[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM] [00:00:07] >>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY AND WELCOME TO THE MARCH 10TH, REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. WE HAVE COVID RULES, IF YOU'RE IN THIS ROOM YOU HAVE TO BE IN A CHAIR WITH AN X ON IT, OTHERWISE YOU HAVE TO BE UP STAIRS, OUTSIDE OR IN THE HALLWAY. YOU COULD HEAR US ON THE SIDE BOX. SO WE'RE CALLED TO ORDER. AND, MADAM SECRETARY WILL YOU CALL THE ROLE. >> MEMBER BOYLAN? >> HERE. >> VICE CHAIR SCHAFFER? >> HERE. >> CHAIRMAN 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" >>> OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS [3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES] IS THE APPROVAL OF OUR MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 10TH. TO, MR. STEVENSON DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? >> I DO. >> IT'S AN INSIDE JOKE. OKAY. 6.2 UNDER ACTION TAKEN, I JUST NEED MY NAME TO BE FIXED. >> OH, IT'S STEVENSON INSTEAD OF PETERSON. >> AND LET ME JUST CLARIFY A QUESTION I HAD. WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE TREE NEUTRAL, ARE WE GOING TO SET THAT UP TONIGHT? >> WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT. YES WE ARE. >> THAT'S IT. >> OKAY. WITH THOSE CORRECTIONS, DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SO MOVED. >> AND A SECOND. >> SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> OPPOSED. >> MOTION PASSES. NOW TO THE FUN STUFF. WE HAVE A LOT MORE PEOPLE HERE THAN WE NORMALLY DO LET ME WELCOME EVERYONE, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND LET'S, I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF GROUND RULES BEFORE WE START. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT THAT ARE LAND USE AND MAP CHANGES. WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR -- WE WILL PUT THE ITEM ON THE FLOOR, WE WILL MAKE A MOTION AND THEN WE WILL HAVE BOARD DISCUSSION. WE'LL THEN OPEN THE DISCUSSION UP TO MEMBERS IN THE ROOM. WE USUALLY HAVE A SIGN-IN, BUT NORMALLY WHAT YOU JUST NEED TO DO IS STAND UP AND GO TO THE MICROPHONE. WHEN YOU GO TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS BEING RECORDED AND SO WE NEED TO HEAR THAT CLEARLY. AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. AND WE'RE GOING TO USE A TIMER TONIGHT WE DON'T NORMALLY BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE SO WE'LL USE A TIMER TONIGHT AND TAMMI'S GOING TO BE IN CHARGE OF THE TIMER. AND THEN WE WILL HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THESE TWO ITEMS. ALL RIGHT. IT IS EVERYBODY CLEAR? OKAY. SO, [4. NEW BUSINESS] BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU A TINY BIT OF PERSPECTIVE. THESE TWO ITEMS CAME UP IN 2019 THE CAB WAS INSTRUCTED BY THE COMMISSION TO LOOK AT MISMATCHES BETWEEN THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND THE ZONING DESIGNATION AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION. AND SO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RANSOM REPORTS, PULLED A BIG LIST, THE PRIMARY FOCUS WAS AROUND CONSERVATION LANDS AND CONSERVATION LAND AND RECREATION LAND MISMATCHES. WE TOOK, WHAT, CLOSE TO 18 MONTHS TO WORK THROUGH ALL OF THOSE AND THOSE ARE ALL DONE. SO THERE WAS A SMALL GROUP OF PROPERTIES LEFT ON THAT LIST. AND AS A BOARD WE HAD A COUPLE OF CHOICES ON WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH THAT, ONE WAS TO DO NOTHING. AND THE OTHER ONE WAS TO DO RESEARCH ON THEM AND FIGURE OUT WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO MAKE CHANGES. THESE TWO PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE GOING, ACTUALLY, THE FIRST PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT WAS ON THAT LIST. AND SO, STAFF DID A LOT OF RESEARCH FOR US ON ALL THE PROPERTIES AND [00:05:01] WE ARE HERE TONIGHT THEN TO FINALIZE THIS LAST PIECE OF PROPERTY ON THE LIST. AND THAT ALLOWS US TO CLOSE THE DOOR ON THIS PROJECT. PUT A FORK IN IT, SAY IT'S DONE AND SEND IT BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND SAY WE'VE COMPLETED THIS PROJECT. THAT'S A LITTLE ABOUT WHY WE'RE HERE AND WHY THIS PROJECT HAS COME UP. THE FIRST ITEM IS PAB FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL AND ZONING CHANGES FROM C 1 TO H 2 TO SIX PROPERTIES, 2144, 2154, A AND B FIRST AVENUE. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TORE APPROVAL. >> I WILL SECOND IT. >> I KNOW WE TALK ABOUT THESE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE? >> I GUESS, I'LL JUST REMIND US WHY THIS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE SPOT ZONING WITH IT BEING OUR. >> SURE AND I KIND OF WANTED TO RUN THROUGH MY STAFF REPORT REALLY QUICK FOR THE PUBLIC. >> GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS, PUBLIC. I'M GOING TO TRY TO TALK LOUD ENOUGH. THE FIRST ITEM UNDER 4.1 RELATES TO 66 PARCELS ALONG 1ST AVENUE. THESE PARCELS, THERE ARE THREE 2 UNIT TOWN HOMES THAT EXIST TODAY. THE RECOMMENDATION IS STAFF IS LOOKING FOR IS AN ASSIGNMENT OF FUTURE USE LAND CATEGORY AS MEDIUM USE RESIDENTIAL. I'LL SUBMIT MY STAFF REPORT AS EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD NOTE THAT ALL REQUIRED APPLICATION MATERIAL HAVES BEEN MADE. ALL THE FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND CARD NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE AND JUST A QUICK SUMMARY AS TO THE HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTIES. WHEN STAFF STARTED DOING MORE DIGGING TO WRAP UP THE 2019 EFFORT THAT CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT, THIS ONE WAS QUITE PUZZLING BECAUSE THERE ARE SIX RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED TOWN HOMES CONSTRUCTED AROUND 1998. OF WHICH, I CAN NOT DOCUMENT HOW EXACTLY THEY GOT BUILDING PERMITS WITHIN A C-1 ZONING GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE. I STILL DO NOT KNOW HOW BUILDING PERMITS WERE ISSUED, HOWEVER, THEY WERE AND THE UNITS GOT CONSTRUCTED. IT C1 GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE DOES NOT HAVE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY SOCIETIED WITH IT. SO TONIGHT'S CHANGE AND WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDING IS A CHANGE WHICH WOULD ALLEVIATE THE NONCONFORMING USE FOR THESE 6 STANDING PROPERTIES. THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON 1ST AVENUE, THIS SECTION SOUTH OF THIS ROAD, THE ROAD WAS DONATED AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS THE 1ST AVENUE EXTENSION. WHICH, THERE'S SOME HISTORY TOO, BUT ULTIMATELY ALLOWED FOR UTILITIES AND ACCESS TO ONE OF THE DENSER CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENTS FARTHER TO THE SOUTH. WHEN STAFF INITIALLY ANALYZED THESE PROPERTIES, BASED ON THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF NET DENSITY THAT'S IN THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE DEFINE NET DENSITY AND SAY THAT HALF OF THE ADJOINING RIGHT OF WAY CAN BE INCLUDED IN THAT CALCULATION. WHEN YOU DO THAT, THE R2 MEDIUM LAND USE DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT LAND AREA TO MAKE THIS COMPLAINT WITH THE ZONING. HOWEVER, WE WERE ABLE TO FIND AND DOCUMENT AS BACKUP FOR THIS APPLICATION AND WHY WE ULTIMATELY RECOMMENDED R2 GIVEN THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, WHEN YOU INCLUDE ALL OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS HOW THE CCALCULATD DENSITY FOR THESE PROPERTY, THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE TOTAL MAKES THIS COMPLIANT WITH THE LAST USE DESIGNATION. AND THAT'S A LOT OF PLANNER TALK. ALL IN ALL, STAYING STAFF WAS ABLE TO CONFIDENTABLE RECOMMEND [00:10:02] A MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE, RECOMMEND CHANGING THE LAND USE MAP TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE I'D OF MEMBER SCHAFFER'S SPOT ZONING, THE R2 THAT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF IS SURROUNDING THE PARCELS ON THREE SIDES. YOU HAVE AN R2 PUD DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST AND R2 TO THE EAST AND A HIGH DENSITY R 3 ZONING TO THE NORTH CHANGED IN 2016. SO THIS IS NOT SPOT SEASONING. >> I THOUGHT IT SAID, R1. SORRY. >> DID THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> THANK YOU. SO ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IF YOU DO, COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THREE MINUTES. >> MARGARET DAVIS, 2162, 1ST AVENUE. I RISE TODAY TO SPEAK IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSAL OF THE CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO HAVE THESE SIX TOWN HOUSES THAT ARE CHARMING AND WELL KEPT AND ARE LOCATED AMID A PEACEFUL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ON 1ST AVENUE TO BE REZONED AS R 2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. AS I STATED IN MY FEBRUARY 18TH EMAIL YOU, MY HUSBAND AND I APPLAUD THE DECISION TO CORRECT THE ERROR IN THESE PROPERTIES. IN FACT, ON AT LEAST TWO PREVIOUS OCCASIONS, THE CITY PLANNING STAFF AND PAB HAS DISCUSSED THE RESIDENTIAL USE OF THESE PROPERTIES AS BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR ZONING. IN 2004 AND AGAIN IN 2016, THE OWNER OF THE VACANT LOT AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JOHN S ROAD AND 1ST AVENUE WAS ACTUALLY SEEKING TO HAVE THAT PARTICULAR LOT REZONED. BECAUSE THE SIX TOWN HOUSES WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY ARE IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF THAT PROPERTY, THE NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USE OF THESE TOWN HOUSES WAS NOTED. IN 2004, WHAT I FIND INTERESTING IS MEMBER CLARK SEEMS TO HAVE ADVISORY THAT THE CITY SHOULD DO EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED TODAY. INITIATE A LAND USE CHANGE FOR THESE 6 PARCELS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL USE. MISS GIBSON IN HER STAFF REPORT IN 2016, NOT ONLY NOTED THE NON-CONFORMING USE OF THESE SIX TOWN HOUSES, BUT ALSO STATED FUTURE UPDATES TO THE OVERALL MAP SHOULD CONSIDER THE EXISTING USE OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES FOR CONSISTENCY ALONG THE BLOCK BASE. AS THIS ANNOTATED MAP ILLUSTRATES THE PROPOSED R 2 MEDIUM DENSITY IS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING USE OF THE ADJOINING PRORLTS ALONG 1ST AVENUE. OTHER THAN THE NOW TWO VACANT LOTS AT THE CORNER OF ROBASS AND 1ST AVENUE. NOT ONLY IS THE REST OF THE BLOCK OF 1 AVENUE ZONE 2, BUT ALSO WITH THE EXCEPTION YOU COULD SEE ALL THESE PROPERTIES ALONG 1ST AVENUE ARE HOMESTEAD. WELL, ACTUALLY, 2168 B. AND B IS ALSO NOT HOMESTEAD BUT A IS. THEREFORE, THIS SHOWS THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY STABLE NON-TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. FURTHER MORE, AS SHOWN ON OVER HERE. AND IN THE STAFF. >> THANK YOU, MRS. DAVIS. >> THANK YOU AND I URGE SUPPORT FOR THE MOTION. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? >> HEY, GUYS, I DIDN'T BRING [00:15:01] ANYTHING TO READ TUT I'M JEFF JOHNSTON, 2159 SOUTH FLETCHER, I USED TO HAVE A LICENSE WHERE I COULD RENT BUT I GOT RID OF IT, I DIDN'T RENEW IT BECAUSE EVERYTHING AROUND ME WAS RESIDENTIAL. I WALK 1ST STREET ON A DAILY BASIS AND IT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD. LET'S KEEP IT THAT WAY. THAT'S WHAT IT STARTED OUT AS, LET'S KEEP IT THAT WAY, PLEASE, R2. LET'S DON'T RUIN OUR NICE TOWN BY OVERBUILDING WITH COMMERCIAL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? >> BONNIE SCHMITT 2133 1ST AVENUE. WE PURCHASED AND BUILT OUR HOME, THE LOT AND BUILT OUR HOME IN 2005 AND AT THAT TIME OUR REALTOR PRESENTED TO US THAT THIS WAS A NON-RENTING RESIDENTIAL AREA. OVER THE ENSUING YEARS MANY FRIENDSHIPS DEVELOPED AND A FEELING OF A NEIGHBORHOOD IT DEVELOPED. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY INSTANCES OF PEOPLE HELPING EACH OTHER AS A NEIGHBOR. WOULD. THAT SAME NEIGHBOR HELPED TO CLEAN OUT THE HOME OF ANOTHER RESIDENT WHEN SHE FACED CANCER AND LIMITED MOBILITY. THESE ARE THE TYPES OF COMMUNITY BUILDING EVENTS THAT DO NOT APPEAR IN THE NEWSPAPER AND REMAIN UNKNOWN EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN OR BENEFIT FROM THEM. THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD AND A FEATURE THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE. ON THE FLIP SIDE, IN RECENT YEARS AS SAD LETTER HAS BEEN DEVELOPED WE HAVE HAD MUCH TROUBLE WITH DEBRIS, FROM THE LOCAL DIARY QUEEN AND MUCH MORE VANDALISM. OUR OWN MAIL BOX HAS BEEN DESTROYED AND PUT BACK LITERALLY MORE TIMES THAN WE COULD COUNT OVER 16 YEARS. THESE TYPES OF PROBLEMS WILL ONLY INCREASE IF WE ALLOW SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN AN AREA WHICH CONSISTS LARGELY OF LONG-TERM RESIDENTS WHO CARE ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORHOODS. AIR B & B SITES THAT ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO REGULATE. NOW WE'RE FORCED TO CONSIDER INCREASED TRAFFIC AND MORE NOISE AND CHAOS. AND WHILE WE UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO SOLVE THIS ZONING ISSUE, WE FEEL THAT WE, THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR 20 YEARS AND SOME MORE, SHOULD HAVE OUR RIGHTS CONSIDERED AS WELL. THERE ARE MANY NEW HOTELS AND SHORT-TERM RENTALS BEING BUILT AROUND SADLAR. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS ISSUE CAREFULLY AS WE HOPE YOU HAVE THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY AT HEART. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? >> MY WIFE AND I HAVE LIVED THERE FOR OVER 20 YEARS, WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE CHANGE. I KNOW IT'S NOT A POPULAR OPINION, BUT I THOUGHT YOU SHOULD HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE THAT THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY BELONGS TO. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR. >> MAY I? >> YES. WELL, THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT TALKING WITH A MASK ON. >> SO, MY NAME IS MICHAEL CURE, MY WIFE AND ARE I RESIDE AT 2133 SOUTH FLETCHER. OUR PROPERTY WE HAVE COMMON LINES WITH THREE OF THE PROPERTIES UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR REZONING. SO, IN OTHER WORDS OUR BACKYARD WHICH IS VERY SERENE BACKS UP TO THREE OF THESE PROPERTIES. AS HOME OTHER THANES WITH THE HOME HOMESTEAD. WE WERE CONVINCED THAT WE HAD FOUND THE VERY BEST PLACE ON THE ISLAND TO LIVE. KNOWING WE WERE SURROUNDED BY LIKE-MINDED HOME OWNERS HAD BEEN A COMFORT AND A BLESSING TO US. WE RECENTLY LEARNED OF THE PAB IN ATTEMPTING TO REZONE THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROPERTY FROM C 1 TO R 3, WHILE WE APPLAUD THE REMEDY OF THE MOVING OF THE [00:20:04] NON NON NONCOME NONCOMPLIANT. TO CHANGE THIS ZONE TO R 3 WOULD RECKLESSLY CHANGE THE TONE AND TENOR AND THE LOOK OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR PROPERTY VALUES WOULD DECLINE AND OUR STANDARD OF LIVING AND QUALITY OF LIFE WAS UNDOUBTEDLY SUFFER AND IF YOU CONSIDER THE FACT THAT IF YOU HAVE R 3 PROPERTY AROUND YOU, AND YOU HAVE AN R 2 HOME, TRYING TO SELL THAT R 2 HOME AROUND R 3 PROPERTY WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT. OKAY. SO, WE LOVE OUR ISLAND PARADISE AND WE WANT IT TO REMAIN AS IT HAS BEEN FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS. AS HOME OWNERS, AND TAXPAYERS AND VOTERS, WE ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THESE PROPERTIES TO THE APPROPRIATE R 2 DESIGNATION. THIS LOVELY COMMUNITY DESERVED NOTHING LESS. AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> IS THERE ANOTHER SPEAKER? >> MY NAME IS PATTY ROBERTS AND I LIVE AT 2172 AND I LIVED THERE 16 YEARS AND I'VE OWNED SINCE 2009. I'M PUBLICLY IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THIS TO R 2. I FEEL LIKE JOHN ROBAS IS OUR BUFFER. I FEEL LIKE I'VE DEALT WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS ON THE ISLAND FOR MANY, MANY, YEARS ON THE MANAGEMENT SIDE AND THAT IS NOT THE PARTY I WANT ON THE END OF MY STREET. I DO SUPPORT THE CITY IN THAT CHANGE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MISS ROBERTS. >> YES, SIR. >> HI, I'M KEN YEAGER, I LIVE AT 2242, 1ST AVENUE. WE MOVED HERE FIVE YEARS AGO TO IF YOU WILL, ENJOY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND HOPE TO STAY HERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. I USE THAT STREET EVERYDAY TO WALK MY DOGS AND KNOW THAT FROM DOING THAT IS A PEACEFUL PLACE WHERE I COULD WALK THEM AND HAVE THEM ENJOY THE AMENITIES. GARBAGE IS BEING THROWN, PEOPLE ARE VERY, IF YOU WILL DISREGARD, IF YOU WILL, THE PUBLIC AREAS. AND I WANTED TO SAY THAT I THINK ALLOWING MORE PEOPLE TO COME IN FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS WILL JUST INCREASE THAT AND START TO TROT UPON THE BEAUTY THAT WE ARE SO FAR HOLDING ONTO. I'M HERE TO SUPPORT R2. THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CRAG RODGERS, I RECENTLY PURCHASED THE HOME AT 2929, 1ST AVENUE. I'M BLESSED TO HAVE ONE OF THE BEST NEIGHBORS IN ALL OF FERNANDINA BEACH WHO HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 20 YEARS AND AT MY AGE I'M GOING TO DREAM OF BEING ABLE TO BE A RESIDENT OF 1ST AVENUE AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ALREADY. I RENTED OUR HOUSE FOR FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO PURCHASING IT. AND PART OF IT WAS TO GET A SENSE OF THE CULTURE OF OUR COMMUNITY. THERE ARE SO MANY WAYS OF LIVING IN FERNANDINA BEACH, AND WE JUST LOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY. THE PERMA PERMANENTSY OF IT AND WE HOPE IT REMAINS THAT WAY AND OBVIOUSLY, YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF R 2 PROVIDES THAT FOR US AND WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. RODGERS. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? CLOSE THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC E'LL - COMMENT. AND WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE BOARD TO APPROVE THIS REQUESTED DENSITY AND R 2 ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY. >> MADAM CHAIR JUST SO EVERYBODY IS VERY CLEAR, INCLUDING ME. I'VE HEARD R 2 [00:25:05] AND R 3 TONIGHT, SO CAN YOU PLEASE RESTATE THE MOTION SO THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT WE KNOW IT'S C-1 RIGHT NOW. AND WHAT IS THE PROPOSAL, AND BY THE WAY, FOR THE RECORD MY NAME IS TA TAMMI BACH I'M THE CITY ATTORNEY GENERAL. AND ALSO THIS PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD THIS IS NOT THE FINAL VOTE. THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION THERE'LL ULTIMATELY APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE AN ORDINANCE BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION. >> MADAM CHAIR I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PAB CASE NUMBER 2021 -- 0001 TO THE CITY COMMISSION REQUESTING THAT AN ASSIGNMENT OF A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY AND R 2 ZONING DISTRICT BE APPROVED AND THE PAB CASE AS PRESENTED AS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND . >> MEMBER BOYLAN? >> YES. >> MEMBER BENNETT? >> YES. >> MEMBER. >> YES. THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE PUBLIC PROCESS. IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PAB 202021001 CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH LOW DENSITY TO CONFIRMATION AND ZONING CHANGE FROM R-1 FOR PROPERTIES SOUTH OF HH PHEASANT LANE. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ONE? >> I WILL GIVE YOU A QUICK RUN DOWN. I JUST CLOSE IT HAD OUT. SO, THE SECOND CASE ITEM 4.22020 -- 011 A LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGE FOR A PIECE OF PROPERY ORIGINALLY PURCHASED THROUGH THE LAND USE TRUST FUND IN COOPERATION WITH THE NORTH FLORIDA LAND TRUST. THIS 5.35 ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R 1 WITH A LOW DENSITY LAND USE. BASED ON THAT LAND USE DESIGNATION AND THE ACRES, THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO THE CITY PURCHASING IT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED FOR UP TO 21 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THAT WOULD HAVE HAD TO ACCOUNT FOR STORM WATER ROADS AND SO IT MAY NOT HAVE EQUATED TO 21 HOMES. THE CITY ACTUALLY HAD CASE COME FORWARD WHERE A VARIANCE WAS REQUESTED FROM OUR SEWER CONNECTION LANGUAGE IN THE CODE SINCE IT WAS WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF OUR EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINES, THAT CASE ULTIMATELY WENT AWAY. TONIGHT WHAT THE CITY IS REQUESTING AND RECOMMENDING IS A LAND USE CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO CONSERVATION AND A ZONING MAP CHANGE FROM R-1 TO CONFOR CONSERVATION. I COMMIT MY STAFF REPORT FOR EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD AND NOTE THAT THE CITY WILL BE WORKING ON INCORPORATED THIS INTO THE CONSERVATION LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS PART OF THE LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION OF THIS. AND IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHT FORWARD. THIS PROPERTY'S AT THE END OF PHEASANT LANE. AND IT'S ONLY ACCESSIBLE THROUGH PHEASANT LANE. AND IT ABUTTS. [00:30:03] STRAIGHT FORWARD CONSERVATION LAND FOR THE CITY, FUTURE GENERATIONS TO HAVE FOR THE CITY AND IT'S RESIDENTS. >> WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING BUT ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? >> ARE WE READY TO VOTE? >> IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THIS? >> NO. MADAM SECRETARY DO A ROLL CALL ON THIS ONE. MEMBER BOYLAN? >> YES. >> MEMBER BENNETT? >> YES. >> MEMBER STEVE ENSON? >> YES. >> VICE CHAIR SCHAFFER? >> YES. OKAY. WE HAVE NEW CONSERVATION LAND. OKAY. >> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, [7. PUBLIC COMMENT] I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE PUBLIC COMMENT UP AHEAD OF BOARD BUSINESS SO THAT SOMEONE WHO IS HERE ACTUALLY TERESA IS HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO US FOR A FEW MINUTES CAN DO THAT WITHOUT HAVING TO SIT THROUGH ALL OF OUR DETAILS BOARD BUSINESS. SO, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR MISS PRPRINCE. >> I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MYSELF TONIGHT. MY OFFICE ADDRESS IS 406 ASH STREET. . I DID NOT BRING ANY PICTURES BECAUSE I KNEW THIS WAS OFF THE AGENDA THAT I'M SPEAKING TONIGHT ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE SURF AND THE MOTEL PROPERTY AND ONE OTHER REAL ESTATE OFFICE PROPERTY FROM R-3 TO C-1 TO MAKE IT A COMMERCIAL USE. THANK YOU, FIRST OF ALL FOR MOVING UP COMMENT. WE WERE READY, THERE ARE SOME OTHER PEOPLE THAT WANT TO SPEAK AS WELL, WE DO APPRECIATE YOU MOVING IT UP. I'M HERE BECAUSE I THINK THAT EVERYBODY ALREADY SPOKE UNDER ITEM 4.1 HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB OF TALKING ABOUT 1ST AVENUE. OUR SIDE OF 1ST AVENUE, AND OUR AREA ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SIMMONS IS VERY HEAVILY RESIDENTIAL. AND UNLIKE THE 4.1 ITEM WHERE YOU WERE CORRECTING A MISMATCH WHERE PERMITS WERE ALLOWED FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR MIXED USE. YOU WERE ALSO ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL. AND THE ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA THAT YOU WERE PROPOSING, THOSE THREE RESIDENTIAL PARCELS WERE PROPERLY PERMITTED AT THE TIME THEY WERE PERMITTED. AND THE USE AROUND IT HAS CHANGED. AND SO, TO GO FROM A RESIDENTIAL ZONING TO A COMMERCIAL ZONING THAT AFFORDS THOSE PROPERTIES ALL THE RIGHTS OF A COMMERCIAL C-1 DISTRICT WAS VERY ALARMING TO ALL OF US. AND THAT'S WHY WE DID REACH OUT TO STAFF, STAFF WAS WONDERFUL. WANTED TO SPEAK WITH US ABOUT IT AND THEN IT JUST GOT PULLED FROM THE AGENDA. SO WE PULLED BACK AND JUST ASKED PEOPLE TO SEND LETTERS, I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE R-3 AND R-2 ON OUR END AND WE DO HAVE SHORT-TERM RENTALS, MANY OF THE COMMUNITIES HAVE THEIR OWN RESTRICTIONS ON THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THE R-3 ZONING. THEY HAVE LIMITED THAT DON'T ALLOW YOU TO DO NIGHTLY, REQUIRE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF NIGHTS. THE CONDOS ACROSS THE STREET AND NEXT TO THE HOTEL THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE. THOSE PEOPLE ARE RETIRING AND MOVING INTO THEM. SO WE MAY LOOK AT LITTLE MORE ACTIVE AND BUSTLING ON OUR END ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SIMMONS BECAUSE WE'RE A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN OF 1ST AVENUE WE ARE RESIDENTS THAT WALK ON THAT STREET AND LIVE ON THAT STREET AND WE DO NOT WANT THE COMMISSION OR THE PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER REZONING THIS AGAIN. AND LASTLY, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A PROPER NON-CONFORMING USE UNDER CHAPTER 10 OF YOUR CODE. THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS OF THOSE PARCELS THAT YOU CONSIDERED REZONING, THOSE PARCELS HAVE PROTECTIONS UNDER CHAPTER 10. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE YOU HEARING US TONIGHT. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK SINCE WE OPENED UP PUBLIC COMMENT. JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. >> MY NAME IS CHAD AND I LIVE AT 3046 B WHICH IS ON 1ST AVENUE FERNANDINA BEACH A HUNDRED YARDS FROM THE SURF RESTAURANT AND I WANT TO THANK YOU OH FOR REMOVING THE PARCELS FROM THE LIRS LIST OF PROPERTIES AND THE REQUEST OF LAND USE MAP [00:35:04] AMENDMENT AND ZONING USE CHANGING. AS I'VE BEEN WALKING PAST THOSE PARCELS AS DOZENS OF OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE AREA DO, I WANT TO CALL ATTENTION TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS THE CITY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING CARE OF SHOULD THESE PARCELS EVER RECEIVE GREATER COMMERCIAL ZONING ALLOWANCES. THE CITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT WOULD BE CONSIDERABLE AND COME AT AN EXTRAORDINARY COST. NOT LEAST OF WHICH A NECESSITY TO WIDEN 1ST AVENUE AND FLETCHER. 1ST AVENUE ISN'T EVEN LINED PASS THE SURF. MUCH BUSIER FLETCHER. NOW IF TLVS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING THERE ON THE SURF LOT, A LARGER COMMERCIAL BUILDING, TRAFFIC WOULD INCREASE DRAMATICALLY ON THAT ROAD NECETHE CITY WOULD HAVE TO PUT IN SIDEWALKS, AND SHOWS SIDEWALKS WOULD REQUIRE MOVING THE TELEPHONE POLL AND LIGHT POLLS. FLETCHER FOR SURE WOULD HAVE TO BE WIDENED TO HAVE OR TURN LANE IN ORDER TO AVOID A MASSIVE. BEACH SIDE HOTEL OR THE SURF PARKING LOTS FROM ACROSS THE STREET. DURING BUSIER TIMES OF THE YEAR, WITH ONLY TWO LANES OF TRAFFIC AND NO TURN LANE AS EXISTS NOW, TRAFFIC WOULD BACK UP ON FLETCHER FOR MILES. SPEED LIMIT IS 35 MILES PER HOUR, IT WASN'T MEANT TO SERVE AS LARGE HOTELS AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. THE CITY WOULD SPEND MILLIONS TO ACCOMMODATE A MASSIVE GROWTH IN TRAFFIC AND VISITORS THERE. TO CONSIDER THIS IS NOT TO CAN ARE TWO PARCELS RECEIVING A NEW ZONING IT WOULD BE TO CONSIDER AN ENTIRE ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS DISTRICT WHICH WAS NOT IN PLACE AND THE CITY WOULD BE OBJECT THE HOOK FOR ALL OF THOSE EXPENSES. CREATE MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND DRAMATICALLY INCREASE FLOODING FOR THE CONDOMINIUMS, AND FLOODING DURING HEAVY STORMS. ADDITIONAL RUNOFF AT THE SURF WOULD GREATLY INCREASE THAT RISK. CHANGING THE ZONING WOULD BE A MAJOR DETRIMENT FOR THE CITY AND CREATE A HUGE BURDEN FOR THE CITY. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? >> I WOULD THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK. MARTIN, I LIVE AT 2960 SOUTH FLETCHER, I THINK SOME OF YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM ME. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH OUR FIRST PROPERTY HERE WAS CHAD'S TOWN HOME. SO WE'VE BEEN AROUND THAT AREA FOR 20 YEARS NOW. WHEN WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE ON 1ST AVENUE, 20 YEARS AGO, THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC. I WALK MY DOG THAT WAY, EVEN THOUGH WE LIVE ON FLETCHER, NO TRAFFIC IN THE MORNING, BUT I SUSPECT IF YOU DENSEFY THE SUR-I HAVE PROPERTY, THE TRAFFIC WOULD COME ON 1ST AVENUE TO BE ABLE TO GET TO SIMMONS. SO IT WOULD RADICALLY INCREASE TRAFFIC ON THAT TREAT. WE'VE BEEN ON FLETCHER FOR FOUR YEARS NOW. WE HAVE TO WALK ACROSS THE STREET TO GET OUR MAIL, IT'S LIKE TAKING YOUR LIFE INTO OUR OWN HANDS NOW. AND I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT CAN IT WOULD BE LIKE IF YOU HAD TO GO TO C 1 AND SPOT SOMETHING MORE DENSE. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE PROPOSAL WAS TO CHANGE IT FROM R-3 TO C-1 WHICH WOULD OPEN THAT THAT OPPORTUNITY IN INCREASED DENSITY. INSTEAD OF KEEPING IT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. I HEARD YOU EARLIER SAY THAT THIS WILL CLOSE THIS PROJECT SO, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THIS WILL NOT COME BACK UP AGAIN? >> NOT UNLESS THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASK THAT IT BE BROUGHT BACK UP. >> OKAY. SO WE WOULD STRONGLY OPPOSE IF THEY DO, YOU CONSIDER THAT KIND OF CHANGE. THE TRAFFIC ON FLETCHER'S ALREADY SO BAD. AND ALL I CAN DO IS GET [00:40:03] WORSE BECAUSE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE MOVING HERE AND WANT TO COME TO THE BEACH. IF YOU PUT SOMETHING, YOU ALLOW C 1, AND THEY GOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A HOTEL, YOU BUILD A HOTEL THERE, 200 ROOMS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT DOESN'T FIT WITH THE OVERALL LOOK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU IF IT DOES COME BACK UP, A LINK A LOT MORE PEOPLE WOULD SHOW UP. SO WE WOULD OPPOSE ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE FUTURE. >> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? >> GO AHEAD. >> GOOD EVENING, I'M JAMES LEE, 2962 SOUTH FLETCHER. I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT HERE FOR SIX YEARS AND MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH HAS BEEN THERE FOUR YEARS. AND I ALSO WANTED TO VOICE IN OPPOSITION TO ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE OF CHANGING THE SURF PROPERTY TO C-1. I'LL BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION TO QUIET CHANGE THAT'S HAPPENED IN MILE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE JUST NORTH OF SIMMONS AND AMONG THOSE HOUSES A LOT OF THEM HAVE BEEN ZONED FOR RENTAL PROPERTIES. AND OUR HOUSE IS NOT A RENTAL PROPERTY, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY AS IT WAS REBUILT. NOW A SINGLE FAMILY PRIVATE RESIDENCE. MY NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH IS A SINGLE FAMILY, PRIVATE RESIDENCE, ALSO ZONED THE SAME BUT HE'S BEEN HERE MUCH LONGER, 10-12 YEARS AND WE HAVE SEVERAL NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET THAT DO NOT RENT THEIR HOUSE. MY IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR ACROSS DOES NOT RENT IT, IT IS PERSONAL USE. THERE ARE NEIGHBORS ON ADJACENT SIDE THAT ARE PRIVATELY USED. LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSION ON 1ST AVENUE, HOW IT'S A RESIDENT SHILEY COMMUNITY. THIS IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN THE HIGHER DENSITY AREA, IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THAT, IT BECAUSE THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE 4.1 PROPERTY IS BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS BEING CHANGED TO BE MORE CONGRUENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. WHY HAS THE RECOMMENDATION NOT TO MAKE THE SURF PROPERTY R-2 BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE A MISMATCH AS I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK? >> NO, MA'AM, WE DON'T TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR, YOU COULD COME TO THE PODIUM AND ASK YOUR QUESTION ONCE YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF. >> HI, I'M LISA AND I LIVE AT 2120 SOUTH FLETCHER. AND I DIDN'T THINK THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE BROUGHT UP TONIGHT SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF I SHOULD COME. BUT ONCE PEOPLE OPENED UP THE PUBLIC FORUM, I THOUGHT I BETTER SAY SOMETHING ABOUT 2105 SOUTH FLETCHER. WHEN MY HUSBAND AND I PURCHASED OUR PROPERTY, WE DEFINITELY LOOKED FOR A HOME IN A RE A RESIDENTIAL AREA. AND THEN WHEN WE READ THIS PROPOSAL FOR A CHANGE IN IT'S DESIGNATION. WE, OF COURSE, WERE VERY CONCERNED. WE THINK THAT PERHAPS THE LAWS SHOULD BE ENFORCED AS THEY STAND AND THAT THE R-2 DESIGNATION IS PERFECT FOR THAT AREA BECAUSE IT IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA. WE SEE WHAT GOES ON AT THAT PROPERTY AND WE KNOW THAT'S JUST THE TIP OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF IT WERE TURNED TO C-1. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK? >> MY BETSY AND I LIVE AT 4615. I JUST WANTED TO ASK IS THIS THE ONLY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TONIGHT? >> YES, MA'AM. >> WERE YOU INTENDING TO DISCUSS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAP SCHEDULE OF WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO UNDER BOARD BUSINESS THIS EVENING? >> YES WE WERE. [00:45:01] >> ARE YOU ACCEPTING COMMENTS WHEN YOU HAVE THAT CONVERSATION? >> IF YOU WOULD LIKE, SURE, WE CAN. >> SHOULD I WAIT FOR THAT? >> YES WE WERE. >> OKAY. THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION IS CLOSED. THANK YOU [5. BOARD BUSINESS] ALL VERY MUCH. NOW WE'RE GOING BACK TO BOARD BUSINESS AND THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS UNDER BOARD BUSINESS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS. AND I'LL WAIT FOR JAKE TO COME BACK. MISS GIBSON CAN YOU GIVE US ON UPDATE ON THE COME PLAN PROJECT? >> YES, I THINK I HAVE AN IDEA OF WHY. SO I WON'T TAKE LONG JUST TO PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH AN UPDATE, AS YOU KNOW, THE CITY COMMISSION DID APPROVE FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER WHICH DOES INCLUDE MYSELF IN NEGOTIATING WITH WGI WHICH WAS YOUR NUMBER ONE CONSULTANT TO MOVE FORWARD. AT THIS TIME WE'RE FOCUSSING IN THIS FISCAL YEAR TO THE END OF SEPTEMBER AS A VISIONENING EFFORT THAT WOULD SERVE AS A BASIS FOR A COME PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD. AT THIS POINT WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT NEGOTIATION AND I DO ANTICIPATE HAVING SOMETHING BACK TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS FOR THE COMMISSIONERS HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF THIS MONTH. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FORKED BOARD FOR MISS GIBSON? >> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND RESTATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> I CAN DO THAT. >> I'M STILL ELIZABETH AND I STILL LIVE AT 1645 PHILLIPS MANNER PLACE AND I OWN PROPERTY HERE IN THE CITY. THE ONE THING I WANTED TO BE SURE AND TALK TO YOU ALL ABOUT AT ONE POINT THERE WAS CONSIDERATION THAT ONLY SOME ELEMENTS OF THE COM PLAN TO BE REVIEWED. IS THAT STILL THE CASE? >> WE HAVE NOT MADE DECISIONS. >> IN THAT CASE, LIKE TO SPEND A MOMENT TO SAY THAT I HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER ALL THE ELEMENTS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THOUGHT ABOUT IS THAT FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THE WORD COMPREHENSIVE IS VERY KEY. I THINK THAT THE INTENT IS THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A BIG PICTURE LOOK. I THINK THAT THE REASON TO LOOK AT ALL THE ELEMENTS IS ALSO EMBEDDED IN OUR INTERGOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS AS A CITY AND LEAVING ONE OR ANOTHER ELEMENT OUT, I THINK MAYBE DOES A DISSERVICE OR UNDERMINDS THAT PURPOSE. ANOTHER THING THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT AND A KEY REASON TO LOOK AT ALL THE ELEMENTS, IS IF YOU FAIL TO PLAN, YOU ARE PLANNING TO FAIL. THE DOCUMENT IS SUPPOSED TO SURVIVE FOR 15 YEARS, WE HAVE NO WAY OF PREDICTING WHAT THE FUTURE'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE AND IF WE DON'T LOOK AT ALL THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS, SOMETHING COULD GET AWAY FROM US. ESPECIALLY WITH THE AMOUNT OF GROWTH, CHANGE, AND THINGS THAT WE'VE ALL GONE THROUGH FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS AND CERTAINLY IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS. SO, I JUST WANTED TO ENCOURAGE YOU TODAY TO THINK ABOUT DOING EACH ELEMENT AND HOPE THAT YOU'LL TAKE THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION AS YOU LOOK FORWARD. OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THE BEACH? >> YES. WELL, I DON'T HAVE OUR REPORT IS NOT COMPLETE YET, WE ARE ON TRACK TO WRAP IT UP THE FIRST OF APRIL. THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR GOAL AND WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS THAT GOAL TO HAVE IT WRAPPED UP. BUT WE'RE MOVING BRISKLY THROUGH YOUR DELIBERATIONS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> SO, LET ME GIVE YOU Y'ALL A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE PORT SUB-COMMITTEE. WE'VE HAD TWO MEETINGS, WE'VE HAD ONE EARLIER THAN THIS MEETING. THE PORT SUB-COMMITTEE IS MISS ROBAS, MR. STEVEN SON, MR. BENNETT AND MYSELF AND COMMISSIONER HILL [00:50:03] FROM THE PORT AUTHORITY BOARD. WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN THE FIRST MEETING WRESTLING AROUND WITH DOCUMENTS AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE ARE AND WHAT WE WANT TO FOCUS ON. TODAY I THINK WE HAD A VERY GOOD CONVERSATION AND WORK EFFORT TO TAKE THE 2018 DOCUMENT THAT WAS PASSED BY THE PAB BUT NEVER WORKED THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION AND LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF WHAT ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED ELEMENTS BASED ON THE STATE. WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS IMPORTANT TO THE CITY. PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF SAFETY AND PROTECTION. AND THEN WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT MIGHT BE CONSOLIDATED OR SOMEWHAT PERHAPS ELIMINATED SO THAT WE COULD MAKE THE DOCUMENT EASIER TO READ MORE STREAM LINED AND MORE STRAIGHT FORWARD. SO WE GOT THROUGH 7 OR 8 ELEMENTS TODAY. PRETTY QUICKLY. WE HAVE ALSO HAVE WORK TO GO BACK AND LOOK THROUGH THE REST OF THEM. WE'RE MEETING AGAIN IN TWO WEEKS SO THAT'S LIKE MARCH 24TH. AT 3:00 P.M. AND AT THAT MEETING WE'RE GOING TO WORK THROUGH THE REST OF THE ELEMENTS. AND THEN, JAKE, AND TAMMI WILL AND THEY'RE WORKING ALONG AS THEY GO. BUT BY THE END OF THAT MEETING WE SHOULD HAVE THE INFORMATION READY TO PUT TOGETHER A DRAFT DOCUMENT THAT WE COULD BEGIN TO CIRCULATE AND GET INPUT AND HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. WE HAD A BUSY TWO HOURS EARLIER TODAY. AND EVERYBODY'S VERY FOCUSED. MR. BENNETT BRINGS A LOT OF BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE ABOUT WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE WITH SOME OF THESE ISSUES AND HOW TO MOVE THEM FORWARD. SO, I THINK IT WAS A GOOD MEETING. IF ANY OF THE OTHER SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING. >> I CONCUR. >> YEAH. OKAY. >> SO, MISS GIBSON, CAN YOU TALK TO US ABOUT THE TREE COMMITTEE OR THE TREE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? I KNOW YOU WERE GOING TO TALK TO THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT OUR CHARGE WAS. >> I DID, AND TO PROVIDE A BIT OF AN UPDATE AND ALSO A LITTLE BIT OF A BREATHER FOR YOU, IN TALKING WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND TALKING AMONG STAFF, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS IN A MUCH BROADER PERSPECTIVE. I THINK THAT CODE SOLUTIONS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS ARE REALLY JUST ONE SOLUTION AS PART OF A LARGER SYSTEM OF THINGS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS AS A COMMUNITY. AND TOWARDS THAT END, INTERNALLY THE STAFF WE HAVE TAYLOR HARTMAN AND DAPHNE FOREHAND WORKING TO CREATE A SUBGROUP INTERNAL TO THE CITY PLANNING CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT AND YOU WILL SEE, SHORTLY, LETTERS RECRUITING INDIVIDUAL TOSS PARTICIPATE IN THAT EFFORT. IT IS A VERY QUICK TIME FRAME BECAUSE THE CHARGE IS TO PROVIDE THE COMMISSION WITH SOLUTIONS NO LA LATER THAN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR. SO, WHAT I ANTICIPATE COMING FROM THAT MUCH, LIKE THE BEACH SUBCOMMITTEE IS A MENU, POTENTIALLY OF SOLUTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION CAN THEN CONSIDER. FROM THAT, I ANTICIPATE THAT THERE MAYBE CODE-BASED SOLUTIONS THAT THEN MOVES FORWARD TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION AND AT THAT POINT, YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE ON A SEPARATE SUBCOMMITTEE TO TACKLE THOSE ITEMS. BECAUSE I REALLY WANTED THIS TO THINK MUCH BIGGER THAN JUST INTERNAL TO OUR CODE AND PROVIDE A LOT MORE MEANING AND VALUE TO THE EFFORT. I THINK LOOKING A LITTLE BIT BROADER. >> THIS IS HOW TO BE TREE NEUTRAL, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY RELYING ON THE CODE TO GET US TOWARDS THAT END. >> OKAY. LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION. SO, I KNOW THAT MR. BOYLAN HAD SUBMIT ADD NAME OF A CITIZEN WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED IN IT, SO I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THOSE THAT'S GOING TO WORK. >> AND ACTUALLY, I'LL LET TAYLOR SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH DAPHNE AND SILVI ABOUT THOSE OPTIONS. I THINK THAT WOULD BE BETTER TO DISCUSS WHAT HAS HAPPENED INTERNALLY UP TO THIS POINT. >> BASICALLY, OUR APPROACH RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING TO GET A GOOD SLICE OF OUR COMMUNITY [00:55:01] REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, CITIZENS, NURSERIES, AND WE'RE GOING TO APPROACH THESE INDIVIDUALS WITH LETTERS AND BASICALLY, THE IDEA IS TO GET A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES WITH EVERYBODY THAT HAS SOME RELATION TO TREE REMOVAL, TREE PRESERVATION AND FIND WAYS TO ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY IN WANTING TO PRESERVE TREES AND PLANT MORE, AND EN ENTERTAINING DIFFERENT IDEAS TO PROMOTE THESE MORE. AND THAT INDIVIDUAL WILL BE APPROACHED WITH A LETTER AND SEE IF THERE'S AN INTEREST AND SINCE THERE IS ALREADY AN EXPRESSED INTEREST WE WOULD WELCOME THAT. >> SO, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR US? SO, WE WILL HAVE A NARROWER SCOPE OR SOMEONE WILL LET US KNOW. >> SO, MAYBE THE QUESTION IS DO WE STILL NEED A BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE? >> NOT AT THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> BUT AT SOME POINT DO YOU THINK WE WILL? >> I THINK I ULTIMATELY BELIEVE THAT THERE'LL BE ONE SOLUTION THAT DOES LEAN ON CODE-BASED CHANGES AND AT THAT POINT, THE BOARD. BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE CONCEPTS AND TOPICS ARE STILL COMPLEX AND IT'S WORTH WHILE FOR A SUBCOMMITTEE TO DIGEST THEM BEFORE BRINGING IT FOR FORMAL CONSIDERATION. >> AND IF ANY OF THE CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO BE MORE INVOLVED REACH OUT TO TAYLOR AND GET A LETTER. >> AND WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS AND WORKING GROUP THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TIMEFRAME. >> AND THE ONLY REASON I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED IS BECAUSE EVERY TIME SOMETHING GETS BUILT OR TREES ARE COMING DOWN, I MEAN PEOPLE RANT ABOUT IT. AND IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, WHERE'S THE, WHAT'S THE PLAN? >> WELL, I THINK THE PLAN IS TO HAVE A PLAN FOR AUGUST. >> OKAY. >> RIGHT? >> YES. THAT'S THE PLAN? >> THE PLAN IS TO HAVE A PLAN FOR AUGUST. >> RIGHT. AND UNTIL THEN WE'RE RELYING ON OUR EXISTING ORDINANCES WHICH ARE VERY STRONG. WE COULD ALWAYS MAKE THEM BETTER BUT WE'RE RELYING ON WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE TODAY TO DIRECT GROWTH. >> AND I WOULD URGE ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS SERIOUSLY TO CONTACT TAYLOR AND GET INVOLVED WITH THE WORK THAT SHE AND THE OTHER PLANNERS WILL BE DOING INTERNALLY AND BE A PART OF THAT. IT SHOULD BE FUN AND INTERESTING. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> OKAY. >> THE KIND OF END IS STILL PRETTY MUCH THE SAME, RIGHT, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HOW YOU'RE GETTING ON THE PATH TO GET THERE OR IS IT BROADER? >> I THINK THAT THERE'LL BE -- I WANT TO THINK BROADLY ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT WE NEED TO COME TO THE TABLE WITH, RATHER THAN, I'M GOING TO USE SORT OF THE MORE LEGAL ANALYSIS RATHER THAN THAT CONSTANTLY MAKING CODE AMENDMENTS MAKING STRICTER AND MORE DIFFICULT TO ACCOMMODATE THINGS. I WANT TO THINK BROADER ABOUT WHAT SOLUTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO US. AND PARTICULARLY WITH THE GOAL IN MIND OF BEING TREE-NEUTRAL, SO FOR EVERY ONE TREE WE LOSE WE WANT TO PLANT A NEW TREE. WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? AND HOW DO WE DO THAT IN A GENUINE WAY AS A COMMUNITY. AND SO, I WANT TO BE SURE WE'RE NOT FOCUSSING TOO NARROWLY. AND THAT WE DO HAVE A BROAD RANGE OF EXPERTISE THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY THAT IS BROUGHT INTO THE CONVERSATION EARLY SO THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING EVERYTHING IN A COMPLETE MANNER. >> I LIKE IT. I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. >> I THINK SO. YES. >> SO, WE WILL BE LOOKING TO MAYBE GET SOME FEED BACH IN THE AUGUST TIMEFRAME? >> YES. >> WE SHOULD HOPEFULLY AFTER A PRESENTATION BEFORE THE COMMISSION. WE'LL HAVE DIRECTION AT THAT POINT ON HOW THE BOARD SHOULD PROCEED WITH ANY BASE CHANGES. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> OKAY. SO ANYMORE BOARD BUSINESS? ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING? >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THE TREE CONSERVE IS SPONSORING A SERIES OF WEBINARS. REMEMBER WE GOT A BOOK FROM THEM STARTS TOMORROW NIGHT AT 6:00 AND THEY'RE GOING [01:00:04] THROUGH ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED TO US. I'VE SIGNED UP AND I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY ENLIGHTENING, AND THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK, AS YOU COULD TELL. SO THERE IS A WAY TO REGISTER, I THINK IT'S IN SOME OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA VENUES, BUT THEY'RE DOING A LOT OF WORK AND IT'S INTERESTING THAT THEY'RE PRESENTING THESE WEBINARS, SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO THE BOARD. >> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. >> ANY OTHER BOARD BUSINESS? >> MISS SCHAFFER? >> I JUST WANT TO THROW THIS OUT THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT. I KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF ATTENTION ON 9TH STREET. I KNOW WE'VE TALK ABOUT IT A LOT LATELY ABOUT ARCHITECTUALLY, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING. BUT I WISH THERE WAS SOMETHING WE COULD DO BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN MIXED USE STUFF. I DON'T KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION IT. >> YES. SO, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. WE RECENTLY TALKED ABOUT THE 8TH STREET CORRIDOR. THE CITY AMENDED IT'S USE OF THE SMALL AREA PLAN BACK IN 2016 AND CHANGE THAT HAD CORRIDOR FROM A STRICTLY COMMERCIAL OR HIGHEST INTENSITY COMMERCIAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE IN ZONING FROM C-2 TO THE MU 8 STRICT DISTRICT. INTRODUCED A DENSITY FOR SECOND HIGHEST LEVEL DENSITY WITHIN THE CITY AT 18 SWELLING UNIVE UNITS IN ACRE. THE TOWN HOMES THERE ON THE FORMER TAYLOR RENTAL SITE AT THE CORNER OF DADE AND 8TH STREET. FURTHER SOUTH THERE'S A PROPERTY DOING TOWN HOMES AS WELL AND THOSE ARE ON HISTORICALLY PLATTED LOTS OF RECORD, 25 FEET SO IT DIDN'T HAVE TO COME THROUGH AS A SUBDIVISION. BOTH OF WHICH, WE DO HAVE LANGUAGE IN CHAPTER 4 OF THE LLAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHIC SPEAKS TO ARCHITECT AND OR ARTICULATION IT'S VERY HIGH LEVEL AND SAYS YOU HAVE TO DO THIS AND THIS, IT'S NOT A FORM BASED CODE THAT DEFINES WHAT YOU MUST AND HOW YOU ADDRESS THAT ARCHITECTURE. WE'RE JUST NOW SEEING REDEVELOPMENT AND WE'VE HAD SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN EXISTING PROPERTIES WHERE THEY HAVE INVESTED AND HAVE NEW BUSINESSES IN KNOWS PROPERTIES. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO KEEP AN EYE ON THE WARE HOUSE THAT YOU SEE SOUTH OF GUM WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TODAY. THAT WAS PERMITTED PRIOR TO THOSE CHANGES. SO WE HAVE HAD ADDITIONAL PROPOSALS COME THROUGH WHERE THEY WANT TO DO THAT SIMILAR TYPE WARE HOUSE LOOK AND WE SHOT THOSE DOWN. SO, WHILE IT'S NOT A DESIGN BASED CODE, THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT WE DO HAVE SOME TEETH TO FORCE SOME DESIGN INTO THOSE PROPERTIES MAYBE DOWN THE ROAD AS WE LOOK AT OTHER AREAS OF OUR CODE AND WE TALK ABOUT POSSIBLY A FORM BASED CODE THAT HAS MORE ARCHITECTUAL COMPONENTS TO IT. IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE COULD KEEP AN EYE ON. THE BIG WARE HOUSE YOU SEE SOUTH OF GUM WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TODAY. >> ARCHITECTUAL CODE OR CITY. THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT AREA. >> ABSOLUTELY. AND THAT'S IN THE CODE CURRENTLY, AND I'M NOT REFERRING TO AN ARCHITECT REVIEW BOARD BECAUSE THAT WOULD NEVER FLY FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S BEEN SHUT DOWN AND OTHER AREAS, THAT'S CODE BASED DIRECTIVES THAT COULD BE BEEFED UP BUT NOT IN THE FORM OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH AN ARCHITECT REVIEW BOARD, SOMETHING THAT STEW WOULD REVIEW AND HAVE DIRECTED. YOU WOULD HAVE TO CHECK CERTAIN BOXES, BUT NOT A REVIEW BOARD PER SE. >> SO, MISS SCHAFER WHAT DID YOU HAVE IN MIND? >> I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS LIKE A TIME TO IF WE DO HAVE A LOT MORE INTEREST IN BIGGER [01:05:01] PROJECTS THERE, IF WE SHOULD BEEF UP THE CODE OR ADD ANYTHING ELSE TO THAT. BUT AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT PUTTING MORE METAL BUILDINGS, I REALLY FEEL LIKE THERE WAS A METAL BUILDING JUST PUT IN TWO YEARS AGO. THAT IS THEIR HOUSE. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M SEEING, LIKE, YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANOTHER CODE WE SHOULD OVERLAY OR SOMETHING THAT LOOKS. I'M FINE WITH, I LOVE COMMERCIAL, I THINK COMMERCIAL IS NECESSARY HERE. >> THAT'S SOMETHING I CAN THROW OUT TO THE BOARD JUST FOR, I'LL FIND SOME EXAMPLES AND THINGS THAT I THINK MAY WORK ON 8TH AND 9TH STREET. SO I'LL DO SOME DIGGING AND SEE IF THERE'S SIMPLE THINGS WORTH DIALING INTO THAT 8TH STREET. >> MAYBE WE COULD USE THAT FOR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD TO LEARN B. MORE ABOUT FORM BASED CODES. BECAUSE WE TALK ABOUT THEM, BUT I'M NOT SURE I REALLY UN UNDERSTAND IT. BUT IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE AS AN EXAMPLE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FORM-BASED CODE, THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS WE COULD IMPLEMENT OR ADD TO THE 8TH STREET MU DISTRICT OVERLAY THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO BE MORE EXPLICIT ABOUT CERTAIN BUILDING TYPE COMPONENTS. >> HOW ABOUT, NO METAL EXTERIORS. THEY COULD BE STUCCO TO GET AWAY FROM THAT RAW INDUSTRIAL LOOK. >> I WILL TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE EXAMPLES AND DO RESEARCH TO EDUCATE MYSELF BETTER IN THIS AND ALSO TO HELP EDUCATE THE BOARD. >> LIKE, FORM BASED 101. >> LET ME ASK, MAYBE, KELLY, WHEN SOUTH FLORIDA WENT THROUGH AND DID THEY ARE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT LONG, THEY HAVE GOT PRETTY MUCH, AND MARK, YOU MAY KNOW FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE DOWN THERE, A PRETTY MUCH NAY SET STANDARDS ON WHAT THE FACADE OF THE BUILDINGS WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS THROUGH A REVIEW OR MORE OR LESS JUST A GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPERS. >> THEY FOCUS ON THE STANDARD. EVERYBODY ELSE JUST FOLLOWED. >> IN THAT GOES BACK TO ADDISON MISER IN THE 20EST. >> WHICH IS HOW BOCA SET THEIR STANDARDS. >> IT LOOKS VERY NICE. IT'S EYE APPEALING. >> I'LL LOOK AGAIN AT EXAMPLES OF WHERE THERE'S DIFFERENT OVERLAYS, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE A FORM-BASED CODE, WE COULD DO FUN LEARNING AND RESEARCH AND GET SOME LIGHT READING FOR YOU GUYS. >> OKAY. >> ANYTHING ELSE ON THE STAFF REPORT? >> SO, I'M ALWAYS ASKING YOU ALL, WHAT IS THE NEXT TWO MONTHS LOOK LIKE OR THE NEXT THREE MONTHS. I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE SOME VIEW FOR WHAT THE BOARD ACTIVITIES WILL LOOK LIKE OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS? >> THE SUBCOMMITTEE WE WERE TALKING THROUGH, THE APRIL MEETINGS, I DON'T HAVE ANY HOT BUTTON APPLICATION THAT IS I KNOW COMING DOWN THE PIKE, SO THIS REALLY MIGHT PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DIVE INTO THIS TOPIC AND SOME OTHER ONES. UNLESS SOMEBODY GETS IN AN APPLICATION HERE SOON. SO NOTHING HONESTLY, WE'VE SEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A SLOW DOWN ON THROUGH THE BEGINNING OF COVID AND THROUGH THE YEAR. WE WERE KIND OF BLOWING FULL FORWARD AHEAD WITH BUILDING PERMITS, REVIEWS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS. I THINK I WOULD BE WRONG IN SAYING THAT WE'RE SEEING A LITTLE BIT OF A TURN. SO, I THINK IT'S FINALLY CATCHING UP. WHICH THERE'LL NEVER BE A DULL MOMENT OR A SLOW PERIOD IN STAFF'S TIME. WE COULD HAVE OTHER THINGS IN OUR EXTREME PERIODS THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO TOUCH ON SO WE'RE FIND OF LOOKING FORWARD TO PUTTING TOUCH UPS ON THINGS WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET TO. BUT I KNOW OF NONE THAT I COULD THINK OF ON HAND. WE'VE GOT A PRETTY HEAVY OBJECT THE SITE PLAN REVIEW SIDE. WE'VE GOT SOME COMMERCIAL ON 14TH STREET THAT ARE WORKING THEIR WAY THROUGH, THERE ARE GOING TO BE HIGH PROFILE PROJECTS, RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT [01:10:03] ON SOUTH 14TH STREET. IT'S TURNING INTO A KIND OF COMMERCIAL MEDICAL NODE AROUND THE HOSPITAL. WE'RE LOOKING AT PROPERTIES THERE, THERE'S A PROPERTY INTERVIEW NOW AT SOUTH 14TH AND NECTORINE. I HOPE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS WE COULD GET THE PORT SUB-COMMITTEE AND HAVE THAT JOINT MEETING WITH THE PORT AUTHORITY AND ADOPT A STATUTE COMPLAINT ELEMENT THAT THE CITY AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN COME TOGETHER TO FINALLY RESOLVE THAT AND MOVE FORWARD ON GREENER, SMOOTHER WATERS AND FINALLY PUT THAT CHAPTER TO REST. I THINK MR. BENNETT SAID, WHAT, 11 YEARS. >> WHAT'S THAT? >> I THINK YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, 11 YEARS IT'S BEEN HANGING IN THE BALANCE. >> 2002. >> 18 YEARS. >> 19 YEARS. >> HOPEFULLY WE COULD GET THAT WRAPPED UP THIS YEAR. >> OKAY. GREAT. I ALWAYS LIKE TO LOOK AHEAD. SO THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE BOARD. >> HEARING NOTHING, WE ARE ADJOURN AND IT'S NOT EVEN * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.