[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
[00:00:05]
>> [BACKGROUND] GOOD AFTERNOON. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE MARCH 8TH, 2023.
>> OH, WHAT AM I SORRY. SORRY. APRIL THANK YOU.
I WAS LOOKING AT MEETING FROM LAST MONTH [LAUGHTER] I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT I LIKE TO CALL A REGULAR MEETING OF THE APRIL, 12TH, 2023 PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING TO ORDER.
WE ARE IN CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS IN FRONT OF DANIA BEACH, FLORIDA.
IF WE WOULD HAVE A ROLL-CALL, MADAM SECRETARY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. EVERYONE IS HERE.
LETS STANDS FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
3 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM MARCH THE 8TH, AND I WAS TRYING TO GET US TO TALK ABOUT IT ALREADY.THERE IN A CORRECTIONS OR OBSERVATIONS OF THE MINUTES THAT WERE SENT TO YOU.
ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED OR CHANGED ON OUR MINUTES DO I HERE, ANYTHING?
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
>> GOOD JOB. DO I GET A SECOND.
>> SECOND. MR. GINGHER, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED. THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. TAYLOR OR SYLVIE? GOOD JOB SYLVIE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE THAT.
I AS CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE REARRANGE SOME OF THE ORDER OF OUR AGENDA TONIGHT.
WE'VE GOT SOME EASY THINGS THAT MIGHT BE QUICK TO GO THROUGH AND THEN WE'VE GOT SOME THINGS THAT MIGHT TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER TO TALK ABOUT.
I OPEN THIS UP FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD BUT THIS IS JUST MY THINKING IS IT COULD BE IT'S PROBABLY UNDER THE NEW BUSINESS.
WE STILL HAVE OLD BUSINESS TO TALK ABOUT, BUT UNDER NEW BUSINESS, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT 5.1 WHERE IT IS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD OR MOVE FROM WAY IN THE BACK UP TOWARDS THE FRONT THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE 10.0202 VARIANTS PROCEDURES.
I THINK THAT THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DISCUSSION THAT WE NEED TO HAVE.
I THINK THAT WE CAN HAVE A FAIRLY QUICK DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AND THEN MOVE ON WITH SOME OF THE OTHER MORE IN-DEPTH ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT.
I'D LOVE TO PUT THAT ITEM FOR DISCUSSION AFTER 5.1 BECAUSE THAT DOES DOES THAT HOW DOES THAT SUIT ANYBODY?
>> YOU WANT A MOTION OR DO YOU NEED ONE?
>> I DON'T THINK WE NEED A MOTION.
I THINK IF WE'RE OKAY WITH IT, WE'LL JUST CONSIDER THAT AFTER 5.1 AND THEN WE'LL START TO MOVE INTO THE OTHER ITEMS. DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYBODY? UNDER OLD BUSINESS,
[4.1 PAB 2022-0026 - PRELIMINARY PLAT/REPLAT - TRINGALI PROPERTIES]
ITEM 4.1 PAB CASE 2022-0026, PRELIMINARY PLAT/RE-PLAT FORM GARRY PROPERTIES.I SEE MR. BENNETT'S LIGHT IS ON.
>> AS A MATTER OF PROCEDURE, CONFUSED ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I CALLED THE MINUTES FROM THIS CASE WHEN IT WAS HEARD, I GUESS DECEMBER 14TH AND AT THAT TIME,
[00:05:01]
A MOTION WAS MADE TO REJECT THE AND ONTO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.IT'S ALREADY BEEN HEARD, HAS IT NOT? IT'S BEEN ALREADY DENIED ONCE SO WHY ARE WE HEARING IT AGAIN?
>> BECAUSE THE APPLICATION WAS NOT COMPLETE IN MY OPINION, THEIR CORRECT AGENT AUTHORIZATIONS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION.
I THOUGHT IT BEST THAT WE START OVER.
>> THAT WAS DISCOVERED LATER, WAS IT NOT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT AFTER THE DECISION. YES.
>> I MEAN, IS THERE ANY CHANGE TO THE APPLICATION OTHER THAN?
>> AS FAR AS WE KNOW, WE'RE NOT HEARING ANYTHING NEW.
>> IN MY OPINION I WOULD THINK IT'S BEEN DENIED.
>> BECAUSE THIS IS AN ADVISORY BOARD AND THE APPLICANT IS NOT NECESSARILY ENTITLED TO A HEARING AND ALL OF THAT, IF YOU ALL WANT TO DO A WORK, WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS STEP AS THE NEXT STEP IS THE QUASI JUDICIAL.
YOU CAN HAVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION ON IT, YOU CAN CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO, YOU HAVE ALL THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, YOU HAVE THE STAFF REPORT.
IF YOU WANT TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, I WOULD AT LEAST SUGGEST THAT YOU DO THAT AND COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A STAFF REPORT UNLESS STAFF SUGGESTS THAT THEY HAVE NEW MATERIAL THAT THEY WANT TO PRESENT TO YOU.
WE DO HAVE AT LEAST ONE NEW BOARD MEMBER SINCE THEN ALTHOUGH MR. GILLETTE HAS A VOTING CONFLICT THAT HE'S DISCLOSED AND FILED THE FORM HE CAN'T VOTE.
BUT YOU MIGHT ASK YOUR OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, BUT THERE'S NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT YOU GO THROUGH THE FULL-BLOWN PRESENTATION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION TO DENY, I BELIEVE MR. STEVENSON MADE THE MOST OF THEM FOR YOU.
>> WHAT MY QUESTION IS, SINCE WE'VE ALREADY HEARD THIS, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR IT.
I THINK THAT WHAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HEAR IS A RULING FROM THE CITY COMMISSION THAT GIVES US DIRECTION ON 10305.
I THINK THAT DOES IT APPLY TO THIS CASE? WHATEVER THEY SAY THEN WILL GUIDE US IF WE HAVE TO HAVE MORE CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.
BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION ENOUGH OR JURISDICTION PERIOD, THAT REALLY ALLOWS US TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AND I WOULD LIKE TO REFER THIS TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THEIR OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT 10305 APPLIES IN THIS CASE.
SOMEBODY NEEDS TO DECIDE THAT, IT'S NOT US.
WE'RE AN ADVISORY GROUP WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE'RE READING WHAT'S IN THERE.
WE HAVE AT LEAST I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION FROM STAFF, WHICH IS FINE. THEY'RE THE PROFESSIONALS.
THEY LOOK AT IT, I'VE JUST READ WHAT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SO WE UNANIMOUSLY VOTED NO AND THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS AND MY OPINION.
>> THE ONLY THING THAT I WANT TO SAY, THAT'S FINE TO DO THAT, IT'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THE CITY COMMISSION WILL NOT REMAND IT BACK TO YOU AND WE'LL JUST DECIDE AT THE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING.
>> THAT'S OKAY, TOO. I THINK WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.
>> WE'LL KEEP IN MIND THE CASE IS DENIAL IT WILL GO TO THE COMMISSION ANYWAY.
>> THAT'S FINE. YEAH. [OVERLAPPING]
>> HOWEVER THAT PROCESS IS, KELLY, IF YOU COULD HELP US WITH THAT PROCESS, THAT WE ARE ASKING THE CITY COMMISSION TO GIVE US A RULING ON OUR ABILITY, TO HEAR THIS AGAIN, SPECIFICALLY GIVING US DIRECTION ON HOW WE DEAL WITH SECTION 103-05 OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> I'M STILL OF THE OPINION THAT IT FALLS UNDER 103-05;103-05C STATES VERY CLEARLY, "ANY CHANGE FROM THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING BUILDING SITES OR SEPARATION OF BUILDING SITES, SHALL REQUIRE APPROVAL BY A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AT WHICH TIME INTERESTED PERSONS WILL BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD." IN MY MIND THAT'S CLEAR AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'LL CALL THE RULE OF THE CITY IS RELATIVE TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
[00:10:02]
IF YOU COME BACK LEGAL, WHOEVER, AND SAYS NO, YOU HAVE APPROVAL TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT, THEN WE CAN TAKE ACTION.AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED RIGHT NOW WE SHOULD NOT VOTE ON THIS BASED ON WHAT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE NEED.
WE NEED THE DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COMMISSION.
IF YOU COULD HELP US WITH THAT, WE'D APPRECIATE THAT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR THE PROCESS, THE CASE WOULD THEN MOVE TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FROM DECEMBER HEARING OR WITH NO RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD AND THEN REQUESTS FOR DIRECTION ON FUTURE APPLICATIONS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] OR WE CAN ASK THEM TO RULE ON HAVE WE ALREADY HEARD IT AND DENIED IT, OR IN THEIR OPINION IT SHOULD GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
>>WITH RESPECT TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL, IT IS THAT, IT IS A RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING BOARD OF DENIAL WHICH THEN MOVES TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
>> OUR RECOMMENDATION FROM DECEMBER IS GOOD.
>> I WOULD RESTATE IT FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING, AND THEN WE WOULD MOVE IT FORWARD.
THEN IT WILL BE IN THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE THROUGH QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING WHAT IT WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND ANY NEXT STEPS, WE'RE GOOD.
>> BUT THE ISSUE STILL IS 103-05.
>> IF THE ISSUE IS 103-05, THEN IT SHOULD DEFINITELY HAVE GONE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.
>> THE COMMISSION CAN SIMPLY SAY YOU'VE RULED DENIAL OR SEND IT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND LET THEM HEAR IT.
IF THEY DON'T DO THAT THEN WE ARE DONE.
>> THEN THEY MADE THEIR DECISION HAVEN'T THEY?
>> YEAH. IT'S ALREADY BEEN MADE. THERE'S NO SENSE IN PLAYING BOUNCE BALL BACK AND FORTH ALL THE TIME.
>> WELL, AND THE WAY YOU EXPLAINED IT WAS VERY CLEAR.
WILL THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT WE RECOMMENDED TO DENY IT?
>> THEY HAVE A RECORD JUST LIKE WE DO.
>> MADAM CHAIR THERE'S A REAL GOOD CHANCE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THIS APPLICATION AGAIN.
>> OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> BUT YOU STILL NEED TO COME UP AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE.
>> I CAN'T HEAR BECAUSE THE VOLUME'S TOO LOW.
>> SHE'S ASKING YOU TO SPEAK UP.
>>YOU'RE ASKING ALL OF US TO SPEAK UP, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THE MICROPHONES ARE NOT VERY LOUD.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR VERY LOUD VOICES.
>> IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR YEARS. [LAUGHTER]
>> I UNDERSTAND. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NO, MA'AM.
THE BOARD, WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS AND I THINK THE DIRECTION THAT WE'VE GIVEN STAFF IS REALLY SUFFICIENT FOR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
[5.1 PAB 2023-0038 - CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, VACATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR POMPANO ST]
2023-0038, CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR POMPANO STREET.IF I COULD START OUT A CONVERSATION WITH THIS, DO WE HAVE A MAP OF WHERE THIS IS?
>> IF YOU'LL JUST GIVE US ONE MOMENT WE'RE GOING TO SWITCH ROLES REAL QUICK.
>> WE LOST HALF OUR AUDIENCE HERE.
>> IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE SKATE PARK.
[00:15:06]
>> WHO ELSE IS ON? ANYBODY ELSE ON?
[BACKGROUND] [LAUGHTER] [BACKGROUND]
>> SORRY, WE'RE HAVING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.
>> OKAY. [BACKGROUND] HERE IT IS.
>> HERE'S THE PROPERTY APPRAISER MAP.
I ALSO HAVE A STAFF REPORT PREPARED FOR WHENEVER WE'RE READY TO GET STARTED TO GO THROUGH THAT.
>> CAN YOU ZERO IN RIGHT THERE ON THE SKATE PARK AND JUST SHOW US WHAT WE'VE GOT, FOR WHERE THAT ROAD IS?
>> HERE'S THE SKATE PARK, HERE.
>> YOU CAN SEE THIS POMPANO STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY STARTING FROM HERE ON IS THE SUBJECT OF THE REQUEST.
>> SHOW ME WHERE DOLPHIN AVENUE IS.
>> SHOW HER THE BIG ROAD. THE OTHER WAY.
>> THERE'S TWO DOLPHINS. THAT'S ONE AND THERE'S ANOTHER THAT'S [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S RIGHT THERE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IMPROVED AND UNIMPROVED DOLPHIN.
>> THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. THAT ONE.
THIS IS WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST OR ASK STAFF, BECAUSE AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO COME ALONG, SOMEBODY WITH THE REC'S DEPARTMENT OR PARKS DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE DID THIS FOR POMPANO STREET, WHY DIDN'T WE DO THIS AT THE SAME TIME FOR DOLPHIN STREET? IT'S A RIGHT-OF-WAY, IT'S IN THE PARK, SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHY DON'T WE JUST INCLUDE, INSTEAD OF DOING IT ONE AT A TIME, WHY NOT DO BOTH OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAYS AT ONE TIME AND APPROVE THEM AND BE DONE WITH IT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> GET THE RIGHT MAP UP THERE.
[OVERLAPPING] YOU NEED TO GET DOWN ON YOUR MAP, AND BE ACROSS FROM THE PARKING LOT.
THE OTHER WAY. GO LEFT. THERE YOU GO.
YOU SEE THAT PARCEL RIGHT THERE NEXT TO POMPANO STREET?
>> OKAY. IT'S THE LITTLE TRIANGLE RIGHT THERE.
>> THAT'S THE PARCEL, THAT'S DOLPHIN. ON THE LEFT.
>> IF IT'S OKAY I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH THIS STAFF REPORT JUST TO GET THE INFORMATION OUT AND I CAN CERTAINLY ADDRESS THE OTHER RIGHT-OF-WAYS AS WELL.
>> THEY'RE NOT RESERVING THE REQUEST TONIGHT AND A PROPER ANALYSIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE TO EVALUATE THAT.
AT THIS TIME, WE ARE NOT ONLY ABLE TO REVIEW THE REQUESTS FOR POMPANO STREET.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT [NOISE] WE HAVE A VERY HEAVY AGENDA TONIGHT.
>> IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF CONVERSATION AND I DON T THINK MANY OF US BROUGHT DINNER.
[LAUGHTER] WE DIDN'T BRING SLEEPING BAGS AND RATHER THAN US BEING HERE TILL 10:00 O'CLOCK TONIGHT, I'D LIKE TO SEE, AND I'M HAPPY TO HEAR YOUR PRESENTATION, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF GETTING THROUGH SOME OF THESE THINGS, BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN SOME OF THESE LATER ITEMS. I JUST THINK THAT THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD SAY YES, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE BOTH OF THEM PUT ON THE DISCUSSION AND THEN BRING IT BACK TO US IN OUR NEXT MEETING.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
>> I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT THROUGH THE ROTARY CLUB WHO WAS ALSO WORKING ON SOME FUNDING.
THERE WERE SOME EARLIER DISCUSSIONS AND WE'VE GOT THE HEAD OF THE SKATEBOARD PARK, 501C3, SITTING IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM BACK THERE, IF SOMEBODY HAS SOME QUESTIONS.
AT ONE TIME IN ONE VARIATION OF THE DISCUSSION,
[00:20:04]
IT TOOK THAT WHOLE TRIANGLE FROM THIS CURRENT SKATE PARK ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL A STRAIGHT LINE FROM THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE SKATE PARK LAND INTO TARPON, EXCUSE ME.THERE'S BEEN VARIATIONS IN WHAT IT IS.
MY CONCERN IS THAT WE DON'T CLEAR ALL THE HURDLES, WHICH MEANS GET RID OF ANY CONSTRAINTS ON ANY OF THAT PROPERTY.
IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN LIKE A GIFT LIKE WE GOT FOR THE PARKING OR THE PLAY GROUND AREA AT THE CENTRAL PARK, WHERE WE HAD A HALF MILLION DOLLARS GIVEN TO US.
IT COULD VERY WELL CHANGE WHAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE WITH THE SKATE PARK.
MY IDEA IS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE SOMETHING ALL THE WAY TO THE CITY COMMISSION, WHY SPEND THE MONEY TO DO IT TWICE WHEN YOU DO IT ALL IN ONE FELL SWOOP, AND JUST GET IT DONE?
>> THAT MAKES SENSE WITH THIS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE ARE ALSO PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE TRYING TO RAISE THE MONEY BECAUSE IT'S PRIVATE INVESTMENTS, WHAT'S GOING INTO THIS.
YOU'LL GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO SELL SOMETHING AND HAVE ASSURANCE THAT THEY CAN IMPLEMENT BASED ON WHAT LAND IS AVAILABLE TO THEM. [OVERLAPPING]
>> DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO YOU TO BUNDLE THOSE TWO DISCUSSIONS? [OVERLAPPING]
I'VE EVEN GOT A SKETCH HERE WHICH YOU DIDN'T SHOW THIS WHOLE AREA.
BUT THAT IS GOING THROUGH A LOT OF FUNDAMENTALS.
>> THAT'S THE PARCEL THAT SHOULD BE ADDED RIGHT THERE.
>> RIGHT. IT'S POMPANO STREET ON THE WEST SIDE OF TARPON.
>> NO, THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE THERE. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD OVER THERE. [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY OF IT.
>> TARPON OR POMPANO, THEY DID NOT PUT A PARCEL THAT THEY WILL HAVE.
>> POMPANO GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE PARKING LOT.
>> RIGHT, BUT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS PARCEL HERE.
>> NO. THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS UP HERE IS WHERE DOLPHIN IS, THERE'S TWO DOLPHINS STREETS.
>> THERE'S POMPANO. [OVERLAPPING]
>> SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT POMPANO STREET?
>> THIS HERE IT IS, BUT I THOUGHT THEY WERE TO ABANDON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> WE WANT TO ABANDON THIS IS WHAT STEPHAS [OVERLAPPING] IS RECOMMENDING AND IT GOES FROM HERE.
>> ON THE EAST SIDE. [OVERLAPPING].
>> I WANT TO POST ONE OF THE STREETS.
>> I JUST WANTED TO CAUTION YOU, WHEN THE CITY VACATES RIGHT-OF-WAY, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S GOING TO BECOME THE CITY'S PROPERTY.
I'M AFRAID, AND WE DO ANALYSIS JUST BY LOOKING AT THIS MAP THAT'S PART OF THE POWERPOINT.
IF WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AT OTHER THINGS OUTSIDE OF THIS APPLICATION, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE FIRST OF ALL, JUST IN CASE ANYTHING HAS CHANGED.
WHEN THE CITY VACATES A RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY GOES TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS ON EITHER SIDE OF IT.
I WOULD NOT JUMP ACROSS TARPON STREET AND START FOOLING WITH THE PIECES OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY THERE.
>> BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY BE THE CITY'S.
A RIGHT-OF-WAY IS NOT EVEN OWNED BY A CITY OR A COUNTY OR WHOEVER HAS IT.
A RIGHT-OF-WAY, IF YOU THINK OF IT, IS THE UNDERLYING LAND IS STILL OWNED PRIVATELY, IT'S BEEN DEDICATED TO THE CITY TO KEEP IN THE PUBLIC TRUST.
THE PART OF DOLPHIN STREET THAT IS PART OF MAIN BEACH PARK, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT, IF THAT'S WHAT STAFF HAS JUST SAID, WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO ANALYZE IT, AND SO I THINK BY THAT THEY'RE SAYING, PLEASE DON'T DO THAT TONIGHT.
>> IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE RE-ADVERTISED.
>> BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHY NOT JUST DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME?
>> I'M NOT SAYING THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAN THE PROPER ACTION TONIGHT WOULD BE, BUT YOU MAY BE AND YOU MAY WANT TO HEAR FROM SKATE PARK UPFOLKS IN TERMS OF TIMING, MAYBE EVEN THIS FEROCITY FROM PARKS IN REC, IF THEY NEED THIS TO BE DONE BECAUSE THEY'RE ON BECAUSE THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE DONE AND NO LONGER RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR TILL JUNE.
JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE TWO READINGS OF AN ORDINANCE, VACATIONS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY GO THROUGH ORDINANCE, SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT MAY AND THEN JUNE FOR SECOND READING.
WE'RE ALREADY IN JUNE AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DOES TO THEIR TIMING, SO I WILL CONSIDER THAT.
I THINK THAT FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, YOU WANT TO CLEAN UP THE PARK TO ALLOW IT TO BE USED FOR OTHER THINGS THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.
THAT'S NOT HOW STAFF APPROACHED IT.
IF IT DOES NOT MESS UP TIMELINES, PERHAPS IT WON'T BE NEXT MONTH, MY GUESS, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY PREPARING AFTER TONIGHT FOR NEXT MONTH'S PAV.
IT'LL BE A JUNE PAV AND FIND OUT IF THAT'S GOING TO PUT ANYBODY BEHIND ON FUNDRAISING OR IMPROVEMENT TIMELINES, THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT I WOULD NOT JUMP ACROSS TARPON AT ALL THAT AT THIS TIME.
I KNOW IT'S FORT CLINCH ON THE OTHER SIDE, BUT I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT ALL THE PARCELS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
>> WHEN WE VACATE RIGHT-OF-WAY, IT MEANS WE'RE GIVING IT BACK TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS.
[00:25:01]
THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS, THE CITY NO LONGER HAS ANY CONTROL.>> WHICH IS AS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET, THAT WOULD BE THE STATE OF FLORIDA WE COULD HAVE.
>> BUT THAT AS YOU KNOW, [OVERLAPPING] SHOULD WE BE GIVING THAT TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA?
>> SHOULD WE BE GIVING THAT TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND FORT CLINCH?
>> MAYBE LIKE A LIVE STATION THERE. I DON'T KNOW. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'RE BEING VERY SPECIFIC IN THE AREA THAT WE'RE REQUESTING TO BE VACATED.
>> IN THIS CASE, IT'S REALLY A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT'S BEING REQUESTED TO ME. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE ARE UTILITIES ALL OVER THE MAIN BEACH PARK.
THERE'S A LOT OF SEWER THERE'S A LOT OF WATER, THERE ARE MANHOLES, THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE MEANT TO BE IN A RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I KNOW THAT SOME OF THESE VEINS ARE ACTUALLY IN SOME OF THESE RIGHT-OF-WAYS THAT ARE STILL EXISTING TODAY.
I'D HATE FOR US TO DELAY THIS AND THEN FIND OUT THE OTHER RIGHT-OF-WAYS WE WANT TO ABANDON OR NOT EVEN CAPABLE OF BEING ABANDONED.
WE'VE WASTED TIME AND I'LL PROVE THIS TONIGHT.
>> LET'S JUST HEAR WHAT'S THE TIMING ON ISABEL.
>> GOOD EVENING. IT'S CATHERINE BRAZI, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR.
THIS ITEM WENT BEFORE THE PARKS RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO, AND THANK YOU TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR GUIDING ME IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION THAT WE NEED TO COME BEFORE YOU TO.
THERE FRIENDS OF FRIENDS THE ESCAPED PARK GROUPED, WOULD LIKE TO START RAISING MONEY TO POTENTIALLY EXPAND THE SKATE PARK.
THE DEPARTMENT IS IN FULL FAVOR OF THIS.
THE PRAC COMMITTEE IS IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS AS WELL.
WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THIS VACATION THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SO THEY CAN START THEIR PROCESS OF RAISING MONEY TO EXPAND THE SKATE PARK.
THEN WE'RE GOING TO SEE AS A DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY HOW WE CAN ASSIST IN THE FUTURE WITH THAT ENDEAVOR.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN ANSWER, WE ARE HAPPY TO.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DAPHNE YOU HAVE A REPORT THAT YOU PROBABLY CAN GIVE US AND MAYBE THAT WILL TELL US IF THERE ARE ANY UTILITIES UNDER THE PROPOSED VACATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THAT MIGHT BE A CONCERN.
>> YES, AND THAT'S BEEN PENALIZED.
>> IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR REPORT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
>> HAPPY TO. THIS IS PAB CASE 2023-0038.
FOR THE RECORD, ALL MATERIALS HAVE BEEN MADE, ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AS WELL.
THIS IS, AGAIN, A REQUEST THAT IS BEING DONE BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH TO ABANDON, AN UNIMPROVED PORTION OF COMPETENCE SRI'S RIGHT-OF-WAY.
YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN, I HAVE DELINEATED THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY EXTENDS ACROSS TARP AVENUE TO THE WEST SIDE OF TARP AVENUE, AND WE'RE NOT REQUESTING THAT THIS PORTION BE VACATED.
IT'S JUST THE PORTION THAT IS IN THE RIGHT OF THIS TIME.
THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 142 FEET BY 50 FEET.
AGAIN, THE REASON FOR THIS REQUEST IS TO SUPPORT AN EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING SKATE PARK.
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY IS COMPLETELY BORDERED BY CITY-OWNED PROPERTY.
AS JENNY WAS STATING EARLIER WHAT A RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ABANDONED, TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS IT'S ALREADY ORDERED FIVE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH MUNICIPAL PROPERTY.
IT'S ALSO UNDER THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE MAIN BEACH PARK AND THE PROPOSED VACATION OF THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY ALIGNS WITH THE PUBLIC INTERESTS AS IT IS EXPANDING UPON A PUBLIC PARK.
HERE IS THE PROPOSED PARK PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE PARK'S AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE 20TH OF FEBRUARY THIS YEAR.
I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW AND BE AWARE, THIS IS A PLAN THAT IS NOT A COMPLETE OR FINAL PLAN.
THIS IS JUST FOR VISUAL PURPOSES.
THIS WOULD ALSO NEED TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE STEPS FIRST THROUGH PAB THEN THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL.
UPON APPROVAL FROM THE CITY COMMISSION, AND AFTER THIS HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY VACATED.
IT WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THE CITY'S TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE.
THIS PLAN COULD CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE RESULTS OF THOSE MEETINGS AND FROM THERE, IT WOULD GO ON TO REGULAR PERIMETTING.
THOSE ARE THE STEPS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE FOLLOWED.
AGAIN, THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE DID RECOMMEND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVAL OF THIS AND THAT IS WHY YOU ARE HEARING ABOUT IT TODAY.
[00:30:04]
GETTING INTO THE CONSISTENCY WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS HERE THAT I WILL GET INTO.THE FIRST ONE IS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE.
THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST WOULD CONTINUE THAT PUBLIC USE AND IMPROVE UPON IT.
THE SECOND ONE IS THE PROPOSED VACATION IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST.
YES, IT IS IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST.
IT IS BENEFITING THE PUBLIC BY EXPANDING UPON AN EXISTING PUBLIC PARK.
THE THIRD ITEM HERE IS IF THE VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WOULD PRESERVE CULTURAL FEATURE OF THE CITY.
THERE ARE NONE IN THIS AREA THAT WE ARE AWARE OF.
THE LAST ONE HERE, BUT REPATRIATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL BE OFFSET BY AT LEAST ONE ACCESS THROUGH STREET CONNECTION.
AFTER THE ACCESS IS ALREADY PROVIDED THROUGH CARPET AVENUE AND TROUT STREET, THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES WHICH SOLELY RELY ON THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ACCESS.
GETTING INTO THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
THERE'S FIVE CRITERIA THERE SHE MET AS WELL.
IS THE REQUESTED VACATION CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT? IT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE CITY'S TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT.
WE ALREADY WENT THROUGH THAT IN THE PREVIOUS COMP PLAN POLICIES.
YES, ADEQUATE ACCESS IS PROVIDED.
WOULD THIS JEOPARDIZE ANY UTILITIES IN THE AREA? THIS WOULD NOT JEOPARDIZE ANY UTILITIES AND AGAIN, ON TOP OF THAT REVIEW THAT WE'VE DONE, THIS WOULD GO AGAIN THROUGH THE CITY'S TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR ANALYSIS WITH ALL THE APPROPRIATE CITY DEPARTMENTS THERE TO ANALYZE IT.
ONCE A SET PLAN HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
THE PROPOSED VACATION WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC.
IT WILL PROVIDE A POSITIVE BENEFIT FOR THE CITY.
THE LAST ONE IS A CRITERIA REGARDING THE OWNERS OF BUDDING THE REQUESTED RIGHT-OF-WAY.
IF THERE ARE OTHER OWNERS, IN THIS CASE, THE CITIES TO APPLICANT AND THE OWNER OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OR THE CITY.
THAT ALIGNS WITH OUR MUNICIPAL CODE AS WELL AS OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I'VE JUST INCLUDED HERE A SNAP OF THE ORIGINAL PLAT HERE SHOWING WHERE THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY IS.
IN CONCLUSION, STAFF FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED CRITERIA WITH COMP PLAN POLICIES AND MUNICIPAL CODE POLICIES, AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF PAB2023-38.
HAPPY IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION?
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DAPHNE?
>> GENERAL ONE, IF WE WERE TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS, IS THERE A WAY TO GET A PRELIMINARY, LET ME CALL IT A SNIFF TEST PLAYGROUP EVALUATIONS OF WHAT MIGHT BE AN ENCUMBRANCE ON DOLPHIN STREET?
>> I THINK THAT'D BE A GREAT QUESTION FOR A PARKS DIRECTOR IF THAT HAS EVEN BEEN DISCUSSED OR CONSIDERED AT ANY POINT.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AN EXPANSION THAT FAR NORTH HAS NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY CONSIDERED THROUGH THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT ALL.
SO I WOULD ASK THE PARKS DIRECTOR IF THERE'S ANY CONSIDERATION FOR THAT EXPANSION THAT FAR NORTH.
>> HI AGAIN. I'VE BEEN HERE FOR SIX MONTHS, SO IN MY SIX MONTHS, I HAVEN'T HEARD OF IT.
HOWEVER, I CAN DEFINITELY GO BACK AND MEET WITH STAFF AND FIND OUT IF THERE'S BEEN ANY DISCUSSIONS AND WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. ALONG THE SAME LINES, DO WE HAVE AN OVERLAY THAT SHOWS AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL DRAWING OF WHAT THE SKATE PARK WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND INTO AND DEVELOP.
BUT DO WE HAVE AN OVERLAY THAT THE OVERLAYS IT INTO THE EXISTING PARK AND WE UNDERSTAND WHERE IT GOES INTO THAT PARK.
>> NOT THIS TIME, BUT I'M HAPPY TO BRING UP THEIR PRELIMINARY PLAN.
BUT AGAIN, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THAT IS NOT A FINAL PLANS BY ANY MEANS.
>> UNTIL MY SKETCHES AND TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEES THAT COULD CHANGE.
>> BUT IF YOU COULD BRING UP ONE OF THOSE.
>> IF YOU BRING IT DOWN TO MY HEIGHT, I CAN SHOW IT.
>> WE CAN PROBABLY GET AN IDEA OF HOW FAR IS GOING TO GO. THE OTHER ONE [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF YOU CAN BRING THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
>> IT'S BASICALLY YOU TAKE THIS LINE, GO ALL THE WAY TO THE STREET.
IT'S JUST THIS TRIANGLE, I GUESS IF YOU WILL. THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> THIS BASICALLY IS CONTINUING ON THE CORNER OF THE SKATE PARK WHERE THIS SIDEWALK IS ALL THE WAY STRAIGHT TO THE STREET.
>> GOING ACROSS THE STREET WITH THE PARK.
[00:35:02]
>> NO, NOT GOING TO CROSS THE STREET.
>> GOOD. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE BEING REQUESTED TO PROVE.
>> GIVE US THE DIMENSION, PLEASE MA'AM.
>> A HUNDRED AND FORTY TWO FEET BY 50 FEET.
THAT'S WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED.
>> SO IT'S 50 FEET FURTHER NORTH THAN IN THE SKATE PARK DIMENSION TODAY THAT BASED ON THAT.
>> YES. I'D SAY THAT'S PRETTY CLOSE BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE SOME OF THE PARK INFRASTRUCTURE WAS ALREADY BUILT INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
IT COULD BE OFF SLIGHTLY, IT'S NOT VERY ACCURATE.
SO WE ARE GETTING AT SURVEYED CURRENTLY.
WE HAVEN'T DONE THE SURVEYS BACK YET.
BUT DON'T COUNT ON AERIAL IMAGERY BECAUSE.
>> SO DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL?
>> MADAM CHAIR, I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PAB2023-0038 VACATION OF RIGHT AWAY FOR PUMPING HISTORY.
>> I CAN HEAR A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED SAY NAY. HEARING NONE,.
>> OH, I'M SO SORRY. EXCUSE ME.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE NEXT ITEM,
[5.4 PAB CASE 2023-0040 - LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS]
AS WE AGREED TO HEAR OUT OF ORDER, BUT I APPRECIATE THAT.I JUST THINK WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS VAB CASE 2023-004010.02.02 VARIANTS PROCEDURES.
THIS IS REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A GRANT OF A VARIANCE AND I KNOW THAT YOU-ALL HAVE SOME THINGS YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT WITH THIS, BUT MY CONCERN IS HAS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS OR THE HTC HEARD THIS THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT STRIKING THIS OR CHANGING THIS SECTION?
>> THEY HAVE NOT. BUT IF YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THEM TO HEAR IT FIRST [OVERLAPPING] THEY CERTAINLY DO THAT.
>> DO ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THEM?
>> I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A JOINT MEETING WHERE ACTUALLY, IF WE CAN GET THE THREE GROUPS TOGETHER, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S EVEN POSSIBLE.
>> REMEMBER WE DON'T HAVE HTC.
>> WE WILL BE HAVE HAVING THE HTC ON THE 26 SO YOU BRING THAT UP UNDER ONE OF THOSE AND THEN ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS GET WITH THE BI.
>> I'M HAPPY TO FACILITATE THAT.
>> IF YOU WOULD HELP US WITH THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH ON THAT.
>> SO ARE WE JUST GOING TO DIFFER CASE 0040 UNTIL AFTER THAT MEETING.
>> TELL ME WHAT WOULD BE THE PROPER PROCEDURE.
>> WHEN WE MEET WITH THE OTHER GROUP.
>> IT DEPENDS ON WHERE WE CAN GET WITH THE ADJUSTMENT FORMAT. SO IT'D BE JUNE.
>> SO WE CAN JUST REFER THAT BACK AND BRING ON THE AGENDA THEN IN JUNE.
>> WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE OR OPPOSE ON THIS CASE.
THIS WAY, ANY ADVERTISING CONTINUES TO GROW.
>> DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT PABKS2033-0040 BE DEFERRED TO THE JUNE 19, 2023 PAB MEETING.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DATE IS. I THINK IT'S A 12TH OR 14TH.
>> REMEMBER THAT JUNE MEETING.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
SAYING OR HEARING NONE, THE MOTION IS APPROVED.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP ON THAT.
>> SO THAT TAKES CARE OF THAT ONE.
THE NEXT ONE IS PABK CASE 2023-0041,
[5.2 PAB CASE 2023-0041 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS]
[00:40:07]
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS. DAPHNE?>> YES. I WILL BE SWITCHING WITH KELLY.
[NOISE] GIVE ME JUST ONE MOMENT. [NOISE] THIS IS FOR PAV CASE 2023-0039, THE CASE HAS BEEN ADVERTISED AS IS REQUIRED AND STAFF REPORT WAS SUBMITTED ON THE AGENDA.
AS IS TYPICAL FOR ALL OF OUR CASES AND ALL THE OTHER APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING IS IN AN EFFORT TO ADDRESS CONCERNS WITH COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG OUR PRIMARY CORRIDORS NAMELY, OUTSIDE OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, INTO SADLER ROAD, SOUTH 14TH STREET, AND ALONG EIGHTH STREET.
MANY OF THESE PROPERTIES DEVELOPED IN THE LATE '70S AND '80S IN A FASHION THAT WAS VERY TYPICAL OF THAT TIME-FRAME.
WE'RE OFTEN YOU WOULD HAVE LARGE EXPANSES OF PARKING THAT FRONTED THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IT WAS DONE IN A STRIP MALL STYLE FASHION.
THE NAME OF THE GAME IS OFTEN AN OVERSUPPLY OF PARKING, SO YOU CAN SEE LARGE EXPANSES OF PARKING THAT WAS PROVIDED THERE IN EXCESS OF MAYBE WHAT WAS NEEDED OR WHAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY REQUIRE TODAY UNDER MORE BETTER UNDERSTOOD CALCULATIONS AND MODELING FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
OFTEN THERE WAS NOT AS MUCH ATTENTION AS WE HAVE TODAY ON LANDSCAPING FEATURES OR PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION, SITE ACCESS NEEDS.
THOSE FEATURES WHICH HELPED TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY AND COMFORT FOR PEDESTRIANS WHO ARE COMING AND GOING FROM THOSE SITES HAVE SEEN RENOVATION TO MOST OF THOSE SHOPPING CENTERS OCCUR OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME INTO TODAY.
WE'VE SEEN SOME PRETTY MAJOR FACELIFTS TO A NUMBER OF THEM, INTERIOR RENOVATIONS AND THEN SOME OF THE MORE TYPICAL UPGRADES HAVE OCCURRED TO ROOFS HVAC ELECTRICAL, DEPENDING ON THE BUSINESS MIXES AS THEY'VE CHANGED WITHIN THOSE COMPLEXES OVER TIME.
WE HAVE SEEN SOME RETROFIT OF PARKING AREAS AND INCORPORATING SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING.
BUT UNDER THE CITY'S CURRENT CODES FOR LANDSCAPING, THEY ARE FAR FROM COMPLIANT WITH WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE TODAY.
IN THE YEAR 2000, THE CITY ESTABLISHED SOME NEW STANDARDS.
FAST-FORWARD, EVEN 20 OR 30 YEARS FROM WHEN MOST OF THESE SHOPPING CENTERS WERE DEVELOPED, THE CITY ESTABLISHED NEW STANDARDS FOR LARGE-SCALE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND DEFINED ANYTHING TO BE LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT IS THAT WHICH EXCEEDS 20,000 SQUARE FEET.
THESE NEW STANDARDS DID IMPOSE CERTAIN THINGS LIKE FACADE IMPROVEMENTS AND SOME ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS.
THE REASON FOR ESTABLISHING THEM AT THAT POINT IN TIME WAS CONCERNED ABOUT SUPER WALMART DEVELOPING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.
REALLY THE IMPETUS FOR THESE CHANGES WAS TO AVOID SUPER WALMART FROM LOCATED HERE.
IN DOING SO, THERE WAS A LIMITATION OF NO GREATER THAN 80,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THIS WAS APPLIED GENERALLY AS A BLANKET TERM 80,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE LIMIT AT THAT POINT, ACCORDING TO PRIOR MEETING MINUTES, WAS THAT THEY WANTED TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA CONSTRUCTED THAT COULD BE CONSTRUCTED ON A TYPICAL CITY BLOCK.
UNFORTUNATELY, AS THESE [BACKGROUND] IT'S IMPLEMENTED, IT IMMEDIATELY RENDERED OR COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTERS TO BE NONCONFORMING.
NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES ARE PERMITTED TO BE MAINTAINED BUT CANNOT BE EXPANDED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A VARIANCE.
I'VE PROVIDED SOME REFERENCE MATERIAL AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT THAT INCLUDES AN ESTIMATE OF THE EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OUR COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTERS.
IT GIVES YOU INFORMATION ABOUT THE AGE OF THOSE STRUCTURES AND SOME SITE PHOTOS THAT TELLS YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ABOUT WHAT THE PARKING AREAS LOOK LIKE, THE TENANTS THAT ARE LOCATED THERE TO BETTER FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH WHAT IS WITHIN THOSE STRUCTURES PRESENTLY.
ANOTHER ISSUE THAT CAME INTO PLAY THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AS WELL AS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IS A REQUIREMENT THAT ALL NEW AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS CONSTRUCT WITH A 75% PERVIOUS PARKING MATERIAL.
[00:45:05]
TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT AND IT IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT.THE STANDARD WAS ADOPTED IN 2012 AT A TIME WHEN WE WERE REALLY ANTICIPATING SOME SIGNIFICANT STATE CHANGES THROUGH WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO INCORPORATE LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES WHICH MIGHT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED VOLUME THAT NEEDED TO BE CALCULATED AS PART OF A SITE.
UNFORTUNATELY, LATER IN 2013, 2014 TIMEFRAME, A LOT OF THE PROGRESS AND RULEMAKING ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE CHANGES WERE ABANDONED.
TODAY, STORMWATER CALCULATIONS ARE EXACTLY AS THEY HAVE BEEN, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE'S NO CREDIT FOR LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES OR STRATEGIES WHICH INCORPORATE THE USE OF PERVIOUS MATERIALS AS PART OF THE SITE DESIGN.
THEREFORE, THAT MEANS THAT THERE'S REALLY NO INCENTIVE OR PUSH TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER ALTERNATE PAVING MATERIALS WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE LAND AREA DEDICATED THIS ONE, WATER MANAGEMENT.
THAT POINT THEN CREATED A CONFLICT AND SOMETHING THAT THE STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH TRYING TO ADDRESS IN AN INCREMENTAL WAY SINCE THAT PERIOD OF TIME, WE DIDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE OR REALLY UNDERSTAND THE EFFECT OF THAT REALLY HIGH CHANGE AT 75% UNTIL THIS YEAR WHEN THINGS REALLY CAME TO A HEAD WITH SEVERAL NEW COMMERCIAL, NOT REDEVELOPMENT SITES COMING IN AND REQUESTING TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT INTO THEIR CURRENT PROPERTIES.
AS A RESULT OF THE WAY THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE READ TOGETHER, IT WOULD FORCE FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE PARKING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS FORCE AND VARIANCE REQUEST IN ORDER TO EITHER EXPAND, MODIFY THE SITE AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, AND UNFORTUNATELY, WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A VARIANCE FROM THESE CRITERIA OR ACHIEVED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MATERIALS PIECE OF IT.
WE'RE RENDERING MANY OF THESE STRUCTURES TO THE OBSOLETE, MEANING THAT THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY INVESTMENT INTO THE STRUCTURES WILL SEE THEM REMAIN STATUS QUO AS WE SEE THEM TODAY OR THERE'S GOING TO BE FORCED DEMOLITION IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT STANDARDS SO THAT THEY CAN COME INTO THAT FULL COMPLIANCE WITH WHERE WE'RE AT.
IT REALLY PUSHED US IN THE POSITION OF WHERE WE ARE TODAY IN MEETING TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS ABOUT CHANGING OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THESE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN A WAY THAT WOULDN'T PUSH THEM TO REALLY THINK MORE ABOUT COMPLETELY DEMOLISHING OUT THE EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT ARE THERE AND THE EMBODIED ENERGY.
FORCING THOSE STRUCTURES TO GO INTO A LANDFILL IS CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THAT IS IN KEEPING WITH ORLANDO ALBAN CODE OR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EITHER.
WE'RE LEFT WITH A PROBLEM WHERE WE REALLY NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE WANT TO MAKE THAT SHIFT.
IN AN EFFORT TO ADDRESS THAT, WE HAVE PROPOSED TEXTS AMENDMENTS TO THE 23RD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO STRIKE POLICIES WHICH REQUIRE PERVIOUS PARKING MATERIALS SO THAT WE CAN REALLY RELY ON LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE STANDARDS AND POLICIES.
THEN ADDITIONAL TEXTS AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PROVIDE FOR DIRECTION THAT ALLOWS FOR REASONABLE REDEVELOPMENT OF OUR LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
MODIFY STANDARDS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PER EACH PARKING BY ALLOWING HER ALTERNATIVE PAVING MATERIALS, THOSE WHICH WOULD ADD CHARACTER TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE AND ALLOWING FOR THE ABILITY TO PUT THEM IN ACCESS AREAS, NOT JUST FORCED INTO THE PARKING SPOTS THEMSELVES.
RECOGNIZING THAT MOST OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE BUILT UP AND AROUND THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SOME REQUIREMENTS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE CANNOT BE ACHIEVED WITHIN THEIR CURRENT LOCATION WITHOUT FORCING DEMOLITION.
THEN WE ALSO PUT ON THE AGENDA THE ABILITY TO MODIFY STANDARDS FOR VARIANCES, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT TONIGHT.
THOSE WERE THE SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY FACING.
AS PARTS OF THE CHANGES WE'VE CITED SEVERAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES STATEMENTS THAT ARE IN FURTHERANCE OF BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS THE CONFLICT THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY AND PROVIDED FOR CERTAIN STANDARDS AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AT THIS POINT, I WANT TO KNOW IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO JUST ADDRESS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PIECE OF IT ON ITS OWN AND THEN WE'LL ADDRESS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PIECE OR IF YOU'D LIKE FOR ME TO PRESENT IT GLOBALLY.
I'D LIKE TO HERE IT ALL? [OVERLAPPING] LET ME PULL UP.
[00:50:03]
WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT AND YOU WILL FIND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT ITS.[BACKGROUND] SORRY, MONITORING HAVE BEEN STRANGE TODAY [NOISE] IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PIECE OF IT AND I WILL MAKE THIS A BIT LARGER SO THAT YOU CAN SEE IT.
THE REQUESTED AT IT IS TO POLICY 1.080.05 UNDER OUR FUTURE LAND-USE ELEMENT, SPECIFIC TO OUR DESTINATION ACTIVITY CENTERS IN ADDRESSING BOTH COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE CONVERSION, AND SOME OF THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS THAT THEY NEED TO MEET.
ALLOWING FOR SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING IN SUBSECTION B, WHICH READS MODEST INSTEAD OF A FUNDED OFF STREET PARKING LOCATED AT THIS REAR SIDE OF BUILDINGS AND AWAY FROM PEDESTRIAN AREA FOR NEW INFILL PARCELS, REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
IN SUBSECTION F, ADDING LANGUAGE, WHICH ALSO DISCUSSES MIXED LAND USE CATEGORIES.
STRIKING SUBSECTION G, WHICH PREVIOUSLY READ THAT YOU COULD HAVE NO FREESTANDING, NOT RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT WITH DEVELOPMENT EXCEEDING 30,000 SQUARE FEET ON THE FIRST FLOOR AREA.
WE HAVE PROVIDED THE RATIONALE, THE CONFLICTS THAT ARE STOPPED OR INTERNALLY TO THE ESTABLISHED POLICY FOR THIS, ASSOCIATED WITH ADAPTIVE REUSE OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND SUPPORTING THE ADDITIONAL POLICIES REFERENCED.
THESE REQUESTED CHANGES WOULD SERVE TO BETTER REFLECT OUR CURRENT BUILT ENVIRONMENT WHILE ALLOWING FOR REINVESTMENT IN OUR EXISTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
IN ELEMENT 2 AND OUR MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS, STRIKING POLICY 2.13.06.
THE WAY THAT IT READS, ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL OFF STREET PARKING SHALL BE PLACED IN THE SIDE OR REAR OF THE BUILDING RATHER THAN IN THE FRONT OR OTHERWISE ADJACENT STREET.
THIS WOULD ALLOW THE RELIANCE ON LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE POLICIES WHICH SUPPORT [NOISE] PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY, INCREASED LANDSCAPING, AND NATURAL SURVEILLANCE, WHILE ENABLING THE ABILITY TO APPLY FOR VARIANCES WHERE HARDSHIPS MAYBE DETERMINED [NOISE] THERE IS A SUBSEQUENT EVENT CORRESPONDING POLICY IS ADDRESSED WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
STRIKING POLICY 2.13.08, WHICH READS, IN LOCATIONS WHERE THE CITY CONTINUES TO ALLOW FOR PARKING IN THE FRONT OFF STREET PARKING ADJACENT TO THE STREET [NOISE] VISUALLY SCREEN WITH A VEGETATIVE WALL FENCE, HAS A LANDSCAPE BERM, WALLS FENCES AND BERMS WHERE PROVIDERS HELPING DESIGN FOR A STATICS, SECURITY, DURABILITY AND ACCESS.
STRIKING THIS ONE, BECAUSE IT WOULD PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY WITHIN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD THOSE STANDARDS.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WHICH IS SO LEAN CONFLICT AT THIS TIME, I WAS INTRODUCED AS AN ITEM THAT MAY BE RIGHT OR YOU COULD RETAIN IT.
IT'S NOT CREATING THE ISSUE FOR US AS WE ARE SEEING STANDARDS BEING ACHIEVED WITH IT, AND THEN POLICY 2.13.11.
THIS IS THE ONE THAT DEALS WITH PERVIOUS PARKING MATERIAL STRIKING THE ENTIRE POLICY WHICH READS, THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPING PROPERTIES TO INCORPORATE USE OF PERVIOUS PARKING MATERIALS FOR A MINIMUM OF 75% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING AREA.
THEN PERVIOUS PARKING MATERIALS THAT REQUIRE REGULAR MAINTENANCE THROUGH ACTIVITIES SUCH AS VACUUM SWEEPING, DEMONSTRATE THEIR ABILITY TO PERFORM REGULAR MAINTENANCE OF THE SITE.
AGAIN, FOR THE SAME REASON AS MENTIONED BEFORE, ALLOWING FOR THE POLICY DIRECTION AND SPECIFIC STANDARD SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE INSTEAD OF IT BEING FORCED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND BASIS FOR THAT WAS MENTIONED IN MY PRIVATE STATEMENT ABOUT THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CONFLICTS, WHICH THEN BECAME PRESIDENT AFTER THIS POLICY WAS WRITTEN.
[5.3 PAB CASE 2023-0039 - LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS]
[00:55:01]
ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PIECE WE WOULD SUGGEST FOR PURPOSES OF CLARIFICATION AND HELPING SOFTER REALLY TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT WHICH MAY EXIST THROUGHOUT OUR CITY.ADDING IN THE TERM ADAPTIVE REUSE AND PROVIDING THE DEFINITION AS DESCRIBED HERE.
ADDING TERMS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY, INFILL DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT, AND GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT.
THEN SPECIFICALLY WITHIN CHAPTER 6, DEALING ONLY WITH LARGE-SCALE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S A LOT OF CLEANUP IN HERE.
REMOVING THE SHELVES TO MASK, ADDRESSING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES MAY BE OCCUPIED BY ONE OR MORE BUSINESS TENANTS OR OWNERS.
BUT THE BIG SHIFT HERE IS IN SUBSECTION E, DEALING WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT AND SEPARATING THAT FROM REDEVELOPMENT.
IN UNDER NEW DEVELOPMENT, SETTING A MAXIMUM GROSS FLOOR AREA OF A SINGLE BUSINESS TENANT OR OWNER, AND ANY NEW COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES NOT BEING PERMITTED TO EXCEED 55,000 SQUARE FEET.
EVERYTHING ELSE REMAINS THE SAME, AND ADDING IN A SUBSECTION F TO SPEAK TO EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES TO READ A SINGLE BUSINESS TENANT OR OWNER IN AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IS PERMITTED TO EXPAND THE STRUCTURE AT NO GREATER THAN 15% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES FOOTPRINT.
AGAIN, THERE'S SOME MORE CLEANUP WORK WITHIN HERE, ADDING IN A LOT OF THE ELEMENTS WHICH ARE CONTINUING TO HAVE ALL OF THE ELEMENTS WHICH WERE EXISTING IN THE CODE THAT SPEAK TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ARTICULATION AND PLACEMENT OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND USE OF MATERIALS.
BUT ONCE WE GET BACK TO SUB-SECTION O, AGAIN, JUST DEALING WITH OUR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT.
STRIKING THE SECTION O THAT TALKS ABOUT 20% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING MUST BE IMPERVIOUS PAVEMENT AND ADDING IT IN AND SUBSECTION P, SO THAT IT IS SEPARATE FROM THE DISALLOWANCE TO EXCEED 110% OF THE PARKING STANDARD.
IT'S STILL THERE, BUT IT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AT LEAST 20% OF THE AREAS DEDICATED TO PARKING AND DRIVE AISLES MUST INCORPORATE ALTERNATE PAVING MATERIALS SUCH AS DECORATIVE PAVERS, WORKS FOR CONCRETE OR PAVING PATTERNS.
YOU'LL NOTICE THERE'S NO MENTION OF PERVIOUS PAVEMENT, AND THEN MODIFYING STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH LOADING DOCKS TO SET A SEPARATE STANDARD FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT VERSUS REDEVELOPMENT, AND THAT NEW STANDARDS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OR ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECTS WOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 40 FEET FROM ANY LOCK ZONE ARE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL.
A LOT OF THIS HAS BEEN VETTED BY ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WHICH EXISTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, SPECIFICALLY FOR LOADING DOCKS TO SEE IF THIS WOULD BE A REASONABLE STANDARD THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED WITH A REDEVELOPING SITE.
ADDITIONALLY, WE LOOKED AT SUBSECTION HERE, WHICH SPOKE TO THE COMMERCIAL EXPANSION TO DETERMINE IF 15% IS A REASONABLE REQUEST BASED ON AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR AT THIS POINT IN TIME, YOU FELT THAT 50% WOULD PROVIDE FOR A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF EXPANSION AND DOESN'T CREATE AN OVERABUNDANCE OF DEVELOPMENT EITHER, SO IT'S STILL TRYING TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU HAVE WITHOUT JUST CONSUMING AN ENTIRE SITE, AND THEN THE OTHER REALLY BIG PIECE OF IT WAS THE LIMITATION ON SINGLE BUSINESS TENANT OR OWNER WITHIN A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE NOT TO EXCEED 55,000 SQUARE FEET.
THERE IS ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS IN HERE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION, SPECIFICALLY IN OUR PARKING LOT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.
REMOVING THE PARKING MATERIALS SECTION CURRENTLY EXIST THERE AND TO BE VERY CLEAR, THIS IS A PARKING MATERIAL REQUIREMENT THAT APPLIES TO ALL PARKING STANDARD THAT WOULD NOT JUST BE SUBJECT TO THE LARGE SCALE LIKE THE PRIOR SECTION IS.
THIS IS A SECTION THAT WOULD APPLY TO EVERYTHING AND ALLOWING FOR AT LEAST 20% OF THE NEW PARKING AREAS AND DRIVE AISLES TO INCORPORATE ALTERNATE PAVING MATERIALS SUCH AS DECORATIVE PAVERS, BRICKS OR CONCRETE OR PAVING PATTERNS.
AGAIN, NO USE OF THE TERM PERVIOUS AND ONLY APPLYING IT TO NEW PARKING AREAS,
[01:00:02]
NOT REDEVELOPING SITES, AND THEN PROVIDING FOR A REFERENCE ON LARGE-SCALE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS TO CONFORM WITH THE PRIOR SECTION OF CHAPTER 6.WITH THAT, I'LL THROW YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> THAT'S GOOD. BOARD MEMBER, GILLETTE?
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. KELLY, SECTION 1.0700.
>> THE DEFINITION FOR REDEVELOPMENT.
WOW. WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE IN THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE? COULDN'T IT BE A EXPANSION OR RENOVATION OR SEEMS LIKE WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DEMOLISH EVERYTHING.
WE'RE TRYING TO REUSE WHAT WE HAVE.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD THEN FALL AS AN ADAPTIVE REUSE.
IT WOULD BE THE RENOVATION AND REUSE OF PREEXISTING STRUCTURES FOR NOW.
>> THERE'S I MISSED THAT DEFINITION.
>> WHERE WERE YOU REFERRING US BACK TO? IN THE SAME SUBSECTION.
I DID WANT TO MAKE A DISTINCTION FOR WHERE YOU MIGHT COMPLETELY DEMOLISH OUT A STRUCTURE IN THE STANDARD THAT WOULD APPLY TO THAT.
>> OKAY. [OVERLAPPING] I DIDN'T TAKE IT THAT WAY.
>> LET'S START SOME DISCUSSION. PETE.
>> THIS IS A GENERAL DISCUSSION, BUT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 7, IT TELLS YOU HOW YOU'RE GOING TO LAY OUT YOUR PARKING LOT.
IS THAT A LOCAL OR STATE OR FEDERAL OR WHO ESTABLISHES THAT REQUIREMENT?
IT'S ONLY WITHIN YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
YOU'RE SETTING THOSE STANDARDS EXAMPLE BEING PERIMETER PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPING OR THESE DIMENSIONS OF YOUR PARKING SPACES AT 9 BY 18.
>> I'D LIKE TO ASK MR. GILLETTE.
HAVE YOU EVER HAD ONE OF YOUR CLIENTS COME TO YOU AND SAY, I DON'T NEED THAT MUCH PARKING?
>> WE'VE GOT BOTH SIDES OF IT, SOME HAVE WANTED MORE THAN THEY NEED AND SOME HAVE DIDN'T NEED WHAT WE WERE FORCED TO PROVIDE.
>> THAT WAS MY CONCERN THAT HOW DOES THE ACTUAL DEVELOPER, DO THEY HAVE ANY INFLUENCE OVER OR THERE A VARIABLE THAT YOU CAN PUT INTO THE NUMBER.
OR IF THE EQUATION SAYS IT'S 300 PARKING SPACES AND HE OR SHE SAYS, I ONLY NEED 200.
ON A REALLY BUSY DAY THAT'S STILL PUSHING IT.
CAN THAT INFLUENCE IT BECAUSE THAT WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SURFACE FOR PARKING.
>> JUST WE WIND UP FOLLOWING WHATEVER THE CODE SAYS.
SOMETIMES WE LOOK [LAUGHTER] FOR THAT YOU'RE EXAMPLE.
WE USUALLY JUST FOLLOW EXACTLY WHAT'S IN THE CODE.
THE CITY HAS BEEN PRETTY GOOD, THEY RESTRICT YOU BY HAVING 110% OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PARKING.
SOMEONE CAN'T COME IN AND JUST FILL EVERYTHING UP WITH A PARKING LOT, EVEN THOUGH THEY WANT AS MUCH PARKING AS THEY CAN HAVE.
>> WELL, THAT DOESN'T REALLY MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO USE EVERY SPACE.
I MEAN, LOOK AT MACOMA, THEY HAVE A DEDICATED PLACE WHERE THEY KEEP THEIR FOOD TRUCK, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY PARKING SPACES.
>> BUT ISN'T IT TRUE THOUGH HERE IN OUR LITTLE CITY AND WE HAVE PICTURES THAT WE KNOW BY LOOKING, THAT THE WINN-DIXIE SHOPPING CENTER DOESN'T NEED ALL THOSE PARKING SPACES.
>> THAT'D BE THE SAME THING IN THE LOTS PARKING TRUCK.
>> YES. I MEAN, I THINK EVERYBODY HERE CAN EYEBALL THIS STUFF AND GO, WE DON'T NEED THAT MUCH.
I MEAN, MAYBE WE NEED TO HAVE SOME OFFICIAL LANGUAGE TO IT, BUT AS IT RELATES TO WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, I THINK.
>> FROM A REUSE PERSPECTIVE, THEN INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF EXPANSION THAT A BUILDING CAN HAVE IN A REUSE.
THAT EXPANSION WOULD PROBABLY BE IN THE PARKING LOT.
WOULDN'T YOU SAY? WOULD THAT BE?
>> KELLY, I'M GIVING YOU PERMISSION TO TELL ME TO BE QUIET AND TO STAY ON THE ISSUE AT HAND AND NOT GO BEYOND THE ISSUE AT HAND.
WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE UP TIME GOING DOWN RABBIT TRAILS.
PARKING IS AN ISSUE IN A NUMBER OF PARKING PLACES AND SURFACES AND THINGS THAT ADD CHARACTER.
I WANT TO KNOW WHO GETS TO DEFINE CHARACTER.
SOME OF THIS IS CHANGING THE PARKING LOT.
[01:05:04]
MY INTEREST IN THIS IS REDESIGNING THE PARKING LOT AND MAKING IT LOOK DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING HE WOULD SEE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BRIDGE ON STATE WHERE 200 THAT A SHOPPING CENTER.I'M IN FAVOR OF SHOPPING CENTERS.
BUT I WOULDN'T WANT THE SHOPPING CENTERS IN THE CITY LIMIT THE FERNANDINA BEACH TO HAVE PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER AND CHARM AND NOT A BIG BIG BLOCK PARKING LOT.
TO USE THIS TO BEGIN TO REDESIGN THOSE PARKING LOTS, TO REDESIGN THE BUILDINGS A LITTLE PIECE AT A TIME, KELLY HAS IN THIS PACKAGE, DISCUSSION OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND FACADES.
ONE STEP AT A TIME START TO CREATE SHOPPING CENTERS THAT LOOK LIKE THEY BELONG IN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH AND NOT ON-STATE ROAD 200.
>> I THINK IT'S MENTIONED [NOISE] PERVIOUS, IMPERVIOUS SURFACES TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WATER ISN'T FLYING EVERYWHERE.
USE PAVERS, YOU HAVE A LOT OF GRASS.
>> KELLY, WHAT'S THE PUSHBACK ENVIRONMENTALLY OR WHY WOULDN'T WE DO THIS?
>> YES, THE PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS.
>> THE CURRENT 75 PERCENT THRESHOLD IS BECOMING A COST ISSUE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO TEAR UP ALL OF THE ASPHALT PARKING IN ALL OF THE SUB BASIS IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT TRULY PERVIOUS IN ITS AREA.
IT ADDS A COST FACTOR TO THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITES AND ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THIS SITE THAT EXCEEDS WHAT SOMEBODY CAN REALLY PUT INTO IT AND ATTRACTING A NEW ANCHOR TENANT.
>> I GET THAT PART. THAT'S THE ONLY THERE'S NO NEGATIVE ELEMENT TO USING PERVIOUS TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
>> IT CAN BE ARGUED, AND I KNOW THAT MR. GILLETTE, WHO WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE, AND HE HAS ELOQUENTLY STATED MANY TIMES THAT IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT ALTHOUGH WHAT WE'RE REQUIRING AS PERVIOUS MATERIALS IS NEVER TRULY PERVIOUS BECAUSE IT'S NOT PERCOLATING WATER IN THE SAME WAY THAT JUST THE NATURAL EARTH WOULD BE.
THE OTHER ELEMENT, AS I'VE COME TO UNDERSTAND IS THE MAINTENANCE ASPECT OF THOSE PERVIOUS MATERIALS IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET PEOPLE TO COME IN AND MAINTAIN THEM CORRECTLY.
THEY'RE NOT REALLY GETTING THE FULL BENEFIT OF WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT THEM PERFORMANCE-WISE.
>> MR. GILLETTE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? YOU SHOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> AC GILLETTE. GILLETTE AND ASSOCIATES, 20 SOUTH 4TH STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH.
WANTED JUST TO, KELLY PRETTY MUCH SAID IT BEST.
THE BIGGEST THING IS ENGINEERS THAT WE SEE, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST PERVIOUS PAVERS, BUT YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANYTHING FROM IT.
THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO COUNT IT AS PERVIOUS, DOT DOESN'T LIKE COUNTING IT AS PERVIOUS, THE CITY DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO COUNT IT AS PERVIOUS.
FROM A DRAINAGE STANDPOINT, WE HAVE TO SIZE THE PONDS JUST THE SAME.
YOU DON'T GET ANY BENEFIT FROM IT.
>> YES, SIR. QUESTION. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENTIAL IN COST?
>> IT'S A DECENT DIFFERENTIAL IN COSTS.
IT'S THE PREPARATION UNDERNEATH THAT EVERYBODY FORGETS ABOUT, ESPECIALLY IN REDEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING PARKING LOT, YOU CAN MODIFY THAT PARKING LOT, ADD LANDSCAPE ISLANDS, YOU CAN ADD GREENERY, YOU CAN ADD ALL THAT STUFF.
RIPPING THE WHOLE PART OR 75 PERCENT OF THE PARKING LOT AND PUTTING DOWN PERVIOUS PAVERS DOESN'T SOLVE ANYTHING.
IT JUST ADDS A COST FACTOR THAT REALLY GAINS NO BENEFIT AT THE END OF THE DAY.
>> BUT ISN'T THAT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR HERE?
>> WE'RE CHANGING IT FROM 75 TO 20.
>> THE TWENTY PERCENT IS ALREADY A STANDARD WHICH IS PROVIDED WITHIN THE LARGE-SCALE LANDSCAPING OR LARGE-SCALE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
WE'RE SEEKING TO USE THAT SAME STANDARD FOR THE REST OF OUR PARKING AREAS INSTEAD OF RELYING ON A 75 PERCENT.
>> YOU COULD DEFINE WALKWAYS AND SO FORTH WITH PAVERS AND THEN ADD ASPHALT ON THE SEISMIC PART.
>> THAT WOULD PUT A LITTLE MORE TEXTURE MAYBE INTO THE DESIGN.
>> I THINK MADAM CHAIR, THE POINT IS SPEND THAT MONEY ON THE BUILDING AND THE FACADE AND THE BUILD-OUT, INSTEAD OF WASTING IT ON SOMETHING THAT THE PUBLIC TRULY DOESN'T GET ANY BENEFIT FROM.
>> GOT A QUESTION ON IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL FACILITY, YOU EXPAND HORIZONTALLY.
YOU PUSH, SAY, 20% OF THE WAY OUT INTO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY MAYBE PARKING OR RIGHT AWAY.
[01:10:02]
THAT ALSO NOW IS GOING TO INCREASE YOUR PARKING REQUIREMENT.>> [NOISE] YOU SAID IT WOULD INCREASE YOUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS?
>> BECAUSE I HAVE MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
>> IF WE WERE GOING TO CHANGE THIS, WHY WOULD WE TIE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, RICH, ARE WE SAYING THAT THERE'S SO MUCH BLACK ASPHALT THAT THEY DON'T NEED IT ALL THAT WE CAN ALLOW IT TO BE CHANGED TO REFLECT A MORE REASONABLE STANDARD.
>> HERE'S ONE STANDARD RIGHT HERE, ONE SPACE PER 300 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA WITH PER THOUSAND.
IF I ADD MORE FLOOR AREA, I REQUIRE MORE PARKING.
UNDER THE EQUATION THAT'S LISTED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY REALITY WITH WHAT PEOPLE COMING INTO OUR NEW BUSINESS AND MAY REQUIRE.
>> KELLY, DO WE KNOW ARE THERE BEST PRACTICES PRINTED SOMEWHERE THAT WOULD TELL US IF THAT'S THE RIGHT RATIO, WRONG RATIO, AND WHAT WOULD THEY TELL US?
>> AT THIS POINT, THE LAST TIME THAT WE ANALYZE PARKING SHOT WITHIN THE CITY WAS IN 2011 AND WE LOOKED AT THOSE STANDARDS TO DETERMINE IF WE WERE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT IS SET.
CERTAINLY TIME TO REVISIT THEM AND RECONSIDER PARKING AS A BIGGER ISSUE AND WHAT THOSE STANDARDS LOOK LIKE.
I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD OTHER ISSUES COME UP THAT WE MAY WANT TO ADDRESS MORE SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THAT CODE.
BUT YES, THERE ARE STANDARDS AND BEST PRACTICES AND FOR THE MOST PART, WE ARE FOLLOWING THAT.
I THINK SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN BETTER CRAFTED TO REFLECT WOULD LIKE TO SEE FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND IN TRYING TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT IS REQUIRED [OVERLAPPING] TO JOIN INTO IT AT THE 2011 CODE CHANGES.
>> SUBCOMMITTEE HAVE THE SAME REQUIREMENTS WITH THE CDF.
>> NO, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN SET OF RULES.
>> MADAM CHAIR THAT'S A GOOD POINT BECAUSE SOMEBODY'S SHOPPING CENTER STARTED UNDER COUNTY RULES AND COUNTY PROTOCOLS AND SHOPPING CENTERS USED TO HAVE TO PROVIDE ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY 150 SQUARE FEET WHEN THEY WERE SHOPPING CENTER.
WHICH IS DOUBLE WHAT YOU HAVE NOW FOR RETAIL.
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING SO MANY PARKING LOTS THAT ARE HALF EMPTY BECAUSE THEY'RE OVER PARKED THERE.
THE RATIONALE BACK THEN WAS WE'RE GOING TO PLAN FOR BLACK FRIDAY AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE NO ONE'S PARKING ON THE STREET WHILE THE OTHER 364 DAYS THEY'RE NOT OCCUPIED.
>> IS THERE A REASON TO APPLY A PARKING RATIO BY SQUARE FOOTAGE?
>> THAT MAKES SENSE IN SOME CASES, IT DOES.
>> DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A PARKING RATIOS?
>> IT DOES. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD DO IT EARLY.
I DON'T THINK OUR RATIOS ARE OUT OF WHACK.
I THINK JUST THE OLD DEVELOPMENT WAS THE STANDARD.
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY PARKING, DOWNTOWN.
WOULD THAT WORK IN A SHOPPING CENTER.
>> WELL, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS REALLY HERE.
>> YOU'RE MOVING AROUND THAT. [LAUGHTER]
>> WELL, I THINK THE SHOPPING CENTERS ARE VERY OUTDATED IN THE WAY THEY PARKED.
I THINK THEY USE VERY OLD RULES THAT HAVE CHANGED.
>> BUT IF WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THE STANDARDS FOR LARGE-SCALE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
WE LOOK AT THAT WHEN WE SAY, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO EVEN HAVE A RATIO? DOESN'T THE DEVELOPER KNOW HOW MANY PARKING SPACES HE NEEDS? [BACKGROUND]
>> BUT THEY CAN'T ALWAYS RELY ON THEM TO BE HONEST ABOUT AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT LARGE-SCALE REDEVELOPMENT.
I THINK STAFF DID A FANTASTIC JOB ON THIS.
[NOISE] I GUESS WE CAN JUST TELL HIM TO GO BACK-AND-FORTH ON ALL OF THIS. I MEAN.
>> YES, I WANTED TO ADDRESS YOUR POINT THOUGH ABOUT PARKING AND WANTING TO LOOK AT IT AT THE SAME TIME.
IT REALLY REMINDED ME THAT I FAILED TO BRING UP THAT WITHIN THE STANDARDS THAT YOU'RE SEEING AND THE REVISIONS BEING PROPOSED, BOTH TO THE COMPLAINT AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
I FULLY RECOGNIZE THAT THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS, BUT I WAS FOCUSING IN ON THE ISSUE AT HAND ASSOCIATED WITH PREVIOUS MATERIALS AS WELL AS NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND ALLOWING FOR REASONABLE AT THEM.
[NOISE] KNOWING THAT WE MAY WANT TO REVISIT SOME OF THESE OTHER ITEMS AT ANOTHER POINT IN THE FUTURE AND WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AS A GROUP WANTING TO GO BACK AND ADDRESS PARKING STANDARD.
I SEE THAT COMING BACK TO THE BOARD AT A LATER DATE,
[01:15:02]
BUT I WAS REALLY LASER FOCUS TO THE EXTENT THAT I COULD BE ON CREATING A SOLUTION FOR THE PROBLEM WE CURRENTLY HAVE.>> YOU WOULD LIKE US TO VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE PERCENTAGE?
>> YES. AS WELL AS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPONENTS SO THAT I CAN RUN THAT IN A PARALLEL PROCESS.
FOLLOWING THE PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATION, IT WILL GO TO THE COMMISSION FOR OUR FIRST READING AND THEN A COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENTS MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE STATE.
ONCE THAT'S RETURNED FROM THE STATE, THEN IT WOULD COME BACK FOR SECOND READING AT A COMMISSION.
IT'S UNLIKELY OR PROCESS, BUT I'D LIKE FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS TO BE IN PARKING WAITING ZONE WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE COMP PLAN PIECE TO ALIGN WITH IT.
>> HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THIS MEETS ALL THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. NEW DEVELOPMENT STILL HAS TO MEET IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS.
YOU'RE REDEVELOPMENT SITES LARGELY ARE NOT MEETING THEM RIGHT NOW TO THE THAT THEY ARE COMING INTO GREATER COMPLIANCE, TYPICALLY THROUGH THE ABILITY TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AREAS, OFTEN REMOVING SOME PARKING AND ADDING IN MORE BUFFER THAN PRESENTLY EXISTS.
BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE SO OVER DEVELOPED RIGHT NOW, WE'RE SEEING FURTHERANCE IT CLOSER TO COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
BUT THEY'RE NOT 100% COMPLIANT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT COMPLIANT TODAY.
>> ARE WE READY TO TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE? IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO US, IF YOU WOULD COME TO THE PODIUM AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
>> JULIE FOR 501 DATE STRAIGHT.
SO THIS IS A LOT TO TAKE IN AND I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE AGENDA BEFORE, BUT I LIKE TO THINK IN TERMS OF VISUALS SO THAT I UNDERSTAND THINGS.
AND SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WINN-DIXIE PARKING LOT BEING OVERSIZED.
BUT IF YOU TAKE THAT SAME VISUAL AND LOOK AT HARRIS TEETER, HARRIS TEETER IS USUALLY A FULL PARKING LOT, PRETTY CLOSE TO FULL.
AND WHEN YOU GO DOWN AND YOU LOOK AT THE LEONATO, WHERE THE RESTAURANT IS IN VARIOUS DIFFERENT BUSINESSES, THERE'S NEVER ENOUGH PARKING THERE.
SO I THINK THAT IN CONSIDERING THIS SOMEHOW, YOU HAVE TO HAVE VISUALS IN YOUR HEAD OF WHAT WE SEE IS WORKING AND WHAT WE SEE MAYBE THAT IS UNDERSIZED OR NOT WORKING.
I ALSO NEED A VISUAL OF WHAT 30,000 SQUARE FEET LOOKS LIKE, WHAT BUILDING DO WE HAVE IN THIS CITY AND NOW WE'RE EXPANDING TO 55,000 SQUARE FEET.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW THOSE VISUALS BEFORE YOU GUYS MAKE THESE DECISIONS.
I WAS ALSO WONDERING ABOUT I DIDN'T QUITE GET IT, WAS THE WORDING BEING CHANGED FOR VEGETATIVE BERMS BECAUSE I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THE PARKWAY.
AND I THINK VEGETATIVE BERMS ARE VERY IMPORTANT ALONG THE PARKWAY TO SCREEN WHATEVER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT EVENTUALLY GOES THERE.
SO WHEN TALKING ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS, I JUST HOPE YOU KEEP THOSE KINDS OF THINGS IN MIND AND I ALSO THINK THAT THE THING ABOUT ALLOWING LOADING DOCKS TO BE WITHIN 40 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL, I DON'T WANT SOME LARGE SEMI UNLOADING 40 FEET FROM MY PROPERTY LINE AND I DOUBT ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM DOES.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO THINK AND VISUALS AND IN THINGS THAT WE KNOW BEFORE MAKING DECISIONS AND ALSO MY NEIGHBOR, I WAS SITTING NEXT TO SAID BUSINESSES CHANGEOVER OVER TIME.
SO IN MAKING THESE REQUIREMENTS, YOU HAVE TO THINK, NOW MACOMA IS MOCOMA, BUT MAYBE IN THE FUTURE IT'LL BE SOMETHING ELSE.
SO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS PROBABLY NEED TO BE A LITTLE BIT LARGER THAN SHRINKING THEM DOWN.
WE'RE HAVING MORE AND MORE PEOPLE COME TO THE CITY OR WE'RE EXPANDING AT A RAPID RATE.
I JUST HOPE YOU GUYS REALLY DO SOME IN-DEPTH THINKING ABOUT THIS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? HANG ON JUST A SECOND. THIS LADY HAS GOT TO COME UP.
[01:20:03]
>> MY NAME IS BETSY CUBAN. I LIVE AT 4615 PHILLIPS MANNER PLACE.
I HAVE THE SAME ISSUES THAT JULIE DOES IN TERMS OF VISUALIZING ALL THIS BECAUSE IN ADDITION TO GOING OUT INTO THE PARKING LOTS, I ASSUME, AND I'M NOT AN ENGINEER AND I DON'T PLAY ONE ON TV.
I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU COULD ALSO PHYSICALLY GO UP IF THE FOUNDATION WOULD SUPPORT IT.
SO THERE'S TWO WAYS TO INCREASE YOUR SIZE.
30,000 MORE SQUARE FEET IS A LOT.
AND THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE ABOUT ALL THIS AS IF THE PERVIOUS DEFINITION THAT WE HAVE IN TERMS OF MATERIALS ISN'T WORKING, WHY ARE WE SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF THE THING THAT DOESN'T WORK? IN OTHER WORDS, DO WE NEED TO REDEFINE WHAT ARE ACCEPTABLE MATERIALS WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT PERVIOUS SURFACES.
I DON'T THINK ON A BARRIER ISLAND WITH FINITE BORDERS, WE WANT TO BE NOT ADDRESSING THAT.
ESPECIALLY IF THE BUILDING CAN GO OUT INTO THE PARKING LOT, ALL IT'S DOING IS CONTINUING IMPERVIOUS.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PERVIOUS LOOKED AT. THANKS.
>> GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GO SPEAK.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JANICE AND FROM 1901 ALAN WALKWAY FROM DINO, NASSAU COUNTY COUNCIL ON AG.
I DON'T KNOW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT THIS AMOUNT OF CONTRACTOR, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THIS DOES AFFECT US AT THE COUNCIL ON AG BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF WE GOT SOME MONEY FROM THE LEGISLATURE LAST YEAR FOR OUR SENIORS TO FOLK PAVILION BECAUSE SENIORS WERE STILL NOT WANTED TO COME ON UP THEIR HOMES BECAUSE OF COVID.
WE'RE BUILDING A PAVILION FOR THEM TO SOCIAL DISTANCE, TO HAVE ACTIVITIES, TO NOT BE ISOLATED INSIDE OF THEIR HOMES TO EXERCISE PEER TO PEER SOCIALIZATION.
THIS AFFECTS US. WE ARE NOT ANYONE TO OUR BUILDING.
WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY BEHIND OUR BUILDING.
AND IT'S NOT IN THE PARKING LOT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THE PAVILION.
THE STAFF DID A GREAT JOB AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THIS IS NOT APPROVED I'M REALLY WORRIED THAT WE CAN'T GO WITH OUR PROJECT SO THAT WE CAN SUPPORT OUR SENIORS AND LET THEM LIVE HEALTHY, HAPPY LIVES BY HAVING SOMETHING TO DO, GET OUT OF THEIR HOMES, EXERCISE AND THEIR GENERAL WELL-BEING.
SO I'M REALLY CURE SERIOUS ABOUT A THING WE CAN DO TO SUPPORT TO STAFF AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE ON WITH OUR PROJECT.
WE HAVE TWO YEARS TO FINISH A PROJECT ALREADY ALMOST AT THE END OF YEAR ONE.
THE PROJECT WOULD TAKE ABOUT A YEAR AND IF WE DON'T DO THIS PROJECT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE THEM MONEY BACK TO THE STATE AND THE SENIORS WILL SUFFER.
SO I REALLY WANT YOU TO AT LEAST THINK ABOUT IT BECAUSE THE ARTIST PARK AND IMPERVIOUS PARKING, THAT'S REALLY DOESN'T AFFECT US IN THIS AREA TO MAKE SURE THAT SENIORS ARE GETTING WHAT THEY NEED.
I HAVE WITH ME OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS CHAIR, EVERLY, HE'S A BOARD MEMBER AND HE CAN ALSO ADD MORE TO THIS.
HE CAN TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THE PARKING AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TO BENEFIT THAT.
>> BEFORE TED COMES UP, CLARIFY FOR ME THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WOULD HELP YOU.
>> WHAT KELLY IS RECOMMENDING THAT WILL HELP US AND HELP OUR SENIORS.
>> I'M TIM EVERLY, I'M ON THE BOARD OF THE COUNCIL ON AG 1901 WALKWAY.
I DO OVERSEE OR COORDINATE THE CAPITAL PROJECTS THERE.
AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE HAVE A DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ON A PAVILION IN THE BACK.
THE ST. JOHNS WATER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AS 1901, 1903, AND THE PAVILION ARE UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION, THEY HAVE REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE STORMWATER DRAINAGE AND RETENTION AND PERVIOUS AREAS THAT WE HAVE EXISTING.
HOWEVER, WITH THE CURRENT CODE BEING HELD UP BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE UP 75% OF PARKING THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR OVER 22 YEARS AND MAKE IT PERVIOUS IS TECHNICALLY WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.
SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE'RE HAVING.
WE'RE READY TO GO ON THAT AND THIS CHANGE WOULD ENABLE US TO DO THAT.
IT ALSO PROTECTS STORMWATER DRAINAGE AND RETENTION, WHICH IS CRITICAL.
AND THAT'S WHY THE ST. JOHN'S DISTRICT CAME IN AND THEY'VE AUTHORIZED OUR DESIGN AND READY TO GO WITH THEM.
>> IS THIS PAVILION IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING OR IS THIS IN THE BACK.
>> IT'S IN THE BACK BEHIND THE RETENTION POND SCENARIO THAT'S NOT BEEN USED.
[01:25:01]
THAT'S WHY THE ST. JOHN'S THAT'S COME IN AND LOOK AT RETENTION PARK AND ALL THE DRAINAGE, MARSHY AREAS, ET CETERA.CAN WE PULL THAT UP? CAN YOU GIVE US A VISUAL ON THAT? THAT WOULD BE I THINK VERY HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND WITH THAT ISSUE.
MORE OR LESS ADVANCED AUTO IS ON EIGHTH STREET, CLINICAL STRAIGHT BACK.
IT'S TRYING PRIVATE SO BACK THERE.
>> I'M SO SORRY FROZEN SCREEN.
>> THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE ASPHALT PARKING IN THE BACK THERE WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE DUG UP?
>> 75% OF THEIR EXISTING PARKING?
>> IT'S BEEN AROUND PUTTING A VACUUM WITHOUT ADDING ANY PARKING WE'RE DOING ANYTHING AS OTHER THAN THE PEOPLE THAT CURRENTLY VISIT US AND THAT WE SERVICE, GIVE THEM AN OUTDOOR SAFE, OUTDOOR FACILITY TO GO OUTSIDE AND REALLY INCREASE THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT FRANK WITH PEOPLE WE HAVE, SO CHANGING IT THAT PARKING AREA HAS BEEN THERE FOR I THINK 22 YEARS FOR THE BUILDINGS.
>> MANAGER I'LL COMMENT ON IT BECAUSE THIS IS A LONG TIME COMING BECAUSE THIS IS OUR PUNITIVE, THE CODE HAS BEEN FOR ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO EXPAND OR REDEVELOP A SIMPLE PAVILION WOULD TRIGGER ALL THESE NEW REQUIREMENTS AND IT'S SO PUNITIVE FOR ANYBODY TO DO ANYTHING THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THESE OLD DEVELOPMENT STAY OLD, YOU SEE BUSINESSES TURNOVER AND FAIL IN THE SAME PLACES BECAUSE IT'S PUNITIVE TO REDEVELOP.
>> BUT IS IT THE ASPHALT PART OF IT? IS IT THE PARKING LOT ISSUE OR IS IT THE BUILDING?
>> IT'S ALL OF IT COMBINED IT'S ALL IMPERVIOUS IS BUILDING OR PARKING LOT OR SIDEWALK, ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T ALLOW WATER TO INFILTRATE.
>> IT'S ALL COMBINED INTO ONE BUT YOU HAVE TO PARK IF YOU HAVE BUILDINGS AND BEFORE IT WAS 75% OF YOUR PARKING HAD TO BE PREVIOUS, I MEAN, AS THE GENTLEMAN SAID, IT'S TOO PUNITIVE FOR THEM TO EXPAND.
>> BUT THEN THE KEY, ISN'T IT THAT THERE'S THIS EQUATION THAT GOES FROM THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING TELLS YOU HOW MUCH ASPHALT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PARKING?
>> IT DEPENDS ON THE USE BUT IT'S COMPLICATED FOR THAT.
>> THERE'S A SHOPPING OF LIST, THERE'S PROBABLY 30 DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS THAT WOULD AFFECT.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THEM TRANSFER NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES? FOR INSTANCE, A FOOD TRUCKS OR EVEN A FOOD TRUCK COURTS GOT TO HAVE SOME PARKING, BUT HOW MANY DO THEY HAVE?
>> I WOULD TELL YOU THAT HOW I REVIEWED THIS AS THESE CHANGES WERE COMING UP AND STAFF AND I I'LL TELL YOU HOW FOURTH GRADER UNDERSTANDS.
I HAD TO SEPARATE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT AND I HAD TO THINK ABOUT IT'S OKAY TO DO THAT.
IN THIS CONTEXT IS THE ACTUAL PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE [NOISE] THERE'S THREE CATEGORIES.
THREE CATEGORIES OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, ADAPTIVE REUSE, REDEVELOPMENT, AND NEW DEVELOPMENT, SO YOU HAVE TO THINK OF THEM ALL DIFFERENTLY AND SEPARATELY.
WOULD YOU PUT UP THE PICTURES AND I'M NOT HERE TO PRESENT JUST TO HELP IF I CAN, BECAUSE THIS IS HOW I UNDERSTAND IT [BACKGROUND]
>> PUT UP THE AMELIA PLAZA PICTURES.
THESE ARE PICTURES OF WHERE THE OWNERS WOULD LIKE TO DO AND THIS IS WHAT PROMPTED IT.
THERE'S NO SECRET. WE HAVE ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED [BACKGROUND] I LIVE IN LAKEWOOD RIGHT BEHIND THIS.
WE ALL KNOW THIS SATTLER, I THINK IT SAID IT WAS HOW MANY ITS?
>> IT'S IN TOTAL 86,232 SQUARE FEET.
>> THE ENTIRETY OF THE SHOPPING CENTER.
>> THERE'S PROBABLY THAT MUCH IMPERVIOUS PARKING AS WELL.
WHEN THIS WAS BUILT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, NONE OF THE CODES THAT WE HAVE NOW ARE IN PLACE.
WHEN YOU'RE THINKING OF THE PERVIOUS, IMPERVIOUS RATIO THAT DIDN'T APPLY TO THIS PROJECT.
>> DEVELOPER SAID, I NEED X NUMBER OF SPACES FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT.
>> AT THE TIME, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
IT'S MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO I'M NOT SURE WE SHOULD EVEN THINK ABOUT THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
[01:30:05]
>> THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S WAY MORE PARKING THAN WE WOULD EVER ALLOW NOW.
IT'S WAY MORE PARKING THAN ANY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD EVER ALLOW.
THIS IS A SHOPPING CENTER WHERE THE OWNER, FINALLY, I SAY, AS A CITIZEN, HALF OF THE SPACES ARE STILL EMPTY HERE AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE.
THEY'VE COME TO THE CITY AND SAID, WE HAVE AN ANCHOR TENANT, WHICH BY ANCHOR TENANT, YOU'RE HOPING AS A COMMUNITY, IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING LIKE I'M JUST PICKING A HARRIS TEETER OR SOMETHING WHERE EVERYBODY WANTS TO GO THERE ARE, ALL THESE LITTLE BUSINESSES, ALL THE SPACES BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S GOING TO HARRIS TEETER, THEY'RE GOING TO COME HERE.
THIS IS ONE AND I'M AWARE OF ANOTHER ONE THAT'S ON 14TH WHERE THE OLD MOVIE THEATER IS.
I'VE NEVER SEEN THEIR PROPOSALS.
I HAVE NO IDEA, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY NEED TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF EXPANSION TO THE BUILDINGS.
>> BUT YOU SAID INTO THE PARKING LOT OR IS JUST UPWARD?
>> BUT EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO DO 300 SQUARE FEET.
>> IN 2006, I'M JUST GOING BY WHEN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IN 2006, THESE WERE ALREADY NON-CONFORMING.
IF THEY WANTED TO ADD 300 SQUARE FEET AND PUT A LITTLE PATIO BEHIND MRS.CAROLYN'S FOR EXAMPLE, CAN'T DO IT.
YOU'VE NOW GOT TO GO BACK AND START MEETING THE CURRENT CODE, YOUR NON-CONFORMING, YOU WANT DO IMPROVEMENTS.
THIS IS ADAPTIVE REUSE IN ORDER FOR US IN THIS TOWN TO SEE THESE FEW SHOPPING CENTERS.
THEY SHOWED YOU PUBLIX, WALMART, THIS ONE, THE ONE ON 14TH WITH THE MOVIE THEATER AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHERS, OBVIOUSLY COUNCIL ON AGING.
IF WE WANT TO SEE ANYTHING HAPPEN TO THOSE OTHER THAN FULL-SCALE BULLDOZING AND A NEW DEVELOPMENT WHICH I'M NOT SURE WITH LAND COSTS AND ALL THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO SEE THESE BUILDINGS BECOME DILAPIDATED AND EMPTY AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DRIVE BY AND THAT'S YOUR CHOICE AS A BOARD TO RECOMMEND NO CHANGES BUT THIS IS UNDER [NOISE] ADAPTIVE REUSE AND THESE CHANGES, IT'S INTENDED TO ALLOW THESE TO DO SOMETHING SPECIAL THAT WE WANT TO SEE AND WITH THAT, SOME OF THE [NOISE] THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP TO STANDARD TO SOME EXTENT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, BY LANDSCAPING THE SEA OF PARKING THAT'S THERE IS GOING TO BE BROKEN UP WITH LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> OKAY, SO THE RECOMMENDATIONS CAN YOU GIVE US THE THUMBNAIL? YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO HELP ME.
>> THAT'S HOW I WILL SECURE THIS.
>> GET IT SIMPLIFY BUT CAN WE SAY SIMPLY, WHAT IS IT THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING, WHAT WE HAVE, AND WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING? JUST UNDER REUSE DON'T TALK ABOUT REUSED.
THAT'S WHAT PROMPTED THESE CHANGES TO BEGIN.
>> A TOGGLE DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] SELF-FORM OF PEOPLE.
>> I THINK THE OTHER ONE'S REDEVELOPMENT AND NEW DEVELOPMENT.
THOSE ARE NOT WHAT ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THESE CHANGES.
THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CODE AS IF THEY'RE BRAND NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
>> WE SEE THE PERVIOUS REQUIREMENTS WITH ALL THE LANDSCAPING, ANYTHING THAT'S OUT ON THE PARKWAY, JULIE IS GOING TO HAVE ALL OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS THAT WE REQUIRE.
WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT ADAPTIVE REUSE AND IF WE WANT TO SEE THE SHOPPING CENTERS DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUST ROT AND BE HALF EMPTY WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING OR AS A COMMUNITY WE CAN SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT DOING THAT AND EVENTUALLY, WHEN WE'RE DEAD [LAUGHTER] THEY MIGHT GET BULLDOZED AND REDEVELOP THEMSELVES.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT ARE WE THINKING HERE?
>> YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
>> MY NAME IS KIMBALL FERNAN, I LIVE AT 1315 BROOME STREET, RIGHT BEHIND THE FUNERAL HOME.
ONE DAY WILL BE SHORT LIVED FROM IT.
AT THE BOTTOM HERE, IT SAYS THE CHANGES WILL [NOISE] DISALLOW THESE TYPES OF BUSINESSES.
I'M GOING TO ADDRESS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WE'RE MAKING THESE CHANGES? NOT TRYING TO BE A HARD TIME.
I THINK THAT PEOPLE WANT TO UNDERSTAND, ARE WE MAKING THESE CHANGES BECAUSE WE ARE MOVING FORWARD FOR THE FUTURE? ARE WE MAKING THESE CHANGES BECAUSE WE WANT A JCPENNEY'S CLOTHING STORE HERE, WE ALREADY HAVE LOWE'S, SMALL PRINT NIKE? IS THIS WHAT WE'RE PREPARING FOR?
>> THIS IS WHAT EVERYBODY IS AFRAID OF.
WE COME HERE TO NOT HAVE THIS.
[01:35:03]
>> NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SENTENCE RIGHT HERE, THESE ARE PROVIDED AS REFERENCE.
IN FACT, I THINK JULIE WAS SAYING VERY ELOQUENTLY THAT VISUALLY, WE'RE ALL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW BIG IS SQUARE FOOTAGE.
>> WELL, WE'RE NOT EVEN SAYING TOO BIG.
WE'RE SAYING WE'VE ALL BEEN TO [NOISE] WALMART, WE'VE ALL BEEN TO LOWE'S, WE'VE BEEN TO HOME DEPOT, AND IF WE CAN VISUALIZE THROUGH HOME DEPOT 105,000 SQUARE FEET, THEN THAT HELPS ME TO PUT A VISUAL ON THAT.
>> AGAIN, I THINK WE ALL MOVE HERE BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THE BIG BOX STORES, WE LOVE OUR HOMETOWN FIELD.
AGAIN, SO NOT TO GIVE YOU A HARD TIME, BUT I SEE THIS, I'M LIKE, WOW, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE HEADING FOR? [NOISE]
>> [OVERLAPPING] NO THOSE ARE THERE TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> THIS IS THERE TO SAVE SEVERAL IN THERE.
IF YOU REMEMBER, IF I'M SAYING THIS RIGHT, KELLY, 55,000 SQUARE FEET IS THE ABSOLUTE MAX FOR ONE TENANT.
IF YOU GO TO THE SHOPPING CENTERS, WE KNOW LOTS OF FURNITURE NOW IS AT THE SADLER SQUARE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY SQUARE FEET THAT IS, BUT THE BIGGEST ONE TENANT THAT COULD GO IN THAT SHOPPING CENTER, IF IT WERE ALLOWED TO BE USED, IS 55,000 SQUARE FEET.
THAT'S IT. ALL OF THESE BUSINESSES TELLING YOU, THEY'RE SHOWING YOU HERE WHAT YOU WOULD SEE.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THESE SMALLER SQUARE FOOTAGES, THESE ARE THE TYPES OF BUSINESSES YOU'D SEE.
THE OTHER TENANT SHOWED [OVERLAPPING] ABSOLUTELY NO ONE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
AGAIN, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE GET NERVOUS WHEN THEY START SAYING.
>> IT'S A LOT SMALLER THAN A HARRIS TEETER.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I LOVE HARRIS TEETER.
>> WELL, YOU COULDN'T HAVE HARRIS TEETER.
[OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] [NOISE]
>> MADAM CHAIR, MY NAME IS MIKE HERZBERG.
MY ADDRESS IS 1 SLEIMAN PARKWAY, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.
I WANTED TO THANK, FIRST OF ALL, MS. GIBSON FOR HER WORK ON THIS AS WELL AS HER STAFF.
I THINK THEY'VE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE AND PROPOSING LANGUAGE THAT RECTIFIES THESE ISSUES.
I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOUR GENERAL COUNSEL, I BELIEVE IT IS, FOR THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE BECAUSE I THINK SHE BROKE IT DOWN TO THE SIMPLEST FORM THAT I'VE HEARD THAT EVEN AS A LAND PLANNER, I DON'T THINK I COULD HAVE TRANSLATED IT THAT WELL.
[LAUGHTER] BUT THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE, AND IT REALLY IS AN ISSUE THAT'S APPLICABLE TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
AS A COMMUNITY AND AS A LAND PLANNER, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WANT TO DO IS TO MAINTAIN YOUR COMMERCIAL AREAS IN LIEU OF ALLOWING NEW AREAS TO COMMERCIALIZE, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THERE, THE PARKING LOT THERE, THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS ARE CENTERED AROUND THOSE JUST BY ITS VERY GROWTH AND NATURAL ORGANIC GROWTH THAT'S BEEN AROUND THERE.
BUT AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE BARRING OTHERWISE AND WHAT'S BEEN BARRED IS THE REINVESTMENT OF THESE PROPERTIES.
AS COMMERCIAL LANDOWNERS, WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO RE-INVEST IN THESE PROPERTIES BECAUSE OF THESE THRESHOLDS OR TO CHANGE THINGS IN A POSITIVE WAY.
BY LIFTING THESE RESTRICTIONS AS PROPOSED, YOU CONTROL THE SIZE OF THE TENANTS THAT COULD OCCUPY THE SPACE, BUT YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THAT'S THE ISSUE.
IT'S NOT THE SHOPPING CENTER AS A WHOLE, IT'S HOW BIG THAT TENANT CAN BE.
JUST AS BOARD MEMBER GILLETTE WAS STATING WITH RELATION TO THE PARKING RATIOS, AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DATA THAT CAN BE ANALYZED ON THOSE PARKING RATIOS.
AS A DEVELOPER, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S OF CONCERN IS WE DON'T GET TO PICK THE PARKING RATIOS, OUR TENANTS DO.
OUR TENANTS SAY, "I'M NOT COMING THERE UNLESS I CAN GET THIS MANY SPACES PER 1,000 OR THESE MANY SPACES." SOMETIMES THOSE EXCEED THE LOCAL CODE.
SOMETIMES THOSE TENANTS WILL BEND, SOMETIMES THEY WON'T, ESPECIALLY THE LARGER, MORE PROMINENT TENANTS.
THE TENANTS THAT I'VE JUST HEARD, SOME PEOPLE SAYING THEY REALLY WANT, THEY CAN RULE WITH AN IRON HAND AND SAY IT WILL BE THIS MANY SPACES OR WE'LL GO ELSEWHERE OR WE'LL OPEN THAT STORE ELSEWHERE.
>> NO, I'M JUST SAYING VARIOUS GROCERY STORES OR WHATEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE.
I GUESS MY POINT IS, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU TO STAFF WHO'VE RECOGNIZED THIS, THANK YOU AS A BOARD FOR EXPLORING THIS ISSUE AND DISCUSSING THIS.
I THINK YOU'VE HAD GREAT DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER.
BUT AGAIN, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO RE-INVEST IN THE PROPERTY, SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEREFORE INTRINSICALLY RAISING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TAX BASE OF THE PROPERTY.
COMMERCIAL TAXES ARE USUALLY THE LARGEST TAX BASE IN THE COMMUNITY, USUALLY OUTWEIGHING THAT UP THE RESIDENTIAL AND BRINGING ADDITIONAL MONEYS INTO THE COMMUNITY.
BY OPENING THIS DOOR, YOU'RE NOT OPENING A DOOR TO TENANTS YOU DON'T WANT COMING IN, OBVIOUSLY BY THE STAFF'S GREAT WORK, BUT YOU ARE ALLOWING REASONABLE USE OF THESE EXISTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND RAISING YOUR TAX BASE AT THE SAME TIME. THANK YOU AGAIN.
>> KELLY, OUR FILTER IS IN TERMS OF WHO WOULD COME.
[01:40:01]
AND SO SUPER WALMART CAN'T COME BECAUSE THEY WON'T DO A 55,000 SQUARE FEET. [OVERLAPPING]>> BUT IS THAT OUR ONLY FILTER? IN OTHER WORDS, COULD WE SAY, WE DON'T WANT [NOISE] HOME DEPOT JUST BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS SO DARN UGLY?
>> YOU WOULD NEED TO LIMIT IT ON AN OBJECTIVE CRITERIA, AND SO I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S WHY IT'S WORKED WITH LIMITATION.
>> KELLY, UNDER 6.0401, UNDER NEW DEVELOPMENT, IT SAYS THE MAXIMUM GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR A SINGLE BUSINESS TENANT OR OWNER IN ANY NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS NOT PERMITTED TO EXCEED 55,000 SQUARE FEET.
IN A SHOPPING CENTER, SAY A NEW ONE, WHAT HAPPENS IF ONE TENANT IS 55,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE NEXT BUILDING TO IT IS 55,000 SQUARE FEET, AND THEN THAT TENANT LEAVES AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME, AND THAT REMAINING TENANT SAYS, WELL, I WANT TO EXPAND, AND SO NOW I WANT TO BE 100,000 SQUARE FEET? [OVERLAPPING] WHAT KEEP THAT FROM HAPPENING?
>> NO RETAILER IS GOING TO DOUBLE HIS FOOTPRINT IN THAT WAY.
THEY WOULD COME IN WITH 110,000 OR THEY WOULD NOT COME IN AT ALL.
THERE ARE NO ONE WHO'S GOING TO GO FROM 55-110.
THE MARKET WILL DRIVE THAT, I THINK, IN [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE TUESDAY MORNING. [NOISE]
>> TUESDAY MORNING WENT FROM A RELATIVELY SMALL FOOTPRINT IN THAT SHOPPING CENTER AND THEN THEY MOVED.
I BET YOU, THEY DOUBLED THEIR SQUARE FOOTAGE.
>> BUT THIS IS 15%, IS WHAT THEY CAN EXPAND, NOT 100%.
>> THEY MOVED TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION TO THAT SAME COMPLEX.
THEY MOVED ALL THE WAY TO THE EAST END OF IT.
>> THEN WENT THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THAT ONE BUILDING.
>> [INAUDIBLE] OF OTHER THINGS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THERE ARE OTHER VARIABLES THAT ARE PROVIDED FOR BOTH IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS WELL AS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT ARE [OVERLAPPING] GOING TO PREVENT FROM HAPPENING, THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND NAMELY THAT'S YOUR FLOOR AREA RATIO, AS WELL AS YOUR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA REQUIREMENTS.
>> LIKE WHAT I'VE SAID, ALL THE TENANTS HAVE CERTAIN PARAMETERS.
IF THOSE WEREN'T PARAMETERS, THEY WON'T GO THERE, AND THERE'S ANY NUMBER OF THOSE THINGS THEY LOOK AT.
>> MY QUESTION WOULD BE IS 55,000 THE RIGHT NUMBER THOUGH OR SHOULD IT BE 60?
WE'VE RESEARCHED THIS QUITE A BIT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FELT LIKE 55,000 WAS THE RIGHT AMOUNT TO INTRODUCE.
LOOKING AT WHAT EXISTS WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE OF FERNANDINA BEACH TODAY, WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE NUMBER TO PUT FORWARD.
>> [LAUGHTER] MR. STEVENSON READ MY MIND, I THOUGHT 60,000 TOO.
JUST LOOKING AT SOME OF THOSE THINGS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE WELCOME TO LOOK AT.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT BASED ON WHAT I WAS UNDERSTANDING IN WHAT EXISTS HERE TODAY, AS WELL AS THINKING ABOUT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ALLOWANCE FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMITY, WE SETTLE 55,000.
>> FAIR ENOUGH. THANK YOU, [BACKGROUND].
>> WAS THERE SOMEBODY ELSE WHO WANT TO SPEAK? JILL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP? [NOISE]
>> JACK AMBER 1003 BROOM STREET FERNANDINA BEACH.
JUST ONE QUESTION AND THEN I'LL ADD COMMENT.
THE QUESTION I'VE BEEN ASKED TO ASK IS, HOW DOES THIS AGENDA TO MAKE THESE CHANGES AFFECT THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT? MY COMMENT IS THAT FROM EVERYTHING THAT I CAN SEE ECONOMICALLY ABOUT THE WAY OUR ECONOMY IS GOING, THESE CHANGES ARE PREMATURE AND NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT.
BETTER THOUGHT OF, BETTER RESEARCH BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A JUMP FORWARD TO BE MAKING A LOT OF CHANGES WHEN THE DUST HASN'T SETTLED YET.
IT'S NOT HEADING IN A GOOD DIRECTION.
YOU DON'T WANT TO BE CATERING TO A LOT OF SALES PITCHES AND ENDING
[01:45:01]
UP WITH A LOT OF PROPERTIES CHANGED WHEN THEY'RE IN A STATE OF FLUX AND THEY'RE GOING TO FAIL.THIS IS A TIME OF CAUTION, NOT A TIME OF LATENT CHANGES.
JUST GOING AHEAD WITH THINGS WHEN IT'S NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND IT'S NOT BEEN PROPERLY THOUGHT OUT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE LOADING DOCK.
DOES ANYBODY LIVE NEXT TO A LOADING DOCK? DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME THOSE TRUCKS COME IN TO UNLOAD? IT'S USUALLY ABOUT THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING AND IT GOES [NOISE] BACKUP, BACKUP, BACKUP, BACKUP.
THEN THE DOORS GO [NOISE], THEY OPEN UP AND THEN YOU'VE GOT FORKLIFTS GOING BACK AND FORTH.
[NOISE] AT THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, 40 FEET SEEMS TO ME A LITTLE CLOSE TO HAVE TO BE CLOSE TO A RESIDENTIAL [NOISE] PROPERTY.
>> SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS WERE CAUSED BECAUSE OF RESIDENTIAL GROUP INTO TOO CLOSE TO THE SHOPPING CENTER RATHER THAN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT.
>> FORTY FEET MIGHT BE A LOT BETTER THAN WHAT THEY'VE GOT TODAY.
>> THESE SHOPPING CENTER OR LOTS IS I'M NOT SURE THERE'S THOSE DOTS AREN'T GETTING CLOSE TO WITHIN 40 FEET AS YOU GO DOWN THE BACK ALLEYWAY.
BEHIND THEM, THERE'S A RETENTION POND DOWN HERE.
THEN THE FURTHER EAST YOU GO, IT'S ALL RESIDENTIAL.
THEY'D BUILT RIGHT, BACKED UP, RIGHT UP THROUGH THE REDEMPTION BOB.
YOU'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF THE SAME THING DOWN THERE.
[OVERLAPPING] DYING THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY RESIDENTIAL YEAH.
>> GO RIGHT UP AGAINST THE PUBLIC BACK DOOR OR WERE THEY ABLE TO.
>> FORTY FEET. IS THAT STANDARD? I GUESS IT'S STANDARD.
>> IT IS WHAT EXISTS AS A MINIMUM WITHIN THOSE CITIES WIDTH.
FOR SEVERAL OF THE SHOPPING CENTERS THEY'RE RIGHT AT 40 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, HAVE A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ARE ZONE R1 OR R2, AND SO THERE'S AT LEAST AN ADDITIONAL 20 FEET BEFORE THE HOME ITSELF IS CITED, GIVING YOU ABOUT 60 FEET.
[NOISE] BUT THAT IS THE MINIMUM FOR BOTH THE EIGHT FLAGS AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC SHOPPING CENTER IN TERMS OF THEIR CURRENT LOCATION.
>> PLEASE GO OVER THESE SHOPPING.
>> I GUESS THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS ARE THERE NO MATTER WHAT.
WITH THAT CALIBRATIONS IS THERE.
ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THAT WE JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT FLOODING OUT BY ALLOWING, EVEN IF IT'S 15% OR 20%, THAT WE'RE ALLOWING MORE WATER TO GO WHERE IT SHOULDN'T GO.
>> THERE ARE STILL SOME WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS SO THAT ANY OF THE RUNOFF HAS BEEN CAPTURED.
>> REALLY COMES DOWN TO THOSE ADDITIONAL COST THAT IS COST FIXED [NOISE] THERE AND IT'S REALLY NOT NEEDED OR IS NOT ADDRESSED AT OTHER PLACES DEVELOPMENT WITH RETENTION PAUSE AND OTHER THINGS ARE ALREADY THERE.
>> ARE WE COMING TO A THOUGHT?
>> ARE YOU JUST WAITING FOR DINNER? [LAUGHTER]
>> THERE IS ALREADY PIZZA FOR EVERYBODY.
>> JULIE FOR YOU, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THE WAY I LOOK AT THE PAV IS THAT YOU'RE HERE TO PROVIDE FOR THE FUTURE AND TO PROTECT THE FUTURE.
JUST BECAUSE A LOADING DOCK IS THIS 40 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S A GOOD IDEA FOR THE FUTURE.
IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT'S HERE, REALIZE PROBLEMS, AND PLAN FOR THE FUTURE IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHEN JACK ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT THE WATERFRONT, WHAT THE ANSWER TO THAT WAS.
DOES WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW AFFECT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT OF BREADTHS AND OR ATLANTIC SEAFOOD. THANK YOU.
>> THE DIRECTION WOULD BE REPLACEMENT.
I THINK UNLESS SOMEBODY CAN COME UP WITH.
[01:50:02]
[OVERLAPPING]>> THAT'S NOT A SHOPPING CENTER. YEAH.
>> WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? QUESTIONED OF MOTION.
>> WELL, I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE, KELLY, DOES THIS HAVE TO BE ONE MOTION OR CAN WE BREAK IT UP?
>> BREAK IT UP INTO THREE SEPARATE OR EXCUSE ME, TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS, ONE FOR THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND ONE FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO SAY I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE THE CHANGE IN THE RATIOS OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES BUT I DON'T KNOW THE VOCABULARY.
>> WE'RE REALLY NOT TALKING ABOUT THOSE RATIOS. ARE WE COUNTING? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REALLY WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US UNDER THESE CASE NUMBERS, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S REALLY WHAT YOUR MOTION.
[OVERLAPPING] DID YOU GIVE US THE MOTION WORDS?
>> [OVERLAPPING] WELL, DARLA, WE NEED SOME HELP HERE.
>> IT WILL BE A MOTION TO APPROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS, AND THEN YOU WOULD CITE THE CASE BE 2023-0041 AS BEING SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO BE APPROVED.
THEN THE SAME FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS THE CASE 39.
>> DO YOU THINK WE CAN REMEMBER ALL THAT?
>> I'LL GIVE IT A TRY. [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING].
WE APPROVE BAB CASE 2023-0041 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT THEY EARN IN GENERAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
>> IS THAT JUST FOR BAB CASE 2023-0041.
>> SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BENNETT.
I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE ROLL ON THE BOARD.
>> YES. THE MOTION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO I HEAR ANOTHER MOTION?
>> THANK YOU. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF BAB CASE 2023-0039, DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS.
THIS IS IN GENERAL, COMPLIANCE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
LET'S HAVE A VOICE VOTE FROM OUR SECRETARY PLEASE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE MA'AM. SORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> YES. BOTH OF US WERE UNANIMOUS.
[6.1 Reminder of HDC/PAB Joint Special Meeting on Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5pm. ]
BOARD BUSINESS REMINDER OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETING AND THE PIP JOINT SPECIAL MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26 AT 05:00 P.M. IN THESE QUARTERS, IN THIS ROOM.>> OKAY. WE SHOULD ALSO MAYBE MAKE SURE IT GETS ON THE AGENDA ROLL THROUGH TO HAVING THE JOINT MEETING INCLUDE THE DISCUSSION WE WANT TO HAVE ON THE VARIANCE.
>> YES. CAN YOU TAKE CARE OF THAT FOR US?
>> DO YOU SAY IT'S A FIRE REPORT?
>> IT SAYS FIRE ON OUR AGENDA.
>> HOPE WE'RE GOING TO ADD TO THAT TOO.
CAN WE ADD THE ADJUSTMENT TO THAT? [BACKGROUND]
>> WE CAN REQUEST THAT OF THE HTC MEMBERS.
IF THAT WORKS FOR THIS BOARD, THEN WE WOULD KNOW THAT IT WORKS FOR YOU, BUT WE CAN REQUEST THAT IT BE MOVED UP AN HOUR TO 04:00 PM IF YOU'D LIKE.
>> IF WE CAN GET THEM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HERE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> NO, I'M SORRY. NOT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
>> WHY WOULD WE BRING THEM IN EARLIER THAN 5 O'CLOCK?
>> HE WAS JUST THINKING MAYBE MORE TIME CAN BE APPLIED [OVERLAPPING].
>> DON'T YOU SAY WE CAN GO THROUGH THIS?
>> I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE BEEN CARRYING THIS FIRE REPORT [OVERLAPPING].
>> I WON'T BE HERE THAT NIGHT. WORK CONFLICT.
WHAT'S THE THOUGHT OF THE BOARD?
[01:55:02]
IS IT 05:00. I KNOW THAT IT'S ALREADY BEEN SET UP WITH THE HTC AT 05:00.[OVERLAPPING] I THINK WE SHOULD STICK TO 05:00.
>> IT WOULD BE. 05:00 IS WHEN WE'RE MEETING ENJOY MEETING HERE.
>> I DON'T THINK [NOISE]WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GET THIS NOTICE TO HAVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WITH THIS AS WELL ON THE 26.
>> NOTICE IS THAT A PROBLEM BECAUSE IT'S JUST THE POSTING OF AN AGENDA.
[OVERLAPPING] IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT THE AGENDA ITSELF IS PRETTY FULL.
THERE'S A LOT OF NEAT FOR YOU BOTH TO BE CONSIDERING AS THE HTC.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE BIA MAY BE UNINTERESTED IN IT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IS THAT THE FEELING OF THE BOARD THAT WE KEEP THEM SEPARATE?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO REACH OUT THOUGH, IF YOU COULD HELP US WITH THAT TO SEE WHEN WE COULD MEET WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AS A JOINT MEETING.
>> IT MAY BE THEIR NEXT REGULAR MEETING DATE, WHICH WOULD WORK BEST WHICH WOULD BE MAY.
>> DO THEY HAVE A REGULAR AGENDA?
>> THEIR NEXT MEETING DATE WOULD BE MAY 17TH.
>> MAY 17TH. WE WOULD JUST HAVE A TIME WHERE WE HAVE IT JUST AS A JOINT MEETING.
>> WE WOULD SCHEDULE IT AS A JOINT MEETING POTENTIALLY.
I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY BUSINESS FOR THEIR MAIN MEETING.
IT MAY TAKE PLACE AT THEIR REGULAR BOARD MEETING [NOISE].
>> WE'RE ON THE 10TH AND THEN GET A PLACEHOLDER ON THE 24TH WHEN WE HIT THAT.
WE CAN LOOK AT THE 24TH ALSO BECAUSE THAT'S OPEN.
>> IF WE COULD DO IT IN THERE MEETING ON THAT 17TH, [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S A WEDNESDAY ALSO.
>> ALSO THE PVS REGULAR MEETING ON THE TIME FRAME, MAYBE ANOTHER OPTION [OVERLAPPING].
>> FOR MAY, WE WILL HAVE OUR REGULAR MEETING AT 05:00 ON THE 10TH.
THEN YOU GUYS WILL HELP US DETERMINE FROM THE BOA IF THEY CAN MEET WITH US OR WE CAN MEET WITH THEM ON THE 17TH.
>> THAT MEANS US GOING TO THEM.
OR IF THAT DOESN'T WORK FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE LOOK AT THE 24TH OR IS THAT THE NEXT AVAILABLE OPEN FOR THIS?
>> YEP. THAT'S THE NEXT AVAILABLE.
>> CAN WE JUST PUT ON OUR CALENDARS THE 17TH AND THEN THE 24TH? THOSE ARE BOTH AT 05:00 PM.
>> SYLVIA PUT THAT ON THE MINUTES.
>> I'M PUTTING 05:00 PM TENTATIVE MEETING WITH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ON THE 17TH.
THEN I'M GOING TO ALSO PUT IT AS A PLACE HOLDER ON THE 24TH AND THEN YOU GUYS WILL LET US KNOW.
>> WE WILL NOTICE THAT ANYWAY.
>> THERE WOULD BE ONE WEEK BEFORE THE MEETING.
THAT'S WHEN THE AGENDA WILL BE PUBLISHED.
BUT YOU CAN CALL AND CHECK IN WITH ME AS SOON AS I KNOW I 'M HAPPY TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU.
>> REGULAR CONFLICT ON THE 24TH.
>> THE EARLIEST THAT WE'RE GOING KNOW JULIE IS MAY 10.
>> WE'LL KNOW. YES. I'LL TRY TO PUT IT ON YOUR AGENDA THAT YOUR NEXT MEETING WITH [NOISE].
>> BUT I'M SAYING NEXT TIME THAT WE MEET WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNLESS THEY ASK VIA EMAIL IS THE 17TH.
>> RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE THE EARLIEST THAT WE WILL MEET.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT THIS EVENING.
>> NOTHING TO REPORT? [BACKGROUND] DOES ANY OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT? ALL GOOD WORK HERE FOLKS.
>> I ONLY ASK ONE QUESTION, PROBABLY. MR. GILLETTE.
[02:00:01]
DID WE SOLVE MAYBE SOME OF THESE ISSUES? [OVERLAPPING].>> ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S FANTASTIC.
>> ONE STEP TOWARDS [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]
[8. PUBLIC COMMENT]
>> IS THERE ANY COMMENT FROM THE AUDIENCE? MA'AM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK? [OVERLAPPING] THE 17TH REALLY WAS BETTER.
>> JOHN COREY 408 BEAT STREET.
WHAT IS THE SITUATION WITH THE TRANGOLI PROPERTY? YOU'RE NOT WORKING ON IT TONIGHT.
HAS IT BEEN ALREADY POSTPONED? DO WE HAVE A DATE ONE OF THOSE DATES?
>> I'M GOING TO LET KELLY ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
>> IT WILL MOVE TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING DATE WILL BE MAY 16TH. [NOISE].
>> MAY 16TH AND THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING IS WHAT?
>> IT WILL BE A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLOT.
>> THAT'S WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION HAVE.
>> BUT YOU HAVEN'T PUT IT FORWARD YET.
HAVE YOU? YOUR ONLY VOTES ARE NO.
>> THE VOTE THAT WE TOOK IN DECEMBER STANDS.
>> THAT WAS OUR VOTE. THAT IS WHAT WAS SENT FORWARD.
>> THAT WOULD BE REITERATED TO THE COMMISSION. [NOISE]
>> THAT'S WHAT WE WILL BE REITERATING TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHEN THEY HEAR THIS.
BUT PART OF THAT VOTE WAS THAT IT WOULD GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
THAT IT SHOULD GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
>> IT WILL THEN BE UP TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
IF THEY ACCEPT IT THEY COULD SAY, YES, WE AGREE WITH THE PAV AND IT NEEDS TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS OR CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THEY WILL SAY, WE'RE SORRY PAV WE DISAGREE WITH YOUR NO VOTE AND WE'RE GOING TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
THAT COULD HAPPEN. IT'S UP TO THEM.
IT'S THEIR DECISION. DID I SAY THAT CORRECT? [OVERLAPPING] DID I SAY CORRECTLY?
>> YOU DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON IT AGAIN?
>> WELL, THEN THERE'S NO POINT IN ME [OVERLAPPING] POINTING OUT THAT THAT HAS THE GOALS NOW.
THEIR PROPOSAL ARE, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT PLANS.
THERE'S SOME THINGS MISSING FROM IT AND THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT ACCORDING TO THE LDC AND THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE NOT CORRECT.
>> WELL, I MIGHT SUGGEST THOUGH, THIS HAS TO GO TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD. RIGHT?
>> THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE TIERS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT'S IN THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN. DO WE? I WENT TO YOUR OFFICE LAST WEEK ON THURSDAY AND REQUESTED A COPY OF THE COMPLIANCE.
>> WHAT HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED YET [OVERLAPPING] IT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED AS WELL.
>> THE TRC REPORT AND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED.
>> I THOUGHT THAT THEY ALL BASICALLY SAID THAT YOU HAVE TO GIVE THE PLANNING BOARD AND ANY OTHER AGENCY THESE ITEMS BEFORE THEY HAVE THEIR MEETING ON IT.
[OVERLAPPING] THE COMPLIANCE REPORT IS ONE OF THEM.
>> THEY WERE PROVIDED WITH A STAFF REPORT THAT SPEAKS TO COMPLIANCE.
>> THIS ISN'T THEIR REPORT THOUGH, IS IT?
>> THE SACRAL REPORT PROVIDED AS PART OF THE RECORD FOR THE MEETING TONIGHT IS [OVERLAPPING] BENEFIT.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'LL GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHEN THEY HEAR IT ON THE 16TH [OVERLAPPING] OF MAY.
WHAT IS IN YOUR PACKET THEY WILL HAVE IN THEIR PACKET AND THEY WILL DISCUSS IT AT THEIR MEETING.
>> YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU, MA'AM.
YOU ARE SO WELCOME. DO I HEAR A MOTION TO ADJOURN? NO, WAIT.
>> OR YOU BARELY CUT UNDER THE WIRE.
>> I WAS WAITING. ONLY THING JUST TO SAY.
>> MY NAME IS TINA CHRISTIANA 406 BEACH STREET.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT TRUST BETWEEN PUBLIC AND THE GOVERNMENT IS SO IMPORTANT.
[02:05:02]
THIS MORNING, I NEVER UNDERSTOOD THE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.I DECIDED WHILE EATING MY OATMEAL THAT I WAS GOING TO READ THROUGH THE PACKET.
I GOT TO THE LAST PAGE AND I ALMOST CHOKED ON MY OATMEAL BECAUSE THE LAST PAGE SAID IT WAS GOING TO CHANGE THE ENTIRE WAY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VOTES ON THINGS.
I IMMEDIATELY REACHED OUT TO A FEW PEOPLE AND THEN I EMAILED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND SAID, ARE YOU AWARE OF THIS? I DID NOT LIKE HOW THIS WAS PUT IN THE PACKET AS THE LAST PAGE IS ALMOST AN AFTERTHOUGHT.
IT JUST [NOISE] MY TRUST BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND ME AS A CITIZEN.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT AS A COMMENT.
IN THE FUTURE I'M JUST SAYING IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROPOSE A MAJOR CHANGE TO THE WAY OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS, DO NOT PUT IT IN THE LAST PAGE OF 146-PAGE PACKET.
TO ME IT SEEMED LIKE AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND I JUST TOOK IT AS A WRONG WAY.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME.
>> BUT YOU NOTICE THAT BECAUSE THE HTC NOR THE VOA HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS CHANGE.
>> THAT WE'VE GIVEN THEM THE COURTESY THAT THEY DESERVE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT AND GIVE US FEEDBACK.
I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT ITEM.
I'M SURE THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN HIGHLIGHT SOME THINGS THAT MAYBE CAN CHANGE THE WAY THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT BEFORE.
[NOISE] BUT THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT UP THAT WE NEED TO GIVE IT THAT EXTRA INPUT FROM THE OTHER BOARDS THAT DEAL WITH THIS BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION.
>> IS THAT LAST STATEMENT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> YEAH. YOU TOOK MY COMMENTS INCORRECTLY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS BOARD REACTED EXTREMELY WELL TO IT.
I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DID BECAUSE I THINK THE VOA AND AGC SHOULD BE.
IT TO ME IT WAS FROM THE STAFF WHO SUBMITTED THE PACKET.
>> JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION BECAUSE I GET TO GO TO ALL OF YOUR BOARD MEETINGS, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, HTC, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUESTED THE CHANGE.
THEY ARE FULLY AWARE OF THIS CHANGE.
THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE CRITERIA IS SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN STRUGGLING WITH FOR YEARS.
THEY REQUESTED THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
WHEN IT COMES BACK AND WE GET TO DISCUSS THIS AFTER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, I THINK THAT IT WILL MAKE MORE SENSE.
IT'S NOTHING THAT BENEFITS STAFF AT ALL.
IT'S JUST GOING TO MAKE THE ANALYSIS OF WHETHER THERE'S A HARDSHIP EASIER AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ASKED US TO DO THAT.
MEANING NOT THAT THEY WOULD MORE EASILY FIND THAT HARDSHIP EXISTS.
BUT IN AN ANALYZING WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AND WHETHER THAT CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET OR NOT MET THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS STRUGGLED GREATLY AND ASKED STAFF TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
WHEN I SAY STAFF, I DON'T MEAN ME.
>> THERE'S ALSO A CHANGE TO THE SUPERMAJORITY.
>> YES. THAT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
>> I'M NOT SURE I HAVE DISAGREEMENT ON TAKING THAT ONE CLAUSE OUT BECAUSE IT'S CONFUSING.
ANYWAY, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD DEFINE IT.
>> EXACTLY. WE'LL GET INTO THAT.
THE SUPER MAJORITY THAT'S NOTHING THAT I WAS EVEN AWARE OF UNTIL I SAW THE AGENDA HERE.
>> I SAID MORE SIGNIFICANCE IN TERMS OF IMPACT ON THE CONSOLE.
>> WE HEAR THAT WHEN IT COMES BACK AROUND AT OUR NEXT.
>> I DID WANT TO JUST QUICKLY POINT OUT THAT THE PROBLEM STATEMENT DOES IDENTIFY VARIANCES AND ALL THREE OF THE STAFF REPORTS PROVIDED BOTH IN THE COMP PLAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE VARIANT SECTION ON THE VERY FIRST PAGE.
ADDITIONALLY, AS WE LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS THAT ARE BEING MODIFIED AND PROPOSE A SOLUTION, AS WELL AS THE RATIONALE FOR THEM.
WE GOT ONE MORE PERSON WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK.
IT WASN'T JUST ON THE LAST PAGE OF THE AGENDA PART.
THE INSIGNIFICANT CHANGE WAS YEAH, THE SUPER MAJORITY AND YOU'RE REDUCING IT
[02:10:03]
FROM 6-5 AND YOU ONLY NEEDED TO MEET FOUR OR FIVE WAS CORRECT.THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. BIG CHANGE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.
THERE'S NO MORE BUSINESS TO COME TO THE BOARD, AND THEN I CALL IT ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.