--------- Are we good? Yep. Okay. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[Music] All right. Now you can call roll call. Chair Philip Lantry, present. Vice Chair Russell Alexander, present. Member Nanette Douglas, excused absence. Member Don Grisby, present. Member Rudy Ruby
Bridgefor excused absence. Dy Snider, present. And we have a quorum. All members, voting, members this evening. All right. Thank you. All right. So, first order of business is approval of the minutes from the last meeting on April
15th. Did everyone review the minutes? Are there any questions, comments, concerns? No. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of April 15th. Okay, we have a motion from Miss Snder. Have a second. All right. Thank you. We have a motion
and a second. All in favor of approving the minutes. I I All righty. All right. First action item is ordinance number 2025-46. This is Clay Whley Road mixed Use
a case number ANX24-000013. And I assume we should probably go ahead and read all three of these in. Yes, please. So we also have ordinance number 2025-47 which is a comprehensive plan amendment case number
CPA24-000017 and ordinance number 2025-48 which is a zoning map amendment which is case number ZMA24-000017. Good evening. Good evening commissioners. Bernice Gonzalez, principal planner, community development. The cases before you this
evening is the annexation comprehensive plan amendment for future land use designation and the zoning map amendment for zoning designation for the project known as clay wy road mixuse. The parcels are contiguous and
reasonably compact. that to the city bound and located within the joint planning area. They currently have a county future land use of mixed use as well as a county zoning of mixed
use. The proposed future land use is within the city and the city zoning district of mixed use. The development is compatible with the surrounding area
and it has no adverse impact on city facilities. Here's a graphic representation of the future land use. At the north and the south it's city's mixed use and the purple is the
county's mixed use future land use. And this is a graphic representation of the zoning in the area. The north and the south are the city's mixuse zoning and the light blue is the county's mix
zoning. On before May 1st, 2025, staff review obligations for the annexation the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map amendment and recommended approval. Likewise, we're requesting the planning commission confirming to make
16 findings that they also recommend. Staff and the applicant are present for any questions. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff before we ask come
up? All right. Thank you. Uh so I see the applicant here is Dominion Development. RJWA Incorporated. Yes. Good evening. John Adams
RJWA semi Florida 8 Broadway CM Florida 34741. We're the agent for the applicant to agreement with staff's recommendation for approval for these three applications. Be happy to answer any of your questions that you all may have.
Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Um, see here. At this time, we will allow for public
comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to comment on any of these three ordinances? [Music] All right, I guess we don't have anybody, so we will close public comment. I did have a question for the
city staff. Uh, it's on page number 38 of the packet that we received. And I believe this is under
the zoning map. zoning a movement uh under the consistency with strategic plan goals. It says the proposed zoning map amendment does not meet the intent of the following city of St. Cloud strategic goals which is high performing
government focus on the con uh continuity and sustainability of core public services. Is that a misprint? Is that a typo or could it mean Bernice Gonzalez principal planner community
development? Uh that is correct. Chair Landry that should be the proposed map amendment does I see the intent of the following city class.
You got to read through stuff. Um, so I have a couple other questions. Um, as you probably know, I have a lot of concerns with this area. Uh, and so the issues I have are essentially
that I don't believe that they're meeting all of the 16 findings in the land development code. Uh, and I'll give you a moment. Um so finding number eight under the zoning map amendment
um it says that the proposed change will create or excess excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety and the response is the proposed change should not create or excessively increase traffic or affect public safety. A traffic impact analysis
will be required at site development plan submitt to further evaluate potential impacts and ensure mitigation requirements are met. And so conveniently since you have the transportation element in here, you have the definitions of different levels of
service for transportation, right? Um that's A through F. So if you compare that statement with the levels of service that are listed in here, um and I'm just going to read level of service F. that says this condition
usually results from long lines of vehicles backing up because the traffic volume exceeds the roadway capacity. The vehicles are forced to operate at very low speeds. Stop and go situations are frequent and extreme cases vehicles stop for long periods of time. So if you've
ever been in this area where this is being proposed, this annexation and zoning map amendment and comprehensive plan amendment, you will probably see the traffic backs up pretty bad. Right. Because currently we only have one way
in and one way out which is Clay Whe and I stand by it. I think it's irresponsible and I understand that this is the county that's created this issue and the city's just kind of dealing with it, but it's irresponsible in my opinion
to annex something that's a liability. Um and to further that um that point uh can can you bring up the map of the uh in the transportation element? It's on page
126 of the packet. Are you able to bring up No, that's for the other we have. Well, I'll explain it. So on page 126 the map showing the principal arterial roads minor arterial roads and that sort of right your
collector roads that sort of thing. Well in this case we're basically looking at lay from canoe creek road to where cross prairie is is labeled as a major collector existing road.
uh you know I don't disagree with that. However, the the uh clay I'm sorry the cross prairie road is labeled as a future principal arterial road. Parts of it are existing right parts of it are
future. Um, however, even when that is finished, you still only have Clay Whe traffic, it's already a problem. We're already a level F. How can we possibly say that we're meeting that part of the land development code if
we're already a level F? Okay. Um, thank you for for that question, chair. At this time, what we're presenting is the higher level applications that the applicant is making for annexation and giving them a
regulatory framework within the city. So, we can address those things at the development application stage. And that's where all of those uh traffic and other studies and public works would come into play to look at
those requirements and the traffic impact assessment. It's also part of the requirements of that stage within the city. Yeah. And I completely understand that. Right. We we can sit here and say, well, they don't they're not really required to provide that at this time, right?
However, I can sit here and look and know that in the next two, three years, we're not adding any roads, right? There's no possible way that we can increase the level of service. And there's no way, in my opinion, that we can meet that that one. There's there's
actually two um findings of the land. So if the applicant is here that they could answer more specifically to any development information that they wish to provide. Sure. So we can uh allow them to respond to that portion. So
before before he does I just want to read the other um the other one of the findings that I believe uh is not being met and that is number three which is the proposed change would material materially alter
the population density pattern and thereby increase or overt tax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc. And the response is the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the county's existing entitlements for
mixeduse development and is not expected to significantly affect population distribution or public infrastructure capacity. Level of service impacts will continue to be evaluated and addressed during future stages of development review. So that's the part that has me
worried is where it says level of service impact will continue to be evaluated when I know we can continue to evaluate them all we want but if we're already at a low level of service there how are we going to improve it we don't there's unfortunately this area is
isolated because of the turnpike isolating it between west lake to the rest of St. Cloud. So yeah, you can the applicant can address that. Sure. I just wanted to uh add that as part of the
comprehensive plan amendment, the school board does a review of the capacity and they have provided a report that's part of the documents that are included in the in the item. Well, I'm glad you mentioned that because that was going to
be another question of mine later. Uh what information did they actually provide? What part? Because when I go in there and I look at the school, there's really nothing provided that I can see. There's a school the school district of a school of Florida, they
provide a report where they let us know per their capacity whether they can evaluate that at this time or not. Usually they do an evaluation at a level of development application where we have
actual site plan uh provided to them. Okay. So where is the current report? Because I see a page that says the school district county, Florida planning services department school capacity report and it has the numbers on there.
It has the future land use, the current zoning, the common due date, but there's no actual report there. And then it says a more accurate report can be generated with the submitt of a detailed site development plan application. Correct.
But there's no report now. So is is am I missing something or they need a development level at the site plan actually site plan created to be able to provide that detailed report. They tell
us in that report the number of units the percentage of impact and any other recommendations that So the pages in here are not really a report. It's just a cover page that says hey we've looked at this. We're not providing a report until we get it. Mr. Chair, I think
that's an old reading submitt. I think that the report this time based on what's being applied for there were no objections to the contemplated annexation and that's what the report says by not
getting into the weed of anticipating what have you. So I think it's a bit of a harsh reading on to say that it doesn't say I think that what the the the inference is is that at this time there's no objections that capacity
is is existing and from what I can understand they will continue to assess as the development proceeds but they don't see a problem at this time which I think well I'm just asking where does it say that they don't see a problem or
that they do or It doesn't say either way. I mean, it really doesn't Well, I think think that would be raised if there was an objection or concern. And I think in the past that has been the case. There's been some reports to that effect. But in and these criteria, it's entirely appropriate for
all four of you to review those and take those take issue with each and every one of them as you see fit the totality of what you want to consider. But again, this is a 10,000 foot overview, if you will. annexation as you well know you're
well experienced in this position with the commission is a fairly um and the zoning and and the and the land use those are broad concept um getting into what's going to happen development is it is relevant it
absolutely is but I don't know to the to the detail that that you're describing yes and I agree with that however because this is mixed use and they're applying for mixed use in the city. We know it's not going to be a farmhouse, right? We know it's going to be
something. It could be commercial. It could be residential, could be town homes, could be apartments. I mean, we we really don't know, but we're we're pretty confident that it's going to be something that's going to include a significant transportation element. Well, it's mixed use now. Just counties.
That's what my my question is that there they have the the ability because they own it to do mixed use and to do um the zoning and everything is it it's just moving from county to city. So it's been my experience or what I've
been understanding the last few years is that this is a voluntary annexation. That's all we're talking about at this point. All of those other points you're bringing up don't come in until the next level at which they have to move. That we're also talking about putting strain
and extra land on city services, right? That's what annexation is 100%. But if that's going to be really a big issue, that's going to be stopped at the next level, not at this level, right? Because the bottom line is is there it's still
going to be a straining of of anything over there, whether it's city or not. It's going to be a strain on the community that is there right now and it's nothing's going to change. It's just county versus city. My understanding was if we don't we don't
get the funds that we need in order to think that but two years ago I said the same thing and here we are. We still have one road in one road out and we've got several units out there which now have created that level F level of
service. Yeah, but you not but you not wanting there to be annexation of the city is not going to stop that. It's not a matter of wanting. It's a matter of concern for our city that I'm that I'm arising. I respect that. But it's still going to happen. They own the
property so they can do what they want to right by not allowing them to annex is not going to make that happen. But it but but in your description of what you're concerned about that raises it up to our city council at the next exact
level to do something. Exactly. I just go ahead you up. I just I think that the focus at this stage with the annexation in particular is does it meet the statuto requirements? Is it contiguous? Does it create an enclave? If it does not, if it meets those legal
requirements, you know, I it's big picture. Um, that's the recognition. You can you can make a recommendation as to be the body, but I would just encourage you that unless there's something that legally would preclude the annexation
and and whatever land use and zoning you would attribute to it, I don't know. There's nothing that I've seen in the reports that exist that that is in opposition of what's being sought by the application. So, um you all can bring your collective uh personal views and
experience into assessing the determination, but you know that unless there's some sort of a quantifiable report that will raise some of the issues that are being discussed, I think you need to be closer to what the law will allow in this instance. Yeah. And that's
I mean that's fine if other members of this commission want to look at it that way. Sure. And the way I'm looking at it is that finding number three and number eight were not meeting that. That's that's how I'm looking at it. So and it's a recommendation that will go to
council and this will be heard by council. June 12th. June 12th. June 12th. Okay. June June 12th it'll go before camp. Okay. All right. Your turn. Go ahead. Thank you. Uh once again, John Adams,
RJWA. I do want to address some of your concerns, but I do again want to point out one thing that no specific development being proposed or recommended for approval tonight. This is simply a process that we have to go through your annexation, land use, and
zoning per your JPA. Our client owns or has private property rights. These East Lake Toho uh comprehensive plan was adopted in 2010. This area has been destined for growth for 15 years from the adoption
and all the years leading up to that for the planning. So we have a right of reliance on the code. We already have land use and mixed use in the county. We already have land zoning use in the county as well. And that's simply what we're asking for tonight is to maintain those existing entitlements. I do want
to address some of your concerns. Uh first one being number three. On your own city's website, you've got a number out there. 14,153 new housing units will needed by 2045 in your own city's plan. So, we're aligned with the city's projection for
growth with this annexation and zoning and land use plan. Number eight, you brought up and I do understand that right now road is likely enough. I haven't seen the data. If that's what you say, I'll believe it. However, currently, right now, new Noli Road is
being expanded to the Turnpike that's currently under construction. Cross Parkway is being north to the existing urban center that was just approved by the city council in April. Ocula County has pledged over $50 million to continue
Crossbury Parkway from the north end of the urban center over to what's now through the part triangle that city owned property current or DR court owns that property. Clay Road is also a framework road that's going to be expanded. Our client would be
responsible through a development application to provide an additional 47 feet of rightway to expand Clay Road. They also have a north south framework road that goes on the western side of this site that they will be responsible for building to provide more
interconnectivity throughout the entire area. As far as schools, Ocilo County has the highest school fees in the state. Quarter mile to the south of us, there's already a 50acre high school site in Bellera. There's been a K8 identified and that's just south of CM
Park Road. And then in Edgewater West, there's also a K8 school site that's been looked at as well by the school board that's been set aside for those future impacts of the schools. Fire, police, park, wreck, those are all impact fees that need to be paid by the
development for every new unit that would be proposed in later applications. The impact fees in Ocula County are in St. Cloud with new adoption. Mobility fees are the highest in the state right now. So, I don't know if that helps alleviate some of your concerns, but I'd be happy
to answer any additional questions you may have on. I appreciate it. I mean, that's pretty much, you know, that's all I have is is those concerns that it was irresponsible in my opinion to even start this development
in this area, the Edgewater. And I know it was the county, it wasn't the city, the city's just kind of adopting it. Um, and in my opinion, it's just a liability to only have one way in, and one way out. And I I agree. I know that Noly will be another interchange, but we don't know when that's going to be done. Maybe another year, maybe a year and a
half, half likely longer. But we're but we're seeing is how long does it take to build a devel, you know, town houses or something? A lot less time than it takes to build these roads. There's at least another year to 18 months of engineering plans that go through a formal staff
review and formal approvals. There's South Florida water management permitting process that anywhere from 90 to 180 day process. This is step one of a very long development process before grounds even
broken. Understood. All right. I mean that's I appreciate. Does anybody else have any questions? the applicant. Not a question, but just like I want I trust the staff to be
looking at it from that 10,000 point view of knowing what it is that is agreed upon whether go like you mentioned the schools etc. And so when they are saying it's based on those findings that they also are projecting
because they know what is coming much greater and deeper than what we as advisers have. That that's just my the way I look at it. Okay. I think we're all just tired of traffic just keeps it is right. It all just
keeps getting built, but nothing gets any better. Well, I know that we can't Well, there's there's two ways to pay for traffic emergencies. It's through private development or taxpayer funded. Again, St. Cloud just adopted the second highest in the state behind Ocula County
for traffic mobility. Those impact fees go directly to the road improvements that are required and then any new developments required to build their roads throughout their development, any adjacent roads and any off-site improvements that would be required to serve their development.
I it's not it's not your fault. I'm not I understand it's room and that's and I agree. I mean nobody's nobody's fault in this room. However, you know, here we are. We still have an issue with this area and you know, we
just throw more developments there and the issues aren't going to get any better. So, the improvements are coming and with the adoption that city council made this past April, last month of the urban center, once that gets built, all these
people in this area no longer need to go into the east side of the turnpike to go shopping and get their groceries. they would be going to the urban center and that's what these mixed districts have or specific urban centers, neighborhood centers, community centers. So, it's not
one small piece of the puzzle. It's the overall area. When you look at those overall developments of Edgewater out there, there's specific areas set aside for this neighborhood community center. Just like there's areas set aside for schools, there's civic space set aside
for police, fire, post office. So, it's all the whole area. Phil coming online. I understand it's a lot now. I am a resident here, born and raised here. I understand the traffic. I've known nothing but growth in this area. There's always been traffic, but the county
adopted this in 2010. And with St. Cloud's JPA agreement in 2016, I believe they also adopted these policies. All right. Thank you. Any other questions or Conor? Well, just we just need to be careful. Our frustrations
personally can't cannot necessarily reflect what what I believe the work that they're doing which is in good faith because they live here as well to know that. So that's why it's not ever going to be perfect. We will never be
able to catch up. But whations and the things that are being done I think are being done with some wisdom. So, okay. All right. So, do we have Can I entertain a motion or would somebody like to make a motion? Like to make a
motion to recommend approval. Oh, sorry. Just in the case of the time. Okay. So, would somebody like to make a motion on ordinance number 2025-46? Oh, wait a minute. Yeah, annexation. Okay. I'm gonna start
I'm gonna start with the first one. Okay. Which is the um That's right. Annexation. Voluntary annexation. Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance 2025. I think you said 206. Yep. 46. Based on the 16th
findings within the land development. Second. All right. I have a first and a second. All in favor? I I all opposed. No from me. Motion passes 31.
All right. So now we have ordinance number 2025-47. Can I get a motion for that one? I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 2025-47 based on the 16th findings
within the land development code. Second. All right. We have a motion. And we have a second. All in favor? I. And all oppose is no for me. So motion passes 31 number 2025-48. Do I have a motion
for that? I might as well. Which is the zoning map amendment. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion number 25-48 based on the 16 findings with the land development code.
Second. Okay, I have a first and second. All in favor of approval. I All opposed. It's a no from me as well. So motion passes. 31. Just make sure you build a public. Thank you guys. Thank you.
All right. So action item D, we have ordinance number 2025-49 and this is the transportation element update for the city of St. cloud which is case number CPA25-00006 and this is to adopt a new
transportation element of the comprehensive plan in accordance with Florida statute 163.3161 article 4 187.201 201 article 7. Hi, good evening. Good evening. I'm Tammy Ranki. I'm the mobility and
special projects manager community development and I'll be presenting about the transportation element update of the comprehensive plan tonight. So um last year we updated our
transportation mobility master plan and we have the vision zero safety action plan as well that were both approved in September 2024. So our goal uh with the transportation element
update is to align our goals and policies with those master plans that we approved last year. So we spent the last few months working on it. The last time that this transportation element was updated was back in 2002. So we were
more than due for an update. So, we're not necessarily proposing anything new or different from what was approved in the master plans last year. We're mostly um the updates that we're making is to align the goals and
policies so we can what the what the data and analysis from those master were telling us. So, I'll go over some of the post the exition conditions and future needs. um the proposed updates and then what
the next steps are. So the master plans that we did last year, they updated the data inventory for the city. Um looking at roadways and looking at not just
capacity but u multimodal opportunities and more connections opportunities throughout the city. So, and also uh recommended uh best practices for those updates. So, with this transportation element, we're
putting into into into place those um what was identified on those two master plans concerning uh safety and concerning the overall network.
And um our our focuses are on safety, sustainability and efficiency. We also with the with the transportation mobility master plan. We did our roadway
inventory. So we identify the framework streets um the the main streets uh running through the city that connect people to different places. We also align our jurisdictional responsibilities making sure we know
which roads are maintained by the county, which roads are supposed to be maintained by the city. We looked at the streets from a classification standpoint to see um how they were performing and what were the opportunities to to increase the
performance of those roadways. Um as far as safety goals, we looked at different crash locations where synagogization could be improved. We looked at evacuation routes and just really did this
um thorough data analysis of all of our existing facilities and our plans. Um we also identified um what would be the locations or the roadways
appropriate for public transit act transportation and future regional facilities. Uh with that inventory, we also did the transportation analysis looking at the growth trends. So that's been updated with um
the more recent data that we have from the past few years. Again, looking at safety performance of those roadways and some other plans that we have in place. So this is the framework streets
map was the same thing that was approved of our master plan last year. The only difference is that we um the the plan that was in the master plan showed the built out scenario and
then for the transportation plan we change it up a little bit to show which roads are existing which are the solid lines and which are the ones uh proposed or future roads which are the dash lines. So this helps guide us um when
we're uh planning for our transportation network, any development that goes in those areas adjacent or close to those roadways. Um they have different requirements about how to build those roadways and how we want uh these main
roadways to enter the city to look like. So this map helps guide us that way. And this is just an updated ultimate maintenance responsibility map. Some of these sections are still within
the county's jurisdiction, but once they get annexed into the city, the yellow roads will be ultimately our responsibility. The green lines will remain county and the purple lines are state. And this is the rolling
performance map. So all of this data and analysis helps inform us which projects we should be focusing on and what are the priority areas for the city. So it can look different for each area. Not
every constraint roadway we're able to add more lanes for example. So it doesn't so when you look at the data and when you look at the uh what shows in the map a lot of that is just information for us to make the best decisions. So sometimes the best
decision would be you know let's acquire more right away let's make this road wider but a lot of times would be you know since this roadbase constraint we need more north south opportunities or east west so we can alleviate this
congestion or we need more multimodal opportunities so people don't have to drive their cars everywhere and they have other options to move around the city. So it will really depend on the area and on the land use in that those
areas as well. But all of this helps um inform those decisions for us. Um we have two overall goals that we're proposing with the element and they haven't changed the overall goals haven't changed that much from what we
currently have. We just made uh more we just highlighted that we want our transportation system to be multimodal and for all users. So the element that we had before was very car oriented. Um wanted to bring more
elements that we're thinking about safety of everyone using the transportation system, our cyclist, our pedestrians um and our drivers. So everyone is included in the planning for these
roadways. And then our goal number two is to develop a financially feasibility transportation system or financially feasible transportation system that meets the accessibility needs of the city's
residents, businesses and visitors. So basically goal two is supporting goal number one. Goal number one is what we envision and then goal number two is how we're going to achieve that through different funding
opportunities. So just go over number one updates um FDOTates their recommendations and their best practices every few years. So the one
that we had in our current element was 1999. So we updated that reference and those best practices to the more recent um FDOT manual which again focuses on
multimodal uh focuses on level of services not just for cars and drivers but for pedestrians and cyclists as well. and they just have they just mean different things for all the users is that looking at the
transportation system as a whole that we can make the streets safer and more effective for everyone. Um another thing that they updated that we incorporated into our policies is to look into their context classification.
So right now the way that we have roadways are mostly we look at them based on capacity or volume of traffic which is based on the on the land uses that those roadways serve. But
with contest classification it just makes it makes the the roadways more tailored for different areas of the city. So it's not that we're adopting everything right now, but just including
it as a part of the element. It just gives us an opportunity to look into that in the future to see where we can improve. Um on the way side we already make our plans. The same with the complete streets policies and the
recommendations from the vision zero plan. Again, all of these were part of the master plans that were approved last year. We're just transferring that to our elements that are
consistent. And then our goal number two um goes with supporting the data and those findings and how we how often we want to look at our plans and update it. We have Oella
County as a partner. We shared a lot of the transportation system with them, not just maintenance, but um when have um these annexations and uh parcels come into the city, the roadways
are coming into the city as well. So we have this coordinated effort the county to make sure that the quality of those roadways when they come into the city they they meet certain standards and by aligning
how how our streets and our crosssections look like we can maintain that quality consistency throughout the system. Um and we also highlight different funding mechanisms. Our main one right now is through mobility fees.
So last year we approved the increase of the mobility fees to come from these transportation projects, but we also um explored other opportunities through through grants and
other opportunities depending on what type of improvements are being made. A lot of these funding opportunities are also um partnerships with the developers. So they have a minimum um standard that they need to build to
for their for their development that they are required. uh sometimes we'll ask them to do more and just so we can plan for the future and maybe additional infrastructure that they
they're not required to build for the development but that it will benefit the whole area. So these are the changes that we're proposing the update as far as timeline. This is our first public hearing. We're asking for
your recommendation for approval so we can take to our transmitt hearing on June 12th and then after that it will go to the state for their review. Usually takes for us to back and then we'll
bring it if they have any comments we can address them if not for adoption. So we're anticipating August for that adoption date. And have any questions? Curious. The term early on was called
data inventory. Is that just another word for gathering the information about what exists right now? Yes. Okay. And mobility fees, where do those come from? Uh they said increase the mobility fees.
Yeah. So they come for so any new development in the city they they pay mobility fees as part of their impact fees. Okay. Is this required to be updated along with the master plan the comprehensive
plan? Yes. Um well the comprehensive plan has its own requirements that we need to update every seven years. for planning for 10 or for the next 10 20 years. So because our transportation
mobility master plan is our data and analysis for the elements now we're updating the to policies with the findings from the master plan. I think that makes sense.
Are you able to bring up uh the map of 2-12 which is the projected framework streets? That one may not have been your presentation. Oh, is this
okay? So this is existing. Yeah. So, that's Well, I was just I don't know if you if anybody else looked at the level of service that's projected for 2045, but keeping in mind that that doesn't take
into account roads that are proposed, right? It's pretty much a a look into how we would be in 2045 if no roads were added. But it pretty much everywhere around that edgewater area is all level
level of service F. I believe the report if I'm correct states that in 2045 I think the population the population in St. Cloud is 100,000. So, I did have a question of about um
uh so several of the terms are being um updated and that includes the road system and and just the descriptions of different roads. And um on under road system for the Florida Turnpike,
uh I had noticed that it says The Florida Turnpike through St. Cloud is a four-lane toll limited access highway running north south on the western side of the city east of Lake Tohjo. And it says there is an interchange in the city at Clay Willy Road. And then it says and another south
of the city at Fires Cove Road. Now my understanding is that interchange is only for emergency vehicles. That changed that I'm unaware of. Um that hasn't changed now. Um it's I know it's proposed. It's proposed.
So is that language supposed to be like that? I mean if it's only proposed currently even even though it's only for emergency still exist that state that yeah just for the the inventory of the facilities.
So we can make a note and specify that because then after that it says is pursuing a new inter road. So I would think that it should say the city is also pursuing another interchange south of the city at co instead of saying that
it already exists. Okay. What does exist it's that well it's not really an interchange. It's just a simply a ramp that emergency vehicles can it's not an
interchange at least my opinion that anyway I just wanted to bring that to your attention and then on the maps there's some labeling issues at Canoe Creek Road is old canoe creek road. You can see it in the map
that's on the screen now. So, where old is, that's the intersection of Old Canoe Creek and Canoe Creek. Yeah, the So, you may want to just update some of that stuff. I mean, it looks like it was pulled from Google Maps maybe, but for some reason that's
it's incorrect. Yeah, the layers usually are pulled from from GIS. So, we'll we'll take a look. Why GIS would be incorrect? I know. Um but yes those are although still in the in the drop stage we will make the
correct changes for the next look at every caught my eye. Um, so do we allow public comment on this or can I don't think anybody's here to
come ask for it. Okay, at this time we're going to open up for public comment. All right. Anybody? Anybody? No. Okay. Uh, discussion anything. I actually read
most of it. I don't know if I've retained, but um, good job. Um, I like the if it comes to fruition, the fact that the developments will be required to have the sidewalks, that the sidewalks will passive connectivity to
each other, that the connectivity in general in the city hopefully will improve that you're working on pedestrian traffic as well as vehicular traffic. So, I like those elements in the plan.
I guess I do have one question. Um, obviously one of the goals is to have more multimodal forms of transportation available, right? Um, and biking I think is a great element, right, that we're trying to have
Bridgewater area and you know any areas that are currently being developed or will be developed in the future. However, as far as public transportation, the only thing we have now that I know of is links. Is there any other
um conversations with other entities in Florida to bring some other form of mass transportation to our area with another mode other than the links system?
Yeah. So, um the city staff is part of several boards and committees throughout Central Florida. So we um are constantly in conversation coordinating to see different options that we can bring to
the city. So by recognizing the the framework rules like we have weize that those those streets are aren't kind of ideal for for for becoming transit corridors. So this is
what they want to see not just the volume but also that we have infrastructure to have um those different facilities. So yes so there are um conversations and we're looking into what kind of other modes we can bring to the city including
micromobility options. So it's something that our community development department and public works department uh work closely. So by having this in our plans that just facilitates those conversations that we're ready for for that.
All right. Thank you. All right. Well, um there's no other discussion. Call for a motion. Anybody like this is ordinance number 20.5-49 which is an update to the transportation
element to move that uh we accept the ordinance number 2025-49 the transportation element update proposed. I'll second it. All right. I have a
first and a second. All in favor? I I I passes 4 Z. All right, I think that is the last action item uh in the information section. We have the next planning commission meeting is scheduled for June
17th at 6 p.m. Uh and I will actually not be able to attend that meeting, but I'll send you an email to that. Um anybody else has any other discussion topics?
Uh like to get a motion for adjournment. So moved. All right. I've got a motion to adjurnn. Second. All right. Meeting a journ. Part: 2
Are we good? Yep. Okay. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[Music] All right. Now you can call roll call. Chair Philip Lantry, present. Vice Chair Russell Alexander, present. Member Nanette Douglas, excused absence. Member Don Grisby, present. Member Rudy Ruby
Bridgeforth, excused absence. Dy Snder, present. And we have a quorum. All members voting members this evening. All right. Thank you. All right. So, first order of business is approval of the minutes from the last meeting on April
15th. Did everyone review the minutes? Are there any questions, comments, concerns? No. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of April 15th. Okay, we have a motion from Miss Snyder. Have a second. All right. Thank you. We have a motion
and a second. All in favor of approving the minutes. I I All righty. All right, first action item is ordinance number 2025-46 and this is Clay Whley Road mixed Use
a case number ANX24-000013. And I assume we should probably go ahead and read all three of these in. Yes, please. So we also have ordinance number 2025-47 which is a comprehensive plan amendment case number
CPA24-000017 and ordinance number 2025-48 which is a zoning map amendment which is case number ZMA24-000017. Good evening. Good evening commissioners. Bernice Gonzalez, principal planner, community development. The cases before you this
evening is the annexation comprehensive plan amendment for future land use designation and the zoning map amendment for zoning designation for the project known as Clay Wy Road mixuse. The parcels are contiguous and
reasonably compact. that to the city bound and located within the joint planning area. They currently have a county future land use of mixed use as well as a county zoning of mixed
use. The proposed future land use is within the city and the city zoning district of mixed use. The development is compatible with the surrounding area
and it has no adverse impact on city facilities. Here's a graphic representation of the future land use. At the north and the south is city's mixuse and the purple is the
county's mixed use future land use. And this is a graphic representation of the zoning in the area. The north and the south are the city's mixuse zoning and the light blue is the county's mixed use
zoning. On before May 1st, 2025, staff reviewed applications for the annexation the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map amendment and recommended approval. Likewise, we're requesting the planning commission
confirming my code findings that they also recommend. Staff and the applicant are present for any questions. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff before we ask come up?
All right. Thank you. Uh so I see the applicant here is Dominion Development. RJWA Incorporated. Yes. Hello. Good evening. John Adams RJWA semi Florida 3 a Broadway Florida
34741. We're the agent for the applicant to minium. We're in agreement with staff's recommendation for approval for these three applications. Be happy to answer any of your questions that you all may have. Thank you.
Does anybody else have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Um, see here. At this time, we will allow for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to comment
on any of these three ordinances? [Music] All right, I guess we don't have anybody, so we will close public comment. I did have a question for the city staff. Uh, it's
on page number 38 of the packet that we received. And I believe this is under the zoning map. amendment uh under the consistency with strategic plan goals. It says the
proposed zoning map amendment does not meet the intent of the following city of St. Cloud strategic goals which is high performing government focus on the con uh continuity and sustainability of core
public services. Is that a misprint? Is that a typo or Good evening Bernice Gonzalez principal planner community development. Uh that is correct chair lantry. That should be uh proposed on
map amendment does I see the intent of following city cloud strategic codes. Good. You got to read through stuff. Um, so I have a couple other questions.
Um, as you probably know, I have a lot of concerns with this area. Uh, and so the issues I have are essentially that I don't believe that they're meeting all of the 16 findings in the
land development code. Uh, and I'll give you a moment. Um so finding number eight under the zoning map amendment um it says that the proposed change will create or excess excessively increase
traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety and the response is the proposed change should not create or excessively increase traffic or affect public safety. A traffic impact analysis will be required at site development plan submitt to further evaluate
potential impacts and ensure mitigation requirements are met. So conveniently since you have the transportation element in here, you have the definitions of different levels of service for transportation, right? Um
that's A through F. So if you compare that statement with the levels of service that are listed in here, um and I'm just going to read level of service F. that says this condition usually results from long lines of
vehicles backing up because the traffic volume exceeds the roadway capacity. The vehicles are forced to operate at very low speeds. Stop and go situations are frequent and extreme cases. Vehicles stop for long periods of time. So if you've ever been in this area where this
is being proposed, this annexation and zoning map amendment and comprehensive plan amendment, you will probably see the traffic backs up pretty bad. Right. Because currently we only have one way in and one way out which is Clay Whley
Road. And I've said before and I stand by it. I think it's irresponsible and I understand that this is the county that's created this issue and the city's just kind of dealing with it, but it's
irresponsible in my opinion to annex something that's a liability. Um and to further that um that point uh can can you bring up the map of the uh in the transportation
element? It's on page 126 of the packet. Are you able to bring up No, that's for the other we have. Well, I'll explain it. So on page 126 a map showing the principal arterial
roads roads and that sort of right your collector roads that sort of thing. Well in this case we're basically looking at lay from canoe creek road to where cross prairie is is lab as a major collector
existing road. not you know I don't disagree with that however the the uh clay I'm sorry the cross prairie road is labeled as a future principal arterial road parts of
it are existing right parts of it are future um however even when that is finished you still only have clay and that road to get out of this area. And I just in my opinion, I
think traffic, it's already a problem. We're already a level F. How can we possibly repeating that part of the land development code if we're already a level F? Okay. Um, thank you for for that question, chair. At this time, what
we're presenting is the higher level applications that the applicant is making for annexation and giving them a regulatory framework within the city. So, we can address those things at the development application stage. And
that's where all of those uh traffic and other studies and public works would come into play to look at those requirements and the traffic impact assessment. It's also part of the requirements of that stage within the city.
Yeah. And I completely understand that. Right. We we can sit here and say, well, they don't they're not really required to provide that at this time, right? However, I can sit here and look and know that in the next two, three years, we're not adding any roads, right? There's no possible way that we can
increase the level of service. And there's no way, in my opinion, that we can meet that that one there's there's actually two um findings of the land. So if the applicant is here that they
could answer more specifically to any development information that they wish to provide. Sure. So we can uh allow them to respond to that portion. So before before he does I just want to read the other
um the other one of the findings that I believe uh is not being met and that is number three which is the proposed change would material materially alter the population density pattern and thereby increase or overt tax the load
on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc. And the response is the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the county's existing entitlements for mixeduse development and is not expected to significantly affect population
distribution or public infrastructure capacity. Level of service impacts will continue to be evaluated and addressed during future stages of development review. So that's the part that has me worried is where it says level of service impact will continue to be
evaluated when I know we can continue to evaluate them all we want but if we're already at a low level of service there how are we going to improve it you know there's unfortunately this area is isolated because of the turnpike isolating it between west lake to the
rest of St. Cloud. So yeah, you can the applicant can address that. Sure. I just wanted to uh add that as part of the comprehensive plan amendment, the school board does a review of the capacity and
they have provided a report that's part of the documents that are included in the in the item. Well, I'm glad you mentioned that because that was going to be another question of mine later. Uh what information did they actually provide? What part? Because when I go in there and I look at the school, there's
really nothing provided that I can see. There's a school the school district of a school of Florida, they provide a report where they let us know per their capacity whether they can
evaluate that at this time or not. Usually they do an evaluation at a level of development application where we have actual site plan uh provided to them. Okay. So where is the current report?
Because I see a page that says the school district county, Florida planning services department school capacity report and it has the numbers on there. It has the future land use, the current zoning, the comments due date, but there's no actual report there. And then
it says a more accurate report can be generated with the submitt of a detailed site development plan application. Correct. But there's no report now. So is is am I missing something or they need a development level at the site
plan actually site plan created to be able to provide that detailed report they tell us in that report the number of units the percentage of impact and any other recommendations that so the pages in
here are not really a report it's just a cover page that says hey we've looked at this we're not providing a report until we get it. Mr. I think that's an over submitt. I think that the report this time is based on what's being applied for there were no objections to
the contemplated annexation and use the report says not getting into the weed of anticipating moment what have you. So I think it's a bit of a harsh reading to say that it doesn't say I
think that what the the the inference is is that at this time there's no objections that they capacity is is is existing and from what I can understand they will continue to assess as the development proceeds but they don't see
a problem at this time which I think well I'm just asking where does it say that they don't see a problem or that they do or It doesn't say either way. I mean, it really doesn't. Well, I think think that would be raised if there was an objection or concern. And I think in the past that has been the case. There's
been some reports to that effect. But in these criteria, it's entirely appropriate for all four of you to review those and take those take issue with each and every one of them as you see fit, the totality of what you want to consider. But again, this is a 10,000
foot overview, if you will. annexation as you well know you're well experienced in this position with the commission is a fairly um in the zoning and and the and the land use those are broad concept um getting into what's going to happen
development is it is relevant it absolutely is but I don't know to the to the detail that that that you're describing yes and I agree with that however because this is mixed use and they're applying for mixed use in the city. We know it's not going to be a
farmhouse, right? We know it's going to be something. It could be commercial. It could be residential, could be town homes, could be apartments. I mean, we we really don't know, but we're we're pretty confident that it's going to be something that's going to include a significant transportation element.
Well, it's mixed use now. It's just counties. That's what my my question is that there they have the the ability because they own it to do mixed use and to do um the zoning and everything is it it's just moving from county to city. So
it's been my experience or what I've been understanding the last few years is that this is a voluntary annexation. That's all we're talking about at this point. All of those other points you're bringing up don't come in until the next level at which they have to keep in mind
that we're also talking about putting strain and extra land on city services right that's what annexation is 100% but if that's going to be really a big issue that's going to be stopped at the next level not at this
level right because the bottom line is is there it's still going to be a straining of of anything over there whether it's city or not it's goingonna going to be a strain on the community that is there right now and it's nothing's going to change. It's just county versus city. My understanding was
if we don't we don't get the funds that we need in order to think that but two years ago I said the same thing and here we are. We still have one road in one road out and we've got several units out there which now
have created that level F level of service. Yeah, but you not but you not wanting there to be annexation of the city is not going to stop that. It's not a matter of wanting. It's a matter of concern for our city that I'm that I'm
arising. I respect that. But it's still going to happen. They own the property so they can do what they want to not allowing them to annex is not going to make that happen. But it but in your description of what you're
concerned about that raises it up to our city council at the next exact level to do something. Exactly. I just didn't I just I think that the focus at this stage with the annexation in particular is does it meet the statuto
requirements? Is it contiguous? Does it create an enclave? If it does not if it meets those legal requirements you know I again it's big picture um that's the recognition you can you can make a recommendation as to
be the body but I would just encourage you that unless there's something that legally would preclude the annexation and and whatever land use and zone you would attribute to it I don't know there's nothing that I've seen reports
that exists that that is in opposition of what's being sought by the application. So, um you all can bring your collective uh personal views and experience into assessing the determination, but you know, unless there's some sort of a
quantifiable report that will raise some of the issues that are being discussed, I think you need to be closer to what the law will allow in this instance. Yeah. That's I mean that's fine if other members of this commission want to look at it that
way. Sure. And the way I'm looking at it is that finding number three and number eight were not meeting that. That's that's how I'm looking at it. So and it's a recommendation that will go to council and this will be heard by council June 12th. June 12th. June 12th. Okay.
Hold on. June 12th it'll go before. Okay. All right. Your turn. Go ahead. Thank you. Uh once again, John Adams, RJWA. I do want to address some of your concerns, but I do again want to point out one thing that no specific
development being proposed or recommended for approval tonight. This is simply a process that we have to go through your annexation, land use, and zoning per your JPA. Our client owns or has private property rights. These East Lake Toho
uh comprehensive plan was adopted in 2010. This area has been destined for growth for 15 years from the adoption and all the years leading up to that for the planning. So, we have a right of reliance on the code. We already have land use and mixed use in the county. We already have land zoning use in the
county as well. And that's simply what we're asking for tonight is to maintain those existing entitlements. I do want to address some of your concerns. Uh first one being number three. On your own city's website, you've got a number out there.
14,153 new housing units will needed by 2045 in your own city's plan. So, we're aligned with the city's projection for growth with this annexation and zoning and land use plan. Number eight, you
brought up and I do understand that right now road is likely an F. I haven't seen the data. If that's what you say, I'll believe it. However, currently, right now, New NI Road is being expanded to the Turnpike that's currently under construction. Cross Parkway is being
north to the existing urban center that was just approved by the city council in April. Ocula County has pledged over $50 million to continue Crossbury Parkway from the north end of the urban center over to what's now through the Parton
triangle that city- owned property current or DR owns that property. Clay Road is also a framework road that's going to be expanded. Our client would be responsible through a development application to provide an additional 47 feet of rightway to expand Clay Whley
Road. They also have a north south framework road that goes on the western side of this site that they will be responsible for building to provide more interconnectivity throughout the entire area. As far as schools, Ocio County has the highest school impact fees in the
state. Uh quarter mile to the south of us, there's already a 50acre high school site. In Bellacera, there's been a K8 identified and that's just south of CM Park Road. And then in Edgewater West, there's also a K8 school site that's been looked at as well by the school
board that's been set aside for those future impacts of the schools. Fire, police, park, wreck, those are all impact fees that need to be paid by the development for every new unit that would be proposed in later applications. The impact fees in OciOla
County are St. Cloud is new adoption. Mobility fees are the highest in the state right now. So, I don't know if that helps alleviate some of your concerns, but be happy to answer any additional questions you may have on. I appreciate
it. I mean, that's pretty much, you know, that's all I have is is those concerns that it was irresponsible in my opinion to even start this development in this area, the Edgewater, and I know it was the county, it wasn't the city, the city's just kind of adopting it. Um,
and in my opinion, it's just a liability to only have one way in, one way out. And I I agree. I know that Noly will be another interchange, but we don't know when that's going to be done. Maybe another year, maybe a year and a half, half likely longer. But we're But we're seeing is how long does it take to build
a devel, you know, town houses or something? A lot less time than it takes to build these roads. There's at least another year to 18 months of engineering plans that go through a formal staff review and formal approvals. There's South Florida water management
permitting process that anywhere from a 90 to 180 day process. This is step one of a very long development process before grounds even broken. Understood. All right. I mean that's I appreciate.
Does anybody else have any questions? Not a question, but just like I want I trust the staff to be looking at it from that 10,000 point view of knowing what it is that is
agreed upon whether go like you mentioned the schools etc. And so when they are saying it's based on those findings that they also are projecting because they know what is coming much greater and deeper than what we as advisers have. That that's just my the
way I look at it. Okay. I think we're all just tired of traffic just keeps it. It is right. It all just keeps getting built, but nothing gets any better. Well, I know that we can't Well, there's there's two ways to pay for traffic. It's through private
development or taxpayer funded. Again, St. Cloud just adopted the second highest in the state behind OciOla County for traffic mobility. Those impact fees go directly to the road improvements that are required and then any new developments required to build their roads throughout their
development, any adjacent roads and any off-site improvements that would be required to serve their development. It's not it's not your fault. I'm not I understand it's and that's and I mean nobody's nobody's
fault in this room. However, you know, here we are. We still have an issue with this area and, you know, we just keep throwing more developments there and the issues aren't going to get any better. So, the improvements are coming and with the
adoption that city council made this past April, last month of the urban center, once that gets built, all these people in this area no longer need to go into the east side of the turnpike to go shopping and get their groceries. they would be going to the urban center and
that's what these mixed districts have are specific urban centers, neighborhood centers, community centers. So, it's not one small piece of the puzzle. It's the overall area. When you look at those overall developments of Edgewater out there, there's some specific areas set aside for this neighborhood community
centers. Just like there's areas set aside for schools, there's civics be set aside for police, fire, post office. So, it's all the whole area. It's all coming online. I understand it's a lot now. I am a resident here, born and raised
here. I understand the traffic. I've known nothing but growth in this area. There's always traffic, but the county adopted this in 2010. And with St. Cloud's GPA agreement in 2016, I believe they also adopted these policies.
All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Well, just we just need to be careful. Our frustrations personally can't cannot necessarily reflect what but I believe the work that they're doing which is in good faith
because they live here as well to know that. So that's why it's not ever going to be perfect. We will never be able to catch up. But what the things that are being done I think are being done with some wisdom. So,
okay. All right. So, do we have Can I entertain a motion or would somebody like to like to make a motion to recommend approval? Oh, sorry. Just in the case of the time. Okay. So, would somebody like to make a motion on ordinance number
2025-46? Oh, wait a minute. Yeah, annexation. Okay. So, I'm gonna start I'm gonna start with the first one. Okay. Which is the um That's right. Annexation. Voluntary annexation. Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to recommend
approval of ordinance 2025. I think you said 2064 based on the 16 findings within the land development. Second. All right. I have a first and a second. All in favor? I I All opposed.
No from me. Motion passes 31. All right. So now we have ordinance number 2025-47. Can I get a motion for that one? I'd like to make a motion to recommend
approval of ordinance number 2025-47 based on the 16th findings within the land development code. Second. All right. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor? I. And all oppose is no for me. So motion
passes 31 ordinance number 2025-48. Do I have a motion for which is the zoning map amendment. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion number 2025-48 based on the 16 findings with
the land development code. Second. All right, I have a first and second. All in favor of approval. I I All opposed. It's a no from me as well. So motion passes. 31. Just make sure you build a public.
Thank you guys. Thank you. All right. So action item D, we have ordinance number 2025-49 and this is the transportation element update for the city of St. Cloud, which is case number
CPA25-00006. And this is to adopt a new transportation element of the comprehensive plan in accordance with Florida statute 163.3161 article 4 187.201 article 7.
Hi. Good evening. Good evening. I'm Tammy. in this mobility and special projects managing community development and I'll be presenting about the transportation element update of the comprehensive plan tonight. So
um last year we updated our transportation mobility master plan and we have the vision zero safety action plan as well that were both approved in September of 2024. So our goal
uh with the transportation element update is to align our goals and policies with those master plans that we approved last year. So we spent the last few months working on it. The last time that this transportation element was
updated was back in 2002. So we were more than due for an update. So, we're not necessarily proposing anything new or different from what was approved in the master plans last year. We're mostly um the updates that we're
making is to align the goals and policies so we can what the what the data and analysis from those master were telling us. So, I'll go over some of the goals, the exition conditions and future needs.
um the proposed updates and then what the next steps are. So the master plans that we updated last year, they updated the data inventory for the city. Um looking at
roadways and looking at not just capacity but u multimodal opportunities and more connections opportunities throughout the city. So, and also uh recommended uh best practices for those updates. So, with
this transportation element, we're putting into into into place those um what was identified on those two master plans concerning uh safety and concerning the overall network.
And um our our focuses are on safety, sustainability and efficiency. We also with the with the transportation mobility master plan. We did our roadway
inventory. So we identify the framework streets um the the main streets uh running through the city that connect people to different places. We also align our jurisdictional responsibilities making sure we know
which roads are maintained by the county, which roads are supposed to be maintained by the city. We looked at the streets from a classification standpoint to see um how they were performing and what were the opportunities to to increase the
performance on those roadways. Um as far as safety goals, we looked at different crash locations where synagogization could be improved. We looked at evacuation routes and just really did this
um thorough data analysis of all of our existing facilities and our plans. Um we also identified um what would be the locations or the roadways
appropriate for public transit as transportation and future regional facilities. Uh with that inventory, we also did the transportation analysis looking at the growth trends. So that's been updated with um
the more recent data that we have for the past few years. Again, looking at safety performance of those roadways and some other plans that we have in place. So this is the framework streets
map. was the same thing that was approved of our master plan last year. The only difference is that we um the plan that was in the master plan show the built out scenario and then for
the transportation plan we change it up a little bit to show which roads are existing, which are the solid lines and which are the ones uh proposed or future roads which are the dash lines.
So this helps guide us um when we're uh planning for our transportation network, any development that goes in those areas adjacent or close to those roadways. Um they have different requirements how to
build those roadways and how we want uh these main roadways to enter the city to look like. So this map helps guide us that way. Um, this is just a ultimate maintenance
responsibility map. Some of these sections are still within the county's jurisdiction, but once they get annex into the city, the yellow roads will be ultimately our responsibility. The green lines will remain county and the purple
lines are state maintain. And this is the worldwide performance map. So all of this data and analysis helps inform us which projects we should be focusing on and what are the priority areas for the city. So it
can look different for each area. Not every constraint roadway we're able to add more lanes for example. So it doesn't so when you look at the data and when you look at the uh what shows in the map a lot of that
is just information for us to make the best decisions. So sometimes the best decision would be you know let's acquire more right away let's make this road wider but a lot of times would be you know since this roadway is constrained
we need more north south opportunities or east west so we can alleviate this congestion or we need more multimodal opportunities so people don't have to drive their cars every winter and they have other options to move around the
city. So it will really depend on the area and on the land use in that those areas as well. But all of this helps um inform those decisions for us. Um we have two overall goals that
we're proposing with the element and they haven't changed the overall goals haven't changed that much from what we currently have. We just made uh more we just highlighted that we want our transportation system to be
multimodal and for all users. So the element that we had before was very car oriented. Um wanted to bring more elements that we're thinking about safety of everyone using the transportation system or cyclist pedestrians
um and our drivers. So everyone is included in the planning for these roadways. And then our goal number two is to develop a financially feasibility transportation system or financially feasible
transportation system that meets the accessibility needs of the city's residents, businesses and visitors. So basically goal two is supporting goal number one. Goal number one is what we envision and then goal number two is how
we're going to achieve that through different funding opportunities. So just go over goal number one updates um
FDOTates their recommendations and their best practices every few years. So the one that we had in our current element was from 1999. So we updated that reference and those best practices to the more
recent um FDOT manual which again focuses on multimodal uh focuses on level of services not just for cars and drivers but for pedestrians
and cyclists as well. and they just have they just mean different things for all the users. It is looking at the transportation system as a whole that we can make the streets safer and more effective for everyone. Um another thing that they
updated that we incorporated into our policies is to look into their contact classification. So right now the way that we have roadways are mostly we look at them based on capacity volume of
traffic which is based on the on the land uses that those roadways serve. But with contest classification it just makes it makes the the roadways more tailored for different areas of the
city. So it's not that we're adopting everything right now, but just including it as a part of the element. It just gives us an opportunity to look into that in the future to see where we can improve. Um on the way side, we
already make our plans. The same with the complete streets policies and the recommendations from the vision zero plan. Again, all of these were part of the master plans that were approved last year. We're just transferring that to
our elements. And then our goal number two um goes with supporting that data and those findings and how we how often we want to look at
our plans and update it. We have Osilla County as a partner. We shared a lot of the transportation system with them. not just maint but um when have um these annexations and uh
parcels coming to the city the roadways are coming into the city as well. So we have this coordinated effort the county to make sure that the quality of those roadways when they come to the city they they meet certain standards and by
aligning how how our streets and our crosssections look like we can maintain that quality close throughout the system. Um and we also highlight different funding mechanisms. Our main
one right now is through mobility fees. So last year we approved the increase of the mobility fees to come from these transportation projects, but we also um explored other funding opportunities through through grants and
other opportunities depending on what type of improvements are being made. A lot of these funding opportunities are also um partnerships with the developers. So they have a minimum um standard that they need to build to
for their for their development that they are required. uh sometimes we'll ask them to do more and just so we can plan for the future and maybe additional infrastructure that they
they're not required to build for the development but that it will benefit the whole area. So these are the changes that we're proposing the update as far as timeline. This is our first public hearing. We're asking for
your recommendation for approval so we can take to our transmittal hearing on June 12th and after that it will go to the state for their review. Usually takes for us to back and then we'll bring it
if they have any comments we can address them. If not council for adoption so we're anticipating August for that adoption date. And have any questions? Curious. The term early on was called
data inventory. Is that just another word for gathering the information about what exists right now? Yes. Okay. And mobility fees. Where do those come from? Uh they said they increase the
mobility fees. Yeah. So they come for so any new development in the city they they pay mobility fees as part of their impact fees. Okay. Is this required to be updated along with the master plan the comprehensive
plan? Yes. Um well the comprehensive plan has its own requirements that we need to update every seven years. for planning for 10 or for the next 10 20 years. So because our transportation
mobility master plan is our data and analysis for the elements now we're updating the toy policies with the findings from the master plan. I think that makes sense.
Are you able to bring up uh the map of um 2-12 which is the projected framework street? That one may not have been your presentation. Oh, is this?
Okay. So, this existing Yeah. about the Well, I was just I don't know if you if anybody else looked at the level of service that's projected for 2045, but keeping in mind that that doesn't take
into account roads that are proposed, right? It's pretty much a a look into how we would be in 2045 if no roads were added. But it pretty much everywhere around that edgewater area is all level
level of service F. I believe the report if I'm correct states that in 2045 I think the population the population in St. Cloud is 100,000. So, I did have a question of about um
uh so several of the terms are being um updated and that includes the road system and and just the descriptions of different roads. And um on under road system for the Florida
Turn bike, uh I had noticed that it says The Florida Turnpike through St. Cloud is a four-lane told limited access highway running north south on the western side of the city east of Lake Toho. And it says there is an interchange in the city at Clay Willy Road. And then it says and another south
of the city at Fires Cove Road. Now my understanding is that interchange is only for emergency vehicles. Has that changed that I'm unaware of? Um that hasn't changed now. Um it's I know it's proposed. It's proposed.
So is that language supposed to be like that? I mean if it's only proposed even even though it's only for emergency still exist that state that yeah just for the the inventory of the facilities. So we
can make a note and specify that and then after that it says is pursuing a new inter road. So I would think that it should say the city is also pursuing another interchange south of the city at
co instead of saying that it already exists. Okay. What does exist? It's that well it's not really an interchange. It's just a simply a ramp that emergency vehicles. It's not an
interchange. At least my opinion. Anyway, I just wanted to bring that to your attention. And then on the maps, there's some labeling issues. Look at for instance Canoe Creek Road is labeled as old Canoe Creek Road. You can see it in the map that's on the screen
now. So where old is that's the intersection of Old Canoe Creek and Canoe Creek. Yeah. The the So you may want to just update some of that stuff. I mean it looks like it was pulled from Google Maps maybe, but for some reason that's
it's incorrectly. Yeah, the layers usually are pulled from from GIS. So we'll we'll take a look. Why did you ask for being correct? I know. Um but yes, those are all still in the in the
drop. We will make the correct changes for the next row, but those are the ones caught my eye. Um, so do we allow for public comment on
this or can I don't think anybody's here to come ask for it. Okay. At this time, we're going to open up for public comment. All right. Anybody? Anybody? No. Okay. Comment. Uh,
discussion. Anything? I actually read most of it. I don't know if I've retained, but um, good job. Um, I like the if it comes to fruition, the fact that the developments will be required to have the sidewalks that the sidewalks
will include passive connectivity to each other that the connectivity in general in the city hopefully will improve. You're working on pedestrian um traffic as well as vehicular traffic.
So, I like those elements in the plan. I guess I do have one question. Um, obviously one of the goals is to have more multimodal forms of transportation available, right? Um, and biking I think is a great element,
right, that we're trying to have Bridgewater area and you know any areas that are currently being developed or will be developed in the future. However, as far as public transportation, the only thing we have now that I know of is links. Is there any other
um conversations with other entities in Florida to bring some other form of mass transportation to our area with another mode other than the links system?
Yeah. So, um the city staff is part of several boards and committees throughout Central Florida. So we um are constantly in conversation coordinating to see different options that we can bring to
the city. So by recognizing the the framework rules like we have that those those streets are are kind of ideal for for for becoming transit corridors. So this is
what they want to see not just the volume but also that we have infrastructure to have um those different facilities. So yes, so there are um conversations and we're looking into what kind of other modes we can bring to the city including
micromobility options. So it's something that our community development department and public works department uh work closely. by having this in our plans that just facilitates those conversations that we're ready for for that.
All right. Thank you. All right. Well, um if there's no other discussion, I'll call for a motion. Anybody like this is ordinance number 20.5-49 which is an update to the
transportation ele uh we accept the ordinance number 2025-49 the transportation element update proposed. I'll second it. All right. I have a
first and a second. All in favor? I I I passes 4 Z. All right, I think that is the last action item uh in the information section. We have the next planning commission meeting is scheduled for June
17th at 6 p.m. Uh and I will actually not be able to attend that meeting, but I'll send you an email that um else has any other discussion topics? I'd like to get a motion for
adjournment. So moved. All right. I've got a motion to adjourn. Second, meeting a journ.