[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:07]
>>> >>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'M CALLING THIS WORKSHOP OF THE FERNANDINA BEACH CITY COMMISSION TO ORDER. WE'LL START WITH THE ROLL CALL. MS. BEST.
>> VICE MAYOR STURGES? >> HERE.
>> COMMISSIONER >> AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL"
[4.1 NASSAU HUMANE SOCIETY DOG PARK]
>> >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON OUR DISCUSSION AGENDA. FOR 4.1, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A LITTLE CHANGE HERE, IT'S COME TO MY ATTENTION AS WELL AS THE CITY THAT THE PARKS AND REC BOARD HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT TO DO WITH THE HUMANE SOCIETY DOG PARK. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HEAR FROM THEM FIRST FOR THAT REASON I'M GOING TO REMAND THAT BACK TO THE PARKS AND REC ADVISORY BOARD. LET'S HEAR FROM THEM WHAT THEY THINK
[4.2 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 1.03.04 AND 1.03.05]
THEY SHOULD DO, BECAUSE, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TO TALK ABOUT. WITH THAT, LET'S MOVE ONTO ITEM 4.2, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 1.03.04 AND 1.03.05. AND THIS IS AT THE REQUEST OF THE FULL CITY COMMISSION TO COME WITH ANY DISCUSSION, SO, I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO KICK OFF THE DISCUSSION AS TO ITEM 4.2, LDC SESSIONS? VICE MAYORSTURGES? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'LL SURELY START TO TALK ABOUT THIS. I LIKED OUR JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY PRODUCTIVE. UM, THERE WERE DIFFERENT IDEAS TALKED ABOUT, AND THE WHOLE THING AND, I HAVE KIND OF LEANED TOWARDS MOSTLY DARREN'S IDEA BECAUSE WE HAD DIFFERENT IDEA THAT IS WE DISCUSSED. IF WE CURRENTLY JUST FOLLOWED WHAT DARREN'S THOUGHT WAS, I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH IT, SOMEBODY'S GOT TO REINSTATE A LOT AFTER THEY BUILD A POOL, A SHED, A DRIVEWAY, WHATEVER ELSE ON THEIR LOT THAT THEY COULD HAVE ONE DAY THAT WE MAINTAIN A 50-FOOT, I THINK IT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE THAT WE WOULD MAKE A 50-FOOT LOT FROM HERE ON OUT. IF THEY DECIDED, UNLESS THEY WERE TO GO TO REPLATING OR SOME OTHER ISSUE CAME ABOUT, TO ME, THAT SOUND LIKE A GOOD, HAPPY MEDIUM FOR CHANGE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND CLARIFICATION ON WHAT WE HAVE. I, OF COURSE, DIDN'T COME UP WITH THAT, DARREN DID, BUT, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK, I'M GOOD.
>> CHAIR: COMMISSION ANTON. >> BASED ON HEARING THE RECOMMENDATION. ESPECIALLY WHERE UNDERLINING ZONING DOES REFLECT C 2 AND 50 BY ONE HUNDRED LOTS. BARRING SOME OF THE MINOR EXCEPTIONS OF WHEN THERE IS AN ACTUAL PRIMARY STRUCTURE, I WOULD AGREE THAT IT IS A FAIR COMPROMISE AND I APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION ON DEFINITIONS. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE US ALL DISCUSS AND COMMISSION STAFF TO CLARIFY AS FAR AS EXACTLY WHAT THAT VERBIAGE IS SO WE'RE NOT HAVING CONFUSION THAT WE WERE HAVING AT THE MEETING LIKE, LOT VERSUS
PARCEL AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. >> CHAIR: COMMISSIONER ROSS?
>> SO, IT'S BEEN SAID THAT ANY ROAD WILL GET YOU THERE IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING. AND I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AS TO WHAT DO YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH, WHAT'S THE PURPOSE? ARE WE CHANGING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE YOU WANT MORE DEVELOPMENT? ARE WE TRYING TO PRESERVE IT? WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO? I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN. SO, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM EACH OF YOU, AND I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM EACH OF YOU, AS TO EXACTLY WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF DOING THIS? WHY ARE
WE DOING THIS? >> CHAIR: ANY FURTHER
COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER AYSCUE. >> I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT IT AS A COMMISSION BROUGHT FORWARD BY STAFF THAT THIS PIECE OF CODE HAS COME UP MANY DIFFERENT TIMES AND IN THE AGENDA PACKET IT SHOWS HOW MANY TIMES THERE'S BEEN A VARIANCE REQUEST. IT NEEDED CLARIFICATION AT LEAST IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, GETTING TO WHERE IT WAS, WE WEREN'T HAVING AS MANY BOA CASES ON IT. SO,
[00:05:04]
FOR ME, I THINK THAT CAME FROM STAFF. THAT CAME FROM US DISCUSSING IT UP HERE, ALL THE WAY BACK IN FEBRUARY WHEN WE WERE ORIGINALLY GOING TO SPEAK ON IT, THAT THE CODE NEEDED CLARIFICATION, WHEN I SAT DOWN WITH IT AND I SAW VICE MAYOR STURGES' PROPOSAL, I DIDN'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH WHAT HE WAS STATING, THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT HAS A PARCEL OF LAND, IT HAS MANY DIFFERENT UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, IF THERE WAS A STRUCTURE ON IT, THAT PART OF THE PARCEL THAT WAS NOW COMBINED INTO ONE LOT WAS OFF LIMITS. IT'S NOW, IT CAN ONLY BE ONE. BUT, THE REST OF IT, IF IT HAD A SHED OR, YOU KNOW, AN OLD MAN CAVE OUT BACK OR A POOL OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THAT INDIVIDUAL DIDN'T NECESSARIVY LOOK AT THAT ACCESSORY AS SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO PROHIBIT THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO SELL THEIR LOT LATER DOWN THE LINE. SO, FOR ME, I JUST KIND OF TOOK A LOT OF WHAT I WAS HEARING OUT IN THE COMMUNITY AND I SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, IF 25-FOOT LOTS ARE WHAT IS INTIMIDATING TO THE COMMUNITY, THEN, LET'S JUST SET IT AT 50, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF OTHER PARTS IN THE CODE THAT KIND OF JUST FIT THAT MOLD, AND I SAID, LET'S TRY IT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS, IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY MY IDEA, BUT, AN IDEA OF THIS COMMISSION, AND, THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE TO CLARIFY THE CODE. PUT IN WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS TRYING TO HAVE AND MELD IT TOGETHER. AND THAT'S JUST KIND OF WHERE I WAS WITH IT. TO EXPLAIN IT, FROM MY END.>> CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
>> LET'S SEE IF I COULD PUT CLARIFICATION TO WHAT EVERYBODY
IS SAYING. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS?
>> SO, WHEN YOU SAY CLARIFY IT, WE'RE NOT CLARIFYING IT, WE'RE COMPLETELY CHANGING IT. BECAUSE, WE'RE GOING FROM A CODE THAT MY COMMUNITY IS COMFORTABLE WITH, THAT SAYS WHEN YOU HAVE ALL OF THESE STRUCTURES TO IT, THAT'S WHAT GIVES CHARACTER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I LIVE DOWNTOWN, AND I'VE HEARD THAT FROM MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE NEIGHBORS. SO, YOU'RE NOT REALLY CLARIFYING IT, YOU'RE CHANGING IT. YOU'RE SAYING WE'RE NOW GOING TO TAKE JUST THE HOUSE AND WHATEVER THAT'S ON, AND YOU COULD HAVE THAT AND NOW WE CAN STRIP OFF ALL THE OTHER LOTS AS LONG AS THEY'RE 50-FOOT WIDE AND WE COULD BUILD IT. AND I THINK THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE NOT A CLARIFICATION, LET'S BE HONEST, LET'S AT LEAST BE HONEST THAT YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE CODE, YOU'RE NOT CLARIFYING.
>> CHAIR: VICE COMMISSIONERS? >> WELL, THANK YOU, MAYOR, WELL, I WOULD DISAGREE. CURRENTLY YOU COULD GO OUT AND BUILD ON A 25-FOOT LOT THAT NOBODY'S EVER BUILT ON. THAT IS IN OUR CODE CURRENTLY. SO, THE KIND OF DISCUSSION, IF YOU HAVE A PIN NUMBER OR A LOT, IF YOU WENT OUT AND BOUGHT SIX LOTS AND PUT UP A HOUSE ON TWO LOTS, WE HAD A WHOLE WORKSHOP IN THE PLANNING BOARD TO DISCUSS THIS. AND I UNDERSTAND IF THE PLANNING BOARD IS NOT INTERESTED, IN THIS, THERE ARE MANY COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT ARE INTERESTED THAT DO NOT WANT TO SEE THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS GET TROUNCED ON BECAUSE YOU THINK IF SOMEBODY BOUGHT IT AND THEY HAVE FOUR LOTS THAT YOU CAN'T USE THE TWO EMPTY LOTS JUST BECAUSE YOU BOUGHT THEM ALL TOGETHER. THAT JUST MEANS THE PROPERTY APPRAISER DIDN'T PUT A PIN NUMBER ON EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM. THAT'S ALL THAT MEANS, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY COULDN'T USE IT AT A FUTURE USE OR A FUTURE DATE. THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT DO FEEL THAT WAY.
NOW, MONEY COULD BE AN OBJECT, IT'S NOT MY OBJECTIOUS BUT, IT COULD BE AN OBJECT FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE. IF YOU SPENT TWO OR $300 ON YOUR LOT AND YOU HAVE TWO OR THREE OF THEM AND YOU BUILD ON JUST ONE OF THEM AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU TELL THEM, HEY, IF YOU PUT A POOL OR SOMETHING ELSE ON THAT LOT NEXTDOOR, YOU COULD NEVER PUT ANOTHER HOUSE ON IT EVER AGAIN.
I DON'T THINK THAT MAKES MUCH SENSE. THAT DOESN'T MAKE LODGELE CAN SENSE TO HE ME. HOWEVER, I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT LOGICALLY. I'M NOT LOOKING AT IT, WHILE I'M TRYING TO, I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THE CODE AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU COULD STILL USE YOUR PROPERTY AT SOME POINT. I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD OTHER PEOPLE THAT SPOKE AT THE LAST MEETING BETWEEN OUR JOINT MEETING AND THEY VOICED THOSE CONCERNS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T WANT THEIR CHILDREN TO LOSE THE ABILITY TO POSSIBLE
[00:10:04]
BUILD ON THEIR LOT SOME DAY. THAT WOULD BE LIKE A PROPERTY TAKING IN MY OPINION. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD COMPROMISE IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO COME BACK, THE 50-FOOT LOT, IT WAS DARREN'S SUGGESTION, I'M NOT SAYING IT WAS ALL HIS PLAN IT WAS JUST A SUGGESTION THAT HE THOUGHT OF, BUT, IT IS A GOOD COMPROMISE IF YOU HAVE A DRIVEWAY OR A SHED OR A DECK OR ANYTHING ON THAT LOT, YOU'RE TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY COULD NEVER USE THAT LOT EVER AGAIN WITHOUT SUING THE CITY. AND THAT WOULD BE THEIR>> IF THEY FAILED THE VARIANCE PROCESS BECAUSE ONE OF THE BOARDS AND IT DIDN'T COME TO THE COMMISSION EVEN THOUGH IT WAS VOTED ON TO BE HERE, YOU'RE TELLING ME, BECAUSE, THAT DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD LAST WEEK, THE HDC, THEY CAN MAKE ONE OF THOSE DECISIONS, THAT'S WHO WOULD HEAR THE VARIANCE,
>> YES. >> THEY DIDN'T VOTE THE BOA ON, THEY VOTED THESE MEMBERS ON AND THESE ARE THE MEMBERS THAT SERVE THE PUBLIC DIRECTLY THROUGH THE VOTING BOX. IN MY OPINION, I DISAGREE, I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND STILL BE ABLE TO USE THEIR PROPERTY AS THEY BOUGHT IT. NOW, OBVIOUSLY, 50-FOOT IS JUST A NUMBER THAT DARREN CAME UP WITH. WE LIVE IN A CITY WHERE EVERYTHING IS INCREMENTS OF 25, 50, 75, AND 100. ANYWAYS, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> CHAIR: COMMISSION AYSCUE?
>> I'M LOOKING AT THE BOA CASES AND THERE ARE 16 IN THE LAST 12 YEARS. I MEAN, SOMETHING IS GOING ON WITH THIS PIECE OF CODE THAT IS CAUSING IT AT LEAST ONE A YEAR TO COME IN FRONT OF THE VARIANCE BOARD, AND, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT SOMETHING'S GOING ON WITH THIS PIECE OF CODE THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED. THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT WE'RE HERE.
THAT'S WHY WE WERE GETTING READY TO TALK WITH IT BACK IN FEBRUARY. IF IT WASN'T A PIECE OF CODE THAT HADN'T BEEN CHALLENGED 16 TIMES IN THE LAST 12 YEARS, I MEAN, I COULD KIND OF SEE YOUR POINT, BUT, WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE TALKED TO STAFF PLENTY, I'VE GOTTEN MANY YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO CALL THEM RECOMMENDATIONS BUT, A LOT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THEM TO HELP UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON WITH IT. THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD UP HERE AND THE PEOPLE THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO IN THE COMMUNITY, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ADVOCATES, ADVOCATES THAT DON'T WANT 25-FOOT LOTS SHOVED EVERYWHERE IN THE CITY, NOT JUST THE DOWNTOWN AREA BUT EVERYWHERE. AND I'M JUST LOOKING AT A WAY TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AND COMPLETE, YOU KNOW, WHAT, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE DOING IN CLARIFYING THIS PIECE OF CODE THAT'S BEEN CHALLENGED 16 TIMES.
>> 16 TIMES IN 12 YEARS. >> CHAIR: THANK YOU, BACK TO
COMMISSIONER ROSS. >> 16 TIME IN 12 YEARS AND HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE FOUND THE VARIANCE WAS GRANTED?
>> HOW MANY WERE GRANTED? >> 12.
>> SO, 12 OUT OF THE 16. >> SO, FOUR TIMES IN 12 YEARS SOMEBODY WAS DENIED AND YOU HAVEN'T LOOKED THROUGH THE CASES I ASSUME AND DON'T KNOW THE PARTICULARS, ALL THAT ASIDE, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A REASON TO CHANGE THE CODE. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO: 25-50 FOOT DIDN'T COME OUT OF THE ST STRATOSPHERE. A 25-FOOT LOT IS A NONCONFORMING USE. I WOULD MAINTAIN THAT WHEN YOU START TO POP OFF LOTS, THOSE ARE NOT CONFORMING USE AND THAT'S A DISAGREEMENT THAT I HAVE WITH THE CITY DURING THAT. I DON'T THINK THOSE ARE NONCONFORMING LOTS. PRIOR TO THIS, YOU COULD STILL TAKE TWO 25-FOOT LOTS AND PUT THEM TOGETHER AND MAKE THEM A 50-FOOT LOT AND THAT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS. BUT, I THINK THAT WE'RE MAKING A PROFOUND CHANGE IN THE CODE, IT'S NOT A CLARIFICATION, AND JUST SO THAT YOU'RE HONEST, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT I'M GOING TO LOSE 4-1, BUT, IT'S A PROFOUND CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE, IT'S NOT A CLARIFICATION, IT'S CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF DOWNTOWN AND OTHER PLACES. SO, WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN NEXT IS WHAT IS THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO GET THROUGH. YOU AND I CAN SIT HERE ALL NOT AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO AGREE. WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE. I
[00:15:04]
THINK THERE'S A LARGE GROUP IN THE COMMUNITY, WHATEVER PERCENTAGE THAT IS, I COULDN'T TELL YOU, BUT, IT'S SIGNIFICANT AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT THE WAY THAT IT IS. THEY WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE CHARACTERS OF DOWNTOWN. I THINK THAT YOU'RE CHANGING, OPENING UP THE DOOR TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THIS ISLAND. THE ISLAND HAS A CAPACITY, AND YOU'RE TRYING TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY. OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S NOT DESIGN WHAT THAT CAPACITY IS. THEY SAY THERE'S 500 VACANT LOTS LEFT, BUT, THAT'S NOT TRUE BECAUSE NOW WE'RE GOING TO CREATE ALL OF THESE OTHER LOTS. SO, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN INCREASE, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT TONIGHT EVEN MORE BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE CASES COMING OF INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE HER.SO, I THINK THIS ISLAND HAS FINITE CAPACITY AND I THINK THAT WE'RE GETTING THERE. ALL THAT ASIDE, WE COULD TALK ABOUT THIS ALL NIGHT. WHAT'S THE WAY FORWARD? MY UNDERSTANDING IS NUMBER ONE, I PROPOSED THERE WAS A NUMBER OF, UM, WORDS, PARTICULARLY, PLAT, REPLAT, PLATTED LOT OF RECORD, SUBSTANDARD, EXISTING PLATTED LOTS OF RECORD, PARCEL OF LAND, BUILDING SITE, NET BUILDABLE LAND AREA, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA, WHICH ARE ALL NOT DEFINED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND PEOPLE TALK ABOUT CLARIFICATION AND TALK ABOUT THIS AND USE WORDS INTERCHANGEABLY, AND NOBODY KNOWS WHAT ANYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT OR PEOPLE ARE ON DIFFERENT PAGES USING THE SAME WORDS. I THINK WE SHOULD TALK TO THE PLANNING STAFF AND COME UP WITH DEFINITIONS TO ALL OF THESE WORDS. AND SECONDLY, THEY NEED TO DRAFT THE, UM, PROPOSED REVISIONS OF WHATEVER THE CONSENSUS AND THEY GOES TO THE PLANNING BOARD WHERE THEY COULD APPROVE IT, DENY, IT OR MODIFY IT. SO, IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS?
>> THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING. SO, WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO FROM
HERE? >> MAYOR: COMMISSIONER ROSS, I HEARD A FEW SWEEPING COMMENTS THERE. THIS IS A DISCUSSION AND TONIGHT WE'RE HERE TO CLARIFY, SO, I WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT THE CODE SAYS RIGHT NOW. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. AND I WANT TO CLARIFY IN LAYMEN'S TERMS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AND WHAT THE CODE IS. IT IT GOES BACK TO 2006. 2006 WAS THE YEAR THAT THIS LDC CODE WAS PUT INTO PLACE BACKED BY MIRSACK THAT WE JUST HONORED. THIS CODE SAIDTA IF YOU BUILD A LARGE HOME ON MULTIPLE LOTS, THOSE LOTS ALL BECOME ONE LOT. AND WE DO THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T WANT, OR, THE INTENT OF THIS, CLEARLY IS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ABLE TO TEAR DOWN THESE LARGE HOUSES THAT ARE ALL OVER TOWN, WE DON'T WANT TO TEAR THESE LARGE HOMES DOWN AND REPLACE THEM WITH SKINNY MINIS, THAT'S THE CODE. AND THE CODE SAYS IF YOU HAVE AN EMPTY LOT, YOU COULD BUILD ON IT. SO, WHAT WE ALL AGREE RIGHT NOW, AND I'LL TELL YOU WERE THE COMMISSION COMPLETELY AGREES IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A LARGE HOUSE THAT'S ON MULTIPLE LOTS, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, THOSE LOTS, YOU HAVE ONE LOT, IF YOU BUILD A LARGE HOME ON TWO, THREE, OR EVEN FOUR LOTS, WHAT YOU HAVE THERE IS ONE LOT. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, AND WHAT THE CODE CURRENTLY SAYS RIGHT NOW, IS THAT IF YOU HAVE AN EMPTY LOT, YOU HAVE AN EMPTY LOT. THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE. AND THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS NOW, AND THAT'S WHAT IT CLEARLY SAYS TO ME. THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE WHEN YOU CAN READ IT AND THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. TONIGHT, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT POINT IS THAT IF YOU HAVE AN EMPTY LOT, YOU COULD BUILD ON YOUR EMPTY LOT AND THIS COMES DOWN TO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
WHERE WE ALL AGREE THOUGH, AND I THINK EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM COMPLETELY AGREES THAT IF YOU HAVE A HOUSE THAT'S BUILT ON MULTIPLE LOTS, THOSE LOTS ALL BECOME ONE LOT AND THEREFORE YOU ONLY HAVE ONE. AND NO ONE'S DISPUTING THAT. JUST LIKE COMMISSIONER ROSS SAYS, I THINK THERE'S A PROCESS TO DO THAT.
TO ME, PERSONALLY, THE CODE IS VERY CLEAR AND THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. I COULD SEE THE NEED TO CLARIFY THIS, AND SO, IF THE COMMISSION'S WILL IS TO CLARIFY THIS, I WOULD JUMP DOWN WITH YOU GUYS AND SAY THAT'S THE CASE. COMMISSIONER ROSS?
>> SO, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THAT IF A HOUSE IT BUILT ACROSS
[00:20:02]
A COUPLE OF LOT, FIRST OF ALL, LET'S DEFINE LOTS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LOTS WHICH WERE IN THE ORIGINAL PLANS IN THE 1850S,CORRECT? >> CORRECT. THOSE ARE THE
LOTS. >> WELL, PEOPLE USE THOSE LOTS DIFFERENT WORDS FOR LOTS. SO, THOSE ARE THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF
RECORD? >> THAT IS CORRECT. THOSE ARE
THE LOTS. >> A LOT IS A DIFFERENT WORD THAN AN UNDERLYING LOT OF RECORD. OKAY. THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO OUR TROUBLES. SO THE UNDERLYING LOT OF RECORD ON THE ORIGINAL PLAT, IF A HOUSE COVERS MORE THAN TWO OR THREE OF THOSE, THAT'S WHAT THE CODE ALSO CLEARLY SAYS THAT IF YOU HAVE OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON THERE, SUCH AS A SWIMMING POOL OR WHATEVER OR WHATEVER, THAT IS ALSO PART OF THAT BUILDING SITE, THAT THAT'S ONE ENTIRE THING. THE CODE'S VERY CLEAR ON THAT.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THAT I'M ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO, AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ARE OPPOSED TO, WITHOUT GOING TO THE BTHE BOARD ADJUSTMENTS, THAT'S WHAT THIS BOILS DOWN TO. THE VACANT LOT PART IS NOT WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT, THE DISCUSSION IS MOSTLY ABOUT IF IT'S A HOUSE PLUS ALL THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, SO, YOU CAN'T SPLIT THAT UP WITHOUT GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND I THINK IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR ON THAT. AND WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, WHAT WAS PROPOSED NOT BY STAFF, BUT, BY COMMISSIONER STURGES WAS THAT YOU COULD TAKE THE LOTS THAT HAVE A SWIMMING POOL ON IT, OR, A GARAGE OR WHATEVER ELSE AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS THAT'S THE MAJOR CHANGE AND THAT'S NOT A CLARIFICATION, THAT IS A CHANGE.
>> THAT WOULD BE A CHANGE. AND I DO AGREE THAT IS A CHANGE.
THE CLARIFICATION THAT I CAME HERE TO CLARIFY IS THAT IF YOU HAVE AN EMPTY LOT, YOU COULD BUILD ON SUCH A LOT.
>> WELL, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT A CHANGE, WE COULD CALL IT A CHANGE. IF YOU WANTED TO CALL IT A CLARIFICATION YOU COULD CALL IT A CLARIFICATION. WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, THE PROPERTY IS WHAT THE PROPERTY IS. SO, IF IT'S A 50-FOOT LOT THAT DARREN SUGGESTED, I WAS SAYING THAT THEY COULD GO BACK AND ANY, I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT ALL THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT YOU COULD PUT ON A LOT. LIKE, I DON'T FORESEE A HOMEOWNER OR A BUSINESS OWNER OR ANYBODY THAT LIVES IN THE CITY THAT WOULD IMAGINE IF THEY PUT A POOL OR A DRIVEWAY OR A DECK OR ANY ACCESSORY PROPERTY ON A DRIVEWAY THAT THEY WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY EVER AGAIN. AND IT JUST SEEMS RADICAL ON TOP OF RADICAL. AND I THINK WHAT DARREN'S DISCUSSION WHEN WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ABOUT THE 50-FOOT LOT WAS IF THEY WANTED TO RESTORE IT IF THE HOUSE WAS REMOVED OR THE STRUCTURE WAS REMOVED OR THE POOL WAS REMOVED OR THE DECK WAS REMOVED. I THINK THERE ARE A FEW PEOPLE IN THIS CROWD THIS EVENING THAT HAD A DECK OR A POOL OR A GARAGE OR SOMETHING ELSE OUT THERE THAT AFFECTED THEIR PROPERTY. AND THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'VE BEEN TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. AND A LARGE AMOUNT OF THE COMMUNITY, AND I CAN USE THE WORDS LARGE, VAST, AND BIG, OR ALL OF THESE BIG WORDS TO SAY THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT THEY WOULD BE HIGHLY UPSET WHEN THEY FIND OUT, AND THEY DON'T FIND OUT BECAUSE THE LAW'S PASSED. THEY FIND OUT WHEN THEY GO TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION AFTER PAYING TAXES FOR 10, 20 YEARS AND THEY SAY, I'VE PAID OVER $200,000 WORTH OF TAXES IN THE LAST 15 YEARS AND NOW I CAN'T USE THAT LOT TO BUILD A HOUSE FOR MY CHILD. REALLY? SERIOUSLY? THAT WOULD BE SUPREMELY UPSET AND THEY TAKE IT TO VARIANCE TO BE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AND EVENTUALLY, THEY SUE THE CITY AND IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN MORE AND MORE. THAT'S MY OPINION. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE ABADJUSTMENT. AND WE'VE BEEN IN PROBLEMS WITH MULTIPLE LAWSUITS, EVEN THOUGH SOMEBODY MAY NOT WANT TO BELIEVE THAT, BUT WE HAVE, AND THEY'VE BEEN WON EVERY TIME BY SOMEBODY THAT'S NOT THE CITY. BUT BY PEOPLE TAKING PROPERTY RIGHTS.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT AND I BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND IT IS NOT OVER DEVELOPING, WE ALL KNOW THAT EVERYBODY THAT DRIVES OVER THAT BRIDGE IS WHAT'S CAUSING TRAFFIC IN THE CITY. YOU LOOK OUT THAT WINDOW, ONE CAR PASSES BY, YOU WAIT, THERE'S ANOTHER CAR THAT PASSES BY. WAIT 15 MINUTES YOU MIGHT COUNT SIX CARS. DURING THE DAYTIME YOU WATCH THAT STREET FOR SIX MINUTES AND SEE HOW MANY CARS GO BY. IT'S NOT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE THAT CAUSE THE TRAFFIC IT'S THE PEOPLE THAT COME OVER HERE. KELLY IS LOOKING INTO SOMETHING
[00:25:01]
FOR ME ABOUT HOW MANY LOTS ARE ACTUALLY AVAILABLE WHEN WE BROUGHT UP THE DISCUSSION OF NET DENSITY. SO, THAT RESEARCH IS OUT. EVENTUALLY I'LL HAVE THE ANSWER OF EXACTLY HOW MANY LOTS ARE LEFT WHICH ARE USEABLE, AND THEN THAT DISCUSSION CAN BE HAD ABOUT NET DENSITY, AND I HAVE A FEELING THAT'S A SMALL AMOUNT, I DON'T THINK IT'S AS BIG. THE REALITY IS THIS IS ALL ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND IT'S NOT GOING TO OVER DEVELOP THE ISLAND. THIS IS NOT GOING TO OVER DEVELOP THE ISLAND, THAT IS A FALLACY AS WELL. THE PEOPLE KNOW THAT P THIS ISLAND IS RANKED NUMBER ONE. THEY KNOW WHAT IT IS. YOU CAN'T SHUT DOWN THE DRAW BRIDGE OR BLOW IT UP OR CALL IT QUITS. WE'RE HERE.WE'RE ON THE MAP. THEY'RE COMING. THANK YOU.
>> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE? >> I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE'RE CLARIFYING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. I MEAN, IF I HAD A 5 X 5 SHED THAT I BUILT OUT OF WOOD AND I STUCK IT IN THE BACK OF MY PIECE OF PROPERTY, IF I HAD 50-FOOT THAT I WAS GOING TO GO BUILD ON, WOULD THE BOA LOOK AT THAT 5 X 5 AND GO, NO, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF YOUR STRUCTURE, YOU CAN'T BUILD THERE. OR, WOULD THEY SAY, NO THAT'S GOOD. WHAT HAPPENS IF I ADDED A 20 X 20 SHED AND MAYBE IT HAD A SMALL AC IN THE WINDOW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND I USED IT FOR MY GARAGE BAND, I DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CLARIFYING. WE'RE CLARIFYING WHAT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE. WHAT HAPPENS IF I HAD A WOODEN WALKWAY OUT TO THE TREE HOUSE, COULD THAT BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, IT COULD BE IF YOU HAD TO GO TO THE BOA AND THROUGH THE CITY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CLARIFYING, WE'RE CLARIFYING WHAT IS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, IF IT'S A SHED, OR A SWIMMING POOL OR THIS, IT DOESN'T COUNT. IT'S JUST THE HOUSE. THAT'S WHAT MAYOR BEAN IS TALKING ABOUT. WE ALL AGREE THAT A HOUSE OVER MULTIPLE LOTS OF RECORD IS NOW ONE LOT. WE ALL AGREE UPON THAT. BUT, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IS WHERE WE'RE CLARIFYING THIS. AND THAT'S WHERE THE BOA AND THE VARIANCE PROCESS COMES IN. AND WE'RE SIMPLY, I'M SAYING, IT'S VERY CLEAR IN THE FLOW CHART, IF YOU'VE GOT AN ANS SELL LAIR
STRUCTURE. >> SO, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, IS WELL-DEFINED IN THE CODE WHAT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS. YOU COULD GO TO THE CODE AND IT'S WELL DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO, WE'RE NOT CLARIFYING THAT, WE'RE BASICALLY IGNORING THAT AND SAYING THEY DON'T COUNT. IT'S NOT A CLARIFICATION IT'S A CHANCE. IT'S CLEAR WHAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE. IT'S CLEAR AND IFWAY WANT WE COULD HAVE THE CITY STAFF GET UP AND COMPLAIN WHAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE, BUT, THEY ARE CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE CODE.
SO, WE'RE NOT CLARIFYING THAT. WITH A WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE SAYING THEY DON'T COUNT WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE CODE. AND IF FOUR OF YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR THAT, THAT'S FINE.
BUT, DON'T CALL IT WHAT IT ISN'T. IT'S A CHANGE OF THE CODE. I'LL REST MY POINT, I THINK WE BEAT THIS TO DEATH.
>> MAYOR: WITH THAT, IT SEEMS LIKE BASED ON WHAT COMMISSIONERS AYSCUE, ANTUN, AND COMMISSIONER STURGES SAID, THE AYSCUE PLAN SEEMS TO HAVE A -- ONE MORE TIME, COMMISSIONER ROSS?
>> I HAVE ONE MORE THING THIS NOTION THAT WE'VE BEEN SUED B MILLIONS OF TIMES AND I'VE HAD A PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST AND THERE'S BASICALLY ONE CASE. THERE ARE OTHER CASES WHICH ARE SIMILAR, I HAPPENED TO FILE TWO OF THEM MYSELF, BUT, THERE WAS ONE CASE. AND I INC. THIS THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL CONFIRM THAT.
>> VICE MAYOR? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. ONE TIME THEY'VE BEEN SUED AND LOST, ANOTHER IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROCESS AND ONE QUESTION HAD A CON TEMP PLACE OF SUING THE CITY. THAT'S ALL I'VE EVER STATED, I'VE NEVER STATED IT WAS A LOT OF CASES JUST A FEW. BUT, IT'S HEADING IN THAT DIRECTION BASED ON OUR ANSWER, AND YES, THEY HAVE APPROVED OVER 16 CASES, UM, 12 OF THEM WERE APPROVED OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER
[00:30:01]
IS, HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT THE CASE TODAY. WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS AMONG BOARDS AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO ALL OF THAT THIS EVENING, BECAUSE, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DISCUSS THIS EVENING, HOWEVER, UM, THAT'S ALLI HAVE TO SAY. >> MAYOR: COMMISSIONER AYSCUE?
>> I AGREE, COMMISSIONER ROSS, WE TALKED THIS AS FAR AS IT'S GOING TO GET WITH ALL OF US. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE MAYOR WAS GOING. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE A, WE DON'T WANT TO CALL IT A CONSENSUS, WHATEVER, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, I WOULD SAY THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS PRETTY MUCH BEEN DRAFTED BY PLANNING. IT'S READY TO GO TO THE PAB. PLANNING NEEDS TIME TO ALSO MAKE DEFINING DEFINITIONS AND BRING THEM BACK TO US, I, I MEAN, WE COULD BE HERE FOR HOURS GOING LINE BY LINE ON WHAT A DEFINITION IS.
>> DO YOU THINK THAT YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED TO CRAFT THIS
LANGUAGE TO SEND TO THE PAB? >> THE PROPER QUESTION IS FOR MS. GIBSON FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
>> COMMISSIONER ROSS, JOIN IN. >> WHAT WE'RE DOING IS NOT FOLLOWING PROCEDURE, THE CITY COMMISSION HAS TO FILE AN APPLICATION. OKAY. AND THE CITY COMMISSION HAS TO AGREE.
HAND ME THE PIECE OF PAPER THAT ALL FOUR OF YOU ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THIS AND SAY THAT YOU WANT TO DO IT. WHERE'S THE PIECE OF PAPER? WHAT YOU WANT TO AGREE TO. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO SEND TO THE PAB. WE NEED TO SEND THEM A PROPOSAL, THAT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE CALLS FOR, AND IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW THAT PROCEDURE AND WHEN THIS ALL GOES FORWARD, THEN, YOU HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE LAW AND IT IS SUBJECT TO, COMES BACK LATER TALKING ABOUT LAWSUITS AND SAYING, OKAY, YOU DIDN'T FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE, THEREFORE, THAT WHOLE LAW BECOMES IRRELEVANT, IT'S NULL AND VOID. I JUST WANT YOU TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE, THE PROCEDURE CLEARLY, AND IT'S IN OUR HANDOUT, IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE CITY HAS TO PUT IN AN APPLICATION. SO, THE FIVE OF US HAVE TO LOOK AT PIECE OF PAPER WHAT YOU WANT THE BOARD TO VOTE ON OR LOOK AT. WRITTEN OUT NOT WITH ALL KIND OF POSSIBILITIES BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT AND THEN COME BACK WITH A LIST OF DEFINITIONS. AND WE COULD SIT HERE AND TALK ABOUT IT OR NOT, AND, THEN, UM, THAT GOES, AND THEN VOTE ON IT. SO, THAT'S, I THINK WHAT THE PROCESS IS. IT'S CLEARLY DELINEATED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> FLORIDA LAW SAYS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A FIRST AND SECOND READING OF ANYTHING THAT BECOMES LAW. THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
HOW IT GETS TO THE FIRST AND SECOND READING, THERE'S A LOT OF IMPASSE FOR THAT. WHAT WE NEED IS A MAJORITY OF THIS AND COMMISSIONER ROSS, TO YOUR POINT, IF YOU WANT US TO FORMERLY MOTION AND SECOND TO DIRECT STAFF TO SEND THE LANGUAGE, WE COULD DO THAT. OR WE CAN EVEN LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, BUT, I THINK WE COULD JUST GO AHEAD DO A MOTION, SECOND, AND SEND THAT LANGUAGE FORWARD TO THE PAB AND WE'LL HAVE MANY TIMES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DISAGREE. THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COMMISSION AND STAFF MUST PROVIDE PROVISIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. LDC.10.00. NUMBER TWO, AN APPLICATION MUST BE COMPLETED. THE APPLICATION MUST CONTAIN INSCRIPTION WITH SPECIFIC CITATIONS WITH SECTIONS PROPOSED TO THE AMENDMENT. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 11.0108. THE APPLICATION MUST CONTAIN A DETAILED STATEMENT CONTAINING THE PROPOSED PLAN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 11.0108. THE CITY MANAGER MUST THEN DETERMINE THE COMPLETENESS OF THE APPLICATION THAT ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN DONE AND THEN SIGN OFF ON IT. AN THEN IT CAN GO TO THE PAB, I'M READING YOU OUT OF WHAT THIS CITY HAS
ADOPTED. >> CORRECT, AND THAT'S WHAT STAFF DOES. SO, STAFF, WILL, OF COURSE, DO THE APPLICATION. THE CITY MANAGER WILL REVIEW THE APPLICATION. OUR JOB IS OF COURSE TO DIRECT CITY STAFF TO MAKE SUCH AN APPLICATION EXIST.
WE DON'T PERSONALLY, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE
THE APPLICATION. >> YES, WE ARE, THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COMMISSION AND STAFF MUST PROVIDE THE PROVISIONS.
>> MR. ROSS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO YOU, MY FRIEND, WE HAVE PROVIDED PROVISIONS HERE, TODAY WE HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COMMISSION HAVE COME TOGETHER AND SPENT MULTIPLE
[00:35:02]
MEETINGS LOOKING AT DIFFERENT PIECES OF CODE, WE'VE SEEN A FLOW CHART OF HOW IT WOULD WORK WE'VE SEEN EXAMPLES OF THE CODE HOW DOES WRITTEN UP. THIS IS ALL THERE, THE NEXT STEP IS TO FILL OUT THE APPLICATION THAT NEED TO BE FILLED OUT BY CITYSTAFF. >> ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS THAT THEY COME BACK WITH WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY WANT TO SUBMIT AND WE VOTE ON IT. SO THAT, EVERYBODY'S ON BOARD THAT AT LEAST THREE CITY COMMISSIONERS AGREE ON THAT. AND THAT FULFILLS THE DUE PROCESS. YOU'RE CIRCUMVENTING THE DUE PROCESS, THAT'S MY OPINION AND MY GUESS IS SOME DAY IT MIGHT GET LITIGATED IF WE DON'T FOLLOW THAT DUE PROCESS.
>> KELLY, CAN I ASK MS. GIBSON A QUESTION?
>> BECAUSE, I KNOW THAT MADAM ATTORNEY SAID THAT THIS WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR MS. GIBSON BUT DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH FROM WHAT WAS DISCUSSED HERE TO PUT THAT INTO A WRITTEN CODE? DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH? HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WOULD TAKE YOUR DEPARTMENT TO DEFINE, TO MAKE THESE DEFINITIONS?
>> I DO NOT HAVE A LIST OF THE DEFINITIONS THAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING, I THINK THAT YOU WERE GOING THROUGH A NUMBER OF
THEM. >> THEY'RE IN THE PACKET.
>> I'LL REVIEW THEM. WE'LL BE ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER, I WAS ANTICIPATING BY JANUARY TO BRING THIS FORWARD TO THE PTHE PLANNI
ADVISORY BOARD. >> SO, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, YOU CAN GET ALL OF THAT TOGETHER AND TAKE IT TO THE PAB BY
>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IT'S CIRCUMVENTING DUE PROCESS AND WHATEVER THEY COME UP WITH, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM COMING UP CAN SOMETHING, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE, BUT, THEN, THAT HAS TO COME BACK TO US FIRST, AND WE HAVE TO AGREE OR THREE OF US HAVE TO AGREE. THAT'S WHERE THE DUE PROCESS
COMES IN. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT DUE PROCESS
MEANS. >> DUE PROCESS MEANS FOLLOWING THE PROCESS AND I JUST READ YOU THE PROCESS.
>> CORRECT. >> WHERE ARE YOU READING THE
MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION? >> 11.00.10.
>> NO, IT'S THE WHOLE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND THE SECTION, I'M NOT TRYING TO ARGUE
THAT YOU ARE NOT CORRECT. >> I DON'T HAVE THE CODE IN
FRONT OF ME. >> OH, OKAY, WELL I HAVE THE CODE IN FRONT OF ME AND 11.00.10 IS OVER ALL REVISIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IT SAYS THE PROCESS, IT SAYS OVERALL REVISIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED AS FOLLOWS, STAGE ONE, THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE CONSULTANT, STAFF OR PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD DEVELOPS THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> CORRECT, AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE, THE COMMISSION AND THE STAFF ARE DEVELOPING THE
APPLICATION. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS, AND REAL QUICK, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND END THIS CONVERSATION, IT SAYS, SPECIFICALLY HERE, IT DOESN'T SAY COMMISSION AND THE STAFF IT SAYS COMMISSION OR THE STAFF. WE CAN DIRECT STAFF TO MAKE THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPEN, SUCH AS APPLICATIONS. WE WILL FOLLOW THIS PROCESS TO THE LETTER. AND AS IT SAYS IN STAGE ONE CLEARLY IN 11.00.10, THE CITY COMMISSION OR PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD OR THE STAFF AND AM I READING THIS CORRECTLY? AM I ABLE TO DIRECT YOU? I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING THIS BY THE BOOK, SO, I WANT TO ASK OUR ATTORNEY IF WE'RE USING THE APPROPRIATE PROCESS TO DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP THIS.
>> THE CITY COMMISSION DECIDES TO DEVELOP THE PROPOSED PROVISIONS AND THEY'RE SAYING THEY'VE BEEN DEVELOPED. THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE PACKET THAT YOU ALL ARE RELYING ON.
>> BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COMMISSION IS SAYING THE PROPOSED REVISIONS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED WE CAN NOW DIRECT STAFF
TO PROPOSED CHANGES. >> AND, MS. GIBSON, YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE FOR, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH MOST OF THE CITY COMMISSIONERS. YOU HAVE
LANGUAGE FOR THE 50-FOOT? >> WE WILL. WE DO NOT HAVE DRAFTED LANGUAGE WITH 50-FOOT AT THIS MOMENT. WHAT IS IN YOUR PACKET TODAY IS THE ORIGINAL DIRECTION PROVIDED TO STAFF FROM SEPTEMBER OF THIS PAST YEAR, AND WHAT IS ALSO IN YOUR PACKET IS THE AYSCUE PLAN FOR THAT REVISION. SO, USING THE AYSCUE
[00:40:02]
VERSION OF THAT WE WOULD NOW DRAFT LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BECOME THE FORMAL APPLICATION THAT WILL SATISFY ALL. REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF THAT APPLICATION.>> EXCELLENT. I'LL SAY THAT IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE A MAJORITY, AND I DO HEAR ONE OPPOSITION TO THIS, COMMISSIONER ROSS, THAT IS NOTED FOR THE RECORD THERE. WE DO HAVE THAT DIRECTION TO STAFF TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION AS THE PROCESS CALLS FOR. SO, I CERTAINLY WANT TO APPRECIATE EVERYONE HERE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS. WITH THAT, ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION? >> AND THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO DO
THE DEFINITIONS? >> CHAIR: THAT WILL BE PART OF IT AS WELL. COMMISSIONER ROSS, SO, WHERE THIS GOES NEXT, IT WILL BE RETURNED AFTER STAFF SCH SUBMITS THE APPLICATION, THERE'LL BE MULTIPLE HEARINGS IN CHAMBER AS IS DONE WITH ANY ORDINANCE. ALL RIGHT. SO, WITH THAT, THAT BRINGS US TO THE END OF 4.2. WE ARE AT 5, AND WE DO HAVE 19 MIN
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.