The most significant topic of the meeting was the discussion on mandatory public art contributions from private developments. Dr. Kaa presented findings from the public art board, which proposed that private developments contribute 0.5% of their project value to public art, with subdivisions exceeding 25 lots contributing $1,000 per lot. Non-residential developments valued above $2 million would also be subject to a contribution, capped at $50,000. Exemptions were suggested for affordable housing, small homes, duplexes, ADUs, and parking garages.

The committee grappled with whether these contributions should fund public art within the development or be donated to a public art fund. Concerns about the fairness and legal implications of such mandates were raised. Some members suggested framing the requirement to include public art within the project to avoid it being seen as an exaction. Examples of successful integrations of public art into projects were noted, but the necessity of further legal examination was emphasized.

Discussions highlighted the disparity in contributions between single-family homes and larger projects, raising questions about fairness. A recommendation was made to explore the legal framework surrounding mandatory contributions and report back to the city council. The committee acknowledged that similar public art contributions have been implemented in over 300 communities in the U.S..

Another major topic was the proposed adjustments to parking regulations. The committee deliberated on reducing the parking minimums and potentially imposing maximum parking requirements. The proposed reduction in parking spaces for multifamily developments from 1.65 to 1.5 spaces per unit generated debate, with concerns about whether this would meet the actual parking needs of residents, especially in areas influenced by student populations from the nearby University of Central Florida.

The discussion extended to the specific dimensions of parking spaces, with a proposal to reduce standard parking spaces to 9 feet by 18 feet and to designate 10% of spaces as oversized to accommodate larger vehicles. There was also talk of eliminating compact spaces and ensuring that oversized spaces are clearly marked.

The committee examined the idea of shared parking in mixed-use developments. This proposal aimed to simplify the approval process and reflect the varying peak usage times of different businesses or residential areas.

A point of discussion was the implications of free parking on promoting alternative transportation. Some members argued that making parking more difficult could encourage the use of mass transit, while others were concerned about the potential burden on developers and residents.

The committee also reviewed loading and unloading requirements, particularly for downtown mixed-use areas. There was a consensus that these areas should be exempt from extensive loading dock requirements due to the nature of the businesses involved.

In terms of mobility strategies, the committee discussed integrating wider sidewalks and various initiatives to facilitate aging in place, such as building elevators and ground-floor master bedrooms. They also highlighted low-impact development methods to improve stormwater management, including bioswales, permeable paving, and green roofs.

The meeting further addressed the necessity of ensuring that all developments have appropriate mitigations for deviations from the Land Development Code. A tiered system was proposed, requiring one to three mitigations based on the percentage of deviation.

The discussion on street connectivity emphasized the importance of avoiding dead-end streets to promote community connectivity. The committee considered restricting dead-end streets to situations where physical barriers like wetlands or existing developments prevent connections. There was debate about the fairness of classifying dead-end streets as private and the financial implications for residents in new developments.