stand for the Pledge of Allegiance this meeting is order flag United States Madam Secretary will please have roll call good evening everyone chair Camelo Endo present Vice chair Maria Teresa Connie present member Philip lry present member Jeff Rivera unexcused member Dawn grisbee present member nanth Douglas here member Russell Alexander present thank you have cor Mr chairman and um Miss Douglas will be a voting member this evening obviously all the commission members May participate in all of the proceedings but Miss Douglas will be voting this night okay before we uh call for a a motion for the minutes of last uh meeting uh would you like to speak yeah Dak Mar Sara deputy director have an update on the agenda the items for Lake Ley Ventures items d e and f have been pulled out of the agenda it will be advertised again for the new to a certain day we will send out mailers to the community and read advertised but that item would not be heard tonight you said B and f d e and f b and dog just to summarize to summarize all of the lake Lizzy man are being pulled and will be Ren noticed at a future date with a Time certain for it to be heard that's correct okay thanks and that announcement is made in part for those and attendants that were here for that case that case will be Ren noticed and you will be notified of the future date once that is established and it you may speak with the staff about this but we're going to move on with the agenda at this time that's as much as that's as much as I know yes ma'am thank you thank you ma'am yes ma'am Mr chairman we uh we are at the approval for the minutes of January 16th okay I have a motion for the approvals of January I'll make a motion to approve second I have a first and a second all in favor I anybody oppos motion passes minutes approved 5 Z thank you sir okay first order of business is ordinance number 20 24-16 DRC case ax 23- 000000008 good evening planning Commissioners good evening good evening um I will be presenting the cases for the annexation the comprehensive plan Amendment and the zoning map Amendment for a property known as Alpha Neptune and Sunnyside which is approximately 1.6 acres and it's nor located north of Sunnyside Avenue south of Neptune Road and West of freeze Wood Street and the um applicants request is for approval of ordinance numbers 20246 for the annexation 20247 for the comprehensive plan Amendment and 20248 for the Zoni Amendment and staff also recommends appr approval and the aerial depicts the location of the property so just a little background on this property the proposed future land use is mixed use with the proposed zoning of mixed use and the development is consistent with the surrounding development in the area and it should have no adverse impacts on City facilities and just a little background on this property it currently has mixed use land use and zoning and unincorporated osal County and it's located within the East Lake too um element of the comprehensive plan and it's also located within the boundary of the joint planing um boundary and is contiguous to the city limits and the annexation request meets the requirements of Florida statute 171.000 44 and um per the policy of the comprehensive plan this request is consistent with the East Lake too policies which um mix provides a mix of housing types and this development is proposing neighborhood type 2 which is a predominance of um more attached product types than um single family and as you can see on this slide this depicts the current future land use on the map as it shows currently um that's the Cy's mixed use future land use that's shown on the future land use map and the zoning map that shows the um mixed use zoning that's in the county and that pink that you see to the east of this property that's to that's currently in the city limits and also um that's being considered at the city council meeting next month the applicant has a concurrent mixed use concept plan that's under review that shows the propos um development which is proposing um 18 multif family units and DRC and the staff recommend recation for the annexation of 1.6 acres and the comprehensive plan Amendment and the zoning map Amendment and approval and the requested action for the Planning Commission this evening is approval and staff is available if you have any questions just a clarification for the commission is it staff and applicant wish all these cases be presented simultaneously and then the commission will act independently on each of the items yes please so I didn't want to interrupt your presentation no problem you've made the entirety of the presentation for staff so Mr chairman you probably want to call um an an announce and call the cases on items B and C of the agenda you called I believe just item a okay Item B and C of the agenda is ordinance number 20 24-17 CPA 23-15 and ordinance number 20 24-18 Dr C KZ ma23 - z13 thank you okay thank you would the applican like to say something John R Adams RJ wh Associates 316 Church Street Simi Florida were the planners for the project we're in agreement with staff's recommendation for approval on all three of these items and be happy to answer any questions you guys might have have any questions for the applicant or city I guess just the obvious question about construction things like that are not going to con happen for quite some time right yes this is just an annexation that's required by your jpa your comp plan Amendment and your zoning map Amendment there is a concurrent application running that'll be heard at city council for a mixed use concept plan but that won't be heard till March other questions I don't have anything no okay uh we'll open it up to the public for a public comment no public comments we'll close it to the public any questions amongst yourselves if we have no questions may I have a motion just would remind the commission to take the cases one by one and make sure to reference the Land Development code 16 findings in your motion please I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 20 24-16 based on the 16 findings within the Land Development code second I have a first second all in favor I I anybody oppos All Passes okay do I have u a motion for ordinance number 20 24-17 I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 202 24-17 and to transmit to Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for an inter agency review based on the 16 findings within the Land Development code I have a first do I have a second second I have a first and second all in favor I I I anybody opposed okay we're voting now on ordinance number 20 24-8 I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 202 24-18 based on the 16 findings within the Land Development code I have a first do I have a second I second I have a first and second all in favor I I anybody opposed All Passes we will now be visiting ordinance number 202 24-22 DRC cda2 24- z001 hello hello good evening good evening the request before you this evening is a um Land Development code Amendment that's adding language to the Land Development code for live local act and um this request was um before the city council for an action based on resolution 2023 2024 R which directed staff to create Land Development code Provisions to address the new state legislation in response to Senate Bill 102 which was the live local act that um provided information for local governments to allow affordable housing development through administrative approval so with this proposed Land Development code update there the their section of the Land Development code that'll be modified to allow multif family development in commercial indust indal and mixed use zoning designations so as a quick summary the proposed changes to the Land Development code would create a site development plan process for live local act projects and as I mentioned before it would add multifamily to Commercial and um mix use in in industrial zoning districts and with this regard the Land Development code would also add parking reduction and minimum land Landscaping requirements for live local act type projects and would also add development standards such as setbacks and buffer requirements if they're adjacent to um single family type developments and also in the Land Development code there will be an updated to um the terms and definitions so there'll be a definition to Define what qualifies as eligible LIF local act um projects and lastly there will be a monitoring process to ensure that for 30 years that these projects remain um at the affordable um housing rate so as I mentioned previously um Senate Bill 102 it preempts local governments from um adding restrictions to live local act projects which mean that um zoning map amendments or comprehensive plan amendments are not required for them to um have a multif family development in industrial commercial or those mixed zoning District they can do that administratively and with that it also allowed them to go above the building height within a one mile radius as long as they demonstrated that and also the process had to be approved administratively I mean it didn't have to require a public hearing for approval so in chapter the new um organization of the Land Development code the new section on the site development plan it would create a review process for applicants or agents who submitted applications for these type of projects and pretty much what that did they had to meet certain um criteria such as design standards and other elements for them to qualify so one they would be required to schedule a pre-application meeting with staff to show how their project qualified for a li local act project and then two they had to demonstrate if they qualified for a density bonus and as the Senate Bill stated that the Liv Loca act project they will qualify for the highest density in the city and at this time the highest density in the city is 225 doing units per acre and um how our current comprehensive plan reachs now is that we allow no more than a 25% density bonus so to do that with this act they would have to meet some of the new requirements that we put in the code to demon demonstrate how they meet those requirements and with that for these type of projects they um have to go through expedited review and we're proposing that the sufficiency process for a little local act projects would occur within three working days and then within 14 working days these items would be scheduled for a development review committee meeting for approval administratively and then the final section of the section of the site development code section of the the code the developer would submit annually a li local act monitoring program so he would submit paperwork that shows that for a period of 30 years that his project will remain at that affordable rate and then the next section of the Land Development code that's being updated it's just the commercial zoning districts that shows that multifamily um would be permitted in these zoning districts because previously they were not allowed but per that Senate bill they would have to be allowed without requiring a rezoning or comprehensive plan Amendment and then next in chapter four the next section of the Land Development code that's being updated will allow parking reduction for these developments if they demonstrated through a parking study and that the proposed development was in a major Transit stop that they could qualify for a parking reduction and the next update to the Land Development code is to update the project B boundary area for Li local act projects if they were adjacent to single family require them to have a high buffer so um we're adding an additional table section in the code to show those buffer requirements for live local act projects and also in Article 15 there will be a supplemental section that speaks to the development standards such as your setbacks for live local an projects and lastly as I mentioned in chapter eight that would add a definition section so that you would understand the definition for Li local act projects and after review staff recommends approval of ordinance number 2024-25 for This Land Development code Amendment and also staff recommends that the the requested action for this ordinance is approval and staff is available for any questions we have any questions for St I got questions that's a state it's a state law yes it was passed last year Senate Bill 102 and all the provisions that are included in this come directly from the state law or was there anything added yes so um I'm at the city council meeting in October to react to that new legislation the council passed a resolution for the city to have six months to create a process to react to that so pretty much if someone were to request a multif family development in industrial zoning as a city we would have to honor that request per the state legislation we would not require them to have his zoning map Amendment that's pretty scary I have a question according to this our government already has rules for height requirements for buildings of certain stories here in St Cloud would that limit that they can do as high as they want now no so okay with within the um the um development standards there's an height limit so let's just say the maximum height in that area was four so they would have to demonstrate within a mile what's the highest height limit so they couldn't come in and build something that's 10 storage it'll have to be compatible with the surrounding area and with still with the zoning to your point Russell is that if they the state is just saying that you don't have to have them do the zoning but you still have the other portions of that that they still have to be regulated to so there' still be a check in the balance yes yes that's what the site development plan review process would be so first they would still come to City staff to request a pre-application meeting so it would still be reviewing their their um request and then we we have a new checklist to say okay since you're saying you're qualifying for a LIF local project demonstrate how you require um qualify for these findings like demonstrate you know the the amount of parking demonstrate your height and they will have to do the research to say within um the mile the height limit that they're requesting and even with the density bonus at the highest density in the city they wouldn't be able to go over 32 dwelling units per acre okay because it's only 25% but we're proposing to at least go up to 30% if they demonstrate like um design standards if it's near a major Transit stop but we'll still be reviewing that throughing the site development plan and right now um we will see how this process will go as we get some medals but at this time there have not been many um increase is there a maximum income threshold so it goes by the um area median income 30% so they would have to demonstrate how they're meeting that that income that's set aside by Hood standards and we provided that in the definition section as well that goes by lowend come moderate income and um I think the middle one was moderate so to say just getting it right in my head what we just approved on Neptune Road that could be an example of this sort of right they wouldn't just wouldn't have had to get the zoning but they would have had to adhere to the other portions is that because that's all that is MI and for an example um mixed use has the that's the highest um density in the area which is 25 and if they wanted the density bonus they right now the code reads 25% we allowed to the new over 30 but they still wouldn't get as many units on one acre since you still have to meet your open space you still have to factor in you know areas for parking and you still have to do your Landscaping so even though you hear that Magic High number you may not get that because you still have to meet other Land Development code requirements and right now the code still required is 20% for open space I wanted to ask about the table 4.8.4 a the project boundary buffer yard standards yes um I was just trying to understand the separation between um some of these future adjacent contiguous future land uses so I I see that the live local act projects um um between those and agricultural or rural would be a med a medium buffer would be required is that correct yes so basically in the code there's a section that shows the the minimum with distance and the amount of tree plantings that you have to meet for those buffers and so between industrial for instance is a is a high is a high buffer and that's the one that requires the greatest width and more trees planting within that so with the buffer requirement it goes by land use so if you're industrial and you're contiguous to um single family you'll have a high buffer I believe the distance was 50 feet I need to have that table in front of me but it's a it's a certain amount of tree plantings you're required to plant and of course the width but then again um the city doesn't have much available industrial future land use but how this new legislation reads is that if they wanted to do multif family they could but they will still have to meet the Land Development code requirements I'm just trying to wrap my head around how this is is could become a reality because I did some quick math last night when I was looking at this and I don't know how much the average unit goes for these days you you probably would know better than me Don but for individual um if you calculate a unit that would be $2,000 a month and include a say a $200 utility bill for a person to only spend 30% they would have to make a a gross income of $888,000 so it Go by that chart that they have for the the income chart so I guess at that point we're we're not regulating the income chart that's set by Hud but for the developer they would have to follow that income chart especially if they're planning to apply for those tax credits and they would have to verify that for 30 years rate they'll submit paperwork to the city and then we'll just make sure that for and it'll be um recorded in a deed restriction that that property will have to be um affordable for minimum of 30 years but it wouldn't be required for you to approve the project it would just be required for them to get the the credits for the live local if you're submitting an application as a live local act project it has to meet those income requirements and they'll submit that paperwork with their application because you know like when people go through the litec process to get those credits from the state they submit the paperwork to get this verification for the zoning and the um local government contribution forms like if they're trying to get those tax credits for from the state then they would have to demonstrate that it is meeting that area Med median income I see yes so they'd have to go by whatever they have to income is at the time yes and um and I I'm not sure if we have it online but at the county they they set it from um very low income and then they set it and so forth but I know that they have to have a certain percentage those units be set aside with a very low income and this process um is just a way for us to review those those projects as they come in but there's still paperwork for them to submit through the state if they want to receive that um credit from through the state is there any restriction on um locations with within the city that they would be able to apply for this type of so pretty much as the Senate Bill reads like if it's commercial mix use or industrial if they acquire it and they want to build there they could but the only thing about um the city of St Cloud is that our future land use a lot of it's mixed use a lot of is mixed use but that density is not high enough for them to make the numbers work like for instance in Aila County they have urban center court and that Z that zoning designation doesn't have a maximum density so that would be the best so it the easiest for them to meet the criteria so like here they would have if somebody um was interested in a two-acre parcel and maximum is 25 it's like oh you know I may get I don't know maybe 70 units there and I guess for them to make Financial sense they will have to meet a certain unit count because I think they I think some of them say the magic number is 200 so they would be invested in the property if they can meet a a minimum unit count on their end so although we're putting this process into place we're we're just making sure that we're um creating those um site development plan regulations and we're doing that in the Land Development code to satisfy the criteria from the state but as far as if they would submit here um that's a we'll we'll we'll see in the future but the main thing is the density yeah I want to talk a little bit more about the parking the parking too because um how would you I know that it says that you you would consider reducing the restriction on the number of parking units but like what would what would dictate how many parking units they had to have if if I mean would it just be like an agreement that you would have or or how would would that would be how would that be determined so similar to the current standards for a parking reduction they would have to submit a traffic study so let's just say you're required like I think right now for multif family it's um it's two and a half parking spaces per unit and then it's an additional half space per 10 units so let's just say you're required to have I don't know 300 units and then you're demonstrating that you're near a major transic stop you would show a traffic study to demonstrate how you would need to meet that requirement so my only concern with that is you know we've seen the traffic studies don't seem to accurately uh inform uh about the actual traffic and my biggest concern with reducing parking is getting emergency services in and out of okay a project that was considered a live you know to meet the live local act okay and now I have my notes in front of me so it says that the parking study it must obtain be obtained for a Min minimum of three different similar like projects in the area and it has to be from that it it Ma manual for transportation engineer and then um in this reduction we're proposing for um those multif family components to have um 1.5 parking spaces per unit and then additional for every 10 units to have a guest parking space so I guess at this time um once those requests come in we will review their parking request to see if we're able to grant that that request because right now um you'll still have to have adequate parking to at least meet your minimum parking requirements okay and then of course with the fire asset you will still have to have your drive out whips to uh accommodate those emergency vehicles you'll still have to meet the um section I think it's article six of the code that speaks about the width for your emergency vehicles and things like that you'll stay there yeah and I I understand that but if you drive through any subdivision in town and look at how many people park in the street that they're not supposed to and next to each other and I mean I'm just speaking the obvious here just what what we're doing tonight though is we're creating a state bill I mean it's a bill we have to do this we're just kind of more or less in in instituting the fact that the zoning is the really the only thing we don't have to yes and as I mentioned before the key um goal for these type of projects is for them to be near a major Transit stop and with that that means that if the people that living in these communities rely on public transportation they wouldn't um have a vehicle and that should that should mean that they would have less cars so the key to get that reduction of parking is to make sure that the development is near a major Transit stop and you know most of that is along 192 where the linkx bus stops run yeah getting transportation to a public subdivision I don't think is as possible as being on a major thway not in SLE yes and I'm assuming like most of these development would be closer to 192 and some of the requests that we have received that's in the area of that they've been but we haven't received many Quest requests I would only say maybe only two could they make a parking for the public buses inside the development oh it would be um the bus along you know like the bus stops they have along 192 but but not within the development I would make it inside the development because of the kids and everything you got other ones School Bus oh you're talking about a school bus and that would be reviewed oning the site development plan and the school district would these would these developments be required to follow the architectural standards yes and that's in our um article 3. 26.2 for residential architectural standards so this criteria that um that we would be changing in the Land Development code is this was this um received by the state or I mean how who came up with the exact numbers and um okay the tables and such so at staff we were working with a consultant to think of the best way to create more efficient products that are you know number one they meet the requirements to satisfy the Senate bill and then two to make sure that with these type of developments that they would provide more Recreation areas provide open space that they'll meet um those additional points to um get that density bonus so with the application process we're we're proposing having a check checklist for developers to see like if you're proposing to do this many units and you want to get that additional density bonus we're proposing that they meet these design criteria and for one we're we're hoping that they will provide additional landscaping and then two if they can provide you know additional Recreation areas and then it's a plus if it's near that transic stop since if they want the parking reduction that's one of the requirements that we're hoping that they would have they would be near those Transit stops is one of the requirements going to be a certain distance from these Transit stops yeah we're proposing to be at least a half mile one half mile yes and then we're also proposing that within the development that there be like more connectivity more connection to the sidewalks and things like that feel like you're requiring like a bus turning instead of just right off the road basically I guess right now I'm not sure yet until um Public Works reviews the site development plan and I guess whatever fdot requires for um a turn lane assess from 192 Zach Mar seara deputy director so as you know links is a private entity it collaborates with municipalities with where municipalities also contribute to the expenses of lynx but Lynx is the one who has the final determination of where the stops happen and how they happen that's why we cannot mandate a developer who has to have a bu stop a public bu stop inside their development link control that through and with fdot and they designate the areas um the a lot of the criterias that are written in this process they come straight from the B bill so these were already in the bill telling us that we need to comply with these criterias what we did is try to adjust those criterias to what we already have in as requirements the parking reduction there are some criteria that the bill already established and then we're just going to give some incentives that if you want this you got to give us this if you want that you got to give us this so that's the part that we're trying to create a balance of obtaining a good product but at the same time and addressing the affordability of housing affability in the city and at the same time be in compliance with the state's mandates so this is a process that is um B per this the the legislative is supposed to be a streamlined process so it encouraged developers to build this type of product which we all know is very needed in Central Florida that middle middle missing um as Francine stated whether we're going to have a lot of that product here is yet to be seen because our density we're not planning to increase our density than what is currently at we are we are adding more commercial industrial areas and we are we were concerned about losing some of those to um uh to to multif family but as Francine stated the land that is ignated for those type of zonings they're not very big and the big Parcels are located on the mixed use which will require them to if you want to have the the apartments you have to have that mixed use product they have to provide that commercial component so in regards to our city the impact is not going to be as greater as we expect because a lot of the land that we have yet to Annex is mixed use or medium or uh residential medium low density residential and we're not changing those densities right now the only change that you're going to see later this year with our future land news Amendment update is that we are going to be adopt uh we're going to be adopted a new future line news designation that would be compatible with the county for those lands that are being annexed from the county other than that the the ramifications of this bill should not really impact the city um we don't see a big big impact any other questions if we have no other questions we'll be opening the for public comments no public comments open up once again so you can speak amongst yourselves in case you want to say anything no seems pretty logical to me okay if nobody has anything to say may I have a motion I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 2024-25 within the Land Development code do I have a second second I have a first and second all in favor I I I anybody opposed Madam Secretary when will be our next meeting our next meeting will be held on March 19th at 6 p.m. thank you very much Madam Secretary can we ask you we have a meeting that's scheduled to for awards or something what is that make me one second Monday March 5th yeah Monday March 5th Monday March 5th yeah I it should be in your email and she does need you to RSVP everyone I want to say thank you to everybody on this board because I am leaving I will no longer be here I'll watching home than you Maria thank you if you may resend that because I haven't receiv received it yes I'll I'll resend it tomorrow okay thank you so much okay thank you for all the fa M Maria chairman sorry just uh I just wanted to take this opportunity um to U two announcements uh we have a new principal planner uh she started with us about a week and a half ago ber uh Gonzalez she is our new uh principal Planner on our La Range so we're very excited to have her and the other uh on our um March 8 March April Planning Commission we're going to go over some uh Workshop items one them is going to be the future land news update that is coming and it's also the transportation master plan that we're working on it and I believe that there's going to be also for the new members of the board if we get get well we're going to get a new member of the board possibly um the all the rules and regulations for the board um and thank you for your service Miss Carney thank you you just talking about the sunshine discussions conflict of interest voting and that's correct yep I'll be happy to go through that with everybody at our next meeting looking forward to it and I misspoke Maria it's Tuesday March 5th invitation get any other questions or anything call for good or call for a motion for dismissal move to the dismiss I'll second have first and second all in favor I I motion moved