[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM] [00:00:05] >> GOOD EVENING, I CALL TO ORDER THE JANUARY 13TH PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING. IT IS 3:05. IF YOU CALL THE ROLL. >> MEMBER BOY. >> MEMBER STEVE ENSON? >> HERE >> VICE CHAIR SCHAEFER? >> HERE. >> CHAIRMAN SHUE. >> 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" >> WELCOME EVERYONE, I HOPE EVERYONE HAD A SAFE AND HAPPY HOLIDAY AND NEW YEAR. AND MR. BENNETT YOU ARE RECOVERING FROM YOUR SURGERY. >> I AM. >> GOOD. GLAD TO SEE YOU. >> SO THE FIRST ITEM OF [3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES] BUSINESS WE HAVE APPROVAL FOR MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ON AUGUST 12TH. THE CHAIR WOULD PROPOSE A MOTION. >> SECOND. >> I'LL SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. MR. STEVENSON YOU HAVE SOME CORRECTIONS? >> I DO. (LAUGH) >> THE FIRST ONE IS IF YOU'RE LOOKING TOGETHER ON PAGE 5 IT'S UNDER 4.1 LAND DEVELOP CODE. THE LAST SENTENCE. IT STATED THAT THERE ARE NO STANDARDS FOR THE POSITIONING OF THE BARBED WIRE FENCE. ITEM. SO WE PROBABLY JUST FOR THE RECORD, IT IS IN THERE. >> SO WE CAN UPDATE THAT. >> OKAY. >> AND THE ONLY OTHER ONE IS GOING TO BE ON 4.2 MIDDLE PARAGRAPH LAST SENTENCE. MR. SELIENT NOTED THAT ARE INFORMATION GATHERER? >> ARE GATHERING INFORMATION. >> WHATEVER IT IS. >> IT LOOKS LIKE INITIAL INFORMATION. IT JUST NEEDS SOMETHING TO FLUFF IT OUT. >> IT'S IT. >> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE ON THE AUGUST 12TH MINUTES? >> SO, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THESE MINUTES AS AMENDED BY MR. STEVENSON SAY AYE. (CHORUS OF YEAS) >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS WRITTEN. >> SECOND? >> SECOND. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY CHANGES? >> NO? YOU SURE? ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES ON NOVEMBER 9TH. (CHORUS OF YEAS) SO MOTION PASSES. SO WE HAVE WE [5. NEW BUSINESS] DON'T HAVE ANY OLD BUSINESS, UNDER NEW BUSINESS. I'D LIKE TO FLIP THESE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THAT WENT OUT FINALLY, THE DISCUSSION OF THE LAND USE MAP AND ZONES CONFLICTS, IS ACTUALLY ITEM 5.1. SO I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE FLOOR FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THAT. WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE BUSINESS CENTERS HERE, DO WE HAVE SOME ON THE PHONE OR? >> I DON'T. >> AND IT MAYBE A RESULT OF JAKE'S WORK IN TALKING WITH EVERYONE. >> SO THE OBJECT OF THIS TODAY IS TO PROVIDE UPDATED INFORMATION BASED ON THE RESEARCH THAT JAKE DID OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO TAKE AN ACTIVE VOTE ON THIS, ALTHOUGH I DO THINK WE CAN MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO HOW WE WOULD WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. JAKE, I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. FIRST OF ALL, HAPPY NEW YEAR IT'S GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY IN 2021. THE I'VE GOT A WALK THROUGH BASICALLY THE [00:05:03] SAME PRESENTATION THAT WE SAW IN NOVEMBER AND KIND OF PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON A COUPLE OF PARCELS I HAVE. WE DID SEND OUT NOTICES TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AN INVITED THEM TO TONIGHT'S MEETING AS AN INFORMAL DISCUSSION, TO LET THEM KNOW THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WAS DISCUSSING POTENTIAL CHANGES AND GET SOME FEEDBACK TONIGHT. ONE COULDN'T MAKE IT BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT. WE DID GET AN EMAIL FROM MR. STEVE SIMMONS. WE CAN TALK THROUGH THAT TONIGHT AND I DID HAVE A MEETING WITH MR. FLANERRY AND TALKED WITH HIM ABOUT THE PROS AND CONS AND WHAT ISSUES RELATED TO CHANGING ZONES RELATED TO THE SURF PROPERTY. I DID NOT HAVE ANY NONE OF THE TOWN HOME OWNERS ON 1ST AVENUE REACHED OUT TO US OR HAD ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. I'VE GOT THE PARCELS, SOUTH OF FRANKLIN STREET, THE GOOD NEWS IS HERE WE GOT THE RESULT AND IT WILL NOT HAVE TO BE LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGE TO MAKE THE TWO MATCH. AND WE ARRIVED AT THAT FOLLOWING CONVERSATION WITH WESTROCK REPRESENTATIVE. I DID SOME MORE DIGGING IN THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THERE'S A PROVISION IN THERE THAT SPEAKS TO HOW TO INTERPRET BOUNDARIES. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND THE WAY THAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE READS UNDER 1.05.03 RULES FOR INTERPRETATIONS OF BOUNDARIES, WHERE UNCERTAINTIES EXIST AS TO BOUNDARIES AS TO ANY SHOWN ON THE MAP THE FOLLOW WILL APPLY, BOUNDARIES SHOWN AS FOLLOWING OR APPROXIMATELY FOLLOWING ANY PLOTTED LOT LINES SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS FOLLOWING SUCH LINE. AND HOW THAT APPLIES IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS THE ZONING LAYER AND THIS RELATES TO PROBABLY WHEN THE MAPS WERE DIGITIZED. THESE GIS MAPS ARE TIED BASED ON CERTAIN POINTS. IT'S JUST OFF. AND IT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH A PLATTED LOT LINE. WHERE AS YOU COULD SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN. AND I'LL GO BACK TO JUST SHOW YOU. I DIDN'T REALIZE MY SCREEN DID NOT SHOW YOU THE SECTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SECTION 1.05.03 BOUNDARIES IS WHAT WE'RE RELYING ON. THIS IS SHOWING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THIS LINE THAT COMES ALL THE WAY ACROSS, WHERE THERE ISN'T A RIGHT OF WAY GOING EAST/WEST LIKE YOU HAVE OVER HERE, THIS LINE FALLS DIRECTLY ON PLATTED LOTS OF RECORD AS YOUR TYPICAL ZONING DISTRICT, YOUR LINES ARE GOING TO FOLLOW TYPICAL. FOLLOW PLATTED LOT BOUNDARIES. SO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP CORRECTLY DEPICTS ALLS ALONG THE NORTHERN EDGE AND EVEN DIRECTLY DIVIDES LOTS 8 AND 7 WHERE YOU HAVE THE CORNER OF FR FRANKLIN AND 14TH STREET. THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY FALLS HALFWAY DOWN. THEY DIDN'T LINE UP. NO ISSUES HERE, WE COULD MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> HAVE YOU TALKED TO ANYONE AT WESTROCK ABOUT THIS? >> YES, MA'AM. >> AND THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT? >> THEY ARE. [00:10:01] >> A FAR RIGHT 6 AND 7 AND 8, THAT'S PART OF THAT CHURCH UP THERE IN THE CORNER? >> YES, SIR. >> OKAY. SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. SO THIS IS THE PROPERTY WHERE THE FERNANDINA BEACH LIBRARY IS, IT'S SPLIT WHEN C3 AND R 2. CORRECTED. THE WHOLE PARCEL SHOULD BE C3 SINCE IT'S ONE USE AND MAKE THE C3 EXTEND TO THE STREET. THINKING MORE AND ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE, STAFF DOESN'T WANT TO GET INTO EXPANDING THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. THERE'S NO NEED TO CORRECT THIS PARTICULAR AREA. WE HAVE PROVISIONS IN OUR CODE THAT CLEARLY ARTICULATE WHERE YOU HAVE PARCELS THAT HAVE MIXED ZONING HOW IT APPLIES, THE LARGER AREA WOULD APPLY TO THE WHOLE PROPERTY. SO WE REALLY FEEL THIS IS NOT A NECESSARY CHANGE AT THIS TIME. AND KIND OF WANTED TO GET THE BOARD'S FEEDBACK. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS ON DENSITY, AND I'M OKAY LEAVING IT THE WAY IT IS. >> OKAY. >> ANYBODY ELSE? >> I MEAN, I GUESS WHY WOULD YOU NOT? WHAT WOULD BE THE PROBLEM? >> A LOT OF BACK WORK TO DEAL WITH? >> THE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH IT. OBVIOUSLY, THE ANALYZING AND EXPANSION OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND HOW THAT APPLIES IN THE PLAN AND NECESSITY TO MAKE SUCH A RECOMMENDATION, IT DOES CARRY WITH IT A RESIDENT DENSITY MUCH HIGHER. SO, AGAIN, WE JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S NOT A NECESSARY CHANGE AT THIS TIME, IT WOULD BE PRETTY ON A MAP BUT IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS ISN'T REALLY NECESSARY ON OW REGULATIONS APPLY AND HOW THE CITY WILL TREAT THAT PROPERTY. >> IS THERE A PLACE TO PUT THESE NOTES SO 10 YEARS FROM NOW WHEN WE'RE ALL RETIRED FROM PLANNING BOARD, THAT SOMEBODY ELSE DOESN'T HAVE A GOOD IDEA. SO WE DON'T KEEP DOING THIS? >> YEAH, WE CAN NOTE IN VARY PLACES. WE LIKE TO LEAVE BREAD CRUMBS IN AS MANY PLACES A SE POSSIBLE. BUT CERTAINLY, AND THERE'S NO GUARANTY THAT SOMEBODY WON'T COME UP WITH A BRIGHT IDEA IN THE FUTURE, YEAR GOING TO MAKE IT KNOWN THAT WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, ANALYZED IT AND SAID, REALLY, IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE PROPERTY AND WE DON'T NEED TO EXPAND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ISN'T SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE DOING RIGHT NOW. >> I JUST DON'T WANT TO WASTE ANYBODY'S TIME IN THE FUTURE. >> WHAT'S ON THE BUILDING ON THE CORNER? >> THE CORNER IS ADDITIONAL PARKING. AND THEN THAT'S THE CL CLUB. >> ANYMORE QUESTIONS? >> OKAY. ON TO THE NEXT ONE. >> SO THIS IS PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOUTH FLETCHER, MR. STEVE SIMMONS PROPERTY ORIGINALLY A REAL ESTATE OFFICE IN THE '70S. R2 ZONING. I BELIEVE THE STRUCTURE DATES TO THE '40S. BUT WAS MADE OFFICE SPACE BACK IN THE '70S MR. SIMMONS HIGHLIGHTED SOME OF THE HISTORY OF THIS IN HIS EMAIL. WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THERE'S EVEN RECORD WHERE FOR WHATEVER [00:15:03] REASON IN 1988, THE CITY'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WAS HE REQUESTING A VARIANCE OR CHANGING THE ZONING, BUT THE MINUTES HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER LANDING AND ZONING. TODAY THAT'S COMPLETELY OFF BASIS IN THINKING WHAT PATH THAT WOULD GO TO TO ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL USE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING. BUT, IN THOSE 1988 MINUTES THERE'S REFERENCE TO THE BOARD AGREEING THAT THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE ZONED C1 BECAUSE OF ADJOINING C1 PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. AND AT THAT TIME, THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS NOW R3. WHICH WAS CHANGED IN 2016 BUT AT THAT TIME WAS COMMERCIALLY ZONED AS WELL. THERE'S CERTAIN ABOUT THE NONCONFORMING USE THERE. IT'S BEEN HISTORICALLY USED AS OFFICE SLASH STORAGE AND RELATED TO MR. SIMMON'S REAL ESTATE. IT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT ONE IT'S PREVIOUSLY BEEN SOMEWHAT APPROVED AS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BUT NEVER REALLY OFFICIALLY CHANGED ON ANY LAND USE OR ZONING MAP. AND I'M GLAD TO SEE MR. SIMMONS IS ABLE TO JOIN US THIS AFTERNOON. SO, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF THE RUNDOWN ON THAT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL THINK IF I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD. >> THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET TO THE EAST, WHAT IS THAT ZONED? THAT'S THE CLUBHOUSE, RIGHT? >> YES, DIRECTLY TO THE EAST THERE'S A RESIDENT RESIDENT SHI STRUCTURE THAT'S C2. THAT'S THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE JUST SOUTH OF THE SEASIDE PARK PARKING LOT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THEN THE 2117 IS AT R2. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. >> IS THIS AREA, YOU GOT THE MOTEL, YOU HAVE THE PARKING LOT AND THEN YOU HAVE THE C1. THERE'S NO I MEAN, THIS IS ALL IN THAT BUSINESS DISTRICT, RIGHT? >> IT'S RIGHT THERE, YES, MA'AM, IN THE COMMERCIAL. >> IS THAT WHAT YOU CALL IT THE BUSINESS... >> THERE'S THE JOB OPPORTUNITY AREA, THERE. >> THAT'S RIGHT. WELL, HAVING IT R2 IS, I WOULD NEVER SEE ANYBODY PUTTING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THERE. I MEAN, I LIVE A BLOCK AND-A-HALF AWAY, AND I'M TELLING YOU, IT'S SLIDE WITH ROCKS AT NIGHT AND YOU HEAR IT LIKE IT'S IN YOUR BACKYARD. SO, NOBODY'S GOING TO PUT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME RIGHT THERE AND LIVE THERE. THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE IS HOW THE ENCROACHMENT OF C1 SOUTH, AND HOW DO YOU KEEP THAT FROM GOING FARTHER SOUTH? >> OKAY. AND THAT -- TYPICAL ZONING OR STANDARD ZONING IN PRINCIPAL, YOU TYPICALLY HAVE TRANSITIONAL ZONING STEPS DOWN YOUR INTENSE USE TO LESS INTENSIVE USE. HERE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REAL BUFFER IN THAT SENSE AND THAT'S WHY I SAY, THAT STREET, EVEN THOUGH, WE HAVE PROPERTY WE'LL TALK ABOUT LATER ON 1ST AVENUE. BREAKING POINT, BUT I ALSO WANT THE BOARD TO [00:20:04] CONSIDER AND RECOGNIZE THE LONG STANDING HISTORY THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY AND THE CONTINUED USE AND THE POINTS THAT YOU ALL HAVE TO MAKE. >> MR. SIMMONS, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION. >> MR. STEVENSON HE WOULD NEED TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM. >> LET'S FINISH AND LET MR. SIMMONS COME UP AND TALK. >> YES, MA'AM. >> I JUST HAD A QUESTION, IF IT'S GRAND FATHERED IN USE. >> BUSINESSES ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE LOCAL BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS TO OPERATE BUSINESSES. AND THAT IS A MECHANICISM THAT WE USE TO TRACK WHERE YOU HAVE IN THESE PARTICULAR CASES EXISTING NONCONFORMING USES AND WHERE PROPERTIES HAVE MAINTAINED BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS, WE ALLOW THAT USE TO CONTINUE. YOU CAN'T EXPAND THAT USE. IF THE USE WERE TO STOP FOR MORE THAN 180 DAYS, THAT CLAUSE GOES AWAY. INITIALLY, WE COULDN'T FIND WHERE THAT STRUCTURE OR ADDRESS THIS A LOCAL BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT. WE'VE SINCE DONE MORE DIGGING AND TALKING THROUGH THE HISTORY AND THE USES AND THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ERA JUST TO THE NORTH, THAT'S AN ANCILLARY TIED INTO THAT. WE'RE GOING TO HONOR THIS AS A STILL VESTED BUSINESS AT THIS LOCATION. HE DOES HAVE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE HE COULD USE TODAY. >> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? >> IT'S NOT -- WELL, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE OWNERSHIP, IT'S JUST DIFFERENT. I GUESS, WHAT MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IF I CAN, JUST WHAT DO YOU RECOMMEND? I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT IT A LITTLE LAST TIME. >> THIS ONE'S A TOUGH ONE IN MY, I MEAN -- THE FACT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GRANDFATHER THE CLAUSE THERE AND ALLOW THE CONTINUED USE FOR THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, WITH THAT FACT I HAVE A LITTLE MORE EASE IN THAT MR. SIMMONS CAN USE THAT PROPERTY. SEEING THE 1988 MINUTES THAT SAY THIS BODY, EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T THE RIGHT BODY OR WHATEVER THE BODY WAS AT THAT TIME SAID, WE FEEL THAT THIS SHOULD BE C1, MR. SIMMONS ALSO TRIED TO GET THE ADVICE OF A PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. SOMETHING CAME UP IN THE 80S AND YOU KIND OF BROUGHT THIS BOARD AGAIN AND THAT BOARD RECOMMENDED IT SHOULD BE C1. AND THEN MR. SIMMONS IN THE 2000 TIME FRAME SAID I'M GOING TO MAKE APPLICATION, WHOEVER WAS PROCESSING SAID, THANK YOU, BUT I DON'T THINK WE WILL BE ABLE TO OFFER APPROVAL. WITH THAT, NOT HAVING SOME SORT OF FAVORABLE THOUGHT, MR. SIMMONS SAID THANKS BUT NO THANKS. I DO THINK IT IS SOME WHAT OF A LOGICAL BREAK WITH THE ROAD COMING FARTHER SOUTH INTO THAT NEXT BLOCK. I DON'T REALLY LIKE HOW A LINE IS DRAWN ON A MAP TYPE THING, BUT I'M LOOKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION ON WHAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO SEE HERE. >> WE'LL HEAR FROM MISS. I DO THINK SOMEBODY WOULD BUILD A HOUSE THERE, THEY WILL BUILD HOUSES ANY WHERE. I DO THINK IF IT'S GRANDFATHERED IN, IF HE EVER SOLD THE PROPERTY THEY COULD USE IT AS THAT FUNCTION OR REVERT IT TO A HOUSE. I THINK EITHER ONE WOULD BE FINE RIGHT THERE. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THE [00:25:04] NEIGHBORS WOULD WANT SOMETHING REBUILT, C1, EITHER. >> C1, IF SAY IT'S CHANGED, MR. SIMMONS DECIDES TO SELL IT AND THEY WANT TO BUILD BACK A STRUCTURE, THEY ARE GOING TO ARE HAVE TO PROVIDE PARKING. I ALSO JUST WORRY THAT IT'S GRANDFATHERED NOW, IT'S LAX OR 180 DAYS, THAT GOES AWAY AND THEN YOU'RE SITTING THERE WITH A STRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A FORM SOMETHING. >> MR. SIMMONS WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. IF YOU COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND GIVE US OUR NAME AND ADDRESS, SIR. >> MY NAME IS STEVE SIMMONS, 1822 HIGHLAND DRIVE HERE IN FERNANDINA BEACH. I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I CAN'T HEAR AS I NORMALLY COULD WITH THE MASK. DID ALL OF YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO READ WHAT I GAVE REGARDING THE HISTORY OF WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS? >> YES. >> ARE WE ALL CLEAR ON THE FACT THAT BASICALLY THE PROBLEMS THAT I HAVE NOW WITH TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO SALVAGE MY COMMERCIAL ZONE BASED ON HOW I GOT COMMERCIALLY ZONED THERE, IS EVERYBODY ON THE RIGHT PAGE THERE, BECAUSE AS I DETAIL HERE, BASICALLY, IN 1976, WHEN I CAME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AT THAT TIME TO REMODEL THAT BUILDING AND MOVE MY REAL ESTATE OFFICE IN THERE, THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE CODE BOOKS THAT IDENTIFIED REAL ESTATE OFFICES AND WHAT ZONING THAT BUILDING SHOULD BE IN THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE BOOKS HAVING TO DO WITH REAL ESTATE. THEY SAID IT WAS COMMERCIAL OPERATION, SO THEY GAVE ME A VARIANCE TO MOVE IN THERE. DEFINITION OF IT. IN 1988, BY THE CASE NUMBER THAT I MENTIONED HERE IN THIS LETTER, BASICALLY, IN 1988, I WENT BEFORE THE BOARD, THE ONLY ONE WE HAD TO GET MILE OFFICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING THAT WAS NOW IN THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH HAD TO DO WITH REAL ESTATE IN COMMERCIAL. THEY ASKED ME TO COME IN AND FORMALIZE. AT THAT TIME, IT WAS COMMERCIAL, THE ENTIRE PARK OUT FRONT THAT WE KNOW NOW WAS COMMERCIALLY ZONED. THAT HAMMERHEAD WAS CALLED THE RED ROOSTER, THE PIECE BEHIND ME WAS ON C1. AND ACROSS THE ROAD WHERE MY OTHER OFFICE IS NOW WAS ALSO C1 BECAUSE THERE WAS A CONVENIENCE STORE THERE. AGAIN, I'M A REAL ESTATE OFFICE, I HAD ALREADY BEEN THERE, I'M BRINGING EVERYTHING INTO COMPLIANCE. WELL, AS THE NEW MAPS CAME OUT I NOTICED IT WAS MARKED AS R2 SO I KEPT TALKING TO CITY OFFICIALS ABOUT WHY DON'T WE GET THE MAPS CLEANED UP SHOWING THAT I'M AN R2. IT WASN'T UNTIL 2000, I WENT TO THE ATTORNEY AT THE TIME IN THE CITY, AND HE SAID STEVE, THERE'S BEEN A MISTAKE HERE, SO HE PULLED THE CITY MANAGER AND WE ALL AGREED THAT YES THERE WAS A MISTAKE BECAUSE I WAS GRANTED A C1 DESIGNATION TO COMPLY. THEY SAID WE WOULD NEED TO CLEAN THIS UP AND THAT WOULD HELP US TO GET IT WERE IT NEEDS TO BE. SO, I SAID OKAY. SO I CAME DOWN TO THE CITY, WENT TO THE DESK AND FILLED OUT THE FORMS AND CAME BACK TO WRITE A CHECK TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD TO HEAR MY PLEA FOR WHAT I FELT WAS AN ERROR. AND WHILE I WAS WRITING MY CHECK TO GET THE CITY'S MESS CLEANED UP, OKAY, SO TO SPEAK, THE CLERK [00:30:06] THERE MENTIONED DID YOU KNOW THAT ACCORDING TO PROTOCOL HERE THAT THE CITY CANNOT SUPPORT YOU IN YOUR CLAIM FOR THIS ERROR. IT'S JUST THAT IF YOU FEEL LIKE THERE'S BEEN A MISTAKE, THE CITY CAN'T JOIN YOU IN THAT BECAUSE THEY WILL BE ADMITTING A MISTAKE. THE CITY MANAGER AND THE PLANNER SAID THAT THEY MADE A MISTAKE ON THE MAPS. WELL, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL GET MY CHECK BACK AND I'LL LET THE CITY WORRY ABOUT THAT LATER, AND I GOT MY CHECK BACK AND WALKED OUT. I FELT LIKE I WAS SPENDING MY MONEY TO CLEAN UP A MISTAKE THAT THE CITY HAD MADE. I JUST EXPECTED TO GO BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, AND TO DOUG OR WESLEY. BECAUSE WE HAVE THE CASE NUMBER WHEN HE GOT THE ZONES, ET CETERA ET CETERA, AND LET'S MOVE ON WITH IT. BUT I WASN'T GOING TO GET THAT HELP. SINCE THAT TIME, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THE PIECE BEHIND ME, WHICH REZONED FROM COMMERCIAL TO R3 RESIDENTIAL, BUT NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD EXCEPT THE PARK. EVERYTHING ACROSS ME IS STILL COMMERCIAL. ADDITION THERE IS STILL COMMERCIAL. SO AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, I HAVE ACCORDING TO WHAT WAS GRANTED TO ME A C1 DESIGNATION, AND I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING AS TO WHERE I HAVE BEEN STRIPPED OF MY C1 DESIGNATION AND REDUCED BACK TO AN R2. >> MR. STEVENSON, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> FROM YOUR STANDPOINT, DO YOU WANT THE C1? >> RIGHT. >> YOU OWN A PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHICH WILL BE USED MAYBE FOR THE SAME PURPOSE FOR WHATEVER. >> BECAUSE, I HAVE MAINTAINED THAT OFFICE BECAUSE RIGHT ACROSS THE WAY WE MAINTAINED THAT OFFICE BECAUSE WE USED THAT FOR OUR PARKING AND OUR OTHER OFFICE, WE HAVE KEPT OUR DESIGNATION FOR OUR REAL ESTATE OFFICE FOR APPLYING TO THE STATE FOR A BRANCH OFFICE. SO WE MAINTAINED THAT FOR OUR ENTIRE OPERATION AND WE'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 1974 OR 1975. AND SO, I'M HOPING WE'RE GOING TO BE THERE FOR AWHILE LONGER. >> ANYMORE QUESTIONS, MR. STEVENSON? >> THE LAST TIME THAT YOU WERE IN WHEN YOU TOOK YOUR CHECK BACK, WHAT YEAR WAS THAT? >> 2000. >> SO NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN? >> RIGHT. >> I WAS JUST TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE CITY MANAGERS AT THAT TIME, WRITING A CHECK. BUT WHEN I REALIZED I WASN'T GOING TO GET HELP, I SAID I DON'T NEED THEM. >> ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR MR. SIMMONS? >> MR. SIMMONS THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING TONIGHT AND SPEAKING. WHILE I DO APPRECIATE AND UNDERSTAND YOUR ISSUES AND CONCERNS AND I THINK YOU HAVE A VERY REASONABLE CLAIM HERE WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO WANT A FINAL DECISION FROM THE STAFF, BUT, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU COMING TONIGHT AND PROVIDING US WITH IN THE INFORMATION. >> I'M SO GLAD I WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS INFORMATION. IT'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL >> THANK YOU. >> MISS BACH DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH US? >> MR. BENNETT DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS? >> I DO. OF COURSE. >> OF COURSE. >> I THINK IT OUGHT TO BE WHAT IT IS, IT'S ALSO BEEN COMMERCIAL, LEAVE IT COMMERCIAL AND FIX IT TO MAKE IT [00:35:05] COMMERCIAL. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ASSUMING THAT STAFF LOOKED IN THE ARCHIVES FOR ORDNANCES, SO WHAT WAS THE LAST ORDNANCE, WHAT'S REFLECTED ON THE MAP? SO THAT'S THE ISSUE. NO MATTER WHAT THE HISTORY IS OR WHAT WAS TOLD, THE ORDNANCE ITSELF, THE LAST ONES THAT WE HAVE ON FILE FOR ZONING AND LAND USE ARE WHAT LEGALLY HAVE TO BE APPLIED. SO. >> UNLESS WE CHOOSETO CHANGE IT? >> RIGHT. WILL WE WOULD CHOOSE TO CHANGE THROUGH AN ORDNANCE. >> THANK YOU. >> YOUR WELCOME. >> MR. BENNETT'S WAITING ON HIS OPINION, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A STRONG OPINION? >> MR. STEVENSON? >> BASED ON WHAT THE LANDOWNER REQUESTS, BASED ON HISTORY, I WOULD RECOMMEND IT STAY WITH C 1 CLASSIFICATION, MAKE THAT THE OFFICIAL DESIGNATION. >> MISS GINGER? >> I AGREE. >> MY ONLY CERTAIN IS MISSION CREEK. AND I KNOW GOING THROUGH I THINK, JAKE AS SAYING THAT USUALLY THERE'S A SEQUENCE WHERE IT GOES FROM COMMERCIAL. STEPS DOWN. AND RIGHT NEXTDOOR IS R2. THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY CONCERN, BUT I THINK THAT THE PREVIOUS 40 YEARS OF IT BEING A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS THAT'S BEEN OPERATED OUT THERE, IT SHOULD BE C1. >> OKAY. >> ANYBODY ELSE? >> I WOULD JUST SAY, MAYBE IF THEY COULD ADD THAT ADDRESS TO THE BUSINESS LICENSE THEN THAT MIGHT CLEAR UP ANY FUTURE QUESTIONS TOO. BUT I KNOW IT'S A DIFFERENT OWNERSHIP NAME. >> IT IS, AND IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH IT THE LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGE THERE WOULD BE NO ISSUE MOVING FORWARD TO TIE THE TWO. >> MR. BENNETT, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? >> I CAN ACTUALLY HEAR YOU BETTER ON THE TV THAN I CAN OVER ZOOM. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REMIND EVERYBODY, THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF HIM WAS COMMERCIAL. AND THAT BROUGHT THAT INTO THE PLANNING BOARD AND WE OKAYED THE CHANGE TO THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO AT ONE POINT THAT WHOLE NORTHERN PART OF THE BLOCK WAS COMMERCIAL. SO I DON'T THINK HE SHOULD BE PENALIZED BECAUSE OTHER PROPERTIES WERE CHANGED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND HE'S REMAINED WHAT HE'S BEEN DOING THE WHOLE TIME. BEING A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. >> MAKES A VERY GOOD POINT. THANK YOU. >> SO, DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION NOW TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS? >> I DO. I HAVE DIRECTION. THANK YOU FOR THE INPUT. >> MR. SIMMONS ON OUR NEXT MEETING WE WILL VOTE ON ALL THE ISSUES. SO YOU'LL GET A FORMAL NOTICE THAT THIS WILL BE, MAYBE NOT OUR NEXT MEETING BUT IN FEBRUARY. YOU'LL GET A FORMAL NOTICE THAT THIS WILL COME BEFORE US AND WE'LL TAKE A VOTE ON IT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR COMING. >> THE NEXT GROUP OF PARCELS A RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER ON 1ST AVENUE. I SENT YOU A BUNCH THE LITERATURE TO GET A DEEP DIVE, I REACHED OUT TO THE CONTRACTOR WHO BUILT THE PROJECT BACK IN THE DAY AND HE DID WANT HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION, I WAS NEVER ABLE TO PULL TOGETHER EXACTLY HOW BUILDING PERMITS WERE ISSUED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONING. DID I COVER A LONG LITANY OF HISTORY THAT CAME ABOUT THROUGH YEARS OF KIND OF BAD PRACTICES, AND SOME MISINFORMATION BETWEEN CONTRACTORS AND SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY AFTER THEY WERE BUILT AS DUPLEXES EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T HAVE DENSITY THAT SUPPORTED THEM CORRECTLY. THESE THREE TWO-UNIT TOWN HOMES HAVE A [00:40:11] C 1 ZONING. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AT 10 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO MAKE THESE COMPLETELY COMPLIANT AND FIT WITH THE LAND USE. I WANT THE BOARD PROVIDE DIRECTION DO WE INTRODUCE R3 WHICH ALLOWS FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL OR DO WE AS I CAN SHOW INTRODUCE R2 WHICH PROVIDES A RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND ZONING. THEY WOULD STILL BE NOT COMPLIANT WITH REGARDS TO DENSITY, BUT THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE NONCONFORMING REGARDING THE ZONING DISTRICT. AND THE THOUGHT BEING THAT THAT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN ALL THE OTHER DUPLEX/TOWN HOMES THAT WERE CREATED ALL THE WAY DOWN 1ST AVENUE. I SENT NOTICES TO ALL AND INVITES TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS, I HAVE YET TO RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK. CALLS, QUESTIONS, OR CONCERNS. IT'S MY ASSUMPTION THAT THEY PROBABLY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT. IF THEY DO, THEN IT SEEMS THAT THEY HAVE NO CONCERN OR WANT TO PROVIDE FEED BACK AT THIS TIME. THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS? >> MISS SCHAFER? >> WOULD IT LOOK WEIRD WITH ONE ORANGE OR THREE SQUARE RIGHT THERE? >> ESSENTIALLY YOU WOULD BE INTRODUCING, WE'VE GOT THAT R 3 TO THE NORTH AT THE CORNER OF JOHN ROBUS. THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS MORE DENSE AND INTENSE LAND USE IN ZONING IN THAT YOU COULD HAVE THE SHORT TERM RENTAL, THAT DAILY AND WEEKLY RENTAL WHERE THE R2 ZONING DOESN'T ALLOW THAT. COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THERE. MERELY LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE'S CONCERN WITH INTRODUCING R 3 WHICH WOULD CORRECT IT OUTRIGHT OR IF WE WANT TO INTRODUCE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT THAT FURTHER INTRODUCES RESORT RENTALS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULDN'T HAVE IT ELSEWHERE OTHER THAN THAN THIS CORNER PARCEL TO THE NORTH. >> MISS SCHAFER? >> I LOVE R THERE. IS THERE -- ARE THERE ANY PROBLEMS BUILDING ON THE CORNER LOT? BECAUSE I KNOW THEY'VE GOT THAT BIG DUNE LOOKING STRUCTURE THERE. >> THAT WAS GOING TO BE INTERESTING WHEN THIS COMES THROUGH FOR DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO PRESERVE AS MUCH OF THAT AS WE CAN. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT A BUILDING THERE BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE WILL BE SENSITIVE TO. THERE'S NOTHING TO PREVENT THEM FROM BUILDING ON THAT DUNE, IT'S NOT COASTAL CONSTRUCTION, BUT IT IS SOMETHING WE WILL BE SENSITIVE TO IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. >> WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO PEOPLE HAVE? >> IF YOU LOOK ACROSS THE STREET, THAT IS R2 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, RIGHT, JAKE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND CERTAINLY ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH FLETCHER. THOSE ARE R2S I THINK INTRODUCING INTO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WITH R3 WITH THE ABILITY TO HAVE WEEKLY RENTALS WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I THINK OTHER THAN THE HOUSE THAT'S ON THE END OF BEE STREET, [00:45:01] EVERYTHING SOUTH OF THAT IS THAT SAME DUPLEX, R2. EVERYTHING ON 1ST AVENUE IS R2. I THINK A CONSISTENT ZONING WOULD BE R2. BUT NOT HAVING THE ABILITY TO HAVE WEEKLY RENTALS INTRODUCED INTO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD CERTAINLY PRESERVE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. >> MR. BENNETT DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS? >> SORRY, I HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE TELEVISION, YES I DO HAVE AN OPINION. I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE R3 MYSELF, WE ALREADY HAVE IT ON THE CORNER. IT WOULD MAKE ALL THE PROPERTIES CONSISTENT WITH ACTUALLY WHAT'S THERE. SO IT WOULD JUST BRING IT ALL INTO COMPLIANCE WHICH IS ACTUALLY EXISTING. ISSUING WITH PEOPLE BUILDING ON SMALLER LOTS AND DUPLEXES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND I DON'T RECALL THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF ALL THAT, BUT TR THERE WAS A LOT OF ISSUES AT THAT TIME, MOVING AHEAD AND BUILDING DUPLEXES AND TURNING THEM INTO INDIVIDUAL SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. I'M GUESSING SOMEWHERE IN THE ARCHIVES THERE'S GOT TO BE DATA ON THAT AND I SUSPECT THESE PROPERTIES ARE PART OF THAT. ARE THEY ALL ON 25 FOOT LOTS FOR THE MOST PART? >> THEY'RE NOT 25 FOOT, THEY'RE SMALLER. >> BUT THEY'RE LESS THAN WHAT WAS EVER APPROVED AT THAT TIME? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BUT YOU HAVE R3 ON THE CORNER RIGHT AJAYSENT TO IT. >> HOW MANY HOUSEHOLDS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? >> SIX. >> SIX. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE THOUGHTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO PASS ON. >> I HAVE TO AGREE, I THINK WEEKLY RENTALS, THAT TYPE OF REAL ESTATE WOULD PUT A DIFFERENT MAKEUP OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. >> I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AS WELL. >> ANYONE ELSE? >> I THINK THAT THE R3 ON THE CORNER IS PROBABLY A GOOD USE FOR THAT CONSIDERING THE LOCATION ACROSS FROM THE FIRE STATION, ACROSS FROM THE WHOLE COMPLEX RIGHT THERE. YOU'VE GOT RESTAURANTS THAT EASILY YOU CAN WALK TO. ENTERTAINMENT YOU COULD WALK TO. I THINK THAT THAT'S COMING SOUTH AT THIS POINT IS AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOR OF RESIDENTS THAT CONSIDER THEMSELVES AS HOME OWNERS. NOT AS TRANSIENTS. INTRODUCING THAT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS DETRIMENTAL. AND I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU TALK TO THEM OUT IN THE STREET, THEY WOULD BE REALLY SURPRISED TO THINK THAT, A, THEY'RE COMMERCIAL, AND THAT B, THEY WOULD BE THINKING OF INTRODUCING TRANSIENT RENTALS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM. >> MY QUESTION IS IF WE CHANGE IT TO R 2, WHICH MAKES IT CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE STREET, THEN THE ISSUE IS THE UNITS ON THE PROPERTY ARE NONCONFORMING. >> THE NUMBER OF UNITS WOULD BE NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE 8 DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE. >> BUT IF ONE OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WANTED TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY, THEY STILL WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO IT DOES NOT IMPACT THEIR ABILITY TO APPROVE THE PROPERTY? [00:50:02] >> IT WOULD NOT. >> WHAT HAPPENS IF ONE OF THEM BURNS DOWN? >> WE HAVE VERY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS THAT THEY CAN BE REPLACED. NOT TO EXCEED THE DENSITY THAT'S THERE. NOT TO EXCEED THE SET BACKS THAT ARE CONFIRMED COVERED IN CHAPTER 10 OF THE CITY'S CODE. >> I WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE CONCERN ABOUT THE HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET. I CONSIDER SOMEBODY WANTED TO PUT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THOSE PROPERTIES NOW. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WOULD CAUSE A BIGGER RUCKUS THAN JUST MAKING R3. >> YOU MEAN, SOMEBODY WOULD BUY ALL THE LOTS, TEAR THE HOUSES DOWN AND BUILD SOMETHING. >> WOULD YOU HAVE TO BUY ALL OF THEM OR JUST ONE? >> RIGHT. >> I MEAN, LET ME ASK THE QUESTION. CAN YOU BUILD A COMMERCIAL BUILDING UNDER THE C1 ZONING ON ONE OF THOSE LOTS? >> PRACTICALLY NOT, BUT THEORETICALLY, THE ANSWER WOULD BE YES, BUT YOU HAVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND ONE INDIVIDUAL LOT, THERE'S GOING TO BE A PARTY WALL ISSUE. PRACTICALLY NO, PRINCIPALLY, WHILE VERY DIFFICULT, PROBABLY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> YEP. >> YES. >> THAT NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL OPERATION IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. >> OKAY. ANYMORE COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS? >> I FEEL LIKE I HAVE GOOD FEEDBACK TO BRING THIS BACK TO YOU WITH CHANGE. I FEEL STRONGLY THAT IT NEEDS TO CHANGE. >> I JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY COMMENT, I THINK THERE IS A NEED FOR R3 A LITTLE MORE THAN WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW ON THE MARKET. JUST FOR WHAT THE PEOPLE HAVE DESIRED, HERE, AND KIND OF HOW IT'S TRENDING ON WHAT PEOPLE ARE WANTING. AND YES, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE COMMERCIAL. AND PEOPLE STARTING A REAL ESTATE BRO BROKERAGE ACROSS FROM THEIR HOUSE, I THINK IT SHOULD BE R3. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. ON TO THE NEXT ONE. >> ON TO THE NEXT ONE. >> IS THERE SOMEONE ON THE CALL THAT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS BEFORE WE MOVE ON? >> MRS. KIRKLAND, I'VE ALLOWED YOU TO SPEAK IN THE ZOOM MEETING. >> IN RELATION TO THOSE PARCELS, I'M NOT SURE... >> YES. >> I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE ARE ON THE AGENDA. >> OKAY. I THINK SHE WAS. >> WE THOUGHT YOU RAISED YOUR HAPPENED TO SPEAK. >> NO, I'M SORRY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. THE NEXT PROPERTY IS 3142 FLETCHER IN A R 3 DISTRICT SURROUNDING AREA. [00:55:03] IT'S A NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. AND THIS IS A MATTER OF DOES THE BOARD WISH TO CORRECT A NONCONFORMING USE AND INTRODUCE COMMERCIAL IN THIS AREA THAT'S SURROUNDED BY R3, YOU HAVE SOME CONDO BUILDINGS SURROUNDING IT. IT'S ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH FLETCHER, WHILE THESE ARE SEPARATE, THEY'RE SIMILAR SITUATIONS WE CAN TALK TO ON A WHOLE. I'M GLAD MR. SIMMONS IS AGAIN HERE TO WEIGH IN ON IT. I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT THE BOARD THINGS ABOUT THIS SITUATION. >> SIMMONS IS THE PROPERTY OWNER? >> SIMMONS IS THE PROPERTY OWNER AND MR. FLANNERY IS ACROSS THE STREET. >> MR. SIMMONS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR PROPERTY HERE. BUT I NEED YOU TO COME TO THE. >> STEVE SIMMONS ON 1820 DRIVE IN FERNANDINA BEACH. >> I'M CONCERNED ABOUT I'M A NONCONFORMING, THAT MOTEL WAS BUILT IN 1972 AND WHEN I MOVED HERE IN 1971, YES WE HAD R-3 ZONING AND COMMERCIAL ZONING AND WE HAD SINGLE FAMILY AND WE HAD THE R-2 BUT THE MOTELS AND CONDOMINIUMS WERE ALWAYS KNOWN TO BE IN THE R-3 DISTRICT. THAT WAS AN APPROVED USE. REAL ESTATE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU GOT YOUR MOTELS AND CONDOS IN THE R-3 DISTRICT. WELL, IN 1992, WHEN THEY CAME UP WITH, I GUESS ONE OF THE FIRST TIMES THEY WORKED ON IT IN A LONG TIME, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ADOPTED NEW ZONING REGULATIONS AS THEY DID WITH THE REAL ESTATE OFFICES, THEN THEY BROUGHT CLARIFICATION. THIS MOTEL WAS BUILT AT A TIME WHEN IT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO BUILD THERE. WHEN THEY WENT AND BUILT THE MOTEL, IS THERE ANY RECORDS IN HERE IN THE CITY THAT WOULD SAY HE BOUGHT AND LAND AND BUILT THE HOTEL AND ACCEPTED THE NONCONFORMING USE WHEN HE BUILT THE HOTEL. MY GUESS WOULD BE THAT HE PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN FINANCING IF HE WAS TRYING TO GET A NONCONFORMING USE. IT WAS A CONFORMING USE WHEN HE BUILT THE HOTEL IN 1972 BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND MOTEL DISTRICT LATER. HE GOT A CLARIFICATION. AND SO, I DON'T UNDERSTAND NOW WHY WE WOULD BE COMING BACK TO SAY NOW IT'S NOT CONFORMING, WHEN IT WAS CONFORMING THEN. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. WE STILL HAVE 20 ROOMS, AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED. AND MY CONCERN ABOUT FINDING THAT I MAY BE IN A NONCONFORMING USE, HAS TO DO WITH THE DEFINITION OF NONCONFORMING, DOING THINGS, AND THIS IS WHERE MY MAIN CONCERN IS, ABOUT DOING THINGS WITH THE MOTEL THAT WOULD BE DEEMED AS AROUND IMPROVEMENT THAT MIGHT NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE IMPROVED. AND RIGHT NOW, WE PROBABLY HAVE FIVE OR SIX NEW MOTELS OR PLACES OF OF ACCOMMODATIONS IN PROCESS OF OPENING NOW. AND I'VE RECOGNIZED IN OWNING THIS MOTEL THAT I NEED TO DO THINGS ALMOST CONSTANTLY IN KEEPING UP WITH THE NEW TRENDS AND THE COMPETITION, IF NOT, IT WILL CEASE TO BE A MOTEL. WITHIN THE PAST YEAR AND-A-HALF OR YEAR, WE SHUT DOWN FOR FIVE MONTHS AND WE SPENT RIGHT AT $1 MILLION ON THAT FACILITY RIGHT THERE. YOU MIGHT NOT THINK IT'S THAT MUCH [01:00:03] IF YOU RIDE BY, BUT WE MADE THE INVESTMENT TO DO THE WORK. AND EVEN THOUGH I WAS WITHIN MY FOOTPRINT, I QUESTIONED COULD I HAVE GOTTEN THE PERMIT FROM THE CITY TO DO THE MAJOR WORK THAT I DID IF THEY WERE TO LOOK AT THE ASSESS VALUE VERSUS I PUT IN IT. I MIGHT HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED DOING THAT KIND OF WORK IN A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. I MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO GO THERE AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ADDING ANYMORE ROOMS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE, I'M TALKING ABOUT JUST SOME COSMETIC THINGS. I HAVE ROOM RIGHT NOW TO GO TIGHTER. I MIGHT NEED TO GO THERE AND PUT IN AN EXERCISE ROOM OR A LOUNGING AREA WHERE FOLKS CAN COME UP AND HAVE COFFEE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, JUST TO MAKE A LITTLE BIT OF AN IMPROVEMENT THERE IN THE MOTEL. TO SHOW FOLKS WE ARE KEEPING UP WITH THE TRENDS BUT THE MAIN THING WOULD BE THAT WE COULD BE PAL COMPETITIVE FOR THE COMPETITIVE WE HAVE HERE IN AMELIA ISLAND ISLAND. THIS MOTEL WAS BUILT IN WHAT WAS ALLOWED WITHIN THAT ZONING, I'M GOING TO BE HAM STRUNG WITH BEING ABLE TO DO THINGS AND MAKE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ADDING ROOMS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE BUT SOME OF THE LITTLE THINGS I WOULD SOMEWHERE TO DO TO GET A PERMIT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS. SECONDLY, IF I WERE TO NOW BE PULLED INTO A NONCONFORMING USE, THAT IS GOING TO AFFECT A LOT OF WHAT I'M DOING THERE. AND IN SOME FUTURE TIME, IF SOMEONE WANTED TO COME BUY THOSE MOTELS, IF THEY FIND I'M RESTRICTED FROM BEING ABLE TO DO THINGS IN KEEPING UP WITH COMPETITION, YOU COULD IMAGINE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE IT WOULD BE IF SOMEONE COULD DO THINGS TO IMPROVE IT TO GET THE ROOM RATES UP AND OCCUPANCY UP. AND THIS NONCONFORMING THING REALLY SCARES ME AS TO WHAT IT WOULD DO TO THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY. I GUARANTY YOU IF I HAD KNOWN THAT I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO COMING INTO A NONCONFORMING USE, I WOULD NOT HAVE SPENT THE MONEY THAT I DID THE LAST YEAR, YEAR AND-A-HALF IN THAT MOTEL. I WOULD HAVE BEEN AFRAID TO INVEST THAT MUCH MONEY INTO IT. NOW, WHAT HAPPENS THEN, YOU START LETTING A PLACE FALLING APART BECAUSE YOU'RE AFRAID TO PUT MONEY IN BECAUSE YOU'RE AFRAID YOU WON'T GET THE MONEY OUT OF IT. IN MY OPINION, IT WOULD BE ASHAME FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO HAPPEN NOT ONLY TO MY PROPERTY BUT THE OTHERS PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE FINDING THEMSELVES COMING INTO A NONCONFORMING USE. THAT'S WHERE I AM AND MY CONCERN ABOUT NOW FINDING OUT THAT AFTER ALL THE YEARS WE'RE GOING TO BE COMING INTO A NONCONFORMING USE. BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE A COM DESIGNATION ON MOTELS. I APPRECIATE YOU HEARING MY CONCERNS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SIMMONS. >> SO HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN NONCONFORMING? YEARS? >> SO IT'S NOT THAT IT'S COMING INTO CONFORMING, IT'S BEEN NONCONFORMING FOR YEARS. >> MY QUESTION WAS WHEN IT WAS BUILT IN 1972, WAS IT PERMITTED AS A NONCONFORMING USE? >> PROBABLY NOT. I CAN'T SPEAK TO PREVIOUS CODES, WETHER OR NOT HOTEL MOTEL AND OTHER ANSWER SILL LARRY USES. AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, I'M ALMOST 1 ONE% CERTAIN THE CURRENT CODE DOES NOT HAVE LOBBING. SINCE 2006 IT'S BEEN NONCONFORMING, PROBABLY PRIOR TO THAT, I DON'T ENVISION, WITH YOU WHO KNOWS WHAT WAS GOING ON IN [01:05:02] THE '70S ON WHAT THE ZONING WAS. BUT THE SHORT ANSWER WOULD BE FROM 2006 ON IT'S BEEN NONCONFORMING. >> SO IF WE DID NOTHING, THIS WOULD JUST STAY NONCONFORMING AND LIFE GOES ON? >> AND THE TYPE OF RENOVATIONS THAT MR. SIMMONS HAS MADE RECENTLY IN THE PROPERTY, THOSE TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS INSIDE THE FACILITY COULD BE CONTINUED TO UPDATE, WE AGAIN HAVE THAT NONCONFORMING PROVISION IN CHAPTER 10 THAT IF IT WAS DESTROYED IT COULD BE REPLACED. HE CAN NOT VERTICAL, HE COULD NOT EXPAND THE ROOMS BUT MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING AND KEEPING THE HOTEL ALIVE INSIDE. IT'S THE EXPANSION THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AS PART OF THE EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING. >> I APPRECIATE THAT, IF WE COULD REBUILD, BUT AS AN EXAMPLE IF I DO ANYTHING THERE TO KEEP UP WITH MY COMPETITION, WE LOOKED AT PLANS DRAWN TO GO UP A LITTLE BIT AND HAVE A GLASSED IN AREA THERE WERE THE GUESTS CAN SIT WITH MORNING COFFEE THERE. I WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT IF I'M OUTSIDE OF MY FOOTPRINT, THE ONLY WAIL I COULD DO THAT WOULD BE TO GO THERE AND BLOCK OUT TWO TO THREE TO FOUR ROOMS OUT OF MY INVENTORY AND BUILD THERE. WELL, IF I DO THAT, I ONLY HAVE 20 UNITS NOW. IF I CUT IT DOWN TO 16 UNITS, THOSE NUMBERS WON'T WORK. >> SO YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS WERE PROPERTY REZONED TO COMMERCIAL? >> WELL, IF THAT'S -- IF I WERE ZONING RIGHT NOW FOR A MOTEL IS COMMERCIAL, ABSOLUTELY, BECAUSE HERE AGAIN, WHEN IT WAS BUILT IT WAS ACCEPTABLE WITHIN THAT ZONE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS R-3. IF I WENT OUT RIGHT NOW WITH ALL THE NEW PROPERTIES TO BUILD THE MOTEL, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE ON C-1. IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE LET'S BRING IT INTO CONFORMITY, NOT NONCONFORMITY, BECAUSE IT WAS CONFORMED WHEN IT WAS BUILT BECAUSE THOSE BEFORE US MADE A DECISION THAT IT WAS AN ACCEPTABLE USE WITHOUT ANY TAG OF NONCONFORMING IN THAT DISTRICT AT THAT TIME. >> THANK YOU SIR. >> SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO ACCEPT WHAT PEOPLE DID BEFORE US AND SAY, OKAY, CLEAN THIS UP. IF WE HAVE A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION, LET'S GIVE IT A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION. BECAUSE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, YOU'VE GOT A RESTAURANT, AND A MOTEL. AND YOU'VE GOT KIND OF A LOT OF COMMERCIAL GOING ON THERE. AND EVERYTHING RIGHT IN THAT LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD IS HEAVY R-3. SO MY THEORY WOULD BE THE EASIEST THING WOULD DO IS SAY IF IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMMERCIAL AT THAT TIME, LET'S MAKE IT COMMERCIAL. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR INPUT. MISS SCHAFER YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> I DO LIKE C-1, IF HE EVER CHOSE WOULD HE HAVE AN OPTION OF CONDOIZING THOSE? >> IT WOULD BE A CHANGE OF USE GOING TO A LESS INTENSE USE, BUT YOU COULD CREATE A CONDO, WE'VE ANALYZED PARKING AND THAT KIND OF THING, THAT WOULD BRING, IF YOU WENT TO A RESIDENTIAL USE, THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO EXPAND AT THAT POINT. THAT'S A VALID POINT. >> LET ME SHARE WITH YOU WHY THAT WON'T WORK. I LOOKED AT THE FOOTPRINT, IT WAS 100 FOOT BY THE DEPTH. I KNOW I GOT PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND I GOT HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS THAT THE CONDOS DIDN'T HAVE. 35 FEET FROM THEM. BASED ON WHAT MY LAND COST IS GOING TO BE TO DISCONTINUE THAT MOTEL, THERE'S [01:10:03] NO RESIDENTIAL THAT I COULD BUILD THERE IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO EVEN GET BACK TO SQUARE ONE TO SATISFY LAND MUCH LESS CONSTRUCTION COSTS. TO SEE THAT ON 100 FOOT WIDE 35 FOOT HEIGHT TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT I COULD BUILD THERE THE NUMBERS WOULD NOT WORK. >> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. >> IF YOU GO NEXT DOOR AND BUY A CONDO FOR, I WOULD HAVE TO SELL UNITS THERE, I WOULD HAVE TO CHARGE THREE TIMES AS MUCH AS YOU COULD BUY IN AMELIA ISLAND CONDOS. >> WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO PEOPLE HAVE? >> WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS IF WE CHANGE THIS TO COMMERCIAL? IT'S A PRECEDENT SETTING KIND OF THING, RIGHT? >> IT IS, ACCEPT FOR THAT COMMERCIAL AREA A BLOCK OR SO SOUTH WHERE YOU HAVE A SMALL COMMERCIAL NOTE. >> WHERE THE GAS STATION IS? >> YES. >> DO YOU ALL WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE OTHER PROPERTY AND AS FAR AS THE SAME TYPE SITUATION, OR DO YOU WANT TO? >> DID YOU TALK TO THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER? >> I DID, AND SO THAT PROPERTY PRIOR TO HIS PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, THERE WAS AN APPLICATION MADE, I WANT TO SAY IT WAS 2016 TIME FRAME BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER TO CHANGE THE LAND USE AND ZONING TO A C-1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL LAND USING ZONING. I THINK SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS CAUGHT WIND AND WAS CONCERN WOULD THAT CHANGE. GIVEN THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY THAT WOULD BE INCREASED IF THAT WAS CORRECTED AND ALLOWED THEM TO EXPAND. RIGHT NOW THEY'RE LOCKED IN JUST AS MR. SIMMONS PROPERTY, IN THAT, THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE, THEY'VE GOT WHAT THEY'VE GOT, THEY CAN'T GO UP OR OUT. SO IT KIND OF GIVES SOME ASSURANCES TO WHAT YOU GOT THERE ON THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT. COULD THEY DECIDE OR SELL, COULD THEY BUILD A CONDOMINIUM THERE? YES THEY COULD. THEY WOULD BE LIMITED TO 35 FEET IN HEIGHT. BUT IF WE CHANGED THE ZONING TO COMMERCIAL, THEY WOULD ALSO BE LIMITED TO 35 FEET IN HEIGHT BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY ON THE BEACH. COULD THEY EXPAND THE RESTAURANT IF WE CHANGED THE ZONING? YES. WE WOULD STILL ANALYZE PARKING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT RUNNING A DEFICIT ON THAT. WHETHER ON TOP OF THE BUILDING OR TO THE SOUTH OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, YES THEY COULD. WE'RE AGAIN GOING TO ANALYZE PARKING AND OTHER SITE DESIGNING REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE, I COULD SEE CHANGING IT, AND I COULD SEE LEAVING IT ALONE. THEY HAVE OVER RIGHT TO DO SO, I'M WANTING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE BOARD'S THOUGHTS ARE ON IT. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING OR WE COULD ANALYZE IT OR LOOK FOR SPECIFICALLY ABOUT CHANGING IT TO COMMERCIAL. >> I HAVE JUST A QUICK COMMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY. IT WAS CHANGED IN I BELIEVE 1999, BACK THEN IT WAS CONTEMPLATED TO GO TO THE RESIDENTIAL R-3 IN ANTICIPATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF CONDOS IN THAT AREA JUST LIKE IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF IT DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME. SO THE BOARD DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT AND IT WAS ANTICIPATION THAT THE RESTAURANT WOULD OBVIOUSLY GO AWAY AND NOT BE THERE LONGER. BUT SINCE THAT POINT IN TIME, THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP, MAINTAIN THAT EXISTING USE WITHIN THAT. >> SO IN 1999, WHAT WAS IT [01:15:04] CHANGED FROM? >> COMMERCIAL. >> IT WAS C-1, IT WAS CHANGED TO R-3 AT THE REQUEST OF THE OWNER AT THAT TIME? >> YES. >> AND WHY WAS THAT AGAIN? >> THE PROPERTY OWNER MADE A REQUEST TO THE COMMISSION AND TO THE BOARD, THEY WERE ANTICIPATING THAT RESIDENTIAL WAS THE HIGHEST USE OF THE PROPERTY, THEY HAD A DATED STRUCTURE THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO INVEST IN ANY FURTHER. I BELIEVE IT WAS TWO TIMES SINCE THAT POINT, AND SO, MORE RECENTLY THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN THE RESTAURANT AND THE MOTEL. >> IT WAS ANTICIPATED THAT THEY WOULD DEVELOP AS TOWN HOMES OR CONDOS. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT THAT WAS A GOOD POINT. >> SO THERE WAS MORE RECENT HISTORY TIED TO IT. >> MR. STEVENSON, GO AHEAD. >> C-1 WOULD BE MY VOTE. >> ON BOTH? >> YES. ON BOTH OF THEM. >> THAT WHOLE AREA THERE IS SUCH A MESH OF R-3 AND COMMERCIAL. >> RIGHT. >> I THINK IT DOES LEND ITSELF TO BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY THAT BRINGING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE NONCOMPLIANCE ISSUE. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WANTED TO MAKE IT COMMERCIAL, THAT WOULD BE THEIR DECISION. I THINK THAT IT'S A LOGICAL DECISION CERTAINLY ON MR. SIMMONS PROPERTY. IT'S INTERESTING THAT THAT PROPERTY HAS GONE FROM C-1 TO R-3 AND THEN BACK. THAT'S INTERESTING. SO AND IT IS COMMERCIAL, I MEAN IT IS COMMERCIAL IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD. >> IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD. >> AND SO IT MAKES SENSE TO MAKE IT WHAT IT IS. IT IS WHAT IT IS. NOW, AND SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS DO WE DO IT OR DO WE WAIT FOR THE OWNERS TO COME BACK AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WE WANT AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND GO FORWARD. >> SO THAT IS AN OPTION, IS FOR US TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND IF THE OWNERS WANT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION, THEY COULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. BECAUSE I DO THING IT'S LIKE A HYBRID ZONING ISSUE. I MEAN, THERE IS THIS IN YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY, THERE'S BEEN THIS TRANSITION. NOW WE'VE GOT A HARD LINE IN THE SAND BETWEEN THAT AND COMMERCIAL. SO IT COULD EASILY BE EITHER ONE. AND IT'S THE QUESTION OF WHAT DOES THE PROPERTY OWNER THING IS THE BEST USE. SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I THINK IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER'S DECISION. IT'S NOT US MAKING SOMETHING SIMPLY BECAUSE WE HAVE A MISMATCH. >> WELL, THEY BOUGHT IT BECAUSE THIS WAS COMMERCIAL USE, THOUGH. >> WHO IS THEY? >> THE OWNERS? >> WHICH OWNERS? >> AT THE TIME. >> THE LAST TIME THE SURF WAS SOLD IT WAS R-3. >> WITH COMMERCIAL USE AND THEN THEY INVESTED. >> NONCONFORMING. >> MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO RENOVATING BOTH PROPERTIES WITH COMMERCIAL USE. >> UNDERSTANDING THE LIMITS OF A NONCONFORMING SITUATION. THEY WERE STILL ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO WITH THE PROPERTIES. >> BECAUSE I THINK THEY WERE AFRAID OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM BOTH AS COMMERCIAL TO KIND OF SAVE THAT AND ENSURE THAT THAT STAYS MORE OF A RESTAURANT TYPE FOR THE COMMUNITY, REALLY. >> OKAY. MR. BENNETT? >> IF YOU REMEMBER I WAS ONE OF THE ONES WHO INSISTED WE BRING THESE UP FOR DISCUSSION, AND MAINLY BECAUSE I WANTED TO HEAR WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS WANTED TO SAY AND WHAT THEIR PLANS WERE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE PROPERTY. [01:20:01] I'VE HEARD FROM MR. SIMMONS, I WOULD TOTALLY AGREE, THE PROPERTY IS A MOTEL, IT WOULD PROBABLY STAY THAT WAY, THERE'S NO ECONOMIC REASON TO CHANGE IT TO CONDOMINIUMS, MY CONCERN WAS AS A PROPERTY OTHER THAN THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO EITHER OR ASSUMING THAT WE LEAVE IT AS IT IS. I'M ALL FOR MAKING THE COMPLIANCE TO C-1 SO THE HOTEL OR MOTEL AND DINING AND ALL OF THAT IS COMPLIANT WITH ZONING AND LAND USE. BULL WE'VE NOT HEARD FROM THE OWNERS OF THE SURF, HAVE WE NOT? >> NOT HERE TONIGHT, MR. BENNETT, BUT I HAVE HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH HIM, HE WOULD SUPPORT CHANGING THE LAND USE AND ZONING TO COMMERCIAL TO CORRECT A NONCONFORMING SITUATION, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK DIRECTLY FOR HIM BUT THAT'S THE INDICATION I GOT IN OUR MEETING. >> I'M GUESSING WE DIDN'T HEAR FROM THEM? >> YES, WE DID HEAR FROM THEM AND IT APPEARS THAT THEY WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO A LAND USE CHANGE. >> TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE COMMERCIAL. >> THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE BOTH PROPERTIES TO COMMERCIAL. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE, THEY ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE, EVERYBODY'S HAPPY. THAT'S ALL I GOT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> DO WE HAVE ANYMORE OR ARE WE DONE? >> MR. SIMMONS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE? >> YES, I'D LIKE TO SAY ONE THING, 1822 HIGHLAND DRIVE IN FERANDINA, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT AS YOUR MAKING THE PLAN YOU WOULD MAKE THAT AS AN IN-HOUSE CHANGE. I WOULD RATHER IT BE THAT WAY, YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE ONE TO MAKE THE APPLICATION, NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE CONVERTS TO A COMMERCIAL, AND ALL THE FOLKS IN THOSE CONDOMINIUMS, AND AMELIA ISLAND HAVEN'T HAD DISCUSSIONS LIKE WE HAVE HERE AS TO WHY WE'RE DOING IT OR ANYTHING. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR FIRST HEARING, YOU'VE GOT 150 PEOPLE SHOW UP HERE. WHAT DO WE HAVE TO REACH OUT TO 300 FEET? THAT'S ANOTHER 96 UNITS, SO WE COULD BE LOOKING AT 200 PEOPLE COMING TOGETHER AS A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION TO BE AGAINST ANYMORE COMMERCIAL IN THEIR AREA. I JUST HATE TO SEE THE CITY IMPOSE THAT ON THEM. >> BUT, SIR, EVEN IF WE DO IT, WE'RE STILL GOING TO NOTICE IT. >> BUT IT WILL BE A DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN IF WE DO AND WE HAVE TO COME IN HERE AND DEFEND IT. I THINK YOU COULD GIVE A BETTER EXPLANATION THAN WE COULD ON YOUR BEHALF. >> IT'S STILL GOING TO BE NOTICED AND THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE A LOT OF CONSTERNATION. >> RATHER THAN THAN ME, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT COME FROM THE CITY. WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE USE OF ANYTHING, ALL WE'RE DOING IS HOUSEKEEPING HERE TO GET THINGS CLEAN DOES UP A LITTLE BIT. >> WE CAN'T GUARANTY THAT PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO BE UNHAPPY. >> I AGREE. >> ALL RIGHT. >> MAYBE WE COULD MINIMIZE IT JUST A LITTLE BIT. AND HERE AGAIN, I DO A LOT OF WORK WITH THOSE TWO ASSOCIATIONS, I'VE HAD AN OFFICE FOR ABOUT EIGHT, NINE YEARS, AND I'VE BEEN HAVING AN OFFICE AT AMIELA SOUTH. >> PULL YOUR MASK UP, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> IS THAT IT? >> THAT'S IT, AND THAT'S THE IDEA WITH ALL THESE CHANGES. THAT CITY STAFF WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD. OBVIOUSLY, MAKING THE CORRECTED NOTICES AND PUBLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. >> SO, DO YOU FEEL YOU HAVE ADEQUATE DIRECTION? >> OKAY. GREAT. LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND WE'LL COME BACK AND >> THE NEXT ITEM UNDER NEW [01:25:01] BUSINESS IS REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE CULTIVATION. >> GOOD EVENING. BUT, THIS EVENING, I KNOW THAT THE BOARD HAS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED TO TAKE TIME TO REVIEW THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT TOGETHER AS A GROUP I THINK PRIMARILY TO GET A SENSE OF THE LEVEL OF EFFORT THAT MAY BE INVOLVED WITH MAKING ANY CHANGES TO OUR DOCUMENTS. AND SO, I BELIEVE IN NOVEMBER, WE CIRCULATED THOSE DOCUMENTS TO YOU FOR THE REVIEW. THE AMELIA ISLAND TREE CONSERVATORY, WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER A BILL THEY SENT YOU THIS PARTICULAR FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. ONE OF THE CRITICAL COMPONENTS AS PART OF THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT IS THAT THERE IS A REQUIRED SUBELEMENT, THE PORT ELEMENT, THAT PREVIOUSLY WAS A STAND ALONE ELEMENT AND IS NOW REQUIRED TO BE A SET ELEMENT OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT BY STATE LAW. WE HAVE NOT HAD AN UPDATE TO THAT ELEMENT, THE PORT ELEMENT, SINCE THE YEAR 2001, I BELIEVE, PRIOR TO THAT IT WAS 1998. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN FACT, AND THERE'S A WHOLE HISTORY WHICH I PROVIDED TO YOU ON SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT THE PRIOR PLANNING BOARDS HAVE CONSIDERED WITHIN THE LAST 15 YEARS. BUT AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE WHAT IS CONSIDERED AN OUTDATED DOCUMENT THAT THE BOARD MAY WISH TO TAKE ON THAT EFFORT FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT SIMPLY AS A WAY TO GAIN CONSENSUS AN WORK WITH THE COURT TO ARRIVE AT A DOCUMENT THAT COULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO BOTH BOARDS AND ENTITIES. AND WITH THAT, I WANTED TO GAUGE YOUR INTEREST AS A BOARD ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT REVISION THAT YOU SEE TAKING PLACE WITH RESPECT TO THIS ELEMENT. DO YOU SEE IT BEING IN GOOD SHAPE FOR THE MOST PART OR ARE THERE TWEAKS THAT WE IMMEDIATE TO CONTEMPLATE AND WHICH SECTIONS. SO I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT AND TAKE LEAVE. >> SO, DID ANYBODY LIKE TO OPEN THE DISCUSSION? MR. STEVENSON? >> THIS IS JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM 2000, I THINK A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I SEE, IF I LOOK JUST AT SECTION 5. IF YOU READ THE NARRATIVES AND SO FORTH, IT'S NOT I DON'T SEE IT AS BEING A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CHANGE. YEAH, IT'S UPDATING FOR DATES AND CLARIFICATION, BUT I THINK -- WELL, I GUESS MY FRUSTRATION IS, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT I'M THE PERSON THAT COULD HELP SIMPLIFY IT, BUT I THINK THE DOCUMENT NEEDS TO BE SIMPLIFIED. MODERN TEXT, OR JUST, IT TAKES A LOT OF EFFORT TO FIND ALL THE DO'S AND DON'TS. I GOT A PILE OF DATA, LET'S SLICE IT A NEW WAY, TO ME IT'S COMPLICATED, WE GET INTO THE SHALL, AND THE MUST AND THE WILL, AND THE WON'T, I GUESS THE NET IS IT NEEDS A MODERN FRESH LOOK IN TODAY'S WORLD THAT WE'RE WORKING IN. THERE'S PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE CITY. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS TO BE THE BASIS FOR LDC, I THINK IT'S UPDATED MORE FROM A COMMUNICATION STYLE AS OPPOSED TO A CONTENT STYLE. >> SO WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE DIFFERENT? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE MORE MATRIXS, MORE TABLES, LESS WORDS? >> TABLES, HERE'S ALL THE DO'S AND HERE'S ALL THE DON'TS FOR [01:30:01] THE PARTICULAR ITEM. ANOTHER THING, I SURE WANT TO FIND OUT WHO HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR EACH OF THOSE PARAGRAPHS? WHO OWNS THEM. AND HOW MUCH ARE THOSE GOING TO COST US. EVERYTHING HAS A COST. A LOT OF THOSE ARE IN THE BUDGET THAT WE HAVE TODAY, WITH THE CITY BUT, A WISH LIST DOES NOT NECESSARILY AFFORDABLE. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK SOMEHOW WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS A WISH OR LONG-TERM GOAL, BUT MAYBE NOT ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE DOABLE WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. SO I THINK INTEREST, BUT AGAIN, IF SOMEBODY COULD LOOK AT IT AND WHAT'S ON FIVE PAGES NOW, YOU GET THAT DOWN TO THREE PAGES, OKAY, HERE'S THE SAME THING BUT WITH A CHECK LIST MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE. OKAY. MISS ROBAS? >> I'M LOOKING AT ONE OF THE POINTS IN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT HIGHLIGHTS, I GUESS THAT'S THE FIRST, ALMOST THE FIRST, NUMBER ONE AS AN EXAMPLE, TO SAY, EXPAND PUBLIC ACCESS TO INCLUDE ALL SHORE LINES AND WATERWAYS, NOT JUST BEACH ACCESS. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT ONE, THERE'S A COST TO THAT. AND IS THAT JUST A PHILOSOPHY OR A GOAL OR WHAT IS THAT? >> SO WHAT YOU'RE READING FROM IS AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. IT'S PULLED OUT OF THERE FROM THE PRIOR DOCUMENT. SO IT'S REALLY JUST A KEY COMPONENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED AS POLICY INTERNAL TO THE EXISTING STATEMENTS THAT ARE THERE. >> IT'S ON PAGE 60. >> BUT IF IT'S A POLICY, THEN, HOW DO YOU IMPLEMENT THE POLICY? >> AND SO, THAT'S NOT A POLICY STATEMENT, IT'S A KEY HIGHLIGHT. AND ONCE YOU GET TO THE PUBLIC ACCESS SECTION, THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD SEE THE POLICY DIRECTION IS PROVIDED. >> AND I THINK THAT'S SORT OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. >> ANOTHER ONE WAS DECREASED DEPENDENCE ON HARD SHORE. WATER FRONT. ON FRONT STREET, BECAUSE A LOT IT HAVE THAT IS HARDSCAPED SEA WALLS. AND THAT CERTAINLY IS NOT WHAT THIS DOCUMENT SAYS WE OUGHT TO BE DOING. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT'S ANOTHER THING WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. THE DOCUMENT'S CORRECT, WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, BUT IT'S HOW WE IMPLEMENT IT. WHAT KIND OF GUIDANCE THAT WE PUT ON A PIECE OF PAPER THAT WILL EFFECT THE PLANNING WORD APPROVES FOR FUTURE ACTIVITIES. >> OKAY. THOUGHTS? >> I CAN'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT PETER'S SAYING, I MEAN ANYTHING THAT COULD BE MORE EASILY KNOWN, I THINK ALL AND ALL, I THINK THE CONTENT IS THERE. EVERYTHING IS THERE WE NEED. >> IT'S A WELL WRITTEN DOCUMENT. >> MISS ROBAS? >> MADAM CHAIR, I TEND TO AGREE WITH WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED IS TO PERHAPS PULL OUT THE PORT ELEMENT AND LET, AS A SUBCOMMITTEE FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, TO REVIEW THAT SO THAT THE BOARD HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO FOCUS PURELY ON THE ESSENCE OF THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT, IF YOU READ THE BACKGROUND AND THE HISTORY THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US, THERE'S JUST A LOT THAT COULD DISTRACT US IN TRYING TO COME UP WITH A NEW PORT ELEMENT. >> OKAY. >> AND THAT COULD BE A SUGGESTION THAT I WOULD FIND FAVORABLE. >> OKAY. >> MR. BENNETT? >> MR. BENNETT ARE YOU THERE? [01:35:07] >> I'M SORRY, I'M HERE. >> I'M HERE. >> I WOULD LIKE YOUR THOUGHTS. >> I'LL TELL YOU IT'S EASIER TO LISTEN TO THE TV THAN TRYING TO HEAR THROUGH ZOOM. >> WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN YOUR THOUGHTS. >> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT PLEASE? >> WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN YOUR THOUGHTS. WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> WELL, AGAIN, I KEEP SAYING LET'S ADDRESS PROBLEMS THAT ARE BEEN, WE'VE ENCOUNTERED IN THE PAST IN THE CURRENT DOCUMENT. SO, I WOULD RELY ON CITY STAFF TO TELL US WHERE THE ISSUES ARE IN HERE THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT ADDRESS, UPDATE AND CHANGE. IT'S A LARGE DOCUMENT. IT TOOK A LONG TIME TO PUT IT TOGETHER. AND SOME OF IT WORKS GREAT AND SOME MAY NOT WORK SO GREAT, BUT I NEED THAT DIRECTION FROM THEM TO TELL ME WHERE WE -- WHAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS. SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM. >> OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT THE PORT'S OF COMMITTEE ISSUE OR IDEA? >> THE PORT SUBCOMMITTEE? >> YOU DEFINITELY -- YES. (LAUGH) >> WHAT ARE WE GOING TO TO WITH THE PART? (LAUGH) >> AS MY UNDERSTANDING WE CAN'T HAVE A SEPARATE ELEMENT FOR THAT IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, IT HAS TO BE PART -- >> BUT WE COULD BREAK IT OUT, AND WORK ON IT SEPARATELY. >> WELL, I GUESS, CONSIDERING WHERE WE ARE IN WITH THE PORT TODAY, WHAT CAN WE DO WITHOUT THEM? I MEAN, ARE WE GOING TO GO TO COURT? THERE'S THINGS THAT NEED TO BE SETTLED, I WOULD THINK. I WOULD LIKE TO LISTEN TO TAMMI'S ANSWER ON THE TELEVISION. >> BUT REAL QUICK, I'M GOING TO DIGRESS, MARK, ARE YOU USING A >> I'M USING A LAPTOP. >> OKAY. WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS AND YOU CAN ANY TIME YOU WANT TO IF YOU DON'T HAVE A TECH PERSON, IF YOU WANT TO COME TO MY OFFICE, I'LL SHOW YOU HOW TO RESET YOUR AUDIO TO GET A BETTER SOUND. YOUR SPEAKER IS NOT SET RIGHT, YOUR MICROPHONE WORKS PERFECTLY, COME TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, I'LL SET IT FOR YOU, AND IF WE CAN'T SET IT TO MAKE IT LOUD FOR YOU, WE'LL GET YOU AN EXTERNL SPEAKER. >> WHEN THE SPEAKER DOESN'T SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE OR TURNS AWAY, I MISS WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. >> THERE'S A WAY TO GET YOUR COMPUTER TO SOUND LIKE A STEREO, I'LL HELP YOU DO THAT. ANYTIME, MARK. ANYWAY, LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT, SO KELLY AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS AND WE THINK THAT THE PORT SHOULD BE INVOLVED, NOT THE WHOLE BOARD, THAT'S TOO COMP INDICATED. SO I CALLED MARRIAM HILL AND SHE AGREED TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY THE PORT ASSIGNED HER. IF YOU WANTED TO ADD HER TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE, SHE WOULD SERVE ON THAT SUBCOMMITTEE AND PROVIDE HER INPUT ON BEHALF OF THE PORT APORT AUTHORITY. >> DOES SHE NEED TO GET PERMISSION? >> I BELIEVE SHE TOLD ME SHE WAS GOING TO MENTION IT AT THEIR MEETING. THEIR MEETING IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW AND SHE'S GOING TO MENTION IT AT THE MEETING. SO I'M GOING TO LEAVE THAT TO HER, I THINK WE'LL MAKE THE ASK IF WE WANT HER TO DO THAT AND IF THEY SAY IT'S OKAY AND SHE SAYS IT'S OKAY. NOW, IF SHE AGREES ON SOMETHING WE ALL KNOW IT'S GOING TO TAKE THEIR COLLECTIVE BOARD TO AGREE, RIGHT NOW WE DON'T [01:40:04] HAVE AN AGREEMENT FROM THE PORT AUTH AUTHORITY. MEMBERS REWROTE THAT PORT ELEMENT THAT WAS THEN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT IT NEVER GOT TO THE CITY MISSION. BUT CERTAINLY THE PORT AUTHORITY. >> IT DID GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION BUT THEY DID NOT TAKE ACTION. >> I THINK WE HAVE AGREEMENT TO CREATE A SUBCOMMITTEE TO WORK ON THE PORT. A SUBSECTION. IS ANYBODY INTERESTED IN WORKING ON TAT? MISS ROBAS, MR. STEVENSON, AND I'D BE GLAD TO CHAIR THAT SUBCOMMITTEE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> YES. >> ARE WE TAKING NINE AS IT EXISTS AND IT BECOMES PART OF FIVE? >> IT HAS TO BECOME A SUBELEMENT. SO THE WAY WE CRAFTED IT PREVIOUSLY, IT READ AS 5-P >> WHAT DOES THE "P" STAND FOR? >> PORT. >> PORT. REAL SIMPLE. OKAY. >> MR. BENNETT? >> I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN BEING ON THAT COMMITTEE, I WAS ON THE PORT COMMITTEE BEFORE, AND THOUGHT WE WERE DOING WORK. >> OKAY. I THINK WE HAVE A COMMITTEE. >> I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT? >> I SAID I THINK WE HAVE A COMMITTEE. (LAUGH) >> OKAY. KELLY, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE WITH RFQ? >> AT THIS TIME WE HAVE A MEETING WITH THE CITY MANAGER AS WELL AS THE CITY ATTORNEY. MYSELF, SCHEDULED FOR NEXT WEEK TO DISCUSS THE SCOPE WITH WGI. ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS, AND I BELIEVE WE DISCUSSED BACK IN NOVEMBER AS WELL, ADDING SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT TO INCLUDE A VISIONING EFFORT FIRST BEFORE ANY CODE WERE CONSIDERED. SO THAT ANY OF THOSE RECOMMENDED CHANGES WOULD FLOW FROM A LARGER VISION-TYPED DOCUMENT. SO ADDING THAT ELEMENT INTO WHAT WOULD BECOME THE TASKS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS WORK. >> IS THAT SET IN DO WE HAVE A DATE FOR THAT? >> NO, NOT AT ALL. NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN FINALIZED AT THIS TIME. >> EVERYTHING JUST SLOWED DOWN BECAUSE OF THE HOLIDAYS AND COVID, SO WE'RE GOING TO. >> I CAN EXPOUND ON THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT. >> SO, THE VERY NEXT THING WE HAVE TO DO IS WE DON'T HAVE A SIGNED CONTRACT WITH WGI. WE HAVE A CONTRACT FORM, I'M SORRY, YOU DIDN'T KNOW I WAS GOING TO ASK THIS, DID YOU SEND THEM A COPY MUCH ANY CONTRACT DOCUMENTS? >> NO. >> IT'S A STANDARD FORM, IT NO ISSUES, NOTHING TO NEGOTIATE. I DON'T KNOW IF I SHARED WITH THIS BOARD BUT A CITY COMMISSIONER ASKED ME TO CHECK THE REFERENCES OF WGI WHICH I DID, AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, I MADE FOUR PHONE CALLS, I RECEIVED THREE PHONE CALLS BACK AND ONE WAS NEPTUNE BEACH. ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS, THEY'RE CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH PRETTY MUCH THE SAME PROCESS. THE DIRECTOR THERE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAD NOTHING BUT GLOWING THINGS TO SAY. THE SAME STAFF WORKING WITH NEPTUNE BEACH WOULD BE WORKING WITH FERNANDINA BEACH. THEY HAD JUST STARTED WORKING WITH WGI AND THIRSTY ADMINISTRATOR LIKE A CITY MANAGER, GAVE THEM GLOWING REVIEWS AS WELL. THE OTHER, ORANGE PARK, THEY DID A PAST VISIONING PROJECT WITH THEM AND THIS PERSON SAID HE HAD NEVER HEARD ANYTHING BAD BUT HE HAD JUST STARTED WITH THE TOWN OF ORANGE PARK, I TAKE THAT TO MEAN [01:45:06] THERE ARE PROBABLY 10 OTHER NUMBERS I COULD CALL. I CAN TELL YOU THAT I DID ASK OUR CITY MANAGER TO CALL OUR FORMER CITY MAN MANAGER WHO IS NOW CITY MANAGER IN NORTH CAROLINA. THEY ARE WORKING WITH RUST GETTING STARTED WITH WGI TO DO THEIR PLAN. I ASKED OUR CITY MANAGER TO CALL THEM. I FEEL CONFIDENT THEY HAVE GOOD REFERENCES AND WE'RE DEALING WITH A VERY GOOD GROUP. >> GREAT. >> OKAY. SO AFTER THE MEETING NEXT WEEK, YOU COULD MAYBE GIVE US AN EMAIL UPDATE AS TO WHERE WE ARE AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. >> YES. >> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? MR. STEVENSON. >> WOULD WE WANT TO BOOK JUST IN CASE A SPECIAL MEETING IN TWO WEEKS, A QUICK ONE TO PUT TOGETHER A LITTLE BIT OF A PLAN OR DO WE WAIT UNTIL NEXT MONTH? >> IF, FOLLOWING THE MEETING NEXT WEEK, IT APPEARS THAT THINGS NEED TO RAMP UP IN ANY WAY, WE COULD CERTAINLY USE THAT EXTRA DATE THAT WE HAVE RESERVED FOR US. BUT RIGHT NOW, I DON'T SEE A NEED FOR THAT FOR THIS MONTH. I'D RATHER WAIT UNTIL WE'RE INTO THE PROCESS OF IT MORE SO TO DO THAT. PLUS IT GIVES EVERYBODY TIME TO GET VACCINES. >> RIGHT. >> ANYTHING ELSE? >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE HAVE SOME BOARD BUSINESS. BOTH MR. STEVENSON AND MY TERM -- >> OH, MISS KIRKLAND RAISED HER HAND. >> CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? >> YES. >> I'M SORRY FOR THE TIMING ISSUE. AS MARK POINTED OUT, IT'S VERY HARD TO HEAR, SO AND I AM ON A DESK TOP, SO BUT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM EVERYWHERE, HERE OR THE COUNTY. I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS AND GIVE A LITTLE UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE SINCE OUR GROUP KEEPS TELLING YOU WE'LL BE HANDING IN THE REST OF OUR DRAFT IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. SO, I'M GOING TO SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME, BUT I HOPE THAT'S THE LAST TIME, I HOPE THAT AROUND END OF THIS MONTH, BEGINNING OF NEXT MONTH, WE'LL BE ABLE TO HAND IN ALL OF THE ELEMENTS THE DRAFTS, THAT WE HAVE DONE. WE HAVE A LOT IT HAVE DISTRACTIONS OBVIOUSLY AND IT IS A RATHER LARGE JOB. IN TERMS OF MR. STEVENSON'S COMMENT ABOUT SIMPLIFYING THIS TYPE OF DOCUMENT, THAT'S A GREAT IDEA ALTHOUGH, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS POSSIBLE LEGALLY IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WOULD BE CREATING A LOT OF HOLDS FOR TO CREATE PROBLEMS. KELLY CAN GIVE A BETTER CLARIFICATIONS THAN I CAN, CERTAINLY. I WOULD SAY THAT IN TERMS OF THE COMMENT THAT -- MARK'S COMMENT ABOUT STARTING ETCH WITH THE PROBLEMS THAT STAFF HAS HAD WITH THE DOCUMENT, I THINK THAT OF COURSE, IS A GOOD IDEA. THAT'S I DID MOST OF WITH EXPERT INPUT, I DID MOST OF WHAT WE CALLED GOAL TWO COASTAL MANAGEMENT. AND THAT'S WHERE I STARTED OFF. OKAY. AND THEN I REALIZED THAT WASN'T GETTING ME TO THE KIND OF VISION I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS MEETING THE NEEDS THAT WE HAVE. I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS ADDRESSING OUR CURRENT REALITY ON OUR BARRIER ISLAND. SO I KIND OF GOT PUSHED AWAY FROM THAT THROUGH THAT EXPERIENCE AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER EVERYONE WILL HAVE A SIMILAR EXPERIENCE OR NOT. I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THAT DRAFT OF THAT ELEMENT IS EXTRAORDINARILY LONG. IT HAS [01:50:06] A LOT OF THINGS IN THERE THAT WILL EITHER WIND UP BEING BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND DELETED FROM THE FINAL DOCUMENT, IF IT'S USED AT ALL, OR SOME PIECES WILL GO INTO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. BUT WHEN YOU'RE WORKING ON SOMETHING, SOMETIMES YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A IDEA OR PIECE OF INFORMATION TO GET LOST. SO THERE ARE THINGS IN THERE FOR THAT REASON. I DO NOT THINK THAT THE FINAL PRODUCT SHOULD BE THAT LONG OR THAT COMPLEX. AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, WE VIEW OUR DRAFT AS ONE SET OF IMPUT AND WE EXPECT TO INTERACT WITH AND HAVE RECEIVE INPUT FROM MANY OTHER STAKE HOLDER IN THE CITY AND WE WERE NOT EXPECTING ANYONE TO ADOPT WHAT WE DO. AT ONE POINT IN WORKING ON THIS, I WAS VERY NERVOUS ABOUT HOW WOULD PEOPLE REACT WADTHY THINK THIS IS GOING TO TOO FAR. AND I STARTED OFF BEING CAUTIOUS AND I THOUGHT, IF I'M SO CAUTIOUS, HOW ARE OTHERS GOING TO KNOW WHAT WE REALLY THINK SHOULD BE DONE? SOKY DECIDED LET'S PUT IT OUT THERE. AND WE WILL HAVE DISCUSSION WE'LL HAVE OTHER INPUT AND WE'LL NEGOTIATE AND SEE WHAT COMES OUT IN THE END. BUT, WE DID WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT OUR VIEWS ARE AS I INDICATED, WE HAD INPUT FROM A NUMBER OF EXPERTS ON THIS PARTICULAR GOAL. SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE DISCUSSION AND A LITTLE UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE. WE'RE GETTING CLOSE. THANK YOU. >> AND THANK YOU. MRS. KIRKLAND I KNOW THAT YOU'VE DONE A LOT OF HARD WORK ON THIS. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO A POINT WHERE WE COULD SIT DOWN COLLECTIVELY AND HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THESE WITH MANY STAKE HOLDER INCLUDING YOURSELF. SO AGAIN, [6. BOARD BUSINESS] THANK YOU. >> ONTO BOARD BUSINESS. MR. STEVENSON AND MY TERM OF OFFICE WHEN WE REJIGGERED ALL THE TERMS LAST YEAR WHEN WE CLEANED UP, ARE EXPIRING. AND SO, WE HAVE BOTH SUBMITTED OUR REQUEST TO BE REAPPOINTED. SO, THE CHAIR ENTER TAN A MOTION FROM SOMEONE TO MOVE A REAPPOINTMENT REQUEST TO THE CITY COMMISSION. >> SO MOVED. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> IS THERE ANY CONVERSATION OR DISCUSSION? >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (CHORUS OF YEAS) >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED. >> EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THE ALL OF THE TERMS AND YOUR TERMS TECHNICALLY EXPIRED DECEMBER 31ST. >> NO WE DIDN'T, WE CHANGED IT. EVERYBODY CHANGED WHEN WE WENT FROM FIVE TO SEVEN AND WE ASSIGNED EACH PERSON A TERM. >> WELL, THEY WILL ALL ROTATE. >> IT'S STAGGERED. BUT THEY ALL END DECEMBER 31ST. >> THIS TIME AROUND, ANYBODY'S TERM IT'S STEVENSON BUT THEY TECHNICALLY EXPIRED DECEMBER 31ST. I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO WONDER, I SENT OUT THE UPDATE SO THE NEXT TWO THAT COME UP WILL BE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR, DECEMBER 31ST, WHOEVER THAT IS. AND YOU'LL SEE THIS ON THE JANUARY MEETING. THAT'S WHAT I MEANT. >> YES. >> ARE WE LEGALLY? >> IF YOU WANT TO SERVE AND YOU GET REAPPOINTED, YOU'RE LEGALLY GOING TO SERVE THREE YEARS. >> YOU HAVE A TWO MONTH GRACE WINDOW. >> YOU'RE BOTH FINE TONIGHT. >> YEAH, WE'RE FINE. >> I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE CASE. >> SO THEN, THIS SHOULD GO, [01:55:05] BECAUSE I THINK WE HAD ALREADY TALKED TO MISS BACH, THIS IS GOING TO BE ON JANUARY 19TH? >> ACTUALLY, FEBRUARY 2ND. >> AND OUR FEBRUARY BOARD MEETING, WE WILL ELECT A CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. OKAY. >> WE COULD JUST SELECT A CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR IN FEBRUARY WHEN WE'RE ALL LEGAL. SO NO MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT. (LAUGH) (LAUGH) >> THERE'S NOTHING WE COULD DO ABOUT IT NOW. DO YOU WANT TO REVIEW YOUR JANUARY BOARD TRACKER? >> I'M OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. WE HAVE A LOT OF ACTIVITY GOING ON. >> ANY OTHER NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS? >> LOOK FORWARD TO AN EMAIL THIS UPCOMING WEEK, THERE IS A CORRIDOR STUDY GOING ON WITH THE NORTH FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION CLEANING ORGANIZATION IN NASSAU COUNTY. ALONG THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR EXTENDING FROM, I BELIEVE, THE PARKWAY TO THE BOAT RAMP. INCLUDING NORTH 14TH STREET THAT SURVEY WILL BE LIVE FOR ABOUT ONE MONTH. I'M HAPPY TO STALK WITH ANYBODY THAT HAS INTEREST. WE'LL MAKE SURE YOU GET THE LINK AND PUBLISH IT ON THE AGENDAS FOR THE NEXT MONTH. IF YOU HAVE GROUPS INTERESTED OR PEOPLE WHO ACTIVELY USE THAT CORRIDOR, THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO HEAR FROM. >> MISS ROBAS WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR BEACH SUBCOMMITTEE? >> YES. WE PROBABLY HAD FIVE OR SIX MEETINGS, WE STARTED IN NOVEMBER AND WE MEET ONCE A WEEK. THIS IS A VERY ACTIVE, VERY FOCUSED GROUP WHERE WE'VE HAD TO DO ONE OR TWO MEETINGS DEVELOPING SOME CONS CONSISTCONSISTENT FROMMS OF REFERENCE. WE ALL UNDERSTOOD ABOUT BEACHES, AND THE DUNES AND HOW BEACH ACCESS WORKS AND THAT KIND OF THING. WE MOVED THROUGH TO THE POINT NOW, THAT WE DEVELOPED OUR OWN TOOLS TO DO THE EVALUATION OF EACH ACCESS. AND THAT'S BEEN A REALLY PROBABLY OUR KEY WORK. WE CALL IT OUR FUNDAMENTAL GUIDELINES, THE GUIDELINES THAT WE WANT TO USE TO EVALUATE THE WALK OVERS AS WELL AS THE WALK THROUGHS. THE ONES THAT DON'T HAVE A BOARDWALK. WE'RE AT THAT POINT, WORKING WITH STAFF, CHARLEY, OUR ENGINEERING JOE WITH PARKS ANDAND REC. ALL THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION KEEPING US MOVING FORWARD AND IN OUR MEETING TOMORROW, WE START ACTUALLY DOING THE EVALUATIONS. AND WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THAT ONCE WE DO ONE OR TWO, WE THINK THAT THE PACE WILL REALLY PICK UP. THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF REALLY WHAT THAT COMMITTEE IS ABOUT IS TO COME UP WITH THE ANALYSIS AND FROM THIS ANALYSIS REALLY FLOWS THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE WERE TASKED WITH, WHICH IS A WALK OVER? WHERE? AND WHAT IS THE SEQUENCING, AND HOW CAN WE RECOMMEND FUNDING? AND THAT'S THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF WHERE -- WE'RE AT THAT POINT TO START MAKING THAT ANALYSIS. SO IT'S A GREAT COMMITTEE AND REALLY, I'M BLESSED TO BE CHAIRING A GROUP OF FOLKS THAT ARE COMMITTED TO THE PUBLIC'S [02:00:08] ACCESS TO THE BEACHES AND MAKING THEM ACCESSIBLE AND MAKING THEM SOMETHING THAT WE AS A CITY COULD BE PROUD OF FOR OUR VISITORS. SO IT'S REALLY BEEN. EVERYBODY ATTENDS, EVERY WEEK. AND WE HOPE TO HAVE THE REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER BY APRIL. AND WE DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T MAKE THAT EXPECTATION. >> I LOVE THAT. >> THAT'S A GREAT REPORT. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE DOING A FABULOUS JOB SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I KNOW THAT YOU'RE WORKING HARD ON IT. >> ANYTHING ELSE? >> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK, THE PENDING MEETING, EVEN THOUGH THE MEETING HAD ALREADY BEEN MET ON SOME OF THESE ITEMS, THE MEETING DATE HAS ALREADY OCCURRED... >> RIGHT. >> SO I WAS JUST WONDERING THE BOARD'S FINDING ON THESE. >> IT MAY BE A PRIOR VERSION OF IT. >> ANYTHING ELSE? >> OKAY. I * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.