[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
[00:00:05]
I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.
ITS REGULAR MEETING TODAY IS SEPTEMBER THE 13TH, 2023.
WE ARE MEETING IN THE CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS IN FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA.
MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL? YES.
. BOARD MEMBER DOSTER WOULD YOU LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? YES.
OKAY. ITEM THREE ON OUR AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
AS EVERYONE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEM, AND ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE TO THE MINUTES? THIS WOULD BE OF THE AUGUST 9TH REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN AS WRITTEN.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND FROM MISS GINGHER? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE. OPPOSED LIKE SIGN, SO UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS OLD BUSINESS.
[4. OLD BUSINESS]
IS THERE ANY OLD BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD AT THIS TIME? HEARING NONE. WE WILL GO ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS NEW BUSINESS ITEM 5.1 PAB CASE 2023-0047.[5.1 PAB 2023-0047 - JON LASSERRE, AGENT FOR INTACT CONSTRUCTION MGMT GROUP, 2194 SADLER ROAD]
DAPHNE, WILL YOU GIVE US YOUR REPORT? YES, I WILL BE HAPPY TO.OKAY, SO THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.
THE APPLICATION FOR FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY AND ZONING DISTRICT, AS WELL AS A PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THIS IS FOR A VACANT 1.41 ACRE PARCEL THAT'S LOCATED AT 2194 SADDLER ROAD AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF MIXED USE AND ZONING DISTRICT OF MU 1, AND OF COURSE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS REQUEST AS WELL FOR A 12 LOT TOWNHOME RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS BREAKERS TOWNHOMES.
COMMERCIAL GENERAL, AND FOR THE RECORD, ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE AND ALL COPIES HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD MEMBERS AS WELL, AND GETTING INTO A LITTLE BIT OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THIS PROPERTY.
THE APPROVAL WAS FACED WITH SOME CHALLENGES BY A NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY.
THE CHALLENGES AND THAT HAS BEEN PUT ON HOLD AT THIS TIME, PENDING THE REVIEW OF THEIR CURRENT APPLICATION WITH THE CITY, AND I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE CHALLENGES WITH THIS NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY DOES NOT PREVENT THEM FROM APPLYING FOR THEIR PLAT FOR THEIR ANNEXATION, LAND USE AND ZONING.
JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR UP FRONT AND SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE PROPERTY.
IT HAS UNDER ONE ZONING A MAXIMUM GROSS DENSITY OF EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE THAT ARE PERMITTED AND GIVEN THE SITE ACREAGE AND THE PROPOSED ZONING AND LAND USE, THIS SITE COULD ACCOMMODATE UP TO 14 DWELLING UNITS.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE REQUESTING 12 UNITS AT THIS TIME, AND AS FOR THE REVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, THERE ARE NO COMMUNAL AMENITIES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED OTHER THAN THE SHARED MAIL KIOSKS, SOME LANDSCAPING AND A POTENTIAL SUBDIVISION SIGN.
THE ACCESS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIMARILY THROUGH RYAN ROAD AND SADLER ROAD, AND THIS WAS SUBMITTED TO FOR REVIEW BY THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ON JULY 3RD OF THIS YEAR. THEY DID RECEIVE A FIRST ROUND OF COMMENTS WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ADDRESSED AND THEIR REVISED PROPOSAL WAS THEN RESUBMITTED ON AUGUST 28TH, 2023, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE SEEING.
[00:05:02]
CONCLUSION THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.FOLLOWING THIS RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, THIS APPLICATION WILL MOVE FORWARD TO THE CITY COMMISSION IN THE FORM OF THREE ORDINANCES AT A PUBLIC HEARING THAT'S ANTICIPATED FOR OCTOBER 17TH.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY PLAT.
EXCUSE ME. THIS WILL FOLLOW TO THE CITY COMMISSION IN THE FORM OF A RESOLUTION AND THAT WOULD BE ANTICIPATED AND EXPECTED TO APPEAR ON NOVEMBER. I'M SORRY, OCTOBER.
OCTOBER AS WELL, AND READY FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS WITH ME ON THIS PROJECT.
WELL, MR. BOARD MEMBER GILLETTE BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THIS.
MR. GILLETTE IS GOING TO RECUSE HIMSELF, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING.
YEAH, I'LL BE ABSTAINING FROM VOTING.
OKAY. CAN WE COMMENT SO HE CAN COMMENT? BUT HE JUST CAN'T VOTE, RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY.
SO WE CAN ASK HIM TECHNICAL QUESTIONS.
WELL, THERE'S ALSO SOME OTHER RESOURCES HERE AS WELL, SO.
YES, AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T HAVE.
YES, AND YES. I'LL THROW MY QUESTION OUT AS JUST A STARTING POINT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PLAN IS RELATIVE TO THE HOLDING AREA FOR WATER RUNOFF AND SO ON. I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS, BUT I JUST WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT I KNOW.
WHEN THEY HAD THE RV PARK THERE, THERE WAS A PLAN TO HAVE LIKE A RETENTION POND, AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE DRAWINGS, BUT I'D LIKE TO CLARIFICATION ABOUT HOW THAT RETENTION POND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE 12 TOWNHOUSES.
AND CAN I ADD ON TO YOUR QUESTION THAT IN READING THE A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION, IT ONE OF THEM IS THE IT'S HIGHER ON THE WEST SIDE THAN IT IS ON THE EAST SIDE, WHICH IS THE RYAN ROAD SIDE, AND ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THE STORMWATER POND IS ON THE WEST SIDE, AND IF IT UNLESS IT'S CHANGED OR AMENDED, SOMEHOW THE WATER WOULD NATURALLY GO TO THE EAST TO THE LOWER END, WHICH WOULD BE TOWARDS RYAN ROAD, AND SO MY CONCERN IS ALL OF THE DRIVEWAYS AND ALL OF THAT WATER, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET IT UP TO THE WEST END WHERE THE RETENTION POND IS AND YOU'RE NOT FLOODING OUT? RYAN ROAD.
SO I THINK WE BOTH HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT DRAINAGE.
SO PLEASE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME.
GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS WHO YOU'RE WITH.
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JOHN LAZER WITH ROGERS TOWERS.
I'M THE AGENT UNDER THE APPLICATION, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT AND CONSIDERATION.
SO WE HAVE HERE'S THE ADDITIONAL RESOURCE.
I ALSO HAVE CONTACT WITH THE OWNER VIA TEXT MESSAGE, BUT HE'S HAD SOME COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES TODAY, BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY BEFORE, AND I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS AS THIS WAY, I DIDN'T HAVE QUESTIONS.
WE'RE GOING TO GO TO STAFF AND THEN WE WOULD MAKE A PRESENTATION, BUT IF THIS IS WE'RE JUST GOING TO OPEN IT UP, THAT'S FINE AS WELL, BUT WE, OF COURSE, HAVE REVIEWED STAFF'S REPORT AND WE'LL RELY ON THAT AS COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO ANY PART OF THIS APPLICATION IS DETERMINED TO BE QUASI JUDICIAL IN NATURE AND WE HAVE NO FURTHER PRESENTATION, BUT WE'LL OF COURSE ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ARE PRESENTED TO US.
[INAUDIBLE] GILLETTE GILLETTE AND ASSOCIATES 20 SOUTH FOURTH STREET.
YOU ARE CORRECT. THE NATURAL GRADE DOES GRADE DOES GO FROM WEST TO EAST.
SO THE RUNOFF IS GOING TO ACTUALLY RUN FROM THE SADLER END AND GO SOUTH, RIGHT.
[00:10:05]
IS IT THROUGH THE RETENTION? YEAH, WE'LL HAVE TO PIPE ALL THE WATER FROM THE BUILDINGS BACK TO THE POND.IT CAN'T FLOW THAT WAY NATURALLY, SO WE'LL PIPE IT BACK THAT WAY.
THE GRADE ITSELF WILL ALSO BE RAISED IN THE BACK AS WELL.
SO ALL ALL IMPERVIOUS RUNOFF WILL GO TO THE POND DIRECTLY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DRIVEWAYS.
WE'RE. WHERE'S THE OVERFLOW FROM THE POND GO.
THE OVERFLOW GOES BACK TO RYAN ROAD.
SO WE HAVE TO MEET PRE VERSUS POST RUNOFF WHICH IS THE HOW DOES I ASSUME IT COMES THROUGH A PIPE, RIGHT? YES, MA'AM. I JUST DIDN'T SEE IT ON THE DRAWING.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THE MOST CURRENT ONES HERE AND AS PART OF THE PACKET OR NOT.
IT'S IN THE MIDDLE. IT'S IN THE MIDDLE? YES, MA'AM. IT'S BETWEEN UNIT SIX AND SEVEN.
JUST ONE OTHER GENERAL QUESTION AS FAR AS THE BRINGING POWER AND SO FORTH, AND ARE YOU GOING TO BRING THAT IN OVER FROM THE CITY'S WATER? THAT I'M NOT SURE OF YET.
WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THROUGH ALL OF THE ELECTRICAL END OF IT.
WE DO HAVE AN EASEMENT. WE HAVE A UTILITY EASEMENT IN THE BACK AS WELL TO HANDLE FOR NATURAL GAS.
SO WE MAY VERY WELL USE THAT'S GOING TO BE WHATEVER FOR WHAT MAKES SOME SENSE.
THAT'S CORRECT. WHATEVER LOGICALLY MAKES SENSE.
IT'S ALL UNDERGROUND. OH, YES, SIR.
IT'S ALL UNDERGROUND. OKAY, AND WHY DO YOU NEED TO COME INTO THE CITY? WATER AND SEWER. OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE TREE MITIGATION.
LET'S SEE IF I CAN. I CAN'T TELL WHAT.
ANYWAY, IT'S THE ONE WHERE IT'S BROKEN DOWN BY THE UNIT.
OH YES. YEAH. THEY'RE BROKEN DOWN.
WE HAVE TO BREAK THE LANDSCAPING DOWN PER PER UNIT SINCE THEY'RE BEING BUILT IN QUANTITIES OF TWO.
OKAY, AND THEN THERE'S I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY GOOD ANALYSIS AND I DON'T KNOW, I ASSUME THAT'S THE TREE SERVICE THAT YOU HIRED THAT ACTUALLY BREAKS DOWN THE.
YES. THE INDIVIDUAL TREE, THE ARBORIST, CORRECT? YEAH, THE ARBORIST. CORRECT.
IT AND I ASSUME THAT UNITS ONE AND TWO THE REASON THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A DB R TOWARDS THE TREE FUND OF SEVEN AND THERE DON'T SEEM TO BE ANY OTHERS FOR THE OTHER UNITS IS BECAUSE IT'S MORE TREE'S IN THAT AREA.
WELL WE PRESERVE TREE, WE PRESERVE MORE TREES IN THAT AREA.
SO IT WAS THE FIRST ONE THAT WAS THE PROBLEM, THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT WE HAD TO TAKE OUT.
SO FOR THAT PARTICULAR ONE, WE END UP HAVING TO PLANT ON SITE.
PLUS WE HAVE TO DONATE TO THE CITY'S TREE FUND AS ALLOWED TOWARDS MITIGATION.
SO IS THAT'S SEVEN IT'S SEVEN SEVEN DIAMETRICAL BREAST INCHES.
CORRECT, AND THAT EQUATES TO A DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WILL EQUATE TO A DOLLAR AMOUNT.
THAT'S CORRECT. EVENTUALLY, YES.
ALL RIGHT, AND THEN THE TREES THAT WILL BE PLANTED TO OFFSET FOR THE MITIGATION, THEN THERE'S A PLAN FOR, I GUESS, THAT LONG TERM MONITORING OF THOSE THE TREE HEALTH AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY.
YES. YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT, CORRECT? I THINK IT'S A YEAR. KELLY.
OKAY. SO MY QUESTION IS TO YOU ALL.
SO THESE AND BY THE WAY, I DON'T FROM WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THESE MEN, I'M NOT CONCERNED A BIT THAT THEY WON'T DO THIS CORRECTLY AND PROFESSIONALLY, BUT IF THE SOMETHING IN THE COUNTY AND THEY WANT TO COME INTO THE CITY, I THINK IS THE QUESTION TO US IS, DO WE WANT 12 TOWNHOMES IN THE CITY? YOU KNOW, THE ONES THAT ARE AROUND US AND THE ONE WE'VE SEEN AND WE KNOW, I DON'T THINK ADD MUCH TO THE CITY.
THEY DON'T MAKE IT ANY MORE CHARMING, AND IN FACT, THEY PROBABLY MAKE IT BLANDER AND MORE ORDINARY, AND SO THESE MEN ARE COMING TO SAY, WE WANT TO COME INTO THE CITY.
[00:15:05]
TOWNHOMES THAN IT IS BEFORE? AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE ARE BETTER WITH 12 TOWNHOMES.MAYBE DAPHNE COULD SHARE WITH US THE DIFFERENCE.
THE PLANNING CONCEPT, I MEAN, IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL GENERAL, AND IT'S NOW BEING PROPOSED FOR ONE, AND AS THAT TRANSITION INTO PIRATE'S BAY, WHICH IS A R1, MAYBE YOU COULD SORT OF HAVE A CONVERSATION TO HELP US WITH THE DIFFERENCES AND WHY ONE WAS SELECTED BY THIS COMPANY.
SO IF YOU LOOK ALONG SADLER ROAD HERE, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THERE IS COMMERCIAL MIXED WITH SOME RESIDENTIAL THERE, AND THEN I'LL PULL UP THIS MAP HERE.
THE NASSAU COUNTY ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE NEAR THIS AREA AS WELL ARE COMMERCIAL PRIMARILY, BUT THEN YOU LOOK FURTHER SOUTH AND IT'S TRANSITIONING INTO MORE RESIDENTIAL.
SO YOUR MIXED USE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY, IT STATES THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE A SMOOTH TRANSITIONAL AREAS BETWEEN YOUR ZONING AND YOUR LAND USES, AND A MIXED USE IS AN APPROPRIATE STEP DOWN FROM A MORE INTENSIVE USE LIKE A COMMERCIAL USE HERE.
SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE'RE DOING MIXED USE.
SO WITH THIS BEING A MORE HEAVILY TREED LOT, THEY HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THOSE STRUCTURES AROUND TO PRESERVE MORE INCHES BECAUSE THE SETBACKS ARE MORE FLEXIBLE THAN YOUR TRADITIONAL R1 OR YOUR R2 ZONING WHERE THEY'RE JUST SET AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THOSE.
SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON FOR THESE TWO DESIGNATIONS.
ONE THING ALSO I JUST KIND OF WANT TO POINT OUT AND JUST GET IT OUT THERE.
THIS PROPERTY, UNDER ITS CURRENT ZONING CATEGORY AND LAND USE DESIGNATION AS COMMERCIAL, HAS POTENTIAL TO BE UTILIZED FOR THIS NEW LEGISLATION, THE LIVE LOCAL ACT.
SO I KNOW KIND OF BRIEFLY TOUCHED ON THAT AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS, BUT WHAT THAT ACT SAYS ESSENTIALLY IS THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO USE THE HIGHEST DENSITY THERE FOR PURPOSES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANY ADDITIONAL APPROVALS.
THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT BY RIGHT UNDER COMMERCIAL ZONING.
SO THAT'S ONE THING I DO WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW.
UNDER ITS CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING, THAT'S COULD BE A POSSIBILITY AS WELL.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING? YES. THIS IS THE NEW LAW FROM WHICH WOULD SELL FOR MUCH LESS THAN TOWNHOMES.
SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, BUT THESE ARE ALL THE THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT WHEN WE'RE CONSIDERING THINGS, AND I JUST WANT TO PUT IT AT THE FOREFRONT OF YOUR MINDS AS WELL, JUST SO YOU CAN KNOW WHAT THE POTENTIALS ARE, WHAT THE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES COULD BE.
RIGHT? MR. LUCIER YES, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS.
YES, THANK YOU. I JUST WOULD ADD ON TO THE LIVE LOCAL ACT.
THOSE WOULD BE FOR RENT, NOT FOR SALE.
SO THERE WOULD BE 46 APARTMENTS.
THANK YOU. I THINK ANOTHER SET OF CONSIDERATIONS.
I THINK THIS SOLUTION PROVIDES A MORE OPTIMAL SOLUTION FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
MY VIEW IS THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IS GOING TO GET DEVELOPED.
WE'RE RIGHT JUST DOWN THE ROAD FROM EGAN'S CREEK.
SO I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT IT FROM A SEPTIC TANK STANDPOINT.
I DO THINK YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE NEW STATE LAW IN TERMS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH COULD SUPERSEDE ANY OF THE RESTRAINTS THAT WE AS A CITY OR COUNTY EVEN WANT TO PUT ON IT.
IT ALSO HAS TO GO THROUGH OUR TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW IN ADDITION TO COMING BACK.
OUT TO THE PUB ONCE MORE FOR A FINAL PLAT.
[00:20:03]
SO JUST KNOW THAT YOU HAVE SOME CONTROL AND PREDICTABILITY WITH THIS.JUST ONE OTHER COMMENT ABOUT THE LIVE LOCAL ACT.
THE PREEMPTION BY THE STATE IS DENSITY, HEIGHT AND USE.
SO WE COULD GO TO THE MAXIMUM OF ANY OF THOSE, NOT JUST DENSITY, BUT ALSO HEIGHT.
SO THE ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS 35FT.
THAT'S INEVITABLE. SO WE ACCEPT THAT.
SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET A SEPTIC TANK THERE, BUT AGAIN, THEY WANT TO COME INTO THE CITY.
SO TO ME, THE QUESTION IS, HOW ARE WE BETTER OFF WITH NOW WITH 9 OR 12 TOWNHOMES? WE IT JUST STRIKES ME THAT THE CITY IS FOREVER CHOOSING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS.
AND WE ALWAYS WE HAVE THE THREAT OF THESE OF THIS EVEN HIGHER DENSITY, AND SO WE'RE GOING TO PICK THIS AS SOMETHING THAT'S LESS BAD THAN THAT, BUT MEANWHILE, THE CITY IS NOT BECOMING ANY MORE CHARMING THAN IT WAS YESTERDAY.
IT'S NOT BECOMING ANY MORE DELIGHTFUL THAN IT WAS YESTERDAY.
IF AND I DON'T BELIEVE THESE MEN HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THESE ARE GOING TO ULTIMATELY LOOK LIKE, BUT IF THEY END UP LOOKING LIKE THE ONES THAT ARE RIGHT OVER HERE AND RIGHT OVER HERE, WE LOSE.
THE CITY LOSES AND I DON'T THINK IT'S A WISE DECISION TO SAY, WELL, YEAH, LET'S DO MORE BLAND, BORING BUILDINGS THAT AREN'T AS BAD AS OTHER BUILDINGS COULD BE.
THERE IS ONE OTHER ATTRIBUTE THAT THE PROPERTY HAS RIGHT NOW, AND IT'S CALLED TREES.
SURE, AND THERE'S SOME VERY LARGE TREES, AND IT'S I DROVE BY.
IT'S I MEAN, WITH THE RIGHT SETTING, THERE WAS A HOME, I GUESS IT WAS ONE HOME AND THERE WASN'T THERE AT ONE TIME, AND SO I MEAN, IT'S BEEN SOME OF THAT HAS BEEN LIVED IN AND I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW MANY NET TREES WE'RE GOING TO LOSE OUT OF THAT.
THE LARGER ONES, I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING WITH A NOT A FOUR INCH TREE, BUT SOMETHING WHERE WE'RE GETTING INTO THE HIGHER DIAMETERS OF 25 INCH DIAMETER TYPE TREE.
AS FAR AS THE DESIGN, I THINK THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF LAYING OUT ON THEIR MAPS AND I KNOW THAT THIS IS PRELIMINARY, SO THERE MAY BE A TREE OR TWO, AND JUST TO ADD ON TO YOUR POINT, MR. STEVENSON, I WANT THE BOARD JUST TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE CITY'S TREE ORDINANCE IS FAR MORE ROBUST THAN THE COUNTY'S.
SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WELL, AND I THINK MR. GILLETTE WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING.
THE TREE ORDINANCE IS TOUGHER IN THE CITY VERSUS THE COUNTY.
SO TRUE, AND I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW AND YOU KNOW, TO DEVELOPMENT IS NOT AN EVIL IN MY MIND.
BUILDING IS NOT AN EVIL IN MY MIND, UGLY BUILDING IS AN EVIL IN MY MIND.
BLAND BUILD, BUT BUILDING THAT WOULD MAKE THE CITY CHARMING AND DELIGHTFUL AND A UNIQUE WELL, TO THE POINT OF THEY'RE GOING TO COME INTO THE CITY THAT'S NOT A GIVEN BECAUSE THERE'S PLENTY OF USES IN THE CG ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT COULD FUNCTION ON SEPTIC TANK.
YOU KNOW THERE'S YOU COULD PUT A GAS STATION THERE, YOU COULD RUN CHILDCARE FACILITIES OR FUNERAL HOMES OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE BE A VERY LARGE BUILDING AND TAKE UP A LOT OF MASS UNDER THAT CG ZONING.
YEAH. OR A STREET OR A STRIP MALL.
SO I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.
I'M NOT I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE A SWAY FOR AN APPLICATION.
I'M JUST SAYING CG VERSUS MU IS SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER.
I THINK WHEN YOU COMPARE THE TWO.
ALSO THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL WITH THE AVAILABLE LAND TO PUT 14 UNITS AND THEY ARE GOING WITH 12.
I MEAN, IT COULD REALLY BE A TIGHT DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK AT LEAST THERE IS SOME VIEWS BETWEEN THESE UNITS.
[00:25:04]
SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOME LANDSCAPING THAT I THINK MIGHT BE ATTRACTIVE.BARB WELL, AND TOO, IT DEPENDS ON THE ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURE.
WHAT IS IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE? BUT WE'RE NEVER GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO VOTE WITHOUT KNOWING THAT, PARDON ME? WELL, WE WILL VOTE.
AND NOT KNOWING WE DON'T GET TO PICK THAT.
NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT DEPENDS ON IF IT LOOKS LIKE A BOX OR IT LOOKS LIKE THE TOWNHOMES IN A PARK, WHICH ARE QUITE NICE. SO WE AGREED.
SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR CHARM, GENTLEMEN.
CAN YOU HELP US OUT HERE A LITTLE BIT? ALL RIGHT. KEEP THAT IN MIND AS YOU'RE AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS PROJECT.
THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD AND MR. DOSTER, I'M NOT LEAVING YOU BEHIND, BUT IS IN LOOKING AT THE MATERIALS THAT WERE SENT TO US, ONE OF THEM WAS FROM LET ME SEE HERE.
WELL, IT WAS THE GEOTECHNICAL AND IT WAS FROM WHEN THEY WERE LOOKING AT THIS AS THE CAMPGROUND.
YEAH, AND I'M JUST WONDERING, I MEAN, THERE WERE SOME YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THEIR REPORT WAS BASED ON IT BEING LAID OUT AS PER THE DRAWING THAT WAS ATTACHED IN THAT.
YEAH. WE THAT THE PREVIOUS DESIGN HAD BEEN CHANGED A COUPLE OF TIMES ANYWAY.
THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS AS THE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I NOTICED AND I KNOW THIS IS WAY BEYOND THE SCOPE, BUT I HOPE THAT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD MAYBE HAS THESE THINGS ANSWERED, BUT BECAUSE THE SURFACE WATER SEEMS TO BE PRETTY HIGH, ESPECIALLY IN THE IN THE WET SEASON.
AND I'M WONDERING BECAUSE THEY MENTIONED ABOUT DEWATERING AT CERTAIN POINTS IN CONSTRUCTION, THEY CAN AND THAT WAS BASED ON ANOTHER REPORT OR BASED ON A PREVIOUS USE TOO, AND WE'VE SET OUR POND MODELS ARE BASED ON THE GEOTECH ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE SO EVERYTHING'S BASED ON THAT.
SO WHATEVER THE HIGHEST WATER TABLE IS AT THE TIME IS WHAT YOUR DESIGN IS BASED ON, AND AS A CURIOSITY QUESTION, WHEN YOU DEEP WATER, I MEAN, I'VE DRIVEN PAST DEVELOPMENTS WHERE YOU SEE THE PUMP OUT THERE AND WATER IS GOING INTO A RETENTION POND, THAT KIND OF THING.
IS THAT WHERE YOU WOULD SEE THAT? I DON'T FORESEE THERE BEING ANY NEED FOR DEWATERING ON THIS PROJECT.
ALL I WAS THINKING OF WAS WATER COMING OVER ONTO.
SO I DON'T SEE ANY DEWATERING TAKING PLACE.
THE IS THERE ANY ISSUE YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT WHERE THE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY IS? WHAT IS THIS? THE CITY HAVE A RETENTION POND WITH THAT ONE OR NOT? I COULDN'T TELL. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A RETENTION POND.
OKAY. SO THIS PROJECT WON'T AFFECT THAT.
NO, WE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL THOSE ARE DEEP WELLS, RIGHT? THOSE ARE DEEP WELLS, CORRECT.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR WE? OKAY, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC.
IS THAT OKAY? ALL RIGHT. SO, SIR, IF YOU'LL JUST COME UP AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
JACK AMBER 1003 BROOME STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH.
IT'S NOT THAT I CAN'T TRUST THIS WHOLE SITUATION.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR INHERITING SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTY DOESN'T WANT, RIGHT? AND THE THING IS TO TALK ABOUT WHY WE NEED THIS.
DO WE NEED THIS? THAT'S THE MOST LOGICAL THING I'VE HEARD FROM A BOARD MEMBER IN A WAY A LONG TIME.
THE SALES JOB IS TREMENDOUSLY IMPRESSIVE, BUT IT IS A SALES JOB.
FLEXIBLE PLACEMENT MEANS FLEXIBLE SETBACKS, WHICH OFTENTIMES DON'T KID YOURSELF EQUATES TO ZERO SETBACKS. AFFORDABLE PROMISED.
SO I COULD SHOW YOU WHAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOOKS LIKE ON THIS ISLAND.
WE HAVE SOME LITTLE RUNDOWN SHACKS FALLING DOWN ON THEMSELVES.
[00:30:02]
DON'T BE SWAYED BY THE THREAT OF SEPTIC TANKS.IT CAN'T HAVE SEPTIC TANKS THERE.
IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ECOLOGICALLY, ENVIRONMENTALLY, FUTURE USE.
THAT'S ONE OF THE MAJOR ISSUES THAT CAME OUT OF THIS.
THEY SAY THAT THEY'RE GIVING YOU THE CONTROL OF APPROVAL.
YOU'VE GOT THE CONTROL OF APPROVAL.
NOW, DO YOU HAVE THAT CONTROL LATER, AS YOU SAID, THE DESIGN, THE PLACEMENT, THE DENSITY, THE TREES THAT COULD ALL JUST GO OUT THE WINDOW ONCE THE DEALS HAVE BEEN MADE.
AS FAR AS THE TREE THING, THAT THE CITY HAS A STRONGER TREE CONSERVANCY, IT'S JUST NOT TRUE.
IN PRACTICE, THE ONLY THING WE HAVE IS HERITAGE TREES.
NEVER LEFT HIS OFFICE, NEVER LOOKED AT IT, JUST SAID, GO AHEAD.
DON'T HAVE YOU'RE NOT GIVEN ENOUGH INFORMATION INITIALLY ABOUT WHERE WATER GOES, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO IT ONCE THE BUILDING IS THERE.
WE'VE GOT SPECIFIC DRAINAGE NEEDS AND THAT'S ALL.
IT'S ALL SUSPECT WHEN THAT HAPPENS.
COULD I ASK YOU, IS THIS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT? JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.
I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NEW LEGISLATION WITH THIS STATE OF FLORIDA THAT IS CALLED THE LIVE LOCAL ACT, WHICH SAYS WHERE YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL OR MIXED USE PROPERTIES, YOU ARE ABLE TO UTILIZE THAT BY RIGHT TO THE HIGHEST DENSITY AND THE HIGHEST HEIGHT THAT THE CITY WILL ALLOW.
SO THAT'S 34 UNITS AN ACRE AND THE HIGHEST HEIGHT IN THE CITY.
THIS PROJECT IS NOT UTILIZING LIVE LOCAL.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 12 LOT TOWNHOMES UNDER MIXED USE, ZONING AND LAND USE, AND COULD YOU ALSO ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON I DON'T WANT YOU TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY TREE POLICY, BUT CAN YOU GIVE US LIKE A SNAPSHOT OF THOSE DIFFERENCES? AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THAT THIS GENTLEMAN HAS ABOUT SEEING TREES CUT DOWN AND NOT BELIEVING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO EITHER BE REPLANTED OR MONITORED OR THAT KIND OF THING, BUT IF YOU COULD GIVE US.
SO YOU HAVE TO EITHER RETAIN OR REPLACE 50% OF WHAT YOU'RE REMOVING.
SO THEY'RE NOT JUST YOUR LITTLE SAPLINGS THAT GO IN THE GROUND.
THEY HAVE TO BE IN MINIMUM SIZE.
THERE HAS TO BE A MINIMUM AMOUNT THAT'S REPLACED SO THAT IT EQUATES OUT TO A BETTER LANDSCAPING ENVIRONMENT THERE, AND THERE'S ALSO PROTECTIONS IN PLACE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THOSE TREES WITHIN A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME AFTER THEY'RE PLANTED.
SO YOU HAVE THOSE ADDITIONAL LEVELS OF PROTECTION THERE TO ENSURE THAT YOU DO HAVE A RESULT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND ALSO MAKING SURE THAT YOU'RE NOT MAKING A SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENT TO THE CANOPY THERE. OKAY, AND SO AS THE AGENT FOR THE DEVELOPER, THEY THE DEVELOPER THEN HAS TO AGREE TO OUR TREE PROGRAM, RIGHT? CORRECT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW OUR GUIDELINES FOR OUR TREE ORDINANCE.
OKAY, AND THEN LASTLY, FOR ME, THE DRAINAGE ISSUES, THE QUESTIONS THAT THE GENTLEMAN RAISED ABOUT DRAINAGE, WHICH WE ALL HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT, EXPLAIN HOW THE TRC, WHAT THE TRC DOES AND IT'S THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
[00:35:02]
AND IT'S MADE UP OF TECHNICAL PEOPLE AND WHAT DO THEY DO AND WHAT THAT PROCESS IS.SURE. SO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IS A CITY STAFF COMMITTEE THAT WILL LOOK OVER DEVELOPMENTS FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS. SO YOU HAVE YOUR STORMWATER AND UTILITIES DIRECTOR WHO IS A PART OF THAT.
THESE ARE ALL CITY STAFF THAT ARE PART OF THESE REVIEWS, AND FOR THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF PROJECT, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF REVIEWS WITH THAT TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
AND THEY'RE LOOKING AT THINGS VERY CLOSELY FOR YOUR DRAINAGE.
THEY'RE LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE TECHNICAL DETAILS VERY CLOSELY BEFORE THEY CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT STEP, WHICH WOULD BE A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER, AND THAT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER CAN'T BE ISSUED UNLESS THEY ARE MEETING ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN ALL OF THE APPLICABLE CODES FROM THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.
SO THEY GO THROUGH A PROCESS WHERE THEY WOULD COME TO PLANNING FIRST AND THEY WOULD GO TO A BUILDING AND THEY WOULD GO TO STORMWATER AND UTILITIES AND IT MOVES ON IN THE PROCESS WITH MULTIPLE LEVELS OF REVIEW.
GOOD. THANK YOU. MR. BENNETT, YOU HAD A QUESTION? CORRECT.
AT SAINT JOHNS RIVER, WATER MANAGEMENT ALSO LOOKS AT THIS AND THEY DICTATE YOUR RETENTION RATE.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST GETTING READY TO SAY.
WHILE YOU'RE HERE, LET ME JUST ADD, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE TAKING OUT 19 TREES.
IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT? THAT MAY SOUND ABOUT RIGHT.
I DON'T KNOW. OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
OKAY, AND THAT AREA AT THE BACK, THE THAT KIND OF BUFFER, THAT'S ALL PERVIOUS SURFACE.
BEHIND WHERE? THE RETENTION POND.
ALL RIGHT. NEXT PERSON WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
DO YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, SIR? DAVID COLSON, 111 SOUTH FOURTH STREET.
I JUST WAS YOUR CHANGING FROM C2 TO MU 1.
IS THAT WHAT THIS IS? THEY'RE REQUESTING A CHANGE FROM C TWO FROM COMMERCIAL GENERAL.
IN THE PAST. IN THE PAST I HAVE TWO FRIENDS THAT HAVE HAVE PROPERTY THAT ARE HOUSES OR LOTS THEY WANTED TO BUILD A HOUSE ON THAT WERE IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND THE CITY HAS SAID THAT THEY'RE NOT REDUCING THE COMMERCIAL PRESENCE, THEIR NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, THEIR PERCENTAGES.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO HOW DOES THIS HOW WOULD YOU RECONCILE THIS? THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE.
YOU'RE I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT IN THE CITY NOW, BUT IT'S BEING REQUESTED TO BE PUT IN THE CITY, AND HOW IS THAT HOW ARE YOU RECONCILING THE FACT THAT THE CITY STAFF HAS ALWAYS TOLD PEOPLE THAT I KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE IT TO MU ONE OR RESIDENTIAL OR R TWO BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT.
REDUCING THE PRESENCE OF COMMERCIAL IN THE CITY DOESN'T ALLOW COMMERCIAL USES.
THEY DIDN'T ASK CAN I CHANGE IT TO MU ONE? IT'S BECAUSE OF THE SOME OF THE ISSUES WITH BUILDING A HOUSE ON A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL, WHY THEY WERE REQUESTING IT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
THEY WERE TOLD THEY'RE NOT REDUCING THE COMMERCIAL PRESENCE IN THE CITY.
WELL, MR. BENNETT, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? NO, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
LAND USE WAS JUST TO ADD INTO THAT.
I HAVE NOT TOLD ANYONE THAT THEY I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY TOLD ANYONE THAT.
OKAY. BECAUSE I MEAN, I WOULD ADMITTEDLY, I WOULD RATHER BE MU ONE THAN COMMERCIAL, BUT I JUST WAS WONDERING ABOUT THAT, HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO FEEL THAT HAVE BEEN TOLD THEY CANNOT CHANGE IT.
THE CITY ISN'T REDUCING ANYTHING.
ARE YOU BRINGING IT IN FIRST AND THEN CHANGING IT OR ARE YOU? IT WOULD BE CHANGED AT THE ENTRY WHEN YOU SIGN THE PAPERWORK.
[00:40:01]
SO IT'S GOING TO ENTER THE CITY AS MU.WELL, IT'S A GOOD POINT, BUT I THINK IN THIS CASE, IT'S YOU'RE BRINGING SOMETHING NEW TO THE TABLE IN TERMS OF ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T BELONG TO THE CITY TODAY OR ZONED IN THE CITY.
OKAY. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? YES, MA'AM. GO AHEAD.
I'M SHERRI KOCH. I LIVE IN PIRATES BAY.
CAN YOU PUT THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER? SORRY. I'M SHARON COUCH.
OH, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE, BUT PERSONALLY, THIS IS A MUCH BETTER OPTION.
GOING THROUGH THE CITY AND HAVING CITY SEWER IS MUCH SAFER, WE FEEL.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY, BUT WE KNOW THAT THIS MAN HAS PURCHASED THAT PROPERTY AND YOU KNOW HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEVELOP IT THE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE WHATEVER THE CITY ALLOWS.
MY PERSONAL ONE THING WHEN I SAW THIS IS RIGHT IS THE ALL RIGHT HERE.
WHEN PEOPLE COME AROUND THIS CORNER, I DON'T THINK THAT DRIVEWAY WILL ACTUALLY WORK.
THAT'S MY ONLY ISSUE WITH THE WHOLE THING.
IT'S ON SADLER. I UNDERSTAND THE FIRST ONE IS, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST BUILDING AND THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR IT IS FROM THERE TO THERE, BUT WE LIVE IN THERE, AND I KNOW HOW FAST PEOPLE COME AROUND THAT CORNER.
YEAH, THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING MY NOT SEE WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLY IS JUST LIKE THEY DID IN AMELIA PARK. THEY DID THE ROAD IN THE BACK AND HAD YOU PROBABLY CAN'T DESIGN THE WHOLE THING BUT IF IT WAS IN THE BACK AND YOU HAD ONE ENTRANCE AND ONE EXIT, THAT WOULD BE ULTIMATE, BUT JUST THIS ONE DRIVEWAY.
I THINK IS A PROBLEM, AND PLEASE SAVE AS MANY TREES AS YOU CAN.
THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
YEAH. ANYONE ELSE? I SOLD THE FIRST ONE.
HELLO, MY NAME IS TINA KERZNER.
I'M NOT SPEAKING PARTICULARLY ABOUT THIS PROJECT, BUT I'M SPEAKING TODAY ABOUT STATUTE 112.3143 VOTING CONFLICTS AND THE FLORIDA STATUTES FOR 2023, AND I THINK THERE'S BEEN VIOLATIONS WITHIN THIS HEARING TONIGHT.
AND I JUST WANTED TO READ IT FOR YOU AND LET YOU DECIDE ON YOUR OWN, AND THE LAWYERS CAN WEIGH IN, BUT IF YOU READ THIS AND I'LL EMAIL IT TO YOU, I WAS GOING TO MAKE YOU COPIES, BUT MY PRINTER IS ON THE FRITZ.
THIS APPLIES TO ANY PUBLIC OFFICER WHICH INCLUDES ANY PERSON ELECTED OR APPOINTED TO HOLD OFFICE IN ANY AGENCY, INCLUDING ANY PERSON SERVING ON AN ADVISORY BOARD, WHICH WOULD BE YOU ALL.
THEN IT GOES DOWN AND IT SAYS SECTION FOUR.
NO APPOINTED PUBLIC OFFICERS SHALL PARTICIPATE IN ANY MANNER WHICH WOULD ENSURE THE OFFICER'S SPECIAL PRIVATE GAIN OR LOSS, AND IT GOES ON ABOUT RELATIVES, TOO, AND PEOPLE IN THE FAMILY, AND SO THE KEY WORD IS THERE PARTICIPATE.
THEN YOU GO DOWN TO SECTION FOUR C, IT SAYS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION, THE TERM PARTICIPATE MEANS ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION BY ORAL OR WRITTEN COMMUNICATION, WHETHER MADE BY THE OFFICER OR AT THE OFFICER'S DIRECTION.
SO WHEN AND WE HAVE SUCH A GREAT MIND HERE, AN ENGINEER WHO'S INVOLVED IN HALF THE PROJECTS OF THE CITY, BUT TO HAVE ONE MEMBER OF THE COMPANY COME UP AND PRESENT AND THE OTHER MEMBER IS RECUSED HIMSELF BUT IS PARTICIPATING, STATING QUESTION, ANSWERING QUESTIONS, I THINK THAT INFLUENCES THE DECISIONS TO KEEP THE CITY SAFE.
I WOULD SAY FOLLOW THIS RULE AS CLOSELY AS YOU CAN.
I KNOW THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS SAID HER INTERPRETATION OFTEN MEANS THAT PEOPLE STILL CAN TALK.
I THINK YOU SHOULD MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION BECAUSE TO ME, I'M NOT A LAWYER.
[00:45:01]
I'LL SAY THAT FIRST OF ALL, BUT IT'S VERY CLEAR TO ME THAT YOU CAN'T.I WILL EMAIL THIS TO ALL OF YOU, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANKS.
OKAY. NO, I THINK THAT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD.
I MEAN, YOU'VE TOLD US HOW YOU'RE THE MOST OF THE TIME ON OUR APPOINTED BOARDS.
THE ABSTAINING MEMBER STEPS DOWN AND DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH MR. GILLETTE ANSWERING QUESTIONS, AND IN FACT, HE MADE A STATEMENT THAT SAID HE WAS NOT INFLUENCED ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION TONIGHT.
SO WHAT HE'S AND BY THE WAY, IT'S NOT A PROTECTION OF THE CITY.
THIS IS THOSE ARE THE RULES OF ETHICS, AND THAT'S INDIVIDUAL TO MR. GILLETTE HAS THE CITY HAS NO LIABILITY WHATSOEVER.
THAT'S BETWEEN EACH APPOINTED OFFICIAL AND ELECTED OFFICIAL AND THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS.
SO BUT YOU BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT UP.
SO BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING HAPPENED YET.
WELL, THAT'S MY I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE AT ALL.
BUT I AM NOT DIMINISHING WHAT MS. CHRISTNER BROUGHT UP. I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT, AND THANK YOU FOR PAYING ATTENTION TO THOSE RULES.
THANK YOU. AND THERE IS A DISTINCTION.
THE APPOINTED BOARDS ARE TECHNICALLY NOT SUPPOSED THE MEMBERS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO INFLUENCE THE DISCUSSION OR INFLUENCE THE DECISION ON THE CITY COMMISSION LEVEL WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS.
ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, COME BEFORE THE BOARD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO I GET.
YES, MA'AM. YES, PLEASE COME AHEAD.
[INAUDIBLE] 1438 SOUTH FLETCHER.
I JUST WANT TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD HERE.
WE SEEM TO BE LOSING TOUCH WITH THE IDEA OF BALANCE GROWTH IN THE CITY, AND IT SEEMS TO BE MOVING MORE AGAIN TOWARDS DEVELOPING RESIDENTIAL AND VERY LITTLE BUSINESS AND INCOMING PRODUCING THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HELP US TAKE THE STRESS OFF OF THE TAXPAYER'S BACKS, AND I JUST FEEL THAT IT'S JUST NEVER EVEN BEING ACKNOWLEDGED.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BALANCED GROWTH PART OF IT? JUST MY STATEMENT.
AND WE DID ADDRESS SOME CHANGES IN THE SHOPPING CENTER DESIGNS AND THINGS.
DO WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? HAVE A MOTION TO MAKE A MOTION.
DO I HEAR A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. MR. BENNETT. DID I HEAR YOU SAY YOU WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION? SURE. WHY NOT? I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CASE NUMBER 202320047 TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND REQUESTING THAT VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION ASSIGNMENT OF THE MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY AND MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT AND A PLANNING PLAT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2194 SADDLER ROAD BE APPROVED AND THAT CASE 20230047 AS PRESENTED IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BE APPROVED AT THIS TIME.
OKAY. DO I HEAR A SECOND MOTION? MAKE A MOTION FOR A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE. OPPOSED.
LIKE SIGN NO ONE? NO. MR. DOSTER SAID NO.
THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION OF THE BOARD HAS APPROVED IT.
[5.2 PAB 2023-0048 - ELIZABETH MOORE, AGENT FOR OAKS OF AMELIA LLC, LOT 30 AMELIA ROAD]
[00:50:02]
5.2 PAB CASE 2020 3-0048.DAPHNE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO? YES. THIS APPLICATION IS A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ZONING DISTRICT OF R1.
THIS IS FOR A 1.33 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND THAT'S LOCATED ON AMELIA ROAD.
IT IS A VACANT PARCEL WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED IN NASSAU COUNTY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TOO, WITH A CURRENT LAND USE OF NASSAU COUNTY. MEDIUM DENSITY.
THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR A MAXIMUM GROSS DWELLING UNIT OF FOUR PER ACRE AND A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 75FT IS REQUIRED FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT.
THIS ZONING DISTRICT ALSO ALLOWS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED STRUCTURES AND THEIR ALLOWABLE ANCILLARY STRUCTURES AS THE PERMISSIBLE HOUSING TYPES, AND THIS PARCEL IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION ASSIGNMENT OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FLUME CATEGORY AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-1 ZONING DISTRICT.
FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PAB, THIS WOULD MOVE FORWARD TO THE CITY COMMISSION IN THE FORM OF THREE SEPARATE ORDINANCES AT A PUBLIC HEARING THAT IS ANTICIPATED FOR OCTOBER 17TH, 2023.
AS A BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THIS.
I TRIED TO DRIVE BY THIS AND KELLY TOLD ME IT'S MARKED, BUT I MISSED IT, BUT THIS IS NOT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T THINK, AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, THERE'S ONE CITY PROPERTY AND THE REST ARE COUNTY, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE IS THIS.
LIKE I SAY, IT'S ARE THOSE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ALSO RESIDENTIAL HOMES? I THINK THEY ALL ARE.
BUT THIS ISN'T A NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE ANNEXATION APPLICATION OF ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.
OKAY. IF THEY WERE TO COME IN AND WANTED TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTIES INTO ANYTHING MORE THAN THREE, AND THAT'S WHEN THEY'D HAVE TO COME IN FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD AGAIN, BUT AT THIS TIME, THEY'RE NOT REQUESTING ANY OF THAT.
WE TRY TO USE OF THE RIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE.
WELL IT IS AND I LIVE IN ALTAMONTE, BUT IT ISN'T CONTIGUOUS.
IT'S NOT I MEAN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS AREN'T REMOTELY RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER.
SO YOU COULD PUT AT THE MOST, WHAT, FIVE HOUSES IN THERE? POSSIBLY? YES.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE LAYOUT, WHAT THE WETLANDS OR ANYTHING MIGHT BE, BUT.
RIGHT, BUT THEY STILL WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE MINIMUM.
SO WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE LAND USE ZONING AND THE ANNEXATION PIECE.
LIKE I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, A PRELIMINARY PLAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY WHEN THEY SUBDIVIDE THESE OUT AT A LATER DATE, BUT THAT IS NOT BEING REQUESTED AT THIS TIME, BUT IT IS A REVENUE GENERATOR FOR THE CITY.
NOW. IS THERE SEWER, WATER AND SEWER NEARBY? THEY WOULD BE CONNECTING TO WATER AND SEWER EXISTING.
IS THAT RIGHT ON DEMAND? WHERE IS WHERE WOULD THAT BE? IS THAT ON THAT MAIN ROAD? IT'S ON AMELIA ROAD.
OKAY. MY I SAY, AND YOU'RE NORTH OF SIMMONS.
IT'S GOT TO BE A QUARTER OF A MILE OR SO, RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S WHY THEY'RE DOING IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD? DO I HEAR A MOTION? WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
YES. PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK.
GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
[00:55:01]
YES. MY NAME IS LILLIAN CROSS.I'M A NATIVE OF FERNANDINA BEACH.
I WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE, AND ACTUALLY, I CONSIDER MYSELF A NEIGHBOR TO THIS PROPERTY.
BY THE WAY. LET ME GET A BETTER VIEW.
ACTUALLY, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS PART OF MY FAMILY BECAUSE I GREW UP HERE, PLAYED ON A LOT OF THE TREES THAT ACTUALLY WERE DESTROYED AND REMOVED BY ALABAMA'S PROJECT, AND BEFORE I GET STARTED, I'LL JUST MENTION THERE IS FLOODING.
I SOLD MY ORIGINAL HOUSE, 2945, WHICH IS BEHIND, AND YOU POINT OUT WHERE THAT IS ON THAT MAP RIGHT THERE, RIGHT BEHIND YOU, AMELIA ROAD.
I'M LOT 30 RIGHT NEXT TO ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THIS 1.33 ACRES.
SO I RIGHT UP TO IT AND ALSO LET ME SHOW YOU RIGHT HERE AND I CAN SHOW YOU IF YOU CHAIRWOMAN.
YES. I CAN'T SEE ANY OF THE SCREEN.
SPEAKERS] JUST USE THE CHAIR AS YOUR EASEL.
NOW, DO YOU WANT TO BE BACK? THAT BETTER? LIKE THAT? YEAH. I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT SHE POINTS TO THE SCREEN RIGHT HERE.
THERE YOU GO. THAT'S GOOD FOR NOW.
ARE YOU GOING TO SHOOT? THANK YOU.
OKAY. ONCE AGAIN, MY NAME IS LILLIAN CROSS AND I'M AT 2943 AMELIA ROAD SOUTH.
RIGHT. I MEAN, BUT UP TO THAT PROPERTY.
OKAY. UM, AND I'M A LIFELONG RESIDENT, AND WHAT I WANTED TO SAY IS THIS IS ALL WE KNOW.
OR JOHN AND I, HE LIVES DOWN THE STREET ABOUT THIS PROPERTY, AND BECAUSE I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH.
OKAY. WITH TINA SMITH, WHO IS THE REPRESENTATIVE.
I ASSUME SOMEHOW I'VE ONLY HAD ONE CONVERSATION WITH HER AND VERY NICE PERSON SAYING THAT THERE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FIVE PROPOSED HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY, A ROAD OR A DRIVEWAY.
I DON'T WE DON'T KNOW WHAT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT UP NEXT TO MY SEPTIC TANK.
WE HAVE A SEPTIC SYSTEM AND THEN THE LEACHING FIELD AND IT'S RIGHT ON THEIR PROPERTY LINE.
NOW, I KNOW YOU HAVE GUIDELINES.
I GET THAT, AND THAT WAS ONE QUESTION.
DOES ANYBODY KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE A DRIVEWAY OR A ROAD? YOU KNOW, AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT THE, AGAIN, PROPOSAL IS THAT A FENCE WILL RUN PER THIS REPRESENTATIVE FOR, I GUESS, THE DEVELOPER RIGHT BESIDE MY PROPERTY AND RIGHT BESIDE THAT PROPERTY LINE RUNS THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND THE LEACHING FIELD.
SO I'M ALSO AND SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE FENCE AND ALL THE BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPING.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE MILLION DOLLAR HOMES.
AND AGAIN, I'VE LIVED ON THIS PROPERTY FOR 70 YEARS.
OF COURSE, I'M GOING TO BE 80 SOON, SO MAYBE 80 YEARS.
SO I FEEL LIKE IT'S PART OF THE FAMILY.
SO THIS IS WHAT I TOOK THE OTHER DAY JUST FOR YOUR REVIEW, AND IT'S UNACCEPTABLE TO HEAR YOU TALK ABOUT CUTTING DOWN TREES LIKE SOME OF THESE AND PLANTING SOMETHING THAT'S I DON'T KNOW HOW WHAT AND I CAN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE TREE.
WHAT I MEAN, BY THE TIME SOMEBODY BUILDS A HOUSE, MOST OF OUR YOUNG FAMILIES MOVE HERE.
A LOT OF RETIRED PEOPLE ON THE SOUTH END OF THE ISLAND, BUT I MEAN, YOU CAN'T COMPARE TO THIS.
WE HAVE OVER 100 SPECIES THAT LIVE.
HALF OF THESE OAK TREES THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT.
[01:00:01]
WE HAVE SOME WHITE OAKS AS WELL, WHICH ARE VERY SPARSE, AND I'VE NEVER HAD SO MANY ANIMALS IN MY YARD.BIG I'M TALKING ABOUT BIG RACCOONS, HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS NOW OF SQUIRRELS.
RATS IT'S OKAY, BUT THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO GO.
PEOPLE, AND WHEN'S IT GOING TO STOP? WHERE ARE WE GOING TO SAVE? OUR OLIVE TREES ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR ECOSYSTEM, AND I'M SORRY.
I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, BUT IT MAKES ME SICK.
WHY DO YOU NEED AN RV PARK ON A WE'RE AN ISLAND.
WE'RE NOT THE SIZE OF CALIFORNIA.
EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE DEAD AND GONE BY THE TIME THEY BUILT THAT HOUSE, AND THAT TREE IS GOING TO BE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OAK TREES ONLY LIVE TO BE 200 YEARS OLD.
MY PARENTS LIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT.
THEY SAID THAT ONE TREE ON THEIR PROPERTY WAS 500 YEARS OLD, AND THE OTHER POINT I'M GOING TO MAKE AND I'M GOING TO MAKE IT SHORT, THAT WE HAVE HAD FLOODING WHEN I LIVED ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY THAT BUTS UP RIGHT TO ALABAMA, THE WORST FLOODING.
WE HAD LOTS OF RAIN THIS YEAR.
THE WORST FLOODING IS ON THIS 1.3, THREE ACRES IN THE BACK.
WE NEVER HAD THAT UNTIL ALABAMA BUILT, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ALABAMA.
ALABAMA WE HAVE A FLOODING ISSUE BACK THERE THAT'S GOT TO BE ADDRESSED NOW.
OF COURSE, I FEEL LIKE I AM A NEIGHBORHOOD, 1.3, THREE ACRES TO THREE HOUSES.
I CAN ACCEPT THAT, BUT FIVE HOUSES, AND GUESS WHAT? THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A SOLID FENCE UP.
YEAH, THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A FENCE UP AND WE SIT ON OUR BACK PATIO WITH A TWO STORY HOUSE LOOKING DOWN ON US, FOUR OF THEM AND ONE IN THE BACK, SHE SAID, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO LOOK OVER THAT FENCE RIGHT DOWN INTO OUR PRIVACY AREA, YOU KNOW? AND I'M SPOILED, OKAY.
I'M SPOILED. I'VE LIVED IN WE ALL I'VE ALWAYS CALLED IT THE COUNTRY.
I MEAN, IT JUST IS SICKENING TO SEE ALL THIS, AND WE'RE AN ISLAND.
WE'RE NOT A HUGE COMMUNITY, AND YOU PEOPLE KEEP SAYING, OH, WELL, 19 TREES.
WELL, THAT MADE ME SICK TO HEAR THAT.
SORRY, I HEARD IT, BUT THE OTHER THING IS THAT DOES ANYBODY REALLY KNOW IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A ROAD OR A DRIVEWAY BESIDE THAT PROPERTY? WE HAVE NOT ALL WE'RE DOING IS OKAY.
WE HAVE MINIMAL INFORMATION AND A LOT OF THE DETAIL WILL START TO COME BACK TO US AT A LATER TIME.
THERE'S A COMMITTEE CALLED THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
OKAY. AS DAPHNE HAS ALREADY DESCRIBED HOW THAT WORKS, AND THEY WILL LOOK AT MANY OF THE ISSUES, PARTICULARLY THE TREE ISSUES, THE FLOODING ISSUES THAT YOU'VE BROUGHT UP.
BUT THAT FOR TONIGHT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT.
MAKE ONE COMMENT. YES, THE CITY IS PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH ME BECAUSE THEY'RE ENDED UP CAUSING A LOT OF MONEY TO FIX SOME OF THE PROBLEMS. I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I THINK PROBABLY THERE'S MORE FOCUS ON IT, BUT UNTIL IT GOT TO THE SOMETHING CAME TO THE TRB FOR THEM TO BECAUSE THE FIRST THING THEY'RE GOING TO DO IS JUST KIND OF TAKE A I CALL IT A 10,000 FOOT OVER OVERVIEW.
WHAT'S THIS WHOLE PROJECT LOOK LIKE? THAT'S GOING TO BE THE FIRST TIME WE'RE REALLY GOING TO GET A GAUGE OF WHAT THEY THINK, WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE, PARTICULARLY SO RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE SOMEBODY CAN SAY, WELL, 1.3 ACRES, I CAN PUT FIVE HOUSES ON IT.
HOWEVER, THERE MAY BE OTHER RESTRICTIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS IS.
YOU'RE GOING TO PUT TWO HOUSES AND THAT'S IT.
WE DON'T KNOW YET. WELL, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT, IF YOU BUILD A HOUSE IN THE BACK AND THEY HAVE A 15 FOOT BACKYARD, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WEAR THEIR BOOTS TO TAKE THE GRASS, TO TAKE THE TRASH OUT BECAUSE IT'S FLOODING BACK THERE, AND SO, ACCORDING TO TINA THIS IS JUST HEARSAY, AND I MEAN, IT'S FINE.
ONE HOUSE HERE AND THEN TO THE NORTH OF MY HOUSE WOULD BE FOR FOUR MORE HOUSES.
SHE CLAIMED THAT SHE WAS GOING TO BE LIVING IN THE BACK HOUSE AND THEN THERE WOULD BE.
OR OTHER HOUSES, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT?
[01:05:01]
I'M SORRY. YOU MAY THINK THAT THIS IS NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD.I LOOK AT IT AS A NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE HOUSES THAT ARE FIVE FEET APART.
THEY ALL SOLD THEIR PROPERTY EXCEPT ME.
I WAS A FLIGHT ATTENDANT FOR 25 YEARS.
THIS. I LOVE TO COME BACK HOME.
I THINK THERE'S NOBODY THAT DOES IT, BUT I'LL LET YOU GO, AND I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY OTHER THAN I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED IF THEY DO APPROVE THIS, AND WE FOLKS ARE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM ON A MUCH SMALLER SCALE AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS BEHIND THE AMELIA BAPTIST CHURCH.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT A PROBLEM WITH DEVELOPMENT, BUT I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DEVELOPERS MOVING INTO I CALL A NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S HAPPENING OVER AND OVER HOW WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO HAVE SOMEONE COME IN AND BUILD A BUNCH OF HOUSES AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE LOOK, WE ARE GOING TO LOSE OUR PRIVACY AND THE QUIET.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE SPEEDING IN AND OUT OF THERE.
I'M YOU KNOW, AND I'VE HAD ENOUGH.
THE REQUEST IS FOR R-1, WHICH IS OUR LOWEST DENSITY.
SO I THINK THAT'S A POSITIVE TO LOOK AT THAT, BUT YOU ALSO MIGHT KEEP TRACK OF THESE AS THIS PROJECT GOES THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS.
AGAIN, THIS IS JUST THE VERY BEGINNING AS IT GOES THROUGH THE TRC.
JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, I'M NOT AN ADVERSARY.
BEAUTIFUL. WE UNDERSTAND THAT, TOO, AND I APPRECIATE IT.
IT DOESN'T APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION, ANYTHING AT ALL.
THAT ALL HAS TO GO BEFORE OUR TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
YES, MA'AM. MISTER. THANK YOU.
YES? MISTER GILLETTE WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING.
THAT'S WHY IT'S RELEVANT TONIGHT.
THEIR MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
I NEED TO GET MARGARET UP HERE.
ALL RIGHT, HANG ON. HANG ON, EVERYBODY.
GILLETTE WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING.
I JUST HAD A QUESTION ON THE INFORMATION IN THE PACKET.
SURE. THERE'S A SURVEY IN THERE THAT SHOWS FIVE LOTS.
I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT CAME FROM BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE PARCEL ID NUMBER.
I THINK IT WAS UNDER THEIR PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS OF WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP THERE.
SO I UNDERSTAND WHERE SHE'S COMING FROM ON THAT, BUT I MEAN, THERE'S THE IMPLICATION THAT THIS APPLICATION WOULD HAVE FIVE LOTS THAT WOULD BE APPROVED BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE PACKET WHEN IN FACT, THERE'S ONLY ONE LOT, ONE PARCEL IN THE ANNEXATION, LAND USE AND ZONING. THIS IS NOT FOR A PLAT OR ANYTHING.
I THINK WE OUGHT TO, IN THE FUTURE AT LEAST REMOVE PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS FROM THE PACKET SO THE PUBLIC DOESN'T THINK THAT THIS IS COMING BECAUSE I WOULD BELIEVE IT WAS COMING BECAUSE THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT I HAD.
I THINK THAT'S A GOOD COMMENT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
ALL RIGHT, AND SIR, WOULD YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE? I'M JOHN WATSON, 2825, AMELIA ROAD.
I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO GIVE JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES OF BRIEF HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY.
LILY HAS TOLD YOU ABOUT HER FAMILY HISTORY, AND OF COURSE, THERE'S A LOT OF EMOTION INVOLVED WITH ALL THAT, BUT TWO YEARS AGO, THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY SOME PEOPLE FROM THE ISLAND, NOT THE ISLAND.
JUST SOMEWHERE IN NASSAU COUNTY WITH THE IDEA OF BUILDING TWO HOUSES ON IT AT THAT TIME.
[01:10:04]
OF COURSE IT WAS IN THE COUNTY.THE COUNTY LOOKED AT IT IN DEPTH.
THE REASON IT WAS TURNED DOWN IS THERE'S NOT 75FT OF FRONTAGE BECAUSE THE ROAD IS AT AN ANGLE.
SO THAT MAYBE IN THE MARKETING IT SAID THAT THERE WAS 700 EXCUSE ME, 150FT OF FRONTAGE, BUT IN REALITY, BECAUSE APPARENTLY FRONTAGE IS MEASURED FROM THE SIDE LOT LINES AND IF THE ROAD'S AT AN ANGLE THAT PULLS THE SIDES IN.
CONSEQUENTLY PUT IT BACK ON THE MARKET.
THERE WAS NEVER ANY THING IN THE MARKETING THAT INDICATED.
THERE'S EIGHT LOTS OR EIGHT PROPERTIES WITHIN 250FT OF THIS PROPERTY, AND ON THOSE EIGHT LOTS, THERE'S SEVEN HOUSES. THE TOTAL AREA OF ALL THE LOTS IS 220.2FT.
EXCUSE ME. WHEN YOU DIVIDE THAT BY THE SEVEN HOUSES, 2.88 ACRE LOTS IS HOW THE COMMUNITY IS CONFIGURED RIGHT NOW. SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THE PEOPLE AREN'T TOO.
OF COURSE, A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE LIVED THERE OR THEIR FAMILY HAS SINCE THERE.
SOME HAVE BEEN HANDED DOWN FROM THE GRANDPARENTS.
THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE ZONING IS, WHAT ZONING IS.
I MEAN, AS FAR AS I KNOW, IT'S JUST GOING TO REMAIN THE SAME, AND WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE REPRESENTATIVES THAT THEY INTEND TO BUILD FIVE HOMES.
SO IF YOU TAKE THE 1.3 SOMETHING ACRES AND PUT FIVE HOUSES ON THERE, WHICH I DON'T SEE HOW IT'S HUMANLY POSSIBLE, BUT APPARENTLY YOU ALL HAVE A DRAWING WE HAVEN'T BEEN HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE.
IT'S ABOUT HALF AN ACRE EXCUSE ME, ABOUT A QUARTER OF AN ACRE PER HOUSE.
NOW, YOU TAKE ALL THESE TREES, TAKE OUT AREA FOR THE ROAD THAT SHRINKS A QUARTER ACRE, PROBABLY DOWN TO 0.2 ACRE PER LOT, AND GIVEN ALL THE DRAINAGE ISSUES AND EVERYTHING, WE JUST DON'T SEE HOW ANY TREES CAN BE SAVED.
I MEAN, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SAVE A COUPLE, BUT I THINK THE COUNTY, IN THEIR WISDOM, SAID THAT THIS PROPERTY DOESN'T NEED TO BE TURNED INTO ANOTHER SUBDIVISION, AND OF COURSE, THE DEVELOPERS ALL WANT TO DO THIS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO ANNEX INTO YOU GUYS SO THEY CAN GET WATER AND SEWER CURRENTLY, AND THERE'S BEEN MISREPRESENTATION.
THERE IS NO WATER OR SEWER ON AMELIA ROAD NOW.
NOW I KNOW THERE'S TALK OF DOING THAT, BUT IT DOES NOT EXIST AT THIS POINT.
THERE IS WATER AND SEWER, OF COURSE.
NOW TO ME, WHICH WAS PUT IN MANY YEARS AGO, PROBABLY 17 YEARS AGO, WHEN THE SEWER LINE WAS EXTENDED DOWN THERE SO THAT THE CITY COULD ANNEX TO ME. EVER SINCE I WENT IN, THIS PROPERTY HAS HAD CONSTANT PROBLEMS BECAUSE THE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS THERE, JUST AS YOU ALL ARE WELL AWARE, ARE PRETTY SERIOUS, AND ALL THE WATER FROM THIS BACK LINE OF HOUSES THAT ABUTS THIS PROPERTY DRAINS PRIMARILY ONTO THIS PROPERTY.
SO IT'S JUST GOING TO GET TO BE A BIGGER AND BIGGER MESS, AND I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE CITY WOULD HAVE ANY INTEREST IN ANNEXING THIS PROPERTY TO THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF SOME INDIVIDUAL.
I MEAN, ALL YOU CAN DO IS HAVE MORE KIDS IN SCHOOL.
IT ISN'T REALLY. IT'S CONTIGUOUS ON THE REAR WITH ME, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THERE ISN'T ANY PROPERTY.
SOMEBODY SAID THERE WAS OTHER PROPERTIES ON AMELIA ROAD.
THERE'S NO PROPERTY ANYWHERE NEAR THIS.
THAT'S IN THE CITY ON AMELIA ROAD.
SO I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU.
JUST IS ANYONE CONSIDERED ACQUIRING A PROPERTY FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES? I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT THING.
WE HAVE FAIRLY LARGE I WOULDN'T CALL THEM YARDS, BUT THEY'RE LIKE FIELDS AND THE HOUSES THAT ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THEM, AND JUST TO THROW ALL THAT OUT THE WINDOW, JUST BECAUSE SOME GUY WANTS TO COME IN AND BUILD FIVE LITTLE HOUSES IN THE MIDDLE OF A NON USABLE AREA, DOESN'T MATTER.
[01:15:07]
OKAY. MR. GILLETTE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ASK HIM A QUESTION? YEAH, JOHN, ONE OF THE, THE FIVE LOT CONFIGURATION WE HAVE THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTABLE THE WAY IT'S PRESENTED RIGHT NOW.THERE'S A LOT OF DEFICIENCIES WITH IT.
BUT I THINK AND MAYBE TO ANSWER MARGARET'S POINT AS WELL, HOW TO STAFF ANALYZE THIS WELL TOO IN THE COUNTY IS A 75 FOOT WIDE LOT.
THE R1 CONFIGURATION, THE R1 ZONING THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS A 75 FOOT WIDE LOT THEY COULD DEVELOP IN THE COUNTY IF THEY GOT CITY UTILITIES. SO WHAT WE COULD THINK THIS THROUGH WITH WHERE THE DOMINO WOULD BE IS WE COULD DENY ANNEXATION, YET THEY COULD STILL GET WATER AND SEWER AND DEVELOP IN THE COUNTY ON 75 FOOT WIDE LOT.
THAT WOULD BE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE IT WOULD BE THE SAME TIME FRAME.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I DON'T SEE THERE'S ANY REASON AT ALL TO ANNEX THIS PROPERTY INTO THE CITY.
YEAH. I MEAN, YOU GOT TO THINK A LITTLE BIGGER PICTURE.
I THINK MR. DOZIER, I THINK HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.
I MEAN, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? I MEAN, YOU'RE JUST A PROVEN EVERYTHING JUST BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA IN 30, 40 YEARS FROM NOW WHEN WE'RE ALL PROBABLY ALL GONE AND OUR KIDS ARE GOING TO BE RUNNING AROUND GOING, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THIS PLACE? I MEAN, IT USED TO BE, BUT MY POINT IS, IF WE DENIED THIS TONIGHT, THEY STILL ARE GOING TO GO DOWN ONE PATH TO, WELL, LET THEM DO THAT.
AND THEY MIGHT. I MEAN, I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK WE'RE APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT TONIGHT.
JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, IF YOU TOOK THE CURRENT ZONING AND RAN THE NUMBERS ON 1.3 ACRES AND PUT FIVE HOUSES ON IT, WHICH YOU SEE ISN'T GOING TO BE POSSIBLE, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW THAT AT THE TIME.
AGAINST THE CURRENT ZONING AROUND THE AREA, THE DENSITY WOULD INCREASE 11 FOLD AND I DON'T MEAN 11%, 11 TIMES THE NUMBER OF HOUSES COULD THEN BE BUILT ON THIS ONE LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I ONE OTHER QUESTION ABOUT WHILE I'M HAD A CHANCE TO RANT THE WAY, THE WAY THE ZONING CODE, I GUESS IT'S CALLED LDC IS WRITTEN, IT'S LIKE IT ENCOURAGES.
THEY ALL THE DEVELOPERS TO TRY TO DO THE MAXIMUM ON A SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY THEY CAN DO.
I MEAN, THE LDC SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO.
I MEAN, IF EVERYTHING IS BAD, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, EVERYBODY'S JUST GOT THE IDEA, WELL, WE'LL JUST GO FOR THAT AND SEE IF WE CAN'T GET THAT AND THEN WE'LL BACK OFF IF WE HAVE TO, BUT I'M PRETTY UPSET.
I'M SORRY. I'M KIND OF NERVOUS, BUT.
WELL, JOHN, THE ONE OF THE WAYS THAT THE CITY AND STAFF LOOKS AT ANY PROJECT, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO THE DETAIL TONIGHT, I UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT'S BEING ASKED US IS NOT THE DETAIL, BUT WHERE THAT COMES INTO PLAY IS REALLY A QUESTION OF SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY IS FURTHER ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS THE QUESTION OF NET DENSITY AND NET DENSITY REALLY THEN DRIVES THAT'S REALLY I THINK IS WHERE MR. GILLETTE IS GOING IS THOSE ISSUES ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT YOU YOU, YOU HAVE X AMOUNT OF SQUARE FEET ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY AS YOU LOOK AT IT THIS WAY, BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO START DEDUCTING CERTAIN THINGS LIKE WETLANDS AND OTHER ISSUES THAT YOU KNOW ARE ON THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD MAKE IT SO THAT IT WOULD NOT BE BUILDABLE, AND SO THEN YOU DEDUCT THAT FROM THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THEN COME UP WITH YOUR NET DENSITY, AND WE HAVE THAT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE HAVE THAT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THAT IS, I THINK, ONE OF THE WAYS THAT THE CITY HAS TRIED TO MANAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY IS THROUGH NET DENSITY, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THAT THERE.
THERE IS ALWAYS AN INTEREST TO MAKE IT SO YOU CAN DEVELOP MORE, BUT RIGHT NOW THE IT IS WHAT IT IS ON OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THAT REALLY HELPS THE CITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A PIECE OF PROPERTY CAN ACTUALLY HANDLE.
SO I THINK THAT GOOD LUCK IF YOU CAN GET EVERYBODY TO AGREE TO WHAT A WETLAND IS.
I'VE SEEN WETLAND REPORTS AND THEN NO TWO EVER ARE THE SAME.
[01:20:01]
I MEAN, IT'S JUST I KNOW IT'S BASED ON PLANTS AND SOIL SAMPLES AND ALL THIS KIND OF STUFF, BUT YOU CAN KIND OF BUY A WETLANDS REPORT WHEREVER YOU WANT.I MEAN, IF YOU WANT IF YOU'RE TRYING TO BE NEGATIVE, YOU CAN BUY ONE THAT'S VERY WET.
OR IF YOU WANT A DRY ONE, YOU CAN BUY A DRY ONE.
I DON'T SAY YOU GET YOUR HAND ON IT.
WE DO APPRECIATE YOU COMING BEFORE US.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
WHAT ABOUT MAKING ZONING AND RE DO YOU WANT ME TO REMOVE THAT? I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE 100 FOOT WIDE LOT.
I MEAN, THAT'S FINE. STILL HAVE THE ISSUE OF THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO ANALYZE AND MADAM CHAIR, I'LL DEFER TO YOU, BUT WE GOT TO ANALYZE THE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF US WITHOUT CHANGING.
THIS IS JUST PROBABLY. YEAH, THIS IS JUST THE BASICS OF ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY.
THEY DON'T SEEM TO EVER WANT TO GO AWAY.
WE'VE ALL SEEN THAT, BUT I WOULD TELL YOU, SIR, THAT EVERY PIECE OF PROPERTY ON THIS ISLAND IS THREATENED WITH DEVELOPMENT, AS IT SHOULD BE.
SO SO WHETHER IT'S TODAY OR WHETHER IT'S TOMORROW, IT'S A MATTER OF HOW CAN WE MANAGE THAT DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
MARGARET, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK TO US? YEAH. SO.
YEAH. WILL WE SELL THEM? THANK YOU. SHE WAS THE SISTER IN MY BAR.
THIS IS A WEIRD ONE. IS IT PATTERNED ON THE MOUTH? YEAH. WHAT IS THAT? OKAY, I'M GOING TO UNFORTUNATELY, EXTEND THIS TIME A LITTLE BIT LONGER, AND I WILL SEND YOU ALL THIS.
YES. EVERY PARCEL ON THIS ISLAND IS THREATENED WITH DEVELOPMENT, AND WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE WE ARE NOT PROTECTING THEM.
WE'RE NOT DOING THE BEST JOB WE CAN, AND I'M NOT GOING TO INCLUDE EVERY SINGLE THING I WAS GOING TO SAY, BUT WE HAVE CONCERNS NOT JUST REGARDING THIS PROPERTY, BUT ALSO THIS SECTION OF THE ISLAND.
OKAY, AND THOSE ARE BECAUSE OF DENSITY, HIGH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LEVELS, FLOODING, DOCUMENTED HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVELS, AND AS A RESULT OF ALL THE DEVELOPMENT, LACK OF SUFFICIENT CANOPY TO PROCESS THE STORMWATER. THIS IS A PHOTO FROM GOOGLE EARTH FROM 2010, AND WE THIS PARCEL IS RIGHT HERE, BASICALLY, AND WE HAVE THE AIRPORT WITH NO TREES.
WE HAVE THE GOLF COURSE, ALL OF THAT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE AND WE HAVE THE BEGINNINGS OF ILJIMAE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HAVE NOW.
THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW.
OKAY, AND THIS IS, OF COURSE, IN THE MIDDLE.
WE HAVE AL-DAM PACKED TO THE GILLS.
WE HAVE LAKESIDE, WHICH WAS A NIGHTMARE FOR MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS.
WE HAVE OCEAN BREEZE AND ALL OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE BECAUSE OF SO MUCH DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT, WE HAVE A LOT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
NOW I WANT TO MENTION THAT THIS MAP DOES NOT PICK UP A LOT OF MOST OF THE DRIVEWAYS AND SO ON.
SO IT IS WORSE THAN WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE, AND THIS IS, OF COURSE, FROM THE OCEAN.
I LEFT OFF CRANE ISLAND, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT THAT'S LIKE.
SO THIS IS A POTENTIAL WETLANDS MAP FROM THE COUNTY APPRAISER'S MAP.
[01:25:01]
WE KNOW WE ALL KNOW THAT THE COUNTY APPRAISER'S MAP ALWAYS UNDERESTIMATES WETLANDS.OKAY, THIS IS THE OVERESTIMATION, RIGHT? THIS IS A POTENTIAL WETLANDS MAPPING REPORT WAS DEVELOPED BY LEN PEARLSTEIN AND KATHY MULCAHY FROM THE COUNTY, AND YES, THIS IS A BIT OF AN OF AN EXAGGERATION, BUT IT DOES SHOW YOU THIS IS A PARCEL RIGHT HERE, AND THIS IS WHERE THE LADY THAT JUST SPOKE LIVES, AND THIS IS BASED ON ELEVATION AND SOILS.
I WOULD GO INTO THIS, BUT I WON'T WITH THE TIME.
SO IF WE ZOOM IN, THIS IS THE PARCEL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST AN ISSUE FROM THE SIDE, RIGHT? BUT IT'S NOT JUST AN ISSUE FROM THE SIDE.
SHE JUST FINISHED LITERALLY JUST FINISHED TELLING YOU ABOUT FLOODING IN THE BACKS OF THESE PARCELS, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE ELEVATIONS, MOST OF THE LOWER ELEVATIONS ARE OVER HERE.
THIS IS A PARCEL RIGHT HERE, BUT THERE ARE HIGHER ELEVATIONS, AND I'LL MAY.
UM, AND IN TERMS OF THE SOIL, YOU HAVE KINGSFERRY FINE SAND LEON FINE SANDS BOTH ARE DEEP, POORLY DRAINED SANDY SOILS, OKAY? AND BOTH ARE CLASSIFIED AS HYDRIC SOILS, AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
THIS IS THE PARCEL RIGHT HERE WITH THE FERRY FINE SAND, AND THEN AT THE AROUND THIS, YOU HAVE THE LEON FINE SAND.
NEITHER OF THEM DRAIN VERY WELL.
SO WITH THOSE THINGS IN MIND, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR ZONING ACTUALLY UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND THIS IS A BASIC PROBLEM.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANYMORE.
WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF DEVELOPMENT ON THIS ISLAND, WE NEED A PROFESSIONAL WETLANDS DELINEATION.
WE NEED GROUNDWATER SAMPLES THAT ARE ANALYZED IN TERMS OF COMPOSITION AND LEVELS.
WE NEED SOIL SAMPLES THAT HAVE BEEN ANALYZED IN TERMS OF COMPOSITION AND LEVELS, AND WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE THESE TESTS PERFORMED REGULARLY ALL AROUND THIS SECTION.
ACTUALLY, I'D LIKE TO SEE IT ALL AROUND THE ENTIRE ISLAND.
RIGHT, BUT DEFINITELY IN THIS SECTION, BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL OF DENSITY, BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, BECAUSE WE HAVE LOST SO MUCH TREE COVERAGE, WE DON'T HAVE THE STORMWATER PROCESSING THAT WAS THERE TEN YEARS AGO. SO THAT'S MY POINT.
SO I AM CONCERNED ABOUT CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PARCEL AND ANY OTHER PARCEL IN THIS AREA.
THE MORE I HEAR, THE MORE I SAY I'D ALMOST LIKE TO CAPTURE THE PROPERTY AND HAVE IT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CITY BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THE CITY WILL PUT THE RIGHT RESOURCES ON IT THAT DO. THERE'S PROBABLY ANOTHER 15 STEPS BEFORE THERE WAS EVER A SLAB POURED AND I THINK I'D RATHER HAVE IT UNDER UNDER THE BELT OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CITY AND UNDER OUR REQUIREMENTS, REGULATIONS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
YEAH, BUT I'M NOT OPPOSED AND I.
BECAUSE AND I LIKE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSERVATION ACTUALLY, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THE TEST FIRST BEFORE FROM THAT AREA SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN THAT PART OF THE ISLAND.
I'M BRINGING IT INTO THE CITY, BUT IF WE BRING IT IN UNDER A CODE, WE DON'T GET TO CHANGE THE CODE.
AND NOW YOU CAN ONLY BUILD TWO HOUSES ON IT, NOT THREE IT TO THAT OWNER.
[01:30:01]
IT MUST STAY WHERE IT COMES IN.CAN YOU ELABORATE? DEPENDS ON WHEN AN OWNER.
ONCE THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ISSUES THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER, THAT'S WHEN VESTED RIGHTS IN THAT DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT WAS APPROVED THROUGH TECHNICAL REVIEW IS NOW A RIGHT OF THE DEVELOPER, RIGHT? SO BEFORE THAT THE CITY CAN CHANGE ITS CODE, AND THEN THE ONLY ARGUMENT THAT THE DEVELOPER OR THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE IS IF THEY RELIED IN GOOD FAITH.
IT'S AN EQUITABLE ARGUMENT IN COURT IF THEY RELIED AND THEY HAVE DAMAGES NOW BECAUSE THE CITY CHANGED ITS CODE, THEY CAN TRY TO PROVE THOSE UP, BUT IT'S NOT A BRIGHT LINE LIKE THAT. SO THIS AGAIN, ANNEXATION, LAND USE AND ZONING, THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING TONIGHT.
IF THE CITY GOES AND CHANGES THE CODE IN THE NEXT, LET'S SAY THIS PROPERTY OWNER IS SUBJECT TO THAT CODE WHEN THEY DEVELOP, UNLESS AGAIN, THEY'VE ALREADY RECEIVED A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER OR THEY'VE RELIED TO THEIR DETRIMENT ON THE CITY'S CODE AND MADE INVESTMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND AN INVESTMENT DOESN'T INCLUDE JUST PURCHASING THE PROPERTY.
OKAY. SO AND SO THERE'S IN THIS CASE, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT HAS GONE ON.
SO I TEND TO AGREE WITH PETER.
I TRUST THE CITY MORE THAN I TRUST THE COUNTY.
SO I'D LIKE TO SEE IT COME IN THE CITY.
PART OF THE ISLAND. RIGHT, AND LIKE I SAID, I JUST AS A GENERAL COMMENT ABOUT THESE ANNEXATIONS AND SO THAT EVERYBODY THAT'S IN THE CITY AND I UNDERSTAND CERTAINLY YOU'RE IN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY WHAT YOUR VIEWS MIGHT BE.
ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES, THE PROPERTY ON SADLER ROAD, ALL OF THESE UNINCORPORATED POCKETS, IF YOU WILL, THAT ARE STARTING TO GET SURROUNDED BY CITY PROPERTIES, WE AS THE TAXPAYERS ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE MOST EXPENSIVE SERVICES THAT THEY'RE ALREADY GETTING FOR FREE IF THEY STAY IN THE COUNTY, AND THAT'S POLICE AND FIRE ALMOST GUARANTEED HERE ON SADLER ROAD, OUR POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT WE PAY FOR AS TAXPAYERS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR GOES TO SERVICE CALLS TO THESE UNINCORPORATED PROPERTIES.
I DON'T THINK IT'S AN ANSWER TO SAY WE DON'T WANT THEM IN THE CITY, THESE TOWNHOUSES IN OUR CITY.
THE THING TO DO IS TO SEE WHAT IF AND WHAT WE CAN DO WITH REGARD TO THERE'S LITTLE I CAN TELL YOU, BUT WE MAY BE ABLE TO LOOK AT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, SITE PLANS, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
THEY'RE GOING TO FIND A WAY AROUND IT.
IF WE SAY NO, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DEVELOP SOMETHING ON SEPTIC TANK.
SO JUST THINK ABOUT THAT, AND I'D SAY THE SAME THING TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF ALL THESE ANNEXATIONS, BUT AS SOME OF YOU STARTED SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED, DO YOU WANT THE COUNT? BECAUSE IT IS A DIRECT LOSS OF TAX REVENUE BY THE COUNTY WHEN THEY COME INTO THE CITY AND WE GAIN THAT TAX REVENUE LEAST IT PAYS SOMETHING FOR THE POLICE AND FIRE CALLS I AGREE WITH YOU, TAMMY AND I WE HAVE TO BE REALISTIC ABOUT THE INEVITABILITY.
THAT STUFF'S GETTING PUT ON THE PROPERTY.
IT'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT, BUT WE JUST HAVE TO YOU KNOW, I SAY ALL THE TIME, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE ALWAYS HAVE A GUN TO OUR HEAD ABOUT SEWER STUFF OR ABOUT THIS, AND WE LOSE CONTROL, AND I JUST WANT CONTROL BACK, AND I WILL SAY, AS I'VE OBSERVED AND I HAVE AROUND THE STATE FROM OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES, DON'T THINK THAT IT IS JUST A FERNANDINA BEACH ISSUE.
IT'S HAPPENING ALL OVER THE STATE AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO LOCALLY.
WE CAN TRY TO HAVE MORE RESTRICTIVE CODES, BUT I'M AFRAID THAT WOULD BE SHORT LIVED BECAUSE THEN THE STATE SWOOPS IN AND SAYS, OH NO, THESE ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS. THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY LIKE WITH THEIR PROPERTY.
SO YOU'RE NOT FIGHTING THE CITY COMMISSION, IF THAT'S WHAT IT SEEMS LIKE.
YOU'RE FIGHTING THE STATE OF FLORIDA, BECAUSE IF WE WERE ALLOWED TO PUT IN MUCH STRICTER THINGS, WE WOULD, BUT MOST OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS KNOW THAT THE STATE IS TELLING US WE CAN'T DO THAT, AND TO SOME EXTENT, THEY TELL US WE CAN'T DESIGN THESE PROPERTIES, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
SO THE OTHER THING AND I WAS THINKING OF THIS AS YOU WERE SPEAKING ABOUT THE FIRST CASE ON SADLER ROAD, MR. DOSTER, IS THAT.
OH, GOODNESS, I JUST FORGOT MY THOUGHT.
[01:35:01]
WHEN YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT DESIGN, THE STATE OF FLORIDA PREEMPTS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.SO MOST OF THE MANUFACTURED HOMES I'VE SEEN AT THE PLACES ON 17 AND STUFF AIN'T THAT PRETTY? THEY CAN PUT THAT DOWN THERE AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF WE HAVE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.
YOU'RE DONE. HOOK IT UP TO SEWER.
SO THIS IS NOT THE CITY COMMISSION.
IT'S NOT YOUR STAFF THAT YOU'RE FIGHTING.
IT'S THE STATE, AND IN SOME CASES, YOU GUYS GOT TO GET UP THERE AND LOBBY OUR.
I MEAN, THAT'S HOW WE HAVE CHANGES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
IT'S NOT FAIR WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO US.
THE PROBLEM IS WE'RE DESTROYING THE FUTURE OF THE ISLAND, THE EXISTENCE OF THE ISLAND BY LETTING IT GO BEYOND EVEN OR AT LEAST UP TO WHERE SOUTH FLORIDA IS.
WE'RE REALLY DESTROYING ALL FUTURE, SO IT'S NOT A GOOD THING, BUT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD, DIDN'T WE TALK ABOUT WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY DOWN AMELIA ROAD, I THOUGHT, OR IS THAT ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT HAS TO BE IT COMES THROUGH ALDERMEN. WE LOOK, HE'S NOT THERE RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S AVAILABLE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY APPLIED FOR JUST POTABLE WATER OR AND OR SEWER, BUT I KNOW I RECALL AFTER I WAS LIKE, YES, THERE'S SEWER AND WATER ON A ROAD. THERE IS RIGHT NOW.
THE CITY HAS HIRED A CONTRACTOR.
OKAY, BUT IF THEY APPLIED FOR IT AND WE ARE PROCEEDING WITH AN ANNEXATION, IT MEANS THAT THE SEWER IS AVAILABLE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LINE SOMEWHERE THERE, AND THAT THEY'RE CONTIGUOUS, AS YOU SAW.
OKAY. RIGHT. QUESTION DO YOU KNOW HOW I CAN GET OUT OF THIS? THANK YOU, MARK, FOR SPEAKING TO US.
MR. DOSTER, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO ADD? WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK DAPHNE, SO IF SO, WE'RE GOING TO VOTE TO ANNEX THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND MUST WE DO THAT WITH ZONING ATTACHED TO.
YES, IT DOES HAVE TO HAVE ZONING AND LAND USE ATTACHED TO IT.
YES. YEAH. WELL, MADAM CHAIR, IF I COULD.
WELL, SEE, THAT'S WHERE I WAS SAYING BEFORE.
SO YOU CAN'T, IN GOOD FAITH, CHANGE IT AFTER THE FACT, BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
HAS THERE BEEN A WETLAND SURVEY DONE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. NO, NOT AT THIS TIME.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
I'M WITH SOTO INGRAM 1617 SAN MARCO BOULEVARD IN JACKSONVILLE.
OUR OFFICES ARE IN JACKSONVILLE, BUT I AM A NASSAU COUNTY RESIDENT AND A PROUD MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY AND USE PLENTY OF THE SERVICES THAT THE CITY HAS TO OFFER, AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE HASN'T BEEN A WETLAND SURVEY AT THIS TIME AS STAFF AND MULTIPLE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE MENTIONED.
THIS IS PURELY JUST LOOKING AT THE ANNEXATION TO BRING IT IN ALL OF THE PLATTING ANYTHING WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A FUTURE PROCESS WHERE THE PUBLIC WOULD GET TO WEIGH IN AGAIN.
SO WE VERY INTENTIONALLY PICKED THE LOWEST RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
YEAH, AND YOU COULDN'T GO ANY LOWER.
SO BUT THE REASON I ASK THAT QUESTION WAS.
YOU CAN CHANGE SOME OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, KELLY, IF THERE ARE WETLANDS THAT HAPPEN TO BE SHOWN ON THERE AFTER THE AFTER THE ANNEXATION, AND I JUST WANT TO CAUTION THE APPLICANT THAT IF THERE ARE WETLANDS THERE, THE CITY WOULD PLACE A CONSERVATION HOLD ON THAT WETLAND NOT ALLOW DEVELOPMENT UNLESS YOU GOT A VARIANCE TO DO THAT. IS THAT RIGHT OR IS THAT WRONG? CAN'T GET A VARIANCE.
OKAY. SO SCRATCH THE VARIANCE PART.
SO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'VE GOT VERSUS RUSHING INTO THIS KIND OF BLIND JUST DON'T KNOW, AND IT DOES CONCERN ME THAT WE HAVE THIS MAP SHOWING POTENTIALLY THESE FIVE HOUSES BECAUSE THAT MIGHT GIVE EVERYBODY
[01:40:02]
THE IMPRESSION THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO GO ON THIS PROPERTY.SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IN WHATEVER THE DECISION OF THE BOARD IS, THAT IS EITHER MENTIONED OR MAYBE JUST HAVING ENOUGH NOTICE THAT THE BOARD IS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, AND THAT IS NOT PART OF WHAT WE HAVE AGREED TO IN WHATEVER DECISION THE BOARD MAKES.
SO THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WANT TO ADDRESS THAT.
I THINK WHAT YOU WOULD DO, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT APPROVING THE LOTS OR PRELIMINARY PLAT, IT'S JUST THE APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE LAND USE AND THE ZONING AND THE ANNEXATION.
THAT'S IT, AND YOU CAN LEAVE IT AT THAT WHEN THEY GO TO SEPARATE THIS PROPERTY AT A LATER TIME.
IF THEY WISH TO DO SO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THEN ADDITIONALLY COME BACK BEFORE THE PAB IF THEY WISH TO PROCEED WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT. THERE ARE SEVERAL COMPONENTS THAT NEED TO BE ANALYZED WITH THIS PROPERTY WHEN YOU ARE SUBDIVIDING THEM.
THE ROADS, THE FRONTAGE, ALL OF THAT WOULD BE ANALYZED AT THAT TIME.
SO YOUR APPROVAL TONIGHT IS NOT APPROVING THE LOT CONFIGURATION ET AL.
IT'S JUST ANNEXATION, LAND USE AND ZONING.
OKAY. THANK YOU. DO I HEAR A MOTION? I WILL MAKE A MOTION.
OKAY. I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PAB CASE 20230048 TO THE CITY COMMISSION REQUESTING THAT A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION ASSIGNMENT OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LDR LAND USE CATEGORY AND LOW DENSITY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-1 ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED ON AMELIA ROAD BE APPROVED AND THAT PAB CASE 20230048 AS PRESENTED, IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE APPROVED AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU. DO I HEAR A SECOND? OKAY. I'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING FIRST.
CAN WE DO THAT UNDER DISCUSSION? DON'T WE HAVE. WE HAVE TO HAVE.
WE'VE MADE A MOTION. WE NEED TO AT LEAST [INAUDIBLE] I'LL SECOND THE MOTION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I'M THINKING IT BECAUSE [INAUDIBLE].
IF YOU ALL LOOK AT THE CAN YOU PULL UP THE ZONING FOR THE CITY IN THIS AREA? YES. BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, ONCE SHE BRINGS IT UP, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE BEST THAT WE CAN GET OUT OF THIS BY HAVING AN R-1 LOW DENSITY CITY ZONING AND WE CAN CONTROL THE DEVELOPMENT IN THERE BECAUSE THE ENTIRE AREA SURROUNDING THIS, THERE IS SOME HIGH DENSITY.
THERE IS SOME COMMERCIAL, BUT AGAIN, THE R-1 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOW.
SO THAT'S WHY I SECONDED IT AND I WOULD ASK YOU ALL TO APPROVE IT ALSO.
THANK YOU. I'LL PICK YOU BACK ON THAT IF I COULD, MADAM CHAIR.
THE EXISTING ZONING OF RS-2 IS A 75 FEET BY 116 FEET LOT.
THIS WOULD BE A 75 FEET BY 100 FEET LOT AND WE GET CONTROL OF IT.
OKAY. SO JUST ONE LAST QUESTION, IF I COULD.
THIS LADY BROUGHT IN PICTURES OF THOSE BEAUTIFUL TREES.
THE PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO CUT THOSE TREES DOWN.
IS THAT A REASONABLE THING TO SAY OR COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE? SO THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CUT IT DOWN IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR TREE ORDINANCE? YES, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.
SO LIKE I SAID, THE WAY THAT IT WORKS IS THEY HAVE TO MITIGATE AT A 50 TO 50 RATIO.
OKAY. RICHARD, ONE OTHER THING JUST TO MENTION ON THE OTHER PROPERTY OR THE OTHER CASE WE WERE JUST PRESENTING FOR SEVEN, SOME OF THOSE TREES WERE BADLY DECAYED AND WERE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO SURVIVE.
SO THAT'D BE ONE OF THE THINGS THEY WOULD LOOK AT ALSO IS IN TERMS OF SOME OF THEM MAY NOT BE HEALTHY ENOUGH TO SURVIVE IT BECAUSE THEY'VE HAD A PROFESSIONAL ARBORIST LOOK AT STUFF, AND SADLY, ONE OTHER THING THAT KELLY JUST REMINDED ME OF, WE DID HAVE SOME CHANGES TO OUR TREE ORDINANCE BACK IN 2021.
[01:45:03]
TO RETAIN THAT TREE.ALL RIGHT. WE'VE HAD A MOTION AND WE'VE HAD A SECOND.
I'LL CALL THE QUESTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
HEARING NONE, THE MOTION IS APPROVED.
SO IF THAT COMES BACK, REMEMBER WHAT YOU'RE HEARING HERE TONIGHT ABOUT LOW DENSITY.
YOU'LL REMEMBER BECAUSE THERE'S AN AREA SOUTH OF THIS AREA.
CAN YOU PULL THAT THING UP A LITTLE BIT? ALL RIGHT. CAN I JUST ASK A QUICK QUESTION? ANYBODY? MA'AM, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO US, IF YOU JUST NEED TO COME TO THE BOARD, COME TO THE PODIUM.
WE WELCOME YOUR QUESTION, BUT JUST COME FOR THE RECORD.
CAN YOU PULL THAT UP OR SHORTEN IT SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT'S A LITTLE FURTHER SOUTH? YEAH, THAT WHOLE AREA SOUTH OF [INAUDIBLE].
THERE YOU GO. THAT WHOLE AREA IN BETWEEN BOTH OF THOSE AREAS.
YEAH. WELL THAT WHOLE AREA, I MEAN THEY HAVE BIG LOTS IN THERE NOW AND THAT'S PART OF THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE LAST TIME IS THAT LOW DENSITY? OKAY.
VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'M DONE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU COULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AGAIN.
OKAY. LILLIAN [INAUDIBLE] AT 2943 AMELIA ROAD.
I'M INVITING ANYONE TO COME PARK IN OUR CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY.
YOU CAN WALK JUST TWO SECONDS FROM HERE TO THERE TO THE PROPERTY AND GET A BEAUTIFUL VIEW.
YOU PROBABLY NEED BOOTS, BUT YOU COULD JUST STAND THERE AND VIEW IT, BUT HAS ANYONE WALK THE PROPERTY OR YOU JUST COULD NOT FIND IT OR IT WASN'T? I DROVE BY IT. YOU DID? YEAH. OKAY. YEAH, BUT YOU'D HAVE TO REALLY GET OUT OF THE CAR AND TAKE A LOOK, BUT YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME TO 2943 ANY TIME AND PARK IN MY DRIVEWAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[6. BOARD BUSINESS]
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
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE BEING DIRECTED TO DO, THAT THEY ARE ASKING US TO LOOK AT THESE SECTIONS FROM, SAY, A 10,000 FOOT LEVEL AND TO LOOK FOR CLARITY OR PERHAPS IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE MIGHT SEE NEED TO BE MADE IN THESE SECTIONS.
SO THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IS THAT WE'RE CLEAR ON THE DIRECTION THERE.
I DID ASK DAPHNE IF SHE WOULD INCLUDE THE ORIGINAL 1.03.05 LANGUAGE, BECAUSE OVER THE YEARS THAT HAS BEEN SHORTENED A LOT. SO THAT MIGHT ADD SOME CLARITY TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THERE.
OKAY. SO DAPHNE, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
OKAY. SO, YES, AS CHAIR ROBAS HAS CAN WE CAN WE JUST TAKE A MOMENT? I'LL BE RIGHT BACK. FIVE MINUTES.
DAPHNE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE IT FROM HERE.
[01:50:08]
SO AS CHAIR ROBAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE AT THE LAST CITY COMMISSION MEETING, OUR CITY COMMISSION TASKED STAFF AND PAB WITH AMENDING SEVERAL SECTIONS OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.SO THESE WILL BE UPCOMING TEXT AMENDMENTS RELATED TO 1.03.04, 1.03.05, 1.07.00 DEFINITION OF NET DENSITY, AND I JUST I WANT TO ESTABLISH A TIMELINE FOR HOW THIS IS GOING TO GO.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE YOU PUT THEM UP THERE SO I CAN WRITE THEM DOWN.
I'M SORRY. WE'RE HAVING SOME ISSUES WITH IT.
OKAY. LET ME TRY TO REDO IT ONE MORE TIME.
FOR SOME REASON, IT'S HAVING SOME ISSUES.
MARGARET BROKE IT. I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT WITH YOU.
[CHUCKLING] I DON'T WANT TO PLAY.
SO THIS WILL [INAUDIBLE] WHAT WE WILL DO, WE'LL HAVE A MEETING TO DISCUSS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE AMENDMENTS AND KIND OF REALLY DELVE INTO THE DETAILS FOR THESE TEXT AMENDMENTS, AND I ASKED THE BOARD WHICH MEETING DATES THEY WOULD LIKE TO DEDICATE TO THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO HAVE YOUR OWN MEETING TO JUST GO OVER THESE ITEMS, AND WE DO HAVE SOME OPENINGS AVAILABLE FOR THAT MEETING.
WE COULD CERTAINLY MEET ON THE 27TH OF SEPTEMBER, WHICH IS THE LAST WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH.
IF THAT WORKS FOR YOU ALL, AND WE CAN DIVE INTO THIS DISCUSSION, BUT EXPECT TO HAVE FORMAL ACTION IN PLACE BY THE NOVEMBER PAB MEETING, THAT WOULD BE WHEN WE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE THE LANGUAGE WRITTEN AND YOU ALL WOULD BE VOTING ON IT AT THAT TIME.
SO WHAT WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO DO FOR THE NEXT MEETING AND THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION? ARE WE BEING DIRECTED TO MAKE CHANGES AND MAKE CERTAIN CHANGES? CORRECT, WE ARE, AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY WAY OF SHOWING THAT TO US.
I MEAN, A HANDOUT OR SOMETHING.
SO THAT ARE THEY SAYING CREATE MORE DENSITY? KELLY I'M NOT IN CHARGE.
[INAUDIBLE] YES, I'LL BE HAPPY TO JUST PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF A SUMMARY.
SO AT THE MOST RECENT COMMISSION MEETING THAT OCCURRED ONE WEEK AGO, APPROXIMATELY A WEEK AGO TUESDAY, THE COMMISSION HAD DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS OF FOUR OF THE FIVE MEMBERS TO DIRECT STAFF TO DO ESSENTIALLY TWO THINGS AS IT RELATES TO SECTIONS 1.03.04 AND 1.03.05.
THE FIRST IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR, MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR, CLARIFY IT SO THAT IT CAN BE REALLY WELL UNDERSTOOD WHEN THESE SECTIONS APPLY AND WHEN THEY DO NOT APPLY, SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS A SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF WHEN THEY'RE BEING APPLIED.
THE OTHER DIRECTION THAT WAS AGREED UPON AND ASKED OF STAFF IN MAKING CHANGES IS TO CONSIDER A CHANGE THAT ONLY WHEN A CONDITIONED PORTION OR CONDITIONED PORTIONS OF A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE EXTENDS OVER MULTIPLE ORIGINAL LOTS OF RECORD THAT IT WOULD SERVE TO UNIFY THOSE LOTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES IN THE FUTURE.
SO THAT IF THAT HAPPENED AND A PROPERTY OWNER WANTED TO RESTORE THEM, THEY WOULD STILL NEED TO SEEK A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO RESTORE THOSE LOTS OF RECORD FOLLOWING DEMOLITION.
THE CHANGE FROM HOW IT RATES CURRENTLY IS THAT I'M CONDITIONED PORTIONS OF STRUCTURES, THINGS LIKE PORCHES DECKING CURRENTLY COMBINE THEM.
THEY WOULD NOT LIKE THAT IN THE FUTURE.
WHAT ELSE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES LIKE SHEDS OR ACCESSORY DWELLINGS CURRENTLY COMBINE THOSE LOTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES, EVEN IF THEY'RE EXCLUSIVELY ON THE ADJOINING LOT AND WOULDN'T AFFECT THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
SO THAT WAS THE DIRECTION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US LAST TUESDAY, AND WITH THAT, THAT'S WHY WE WENT AHEAD AND DID MODIFY THE AGENDA TO PROVIDE NOTICE SO THAT PEOPLE COULD BE AWARE THAT THIS DISCUSSION ITEM WAS COMING TO THE BOARD BASED ON THAT DIRECTION, AND THEN ASK THE BOARD FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO COLLABORATE WITH YOU IN THE REVISING OF THAT LANGUAGE BASED ON THE DIRECTION THAT HAD BEEN PROVIDED.
SO. THE COMMISSION CAN DIRECT YOU WORK FOR THE CITY MANAGER WHO WORKS FOR THEM,
[01:55:07]
AND SO THEY CAN GIVE YOU DIRECTION THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER.WE'RE AN ADVISORY BOARD WHO GIVES ADVICE TO THE COMMISSION.
CORRECT, AND I SAY THAT RESPECTFULLY AND COLLEGIALLY.
SO THE BOARD, BUT IF OUR ADVICE IF THIS BOARD WOULD ADVISE THE COMMISSION SOMETHING OTHER THAN YOU HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO DO, WE STILL HAVE THE INDEPENDENCE TO SAY OUR ADVICE IS TO DO A DIFFERENT THING THAN THAT.
YOUR RECOMMENDATION AS A BODY COULD BE TO DO SOMETHING ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT HAS BEEN DIRECTED.
IT WOULD JUST BE A RECOMMENDATION.
THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT, BUT IF THEY DIRECT THE STAFF TO DO A PARTICULAR THING THAT WE DON'T WANT DONE, THEN WE VOTE NOT TO.
WHAT WE DO GIVE IT TO THEM AND THEY VOTE ON IT.
WHAT DO WE GIVE TO THEM? WHAT THEY COME UP? THEY DECIDE. I MEAN, THEY DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH US.
YEAH. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES THAT'S HAPPENED WITH ME.
OH, NO, I KNOW. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
THAT'S WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING.
I'M JUST I GUESS I'M MORE OR LESS SAYING TO US IS THE CITY COMMISSION DOESN'T DIRECT US.
RIGHT AND AGAIN, MARGARET'S LAUGHING.
I MEAN THAT RESPECTFULLY AND COLLEGIALLY.
I REALLY DO, BUT SO THERE'S SOME GIVE AND TAKE IN THAT, I GUESS.
IF I COULD SAY I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SPOT ON IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND HOW ALL THIS WORKS.
THE WAY I TOOK IT IS THAT THEY ARE ASKING US FOR CLARITY.
THEY'RE ASKING US FOR SOME DEFINITION OF CERTAIN, LIKE THE DENSITY.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH US ENGAGING IN A DISCUSSION THAT LOOKS AT THESE ITEMS, ALL FOUR OF THEM, AND THAT BECAUSE TO JUST SAY NO, I DON'T THINK IS THE ANSWER.
I THINK THAT WE ARE HERE TO ADVISE, AND PART OF THAT ADVISING IS ACTUALLY GETTING COMMUNITY FEEDBACK. REALLY THAT'S SORT OF WE ARE SORT OF THAT FUNNEL THAT TAKES THE MESSAGE FROM PEOPLE WE TALK TO AND FROM THE PEOPLE WHO TEND AND GIVE US FEEDBACK AND GIVE US A SENSE OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY FEELS LIKE.
SO THEN WE THEN EXPRESS THAT THROUGH WORDS OF RESOLUTIONS OR WHATEVER, AND THEN WE SEND THAT UP TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
SO I THINK THAT HAVING A HEALTHY DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS IS ALWAYS IS BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYONE.
IT MAY BE THAT WHAT WE HEAR FROM OUR COMMUNITY IS EXACTLY WHAT'S THERE WE MAY HEAR THAT, BUT WE MAY HEAR OF SOME WAYS THAT MAYBE DOES REQUIRE SOME CLARITY THAT MIGHT BE A BENEFIT TO ALL OF US AS WE'RE GOING FORWARD, AND I HOPE YOU DIDN'T HEAR ME SAY ANYTHING THAT DISAGREES WITH WHAT I JUST SAID.
NO, I DID NOT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT THERE'S A THE JOINT MEETING WE HAD WITH THE COMMISSIONERS, THESE ITEMS CAME UP AS A GENERAL, A POINT OF FOCUS.
I GUESS MY EARS PICKED UP THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION WAS COMING UP AND SAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE NEED TO HAVE YOU GO TAKE A LOOK AND POKE A STICK REAL HARD AT IT, AND MAYBE WE DO NEED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES BUT I THINK THEY WERE COMING NOT AS AN ADVERSARIAL TYPE RELATIONSHIP, BUT JUST ONE OF, OKAY, YOU ARE GOVERNING NOT A GOVERNING, BUT A CONSOLATORY ORGANIZATION AND COME GIVE US SOME THOUGHTS.
IT MIGHT BE AN EXTRA TEN WORDS IN OR OUT.
YOU'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING. I THINK SOMETIMES AT FIRST BLUSH YOU SAY, NO, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS, BUT AFTER YOU HEAR COMMUNITY INPUT AND AFTER YOU HAVE DISCUSSION SOME OF US MIGHT CHANGE OUR MINDS.
[02:00:01]
YEAH THAT'S WHY IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THIS.I AGREE. MR. GILLETTE, YOU HAD A COMMENT? YEAH. OH, DID THEY? SORRY. DID THE COMMISSION AT ALL DIRECT US TO LOOK AT IT FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT OR A PPLICABILITY TO PLATS? I THINK THEY WANT US TO MAKE IT CLEAR THE APPLICABILITY.
WHEN DOES IT APPLY? WHEN WOULDN'T IT APPLY AND WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE THE COMBINATION OF LOTS? AND SEPARATION, AND THE SEPARATION.
A LOT OF CASES, 25 FOOT LOTS AND A LOT OF PEOPLE BOUGHT 4 OR 5 OF THEM AND I HAPPEN TO RUN INTO ONE CASE WHERE THE HOME, EVERYTHING WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE, WAS ON FOUR PIECES OF PROPERTY.
THEY HAD A GARAGE WHICH WAS REALLY JUST A CARPORT ON THE COMPLETELY ON THE OTHER LOT.
THEY UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT IF YOU TEAR DOWN THAT HOUSE ON THE FOUR LOTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY THERE, OKAY, THAT'S NOW ONE LOT, BUT THEY LIKE THAT 25 FOOTER TO REVERT BACK TO A 25 FOOT LOT SINCE THAT'S THE WAY THE ORIGINAL PLAT WAS, AND IT DOESN'T WELL WHAT THE TERM WAS CONDITIONED SPACE OR RESIDENCE OR WHATEVER ON IT. I THINK THAT YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I'VE JUST DISCUSSED AS THE DIRECTION.
YES. SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THE ORIGINAL PLAT OF FERNANDINA BEACH AND THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH THAT, AND THAT'S WHERE 1.03.05 CAME OUT OF AND ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS, DENSITY, ALL THE OTHER STUFF, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT 25 FOOT LOTS WAS PLATTED FOR NEW YORK CITY AND THIS IS [INAUDIBLE] VISION IN 1890, WHENEVER HE WAS HERE I FEEL LIKE WE STARTED THIS I'VE BEEN HERE 20 YEARS.
SO THE FIRST THING I EVER DID WAS THE LAND USE AND THEN ZONING, AND WE HAVE OVER THE YEARS TWEAKED ALL OF THAT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY, AND I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT WE HAD A PRETTY GOOD PLAN DURING THIS WHOLE TIME PERIOD, AND I'D NEVER MIND GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT IT.
I MEAN, WE COULD ALWAYS DO SOMETHING BETTER, AND I'VE ALWAYS ASKED KELLY, WHAT KIND OF ISSUES ARE YOU HAVING AND WHAT CAN WE DO TO IMPROVE THEM? SO I'M ASSUMING THIS IS ONE OF THOSE, YOU KNOW.
DENSITY, TO ME, THIS IS A CRITICAL ISSUE AND WE ARE SO MUCH UNDER PRESSURE TO CONTINUE DEVELOPING TO THE HIGHEST AND MAXIMUM AMOUNT AND THAT WILL NEVER GO AWAY BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A BEAUTIFUL PLACE AND EVERYBODY WANTS TO MAKE MONEY.
SO I WOULD SAY IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING, LET'S SEE WHAT'S THE ISSUE, AND BUT I THINK MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN TOWN HERE, I DON'T HAVE ANY I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYONE SAY WE NEED MORE HOUSES OR WE NEED MORE SHOPPING CENTERS, WE NEED MORE CARS ON THE ROAD IT'S ALWAYS HAVE YOU HEARD I MEAN, EVERY PLAN YOU PROPOSE, WE HEARD IT TONIGHT.
ARE WE GOING TO PUT FIVE HOUSES IN? THAT'S THE LOWEST DENSITY WE HAVE IN THIS CITY.
OKAY. SO ARE WE GOING TO LET'S CLARIFY.
ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT? WHAT ARE WE DOING? YOU WANT TO DO A WORKSHOP [INAUDIBLE] YOU GOT IT. COUNT ME IN.
[INAUDIBLE] SURE IF YOU ALL HAD QUESTIONS, COME ON UP.
YEAH. I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU ALL AN IMPRESSION I'M CONFRONTATIONAL.
I'M NOT AT ALL. NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, SIR.
JACK AMBER 1003 BROOME STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH YOU'VE ALL BEEN THROUGH THIS TRINGALI THING TWICE.
THE CITY NEEDS YOUR VALIDATION.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.
THEY JUST WANT YOU TO AGREE TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF WORDS THEY'RE ALREADY PLAYING, RIGHT?
[02:05:01]
IT'S NOT A MATTER OF, AS MS. BACH WOULD TELL YOU, WHERE YOU PUT THE PERIODS IN THE SENTENCE.NO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS CLEAR.
CRYSTAL CLEAR, AND IT MEANS WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE PURPOSE THAT MR. BENNETT POINTED OUT THAT IT ALWAYS MADE SENSE BEFORE, BUT NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE'RE GETTING GREEDY WE'RE GETTING WE'RE FEELING PRESSURE.
WHAT YOU DO IN KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD OR IN THIS CASE, KICKING THE CAN DOWN A HILL MAKES AN IMPACT EVERY DECISION YOU MAKE.
SO TO SAY THAT, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO LET PEOPLE COME INTO THE CITY AND SOMEBODY ELSE WILL DO THE RIGHT THING, IT STARTS WITH YOUR DECISION, WHATEVER THAT DECISION IS.
SO JUST KNOW THE CITY NEEDS YOUR VALIDATION.
WHY? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE DEFINITIONS BASED ON THEIR AGENDA.
YOU GUYS WILL DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT TO DECIDE, AND HOPEFULLY ALONG THE ALONG THE ROAD, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO LISTEN TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY BECAUSE THIS PLACE SHOULD BE PACKED RIGHT NOW, BUT NOBODY HAS CONFIDENCE IN THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS GOVERNMENT, AND THE ONLY THING I'LL LEAVE YOU WITH, AND I'M NOT CONFRONTATIONAL OR NEGATIVE, I'M JUST SAYING THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE.
THIS IS BECOMING THE WORST GOVERNMENT ON AMELIA ISLAND SINCE SPAIN.
I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING WORSE THAN WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW.
MR. GILLETTE, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? NOT FOR HIM, BUT I DID WANT TO ASK A QUESTION.
THE REASON I ASKED ABOUT THE SUB DIVISION ELEMENT OF IT IS IT DOES MAKE SENSE FOR US TO TACKLE THAT AFTER TRINGALI IS SETTLED IN MY MIND BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME IF WE GO AND CHANGE CODE WHILE PEOPLE ARE DISPUTING A DECISION ABOUT THAT CODE, IT MAY NOT BE RIGHT.
THAT'S MY THOUGHT IS IT'S MY CONCERN.
THAT'S WHY I SAID WHAT I SAID TO BEGIN WITH, WHICH IS WE'VE BEEN DIRECTED WE DON'T WANT TO REHASH THAT PROJECT BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON IT BUT THAT'S ONLY ONE PART OF IT.
1.03.05 APPLIES TO A MYRIAD OF OTHER THINGS, BUT I THINK THE PLANNING ELEMENT THAT APPLIED TO TRINGALI PROBABLY IN MY MIND, SHOULD BE THROWN OUT ON THE BACK BURNER UNTIL I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE BECAUSE.
SO FOR THE TRINGALI APPLICATION, THE CITY STAFF, WHICH INCLUDE MYSELF AND KELLY GIBSON PLANNING STAFF AND HAVE DONE IT BEFORE AND YOU GUYS HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE, APPLIED THE SUBDIVISION PLANNING RULES TO THE TRINGALI PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION AND IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT THAT THE PLANNING STAFF HAD DIRECTED THEM IN THAT MANNER, THAT THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS, NOT A VARIANCE PROCESS.
SO AT ISSUE IN THE TRINGALI CASE, IT'S AN APPEAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION'S QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING AND DIRECTLY THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW, WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD FOLLOWED IT, THAT CODE STAYS IN PLACE AS IT WAS WRITTEN THAT DAY.
IF THIS BODY I MEAN, IT COULD BE MONTHS BEFORE THERE'S ANY DECISION IN THE TRINGALI CASE AND STAFF NEEDS DIRECTION ON HOW WE ARE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT 1.03.05 WHEN WHEN SOMEBODY IS NOT TRYING TO UTILIZE ALL OF THE UNDERLYING LOTS AND INSTEAD THEY'RE CREATING A NEW SUBDIVISION WITH A DIFFERENT NUMBER OF LOTS, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT IT IS BECAUSE WE'RE STILL GOING TO DO THE SAME THING THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IF THERE'S NOT A REQUEST TO RESTORE THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD AND INSTEAD, SO IN THE TRINGALI, IT'S 20 UNDERLYING, LOTS OF RECORD AND A 12 HOME SUBDIVISION PROPOSED, WE'RE GOING TO APPLY IT THE SAME WAY.
APPLICATIONS. WE HAVE A VARIANCE REQUEST.
SO BUSINESSES CONTINUING TO GO.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO PUT IT ON THE SHELF.
I WASN'T TRYING TO PUT ALL OF IT ON THE SHELF.
[02:10:08]
THEY WERE A HOUSE ON A 375 FOOT WIDE LOTS.IT WAS SOMEONE WANTED TO DEMOLISH AND DO THREE, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE DEVELOPER FOR THE TRINGALI PROPERTY IF THEY HAD REQUESTED TO RESTORE, IF YOU WILL, THE UNDER ALL 20 LOTS, THEY WOULD HAVE.
I KNOW THAT'S WHY WE SENT THEM TO THE SUBDIVISION.
RIGHT, AND THAT'S WHERE I THOUGHT WE COULD ISOLATE THAT SUBDIVISION PART.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DO IT AND WE HAVE TO DISCUSS 1.03.005 AND THE CRUX OF IT FOR STAFF AND THE CLARIFICATION PART IS TO TELL US WHEN DO WE OR DOES EVERY CASE GO TO A VARIANCE AND THEN THE OTHER THINGS THAT THE CITY COMMISSION SUGGESTED WAS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO SEE THAT UNCONDITIONED SPACE DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS BURDENING, IF YOU WILL, THE UNDERLYING LOT.
SO BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO AND THAT'S THE SAME THING I TOLD COMMISSIONERS IN INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS.
I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT DISCUSSING IT.
IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE JUDGE'S DECISION.
NOW, IF THE JUDGE MAKES A DECISION AND SAYS THAT THE CITY COMMISSION GOT IT WRONG, WHAT THE JUDGE DOES IS A LOT OF TIMES REMAND IT. WE CALL BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO REHEAR IT, BUT THE CITY COMMISSION HAS TO APPLY THE SAME LAW THAT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THERE WERE SEVERAL COMPONENTS TO 1.03.05, I MEAN, DENSITY BEING A BIG ONE, BUT ALSO SENSE OF NEIGHBORHOOD WAS A BIG ISSUE.
IT'S GOING TO CHANGE EVERYTHING.
SO THAT WAS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT BESIDES THE DENSITY, SENSE OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND SENSE OF PLACE, BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS BEEN HERE, A SENSE OF PLACE.
SO BUT THERE MAY BE CASES WHERE, LIKE WE TAKE THE TRINGALI PROPERTY, WHICH WAS ABOUT 11.4 ACRES OR SO, IT WOULD BE NICE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THAT 1.4 ACRES AND START AS A CLEAN SLATE.
NO THAT TAKES AWAY THE SENSE OF NEIGHBORHOOD.
NOT NECESSARILY RIGHT, BUT THIS IS THE REASON WHY I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE HAVE A WORKSHOP BECAUSE AND NOT THAT I DON'T MIND STAYING HERE TILL LATE AT NIGHT TO HASH THIS OUT, BUT I THINK THAT WITH COMING AT IT WHERE IT'S VERY SPECIFIC ON OUR AGENDA, THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT AND HAVE CONVERSATION ABOUT.
I THINK IT GIVES US THE FOCUS THAT THIS SUBJECT DESERVES.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M KIND OF AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORKSHOP.
WHAT TIME DO WE WANT TO MAKE IT THREE OR DO WE WANT TO MAKE IT FIVE? LET'S MAKE IT THREE.
ARE WE SAYING THREE? A COMMENT? [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] 406 BEACH STREET.
I JUST HAD TWO IDEAS FOR THE BOARD AND YOU CAN LISTEN TO THEM OR NOT, BUT IF I WERE YOU, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD WANT FROM THE BECAUSE I HEARD COMMISSIONER STURGIS AND WHAT HE ASKED THE STAFF TO DO AND THE CHANGES HE MADE.
IF I WERE YOU, I WOULD WANT CLARIFICATION ON WHAT A CONDITIONED SPACE MEANS.
A LOT OF THESE OLDER HOUSES HAVE NEVER HAD CENTRAL AIR.
DOES THAT MEAN THEY ARE NOT A CONDITIONED SPACE? I THINK THE INTENT OF WHAT COMMISSIONER STURGIS WANTED WAS TO MAKE IT.
THE MAIN HOUSE WOULD BE THE ONE THAT COUNTS, BUT IS CONDITION SPACE THE PROPER TERM? AND IF A GARAGE HAD A WINDOW UNIT, IS THAT NOW A CONDITION SPACE AND ARE PEOPLE GOING TO HAVE TO TRACK? SO THAT WAS MY ONLY COMMENT THERE.
MY SECOND COMMENT WAS ON BOTH ISSUES WHERE THEY'RE RECOMMENDING CHANGES, I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR YOU TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY MORE EXTRA LOTS THIS WOULD MEAN FOR THE CITY.
SO IF 1.03.05 WAS CHANGED, AS COMMISSIONER STURGIS HAS ASKED TO HAVE IT SO THAT IT'S JUST THE MAIN HOUSE, WHETHER YOU CALL THAT CONDITION SPACE OR WHAT, HOW MANY ACTUAL EXTRA LOTS WILL THAT FREE UP IN THE TOWN? WILL THAT MEAN THAT THERE CAN BE A THOUSAND MORE HOUSES BUILT? WILL IT MEAN THAT THERE CAN BE TEN MORE HOUSES BUILT OR 2000?
[02:15:02]
AND THAT WOULD BE GOOD INFORMATION FOR YOU TO HAVE IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY.HOW MANY HOUSES DID THE ORIGINAL PLAT ALLOW FOR 25 FOOT LOTS? EVERYBODY EVER ADD THEM UP? NO. OKAY. NEW YORK CITY.
NEW YORK CITY, BUT I MEAN, SO RIGHT NOW AS 1.03.05 STANDS.
YOU COULD BUILD, FOR EXAMPLE, 100 EXTRA HOUSES.
IF YOU MADE THESE CHANGES, YOU COULD BUILD 2500 MORE HOUSES, AND THEN ON THE FLOODPLAIN ISSUE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD WHATEVER ENGINEER OR CONSULTANT THAT MARGARET USED FOR THAT LAST PLAN, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A BIG CHANGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO TAKE OUT FLOODPLAIN FROM THAT DENSITY, AND THAT'S ALL I HAD.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOOD ON WHAT THE ITEMS WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS.
SO DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? GO AHEAD. I JUST WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION, IF THAT'S OKAY.
COME UP AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN, PLEASE.
DAVID COLSON, 111 SOUTH FOURTH STREET.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE NOW IT WAS COMMISSIONER STURGIS THAT BROUGHT THIS FORWARD.
IS THAT CORRECT ABOUT THIS? CORRECT. OKAY.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE HE CAN BENEFIT BY THIS CHANGE JUST SEEMS A LITTLE UNETHICAL FOR A COMMISSIONER TO BRING FORWARD A CHANGE IN A LAW THAT HE WOULD BENEFIT BY.
VERY ETHICAL. MIGHT BE BETTER BRINGING BRINGING FORWARD THIS THIS CHANGE WITH SOMEBODY WHO WILL WHO COULD POSSIBLY BENEFIT BY THIS BY LOTS THAT HE OWNS OR BY WORK THAT HE'S GOING TO DO, KIND OF SEEMS A LITTLE UNETHICAL AND MAYBE HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BRING THIS FORWARD.
THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONES WHO DID.
IT WAS BROUGHT TO US THROUGH THE MAYOR TO STAFF.
SO IT'S THAT WOULD SAY THAT IT WASN'T.
SO WE ALSO HAD A CONVERSATION WITH COMMISSIONER ASKEW BECAUSE HE WAS VERY MUCH INVOLVED ON THE WORKSHOP ABOUT BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
SO HE AND I HAVE HAD AN EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION ON IT.
OKAY, AND DID THEY EVEN DISCUSS ABOUT OTHER WAYS OF OF CHANGING THIS LAW, SAY, FOR INSTANCE, IF IT'S ON THE TAX ASSESSORS IS PART OF THE PROPERTY, THEN IT WOULD BE AN UNDERLYING LOT.
I MEAN, THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION.
IT ABSOLUTELY MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.
ONE OTHER THING THE LAWSUIT IS TO SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED 1.03 AND THEY DID NOT.
SO THE LAWSUIT IS TO SAY THAT YOU DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW.
SIR, ADDRESS US, AND SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
SORRY, BUT THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE THAT I'D LIKE TO SAY.
THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT IS ACTUAL THE ACTUALLY THE WAY THAT I SEE IT.
IS IT SEPTEMBER 27TH ON WEDNESDAY.
DAPHNE, ONE MORE CLARIFICATION.
WE PUT TOGETHER A PACKAGE AND THEN WE WILL VOTE OR OTHERWISE RECOMMEND ON THE NOVEMBER 8TH.
WHAT IS IT? CORRECT. OKAY, AND THEN IT GOES TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
CORRECT. NOW, I DON'T WANT TO PRESET AN EXPECTATION OF A DATE YET BECAUSE WE MAY BE GOING ROUND AND ROUND ON LANGUAGE, AND I DON'T WANT US TO THINK THAT WE'RE UNDER THE GUN TO SAY, OKAY, NOVEMBER THE 8TH, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING CHOP CHOP.
I THINK THAT I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SET THAT EXPECTATION AND I WILL OWN THAT.
THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THE COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE THIS FOR DECISION MAKING AT THE SECOND MEETING IN DECEMBER, AND SO BY NOVEMBER THE 8TH, THERE DOES NEED TO BE A DECISION OF THIS BODY WHETHER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LANGUAGE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED OR SOME OTHER LANGUAGE, BUT ON NOVEMBER THE 8TH, WE WILL HAVE NEEDED TO ALREADY ADVERTISE CHANGES TO THESE SECTIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND A DECISION NEEDS TO BE RENDERED BY THAT POINT.
WELL, AND YOU WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY THROUGH OCTOBER, THROUGH OCTOBER, REGULAR MEETING, AS WELL AS A SPECIAL MEETING DATE OR OTHER ADDITIONAL MEETINGS IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER TO REALLY DISCUSS THIS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO KEEP THAT TRACKING AND WHAT'S GOING TO BE PROVIDED TO US BETWEEN NOW AND THE 27TH.
[02:20:05]
WHAT INFORMATION WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE? I WANT TO SEE ALL OF THE 1.03.05 FROM DAY ONE AND THE CHANGES OVER TIME.THERE'S ONE THING I'D LIKE ANY HISTORY, BACKGROUND, THAT KIND OF THING.
I MEAN, WE THERE'S A LOT OF MEETINGS WENT INTO ALL THESE THINGS.
SO WHAT ABOUT THE AND DO WE HAVE ANY I MEAN, WE HAVE SURVEYS FOR YEAR YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT PEOPLE IN THE TOWN WANT TO SEE AND DO. I MEAN THAT ALL GOES INTO IS THE COMMISSION EXPECTATION IS THERE IS A DEFINITE CHANGE TO THESE? YES. SO THEY ALREADY KNOW WHAT CHANGES THEY WANT TO SEE.
I'M NOT SURE I TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD ALL THAT, BUT IF THEY HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF WHERE THEY WANT TO BE, IS THAT CAN THAT BE OUTLINED FOR US SO THAT I CAN HAVE THAT I CAN LOOK AT THAT AND SEE BEFORE THE 27TH MEETING? YES, YES. YEAH.
WHAT ABOUT THE LOTS? WHAT ABOUT THE AVAILABLE LOTS? WE TALKED ABOUT THAT TOO.
THAT ONE'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT MAKES A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS BECAUSE OFTEN WE CAN SEE ROOFED STRUCTURES, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE FULLY ENCLOSED, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE CONDITIONED OR HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST.
GO ON TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE, LOOK UP THEIR MAPS AND IT'LL SHOW YOU THE PLATTING, AND WHEREVER THERE'S, THEY'LL SHOW YOU THE OLD PLAT FERNANDINA.
SO PRIMARILY IN THIS AREA, UP THROUGH THE PORT OR UP TO THE PORT, WOULD YOU SAY? AND WHAT I CAN DO IS WORK WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER TO SEE WHAT LEVEL OF MAPPING CAN BE PERFORMED TO PROVIDE A SENSE OF THAT.
I'M JUST NOT CERTAIN THAT IT WILL EVER BE 100% ACCURATE, BUT THE ANSWER IS GET A BETTER SENSE OF IT.
WELL, THE ANSWER I'M TRYING TO GET TO, IF YOU HAVE ANY PARCEL THAT'S OWNER PARCEL TODAY THAT IS COMPOSED OF MORE THAN ONE LOT PLATTED, LOT, YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SPLIT THAT LOT IF THERE'S FIVE INTO FIVE LOTS TO WHATEVER THAT IS, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE THEY DIDN'T DEVELOP IT THE WAY YOU ENVISIONED.
THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE SUCH A WHOLE CHANGE DOWN HERE.
SO UP AROUND THE MILL AREA, THAT'S ALL 25 FOOT LOTS, TOO, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE, ANYTIME YOU HAVE A SINGLE PARCEL OVER THIS IS CORRECT, RIGHT, NICK? ANYTIME YOU HAVE A I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT.
IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT SINGLE OWNERSHIP DATA WITH MULTIPLE LOTS OF RECORDS, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT ALL OF THOSE LOTS OF RECORDS HAVE BEEN COMBINED FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. SOME OF THEM MAY BE CLEAR RIGHT NOW TO DEVELOP ON.
TRYING TO GET THEM TO THE EXTENT TO FOCUS.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE GO ON NINTH STREET THAT MOST OF NINTH STREET PEOPLE COMBINE TWO 50 FOOT LOTS OR TWO 25 FOOT LOTS, OR ARE THEY 50? DOES THE APPRAISER'S PROPERTY RECORD, LET ME USE THE FIRST AVENUE ONE.
SO SOMEBODY IS IN THERE AND THEY BOUGHT FOUR OF THOSE 25 FOOT LOTS.
THEY BUILT ONE HOUSE, A BILL FOR EACH OF THOSE FOUR ORIGINAL PROPERTIES.
SO DOES THAT SAY, ALL RIGHT, THAT BY DEFINITION IS INTEGRATED, IT'S NOW ONE PROPERTY OR IT'S A SINGLE PARCEL ID, IT'S A SINGLE PARCEL RECORD.
THEY CALL IT UNITY OF LOTS THEY TRY TO GET YOU TO.
SO YEAH, THEY MIGHT HAVE A GAP.
[02:25:05]
AND NOT A FIELD, A DATA FIELD THAT IS SEPARATED OUT TO SAY THERE ARE THESE LOTS OF RECORDS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SINGLE PARCEL.IT'S ONLY A LEGAL SHORT LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THE FIELDS.
SO JUST BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT DATA IS AVAILABLE, I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT'S PROBLEMATIC IN TRYING TO START PARSING OUT SOME OF THIS INFORMATION, BUT WE WILL MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO GET THAT DATA.
OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE FOR OUR MEETING ON THE 27TH? STARTS AT 3:00, CORRECT? YEAH 3:00. WE'RE GOING TO START AT THREE, BUT IF THERE ARE THINGS RECORDS OR INFORMATION OR DATA POINTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AVAILABLE FOR THE MEETING OR PRIOR TO MEETING, PLEASE LET US KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THAT WE CAN GET WORKING ON IT.
SO WE CAN SEE HOW NEIGHBORHOODS WERE ORIGINALLY PLATTED AND THEN WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE TODAY.
OKAY. THE 25TH OF OCTOBER? 11TH IS OUR REGULAR MEETING, OCTOBER 7TH AND THEN THE 25TH.
SO WE'VE GOT A MEETING ON THE 27TH OF SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER THE 8TH, AND THEN OCTOBER THE 25TH COULD BE A BACKUP BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THE OCTOBER 11TH, OCTOBER THE 11TH.
THAT'S THE REGULAR. THAT'S RIGHT.
RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA FOR THE 11TH AT THIS POINT? YES, WE DO.
I WANT TO SEE WHERE AREAS OF IMPACT WOULD BE.
WELL, I UNDERSTAND, BUT WE COULD BEAT THIS.
NO, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA AND IF YOU GUYS COULD MAYBE GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES.
I'M NOT I DON'T WANT TO FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON TRINGALI.
THERE'S GOT TO BE OTHER EXAMPLES THAT YOU GUYS COULD REFERENCE TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
THAT ONE ON GUN STREET WOULD BE A GOOD ONE.
SO ON THE 27TH, WE'RE LOOKING AT 3:00.
THE 11TH AND THE 25TH IN OCTOBER, CORRECT? YES. YEAH, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO COUNT ON THE 8TH OF NOVEMBER YET.
NO. OKAY. LET'S JUST FOCUS ON THE NEXT MEETINGS HERE.
WE'LL KNOW AFTER WE GET TOGETHER.
THIS TIME, WE'LL GET HER DONE.
ALL RIGHT. SO ARE WE GOOD ON THAT? WHAT ABOUT STAFF REPORT? YES, I DO HAVE SOME THINGS TO SHARE FOR THE STAFF REPORT, SOME UPDATES, ANOTHER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE [INAUDIBLE] AMENDMENT THAT YOU CAN EXPECT TO SEE SOON IS
[7. STAFF REPORT]
RELATED TO OUR MULTIFAMILY STANDARDS.THIS IS IN LIGHT OF THE LIVE LOCAL ACT AND TRYING TO ESTABLISH SOME STANDARDS FOR WHEN YOU ARE DEVELOPING MULTIFAMILY RENTALS WITHIN A COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL AREA.
WE WANT TO LOOK AT THAT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING FOR ADEQUATE BUFFER BUFFERS BETWEEN THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS AND JUST GET AHEAD OF IT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOME STANDARDS IN PLACE THAT CAN PROVIDE SOME PREDICTABILITY WHEN WE DO START SEEING THOSE LIVE LOCAL PROJECTS COME IN BECAUSE THEY WILL BE COMING IN.
SO WE WANT TO HAVE SOME SENSE OF SECURITY AND STABILITY FOR THAT.
SO WE WILL BRING THOSE BEFORE THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION AS WELL.
WE EXPECT TO HAVE A FORMAL VOTE ON THAT IN NOVEMBER.
[INAUDIBLE] WILL BUNDLE THESE MULTIFAMILY STANDARDS WITH OUR 1.03, 1.04, THOSE CHAPTER ONE STANDARDS AS WELL, AND WE CAN HAVE A MEETING.
WE WILL NEED TO DISCUSS THAT, GO INTO DETAIL AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE EVERYTHING RELATED TO THIS LIVE LOCAL KIND OF FLESHED OUT, BUT YOU'LL BE GIVING US YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND TO US, RIGHT? YES. WE HAVE TO DRAFT SOME LANGUAGE FIRST BEFORE WE'RE READY.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT, AND MADAM CHAIR, I MEAN, IF YOU'D LIKE, THAT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK THAT WE HAVE TO DO, POTENTIALLY LONG MEETINGS. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU ALL CAN DO IS TO TELL US IF YOU WANT A HARD STOP TIME AT YOUR MEETINGS.
[02:30:09]
THIS WAY STAFF CAN PLAN FOR WHAT THEY PUT ON THE AGENDA.YOU ALL KNOW WHEN YOU GET TO GO HOME AND EAT DINNER AND IT MAKES FOR BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEN YOU KIND OF JUST HAVE TO DECIDE THAT NIGHT, A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC END UP COMING AND THEN FIND OUT THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THAT OR GET INTO IT THAT NIGHT, AND IT'S SORT OF.
THAT'S A GOOD POINT. YEAH, THAT'S IT WOULD MAKE ME.
ANYWAY, SO FOR OUR REGULAR MEETINGS WOULD WE START AT FIVE? YOU'RE TALKING EITHER TWO HOURS, THREE HOURS, TWO HOURS, TWO HOURS, WORKSHOP OR.
NO, THIS IS JUST FOR A REGULAR MEETING.
THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
IT SEEMS TO ME MY IMPRESSION IS THAT THIS BOARD IS ABOUT TWO HOURS, MAYBE 2.5 HOURS, AND THEN BETWEEN 7 AND 8:00, IF OUR BRAINS AREN'T WORKING, WE'RE NOT DOING THE PUBLIC ANY GOOD.
SO THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION JUST FOR THE REGULAR MEETING.
WELL, I GUESS IF YOU SAY, OKAY, WE WANT A TWO HOUR MEETING, WHETHER IT'S A WORKSHOP OR WHETHER IT'S A OR DO WORKSHOPS, ARE THEY LONGER? AND IF YOU HAVE A 3:00 MEETING, DO YOU GO TO SIX? YEAH OR SEVEN.
MADAM CHAIR, IF SOMEONE IF THEY HAPPEN TO GET FIVE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE THAT ALL DESERVE TO BE HEARD ON ONE DAY, WHY SHOULD WE STOP THOSE FROM BEING HEARD? BECAUSE WE WANT TO LEAVE EARLY.
I THINK A WORKSHOP WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO BE FINITE ON A WORKSHOP, BUT IF WE HAVE TO STAY UNTIL 11:00 FOR A MEETING BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE MADE AN APPLICATION, I THINK WE OWE THE PUBLIC THAT RIGHT TO BE HEARD.
IF WE INSTITUTE THE 3 TO 5 MINUTE TIMEFRAME FOR SPEAKERS.
SURE. YEAH, YOU COULD DO THAT.
ONE QUESTION BACK THE POINT NICK HAD BROUGHT UP EARLIER.
MAYBE CHANGING THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR A PUD.
YES, AND I WAS GOING TO GET TO THAT POINT NEXT.
I JUST HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET.
SO WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON FROM THE MULTIFAMILY.
DO YOU WANT TO DO WE WANT TO ESTABLISH A TIME FRAME FOR THE WORKSHOP? THREE HOURS.
THANK YOU. SO, YES, I DO WANT TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE POD STANDARDS.
I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT AT SOME OF OUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND AMENDING THAT LANGUAGE OR NOT AMENDING THAT LANGUAGE AND DOING SOME ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ON THAT, GIVEN THE PRIORITIES THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED TONIGHT ON 1.03.04, 1.03.05 MULTIFAMILY, THESE ARE VERY HOT BUTTON ITEMS THAT REQUIRE LOTS OF RESEARCH AND A LOT OF TIME FROM OUR BOARD AND FROM STAFF.
SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE BOARD ADVOCATE FOR A FULL REWRITE OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH I DID MENTION AT THE LAST MEETING, AND I THINK THROUGH THAT REWRITE, IF WE CAN HAVE THAT ADVOCACY ON YOUR PART, WE CAN ADDRESS A LOT OF THOSE CONCERNS WITH THE PUD ACREAGE AND ALSO WE MAY BE ABLE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THAT THROUGH OUR TEXT AMENDMENTS WITH MULTIFAMILY.
NOW WE OUR FIRST STEP IS GOING TO BE BASICALLY ON THE LDC TO GET THAT INTO MUNI CODE.
CORRECT. THAT'S KELLY YOU'RE OKAY FUNDING WISE ON THAT COMING UP RIGHT? YES. YES. OKAY.
SO I'M REALLY EXCITED TO SHARE.
WE SHOULD HAVE A STATEMENT OF WORK COMING OUR WAY SOON.
WE HAVE THE FUNDS ALLOCATED AND THAT WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT VALUE TO OUR CITIZENS, TO STAFF AND TO YOU BOARD MEMBERS ONCE WE GET THAT FULLY INTEGRATED, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO RECONSTRUCT THE LDC, THAT'S GOING TO REPACKAGE THE LDC FROM A USABILITY.
CORRECT. YES. JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT IS NOT A REWRITE OF THE LDC THAT IS JUST TAKING OUR EXISTING LDC AND PLUGGING IT INTO A SOFTWARE THAT MAKES IT EASIER TO USE AND TO SEARCH, BUT THAT'S GOING TO TEND TO MAYBE POINT OUT MAYBE SOME WEAK SPOTS OR DUPLICATIONS POTENTIALLY, YES.
OKAY. I THINK I ASKED THIS LAST TIME, BUT I'M OLD AND I FORGOT.
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE US TO ADVOCATE SO TALKING WITH YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.
[02:35:02]
OKAY, THAT'S IT.SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO CHOKE ON OR IS IT A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND? THE PRICE TAG IS DEFINITELY READ RIGHT NOW.
SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE VALUE THAT YOU WOULD GET FROM THE RESEARCH AND THE TIME OF BRINGING ADDITIONAL HELP IN TO ADDRESS THESE THINGS LIKE 1.03.04, 1.03.05, OUR DENSITY ISSUES OR ZONING LAND USE.
WE COULD HAVE A LOT MORE DONE AND A LOT MORE EVALUATION OF THESE HOT ITEMS IF WE HAD PROFESSIONALS COME IN THAT CAN ASSIST US WITH THIS FULL REWRITE. BECAUSE AS YOU SEE, WE HAVE SO MANY THINGS THAT ARE BEING PRIORITIZED OVER OTHER THINGS.
THAT IS THE NAME WE SEE THAT THE COMMUNITY, THE COMMISSIONERS, EVEN STAFF THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED DESPERATELY, BUT WE CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH.
SO THAT'S WHY WE REALLY NEED WE REALLY NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE FUNDS TO BE ABLE TO DO A FULL REWRITE THAT WOULD ADDRESS SO MANY OF THE CONCERNS THAT WHAT KIND OF A TIME FRAME ARE WE TALKING ABOUT FOR A TOTAL REWRITE? WHAT WAS IT LAST TIME WE CHECKED, KELLY? LIKE A YEAR? NO, YOU'RE IT'S ABOUT A TWO YEAR, PROBABLY A TWO YEAR TIME FRAME.
OKAY. [INAUDIBLE] TWO YEARS AND THEN TWO YEARS ON IT.
OKAY. SO THAT ONE, WE NEED TO BEAT THE DRUM IN THE SENSE OF THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME.
NOW IS THERE ANY GRANT MONEY AT ALL? NO. OKAY.
SO THAT'S GOT TO COME OUT OF THE COFFERS.
SO WE'VE GOT TO BRING MORE PROPERTIES IN TO INCREASE THE TAX BASE FOR THE REVENUES.
SO WHAT'S THE ARGUMENT AGAINST TRYING TO TWEAK WHAT WE HAVE AND PROBLEM FIX PROBLEM AREA? SO WE HAVE BEEN TWEAKING BECAUSE THE WHOLE THING NOT FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
YOU WANT TO EVALUATE WHAT IS OUR DENSITY, ARE DENSITY WORKING FOR US RIGHT NOW, ARE ZONING DISTRICTS WORKING FOR US RIGHT NOW? I GET THE SENSE THAT THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY WANTS US TO REALLY EVALUATE AND MAKE OUR STANDARDS FIT WITH WHAT THE COMMUNITY DESIRES TODAY, AND THINK ABOUT WHEN OUR CURRENT CODE WAS WRITTEN IS MASSIVELY OUTDATED.
SO HOW CAN WE MAKE IT TO WHERE IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY AND WHAT OUR COMMUNITY CURRENTLY WANTS? BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S MASSIVELY OUTDATED BECAUSE IT'S BEEN UPDATED, WHAT, THREE TIMES IN 20 YEARS? SURE, IT'S BEEN UPDATED, RIGHT? MORE THAN THAT WE HAD A MAJOR REWRITE AND A THIRD CORE ORDINANCE WAS IN 2006.
WHAT I'M SAYING, TO BE CLEAR, I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT'S NEVER BEEN UPDATED.
I KNOW THAT IT HAS BEEN UPDATED.
I'VE BEEN A PART OF A LOT OF THOSE UPDATES, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE ARE SOME LARGER UPDATES THAT NEED TO OCCUR THAT ARE VERY DIFFICULT FOR STAFF TO ACCOMPLISH IN A QUICK TIMEFRAME AND REQUIRE A LOT OF RESEARCH, REQUIRE A LOT OF ANALYSIS TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES, AND WHEN WE HAVE SO MANY OTHER PRIORITY ITEMS THAT OUR COMMISSION OR COMMUNITY SPLIT ON US, YOU'RE LIMITED IN WHAT YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH.
OKAY. MR. GILLETTE, DID YOU HAVE WERE YOU ASKING TO POSTPONE THE DISCUSSIONS FOR THE TWO YEARS? WELL, WE NOT FOR TWO YEARS.
I'M ASKING FOR THE BOARD TO POSTPONE IT UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THESE PRIORITY ITEMS THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT REQUIRE A LOT OF ANALYSIS AND WORK UP FRONT UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THAT.
I WOULD ASK THAT WE POSTPONE IT UNTIL THAT.
WELL, WHAT ARE SOME MAJOR CONCERNS THAT WE COULD PULL OUT AND MAYBE EVEN INDIVIDUALLY OR IN SMALL GROUPS START WORKING ON? WE'VE ALWAYS HAD GROUPS WORKING OUTSIDE OF THE MAIN LIKE TO ESTABLISH A WORKING GROUP OR WORKING COMMITTEE TO TACKLE ONE OF THESE ITEMS. I WELCOME YOU TO DO SO BECAUSE WE DID ONE ON THE COMP PLAN.
WELL, WE HAD THEM OVER THE YEARS.
I MEAN, WE HAD THINGS ON, YOU NAME IT, WE DID IT AND MET WEEKS AND.
WELL, LET'S GET THROUGH THE NEXT TWO MONTHS.
WE GOT SOME THINGS. WELL, I MEAN, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, AND I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO IS BOTH WITH THE STANDARDS AS WELL, THE PARKING MINIMUM STANDARDS, ANOTHER TOPIC WE REALLY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS GOING INTO THE FALL OF THIS YEAR IS IT'S JUST CAN WE JUST SHIFT IT SO THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO TOO MANY THINGS AT THE SAME TIME? LET'S GET THROUGH THIS FIRST AND THEN GO BACK TO IT AFTERWARDS, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME WE'LL WRITE UP SOME TALKING POINTS
[02:40:03]
AND SOME REASONS WHY ADVOCATING FOR A FULL REVISION AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.YEAH, AND THAT WAY IT CAN BE REALLY CLEAR TO EVERYBODY.
WE CAN ALL KIND OF HAVE THE SAME SONG SHEET TO SING FROM WITH THE POINTS THAT WE'RE MAKING.
ON WHY A MODERN FERNANDINA CODE IS NEEDED.
WE MAY FIND SPIN OFF WHAT SOME OF WHAT WE'RE DOING TO GO FOCUS ON THAT ONE AND LOOK AND SEE WHAT SOME SOLUTIONS ARE, WHAT CAN BE BROUGHT IN? WE MIGHT WANT TO JUST LOOK AT PARSING OUT SOME PIECES AND THEN SEE THAT, AND THAT MIGHT BE BECAUSE WE KNOW WE'VE GOT A LOT OF COMMUNITY INTEREST AND WE'VE GOT COMMUNITY RESOURCES THAT WE CAN USE TO HELP US WITH IT COME UP WITH A SOLUTION AND WE CAN HAVE MEETINGS OUTSIDE OF THIS MEETING.
YES. SO THREE OF US WANT TO GET TOGETHER.
WE HAVE MEETINGS OUTSIDE OF THIS WEEK.
WE HAVE TWO WORKSHOPS, SO SOMETIMES.
YEAH. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? JUST ANOTHER POINT.
WE HAVE OUR RESCHEDULED VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OUTREACH.
THAT IS NEXT MONDAY FROM 5 TO 7 P.M.
PUBLIC. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? COME ON. [INAUDIBLE] EVERYBODY SAID EVERYTHING.
GREAT. ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOTION TO ADJOURN.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.