supporting new residents can support local business and revitalize our urban core. Well, why do they want to live down here if there's nothing for them to do? They have to get in their car and drive to shop and they have to, you know, I guess Uber brings in their food. There is significant residential development throughout downtown that have brought jobs and businesses. Well, the businesses are all offices. They're not things that they can do downtown. We have seen comparatively little redevelopment in the overlay district. Well, you know, so the moratorium is not intended to eliminate historic preservation yet. That's exactly what is going to happen. The proposed approach Includes new incentives to encourage investment in historic buildings, okay. Adaptive reuse, I've heard that more times where, I don't know where he is. I've heard that too many times and that's what we all want, adaptive reuse. And I'm sorry that last gentleman had such a hard time with permits and the fire department and all those other things. I understand that those things are difficult, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth doing. We need to adapt these buildings to uses that will bring people downtown who want to come downtown who want to have something to do downtown. So I think DTO should spend more time on trying to attract those kind of businesses not just offices but shopping restaurants and bring people downtown.

Raymond Cox, Tana Porter, Jeffrey Thompson.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Raymond Cox. I'm president of Orange Preservation Trust, address PO Box 1624, Orlando, Florida, 32803. Since the recent announcement of the proposed moratorium in the downtown historic district, a lot of information has been forthcoming. What we hear from staff are examples how they feel the historic district is impeding development. On the other hand, counter information is now forthcoming from subject matter experts, professionals from associated disciplines, and the public via media interviews, social media, public records, and meetings such as this on how it's not just historic districting that's slowing development. The result has created the conflict we have here. It's understandable that the Economic Development Agency and the Downtown Development Board do all they can do to promote what's best for the growth of Orlando, and that the Historic Preservation Office acts in a responsible manner that protects the historic integrity and economic incentives for the city's cultural resources as charged by the city's growth management plan and the Florida Department of Historical Resources. Both goals are essential for the economic health of the city. They are not mutually exclusive. As the ordinance is written, Section 8, the effective date is upon adoption. To clarify that, I called this morning and spoke with the Florida coordinator of the certified local government agency in Tallahassee. A summary of the review from his office is that the ordinance is written. Removing the HP review component is in violation of the certified local government guidelines, which will start the decertification process. This will result in the termination of any current approved funding that's in the tunnel to come out, as well as any future eligible funding for any preservation projects. This is not only the 66 structures in the downtown historic district, it's all historic districts that come under the city's growth management plan. So that's residential as well as the 47 landmarks. So we're talking 1,800 properties in addition to the 47 landmark properties that can lose funding. You've all spoke this earlier today about how much grants and funding you've been getting. This is money that will be lost. So what do we do? Is it fair to economically penalize the many for the few in the downtown historic district? Now Mayor Dyer in the past has asked conflicting parties to sit down together and discuss their needs and suggest their solutions. Case in point, my neighborhood with the St. James Church. It was it was a perfect suggestion by the mayor. It was logical, rational, productive. And in this situation, there's a lot of miscommunication concerning the ordinance for the the downtown historic district. I'm asking the mayor and the city council to defer this agenda item. Direct the stakeholders, being all affected parties, the internal city agencies, property owners, and the public to convene and honestly discuss the needs and solutions to come up with a compromise resolution. Thank you.

Thank you. Tanya Porter, Jeffrey Thompson, Scott Seidler.

I'm Tana Porter, Ph.D., 4304 Edgewater Drive, Orlando, 32804.

Ms. Porter, could you pull that mic closer to you, please?

And I'm a teacher, writer, historian, and for 11 years a research librarian at the History Center, so I know a little bit about the city's history. And I want to say today to the mayor and commissioners Orlando is a Florida certified local government Which as an incentive makes money available exclusively for owners of property and historic districts from 1984 to the 2027 grant periods 25 grants totaling 7.4 million dollars have been awarded in Orlando Some notable recipients include the Kerouac House, St. Luke's Cathedral Church, Black Bottom House of Prayer, Maxie Croom's House, Plaza Live, William Wells House, Lou House, to name a few. Private residences and businesses have been recipients of state grants as well. Regardless of your opinion on the proposed moratorium, it is critical to point out that the process here today violates the city's agreement with the state with regards to the certified local government accreditation. The compliance failure to notify the state for a 30-day review of proposed changes of the ordinance will result in the CLG's decertification. This would create a financial incentive loss to historic property owners in all of the city's historic districts, as well as landmarks. Since property owners and the city of Orlando will no longer be eligible for these grants. If your goal is to move forward with the moratorium in the downtown historic district, I urge you to defer this item today so that you can be in compliance with all regulatory procedures. Please do not jeopardize these economic incentives for not only the downtown historic district, but all of Orlando's historic landmarks and other historic districts. Thank you.

Thank you, Jeffrey Thompson, Scott Cyber, Ryan Young.

Good afternoon. My name. Can you hear me? I don't know if I can raise it. Good afternoon. My name is Jeff Thompson, and I live at 600 East Amelia Street in the Lake Yolo Heights Historic District. I spoke here at the last meeting, but I'm not sure I made much of an impression. So I'm back here again to express my concerns about the new ordinance. If you remember, I'm the guy who's been on the historic preservation board for 18 of the past 40 years. But today I'm speaking on my own behalf. First, I want to say there is nothing in the historic standards that prohibits adaptive reuse, period. And to quote the historic standards, contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged. Demolition is forever, regardless if the ordinance only lasts three years. Whatever is lost because of the ordinance will be gone forever, so it's small consolation to say the ordinance is only temporary. Passing this ordinance will also encourage those who have perhaps never considered demolition to rush and get a building permit to tear down their buildings, and perhaps the lot will sit vacant and land banked until a better opportunity comes along. If I was less naive, I might even think that's what's happening on the south side of Church Street. First, the Orchid Ballroom, which is part of Church Street Station, was demolished three years ago. But due to quote unquote financial changes, the building permit has not been acted on and the lot has been allowed to sit vacant ever since. Now that that same owner controls the rest of the block on the south side of Church Street from Cheyenne Saloon to the Bumby Hardware, After making it difficult for tenants like Hamburger Mary's to stay, which left two years ago, the developer seems to be creating blight by neglect, a term I heard earlier today, in an effort to force the city's hand into an ordinance like this moratorium. They will reap the benefits of the change in land use by tearing down the historic buildings, combining parcels, and building a new tower that could be as harmful to downtown as the existing plaza. This is the oldest trick in the developer's playbook. Buy property whose value is lower due to zoning, cry unfair, get the zoning changed, the zoning changes, and their investment just increased tenfold. All but five properties in the historic district have been purchased since the district was created, so they all knew better. Please do not reward this kind of greed or let it destroy our shared architectural heritage. Owning multiple parcels is not a bad thing. That's what Bob Snow did, but he did that to celebrate Orlando's history. These current developers won't care about Orlando's architectural heritage when they tear it down. Developers claim the process is slow, but again, I'll refer to the plaza. The developer who went bankrupt resulting in the foreclosure of the property did not like the HP recommendations to save just the facades. The city council overrode the HP decision and by midnight, the same day the bulldozers moved in, the buildings were gone. That's about as fast as a process as I've ever seen. I understand the city has concerns about vacancies, but that's the case for all of downtown. So don't make historic preservation the scapegoat. I urge this council to defeat this moratorium. It will be counterproductive to what we want downtown to be and diminish the sense of place and diversity of our built environments. These are the things that will attract visitors as downtown rises to meet the future. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Scott Seidler, Ryan Young, Deborah Smith.

Good afternoon. I'm Scott Seidler, 635 Delaney Ave, Orlando, 32801. I'm a restoration contractor and a former chair of the city's historic preservation board, and I'm here to ask you to please vote no on this ordinance, and here's why. The city says this moratorium is temporary, three years, just to study the effects. But here's the problem with that. The moratorium is temporary, but the changes will be forever. This ordinance will leave permanent scars on our city that you can't vote away in three years. You cannot undemolish a building. Once the wrecking ball swings downtown, no future council can ever vote that building back into existence. And the ARB has no historic preservation bona fides and is not the appropriate board to review these historic buildings. You're removing protections from some of your most treasured pieces of history to study what happens? That's like leaving the hen house open to investigate whether the fox will come. And here's the second cost that nobody's talking about. Historic status is what unlocks the federal historic tax credit and state level grants. That's federal money that never touches the city's budget used to rehab these very buildings, and Orlando barely uses it. Since 2001, developers in our city have captured just 37 million of that federal investment for historic buildings. Tampa pulled in $150 million, Jacksonville $170 million, Miami more than $600 million for historic buildings. We are dead last among Florida's major cities, so it's no wonder there is less development in our historic core here. This ordinance would push us further behind. On top of that, we're a CLG, a certified local government, a federal designation that we've talked about here, and it depends on us actually enforcing our preservation ordinance. Passing this ordinance as written puts that status at risk. The state was concerned enough when they saw this ordinance to write to the city last week saying as much. Please don't discount their opinion. And please, commissioners, think about the timing. As Tallahassee fights over slashing property taxes, this council wants to choke off one of the few funding tools that doesn't cost the city a dime. That's incredibly backwards. If investment really is the goal, I have a question then. You're offering a tax abatement in this ordinance. To spur development, good, offer it. But why bundle it with gutting the historic district? Give owners the carrot without stripping the protections. Nothing stops you from doing both. The truth is there are too many unanswered questions here, questions that the public deserves to weigh in on. The ordinance got zero public feedback before it was drafted in the dark of the night, rushed to a vote in five days, built to keep the public out of this room. Please don't reward that process. Vote no and tell city staff to do this in the open. And one last thing, you'll notice that there are a lot of older Orlandoans speaking out against this. I believe that's because these people better understand the importance of this town's history than anyone. I urge you to listen to their wisdom. Thank you.

Ryan Young, Deborah Smith, Betsy Owens.

Mayor, commissioners, good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me a few minutes to talk today. Ryan Young, 814 West Church Street. I'm an architect, a general contractor and an infill developer and have firsthand knowledge of the HPV process. My comments today are not a referendum on the past performance of the Historic Preservation Board. I appreciate the board service and all of the members that I have personally worked with in the past. However, I would like to offer another perspective of how we can embrace this three year moratorium as an opportunity to test new ideas. New ideas that allow for the redevelopment of buildings that have sat vacant for years. I started my career across the street in the SunTrust building on the 18th floor, and I clearly remember walking down the street and being able to go to TGI Fridays, Jungle Gyms, Ceviche for lunch, shopping on Church Street Exchange, and we even had Sharper Image Retail at the time, all within a city block, as downtown should be. Those may not be the tenants that we want today, but it did point to a thriving and active downtown. Perhaps this proposal offers a new and better way forward to allow progress to move at the speed conducive with the redevelopment we so desperately need downtown. It's my belief that our current processes generally need an overhaul. And this is a step in the right direction. Just because the code and the process has been written for years doesn't mean it's the correct way forward and it meets the needs of a developing and burgeoning city that we have today. To be clear, I am for maintaining our history with the few historical buildings that we do have. I am confident this can be accomplished through our ARB process as proposed. I'm supportive of this initiative with the hopes that our downtown can thrive, as I know it can. So please support this proposal. We cannot continue to afford to do more of the same. Thank you.

Thank you. Deborah Smith, Betsy Owens, Tim Hayes.

Good afternoon. My name is Deborah Smith. I live at 830 Palm Drive, Orlando, 32803. On June 8th, I attended the first reading to amend the ordinance, which requires the Historic Preservation Board to review development plans within the historic district. I'm asking you to pause this vote do more homework, reach out to the community, and I want to explain why. The rush to amend this ordinance raises serious concerns. The Historic Preservation Board is being cut out of the conversation. I have no idea why that happened. Commissioners and the public were given very little notice. Public's upset. Commissioners should be upset. And the staff presentation was thin on details relating to how any of this is the historic buildings fault. Um, I also found it misleading. I had a lot of questions and many commissioners didn't ask one question. Before moving forward, this commission should wait until the two way street conversions are complete. Let's give that a try. See what happens. Good idea. Additional street parking should be added in a study that involves All those involved in downtown should take place, be conducted and shared with the public at the June 8th meeting. A commissioner, it's not here speaking in defense of the moratorium said, I don't hear anyone saying they're going to tear down any historic buildings. I attended that entire meeting. I did not hear a single person say they would not tear down our historic buildings either. With so little information being shared, what are we to believe? I don't know. I also noticed on June 8th meeting that several commissioners who spoke offered little more than talking points in support of the moratorium. And others asked no questions and made no public comments and then voted yes. I don't know how that happens. How is that possible? I don't get it. So I don't think that's leadership at all. So blaming the historic preservation board and our historic buildings are not the obstacle. The lack of vision and transparency in this process is. Thank you.

Betsy Owens, Tim Hayes, Tom Price.

Good afternoon, Mayor Dyer and commissioners. My name is Betsy Owens, and I live at 3029 Westchester Avenue on the Orlando side of Orwin Manor. I'm here today as both an Orlando resident and as a historic preservation professional. I serve as the executive director of Casa Feliz Historic Home Museum in Winter Park, where a major part of our mission is advocating for the preservation of that city's historic and architectural assets. In Winter Park, we have often pointed to Orlando as a model to emulate, a city with six local historic districts, seven national register districts, and nearly 50 years of preservation leadership. In fact, this very week we invited Orlando's historic preservation officer to speak to 80 community leaders in Winter Park, about Orlando's historic preservation successes, hoping the city's example will inspire stronger efforts in our own community. So I'm deeply dismayed both as a preservationist and as an Orlando resident to see this moratorium being considered. I absolutely understand the need to revitalize downtown. I worked downtown in Orlando from 2016 to 2014, and I saw firsthand the deterioration of the downtown experience. I believe downtown's future is the most important issue facing this city. But it's simply not credible to suggest that historic preservation is the cause of downtown's lack of investment. Something about this doesn't pass the sniff test. I hope I'm wrong. Historic assets met with vision and investment are what give a place a sense of authenticity. They are what make a district memorable rather than generic. They are what attract people. It is why people are drawn to places like Audubon Park and Mills 50, neighborhoods with texture, a cool retro vibe, a sense of place. It is why every day Mears buses pick people up at the attractions and convention center and go down I-4 past downtown Orlando and are dumped out onto the National Register District of Park Avenue and Winter Park. because people are seeking history, authenticity, and charm. They are assets to be protected, adapted, marketed, and invested in. Downtown Orlando needs investment. It needs energy. It needs strategy. But weakening protections for the very buildings that make downtown distinctive is not a revitalization plan. It's a step backward. The communities that thrive are not the ones that discard their historic fabric when redevelopment becomes difficult. They are the ones that use vision to make those assets part of the solution. Thank you.

Tim Hayes, Tom Price, Diane Mortensen.

How's it going?

Tim Hayes, 711 East Ridgewood Street.

Before I get started, let's acknowledge these people behind us that are on camera the entire time. I sat there last meeting. Horrible mistake. You're going to be on every Instagram reel. Hopefully head nods while I'm talking. Mr. Unsler, you learned the lesson last time too. I am the vice president of the Lake Eola Heights Historic District, and we encompass just over 1,000 homes, businesses, and apartments within our boundaries. The Lake Eola Heights Historic Neighborhood Association strongly opposes the proposed moratorium on the downtown historic district and this ordinance. As a neighboring historic district, we oppose removing critical protections for our historic resources, even those framed as temporary. Removing the protections that help preserve our shared history for current and future residents could result in irreversible damage. It is true. Lake Eola Heights is directly impacted by the current blight vacancies and underdevelopment within the city's central business district. We agree that the city must take meaningful steps to attract new businesses and support downtown revitalization. However, we do not agree this moratorium is the solution. Many ground level properties located downtown include those located outside the downtown historic preservation overlay district remain vacant. Many ground level spaces in brand new downtown developments are also empty. This suggests that historic preservation requirements are not the driving cause of the underutilization affecting our central business district. The speed with which this ordinance has moved through the process is also deeply concerning. Public notice was issued on June 3rd with the first vote on June 8th. The limited time for public review, input, and meaningful discussion on a moratorium with lasting consequences has raised concerns among our neighbors. There is a growing perception that plans may already be in motion, potentially framed as necessary for development, but likely to put historic resources at risk without truly addressing the underlying challenges facing downtown. We urge the city to open this topic for broader public discussion and include neighboring historic districts, downtown business owners, developers, city staff, preservation advocates, and leaders from other cities that have successfully revitalized historic spaces. Together, we can find a path forward that honors our past while contributing to a stronger future of downtown Orlando. Signed, the Lake Eola Heights Historic Neighborhood Association. Thank you.

Thank you. Tom Price, Diane Martins, David Martins.

Mayor Dower, commissioners, Tom Price, architect, 554 Lake Avenue, Orlando. I was among those fortunate few, I think, the seven members that Mayor Carl Lankford invited to join the Preservation Board as founding members 50 years ago today, 1976. Seems like just last week practically. Our charge was to identify, define, document, and figure out how to protect these ancestors. All these buildings have been here now today at least 100 years, some of them 140 years. There's no one here who's been here that long. So we need to respect them and we need to protect them. One of the disadvantages of going near the last here is that all the good lines have been used. So one of the advantages of going is that I can try to synthesize. Everyone here is for the same reason. We all support downtown. We all love downtown. We've all worked in downtown. We want to see it thrive. I want to see it thrive as an architect. I enjoy new buildings as much as I do old buildings. And I enjoy and understand that if given the chance, the developers coming before the board, before the city of Orlando, can be inspired by old buildings if they ask their architects and task their architects to come up with new concepts, exciting concepts. We can stay on the map in this genre The only problem I see here is that the developers feel, and maybe rightfully so, that the sequence is out of order, that historic preservation gets the first word, which often they think is the last word. My recommendation, please, is to figure out, we have a lot of intelligence in this room. Probably half of Orlando's intelligence is here in this room. Figure out how to make this work for everybody. That's your charge. Without losing historic monuments, without losing new development, it can be done, believe me. I have confidence in today's young architects, and some of the old ones even. we still kick around and we do old buildings i can do an old building that i mean a new building that looks like an old building that's not what we're doing right here so please pause this moratorium give yourself enough time to study the issue and come up with a perfect sequence of review don't take chairs away from the table bring chairs to the table thank you thank you hey

Diane Martins, David Martins, Paul Skomsky.

Good afternoon, my name is Diane Martins. I'm at 229 East Amelia Street, Orlando, Florida, 32801, and I live in Lake Hill Heights Historic District. And today I'd like to discuss something that I want you guys to really think about. I'd like to discuss one of our prized gems in downtown Orlando, and that's the Church Street train station. The original structure was a modest wooden building constructed by the South Florida Railroad. This facility facilitated the transportation of local citrus farmers' produce from Orlando to Sanford, ultimately reaching the St. Johns River by a steamship. The railroad and citrus industry played a pivotal role in establishing Orlando's prominence on the map. As the citrus boom and subsequent population growth in Orlando necessitated the accommodation of the influx of citrus and passengers, the original structure was replaced with our magnificent Victorian Romanesque revival architecture, a style emphasized by permanence and historical grandeur. The three-story tower served as a distinctive feature of Victorian public transit buildings, and that is our Church Street Station. However, as Orlando continued to expand, the train station became overwhelmed by traffic. Consequently, the Atlantic Coast Line Railway officially relocated its main passenger operations to a new location further south, which is now the 1926 Sleigh Boulevard Station, which is now serving as our Amtrak station. The depot was repurposed as a freight and ticket office. Notably, instead of demolishing this beautiful Victorian building, they opted to construct a new station a mile or so away to accommodate passengers, demonstrating their recognition of the invaluable historic significance of this structure even then. By the mid-1980s, the depot was designated as a National Historic Landmark. In 1972, Bob Snow acquired the depot and surrounding buildings, transforming into the successful Church Street Station. However, the influx of Disney's Pleasure Island and Universal Seawalk drew crowds away from the area, leading to its decline. Today, the depot stands as a focal point for SunRail passengers. Given its enduring presence and acceptance as a downtown historic landmark, the depot deserves to remain untouched by developers who fail to comprehend the profound significance of history and historical structures. Let us remember our origins and recognize the importance of history to downtown Orlando. This ordinance threatens this and other historic resources, resources best left in the hands of experts, the Historic Preservation Board. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. David Martins, Paul Stomski, Rachel Williams.

Commissioners, Mayor Dyer. I have a long history of working with the city of Orlando and significant projects. I'm not going to go through my qualifications, but I would like to talk about world cup soccer in 1994, which brought the world to Orlando in a groundbreaking way. As any member of the executive committee, we collaborated closely with city officials throughout the rigorous selection process. Once Orlando was chosen, we faced numerous requirements to fulfill for FIFA. the organizing body of World Cup Soccer. This endeavor spanned at least two years working closely with the city of Orlando. This type of coordination works and would include a citizen level advisory board to effectively manage this major effort to transform downtown. We must work alongside the city, the developers, the retailers, small businesses and other stakeholders who will be involved in downtown's future. This planning council would collaborate with the current city boards, including the historic preservation board to reshape the future of downtown. The current approach of solely listening to advisors, to developers, it's insufficient and sidesteps a citizen involvement is vital. to a successful downtown. Another big reason this ordinance doesn't work for Orlando. Our neighborhood association in Lake Eola Heights succinctly articulated our concerns in a letter addressed to all commissioners and to the mayor. In the last paragraph, they stated, We urge the city to open this topic for broader public discussion and include neighboring historic districts, downtown business owners, developers, city staff, preservation advocates, and leaders from other cities that have successfully revitalized their historic spaces. Together we can find a path forward that honors our past while contributing to a stronger future for downtown Orlando. Thank you. Thank you.

Paul Skonski, Rachel Williams, Jerry Matheny.

Mayor, commissioners, Paul Skomsky, 1400 East Ridgewood Street in Orlando. Private equity versus government versus historic preservation. That discussion isn't specific to this room. I'm in support of the initiative, but with a giant asterisk. On February 4th of this year, I had conversations with Chris Fowler and Jack Williams with the National Registry of Historic Places in Tallahassee regarding a certain matter downtown. At the end of that discussion, I asked for any last suggestions. The response was that they prefer familiarity over accuracy. With that direction as a guide, I would strongly advise developers and government to keep the facades of the buildings on Church Street. Except for the Cheyenne Saloon, which is savable but can't financially exist alone, the buildings have been stripped and headed to the same fate as former Woolworths and McCrory buildings, old favorites hiding a giant rat civilization inside of a fire trap. my solution keep the facades but sacrifice sacrifice the antiquated buildings this is doable as mr fowler and williams suggested take familiarity over accuracy build beautiful functional new buildings behind the facades but do not lose the spirit of the identity of what bob snow built Bob was a close friend of mine. I would suggest you keep the walkover bridge. He had told me that he designed it to look like a railroad car, and he did. If you look at it the next time you see it, my solution is have set designers fabricate two pairs of ultra-realistic looking fiberglass train wheels and attach them to each side of the bottom of the train car. Call it the Bob Snow line. In fact, call the whole block the Snow Belt, but do not lose Bob Snow to redevelopment. By all measures, keep the historic train depot. Aim for a tenant that's not going to go away. And think outside the box. My thoughts keep drifting to Apple, a company like Apple. But not just Apple, but an Apple megastore. The creatives would salivate at the opportunity to repurpose the fabric of the old depot while consciously ushering the past. into the expanding future. Offer a rent package they cannot refuse. Initial rent incentives in exchange for Apple providing security. As the technology arrives, and it will, have a vision of friendly robots, snowbots, who offer information, directions, weather reports, et cetera, all done while filming 360 degrees for security, crime, and loss prevention measures. This is going to happen somewhere, sometime, and why not us? Orlando is a if you build it, they will come city. Build this and watch Bob Snow's millions of tourists start coming back to downtown Orlando in a safe, unique, charming, and functional atmosphere. Lastly, thank you.

Thank you. Rachel Williams, Jerry Matheny, Jeff Guido.

Hello. My name is Rachel Williams. I'm the historian at the Orange County Regional History Center, but I am representing myself as a concerned citizen. The Orange County Regional History Center is located at 65 East Central Boulevard. It's housed in a previous county courthouse, which was built nearly 100 years ago. I hope my personal and professional perspective can provide some insight on this issue. Many people believe that Orlando's history started in 1971 when Disney came to town. And perhaps part of that is due to the ever dwindling number of historic buildings in the area. The area is rich in history and most notably probably is the business history here. Spanning from cattle to citrus to military to tourism, Orlando has been on a trajectory of growth and development long before Disney came here. Historic buildings in downtown districts, in general, offer a charm that attracts locals and tourists alike, looking to the artful craftsmanship once present in architecture that has been lost to sleek, dominating high-rises that litter downtown landscapes today. seeking a historic building amidst the modern lifeless skyscrapers is like seeing a living piece of art or a living piece of history while i understand the allure of private investment i don't see why we can't strike a balance between historic preservation within a modern landscape Why can't we repurpose buildings while preserving their historic nature? I've seen council statements in the media ensuring that this is the goal. However, bypassing the historic preservation boards seems counterintuitive and contradictory to this mission. Why aren't they being included in this decision? Look at cities that have leaned into their history as a factor of driving tourism. Savannah, New Orleans, St. Augustine, for example. These cities have thriving historic districts because they market their history as a vector of tourism. We can do the same because Orlando's history is more than just Disney. Before we lose what's left of our architectural history, I implore the council to listen to the concerned citizens, have discussions with local historians, and weigh the options here. There is value in preservation. There's economic value in promoting the history of the city. Revitalization should not come at the cost of erasing our living history. Thank you.

Thank you. Jerry Matheny. Jeff Guido and Kino Martinez.

afternoon mayor commissioners and staff uh my name is jerry metheny uh vp of brokerage at first capital property group we're a full service commercial brokerage here in the city of orlando for approximately 15 years i've worked in downtown orlando commercial real estate representing property owners investors and businesses with a significant portion of that work involving older and historic properties including nearly a dozen historic properties in downtown Orlando. We presided over multiple facade improvement projects and more than 100,000 square feet of renovation in downtown Orlando's historic buildings. And I can tell you firsthand experience navigating the HPV review process is a significant challenge that is 100% impacting the amount of incoming capital that we're seeing that's looking to invest in downtown Orlando. I support the proposed 36-month pause because I believe it creates an opportunity to reduce uncertainty, encourage investment, and improve the feasibility of projects involving older downtown buildings. um long before a project reaches final decision point investors are evaluating historic properties not only for the property itself but also for the anticipated review process timeline and likelihood of successfully executing their vision for the project for many investors evaluating these properties that review process is perceived as challenging uncertain and difficult to predict, and as a result, it often becomes part of the investment analysis long before any of these formal applications are submitted to HPB for review. That perception can influence whether an opportunity moves forward in the level of capital that's ultimately committed. Why does this matter? That uncertainly translates into additional carrying costs, as the gentleman mentioned earlier, consultant costs, longer timelines, and in some cases, higher financing costs. In my position representing property owners and investors, evaluating these opportunities, I have seen the historic review process present meaningful challenges during evaluation and underwriting of certain projects, including situations where obtaining clarity regarding relatively minor issues proved significantly difficult. Why is this especially important for downtown? The downtown district is located directly within the path of growth and represents one of the most visible opportunities for adaptive reuse, redevelopment, and reinvestment into downtown Orlando. However, when uncertainty surrounding those opportunities increases, reinvestment may occur more slowly, fewer groups may be willing to pursue these projects, and capital may ultimately be directed towards opportunities in other markets. that are perceived as more predictable, sometimes resulting in lost opportunities for investment, job creation, property improvement and economic activity in downtown Orlando. I believe the more successful we are at reducing uncertainty and encouraging investment, the more likely we are to see investment in the buildings and properties that contribute to the character and economic vitality of downtown Orlando. Thank you.

Thank you. Jeff Guitto and then Kino Martinez.

Hello.

Mayor, council, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on this. To be upfront, my name is Jeffrey Jito, 116 South Orange Avenue, 32801. I do own commercial real estate that's historic, and I do own commercial residences, but I'm not a developer. I'M A DOWNTOWN BUSINESS OWNER AND I'VE BEEN DOWNTOWN FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS. I THINK I SERVE IN A UNIQUE POSITION IN THE FACT THAT I'M FORTUNATE TO HAVE THOSE THINGS THAT I JUST SAID, BUT ALSO SEEING ORLANDO THROUGH QUITE A BIT IN 30 YEARS FROM HOUSE MUSIC TO BLACK MONDAY, COVID, PULSE, THE GREAT RECESSION, A LOT, LIKE SO MUCH I CAN FORGET IT. I have to say I am in support of this. And I know for some people who might put me in a box, the box is not what you think it is. But from a reality of development downtown, the HPB in and of itself can cause more delays and cause much more expenses. For example, there are two balconies on Orange Avenue that weren't there. I had to work with Mr. Frank Billingsley for a while, probably took a year and a half to get those balconies approved. We had to send steel to Massachusetts to be tested three times. Just a lot. And I think you go through that PTSD once or twice, it just sets in and it becomes almost a thing. Kind of like how right now people think downtown is unsafe. And that's a subjective thing, I think, on some levels, right? Because we're talking about vibrancy of downtown. So we've got downtown, our stats are a little safer, but people still think it's unsafe. My point is the disconnect between what people think and what things are. I'm in support of this because I think we're kind of all as a community really trying to find what is wrong, what Our identity kind of is our town, and why haven't we been able to get out of that with Church Street being a classic example? I wish I had the answer. I wouldn't be up here supporting, putting a moratorium on the Historic Preservation Board, and I was very much part of a lot of the downtown Orlando venues. We had to collectively go to the table with the stakeholders. Nobody left the table happy. I don't think anybody leaves this table happy. I think it's just a pure bat swing. Obviously my opinion. But at the end of the day, there's not a lot more tools in the tool belt to kind of go after this. I like to think about, 15 seconds. Okay, philosophy. Hobbes versus Rousseau. Man is either inherently good or inherently self-interested. I think that see what people do with the historic Assets that they purchased.

I think they'll surprise you Thank You Gino Martinez

Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, commissioners. Kino Martinez, 215 North Yola Drive, Orlando, 32801. Like several others, I was also a history major. I live in a 100 plus year old home. And I work in a building that John Lowndes and partners bought in the early 80s, a really nice older building on Lake Eola. But I'm here today with respect to support the three year moratorium on obtaining a certificate of appropriateness. And I want to tell you why. One, I think this is a meaningful acceleration tool for downtown redevelopment. And I think there's five reasons why that can be. I think we have a little bit of a log jam in terms of bringing capital and some of the development that will support the retail that we all talk about wanting downtown. And I think this is something that could spur development. And I think there's five reasons why. it reduces entitlement uncertainty. The current process creates an additional discretionary layer for adaptive reuse, facade work, additions, new construction. That uncertainty affects underwriting. Removing or pausing that layer for the downtown historic district could shorten timelines and make downtown projects easier to finance. Second, it makes older buildings easier to reuse. Many downtown buildings are not economically obsolete because they lack value. They are obsolete because of the cost, the time, and the risk of reuse are too high. A temporary pause could encourage owners to renovate vacant or underused buildings, especially if review is redirected through predictable downtown design standards. Third, it can attract earlier private capital. Capital, as Mr. Matheny suggested, capital follows certainty. A three year window creates urgency. Owners, developers and tenants know there's a temporary period in which projects may move faster. Fourth, it supports restaurant, retail, and office recruitment. Restaurants and retailers need activated streets and improved building stock. Office users need modernized buildings and amenity rich environments. If the moratorium helps bring vacant or underutilized downtown properties back into productive use, it can improve the core downtown environment that premium tenants require. Fifth and finally, Orlando is already advancing district-scale projects such as Create a Village, West Court, and the Packing District. It can reinforce Orlando's existing downtown development strategy. This targeted moratorium could complement that strategy by improving the smaller-scale building fabric between major projects, filling gaps, activating storefronts, and reducing dead zones. Thank you.

Thank you. That was the end of the public testimony, so Commissioner Sheehan will be first up. But why don't we take exactly a five-minute break, and then we'll be first up with your presentation, Commissioner. But you can get set up during that five minutes.

Oh thanks.

It could be the first time I've used that in 23 years. All right, Commissioner Sheehan, you're up.

Thank you, Mayor Dyer. Is the presentation up yet? There we go. Okay, I know it's a little unprecedented for a city commissioner to make a presentation at city council. There's a reason for that, because I feel very strongly about what's happening here today. I'm the longest serving member of this board. I've run every single time on historic preservation, and I represent most of the historic districts in Orlando, except for the downtown, which I used to have, which I lost to District 5 in redistricting. So this is very, very important to me. And this is why I'm making this presentation today. It pains me to be at odds with my friends, my staff, my legal department. It pains me. But I think what I have to say today is very, very important. We start from shared goals. We've talked today all day long about shared goals. We all want a vibrant downtown, more investment, more housing, thriving businesses, historic character, and an efficient review. We all want the same things. We are not that far apart. What is the Downtown HP Overlay District? It was established in 1980, has 66 contributing buildings, it's 35 acres, the DTO study area is 509 acres, and the CRA district is 1,664 acres. Yet they're blaming 35 acres for the problems of 1,664 acres. I don't think that's fair. This is the Legacy 9. These are the buildings that we are most likely to lose through this process. And everyone keeps saying, this is not a demolition process. Guess what? If you don't have historic preservation, you will have demolition. That's just how it works. Historic preservation stops demolition. That's what historic preservation does. And I think it's important to look at what we could potentially lose here. Bumby Hardware, 1886. The Rogers Keeney building that Ford Keeney so generously donated to us would no longer have protections from subsequent city councils. The old Railway Depot, 1890. These buildings have been around for a long time. The Hunt Brannon Building. It's the native social bar right now. The Nicholson Collier Building. This is actually on the Florida Black Heritage Trail. The Slemons Department Store, which was the centerpiece of Rosie O'Grady's, and I'm channeling my friend Bob Snow today. I'm wearing one of his belt buckles, which I bought at his estate sale. The man had a huge investment in beauty, and he knew what he was doing, and he knew history mattered. The Beecham Theater, it might not look great right now, but it was our big theater in downtown. The First National Bank, it's a beautiful building, and also the Crest Building. This is one that I can point to where the developer and the owner has done the right thing. Rob Yeager is committed to historic preservation. He's committed to having his buildings rented out. He has wonderful tenants, and he's a successful businessman. Maybe instead of talking about tearing everything down, we should look about what Rob's doing right. The central claim is that historic preservation regulations are severely impeding redevelopment and contributing to downtown blight. Has sufficient evidence been presented to support that conclusion? The larger the policy change, the stronger the evidence required, and we should have time to evaluate that. Many of my colleagues here today have asked, well, we're getting in tonight, have asked about this process and everything like that. I've been on this council, like I say, for 26 years. I'm the longest serving member. I have never seen anything jam through this quickly without any public input. It's distressing to me. The larger the policies change, the stronger the evidence should be required. We have 45 years of preservation policy. This affects an entire district, not a single project. And this is 36 months, a path to permanent destruction. This ordinance is the largest possible change. Where is the largest possible evidence? The burden of proof, the DTO action plan. What does downtown need most? DTO professionally commissioned a study of downtown as a whole to identify what works and what needs improvement to facilitate pedestrian activity and contribute to a sense of vibrancy. The downtown district, historic district, has the highest metrics. It's in the DTO plan. Why does the DTO show the downtown historic district with some of the highest metrics if it's causing blight? Again, this is from the DTO action plan. Block quality. Block quality considers the size of the block, how the uses cover the block, and how many uses are in that block. The area that we're talking about is very high. It's actually good. Why are you blaming it for the problems in downtown when the historic district is actually very good and highly rated in the DTO action plan? Connected structure measures the urban fabric's connectivity, walkability, and integrity. Downtown has a relatively well-connected street structure, particularly in the central part of the downtown core. It's good. We have good bones here. Downtown is exceptional bones, small blocks on the present sidewalks of good dimension and geometry cover the downtown. Pine Street between Orange Avenue and Rosalind Avenue is the portrait of a high performer. This experience of strong bones should be an example moving forward. Again, I'm getting all this from DTO action plan. The same DTO that wants to destroy the historic district. What the ordinance actually changes, and y'all please, if you could just listen to me on this, this is so important to me. The current process is the property owner goes before Historic Preservation Board review. They have the right to appeal. City Council has the final decision. The proposed moratorium, the property owner goes directly to appearance review and then they can pull a demolition permit after they show their plans. This does not protect historic buildings. Substantive historic review is replaced by lighter appearance review. Demolition review is downgraded from major to minor. I can't stress that enough. Demolishing an old building is major, it's not minor. Has the board actually stopped redevelopment? No, zero times has the Historic Preservation Board rejected applications from the downtown district in the past five years. No, zero. There have been no pre-op requests to demolish any buildings in the past five years. HPB has approved numerous requests for storefront redevelopment awnings and outdoor cafes. These are all of the projects that have been approved by the Historic Preservation Board that everybody's saying, oh, they're stopping everything. One South Orange approved, new glass storefront, 19 South Orange, a new cafe, 63 North Orange, a new cafe, 190 South Orange, new storefront, removing the granite base and replacing all the ground floor windows with doors. 100 North Orange, new storefront, nano wall doors and cafe. If you all don't know what nano walls are, they're basically glass. You can't get more modern than that, okay? But the Historic Preservation Board approved that. 130 South Orange, new overhead doors. 18 Wall Street, new awnings, balconies, storefront replacing second story windows with doors. These are projects that have all been approved by the Historic Preservation Board. This is one that was approved, 18 Wall Street. Major certificate of appropriateness, removing the awning, adding a balcony, converting two windows to doorways. It was reviewed and approved. The process allows change before and after. This is the first national bank building at 190 South Orange. They removed the ground floor windows, replaced them with doorways for a new interior layout. This is where the Walgreens was. So the board did approve significant changes to allow this adaptive reuse. And again, this slide 61 East pine street, the Robinson cocktail room. This outdoor cafe was approved. Historic preservation minor review process is a fast-tracked way to make approvals easier. Then this photo was taken from the DTO action plan showing what's working downtown. These are some of the past approvals. City staff has said that HPB will not allow new awnings or overhangs for outdoor cafes unless they are exact copies of the originals. This is Church Street Station. None of this is original. Bob Snow created all this. HPB approved new balconies, columns, wrought iron railings, awnings, outdoor cafes, and even a bridge, none of which were there before. And I love this. I hope we keep this because I think it's cool. Like Paul said, I think it's amazing. I think we should keep these beautiful amenities. Staff claims there are no more federal tax credits or state grants. There are federal tax credits and state grants. They're both available. Staff claims the moratorium does not eliminate demolition protections. The moratorium eliminates protections. That's why I'm so passionately speaking against this today. Once a building permit has been issued, the demolition cannot be refused. Cannot be refused, y'all. Staff claims there are few cities with downtown historic districts and only Savannah comes to mind. There are hundreds of cities in the U.S. with downtown historic districts. When I travel, I don't say, gee, where are the highest economic impact buildings in your city? I say, where are your landmarks? Don't we all do that? So how is this against economic development? And what is at stake? Orlando stands to lose significant financial incentives under a moratorium. Since 21, there have been 265 historic tax credit projects in Florida overall. Total development costs over 1.5 billion, nearly 270 million in historic tax credits, and it's created nearly 24,000 jobs. Three projects have qualified in Orlando. The Aloft Hotel, $4 million tax credit. Baptist Terrace Apartments in my district, $3.5 million tax credit. And the Lartigue Building, $91,000 tax credit. Any demolished building will no longer be eligible for these tax credits. And if someone wants to apply for them, someone wants to do the right thing, we're in danger of losing all of this funding. This is an example of true adaptive reuse. The OUC becomes a loft. The property owner went through HPB review, adaptive reuse approved. The owner received a $4 million tax credit. It was adapted, not fully restored to its original design, and it still won approval. The standards are not too restrictive. And what's at stake? I am distressed at being at odds with my legal department. But I have been in touch with Tyler Smith at the Florida Department of State. And if we pass this today, we will be decertified today. We will lose grant money today. That's why I am begging for this to be deferred. Okay. Since 1981 to 2016, the public and private historic preservation grants awarded in Orlando through local government grants, 17 different grants awarded totaling $3.7 million. Okay? From 2017 to 2027, public and private historic preservation grants awarded in Orlando from eight different grants, $3.67 million. This is not the chump change that was talked about. And the projects included Kerouac House, St. Louis Cathedral Church, Black Bottom House of Prayer. Remember we all fought to save that? Maxie Croom's house, Plaza Live in my district is a beautiful building. They got this historic redone, the little thing at top that spins, it's beautiful. The Williams Wells house, that was so important to the African American community. The Lou House and the Lake Oven Hall Power Plant, these are all projects that receive state funding and we will not be eligible for this anymore if we do this today. Again, these are these important historic buildings that I think, and I think the majority of Orlandoans anyway, the ones that I've knocked on their door, over 15,000 of them and talked to, this is important to them. These buildings are important to them. This is, this is preservation done, right? The crest building. I can't say enough good things about Rob Yeager. Cause he's the only one doing it the right way. He received, he only received $54,000 for exterior cleaning, painting, and canopy repair under a 2022 CRA grant. He has active tenants. He's he is going to expand the crest building. There are Chris buildings, by the way, all over America. And the lesson here is investment and historic of you are working together, not against each other. The Hearst building in Manhattan, the staff has referenced the Hearst building in Manhattan as a shining example of what downtown developers could do if the historic preservation board was not in the way. It can be done in Orlando. The city of Orlando follows the exact same interior standards as New York City. The ordinance stops demolition, not development. Maybe HPB is not the problem, maybe it's the developers. And HPB tried in Orlando. There here are the minutes from the HPB hearing. They voted to retain the facades of the McCrory's and Woolworth buildings in 2003. They ended up getting torn down. I voted against that. I think I was the only one on that one too, okay? There are, it's been said there are no other Florida downtown historic districts. There are 31 downtown historic districts with nine districts in large cities in Florida, including Miami, Jacksonville, and West Palm Beach. Other national downtown historic districts, downtown Chicago, downtown Boston, downtown Los Angeles. Estimates indicate that hundreds of US cities, ranging from major metropolises to mid-sized municipalities, possess overlaying historic districts directly in their downtown, directly in their downtown business centers, directly in their downtown business centers. And this is the case study on Woolworth McCrory's. Council has already used this authority to approve a downtown demolition redevelopment under the current framework. Under the current framework. We don't have to do this and lose all our state funding and our historic preservations. Okay, what happened in Woolworth McCrory's? There was historic preservation review. Then there was an appeal. Council overrode the HPB. They demolished it hours later and they redeveloped it. Okay? The current process did not block redevelopment and the system bends when the case is made. But newer is not better. All right? The only place we had to shop in downtown was the McCrory's building because it had some cool little shops in it. All right? Now we have the plaza. And this is Cameron Kuhn celebrating when they tore down the buildings. The developer of the plaza went bankrupt, the building was foreclosed on, the theaters in most of the retail spaces are vacant, and the former Court Street is now a seedy service alley. By midnight on the day it was approved, the bulldozers had begun to raze the buildings and the developer celebrated making way for the plaza and Solera. Newer is not better. We invested $6 million in CRA funds to build the plaza's movie theater. I voted for it. I voted against the demolition, but I voted for this. It opened in 2009 and now it's closed. Demolition and new construction do not guarantee success. Management does. Newer already failed to block away with public money. Again, these are some pictures of the plaza. Tell me how vibrant. This is. Tell me how beautiful this is. Tell me why we had to lose the few storefronts that we had along Orange Avenue where I go across the street and buy a card. Tell me why that's so important that that's had to go away so we get a closed escalator. Garbage in the garages. And more empty storefronts. This is just more empty storefronts in new buildings. Mondrian and Solera, they have empty storefronts. Plaza, Solera, and 201 South Orange, all empty storefronts. 55 West, Morgan & Morgan, Regions Bank, and The Society, all empty storefronts, not in the Historic District. All right, newer is not better. Society, steel house, and radius. We require first floor retail. They let it sit there vacant. Land banking is the problem, folks, not historic preservation. Who is actually restricting downtown? Some of the folks that come by today talked about the interest rates, the high cost, construction costs, crime and safety. Land banking I feel is the biggest problem because these folks buy these buildings and then they sit on them and they buy historic buildings and say, oh gee, the answer is to just tear them all down. Parking is a concern and mismanagement. There is no reason why these buildings shouldn't be full. I have friends that had businesses along Church Street that were harassed and kicked out by their landlords. All right? If you won't let your tenants use the bathroom and it's a restaurant, that's a big deal. This is the kind of monkey business these folks are doing, and then they say they can't rent their spaces. All right. Council already has the final word, y'all. The HPB makes a recommendation, not final decisions. Those recommendations can be appealed. The city council already holds final authority over every project. If council already decides why suspend preservation protections district-wide for three years and why lose all that federal and state money, it makes no sense. These are the buildings that we could lose. The Tinker Building, built in 1925. The Crest Building, built in 1935. The Nicholson Collier Building. And I want to talk about that. It carries immense cultural and historical weight as a milestone for black entrepreneurship in central Florida. It is featured on the Florida Black Heritage Trail. My proposal today is to defer the second vote. in light of this new information. Everybody in the room said, let's have more discussion. Okay, let's do that. Defer the second vote. Allow for a more thorough evaluation of historic preservation and its impacts. You've heard people say, save the facades. We're okay with redevelopment. We don't do that, but we can't do that if you could demolish the facades willy-nilly like this ordinance allows. Bring people together, city staff, historic preservation board, and our historic preservation officer. And if anybody goes after her, I'll be the first one to testify at her PERC hearing. She was not included in this, and we have treated her badly. It's not fair. She has a master's degree in historic preservation. She's probably the most educated and knowledgeable historic preservation officer in the state of Florida, and she was left out of this process. Property owners and the public, the property owners should be included as well, absolutely. Not this rush to demolish our shared history. We all agree that the city and property owners need to do more to reactivate all of downtown. All city policies should be reviewed in a transparent method to determine their impact on redevelopment and the city should look to other cities for successful best practices like we have on everything. The city has not shown that preservation is the cause. The city's own data shows downtown is already growing under the current framework. But slow down, demand the evidence, improve the process. Don't suspend it. Don't throw our historic preservation out. And I'm going to be clear about why I voted against the Church Street streetscape last week. I didn't put it together because I was having to read this all at the same time on the dais as I saw this ordinance coming through. Why would we pay for a church? I think that a streetscape makes sense supporting an historic district because it's a public benefit use. But if we're gonna let Shore Street be demolished, why should we be paying the freight for the developers? They should pay for their own streetscape. And y'all, it's not like I didn't try to talk to staff. I always try to work with staff on these issues. But I could not because this was not done in the right way. And I'm begging you to slow this process down. And this 30 days is not enough because if we vote on this today, we are going to immediately lose the ability to get that state funding, state and federal funding. And my problem is, why should we reward the people who don't want to do historic preservation while punishing the people that do because that money is going to be gone and it will be gone forever as well. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Sheehan. Just a couple quick points. Council retains final authority over the developments under either scenario. Ultimately, anything that goes through in this new process comes right here just like it would if it went through the old process. The problem is none of that stuff ever makes it to Council because it's killed either because developers don't have any certainty whatsoever whenever they go through this process they're not willing to make it we had five at least five different people that work in that area get up and say I can't advise my clients to work in this process because they have no surety we're not trying to blame the historic district we're looking at the rest of DTO which is thriving we've got development everywhere except there so we're wanting to help the historic district and I will agree With the notion that everybody in this room I think wants the same thing which is a vibrant historic district and We disagree on how to get there But we do know no one got up and said this process is working for the people that want to invest money there Commissioner Barnes

Thank you mayor and thank you commission for that presentation because there were a lot of things that you bought up that I was not aware of but I did have a question for staff and maybe you can answer this as well has the city ever offered incentives for the redevelopment of these properties, similar to what we we're proposing. It's in the program.

I'll let David respond to that but we've had police during the time period that I've been here any number of different type of incentive programs aimed at the downtown.

But I mean to the level that we're that we're proposing now, you know because facades of one thing but when we're talking about the recapture of you know taxes and things of that is that's a lot more significant than what I've seen

That is correct, Commissioner. We have done extensive facade grant programs. We even extended them, allowing for the CRA to pay for 80% of those refurbishments to enhance facades. And as you know, we also created the restaurant incentive program, which you just approved some today, that can apply up to $400,000 of incentives. But to the extent of what you mentioned, what we'll be proposing at our next meeting, having very extensive tax increment recaptures, specifically targeted to historic structures, that would be new for us.

that will be new so we have not done that right so so so but my next question is kind of associated with the certainty because I keep hearing that developers want certainty and I know you know when you make an investment you want certainty in and some of these projects don't even get to the municipal planning board. Have there been any ideas bought up that we can create more certainty for these developers without bypassing the municipal planning board? Has there been a discussion? I mean, historic preservation board.

Yeah, it's been trying to understand what is working. And what we did find out for those developers is what process that we have that they did feel provided them that certainty that they were willing to make investments. uh as you know oftentimes before they would even come talk to the city there's hundreds of thousands of dollars spent either on even potential acquisition or getting plans and reports done to make sure that their plans are feasible and can have some chance of success um what we heard back was that at the process that we have was similar is the appearance review process which is kind of what started the conversation of aligning the review process for all of downtown so they're saying the appearance review process has been the barrier No, they're saying that that process has worked in providing that certainty while also preserving good architectural values.

OK. And then the other one is, my other question is associated with the 30-day notification. I know, Mayor, you said that we receive legal guidance from our attorney that it doesn't apply to us. commission she and presented information that countless that. So I would like to you know the fire city attorney can chime in Stacey.

Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mayor, Stacy Fallon, Assistant City Attorney. The guidelines require us to provide a 30-day review for amendments to our local preservation ordinance. This moratorium, as proposed, does not amend our local preservation ordinance. It is not a co-change. It is not a codification. The overlay remains. The local preservation ordinance remains intact. It's our position that this is a change of a rule of procedure, which requires notification in our annual reporting, which was always the intent to do so.

And with all due respect, the state is saying that this will make our CLG null and void as of adoption. So I just want to make that clear. I didn't get that from our attorneys. I talked directly to the source. And I think the state knows what their rules are, probably better than we do, apparently, because I think it's important to present the proper information. Again, I do not like being at odds with staff. But I also think it's important, since it's an important issue to the public, that this be transparent.

You done, Commissioner Burns?

I'm finished, thank you.

Commissioner Chapin.

Thank you, Mayor. I've received a lot of input on this subject, both sides. As everybody's pointed out, we all love downtown. I've also received a letter in the email saying that historic funding could be at risk. If we move this fast, we're getting our attorney's opinion on that, and we're also going to delay enactment in order to make sure that happens. I think it's an argument that's difficult to reconcile. Over the past seven years, we've watched the state increasingly preempt local decisions, making and today advancing measures that could remove billions of dollars from local governments. So against that backdrop, I find it difficult to accept the argument that Orlando should alter its local planning decisions because of a relatively small amount of state funding might be at risk. My responsibility is not to Tallahassee. My responsibility is to the residents of Orlando. And the message I hear over and over again is simple. People want a downtown that feels alive again. People are concerned about affordable housing, public safety, economic opportunity, transportation in the future.

I want to address the notion that

Supporting this moratorium somehow means I don't appreciate downtown's legacy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I grew up in Orlando. As a young man, I worked at Church Street Station as a guest service host. I also valet parked cars for a different company alongside plenty of Boone High School and Florida State students who came home during the summers and the holidays. Back then, downtown Orlando was one of the most vibrant destinations in Florida. I remember seeing John Anderson at Cheyenne Saloon. He was right down the road from Apopka. Mayor Dyer, remember him? Sure. 30 years later, I can still remember that music. In fact, some of us probably still know every word to Seminole Wind. What I don't remember was the color of the grout. And I think that's part of the point. I remember Nickel Beer Night at Phineas Fogg's. I remember World Cup when it was downtown. It was packed with fans from around the world. What made those memories special wasn't the buildings, it was the people. And that's exactly why this issue matters to me. I've gone back and reviewed more than a decade of historic preservation minutes this whole week. And to repeat Mr. Usler, this is not HPB members' fault. This is the fault of the ordinance. This is what they're dealing with. Not laying blame here. But I found repeated examples where property owners like Brian Wilson, who testified today, sought to invest in historic buildings, including the historic train depot, which proposed new restaurants, meeting space, outdoor dining, and a new activity while preserving the building itself.

Mr. Price said to be innovative. This plan was innovative.

Yet much of the discussion focused on mural colors, materials, lighting, awnings, grout, picket fences, and even where elevators should be, bathrooms should be, and kitchens should be. The question isn't whether we preserved an awning, approved a mural color, or debated the location of the bathroom. The question is whether downtown Orlando is producing the housing activity, investment, and vibrancy our residents want. I've also heard critics suggest that if Historic Preservation Board denies a project, the city council can simply override the decision. Respectfully, that's not how government should work. We can't simply ignore our own ordinances. And if we overturn a denial, the ordinance remains in place. And if that decision is appealed, a court will not ask whether the council wanted more housing, more investment, or more vibrant downtown. The court will ask whether we followed the ordinance. That means the same uncertainty, the same delays, and the same conflict simply move to the next project. The reality is, that that uncertainty doesn't just affect the projects that get denied, it affects the projects that never got proposed in the first place. I've also heard criticism we're moving too fast. Frankly, my question is what took us so long? The concerns reflected in the minutes span years. The frustrations expressed by property owners, business owners, and applicants span more than a decade. But this issue extends far beyond those directly involved in the process. One of the questions I'm asked most often from citizens is simple. How do we fix downtown? Residents want more activity. They want more restaurants. They want more housing. They want more people living downtown. They want a downtown that feels vibrant, safe, and alive. The results speak for themselves. Over the past 15 years, other parts of downtown have seen significant investment.

Meanwhile, the historic preservation overlay has seen no comparable investment.

At some point, we have to stop debating process and start evaluating outcomes.

If one area of downtown is attracting investment while others remain largely stagnant,

We have a responsibility to ask why. I believe the ordinance and the uncertainty it creates are a significant part of that answer. This conversation is long overdue. I can tell you I've had plenty of input. I've visited with neighbors in their kitchen counters. I've emailed constituents. I've read news stories. I've seen social media. Because what creates a sense of place? As Betsy Owens stated, we've got some great senses of place, Audubon Park, Blue Gardens, our Main Streets, they are all great. But I can tell you, our residents are giving up on downtown. Is it buildings alone or is it people? I argue it's people. Building by themselves do not create a sense of place. People do. If we want walkability, affordability, sustainability, and a vibrant downtown, we need more people living downtown. A historic building with no tenants, no customers, no residents, and no investment may be preserved physically, but it's not preserved as a living part of the city. My concern is that the ordinance this council adopted decades ago was written for a different time in a different downtown. Today, it just makes it extraordinarily difficult to produce the housing, investment, economic activity, and downtown vitality that residents consistently tell me they want to see. This is not a vote to limit historic preservation. It's these plans still need to be reviewed by the ARB. The apparent review board planning building fire. The parents review board is no walk in the park. I can tell you that. After listening to consistence, reviewing the record and looking at the condition of downtown, I do not believe the current ordinance is producing the results our residents want, and perhaps the most important question we should be asking ourselves today is this. Are we creating the next generation of downtown memories? I believe we can respect our history while also creating a path towards more housing, more investment, more economic opportunity. I believe there's a difference between preserving history and freezing history. The best way to protect historic buildings is to keep them relevant, occupied, invested in, and economically viable. The purpose of preservation should not be to freeze downtown in time. The purpose of preservation is to ensure that our history remains a living and productive part of the city. We should honor our past, but we should not allow policies adapted decades ago to prevent us from building the future our citizens want and deserve. For those reasons, I will be supporting the moratorium.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Keene.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to try to keep this fairly brief here. We've had a long afternoon. Orlando's downtown historic district has lacked, as we've heard today, major investments over the last 15 years. This targeted moratorium evaluates existing regulations that may be hindering projects within the business district. So I want to be clear that I support the moratorium today, the temporary moratorium, because it allows us to better understand how we can preserve our historic character while ensuring downtown is still economically competitive. Preservation is most successful when buildings are occupied, maintained, and economically viable. And again, I'm repeating what folks on both sides have said today. I want to thank Commissioner Sheehan for her very good remarks today and for Commissioner Chapin as well. We have good people on both sides. I also want to thank the people who came to speak to me about this in my office, including members of the Historic Preservation Board. as well as those that are very passionate about the preservation of Orlando who emailed me their thoughts and concerns. But this moratorium is a way that I believe is a way to balance historic preservation as well as the economic development needs of the city. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Rose.

Thank you to everyone who came to speak today. Thank you, Commissioner Sheehan, for sharing your views on the ordinance. My support for the moratorium is rooted in a broader goal, accelerating downtown revitalization and removing barriers that may be preventing investment, redevelopment, and housing opportunities here in our urban core. downtown orlando continues to face significant challenges as shown in a bit in the pictures that commissioner sheen in her presentation we have vacant properties underutilized buildings declining foot track foot traffic and a need for a moratorium that creates an opportunity for more residential and commercial activity The proposed moratorium is intended to provide a temporary window to evaluate whether our current review processes are unintentionally discouraging developments that could help bring people, businesses, and economic activity back to downtown. This is not about eliminating historic preservation. Orlando remains committed to preserving its history and cultural assets. There have been stated concerns about demolition, but I want to reiterate the policy for those who do not understand it and do not know it. It will remain the same. WHICH MEANS THAT HPB STAFF WILL REVIEW AND APPROVE DEMOLITION OF ANY HISTORIC BUILDINGS ONLY WHEN THE DEVELOPER HAS ALL PERMITS AND IS READY TO START CONSTRUCTION. WHICH WOULD MEAN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS INCLUDING ARB, MUNICIPAL PLANNING AND THE CITY COUNCIL'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY AND INPUT. Rather, this is a temporary measure designed to create flexibility while we assess how preservation policies intersect with city's economic development, housing, and redevelopment goals. I believe the moratorium will help us better understand whether regulatory changes can encourage investment in areas that have struggled to attract redevelopment while also allowing the city time to review and modernize its long-term approach to preservation and growth. Ultimately, the focus here is creating a vibrant, economically healthy downtown that serves residents, businesses, and all visitors alike. I believe this temporary pause provides an opportunity to better balance preserving our history and ensuring downtown Orlando can successfully adapt to current and future needs.

Commissioner Sheehan.

I see which way this is going, but I just want to say one thing. This decision was made on a map that showed investment in downtown. $5 million and up. The thing is, if you're going to put a restaurant in a historic building, you don't need to spend $5 million. It's cheaper to do the renovation. So going right off the bat, the chart that we were shown was one to not show the truth. There are empty storefronts all over downtown, not just in the historic district. So it's very frustrating to me to hear that this is going to be a panacea somehow because there are empty storefronts all over downtown. I've often said that we need to start finding people with empty storefronts. Maybe that would make a difference, but we can't because it's unconstitutional. All permits... in, they can demolish. As long as they get the permits in, it's demolished. So the reason all these folks here are upset today and the reason I'm upset today is because I care about the history of the city. I care about these buildings that have been here much longer than I have been and will be here and I had hoped would be here long after I live. And I'm deeply distressed by this decision. I do not think it's going to be the silver bullet that everybody thinks it's going to be. And as a historic preservationist, I'm appalled, horrified, and very disappointed.

OK. I want to thank everybody for being I want to thank everybody for being civil today. We sometimes have discussions, and it's not so civil. Everybody isn't going to get the exact result they want, but you can be comfortable in knowing that everybody in this room has the exact same goal, and that is to have a great, flourishing downtown, and especially in the historic district. So this is a step, we believe, in getting there. So all in favor of the motion, indicate so by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Okay, I got it, 4-2. Commissioner Ortiz not being present.

Okay, motion carries.

Okay, we still have a lot more business to do, so those of you who don't want to remain for that are eligible to leave.

Thank you.

That would be wise. I'm sweating.

OK, Madam Clerk, are you ready?

Yes, ma'am.

OK, we're on ordinance first Street number 13 a.

Ordinance number 2026 dash 16 and ordinance of the City Council City, Orlando, Florida, amending the city's adopted growth management plan to change the future land use map designation for seven parcels of land within the Florida Hospital Health Village. DRI generally located east of I-4 north of East New Hampshire St. south of West Chester Avenue and west of North Mills Avenue and comprised of approximately 2.92 acres, providing for amendment of the city's official future land use maps, providing for severability, correction of scrivener's errors, and an effective date.

Move approval. Second.

Motion by Commissioner Chapin. Second by Commissioner Burns. I don't have any requests for public comment on this. Discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, indicate so by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. 13B.

Ordinance number 2026-17, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orlando, Florida, amending the Florida Hospital Health Village planned development zoning ordinance to add approximately 2.92 acres of land to the planned development zoning district, such land being generally located east of I-4, west of North Mills Avenue, and south of West Chester Avenue and northeast New Hampshire Street, amending the development conditions of the planned development, providing a conforming legal description, providing for severability, correction of scrivener's errors, permit disclaimer, and an effective date.

Motion by Commissioner Chapin.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Burns. I don't have any requests for public input, discussion. Hearing none, all in favor of the motion indicate so by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, motion carries. Okay, we're going to skip without objection to item 13D.

Ordinance number 2026-20, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orlando, Florida, amending the city's adopted growth management plan future land use element, future land use element sub-area policy LU.S.2.5 to increase the residential unit allowance units within the sub-area policy boundary south of Oglesby Avenue, west of Clay Street, north of East Parr Street, and east of Interstate 4, providing for severability, correction of scrivener's errors, and an effective date.

Motion by Commissioner Chapman. Second. Second by Commissioner Rose. I have no request for public input. Discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, indicate so by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? So motion carries. Okay, that leaves us with 13C and 13E, which are ordinances 2026-19 and 20... 2621 and we also have a legislative appeal and a quasi judicial hearing which all relate to the same property which is 1600 Aaron Avenue so it's a little complicated but we have to take care of the legislative appeal before we can vote on 2619 and then we have to dispense with both of those before we can go to the quasi-judicial hearing and we have to do the quasi-judicial hearing before we can vote on the ordinance which is 2621. So what I'm going to do is have the clerk read 2619 and open the public hearing and then we will hear the legislative appeal that relates to that particular ordinance at the same time so that any testimony that we have will be part of the record for both the hearing of the ordinance as well as the appeal. Everybody good on that?

Can you unmute? Unmute your device. The appellant gets to speak during the public hearing? Is that the way we're doing this? Because they get to do a 10-minute. I thought when an appeal, the city gets to do a 10-minute.

We have to do the appeal first.

Okay. before reading the ordinance that's what I'm asking.

We're going to read the order to leave that open and go to the appeal. But any conversation that's had will be reflected in the record of both. Okay. Thank you. And we'll have to vote separately. We'll have to vote on the appeal first and then vote on the ordinance.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Would you read the ordinance? Ordinance number. Am I getting that right, Jody?

Ordinance number 2026-19, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orlando, Florida, amending the city's growth management plan to change the future land use map designation for certain land generally located west of Aaron Avenue, east of South Ivy Lane. north of Cassius Street, and south of Cepeda Street, and comprised of 4.2 acres of land, more or less, from public recreation and institutional to residential low intensity, providing for amendment of the city's growth management plan, providing for severability, correction of scrivener's errors, and an effective date.

Okay, and we're now going to take up item 15 a which is the legislative appeal relating to the ordinance that is before us. At its meeting on February 17 2026. The MPP considered the Proposed amendment to the growth management plan to amend the GMP future land use map designation for the property located at 1600 Aaron Avenue from public recreation and institutional to residential low intensity. After conducting a public hearing, the MPB recommended approval of the proposed GMP amendment. Section 2.179 of the Orlando City Code gives the appellant and the city staff each 10 minutes to present their case. And then we will move to, well, let's begin with Jason Burton, our planning manager, and then we'll go to the appellants. Jason.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Jason Burton. I lead the City Planning Division. We're here to talk today about two separate issues. The first is a legislative appeal. The second one will be coming up later is a quasi-judicial appeal. Legislative appeal is only about this case number for the growth management plan to change the future land use designation from a P public designation to a residential low designation and only that. Subsequently, we'll be talking about a quasi-judicial appeal regarding a proposed church on that particular property. So let me go through this. The location is at 1600 Aaron Avenue, which is over by Cassia Street, South Ivy Lane, Aaron Avenue, and South of Columbia Street. It's 4.2 acres in District 6. The recommended action is changing the designation of the property in the future land use map from public recreation institutional called PRI for short public on the zoning map actually to residential low intensity which is res low on the future land use map there's an associate case like I mentioned regarding the former quest site to be turned into community assembly public benefit use or a church that will be heard separately after this item depending on the outcome So the previous actions on this particular site include in December, 2023, a proposal to rezone and growth management plan change amendment and a conditional, I will, thanks. Conditional use permit amendment to convert the former quest site into a 200 seat neighborhood public benefit use. And it was deferred at the MPB meeting by the applicant due to neighborhood concerns. In January and February, additional deferrals by the applicant, and it was eventually withdrawn in 2025. And then there was a new application receipt to change from public recreational institutional to residential low, and then a PD rezoning for a multi-phase, three phases actually, maximum 500 seat church. on a collector of two lanes in January 20th, 2026, the MPP considered the case and voted to defer the request to the February meeting so additional public meetings could be held by the applicant. in february 17th the mpp recommended approval of the cases limiting the church to phase one only for approval not to exceed 200 seats which is a generally a buy right use in residential areas On February 20th, 2026, appellants filed a timely appeal. There was a quasi-judicial hearing with an independent hearing officer on April 23rd, 2026. On May 13th, the hearing officer recommended an order on that QJ quasi-judicial appeal. June 22nd, the city council will concurrently consider the QJ appeal for this zoning portion separately after this action. So this is a future land use map of the area here. You have public recreational institutional. There's a school to the north, but surrounding this site, there's a residential low. It's surrounded by a neighborhood. The proposal is to match the remainder of the neighborhood surrounding it with the residential low future land use designation here's an aerial subject property you can see the neighborhood generally around it here's some site photos of the former quest facility that you can see here now a little bit about the public recreational institutional designation it's specifically set aside for publicly owned properties. This particular property is owned by a private individual. What happens during the process is there is no maximum intensity or minimum intensity for either non-residential or residential allowances on the property for development. But the allowable uses are public recreational institutional uses and it's usually exclusively reserved for publicly owned properties. On each publicly owned property that has these designations and has the conforming public zoning district on the property, a conditional use permit is processed where we define the development standards on any particular property, just to let you know. So what's proposed here is a residential low designation which has a maximum intensity of 12 units the acre or 0.3 FAR for non-residential uses. There is no minimum intensity. Now the allowable uses on this designation include residential uses as well as public recreation and other institutional uses such as a church that's being proposed subsequently on the quasi-judicial appeal. A couple notes of the legislative appeal. The future land use change to the map is a legislative matter. In other words, it's a policy setting action that the council has more discretion. I'm going to go explain the nuances of that shortly. And it's conducted according to the standard public hearing procedure. So we'll hear the appeal as well as the public hearing items simultaneously. The quasi-judicial appeal has to be heard separately from the ordinance reading which we'll go over later on and there's reasons for that because of how we how this is handled within the city the city's code um a couple of the findings is that this is consistent with the state comprehensive plan the east central florida comprehensive regional policy plans and florida statutes Essentially, the future land use amendment is consistent with the objective goals and policies of the adopted growth management plan, particularly the land use figures. And the proposed future land use amendment is consistent with the surrounding residential low intensity future land use pattern. In other words, the neighbors have the same rights as what is proposed for this particular properties. Now, the necessary public facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed use and will be provided as a condition of approval. Of note, the city cannot require a privately owned property remain designated as public, PRI as I described, as it is reserved for publicly owned properties. The residential low future land use designation is the least intensive designation and matches the surroundings. So out of all of our future land use designations, this is the least intensive of them all. Now the actions required by the council, you can approve or deny the legislative appeal. If approved, the GMP amendment will not become effective if you approve the appeal. It's a little bit backwards. If denied, the council would also vote on the associated ordinance that is a separate item on the agenda, but we're hearing it to date simultaneously as one item. The staff recommendation is to deny the legislative appeal and accept the recommendations on this item from the meeting minutes of the February 7th, 2026 Municipal Planning Board. Next steps, there should be the first reading of the ordinance on today's agenda. Staff will schedule second reading adoption hearing of the ordinance, which would be at the next city council meeting and will send to the Florida Department of Commerce. If not challenged by the Florida Department of Commerce, it would become effective within 31 days after adoption. Do you have any questions for me? And certainly the appellants are here and of course we can take up the matters with the public hearing simultaneously for this particular item. We would hear both the appeal as well as the ordinance public comment simultaneously with this item.

Okay, then we're gonna hear from the appellants, and I have listed as appellants Cynthia Harris, Bessie Harris, Sam Brown, Andre Howard, Keith Johnson, and dear Dr. Sweetie Stewart. It turns out that under our procedures, each of the appellants has 10 minutes. So that means you have up to an hour, but 10 minutes apiece. Who's going to speak? You guys have a point. No, not the public. The appellants. Anybody that I just called your name, would you raise your hand? Cynthia. So do you have a spokesman for your group? Whoever's going to speak, come on up to the podium.

Thank you.

That's mine. That's not mine. The other pictures, they're in here. These pictures were sent. Is this the right one? This one is in. Hey Cynthia, could you tell us what the plan is?

I'm sorry.

Could you tell us what your plan on presentation is?

My presentation is a video.

Now you're going to speak. Is anybody else going to speak?

I believe I'm going to speak for the appellate for the group. Yes.

Right. Mm hmm.

Okay.

Some of these are missing. So I have to.

Mayor, does that mean she gets 50 minutes to 10?

Well, if it can't be said in 10,

I was just I was just question. Do you want me to make it shorter.

I want to take the time you need but if we had 5 people each one of you would have gotten 10 minutes.

That's why I asked that correct we're collectively as a group they can give their time to me correct.

I find that generally it's looked on more favorably if you don't use an hour to do

some of the folders that you have are missing some pictures I do have them here we were trying to put the files together so you probably some of you may not have pictures a set of pictures in your folder, but I do have them they were they were submitted earlier.

Are we ready to begin ready.

Good afternoon, mayor and commissioners. I'm Cynthia Harris, and I appear on behalf of the residents directly impacted by the proposed rezoning of 1600 Avenue. As you can see in the video, this was the day after Hurricane Ian on September 28, 2022. Before beginning, petitioners request that all exhibits, affidavits, testimony, hearing transcripts, audio recordings, video recordings, staff reports, exceptions filed with the counselor, and all materials submitted in these proceedings be preserved as part of the official record. We also preserve all objections to previously raised during the quasi-judicial hearing because this request is not opposition to religion. It is not in opposition to a church. This request is about whether this particular location is appropriate and safe for this use. Issue number one, the city-owned staff report shows that this site does not meet normal location standards. Commissioners, the city-owned staff report states that community assembly public benefit users normally require access from a four-lane collector roadway or arterial street because larger churches generate higher traffic. That will be found in page four in paragraph five of the staff report. The report further acknowledges that this property is only 4.2 acres, is located on Aaron Avenue, it is not served by a collector roadway, it is not served by an arterial roadway, and the city is not applying to its normal standards. Instead, the city staff is asking you to create an exception through a planned development. The question becomes, why should this neighborhood absorb impacts that the city's own code was designed to protect? Event staff recognized community opposition. The staff addendum confirms that multiple additional community meetings were held after the January hearing. The report specifically states, most attendees at the additional community meetings expressed continued non-support of the proposed religious site. page one, paragraph four. Despite that overwhelming opposition, the recommendation remained approval. The residents were heard but were not listened to. Issue number three, as evidenced in the video, The petitioner's exception filed with the city council explains that engineering testimony, flood exhibits, drainage basin analysis, and resident testimony regarding Hurricane Ian flooding was discounted as speculative. Our engineer testified, residents testified, flood exhibits were submitted. The recommended order never adequately explains why engineering concerns were rejected, whether drainage capacity was independently evaluated, whether cumulative basin impacts were analyzed. If those questions remain unanswered, approval is premature. Issue number four, the traffic findings relied on general assumptions. The exceptions filed with the council identified testimony regarding existing congestion, nearby churches, funeral traffic, residential street limitations, parking overflow concerns. The neighborhood experiences these conditions now. The proposed church would increase intensity of use. The traffic witness relied heavily on a study she did not prepare and did not personally conduct. Residents live in these conditions every day. Their testimony deserves weight. Emergency access remains unsolved. The record contains testimony from Ruthie Simon, former law enforcement officers, residents adjacent to access route. Their concerns are simple. Ivy Lane is a narrow residential roadway. It is effectively a dead-end neighborhood street. Residents park there. Children walk there. Emergency vehicles must use it. No reliable enforcement mechanism was presented preventing routine church traffic from using the so-called emergency access route. The recommended order does not meaningfully analyze enforceability. That issue remains unresolved. Health impacts on residents were not addressed. Betsy Harris, a cancer survivor who lives directly across from the proposed site, testified regarding concerns involving construction dust, diesel emissions, vehicle emissions, increased traffic impacts. No health impact analysis exists in the record. No air quality study exists in the record. No evidence was presented demonstrating that nearby residents will not be adversely affected. Questions regarding professional qualifications. The application was submitted on behalf of the church by Jose Venegas. The recommended order notes that Mr. Venegas filed the application. Petitioners presented information indicating that Mr. Venegas is not a licensed architect in Florida. We're not asking the council to make a finding of wrongdoing. We're asking the council to consider what weight should be given to design and planning opinions offered by individuals who do not hold a Florida architect license. That question remains unanswered. The city is already prepared to adopt the recommended order. The proposed final order before council simply adopts hearing Officer Frederick Reed's recommended order. That means the concerns raised by residents will effectively be rejected. Commissioners are the final decision makers. You are not required to simply rubber stamp the recommendation. You have the authority to reject it. The city on reports admits the site is not a collector road. The site is not an arterial road. The proposal seeks a community level church. Residents overwhelmingly oppose the project. The record contains engineering testimony, law enforcement testimony, resident testimony, flood evidence, traffic evidence, emergency access concerns, yet the recommended order dismisses those concerns while relying primarily on staff conclusions. The burden belongs to the applicant, not the residents. The applicants have not proven that flooding will not worsen, traffic impacts are adequately mitigated, emergency access will remain reliable, public safety will be protected. For those reasons, we respectfully request that the city council reject the recommended order, deny the rezoning application, and protect the residents of Richmond Heights and the surrounding community. Finally, the petitioners specifically preserve all objections, testimony, affidavits, exhibits, exception, evidentiary objections, legal arguments, transcripts, recordings, and all materials submitted throughout these procedures for purposes of judicial review, including any petition for writ of sartoria. Thank you.

Commissioner Rose, we're going to hear from the public as part of this. Did you want to wait? I was going to address something. OK, but it's a. OK, why don't you go ahead and do that while she's up there?

Lori, I have a question. The funds that we receive from Orange County for the drain wells as well as the funds that we're receiving from the federal government, will that help with some of the drainage that was presented in the video and presentation today? and then the funds that were... Corey, identify yourself for the record.

Corey Knight, Public Works Director here for the city. Commissioner, the funds that we have, depending upon what they are, go to various amount of projects. The flooding, if I'm correct in this video, and I'm not... I CAN'T TELL YOU WHERE THIS VIDEO, WHEN IT WAS TAKEN, BUT IF IT WAS TAKEN FROM IAN, THAT WAS A HISTORIC, YOU KNOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT WAS HISTORIC. AND SO WHAT WE LOOK AT, SO THE FUNDS THAT ARE GOING TO GO TO SOME OF THESE PROJECTS GO TO A MYRIAD OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS BACK IN THIS AREA, AMONG OTHERS, BUT THERE WILL BE SOME BENEFIT TO THIS PROJECT IN GENERAL, ALTHOUGH I CAN'T GET DOWN TO THE LEVEL TO SAY IT'S GOING TO ABSOLUTELY HELP THAT SPECIFIC VIDEO

evidence okay i just want to make sure the funds can will help because i know some of it is five six and we shared that we share riley street yeah and so if the mitigation that we are doing is going to help some of the drainage that was specifically displayed i just want to make sure because that was a big part and you didn't get the packet and that was a big part but it was like a follow-up to the video that was displayed on the screen showing the drain basins and the drainage in the air and the flooding so i just wanted to make sure

it will ultimately the goal here is to and and there's a there's a there's several different grants that we are going after as well to to try to help with some of these two so i can't get deep in the weeds about which which area specifically which grant is going to but in general a lot of them are focused in that area okay thank you the drain basin photos are from fema

You also may want to hear from the applicant. This is the legislative appeal portion not considering the recommended order from the hearing officer.

Jason I I was just inquiring about hearing from the applicant does the applicant want to speak sure OK. Good afternoon there.

Councilman. I guess a point of distinction, this first part of the hearing.

Could you identify yourself?

Sure. I'm sorry. Anna Long. I'm with the law firm of Dean Meade, 420 South Orange Avenue, Suite 700, Orlando, Florida, 32821. I'm here representing the applicant. The first part of this hearing is simply for the change in the land use. So that's why it's the legislative portion of the hearing. And it's only to take it from what is currently designated a public institutional use to the residential low use. And as staff said, the lowest intensity use. Without that, regardless of who owns the property, or what they might want to do on the property, there is no valid use for the property because the owners are private, not public. The second part of the hearing where we assumed was going to go in order would be then the appeal to the hearing officer with respect to the rezoning which was going from res low if you approve it, to zoning of a PUD. From that perspective, I almost want to hear the rest of the story because we do agree with staff recommendations. We do agree with the MPB as conditioned and there's several conditions. Probably the most important for your decision-making today is the decision today, assuming you approve the growth management change to the underlying land use, excuse me, then the rezoning is yes to a pud but not to a 500 seat church it's to a 200 seat neighborhood church phase one only that's all you're approving because the mpb conditioned their recommendation for approval that if anything more than a 200 seat church was to come before them again, it had to come back to you again. And with respect to the concerns that the citizens have, and they're valid concerns, it's too soon in the process because final transportation studies are done upon submittal of site plans. stormwater designs are submitted by the applicant once we submit to the Water Management District and your local stormwater utility folks. We're not there yet. We're simply asking for underlying land use change so the private entity can make use of the property and a PUD the lowest level of a phase one for a 200 seat neighborhood church with that in respect of your time and for others that want to speak I would just simply ask to reserve rebuttal time at the end Commissioner burns did you want to speak now I wanted to offer a motion and I want to offer a motion to approve the appeal that was presented

OK, we still need to hear from the public. OK. On this one. I have two requests. Sammy Brown, which is one of the appellants, right? Do you want to speak? And then LaWanna Gelser.

Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, commissioners, and Sammy Brown. I've been a resident of Orlando for over 60 years, resident of my home for 50-something years. I live at 1649 Ealing, down across the street from the assembly there. And they want to go to 220 member. They want to change the zoning. But all of this is to finally get them to a 500-member church. whatever, assembly. And we are thinking about this thing as a, I don't know, but they're going to be able to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So we're going to have to put up with people coming in. It's only one way in and one way out of that facility. So we're going to have to put up with the sale, the membership coming in and going 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You also got to put up with delivery trucks coming and going five to six days a week. And now when they get that thing built to page two and three, going up to a two-story building, all of a single building, all the single residents, single building residents, single garage. And this thing is, I thought zoning protected the character of a neighborhood. But you guys are just passing everything this assembly wants, just rubber stamping. And they want to get to a five. I'm going to feel like I'm going to be caught between two megachurches, between First Baptist and the Brazilian church, if this thing is approved. And I mean, that's within a half a mile, two megachurches. And I just think it feels like the city has turned its back on the residents. We have no space. And if you've ever seen the intensity of First Baptist, when people are coming to pick up their kids from school, nursery, that intensity is going to be shifted to us, too, down Cepeda, down Booker, all these streets. We are two-lane residential road, 25 miles an hour, speed bumps. And you want to put an assembly this size in our neighborhood, I just don't think it's right. I mean, the 220, I think we can barely tolerate the 220 assembly. But going up to 600 or 500 membership is a bit much to actually have a community itself. And I think you ought to reject that zoning. Because that's just the first step to them going to the 500 membership. And, you know, it's a lot to ask for us.

OK.

Thank you. Thank you.

Moana Gelzer. We're on three minutes.

It's a bit confusing today right here.

Yeah, it is.

This is LaJuana Gelsen, 815 Hill Street. First of all, I wanna applaud everybody who showed up to city council today. It was a proud day for me to see civic engagement, to see the community understand that they do have a voice. And I want them to say, don't give up on your voice. I want you to understand this process starts now, don't let up. Notification for anybody should not be just 300 feet. We used to be 1,000. Then it went to 500, 300 feet. I'm telling about the process because I've been through this process six times. I remember when we fought for our national protected wetlands over on WDD Judge. The city of Orlando used $435,000 mitigated credits, hired an attorney, to fact the taxpayers, the people. Be prepared for that, my brothers and sisters. It's coming. I remember the soccer stadium. My mother, my late mother and I went through this process. No transportation impact study was done. No true environmental study was done. You closed the road without understanding the impact. What you're hearing is what will be the impact of the community. You say phase one, but we just witnessed what happened when somebody gets five days, but when the city staff does whatever they want to to prepare you to vote against the people. All we're saying is the process is always stacked against the citizens. We will be back for phase two. But sometimes, no, your past history has indicated we need to be very vigilant. Because once this door is open, what would happen when they want to go to 500 seat on a two-lane highway? I say this by Dr. Wanda Jones. We fought five years. Don't give up. Don't quit. There's not the proper studies, especially not the environmental study, because guess what? I'll be on your team for the air quality. I'm moving the monitor, collecting the data. We will have the data that the EPA will certify about what's about to happen. But remember, this is backing up on the wetlands. You can do all you want to do when you talk about flooding. But man-made flooding is what we're dealing with. When you remove trees, when you do a lot of things, this is man-made. This is not a 500-year flooding. This is caused by you doing the wrong thing in communities. All I'm saying is treat us all the same, apply the law equally, but give the community a voice in saying this is not what we want in our community. Thank you.

okay commissioner burns uh yes uh mayor and uh fellow council members um i i have been involved with uh this project um dating back to 2003 and so in 2003 i was approached by the the owners uh and they talked about a building the church uh and so had a couple of meetings um and then there was a lot of there was a lot of there was no support for the community there was a lot of questions a lot on the design and just the intensity and so the owners pulled their application only to come back and now request a 500 seat facility and uh that's when i my support and confidence in this applicant started to erode because i did not feel that what was being presented to the community was what the applicant ultimately wanted all right and when we talk about bringing development into communities we have to work with the community and not do things to the community and it it was clear to me that there was a shift from listening to the community to trying to push through something. I don't know if they got guidance from the city, but trying to push through something that was much more intense. And so where I stand now, I don't support this intensity. And what I would like to offer is a motion to approve the appeal as it was stated. We're also may I wanted to add to and and this was something that rubbed me the wrong way when I was getting briefed on this item. It was mentioned that the the attorneys for the applicant stated that they plan to sue the city if this didn't go through. All right and I'm not sure if my other fellow commissioners was mentioned that was mentioned to you.

But I found that

very difficult for me because what they were mentioning was I I attended the municipal planning board and I made a statement asking the municipal planning board to postpone or continue this for the applicant and the community to have more discussion the municipal planning board decided to do that went back and it was more discussion so they were implying that I stood in or or had an undue influence on the municipal planning board and that if this didn't go through that they will sue the city and i just did not appreciate uh the threats uh that i feel i received it as a threat i'm not sure if you all received that information as a threat as well so again uh i'd like to make a motion to approve the appeal hey jason i have a question yeah jason or one of the lawyers i was doing

So the question is, what exactly is the appeal? Because from my understanding, Municipal Planning Board approved the reduction to the 200 seats- Hold on.

You guys are on the legislative appeal. All that we're dealing with right now is whether this site should have a future land use designation of public, public recreational institutional, PRI for short. And they're asking for residential low future land use designation. The PD rezoning, the church is not before you right now. All that they are asking is that there be the same future land use designation as their neighbors to the south, east, and west. Not the church, so we're not considering the recommended order at this time.

Right, and I understand and I followed that. But also, when someone purchases a property, they know what zoning that they purchased it under.

Correct, and a city cannot use its regulatory land use and zoning to take old value away of a property for a private landowner. It could be a regulatory taking or like a de facto eminent domain of the property if you force it to keep as a public piece of property because then you basically eminent domain the property. So that could expose this council to some serious legal consequences.

So commissioner Burns, I don't know if you're going to get there on where the votes are and I think the better approach is to let the legislative appeal stand as and let the underlying land use change to private and then take your argument argument on the quasi judicial might want to talk of questions that sound like jury.

So do we so where we would I guess there so my recommendation would be to.

Deny the legislative appeal and improve the actions of the MPB and then let. Commissioner Burns make the fight that he wants to make on the quasi judicial appeal. Jason's that sound right. Okay, so would you? I have a question. Commissioner, are you good with that?

Yes. I have a question. So all this is doing is changing the land use from public recreational institutional to residential, which would be consistent with what surrounds it, correct? Correct. That's fine.

That's step one.

That's right.

Okay, then I'll make that motion. Is there a second?

Second.

All right further discussion. You're known all in favor of motion to deny the legislative appeal approved the actions of the MPB indicate so by saying aye. I suppose okay motion carries now we're on the quasi judicial. Oh you're right. OK and I'm at move that we adopt.

What was the number on the ordinance ordinance number 2026 dash 19?

OK, I'm moved to adopt whatever ordinance Stephanie read it again.

Stephanie 2026 dash 19.

OK, is there a second? Motion and second all in favor indicate so by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, okay. We have the underlying land use approved. Well, first reading anyways. Now let's talk about the quasi-judicial, which is where the rubber meets the road.

Greetings again, Commissioners and Mayor. This is Jason Burton with the City Planning Division. We're going to talk about the quasi-judicial appeal, which is the PD rezoning to accommodate a church on this particular property. Again, this is the site in the middle of the neighborhood at 1600 Aaron Avenue within Richmond Heights neighborhood. It's 4.2 acres in District 6. The requested action is a planned development rezoning to convert the former Quest site, which used to be a hospital before that for crippled children a long time ago, to community assembly public benefit use or a church that has no greater than 200 congregants. The associate cases was what you just voted on, which is changing the future land use designation from public, recreational, institutional to residential low. Again, here's the zoning map today. It is zone P for public, and it's proposed to be a PD. um previous actions i'll go over this um quest ceased on this site in 2022 the property is purchased by the current owners in 2023 in december 2023 and in 2024 there were actions to rezone this particular property as well as the associated growth management plan amendment those were ultimately withdrawn in 2025 And in 2025 in November, there was a new application received to rezone this particular property as well as change the future land use designation. Now this action before you is the second item here, which is zoning 2025-110. It's the planned development rezoning for a multi-phase maximum 500 seat church, community assembly public benefit use on a collector of two lanes. Ultimately, the municipal planning board, the city staff recommended half of that so it could be reused existing buildings that were on the site for a 250 seat church. The planning board disagree with that recommendation from the staff. adopted a motion to accommodate a 200 seat person church and I'll explain why. So you heard it was opened at January 20th, 26 MPB considered the case. They deferred it for additional public meetings to be held by the applicant. In February, they recommended approval of the cases, but limited the church to phase one only, which is the reuses of the existing buildings and not to exceed 200 seats, which is a by right use that doesn't require any special consideration from the council or PD. It's just that since they applied for a 500 seat church, they had to apply for a PD. So we're acting on a different recommendation than what was applied to at the beginning. There was a timely appeal applied on February 20th by the appellants. There was a quasi-judicial hearing for the PD rezoning was conducted. The hearing officer issued a recommended order on May 13th. And today we're considering both the legislative appeal for the GMP portion that was just previous and now we're hearing the quasi-judicial matter. This is the site plan for phase one, which is reuse of existing buildings. There's no new additional development on the property because there was three phases on the international application, but those were rejected by the Municipal Planning Board and only phase one, reuse of the building for 200 congregate church was provided. you don't have to be on a collector road for up to 200 congregants per our code if you go over 200 congregants then you need to be on a collector road of four lanes or greater so we allow churches inside of residential zoning districts for up to 200 congregants So the current site is zone P. The P designation is limited to public benefit uses and can only be applied to properties owned by public bodies. So this is owned by a private individual. And like I mentioned earlier, it's a potential regulatory taking if the city required a privately held property remain public. Rezonings and applications are quasi-judicial manners. They implement policy and have to be conducted subject to the Florida Supreme Court ruling in Brevard versus Snyder. And folks that are dissatisfied are entitled to a quasi-judicial board recommendation. de novo hearing before a hearing officer that hearing occurred on april 23rd the qj hearing was conducted um some findings by the hearing officers under federal law religious land uses it's called the rar lupa law significantly limits the local government's ability to deny religious land uses through zoning and land development regulations Under ARLUPA, municipalities may not impose or implement land use regulations that place a substantial burden on religious exercise unless the action is supported by compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. I'll give you an example. If you raise traffic concerns, that could be a concern of the neighborhood, but you couldn't deny something based on exclusively traffic concerns. The least restrictive means of doing that would be like moving the access points to an intersection which was incorporated into the recommendation by the staff and ultimately recommended by the Municipal Planning Board. Now, this is important. While petitioners expressing neighborhood concerns is an important component of the review process, opposition alone, per federal law, does not constitute a legally defensive basis for denial. Any conditions or limitations imposed must be directly related to mitigating identifiable land uses, such as traffic, parking, or operational intensity, and must be applied in a neutral, nondiscriminatory manner consistent with federal law. In other words, there was a secular use on this particular site. In other words, you should be able to approve a religious use on this site simultaneously. In this instance, the city's zoning regulations expressly permit religious congregations of up to 200 persons within residential zoning districts When they're not located on a major thoroughfare, aside from the relief of minimum lot size and vehicle access, which is not part of the application because that would be a future phase that has not been approved, the proposed PD complies with all aspects of the land development code. So there's not any variances or anything proposed in this PD since they're being limited to 200 congregants, which is allowed by right inside of residential zoning districts the qj officer also found that competent substantial evidence was produced to demonstrate the request is consistent with all applicable requirements of the city's land development code and growth management plan the hearing officer found that the petitioners did not present any competent substantial evidence to establish that the request is inconsistent with the applicable requirements the land of the code and growth management plan In other words, there's no additional flaying when you reuse existing parking lots and existing buildings as part of the phase one approval. Therefore, the hearing officer recommended that the approval of this zoning that limits the congregation to 200 persons and only the existing buildings reuse is consistent and he recommends approval consistent with the February 2026 MPB recommendation. There are actions required by the council. You have to approve or deny the hearing officer's recommendations for this particular quasi-judicial appeal. And you can only deal with the recommended order at this point in time. If approved, the council should vote on the associated PD zoning as a separate item from this hearing. So you will only be hearing as part of this portion from the appellants and not the public. If denied, PD rezoning cannot be approved. The site remains zoned for public use, if you will. And the staff recommendation is approve of the hearing officer's recommendation of denial for the quasi-judicial appeal and accept the recommendation for this item for the meeting minutes of the February 17th Municipal Planning Board. Do you have any questions for me?

Okay, questions. Commissioner Burns.

So, Jason, so this quasi-judicial is associated with moving it to R1 or no?

no it's public p public and it's proposed for pd for the church now plan development zonings are what you see is what you get type of a zoning it's a customized zoning district so it it would have a base zoning of r1 because it's consistent with the future land use designation but it would be PD to accommodate a church for the existing phase one plan for the reuse of the existing buildings only for up to 200 congregants. In the future, should the church expand as a whole new and separate issue that would come back for a new application and come before the municipal planning board, get a recommendation and come before the council, which could be denied or, you know, it'd be the pleasure of the council at that point in time.

OK, because as I look, I believe that this does not conform with our current ldc because per ldc chapter 58 part 4 l public benefit uses that does that they're divided in 3 assembly light intensive. But also though they have subcategories those subcategories being local neighborhood community and regional and are we saying that this we seek they're seeking approval under the neighborhood

YES, SO 200 OR LOWER IS BY RIGHT. 200 ABOVE WOULD BE COMMUNITY, WHICH WOULD AT THAT POINT IN TIME BE REQUIRED. LET ME FINISH.

SO WE'RE GOING UNDER THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CORRECT? OUR LEND DEVELOPMENT CODE UNDER NEIGHBORHOOD SAYS AN ASSEMBLY PUBLIC BENEFIT USE THAT IS DESIGNED FOR and intended to serve the residents of a neighborhood or small geographic Eric area approximately one square mile and meeting the following standards. All right so that to me reads that they can come under this neighborhood. If the project was planned and designed to serve the immediate community around around the facility and that's what it states am i that's the intent of the code however commissioner with any religious use we cannot pick the congregants that would be constitutionally suspect yeah i'm not saying picking the congress yes all right i'm going off of the land development code that we're bringing this under all right it says the project i'll read it again project that is designed for and intended to serve the residents of a neighborhood or small geographic area. So to me that reads as if this facility was being established to serve that immediate community. And the question I think that has not been asked by staff the municipal planning board is the question is was this designed for and intended to serve the residents of a neighborhood or a small geographic area approximately one square mile

We'll have to have the applicant answer that question. But again, the city staff and the council can't pick the congregants and who they serve. I mean, I'm not saying that we are. All right.

But I'm reading what the code says. Correct. Designed for and intended to serve.

Correct. So they're proposing to serve congregants from the local community and around the area. Now, how big that is.

It says approximately one square mile.

We'll have to ask the applicant to answer that question. Sure. Thank you. Any other questions?

Commissioner Sheehan.

Thank you, Mayor. I think the concern here is that if we can't say no to 200, how do you restrict it to 200? Because they keep talking about this phasing, and it's not fair to the neighborhood that we pass this for 200, and then they can come back and ask for subsequent phases. That's not fair for them. So what my concern is, this phasing stuff, if they can say, well, we're going to cap it at 200, the neighborhood might not be as concerned, I don't wanna speak for them, but as they would if there's potential phasing up to 500, which I've heard them express.

Correct, so the recommended order as well as the recommendation of the planning board is to cap it at 200 and subsequent phases are not approved.

Okay, so it is capped at 200? Correct. Through this?

Correct, through the plan development rezoning. You got that correct. And how that is that in force that's the question. That's in force when we review their permits we look at their occupancy and things like that to the permitting process and mind you all that's approved with the first phase is Reese of existing buildings, not subsequent faces not new buildings are not higher occupancy.

Okay, we're going to do this at least procedurally of commissioner shape questions.

I do think it's important that.

I was it just wasn't on. I do think it's important that we all realize and hear this 200 person limit and whether or not they can come back churches these days. are operating more and more like businesses more seven days a week child care bingo sunday worship etc but what i'm hearing is we don't really have any wiggle room on denying any specific church this buy right 200 but i think we're pretty clear on the 200 so they can come back and ask and we can't keep them from doing that but Or can we? Well, you can't. I mean, they can come back and ask and they can get denied. Will we still be in the same predicament as we are in this? I don't mean to say that negatively.

To answer your question, Commissioner, you can't, in land use law, you can't prevent somebody from applying in the future.

I understand, but I feel like on this first one, we're really in a bad spot. Not a bad spot, but a spot where we have to... by right they have some rights correct and the next one are we going to hear that sorry by right they can do it again or are we going to hear that it's going to be more planning instruments it would not be a buy right approval that would be a larger approval than the buy right if it goes and then you get into parking and storm water and access and egress and hours of operation etc correct

OK, we're going to at least do this procedurally right. So we're going to give 10 minutes to the petitioners, divided among all of them, and then 10 minutes to the applicant.

It would be for QJ, I believe.

What's that?

I think it's five minutes. Five minutes, Mayor.

it's five minutes during the quasi-judicial for the appellants as well as the applicant and no public testimony until you can i know no public testimony actually we've already heard from both so five minutes should be sufficient all right applicants i'm sorry petitioners you're up five minutes cynthia you're speaking for the petitioners again i think you pretty much made your arguments during the Legislative appeal.

The concerns that were addressed earlier, I reiterate those things. However, as been stated before, the same energy you had when it came to the historical preservation, it applies to our communities as well. If you know the history of Richmond Heights, all of those streets are named after somebody famous. Cassius Clay, King Cole, Willie Mays, these are streets that also have historic preservation and value to us. And as you saw in the video, that was that area video was taken the day after Ian, people were underwater and there's nothing that says in, in their petition or any type of assurance that that won't happen again. They're already operating in that church. They're already operating. They already have activity. And their proposals in the future land use is to put a big old soccer stadium in the middle of 4.2 acres of land, as well as increase their capacity up to 800 people. 200 may be the cap right now. But yes, Commissioner Chapin, you're in the same predicament now as you will be then. And that's what I want to reiterate, that if you approve this, our voices are not being heard. It's falling on deaf ears. And the people that suffer are the people in this community because we already absorb everything. We absorb the homelessness. We absorb the traffic. We have funeral traffic. We have church traffic. Within a two-mile radius, there are 64 churches already in our community. The most of everybody. And we also have all of the social services in our community. They want to put daycare, but it's not for us. The church is not for us. Their congregation is spoken in Portuguese. I don't know anybody in this room within a one-mile or a two-mile radius that even speak the language.

You're going down a bad path right now. Would it be okay? Would you guys approve it if it was an AME church?

No. No. No, because it's not about religion. Like I said, we already have 64 churches within that radius. It's not about religion. It's about the disruption of a community that's already being disrupted.

Thank you. Okay, the applicant. Five minutes. That you could only speak in the legislative and nobody was signed up to a call.

And along excuse me and along D need for 20 South Orange Avenue sweet 700 Orlando Florida 3, 2, 8, 0, 1, before I. Some this up very quickly I do want to say to commissioner Burns commissioner Burns I wasn't. an attorney for the applicant during the MPB in 2003 nor 2004 or 2005, I wouldn't have said something like that about you or to you. So I can't speak to who might have. I don't mind saying when you have a court reporter, we have a court reporter because if it doesn't go our way and we have a legal recourse, we likely will take it. But I just didn't want you to associate that. I felt like when you said that out loud and everybody looked at me, there she goes. No, sir. With that said, We heard the community and we heard the MPB and we heard staff. You're not getting 500 seats. You get 200 seats, and you use the buildings that you have. We agree, period. If, for whatever reason, in the future somebody comes before you to say, we'd like 250, please. We want 300, please. It's go back to go. Start over. You don't get to go to Boardwalk and get a pass. It's not how it works. We won't be doing that. We cannot. We ask you that you approve, as we've asked for, the rezoning limited to the 200 seats for a neighborhood church utilizing the existing buildings. Therefore, construction disruption would be limited to interior works, et cetera. And all of those things, all of those things require permits. Thank you.

OK, Commissioner Barnes.

have a question for the applicant and it was the same question that i posed to uh to jason that i think the question has not been asked and therefore it has not been answered was this project designed for and intended to serve the residents of the neighborhood or the small geographic area within one square mile.

It is my understanding that several members of this current congregation live within an area close to this proximity. Do they all live within a mile? No.

Okay. So I just want to answer my question. Was this designed and intended to serve the residents of the neighborhood within the small geographic drift graphical area that are cold states one square mile now thank you.

The pastor is here he'd like to speak to that.

So I would like to speak. Ryan Amos, Vice President for the Florida Conference Association. We are a Seventh-day Adventist church. We serve all nations, all people, regardless of the language that they speak or the color of their skin or anything that has to do. We serve community services. We're one of the leaders in disaster response, reaching out to communities after disasters. We're one of the leaders in healthcare with AdventHealth. We serve every member. I don't care who you are. If you walk through my doors and you need help, I will give you that help. And so yes, we have 70,000 members within the state of Florida. We have families that reside within this area. We serve everyone. And so yes, if somebody in this community needs help, I'll do it. I have no problem with that. And so we have a way to reach out. We want to provide services to this community for youth, for young people, because we know that that's a desperate need. So yes, we're willing to serve anybody who walks through our doors. And that has been the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church since its founding in 1844. Thank you. Okay.

I did have a question because I'm looking at the actions required by the Council and it says if denied the PD rezoning cannot be approved site would remain zone public use as I thought the legislative action that we took. Rezoned it to our one but you're saying that this

is denied that zoning wouldn't change um the future land use designation would go to res low the zoning right now is p public as well too so you're rezoning it to pd with the default zoning of r1 and then you're approving up to 200 congregants on the site in the phase one reuse of the building, says that it stands today. Correct. If it's approved. And of course, this is the hearing officer's recommendation that you consider. And depending on the outcome of this, you would have a separate hearing. You read the ordinance and take public comment.

OK, I'm going to try a motion just to see where we are.

Do we have any more petitioners that would like to speak?

I thought you were representing all the petitioners. OK, who else wants to talk? Come on.

Perfect.

Let's go. Is there anybody else? It is a petitioner, not just the general public.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Andre Howard. My address is 4266 Booker Street, Orlando, and I'm right down the street from the Quest building. But what I want to do is just to address something that was just said, because I don't want you all to be misled. You were just told that they would do anything for us that we wanted. We were invited to their church for services. Their services are... in Portuguese, and be mindful this is not a church thing, but their services are in Portuguese. I did my research and they're in Portuguese. At one of the meetings we addressed that and one of the ladies here told us that we would be given earbuds to translate during their services. I don't want to have to have earbuds to try to listen and miss the service. And this is what we all talked about at that meeting. I just don't want you all to be misled by what you're being told. Does that make sense? I mean, I just want to clarify that. All right? Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Are there any other of the five petitioners who want to speak?

Sam Brown again. I'd just like to tell the pastor, he's welcome, but his door is open, but it's where his door is that we're concerned about. He placed his door right in the middle of a residential area, right in our front door, our back door, our side door. And then they want to put a soccer field, a basketball court. They want to put a foster school, nursery. And I'm thinking, and if people ain't If they need a four lane, how are they going to get it? They're going to take our right of way and make the four lanes for that if they apply for the 500. And I'm just saying, I mean, when does this thing end? I mean, I'm looking at an operation that's going to start at 6 in the morning, not over till like midnight. You know, that's that's the scope of operation. This thing is that's that's a that's a big thing. You know, the seven days a week, 24 hours a day. And I'm not knocking out the facility. I'm just saying where it is right in the middle of a neighborhood. It just don't make sense to me. That's all I'm saying. Thank you.

Any of the other petitioners? Commissioner Burns.

Yes, ma'am. I would like to offer a motion to deny the hearing officer's recommendation.

Second.

Hold on. I have a question.

Commissioner Rose.

So the recommendation is to withhold and uphold MPB's recommendation of 200 seats. Am I correct?

Correct.

So the original application as was submitted was for 500 seats.

Correct. And that was not what was approved.

Okay. So MPB gave the ruling and said, here are the conditions.

Correct.

Of 200 as a maximum.

Correct.

That was approved.

Correct.

By MPB.

Correct.

So then it went to the magistrate for an appeal. And then the magistrate says, MPB board members are accurate because they represent the community by saying cap at 200 seats and no more. Am I correct?

There was no substantial competent evidence to decide otherwise. And if the council is to go against the hearing order, you'll need to explain why essentially.

OK. So there's a motion and a second on the table to deny the 200. Am I correct?

Correct.

OK. Thank you.

Mayor, are we open for discussion? OK discussion and I want to make it clear. My reason for wanting to deny this again is based on a cold. The C chapter 58 part for a public benefit use. In this subset of the assembly before categories. This one is coming on the neighborhood and it clearly states in the assembly public mission of public benefit use that is designed for and intended to serve the residents of a neighborhood or small geographic area approximately one square mile so that's the basis of my um my reason for wanting to see this denied okay so so then

OK, so based on what you're saying, the pastor has gotten up and said there are residents currently that live in this community that will be attending this church. Our code does not define how many people of a community within one mile must be used One, two, a church is a home for everyone. I have walked in to a full Hispanic cathedral, didn't understand a word that was being said, but I was there because for an intended purpose, there was a service that I was attending. They spoke in a different language. And so we're saying the church won't serve the surrounding current demographics? Is that what we're using the code to say?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm reading the code as it's written.

But a church serves the people in the community. And the church provides social services in the community, regardless of which community it is. So what we're saying is our code says there's a specific part of the community that's not going to be served by an open public church, which would have signs of times that the service would have. We're saying that that doesn't serve the community, even though, and I'll go a step further, that appellant just stated that they are ADA accessible and they're meeting handicap requirements by ensuring that anyone who cannot understand the service as it's dictated will have microphones. In fact, we just held a Pulse Memorial where we gave out microphones and headphones and earbuds to people who did not understand the native tongue which was english during our post memorial we gave out earbuds to translate to the proper language so what we're saying is that our code says that There's a specific group of people not being served, but we can't determine what that group is, even though there are residents that reside in this community that will potentially come and attend this seven-day Adventist church, regardless of the dialect that they speak. Is that what we're denying on right now with a motion and a second on the table?

Commissioner Rose, if I could interrupt. Commissioner Burns, I don't even see this as a judgment call. I don't see us having a legal basis to decide in the manner that you would like. I don't know if I wish we did or not, but I don't see it at all. Anybody within that mile that wants to attend that church can attend that church.

Right and and again I go back to our cold and I think the intent of this cold on the neighborhood is that if the neighborhood is going to take on the increase traffic burden and everything else it should be designed and designed to meet their need to design is in to serve them. That's my that's what I see the intent of this code. If it's limited to neighborhood, the neighborhood, the surrounding neighborhood would take on more of a burden of what will be happening in the end because of that issue be designed to serve that immediate neighborhood or community within that one square mile and again, but I'm not making this up. I'm looking at the cold.

It seems like the MPP dealt with that by limiting it to the 200.

As it stands today is on for 500 so MPB. So is that the current okay, the current uses 500 correct. Okay, so there's a cap at 200, regardless of how, so if it was just regular public use, 1,000 people could come for congregation if you meet fire and building code. But MPB heard and met people, met the concern somewhere in the middle and say cap at 200, which means, and I'm gonna put this out there, on any given day, if there are more than 200, there is a violation of the fire code, which means you can call code enforcement or 911 and say there is a violation, there are more than 200 cars in this parking lot facility and by fire code there will be a sign that says occupancy maximum load 200. Am I correct? Okay, so if the residents say it seems like there's 1,000 people in the building today because they're having a fair, there's 1,000 people in the building. By right, the residents can call 911. I want to make sure I get this right by policy. And staff can address the concern because they are at occupancy load.

That would be correct, Commissioner Hsu. It's only limited to a maximum congregations or congregants of 200 persons, which, by the way, is the by-right intensity of any residential zoning district within the city, if you will. Now, the intent is that it serves residents within a mile of that site, and like the good pastor said, he does have congregants within a mile of the site.

Jody, I'm hesitant to have you weigh in, but do you want to?

Yeah, Mayor, I think unfortunately we're legally constrained or the council is legally constrained in a couple of different ways. ONE, IF YOU DON'T APPROVE A USE OF THIS PROPERTY THAT A USE OF THE PROPERTY YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY DENYING THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER THE ABILITY TO USE THE PROPERTY BECAUSE CURRENTLY AS YOU KNOW WITH PUBLIC USE THERE'S NO USE FOR THE PROPERTY. SO WITHOUT SOME KIND OF ZONING we'd have a bit of a Burt Harris problem. The second thing is that we do have the RELUPA Act, the federal law that says you can't treat religious uses differently than you would treat any other use, and this property has been used for a commercial, well, institutional medical facility use with arguably the same issues in terms of land use and traffic. So I think you have... some significant legal issues here if it's the desire of the council to turn this.

Okay what Jody is saying is we probably lose if we vote this down and they take it to court. That's what I've been dancing around for 30 minutes and if they want to go over 200 ever they can apply to do that but they have to come right back here to do that and have the same discussion again. So let me tell you where we are. We're on Commissioner Burns' motion, seconded by Commissioner Sheehan, to deny the hearing officer's recommendation, which was denying the quasi-judicial appeal. So my recommendation would be that we vote down Commissioner Burns' motion and then go from there. OK. All in favor of the motion, indicate so by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. OK. That motion fails. Is there a motion to approve the hearing officer's recommendation of denial?

Mayor Dyer, can you state the noes? Hold on, wait. I thought you just moved to deny his motion.

We did. We got to make a motion now. We have to make a motion to approve the hearing officer's Recommendation. Somebody have a motion to approve the hearing officer's recommendation of denial of the quasi-judicial appeal? I move that. Is there a second?

I will second it. And I think when we get into discussion, I'd like to add to that.

OK. Motion and a second. Discussion?

I think this church wants to serve the community. They're going to have ball fields. They're going to have service. They may have it in multiple languages. It's not us to decide. Their doors are open. We have plenty of churches in and around this entire city. Many times they're much better neighbors than some of the other commercial operators. I do think when you talk about ball fields and green space, this is going to be positive. When you think about using the existing building versus added impervious surface, I think this is a good thing. We have stressed the 200. You have heard it here. And if it comes back to me, I'm going to remember this, that the 200 was stated strongly and we not exceed that.

Further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion indicate so by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Aye. And so the motion carries four to two.

OK, we're not done.

Would you read the ordinance accompanying this in item 13E?

Ordinance number 2026-21, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orlando, Florida, rezoning certain land generally located west of Aaron Avenue, east of South Ivy Lane, north of Cassius Street, and south of Zepeda Street, and comprised of 4.2 acres of land, more or less, from public use to plan development, providing for severability, correction of scrivener's errors, permit disclaimer, and an effective date.

I'll move the ordinance.

Second.

Motion and a second. Okay, we have two requests to speak on this. Mayseen Isom? Mayseen? You're on general appearance? Okay. We'll get you at general appearance. Wendell Webster?

Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Wendell Webster. I live at 4511 Morris Street, Orlando, Florida, 32811. I live and work in this community. And I'm here today as a resident, not on behalf of any organization, to ask you to deny the rezoning request for 1600 Erin Avenue. I want to be clear. My opposition is not about whether this congregation is welcome here or whether their mission has value. My concern is narrow and practical. This stretch of Erin Avenue simply cannot carry the traffic this church would bring. Erin Avenue is a two-lane road. It was never built for the volume of vehicles that come with large worship services, weddings, funerals, and special events. Services often happen multiple times per week with hundreds or thousands of cars arriving and leaving within the same narrow window. A road this size cannot absorb this without gridlock spilling onto the surrounding streets. I serve as pastor of a congregation just down the road from 1600 Erin Avenue. And many of my members, most of them elderly, travel this exact corridor every week to get to church. But not only to church, to doctor's appointments, to the grocery store, and other essential places that they use. They are not equipped to navigate sudden congestion, detours, or blocked intersections. This is not an inconvenience to them. It's a genuine burden on their independence and on their safety. It's also a safety issue for every resident in this community. Many of our residents drive small electric vehicles, scooters, bikes, wheelchairs, which are quieter and harder to hear approaching, especially for pedestrians, cyclists, and children. Adding heavy, irregular traffic surges to a one-lane road already used by quiet vehicles such as these creates a real risk of collision. And perhaps most urgent, a two-lane road cannot guarantee access for fire trucks and ambulances. If Erin Avenue is backed up during a service and a resident on this street needs emergency help, minutes may be precious and responders may have no way to get to them. That is not a hypothetical. This is a foreseeable consequence of this rezoning and it should weigh heavily on this commission. This is, at its core, a question of compatibility. A use of this scale belongs on a road built to carry it, not on a two-lane residential street that was never designed for it. I respectfully ask this commission to deny this rezoning request, or at a minimum, work with community residents and partners to ensure a full traffic and emergency access study before any approval moves forward. Thank you for your time and your service to this community.

Thank you. Okay, Mason.

Good evening. Commissioner Macy Nice from 912 Wooden Boulevard. I come before you today because I grew up at Carver Court. You build apartments on a dump. And the people back in my days, it was happy to build homes, resident homes that we could own homes in that neighborhood. In the past few years, 564 apartments are supposed to be built where Lakeman Home is. I have approached you all with that. That's over 1,000 cars. Johnson Village, they got apartment buildings. Ivy Lane, they got apartment buildings. Traffic. You all are endangering the people in West Orlando. We have history over there. I know about history. 83 years. Now we are being... The next thing you're going to say, the environment is poor. We would lose our homes. I don't want to go back to the plantation because we won't have any place to go. It's time for you all to think about what we need. Nobody listens to the people in West Washington Shores. Every day we got people coming off of John Young Park. Columbia is back. Now you're bringing a church in our community. I hope that this church doesn't do what they're doing in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I hope they don't do that, bringing illegal people into our, and hiding them in that church. This is the same thing. We know the illegals that's in our community, hiding. And read my lips. I personally am going to the governor and the president of the United States to come in and investigate what is happening. We are the last. You do not listen to our concerns. I brought to you all Over 1,000 cars will be in the little Washington Shores neighborhood if you allow these people to build that 564 apartments in our neighborhood. Now you got a four-story apartment on Orange Center. Reverend Wiggins in that area. We are just being pushed out of our neighborhood. All of a sudden, people want to come into our neighborhood. We have history. You pushed us out there. Now you got people coming in, want to take over the neighborhood. I tell you, I will be going. I might be going by myself. But this, what you all are doing to our community, I'm going to the state, and I'm going to the federal government. It needs to be investigated where this money is coming in, who's buying this property, and where the money is going. Because it's sure not coming out in our neighborhood. All our streets are bad.

I think you may see. Okay, there's a motion to approve the ordinance is there discussion. Hearing none on paper, the motion indicates so by saying aye aye those opposed. Okay for 2 again. Okay motion carries that concludes the official business today and could you get us ready for general appearance.