The meeting began with a workshop involving the Planning Commission and the City Council to gather input on the comprehensive plan rewrite. This crucial document, mandated by Florida Statute 163.31771, sets the policy foundation for local planning and land use decisions. Michelle Morrison from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council elaborated on the history and legal requirements for comprehensive plans in Florida, emphasizing the importance of resilience and sustainability in the plan. The rewrite initiative, which began in late 2021, aims to modernize regulations and align them with current statutes and community needs. Projections estimate Apopka’s population will reach approximately 83,000 by 2040, necessitating updates to the plan to accommodate future development and infrastructure needs.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing a shift toward mixed-use development and increased residential and industrial land usage. This shift aims to reduce reliance on automobiles by enhancing walkability through mixed-use areas, which could include residential and commercial spaces in closer proximity. Approximately 625 policies were reviewed, focusing on new policies regarding Community Redevelopment Areas (CRA), brownfields, and annexation. The housing element of the plan projects a need for about 27,000 housing units by 2040 to accommodate population growth, with current stock around 16,000 units. Emphasis was placed on providing diverse housing options, particularly for marginalized populations, as approximately 25% of Apopka’s residents are renters.

The conservation element aims to protect natural resources while ensuring water quality and minimizing threats to wetlands. Policies include maintaining upland buffers, preserving native vegetation in floodplains, and habitat preservation for designated species. The capital improvement element outlines mechanisms to finance necessary infrastructure, proposing new policies related to water-related facilities and regional transportation improvements. The infrastructure element consolidates various public service sub-elements to enhance efficiency and minimize costs, addressing levels of service and the timing of facility master plans.

Concerns were raised regarding the inclusion of stormwater facilities in the designation of open space. The discussion acknowledged the importance of ensuring that open space is genuinely accessible and usable by residents. Another point of contention was the sequence of updates to the comprehensive plan and the land development code, with some questioning why the land development code had been updated in 2019 prior to the comprehensive plan revision. It was asserted that the comprehensive plan serves as a policy document guiding the land development code.

Connectivity and the preservation of rural areas were also discussed, with specific policies in place to limit density in rural regions. An example was provided regarding a four-lot development request for two units per acre, which was denied to maintain the rural character. The comprehensive plan is designed to address suburban sprawl by capping density and requiring planned unit developments (PUDs) to include a mix of residential and non-residential uses along with public benefits. The provision of parks and recreation facilities was highlighted, with suggestions for improvement including analyzing park scores and walking distances to parks. The consensus was that pocket parks in new developments often cater to limited uses and do not serve the broader community effectively.

Public notification for new developments was another topic of discussion, with concerns about the adequacy of notifying only residents within 300 feet of a proposed development. The need for developers to create communities that promote walkability and connectivity to essential amenities was emphasized. The integration of cycling infrastructure within the city’s development plans was also discussed, with concerns about the safety of cyclists on roads without designated bike lanes.

The authority granted to the community development director to approve uses not listed in the Kelly Park interchange prompted concerns about bypassing the city council. The suggestion was made to strike this policy to ensure clarity in the use approval process.

Affordable housing was a point of debate, with developers indicating that the timeline for establishing affordable housing might extend to another 30 years. The disconnect between current housing costs and income levels was highlighted, noting that a six-figure salary is often necessary to secure a home in Florida. Rising rental costs were also a concern, with one example of a three-bedroom apartment costing $2,400 per month. The state-adopted “live local” initiative defines affordable housing as accessible to those earning 120% of the area median income, but many argued this effectively equates to market rate. The concept of “missing middle housing,” which includes housing types like duplexes and triplexes, was noted as a potential solution.

The potential for the city to utilize surplus land for affordable housing initiatives was discussed, with a policy aiming to assess city properties suitable for higher residential densities and mixed-use development. Rising rents’ impact on small businesses was also a concern.