Nov 21, 2023 Regular Meeting

>>> I HEAR A MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER ANTUN?

[5.2 AUTHORIZATION TO DEFEND - GLENDA JONES]

>> YES. MAYOR BEAN? YES. >> HEADING TO 5.2, AUTHORIZATION TO DEFEND MS. JONES.

>> THIS IS A TRIP AND FALL AND THE CHARTER REQUIRES THAT I GET APPROVAL TO DEFEND HER THIS HAS BEEN SENT TO THE CITY'S INSURANCE TRUST AND OUTSIDE COUNSEL HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO

DEFEND. >>> ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER

ROSS? >> WELL, I KNOW THE ANSWER BECAUSE YOU TOLD ME THIS MORNING THAT WE HAVE ONE OR TWO SLIP OF

FALL CASES A YEAR. >> YES.

>> BUT, HAVING WALKED ALL THE SIDEWALKS IN THE CITY, THERE'S A LARGE AMOUNT THAT ARE POTENTIALLY UNSAFE BECAUSE OF HEAVING TO WHERE TREES ARE. AND I WAS WONDERING IF THE CITY ENGINEER CAN TALK ABOUT HOW WE GO ABOUT ASSESSING HOW TO MAKE OUR CITY'S SIDEWALKS SAFE SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T TRIP AND FALL AND MAYBE CUT DOWN ON THE TWO LAWSUITS PER YEAR, AND HOW WOULD

WE IMPLEMENT THEM. >> CHARLEY GEORGE, CITY ENGINEER, AS YOU KNOW WE'RE GOING THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PROJECT WHERE I THINK A LOT OF THESE SLIP AND FALLS OCCUR BECAUSE OF THE VARYING CONDITIONS. SO, THAT WORK WILL BE DONE AND WE'LL HAVE NEW SIDEWALKS IN THAT AREA.

WE'RE GOING TO ASSESS ALL THE OTHER SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE CITY TO SEE WHICH ONES ARE IN NEED OF REPAIR DEPENDING ON SEVERITY, SO, WE'RE WORKING ON THAT TO GET AN INVENTORY OF THE AREAS THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON. WE HAVE MONEY IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET TO DO THE REPAIRS, SO, WE'LL BE PRIORITIZING THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY DISCUSSION? DO I HEAR A

MOTION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >>> I HEAR A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, CALL THE ROLL.

>> COMMISSION ANTUN? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> YES.

[6.1 AUTHORIZATION TO DEFEND - ETHICS COMPLAINT ]

>> COMMISSIONER KAYSCUE. >> YES.

>> MAYOR BEAN? >> YES.

>> T >>> ALL RIGHT. AUTHORIZING TO

DEFEND THE ETHICS COMPLAINT. >> THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. SO, THE FIRST OF ALL, QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS?

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> SO, I'VE BEEN ASKED BY A

[00:20:02]

NUMBER OF CONSTITUENTS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, IF AN ETHICAL VIOLATION IS FOUND BUT THE CITY REIMBURSED THE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR THE COST OF THE DEFENSE?

>> NO. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, VICE MAYOR STURGES?

>> YES, MAYOR, I'LL HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF AND I'VE GOT A

STATEMENT TO MAKE. >>> ALL RIGHT.

>> UM, I WANTED TO START OUT BY SAYING THAT I CONSIDER IT AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF FERNANDINA. I WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE MY HOME. FOR ME AND MY FAMILY. MY CONSTITUENTS INCLUDE EVERY CITIZEN OF THIS COMMUNITY WHETHER THEY'RE LIFE-LONG FRIENDS OR PEOPLE I HAVE JUST MET. EVERY ACTION THAT I TAKE AS A COMMISSIONER IS BASED UPON HOW IT MAKES OUR COMMUNITY EVEN BETTER. TONIGHT, I'M ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A RESOLUTION WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DEFEND ME AGAINST AN ETHICS COMPLAINT RECENTLY MADE AGAINST ME. THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME ARE WHOLLY UNTRUE. AND I'LL LOOK FORWARD TO THE EVENTUAL FINDINGS OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION. ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE ENTITLED TO A DEFENSE AGAINST ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THEIR PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES SERVING A PUBLIC PURPOSE. WHEN I HAVE A RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION, I'M ABSTAINING FROM THIS VOTE TONIGHT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE DECISION SHOULD BE MADE BY MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE MATTER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF BEING AN ELECTED OFFICIAL SERIOUSLY. NEITHER I, NOR ANYONE ELSE ON THIS COMMISSION CAN TRULY REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF OUR COMMUNITY WITHOUT ADHERING TO THE CODE OF ETHICS. I HAVE NOT IN THE PAST, NOR WILL I EVER TAKE ANY ACTION TO VIOLATE THE CODE OF ETHICS. ANY CITIZEN CAN FILE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. THESE COMPLAINTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, I'LL HONOR THIS PROCESS OF CONFIDENTIALITY, BUT, I LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONCLUSION OF THIS INVESTIGATION, AT THAT POINT, DETAILS OF THESE UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS WILL BECOME PUBLIC RECORD. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE THOSE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY WHO ABUSE THE PROCESS BY WHICH ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. WHETHER THE ABUSE IS IN THE FORM OF FILING FALSE COMPLAINTS, OR BY MALICE, SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA. THIS POLITICAL GAMEMENSHIP IS UNACCEPTABLE, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THESE TACTICS WILL NOT DISTRACT ME FROM MY DUTIES. I WILL CONTINUE TO REPRESENT ALL OF MY CONSTITUENTS TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE'RE IN THE DISCUSSION PHASE. COMMISSIONER AYSCUE?

>> I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE VICE MAYOR FOR HIS COMMENTS AND THAT'S IMPORTANT WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU MR. AYSCUE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? DO I HEAR A MOTION? THERE'LL BE MORE

DISCUSSION AFTER THE MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> I HEAR THE MOTION AND A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'LL REITERATE MY SUPPORT TO VICE MAYOR STURGES, I LOOK FORWARD TO VOTING YES ON THIS, AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO. COMMISSIONER ROSS, YOU RECUSED YOURSELF FROM THE LAST ONE, WILL YOU BE RECUSING YOURSELF FROM

THIS ONE? >> NO. THE ONLY REASON THAT ONE WOULD HAVE TO RECUSE THEMSELVES IF THEY WERE INVOLVED IN SOME WAY OR KNOW OF SOMETHING. SO, NO, I WILL NOT

BE RECUSING MYSELF. >>> GOT YOU, THAT'S AN INTERESTING COMMENT. WITH THAT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

CITY CLERK CALL THE VOTE. >> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER ANTUN?

[6.2 PROPOSAL APPROVAL - INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC]

>> YES. >> COMMISSION ROSS?

>> YES. >> MAYOR BEAN?

>> YES. >> WE HAVE THE PROPOSAL APPROVAL, INSTUFORM TECHNOLOGIES.

>> YES, THAT IS A PROBLEM THAT ALL CITYS SHARE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE SEWER OUT OF THE STORM WATER AND THE STORM WATER OUT OF THE SEWER. WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE VARIOUS POINTS WITHIN THE CITY WHERE REHABILITATION IS NEEDED. MADAM CLERK IF YOU COULD PLEASE PULL UP THE MAP INCLUDED IN ITEM 6.2

[00:25:06]

THAT THE ASSIST OUR STORM WATER HERE AND MANAGER ANDRE IN EXPLAINING WHAT WE'RE UP TO THIS TIME.

>> THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER, ANDRE THE UTILITIES DIRECTOR.

THIS IS AN ANNUAL PROJECT THAT WE UNDERTAKE TO REHABILITATE OUR SYSTEM THROUGH USE OF TRENCHLESS REPAIR TECHNOLOGY, RATHER THAN DIGGING UP AND REPLACING PIPE, THE COMPANY THAT WE CONTRACT WITH INSTALL A LINER IN PLACE WITHOUT DISTURBING ANY OTHER UTILITIES, ROADWAYS, ANYTHING ELSE IN THOSE AREAS. SO, THESE ARE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN EVALUATED BY OUR STAFF AS REACHING THE END OF THEIR SERVICE LIFE. THIS IS A PIGGY BACK PURCHASE, THE VENDOR EXTENDED THE PRICING AS WAS A AS A RESULT OF THE OPEN BID PROCESS. THEY HAVE LARGER BUYING POWER THAN THE CITY DOES JUST DUE TO VOLUME. SO, WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT PRICING. RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTION SNUZ

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN MORE.

BASICALLY, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS THAT YOU HAVE A PIPE THERE NOW AND YOU'RE TAKING A SILICON SLEEVE AND PUTTING THAT SLEEVE INSIDE THERE AND THEN THAT NOW BECOMES THE PIPE, ESSENTIALLY?

>> CORRECT. IT'S A FIBER GLASS LINER, RESIN INPREGNATED LINER.

THAT PUMP CAN GO AWAY AND THAT NEW FIBER GLASS LINER BECOMES

THE NEW PIPE. >> AND CAN YOU JUST SHOW PEOPLE

WHERE THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN? >> WELL, THERE ARE AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, THIS IS SOUTH LECTURE AVENUE. WE'VE GOT IT IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT AREAS, PART OF, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY DOWNTOWN, WHERE WE, OUR CONTRACTOR WILL COME IN AND, UM, AND, SET UP THEIR EQUIPMENT, USUALLY IT'S JUST A COUPLE HOUR OPERATION TO INSTALL THE LINER, THEY FILL THE LINER WITH BOILING WATER TO CURE THE FIBER GLASS RESIN, AND DRAIN THAT AND CUT OUT ANY SERVICES WHICH ARE CONNECT WOULD THAT LINE AND PUT

IT RIGHT BACK INTO SERVICE. >> AND YOU MEAN WHERE ALL THE

GREEN LINES ARE? >> YES. THE GREEN LINES ARE

THE SERVICE CONNECTIONS. >> SO, IT'S LEAVING THAT ORANGE PIPE AND WHEN THERE'S A SLEEVE THERE, THEY HAVE TO CUT IT.

>> YEAH, SO, THEY GO WITH A ROBOT AND CUT OUT AND SECTION THAT LINER WHERE THE SERVICE DRAINS INTO THE MAIN LANE.

>> I THINK THERE WAS A JAMES BOND MOVIE THAT GOT STUCK IN A

TUBE LIKE THAT. >> IT'S QUITE INTERESTING, EVERYTHING IS VIDEO INSPECTED BEFORE AND AFTER. AND WHEN WE HAVE AREAS WHICH ARE IN HIGH TRAFFIC SITUATION LIKE WE'VE DONE SOME DOWNTOWN, WE'LL DO A NIGHTTIME OPERATION JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE THE EQUIPMENT SET UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD FOR HOURS ON END, BUT, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE NIGHT OPERATIONS

PLANNED FOR THIS PHASE. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>> I HAVE TWO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU THERE. SO, I KNOW THE REASON THAT YOU WOULD DO SUCH A LEANER, WE'RE DOING THAT BECAUSE IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER THAN DIGGING UP AND REPLACING IT

COMPLETELY? >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> COULD YOU TELL ME HOW MUCH SAVINGS PERCENTAGE WISE ARE WE

BY DOING THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY. >> IT'S AT LEAST A 50% COST SAVINGS, I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT LINEAR FOOTAGE THAT WE'RE DOING THIS YEAR, THE PRICE VARIES WITH THE DIAMETER. THE TYPICAL SEWAGE IS 8 INCHES IN DIAMETER, AND THE LINE STARTS AT 12 AND GOES UP TO 48-INCH LINER, WHEN WE GET INTO STORM LINER THEY ARE SIGNIFICANTLY BIGGER PER FOOT, BUT, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO DISTURB ANY OTHER UTILITIES, IT'S VERY COST-EFFECTIVE IN THE

LABOR SAVING PROCESS. >> PERFECT. AND WHAT IS YOUR PLAN TO COMMUNICATE THE WATER OUTAGE TO THE CUSTOMERS THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS. BECAUSE, WE'LL HAVE TO TURN OFF THE WATER FOR THE CUSTOMERS WHO ARE USING IT, CORRECT

>> >> THIS IS ONLY FOR STORM WATER AND FOR SANITARY SEWER, IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE POTABLE WATER

SUPPLY AT ALL. >> WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE TOILETTES, WHERE WILL THEY GO IN THE MEANTIME?

>> WHEN WE HAVE PARTICULAR SECTIONS BEING DONE, OUR

[00:30:02]

CONTRACTOR WILL COMMUNICATE TO EVERYBODY WHO IS AFFECTED.

WE'LL UTILIZE SOCIAL MEDIA AS MUCH AS APPROPRIATE TO GET THAT MESSAGE OUT. BUT, NORMALLY, IT'S DURING THE DAY, THERE'S AN IMPACT OF MAYBE ABOUT TWO HOURS ON A PARTICULAR RESIDENT. BUT, A LOT OF TIMES, YOU HAVE THE STORAGE OF THE WHOLE PIPE, THE WHOLE SERVICE PIPE. SO, YOU COULD STORE OR GOOD BIT OF WATER IN THERE BEFORE YOU START TO SEE BACKUPS IN THE RESIDENTS, SO, THE IMPACT ON RESIDENTS WILL BE MINIMAL.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, ANDRE, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT CAUSES PRESSURE IN THE PIPE WHEN THEY DO IT FROM TIME TO TIME? OR IS THAT JUST THE CLEANING THAT CAUSES THE PRESSURE?

>> THAT'S THE CLEANING, SO, THE PROCESS WILL BE THAT THE CONTRACTOR WILL COME IN AND CLEAN AND INSPECT THESE LINES THAT WILL BE ONE MOBILIZATION. AND THAT PROCESS INVOLVES PRESSURIZED JET CLEANING PROCESS AND CAMERA, SO, SOMETIMES WE CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT OF PRESSURE COMING UP IN THE PLUMBING OF THE RESIDENTS', BUT, WE TRY TO GO AGAINST THE FLOW OF THE GRAVITY

TO SORT OF MINIMIZE ANY ISSUES. >> THE ONLY REASON I ASK THAT IS BECAUSE IT CAN CAUSE ISSUES I'VE SEEN IT WITH THE PRESSURIZED PART OF IT. FIGURE THEY WOULD HAVE TO CLEAN IT BEFORE THEY SEAL IT, OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE PROFESSIONALS, THEY WILL MAKE SURE THEY KNOCK ON THE DOORS AND TAKE THEIR

(INDISCERNIBLE) OFF. >> WELL, IT'S NOT TRULY PRESSURIZING, IT'S, EVERYTHING IS VENTED THROUGH THE STACKS, THE PLUMBING STACKS ON TOP OF THE HOMES. SO, THE SYSTEM IS NOT SEALED. SO, ANY ACCESS PRESSURE CAN VENT THROUGH THE ROOFS OF THE RESIDENTS. BUT, CERTAINLY THEY WILL NOTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT MAY EXPERIENCE SOME CHANGE IN

SERVICE. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

>> AND VICE MAYOR STURGES YOUR LIGHT IS ON.

>>> ANY DISCUSSION FOR THE COMMISSION DISCUSSION? SEEING

NONE, DO I HEAR A MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, CALL THE ROLL.

>>> COMMISSIONER ANTUN? >> YES.

>> MAYOR BEAN? >> AND YES. THAT PASSES 5-0.

[6.3 ATHLETIC FACILITIES USE AGREEMENTS - YOUTH SPORTS]

DOWN THE LINE WE HAVE ITEM 6.3, ATHLETIC FACILITIES USE AF AGREEMENTS, YOUTH SPORTS. WE'LL GO TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR THAT.

>> WE NEED SCHEDULED TIME FOR MAINTENANCE WHEN NEEDED. WE HAVE PARTNERSHIPS WITH VARIOUS NON-PROFITS WE NEED TO KNOW WHEN THE FIELDS ARE BEING USED BY THEM AND WHEN THEY'RE NOT BEING USED. AND THAT'S THE ISSUE. OUR PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR, CATHERINE BEROSSI, HAS A SYSTEM IN PLACE WITH AGREEMENTS WITH THE NON-PROFITS AND SHE'S HERE TO TAKE YOU THROUGH EACH OF

THEM. >> THANK YOU, GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE NEW PART OF THESE AGREEMENTS AS THE CITY MANAGER WAS SAYING OF THE THE ATHLETIC FACILITY USAGE IS OUTLINING THE USE OF THE FIELDS SO THAT WE COULD BETTER SCHEDULE EVERYTHING. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A POINT, I WANT TO CHANGE THE PRIORITY WITH YOU TONIGHT.

IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NON-PROFITS, IT'S A GOOD CHANGE FOR THEM. SO, PRIORITY NUMBER ONE IS THE CITY. CITY USE.

CITY PROGRAMS, PARKS AND PARKS AND RECREATION. RIGHT NOW, PRIORITY 2 IS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS ON 80/20 SPLIT WITH THE CITY. IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THAT, AS YOU SEE THE AGREEMENTS AS THEY ARE, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE PRIORITY TO BE SECOND IS NON-PROFITS, LIKE THE SPORTS LEAGUES AND SCHOOLS AND AFTER THOSE WILL BE THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. WE FIND THAT TO BE A BETTER FIT WITH THE COMMUNITY AND IT SHOULD BE WITH THE LEAGUES AS THEY SERVE THE MOST YOUTH IN THE COMMUNITY. THAT IS THE ONE BIG CHANGE FOR THESE AGREEMENTS, OTHERWISE THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE EVERY YEAR. AND AS CITY MANAGER STATED, THIS POLICY GIVES US THE VEHICLE TO BETTER UTILIZE OUR FIELDS AND UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY'RE BEING USED AND WHEN WE CAN MAINTAIN THEM. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE?

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> COMMISSIONER?

>> I HAVE A STATEMENT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. HAVE ALL

[00:35:02]

THE YOUTH LEAGUES BEEN CONTACTED AND AGREED TO THIS THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING HERE? ARE THERE ANY YOUTH LEAGUES THAT WE HAVE YET TO TALK TO OR DO WE HAVE APPROVAL FROM THEM?

>> YOU HAVE FIVE AGREEMENTS SIGNED BY EACH LEAGUE PRESIDENT OR THEIR LIAISON. THERE IS A CHANGE TO THE FEE. THERE'S A FEE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN THE FEE SCHEDULE A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.

THAT FEE IS IN HERE, AS ADOPTED, THE $4 PER PLAYER PER SEASON.

THERE IS, YES, WE ARE AWARE THAT THERE IS ONE LEAGUE THAT IS NOT

PLEASED WITH THE FEE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ROSS?

>> SO, I MADE A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST, IS IT TRUE THAT IF YOU ADD ALL OF THESE FEES UP, IT COMES UP TO EXACTLY $5,320, FROM

THE MATERIAL THAT YOU GAVE ME. >> I HAVEN'T DONE THE ADDITION,

IF THAT'S WHAT IT IS, YES, SIR. >> AND THE COST WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE FUEL, VEHICLE COST, APPRECIATION, MAINTENANCE, EQUIPMENT, IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT, CAPITAL ITEMS AND BUILDING MAINTENANCE REPAIRS WHICH ARE ALL SIGNIFICANT, SO, JUST THE MAINTENANCE OF THESE FIELDS COMES TO ABOUT $100,000, IS THAT

FAIR? >> THAT IS OUR BEST

PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATE. YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT, STATEMENTS? COMMISSIONER AYSCUE?

>> I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU YOU AND YOUR TEAM, I KNOW THAT WE TALK ABOUT THIS WAY EARLY AND GREAT JOB ON THIS. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME COMING JUST SO THAT WE COULD BEST UTILIZE THE FIELD JUST LIKE YOU SAID, SO, EVERYONE KNOWS WHEN IT'S THEIR TIME TO HAVE THE FIELD, IT WAS ALWAYS, WHEN DEALING WITH YOUTH SPORTS IT'S ALWAYS WHO HAS THIS IN THE SPRING AND WHO HAS IT IN THE FALL, IT WAS ALWAYS A MESS AND SO, I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE ON THE

SAME PAGE. SO, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE? >> I'LL ECHO THE SAME. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO TOM. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE OTHER YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS TO MAYBE CONSIDER THAT'S A WAY TO HELP

OFF SET THEIR COSTS AS WELL. >>> PERFECT. AND, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I YOUTH SPORTS IS NOT A PLACE FOR THE CITY TO BE MAKING MONEY. THAT'S NOT THE PLACE FOR US TO BE MAKING MONEY.

I'M HAPPY THAT WE DO HAVE A SMALL FEE FOR THEM TO HELP CARRY THE WEIGHT, BUT, THE INTENT IS, OF COURSE, NOT TO TRY TO BREAK EVEN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I THINK IT'S ALL ABOUT JUST MAKING SURE THAT THE KIDS HAVE SOMETHING TO DO AFTER SCHOOL THAT IS NOT A SCREEN. I'M EXCITED TO DO THAT.

>> I THINK WHEN I LOOKED AT IT, I MAY HAVE, I GOT THE SAME E-MAIL THAT I THINK EVERYONE ELSE DID. ESSENTIALLY, IT LOOKED LIKE, TO ME, THAT THE AS A RECREATIONAL FACILITY, WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT. WHETHER THE CHILDREN ARE USING IT OR NOT.

THERE'S MAINTENANCE THAT WE HAVE TO DO IF IT WEREN'T A YOUTH SPORTS. BUT, THERE IS A COST ASSOCIATED THAT I SAW WITH PREPARING FOR THE SEASON. AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE COST THAT WE'RE CHARGING $4 PER PLAYER PER SEASON SEEMS TO OFF SET THAT COST. SO, TO ME, THE COST OF THE PLAYER, YOU KNOW, ALL WE'RE DOING IS JUST PREPARING FOR THE SEASON. SO, THAT'S IT AT LEAST FROM WHAT I CAN REMEMBER, THE QUICK MATH THAT I TRIED TO DO.

SO, I UNDERSTAND IT AND I P WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

>> EXCELLENT POINT. COMMISSIONER.

>> AND VICE MAYOR? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR, BRIEFLY, CATHERINE, GREAT JOB, I'M A FIRM BELIEVER IN YOUTH SPORTS AND PROVIDING RECRE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR OUR COMMUNITY IS PRIORITY NUMBER ONE. AND I THINK THAT'S A THING THAT I DON'T THINK WE'LL EVER CATCH UP ON THE COST. THESE CHILDREN AND THE FAMILIES WHO ARE PART OF OUR COMMUNITY, THEY'RE ALREADY BEING TAXED IN OTHER WAYS. SO, I SUPPORT THIS AND I THINK THAT IT'S A GREAT THING TO HAVE OUR YOUTH SPORTS.

THANK YOU. >> DO I HEAR A MOTION.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING

NONE, CALL THE ROLL. >>> COMMISSIONER ANTUN?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE?

[6.4 PART-TIME AND FULL-TIME STAFF INCREASE]

>> YES. >> MAYOR BEAN. ?

>> AND YES, THAT PASSES 5-0. ITEM 6.4, PART TIME AND FULL

TIME STAFF INCREASE. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, I'VE BEEN MADE AWARE OF STAFFING ISSUES, THESE INVOLVE THREE DEPARTMENTS, I'LL START WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE BEACH SEASON IS NO LONGER JUST MEMORIAL DAY TO LABOR DAY. THAT

[00:40:05]

OLD TIMEFRAME, SPECIFICALLY STAFF SEASONAL YOUTH OR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ON SUMMER BREAK, WITH THE EXTENDED SEASON, STAFFING HAS BECOME MORE DIFFICULT AND, UM, OUR FIRE CHIEF IS HERE THIS EVENING WITH A PROPOSAL TO ASSIST IN THIS

STAFFING MATTER. >>> GOOD EVENING, TY, SILL COX FIRE CHIEF. WE'RE REQUESTING TO CHANGE FIVE OF OUR SEASONAL POSITIONS TO PART-TIME, YEAR-ROUND, WITH THE INCREASE TO THE BEACHING DURING THE OFF SEASON WE'RE WORKING TO TRY AND PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL COVERAGE ON THE BEACHES DURING THIS TIME FRAME. WE, UM, CURRENTLY WE TERMINATE OUR EMPLOYEES, THESE FIVE EMPLOYEES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO TURN INTO PART-TIME, WE KEEP THEM 10 MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR, WE TERMINATE THEM FOR TWO MACHINES AND WE BRING THEM BACK. WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THEM OUT TO WE CERTIFICATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THESE ARE BUDGET NEUTRAL, WE CAN CONVERT THESE FIVE POSITIONS TO PART-TIME AND NOT HAVE TO INCREASE OUR BUDGET. THIS IS BUDGETED AS SEASONAL.

AND, WE FEEL THAT WITH DOING OUR MATH, THAT WE CAN COVER THESE POSITIONS AND FUND IT THROUGH THE APPROVED BUDGET THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE STRIVED OVER THE LAST NINE YEARS AND I'VE BEEN HERE AS THE FIRE CHIEF TO MAKE OUR OCEAN RESCUE DIVISION MORE PROFESSIONAL. UM, IT'S NO LONGER JUST GOING OUT AND CATCHING SOME RAYS WHILE YOU'RE SETTING IN THE LIFEGUARD TOWERS, BUT, WE'VE ADDED PROFESSIONALISM TO IT AND WE FEEL THIS IS A GOOD MOVE TO HELP PROTECT THOSE THAT

COME. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF?

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> SO, MAYBE I HEARD YOU WRONG, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SEASONAL POSITION AND FULL-TIME, PART-TIME POSITION IS TWO MONTHS?

>> A SEASONAL POSITION, RIGHT, WE COULD ONLY WORK THEM FOR SO LONG AND THEN WE HAVE TO TERMINATE THEM. AND THEN WE BRING THEM BACK, IF THEY'RE STILL AVAILABLE. TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS LINE OF WORK WITH OUR SEASONAL STAFF IS THAT, UM, WE WILL TERMINATE THEM, THEY WILL GO TO WORK FOR ONE OF THE LOCAL RESTAURANTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND THEN WHEN IT'S TIME TO BRING THEM BACK AS LIFEGUARDS, THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT BECAUSE THEY'RE MAKING MORE MONEY IN THE RESTAURANTS.

SO, WE FEEL THAT KEEPING THIS WOULD BE OUR ZONE SUPERVISORS THAT OVERSEE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE BEACH. AND THIS WOULD KEEP THAT CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS WITH THEM SO THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING TO RETRAIN SOMEONE EVERY YEAR. TO HANDLE THAT POSITION.

>> CHIEF, MY QUESTION IS, SO, IT'S THE FIVE EMPLOYEES THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT ARE SEASONAL, WE'RE MAKING THEM PART-TIME.

WE'RE NOT ADDING FIVE NEW PART-TIME EMPLOYEES, WE'RE JUST SAYING THE FIVE SEASONAL EMPLOYEES THAT WE ALREADY HAVE

CAN STAY AROUND. >> EXACTLY, WE'RE GOING TO CONVERT OUR SEASONAL EMPLOYEES TO PART-TIME AND ALL OF OUR OTHER LIFEGUARDS WILL REMAIN SEASONAL GUARDS.

>> THANK YOU, CHIEF, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF?

>> I THINK THAT WE HAVE A PART TWO OF THIS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES. MR. MAYOR, UM, SKIPPING OVER TO THE POLICE, UM, THE DEPARTMENT'S EVIDENCE ROOM, IT'S EVIDENCE DEPARTMENT, THE CHIEF MENTIONED THE CONTINUITY OF SERVICE, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND THE BEST PRACTICE THERE AND THE ACCREDITATION STANDARDS IS THE STABILITY AND THE CONTINUITY OF THE SYSTEM. THAT IS CURRENTLY MANNED BY DIFFERENT PART-TIME POSITIONS AND OUR POLICE CHIEF, JEFF TAMBASCO WILL BE PRESENTING A SOLUTION THAT HE BELIEVES WILL BRING THE CONTINUITY THAT HE DESIRES.

[00:45:05]

>>> GOOD EVENING, JEFF TAMBASCO, POLICE CHIEF. SO, CURRENTLY WE HAVE A PART-TIME PERSON AND A FULL-TIME SWORN OFFICER IN OUR EVIDENCE SECTION. SO, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS CONVERT ONE PART-TIME POSITION WHICH IS THE ONE THAT'S IN THERE AND A PART-TIME POLICE OFFICER POSITION INTO ONE FULL-TIME CIVILIAN EVIDENCE SECTION PERSON. THAT'S GOING TO DO A COUPLE OF THINGS FOR US, ONE IT WILL GIVE US THE CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS. TWO IT'S GOING TO GIVE US SOMEONE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE LONGEVITY IN THAT POSITION. CURRENTLY WITH THE SWORN STAFF IN THERE, THEY WANT TO ROTATE IN AND OUT EVERY YEAR. SO, WE REALLY CAN'T GET THAT STABILITY OR EVIDENCE SECTION THAT HAS SEVERAL THOUSAND PIECES OF EVIDENCE IN IT. WHERE WE NEED TO TO BE. SO, WE FEEL LIKE A FULL-TIME, DEDICATED CIVILIAN EVIDENCE SECTION PERSON WOULD GIVE US THAT CONTINUITY, THAT STABILITY, AND SOMEONE IN THERE THAT WE CAN KEEP FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND NOT HAVE TO DO AN INVENTORY ALL THE TIME, EVERY TIME WE ROTATE SOMEONE IN AND OUT WE HAVE TO PUT EYES AND HANDS ON EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHICH TAKES MONTHS. SO, WE FEEL LIKE THIS WAS THE BEST SOLUTION. AGAIN, LIKE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, IT'S WITHIN OUR BUDGET TO DO THIS. IT'S NOT GOING TO COST ANYMORE THAN WHAT'S IN OUR APPROVED BUDGET.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR CHIEF TAMBSSCO.

>> ANY QUESTION IS HOW WILL YOU REPLACE THE PART TIME POLICE

OFFICER? >> THAT POSITION HAS BEEN OPEN SINCE I CAME TO THE CITY. I THINK THAT WE COULD OPERATE JUST

FINE WITHOUT IT. >> SO, IT WILL NOT CAUSE

OVERTIME OR OTHER ISSUES? >> NO, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> AND CHIEF, JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU SAID, YOU'RE TAKING ESSENTIALLY TWO PART-TIME PEOPLE TO ONE FULL-TIME PERSON.

>> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, ANY

FURTHER QUESTIONS FORT CHIEF? >> SEEING NONE, THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THAT IS THE QUESTION PERIOD.

>> THERE IS A THIRD. >> THERE'S A THREE FOR. ALL

RIGHT. >> YES. THIS GOES IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, I'LL SPEAK ON BEHALF OF COMPTROLLER, PAULINE TESTAGROSE THIS YEAR. IN 2017, THE CITY PROVIDES MORE WAYS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL REPORTS INCLUDING BUDGET-BUILDING AND ANALYSIS. OUR COMPTROLLER DESIRES TO MORE FULLY UTILIZE THE SOFTWARE'S VARIOUS MODULE TOSS PROVIDE REALTIME REPORTS AND MANAGE THE BUDGET THROUGHOUT THE FISCAL YEAR. HER IDEA AND IT IS MY RECOMMENDATION AS WELL AS TO SHIFT THE FULL-TIME PROCUREMENT SPECIALISTS TO PART-TIME AND CREATE A FULL-TIME BUDGET ANALYST POSITION. THIS IS A $49,875 ADDITION TO THE BUDGET. IT'S NOT BUDGET NEUTRAL. AND WE'RE SEEKING OUR AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUNDS CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TO FILL THIS ROLE.

>> ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ROSS?

>> I HAVE A COUPLE. FIRST IS HOW MUCH MONEY IS NOW IN THE

CONTINGENCY FUND? >> I DON'T HAVE THAT EXACT BALANCE. I WOULD HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT.

>> MY MEMORY WAS IN THE CONTINGENCY FUND THERE WAS $200,000 TO BEGIN WITH. AND WE TOOK PART OF THAT OUT TO PAY FOR THE NEW CITY MANAGER BUDGET. FIRST OF ALL, I SUPPORT ALL OF THESE, AND I'LL VOTE FOR IT. BUT, I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT WE'RE ONE MONTH INTO THE NEW BUDGET AND WE'VE PROBABLY ALREADY USED 150% OF OUR CONTINGENCY FUND. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. AND NUMBER TWO, WE'RE CREATING A FULL-TIME POSITION GOING FORWARD, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT WILL HAVE TO BE

FUNDED NEXT YEAR. >> YES.

>> SO, THAT'S GOING TO ADD TO THE BUDGET NEXT YEAR.

>> YES. >> SO, I'M POINTING OUT, IF WE GO TO THE ROLL BACK RATE, ONCE AGAIN, THAT MONEY THAT IS GOT TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. BECAUSE, WITH THE ROLLBACK RATE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AS YOU DID LAST YEAR.

SO, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FUND THIS. I SUPPORT THESE THINGS, I THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT. I THINK THE CITY'S POPULATION

[00:50:04]

CONTINUES TO GROW AND THEY'RE NECESSARY. BUT, I WANTED TO POINT OUT IT WILL CAUSE AN INCREASE IN THE BUDGET FOR NEXT

YEAR. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I THOUGHT THIS WAS AN INTERIM FINANCE DEPARTMENT ISSUE THAT WE HAD SOMEBODY ELSE WORKING REMOTELY AND THIS WAS INTERIM. IS THAT NOT THE CASE? IS THIS PERMANENT?

>> THIS WOULD BE, THIS WOULD BE PERMANENT. IT WOULD BE THE COMPTROLLER'S INTENT TO USE THIS TO BUDGET BUILD IN 2024 AND

GOING FORWARD. >> AND LET ME CALL UP THE CITY

ENGINEER FOR COMMENT. >> DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, ONE CLARIFICATION A LITTLE BIT IT'S THE DEAL WITH THE PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST. SHE'S LEAVING THE CITY TO GO HOME TO AUGUSTA, AND SHE'S GOING TO WORK PART-TIME. SO, WE'RE REALLY ONLY ADDING, BECAUSE, THAT FULL-TIME POSITION THAT SHE HAS WILL BECOME THAT BUDGET PERSON. SO, WE'RE REALLY ONLY ADDING ANOTHER PROCUREMENT PERSON TO HELP THE ONE THAT'S GOING REMOTE FROM ON IN-HOUSE STAND POINT. SO, IT'S REALLY NOT AS DRAMATIC COST INCREASE AS

WE THINK. >> NOTE THE. ALL RIGHT,

>> I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION ON THAT. WHAT IT REALLY IS IS, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, 29,000 AND CHANGE PER YEAR, BUDGET

INCREASE. >> RIGHT, BUT, IT'S NOT LIKE

ADDING A FULL-TIME PERSON. >> BUT, THERE IS AN INCREASE.

BUT IT'S NOT DRAMATIC. >>

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? VICE MAYOR STURGES AND COMMISSIONER ROSS HAVE DISCUSSED. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO DISCUSS. SEEING NONE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

>> MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> SEEING NONE, CITY CLERK CALL THE ROLL.

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> YES.

>> >> THAT PASSES 5-0.

>> WE'RE NOW AT ITEM 7, THE ORDINANCE FIRST READING. BEFORE WE MOVE I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. DANNY FERRARA, I HAVE YOUR REQUEST TO SPEAK AND I WANT TO BE SURE THAT I GET THE ITEM

RIGHT. >> WELL, THERE ARE THREE, 53, 54, AND 55. ALL THREE ARE BLANKETED TOGETHER IN ZONING.

[7.1 HISTORIC STREETSCAPE ELEMENTS]

>> YES, SIR, THANK YOU, VERY MUCH FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, WE'LL MAKE SURE TO GET THERE WHEN WE GET THERE. ITEM 7.1,

HISTORIC STREETSCAPE ELEMENTS. >> ORDINANCE 2023-49, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 70-41 CONCERNING THE PROTECTION, MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC STREETSCRAPE ELEMENTS PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING

FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >> THIS IS A PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. AND IT REGARDS SPECIFICALLY, THE AESTHETIC ELEMENTS OF DOWNTOWN. AND THE VALUE AND CHARACTER THAT IT ADDS TO OUR COMMUNITY. WE CAN ARGUE THAT DOWNTOWN, CENTER STREET AND THE LIKE IS A SIGNIFICANT IF NOT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHARACTER AREA OF OUR CITY. STATING BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY, IT'S IMPORTANT TO INVENTORY AND LOG ALL THE IMPORTANT CHARACTER ELEMENTS SO THAT WE CAN PROPERLY BUDGET IN THE FUTURE TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THIS IMPORTANT ASSET.

THIS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND ENDORSED BY THE HDC. BY THE FERNANDINA BEACH MAIN STREET ASSOCIATION AND THE AMELIA ISLAND RESTORATION FOUNDATION, AND THE AMELIA ISLAND MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND SUPPORTED BY THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THERE'S FOUR ELEMENTS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE, THAT'S THE HEXAGON SIDEWALK PIECES, THE GRANITE CURBS, THE CONCRETE STREET MARKERS, AS WELL AS THE BRICK CROSS, THERE'LL BE A GIS MAPPING OF ALL OF THE ABOVE SO THAT IT'S DIGITIZED AND PRESERVED. WE'RE NOT JUST GOING TO DEPEND ON INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE. WE'LL HAVE A TREASURE MAP AND WE'LL

[00:55:03]

BUDGET FOR THE ON GOING MAINTENANCE AND USING THE DATA THAT WE COMPILED, WE'LL PERFORM AN ANNUAL INSPECTION OF THE AREAS DOWNTOWN AND THERE WILL BE AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL, AND INTERCOORDINATION BECAUSE A PORTION OF DOWNTOWN IS WRAPPED AROUND STATE 400 WHICH IS CONTROLLED AND ADMINISTERED BY FDOT, THESE ARE THE PIECES OF THE ORDINANCE. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> ON PAGE PAGE TWO OF THREE, SECTION C-2 IT SAYS THE CITY AND THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS MUST MAINTAIN AND PRESERVE THE HEXAGON BLOCKS AND PROHIBIT IT FROM INSTALLING MATERIAL THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE EXISTING HEXAGON BLOCK SIDEWALKS. SO, WHAT THAT MEANS IF THERE'S A SIDEWALK AND ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE HEXAGON PAVERS ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY CAN'T BE CHANGED. AND MY QUESTION, AND I WILL BE VOTING FOR THIS, SO, I APPROVE OF IT, IS HOW DOES THE CITY HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THAT BECAUSE IT'S PAVERS THAT ARE ON SOMEBODY'S PRIVATE

PROPERTY. >> WELL, THE CITY HAS TO ARRIVE TO REGULATE THE CHANGE IN STRUCTURE TO HISTORIC BUILDING.

OR HOUSE IN DOWNTOWN. IT'S REALLY NO DIFFERENT, JUST A

DIFFERENT ELEMENT, SO TO SPEAK. >> SO, BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, WE HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO DO THIS?

>> YES. >> OKAY. GREAT.

>> AND THE NOTICE TO THE CITIZENS AND THOSE THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTED IS RIGHT HERE, FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND

THEN SECOND READING. >>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THIS? SEEING NONE, I'LL NOW GO TO CITIZEN COMMENT, WE'LL INVITE MS. LISA FINKLESTIEN TO THE

PODIUM. >> FINKLESTIEN, I'M SORRY.

>> I ANSWER TO BOTH. LISA FINKLESTIEN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FERNANDINA BEACH MAIN STREET. AND I WANT TO ECHO OUR SUPPORT FOR THIS ORDINANCE. THERE'S A LETTER IN THE PACKET WHICH I KNOW, YOU KNOW, WAS SENT QUITE AWHILE AGO WHEN THIS WAS FIRST ON AN AGENDA, BUT, OBVIOUSLY THIS ORDINANCE SUPPORTS VISION 2045, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY. IT SQUARELY FITS WITHIN THE MISSION OF MAIN STREET, ECONOMIC VITALIY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION. THE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND REGULAR REPAIRS ON THAT SECTION OF SIDEWALK TO ADDRESS THE ROOTS AND THE HEAVING AND ALL OF THAT. THE AS YOU MENTIONED, THERE IS SUPPORT FROM THE MUSEUM, THE HDC, THE RESTORATION FOUNDATION AND OTHERS, THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL, FOR THIS. AND LOOKING TO THE NEAR FUTURE WITH THE REVITALIZATION DOWNTOWN. WE FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE IN PLACE SO THAT CONTRACTORS COMING INTO OUR SISTER ARE AWARE OF THESE ELEMENTS AND THEY'RE PROTECTED AND WE VALUE THEM. WE THINK THIS IS REALLY PART OF WHAT GIVES US THAT AUTHENTIC CHARACTER IN OUR CITY AND SO, WE THINK THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ORDINANCE AND I WOULD THANK YOU

FOR YOUR SUPPORT. >>> THANK YOU.

>> YOUR WELCOME. >> ALL RIGHT. I HAVE NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR CITIZEN COMMENT. WE'LL GO TO COMMISSION

DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> SO, I FULLY SUPPORT THIS AND WILL VOTE FOR IT BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT TWO THINGS, ON PAGE THREE OF THREE, BUDGETING. THE CITY WILL ADEQUATELY BUDGET FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF IDENTIFYING HISTORIC STREETSCAPE ELEMENTS DURING THE ANNUAL BUDGET IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

THERE'S NO MENTION OF HOW MUCH THAT WILL COST AND THE SECOND IS ANNUAL INSPECTIONS, WHO COMMITS THE CITY TO THAT WHICH ALSO HAS A COST, WHICH WAS TALKED ABOUT IN THE FISCAL IMPACT OF ALL OF THIS. SO, I'M POINTING OUT THAT WE'RE FUNDING SOMETHING FOR NEXT YEAR AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO THE ROLLBACK RATE BUDGET YOU'LL HAVE TO FIND SOMETHING TO FUND THIS. THAT'S ALL I'M POINTING OUT, I

SUPPORT IT AND WILL VOTE FOR IT. >> VICE MAYOR STURGES?

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, I SUPPORT THIS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT, I'M ALL ABOUT BACKING UP THE HISTORIC AND TAKING CARE OF DOWNTOWN AND RENOVATING IT. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IT ALL IN ONE YEAR, SO, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT NEEDS TO BE A

[01:00:01]

CONCERN FOR THE BUDGET EVERY YEAR. JEREMIAH, I DON'T SEE HIM IN THE CROWD THIS EVENING TO REQ QUESTION THE ANNUAL STUDY, I WOULD ENVISION THAT HE WOULD BE INTEGRAL IN PART OF THIS JOB, CHECKING THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND MAINTAINING THAT, CURRENTLY, I THINK HE ALREADY DOES THAT. SO, I SUPPORT IT AND I THINK IT'S GREAT TO KEEP OUR HISTORIC DOWNTOWN LOOKING HISTORIC AND ONLY IMPROVE IT FROM HERE. SO, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PLAN AND THAT'S WHAT WE START WITH, PLANS AND THEN WE CAN ACT AND FIND THE MONEY TO FINANCE IT. WE'VE ALREADY STARTED WITH A CERTAIN SECTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO START THAT'S BUDGETED. AND SO, I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. AND WE NEED A PLAN OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO REPAIR AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO BEFORE WE CAN SPEND MONEY IN ANY FORM. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. DO I HEAR A MOTION.

>> MOTION. >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? I WOULD LIKE TO JUST THANK EVERYBODY INVOLVED. THIS IS A BIG WIN FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, THE MAIN STREET AND OUR MUSEUM, WE LOVE OUR MUSEUM AND MAIN STREET.

THIS IS IMPORTANT TO PROTECT OUR HISTORY AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION,

CITY CLERK CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER ANTUN?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE?

[7.2 (Quasi-judicial) VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION - 1912 AND 1888 DRURY ROAD]

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS?

>> YES. >> MAYOR BEAN?

>> YES. THAT PASSES 5-1. >> AND NOW WE HAVE THE VOLUNTARY AN EXATION OF 1912 AND 1988 DREARY ROAD.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURES.

FIRST, THE CITY COMMISSION WILL SIT UP HERE AS IMPARTIAL JUDGES AND ARE NOT VOTING UNDER ANY ITEMS, UNDER FIRST READING THEY'RE LISTED AS QUASI-JUDICIAL. THEY TAKE EVIDENCE FIRST, FROM CITY STAFF AND HAS PROVIDED INFORMATION IN THE AGENDA PACKETS. AND THAT'S SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE RECORD.

AND STAFF MAY MAKE COMMENTS. MAY PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY, THEN, THE APPLICANT AND OR THEIR AGENT IS ASKED TO COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEY ARE PRESENTING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD. IF YOU ARE AN EFFECTED PARTY, IT MEANS THAT YOU ARE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY AND YOU ALSO GET TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING AND PRESENT EVIDENCE AND SYSTEM ON THE RECORD. AND YOU'LL JUST COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS AN AFFECTED PARTY. BEING A RESIDENT OF THE CITY, YOU'LL GIVE OUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TESTIFY AND NOT BE LIMITED BY THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU GET TO SPEAK. IF SOMEONE WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS, YOU CAN, AND IT'S NOT CONSIDERED TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE, UNLESS YOU TAKE AN OATH, WHICH, THE CLERK WILL GIVE TO EACH PERSON WHEN WE STARTED CASE. THE PARTIES ARE THE CITY, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE APPLICANT, AND, UM, THE MAYOR IN A LITTLE BIT WILL ASK IF YOU'VE HAD EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU ASKED ME QUESTIONS, IT MEANS THAT YOU ASKED, I REPRESENT JUST FOR CITY STAFF, THE PARTY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT AS THE PARTY. SO, THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT IT WITH CITIZENS OR TALKING ABOUT IT WITH OTHER STAFF MEMBERS IS NOT EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION. THE APPLICANT,

THEIR AGENT, OR THE CITY STAFF. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> IF IT REQUIRE AS SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE TO ADOPT A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY AN APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION, A MAP AMENDMENT OR A ZONING APPLICATION. AND, SO, IT WOULD TAKE A SIMPLE MAJORITY TO PASS THAT MOTION. IF ANY OF THE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE DURING SECOND READING TONIGHT SOME OF THOSE ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEMS, WE HELD THOSE HEARINGS BEFORE.

THOSE APPEALS GET TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF FACT. SO, THE MAYOR SIGNS THE FINDINGS OF FACT ABOUT 35 DAYS FROM NOW AS THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS OR TIME TO APPEAL THE DECISION. THOSE ARE ITEMS UNDER SECOND READING. SO, IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THEM INCLUDING FROM CITIZENS OR PARTICIPANTS IN THE HEARING. OKAY. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE.

>> THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. >> I'LL READ THE TITLE, THE VERY FIRST ORDINANCE THAT WILL HAVE THE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING.

THIS IS FOR A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION, IT'S ORDINANCE 2023-50. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY .94 ACRES

[01:05:02]

OF LAND LOCATED AT 1912 AND 1888 DRURY ROAD. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MAYOR, WHEN

YOU'RE READY. >> EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.

>> BEFORE I OPEN THE HEARING, WE DO NEED TO SWEAR PEOPLE IN.

IF YOU ARE SOMEONE WHO TONIGHT YOU WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS DURING ONE OF THESE HEARING, WE HAVE SEVERAL HEARINGS COMING UP. WE HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. LET ME TELL YOU THAT, IF YOU WANT TO STAND UP AND TAKE YOUR OATH. WE CAN DO THAT. PLEASE RISE IF IRGOING TO BE ISSUING TESTIMONY TONIGHT.

>> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE FACTUAL STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO PRESENT TO THIS COMMISSION DURING THIS PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE TRUTHFUL AND

ACCURATE. >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO, WE JUST READ THE TITLE OF ITEM 7.2, THE VOLUNTEER ANNEXATION. SO, WITH THAT, WE'LL START OF COURSE, WE'LL DO THE QUESTIONS

AND OPEN THE HEARING. >> ACTUALLY, YOU NEED TO ASK

ABOUT EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. >> OF COURSE. AND MY OWN QUESTION IS HAS ANY COMMISSIONER DONE EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS?

FIRST, VICE MAYOR STURGES? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR, YES, I'VE HAD, UM, COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT'S AGENT. JUST IT DISCUSSING THIS PARCEL AND WHAT THE THOUGHTS ARE ON THAT.

>> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. COMMISSIONER ROSS?

>> I ALSO SPENT ABOUT AN HOUR WITH THE AGENT'S ATTORNEY AND WE DISCUSSED THIS PARCEL. AND, THE, UM, NEXT CASE'S PARCEL.

>> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER?

>> YES, AYE HAD EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH APPLICANT'S AGENT. FOR APPROXIMATELY AN HOUR AND WE DISCUSSED THE

APPLICATION. >> THANK YOU.

>> AND COMMISSIONER ANTUN? >> I HAD EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT'S AGENT AND DISCUSSED THE ZONING AND CONCERN POTENTIALLY CONSIDERING THE

PROPERTY. >> I AS WELL HAVE HEARD FROM

THE APPLICANT'S AGENT. >> ALL RIGHT. SO, WITH THAT WE'LL JUMP IN. WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE IN THE COMMUNITY WISHES TO SPEAK. PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS, IT'S OPEN TO THE

FLOOR. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> MY NAME IS SHERRY COUCH AND I LIVE IN FERNANDINA. WE'VE HAD, UM, A LOT OF DEVELOPERS TRYING TO DEVELOP ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD THEY'RE IN THE WORKS ON THE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT BUTT UP TO RYAN ROAD. AND THIS INTERSECTION DRURY ROAD IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. MY CONCERN IS ABOUT 100 OTHER RESIDENTS IN THAT DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S OUR DEEDED ACCESS ENTRANCE TO OUR DEVELOPMENT. OUR SIGNS ARE THERE. IT'S FIVE LANES TO MAKE A LEFT-HAND OUT OF THERE. WHAT IS MEDIUM DENSITY AND THE OTHER PROPERTY ALSO DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET IS FOR SALE ON DRURY ROAD. WHAT IS THE DENSITY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT? ARE YOU PUTTING IN TRAFFIC LIGHTS SO THAT WE COULD GET THROUGH THERE SAFELY?

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT QUESTION IS PROBABLY ONE FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY ENGINEER. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS, AND THAT'S WHAT THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS HEARING IS, AND WE WILL THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENTS, THAT'S QUESTIONS WE NEED TO CONSIDER AND WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

>>> ALL RIGHT, SO, WITH THAT IN MIND, ARE THERE ANY OTHER CITIZEN PUBLIC COMMENT WISHING TO BE ISSUED TODAY?

>> >> DO YOU HAVE A DEFINITION OF

MEDIUM DENSITY? >> I DON'T. MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO CALL MISS GIBSON TO THE PODIUM.

>> CAN YOU DEFINE MEDIUM DENSITY.

>> GOOD EVENING, KELLY GIBSON, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS A LAND USE CATEGORY WHICH IS BEING REQUESTED FOR THE PROPERTY ITSELF. IT DEFINES THE RANGE OF USES WHICH ARE PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THAT LAND USE AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IT ALSO ASSIGNS A NET DENSITY THAT ALLOWS UP TO EIGHT

[01:10:05]

DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. >> STAFF REPORT AT SOME TIME.

>> THE STAFF REPORT WAS THE READING OF THE TITLE.

>> THERE'S A STAFF REPORT IN THE PACKET, AND THEN, IT'S UP TO YOU HOW YOU IF YOU'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OR YOU WANT ORAL TESTIMONY ALSO? WELL, I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE

STAFF REPORT. >> THIS IS CURRENTLY ZONED IN

THE COUNTY, CORRECT? >> YES, SIR.

>> AND HOW MANY OF THOSE TWO PAR SETTING ARE SUBDIVIDED, HOW MANY UNITS CAN IT BE SUBDIVIDED INTO UNDER THE COUNTY RULES?

>> I'M NOT CERTAIN OF THAT, I DIDN'T EVALUATE IT UNDER THE

COUNTY'S REGULATIONS. >> AND HOW MANY CAN IT BE SUBDIVIDED UNDER THE CITY'S RULES.

>> WE HAVE NOT LOOKED AT WHAT IT COULD BE, I THINK WE HAVE A FULL RESPONSE IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> IT DOESN'T ADDRESS IT IN THE STAFF REPORT WHICH IS THE REASON FOR MY QUESTION. SO, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY UNITS, I THINK WHAT THE LATEST CONCERN IS, HOW MANY MORE HOUSES CAN YOU PUT ON THE TWO LOTS UNDER THE COUNTY RULES AND HOW MANY ON THE CITY RULES AND THAT'S NOT ADDRESSED IN THE STAFF REPORT, IS THAT

CORRECT? >> GIVEN THAT YOU HAVE THE EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, I WOULD SAY BETWEEN SIX AND SEVEN UNITS WOULD BE POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, YOU DO HAVE LOT DIMENSION REQUIREMENTS WHICH MUST BE ACHIEVED AND SO THAT MAY REDUCE THE ABILITY TO BUILD UP TO THAT MAXIMUM.

>> SO, I KNOW HOW TO DO IT, AND, I ALSO KNOW IT HAS TO DO WITH, UM, UM, (INDISCERNIBLE) SO, I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER. SO, YOU KNOW, THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CAN BE DIVIDED?

>> WE DID NOT ANALYZE THE APPLICATION OF IT BEING AN AN NEXTATION OF LAND USE AND ZONING AGAINST A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IN ANY WAY. SIMPLE WETHER OR NOT IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT

LAND USE TO BE ASSIGNED. >> BUT, THOSE LOTS CAN BE

SUBDIVIDED? >> YES, SIR.

>> AND THEY MAY NEED TO DO THAT UNDER THE BENEFIT OF A PLAT PROCESS IF IT IS THREE OR MORE UNITS.

>> AND MY OTHER QUESTION IS THAT IT SAYS IN HERE T THAT THIS IS THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. SO, I'M CURIOUS, AS A PERSON WHO IS STAFF, HOW DOES THIS ANNEXATION IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE PEOPLE OF FERNANDINA BEACH?

>> IT WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUE THROUGH THE PROPERTY TAXES COLLECTED, IT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY TAXES IN NASSAU COUNTY TO OFF SET THE GENERAL REVENUE COLLECTION.

>> FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, THE FISCAL IMPACT, IT SAYS THE CITY WILL RECEIVE TAX REVENUE FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE ANNEXED, THAT IS CORRECT. WHAT WILL THE INCREMENTAL COST BE FOR WHEN THE

LOTS ARE SUBDIVIDED? >> I DON'T HAVE A RESPONSE TO

THAT. >> SO, WE HAVEN'T ANNALYZED

THAT? >> NO, SIR.

>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. GIBSON ABOUT THE STAFF REPORT OR ANYTHING THAT MS. GIBSON WOULD KNOW HERE. SEEING NONE, THANK YOU, MS. GIBSON FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. WE MAY SEE YOU AGAIN SOON. THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION. WE HAD OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARIN AND ASKED COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, IS THERE ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE?

>> OH, NO. NO. >> I DO HAVE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM MS. TERESA PRINCE, THE APPLICANT'S AGENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH AND WE'LL BE SEEING YOU ON THE NEXT ITEMS AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND HONORABLE, COMMISSION, AND TERESA PRINCE, I WAS UNSURE, TAMMI IF THIS IS WHERE I WAS SUPPOSED DO THIS. SO, I WILL SHOW SOME PRETTY PICTURES. I KNOW THERE WERE THINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT. OR, WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE PRETTY PICTURES. LET ME SEE HOW TO OPERATE THIS.

>> MS. PRINCE DO YOU HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS ON THAT LAPTOP?

>> I SEE IT ON THE LAPTOP. >> AND I HAVE APP ZIP DRIVE

TOO, THAT I BROUGHT. >> IF THEY'RE ON THE SCREEN,

[01:15:02]

SHE'S JUST FLIPPING SO THAT IT PROJECTS ON THAT SCREEN.

>> YEAH. THERE IT IS. >> SO, THIS PRESENTATION, I MEAN I'M HAPPY TO GET UP THREE TIMES, BUT, I AM A REPRESENTING FOR 7.2, 7.3 AND 7.4 WHICH ARE ALL IN RELATION TO 1912 AND 1888 DRURY ROAD AND WE'RE REQUESTING MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND THE THIRD AGENDA ITEM IS THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT WHICH WE'RE REQUESTING TO GO WITH THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. AS MS. GIBSON SAID, IT IS EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE. AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. AND I'LL SHOW, THIS IS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS. IT IS SURROUNDED BY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON BOTH SIDES WHICH I BELIEVE WOULD BE HE EAST AND WEST. AND COMMERCIAL IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ONE OF THE PARCELS. AND THEN, THAT KIND OF SALMON COLOR IS THE RS 2 ZONING UNDER THE COUNTY WHICH FOLLOWS DOWN DRURY ROAD AND THE FLUME THAT SURROUNDS US IS ALSO MEDIUM DENSITY. THIS IS THE ZONING MAP. THE APPROPRIATE SLIDE WAS YOUR FUTURE LAND USE OF MEDIUM DENSITY AND THIS SLIGHT WAS THE R-2 WHICH SURROUNDS IT. AND HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, THERE'LL BE A SITE PLAN WHEN THEY DECIDE TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY. AND WHAT WILL COME INTO PLAY WILL BE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS DEPENDING ON THE HEIGHT THAT WE DO. THE 50-FOOT LOT REQUIREMENTS IF THEY DID DECIDE TO SUBDIVIDE IT, EACH TRACT WOULD BE SOMEHOW 50 FEET. AND WHAT CAME UP AT THE PLANNING BOARD WAS THE INTENTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE ASKED US IF WE WOULD ASK FOR A VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY.

STAFF ADVISED ME THAT THIS IS A SECONDARY ACCESS FROM (INDISCERNIBLE) OBSERVATION. SO, WE'RE NOT ASKING TO VACATE THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY, WE WILL HAVE TO IMPROVE IT IF WE DEVELOPED THIS AREA. I'VE BEEN ADVISED BY STAFF THAT SECTION 7.0102 OF THE CODE WOULD ALLOW US TO REQUEST A VARIANCE IF WE WANTED TO NOT CLEAR-CUT TO THE MAXIMUM WIDTH OF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SAVE SOME OF THE TREES THAT WE SEE IN THAT BEAUTIFUL LITTLE RED BOX ON THE SCREEN BEHIND ME. SO, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE CLIENT IS PERFECTLY WILLING TO DO. OBVIOUSLY WE NEED PROPER FIRE ACCESS AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. F FOR THE RECORD, IT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RS 2 UNDER THE COUNTY'S CODE AND THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE COUNTY'S CODE. WE'RE ASKING FOR THE MEDIUM DENSITY FLUME AND THE R-2 ZONING AND WE WANT TO ANNEX IN IN ORDER TO GET WATER AND SEWER. AND THAT'S THE AGENDA ITEM THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW. WE DID, I'VE TOLD MANY OF YOU THAT WE DID GO TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO SEE IF THEY WERE WANTING TO ANNEX US IN AND HAVE US BECOME PART OF AMELIA OAKS, THE BOARD TOOK THE CONSIDERATION SERIOUSLY, AND MET WITH MY CLIENT AND DID A STRAW BALLET, BECAUSE, THERE'LL BE REQUIREMENTS FOR A VOTE IF THEY WANTED US TO COME IN. THEY DENIED ANY POSSIBILITY OF IT.

WE MADE OFFERS AND CONSIDERATIONS, BUT, THEY DECIDED IT WAS BEST FOR THEIR COMMUNITY TO HAVE US DEVELOP THESE PARCELS OUTSIDE OF IT, BUT, THEY ARE INTENDING TO DO SOME SIMILAR STYLE TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD GAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AND THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AT THE PLANNING BOARD LEVEL OF ALL THREE ITEMS. ALL THREE ITEMS HAVE THE UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING BOARD. LIKE I SAID, THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP WERE JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE WOULD BE COGNIZANT OF THE TREES AND OBVIOUSLY WHEN WE DEVELOP THE SITE WE'LL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH TREE ORDINANCE, STORM WATER, LOT SIZE SET BACKS. SO, THERE'LL BE THINGS THAT WILL MAKE IT, I'VE NOT EVER WORKED ON A DEVELOPMENT WHERE YOU GET THE MAXIMUM DENSITY ON ANY PARCEL. SO, JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS IT, AS WAS DISCUSSED T EIGHT IS NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN. THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION, I'M WILLING TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

AND THIS WAS THE PRESENTATION FOR ALL THREE, UNLESS YOU WOULD

LIKE ME TO DO IT TWO MORE TIMES. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT'S AGENT? >> MS. PRINCE, THANK YOU FOR

BEING WITH US TONIGHT. >> THANK YOU, AND HAPPY

THANKSGIVING. >> WE'LL SEE YOU SHORTLY.

>> OF COURSE, SO, WITH THAT ARE THERE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT

[01:20:01]

TO BE HAD. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK. SEEING NONE, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS, I DID THE MATH AND LOOKED AT THE COUNTY SITES AND UNDER THE COUNTY RULES IN THE DENSITY AND THE SITES, YOU COULD PROBABLY PUT FOUR UNITS ON THE TWO PARCELS. IT'S CLEARLY GOING TO INCREASE THE DENSITY TO THE CITY. THEREFORE, I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO ANNEXES THIS PROPERTY.

>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER ROSS. >> AND THERE'S NO VOTE, RIGHT?

>> IS THERE ARE WE NOT SUPPOSED TO SHARE OUR OPINION?

>> YOU CAN. >> WE'RE WELCOMED TO.

>> YOU CAN. >> ALL RIGHT. JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE GOOD TO GO. SO, ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, THERE'S NO VOTE. IT'S GOING TO SOUND ANTICLIMACTIC. BUT, IS

[7.3 (Legislative) FUTURE LAND USE MAP ASSIGNMENT - 1912 AND 1888 DRURY ROAD]

THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK BEFORE WE MOVE ON.

BECAUSE, WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THIS AGAIN. WEAR MOVING ON. NEXT, SAME PARCELS. ITEM 7.3. FUTURE LAND USE MAP ASSIGNMENT, 1912 AND 1888 DRURY ROAD, ONCE AGAIN, MS. PRINCE.

JUST READ THE TITLE. >> ORDINANCE 2023-51, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA ASSIGNING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MDR FOR PROPERTYING LOCATED AT 1912 AND 1888 DRURY ROAD. TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY .94 ACRES OF LAND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS IS LEGISLATIVE, NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, WE'RE NOT HAVING A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING. YOU WILL VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT. AND, UM, THIS IS PART OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALIGNS WITH THE ZONING WHICH COMES UP NEXT. WE HAVE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER ROSS?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS OF THE PLANNING STAFF.

>> ALL RIGHT. PLANNING STAFF, SO, MS. GIBSON, WELCOME BACK.

>> GOOD EVENING. >> SO, YOU DID A STAFF REPORT AND YOU COMBINED BOTH THE ALL OF THIS STUFF TOGETHER, AND, ON PAGE TWO, IT SAYS, APPLICATION POLICY REFERENCE AND THEN YOU GIVE CP .1.0202 WHICH IS A COMP ONE POLICY, CORRECT?

>> YES. >> AND, NEXT TO THAT IT SAYS DETERMINATION, AND THEN YOU HAVE CHECKS NEXT TO ALL OF THESE AND

THEY ALL SAY THEY'RE CONSISTENT? >> CORRECT.

>> SO, POLICY 1.0301 WHICH SAYS THAT THE CITY SHALL PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES. HOW DOES THIS FUTURE LAND USE MAP, HOW ARE WE MEETING THE CONSISTENCY BY PROTECTING OUR

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES? >> IN ADDITION TO THE POLICIES THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE COMP PLAN, WE HAVE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE POLICIES THAT DIRECT HOW WE'RE VIEW DEVELOPMENT AS IT COMES IN. THE ASSIGNMENT OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA LAND USE CATEGORY. UM, AND, IN TERMS OF THE RESOURCES THAT ARE THERE, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE NO BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS PROVIDED AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE DO KNOW THERE ARE TREES WHICH ARE PRESENT AS THEY'VE BEEN UNIMPROVED LOTS, THOSE PROPERTIES WHEN THEY GET DEVELOPED WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OUR OF OUR STANDARDS FOR WHETHER THEY NEED TO DO BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS BUT MOST WILL PROVIDE US IT TYPOGRAPHY SURVEYS.

>> THANK YOU. YOU SAID TEST CONSISTENT WITH POLICY NUMBER 1.04.03 WHICH SAYS THAT THE CITY SHALL PROMOTE REDEVELOPMENT OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. AND I WAS WONDERING HOW THIS RESIDENTIAL LOTS PROMOTES THE CITY PROMOTING GENERAL

COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES? >> AS A REDEVELOPMENT SITE, THAT WOULD BE VIEWED, IF IT WERE REDEVELOPING COMMERCIAL. AND IN THIS SCENARIO, WE HAVE A RESIDENTIAL VACANT LOT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT REDEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO ASSIGN THAT KIND OF ANALYSIS ASSOCIATED WITH GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO IT.

SO, IT MAY HAVE BEEN AN EREAS

EREASONOUS ADDITION. >> I APOLOGIZE FOR THE

REFERENCE. >> THE NEXT IS POLICY 1.07.09

[01:25:01]

WHICH AGAIN, SAYS GENERAL COMMERCIAL. WHICH SAYS THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE CATEGORY IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE OFFICES, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BUT, THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL PARCEL. SO, THE STAFF REPORT IS SAYING THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. >> THOSE WOULD BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THE

CORRESPONDING POLICIES. >> AGAIN, 4.101, THE FOLLOWING LEVEL OF SERVICE AND STANDARDS ARE HEREBY ADOPTED AND ONE OF THEM TALKS ABOUT FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES. SO, WHAT ANALYSIS WAS DONE BY YOUR, UM, BY THE STAFF TO SEE THAT HOW THE INCREMENTAL INCREASE OF ADDING THESE LOTS WILL AFFECT THAT TIME, WAS THERE

A STUDY DONE? >> THERE WAS NO STUDY

COMPLETED. >> AND THE SAME FOR THE POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TIME?

>> THERE WAS NO STUDIES COMPLETED.

>> SO, HOW CAN YOU SAY IT'S CONSISTENT WHEN NO STUDY WAS

DONE? >> WE KNOW THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE'RE MEETING OR EXCEEDING THOSE STANDARDS AND THE IMPACT WITH THE ANNEXATION OF THESE PROPERTIES WILL NOT IMPEDE THAT SAME LEVEL OF STANDARD.

>> BUT, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT STANDARD IS?

>> WE KNOW THAT WE'RE PRESENTLY MEETING OR EXCEEDING THOSE

STANDARDS. >> THANK YOU. THE NEXT ONE, AGAIN, IT SAYS CONSISTENT WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT, GENERAL COMMERCIAL. HOW IS IT CONSISTENT WILL THAT?

>> IT WOULD NEED TO BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THE CURRENT POLICY.

>> THANK YOU. >> I MAY HAVE ONE MORE.

>> I THINK THAT WILL DO IT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ROSS. MS. GIBSON, JUST SINCE WE'RE ASKING YOU QUESTIONS, SO, BEING IN THE COUNTY, THEY CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO CITY SEWERS, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO, WE WOULD BE AVOIDING SEPTIC TANKS BY ALLOWING THEM TO JOIN THE CITY AND USE THE CITY'S

SEWER, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> EXCELLENT, THAT'S ALWAYS A WORTHY GOAL PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR CONCERNS, COMMISSIONER, QUESTION PERIOD? SEEING NONE, WE'LL NOW GO. THAT'S COMMISSIONER QUESTION PERIOD NOW WE HAVE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. THANK YOU, MS. GIBSON WE APPRECIATE YOU. WE HAVE TWO COMMENTS.

WE'LL FIRST GO TO MS. SHARON COUCH.

>> >> I'M SHARON COUCH, 2465, FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA. BECAUSE WE'VE DONE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL DISTANCES TO EAGAN'S CREEK FROM RYAN ROAD, DRURY ROAD BEING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, I WOULD PREFER AS ANYONE WHO STUDIES ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WOULD PREFER TO HAVE CITY

SEWAGE ON THAT PROPERTY. >> THANK YOU, MS. COUCH, WE

APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS THERE. >> WE'LL INVITE MS. PRINCE TO

THE PODIUM. >> WELCOME BACK.

>> THANK YOU, HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION, TERESA PRINCE, 303 CENTER STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH. AND I WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD SOME OF THE CONFUSION THAT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE DIFFERENT COMP PLAN POLICIES. IF YOU REFERRED TO MY LETTER DATED AUGUST 21ST, 2023, IT IS IN YOUR PACKET. FOR THE RECORD, THE POLICIES THAT APPLIED WAS 1.20.3 REGARDING THE LOCATION, THE SCALE AND THE DESIGN. 1.0.204 REGARDING THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED USE. AS WE SHOWED IN ONE OF THE SLIDES IT HAS R 2 ZONING AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON BOTH SIDES. WE ALSO SITED AS FAR AS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AREAS, IT HAS A FLOOD OF X. AND WE DID SITE THAT IN OUR APPLICATION WHICH MAKE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH 1.0.0.01. AND IF ANY MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE OR SINGLE STRUCTURE IN THE AREA WE FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH 1.03.01 AS

[01:30:04]

WELL. AND PROVIDING RETENTION OF STORM WATER ON THE SITE IS COMPLAINT WITH POLICY 4.01.02. ANSWER HAS OPINION MENTIONED.

YOU KNOW, ANNEXING THEM WILL ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP WITH WATER AND SEWER AND NOT, IF WE WERE DENIED ANNEXATION, THEN, IT WOULD BE DEVELOPED UNDER THE COUNTY'S CODE AND IT WOULD HAVE SEPTIC AND WELL AND WE WOULD BE FORCED TO DO THAT. AND WE ARE IMMEDIATELY AJDJACENT. SO, OUR ONLY OPTION IS TO GET IT. AND WE HOPE THAT YOU SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU, MS. PRINCE. ALL RIGHT, IS THERE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE, COMMISSION DISCUSSION?

>> WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THESE PARCELS AGAIN IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS. SO, FEEL FREE TO DISCUSS IT NOW AND LATER OR

BOTH OR EITHER. >> VICE MAYOR STURGES.

>> I'M GOING TO DISCUSS IT NOW BECAUSE WE'RE VOTING ON THIS ITEM AND WE WILL NOT BE VOTING ON THE NEXT ONE OR TWO OR

WHATEVER THE CASE IS. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> HOWEVER, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS. AS I'M ALWAYS IN SUPPORT OF ANNEXATION FOR OUR CITY FOR WATER AND SEWER BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING DO ENVIRONMENTALLY. AND THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHETHER IT'S WITH SEPTIC AND SEWER OR SEPTIC AND WELL OR WITH WATER AND SEWER.

SO, I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. WHETHER THE APPLICANT, IF THEY DECIDE TO PLAT IT AND GO FURTHER THROUGH TRC TO GET SIX OR SEVEN LOTS OR WHATEVER IT TURNS OUT TO BE, THEY WILL BE INSTRUCTED BY CITY STAFF JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER APPLICANT THAT COMES IN FRONT OF OUR CITY AND IN MY OPINION, THEY WILL DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO SAVE EVERY TREE THAT THEY CAN SAVE DURING DEVELOPMENT. UM, OUR CITY PLANNING STAFF IS ALWAYS GOOD AT TRYING TO DO THAT AS BEST AS THEY CAN. SO, I APPRECIATE IT AND LOOK FORWARD TO EVERY PERSON, WHETHER IT'S LOT BY LOT, OR, ACRE BY ACRE THAT JOINS OUR CITY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER ROSS.

>> UM, FIRST OF ALL, ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY SEPTIC SYSTEMS BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE FLORIDA HEALTH DEPARTMENT ARE JUST AS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY.

THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, THE COST, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY THIS WILL BRING IN, BUT, WE NEVER TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE EXPENSE WILL BE FOR THIS. THERE'S NO COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION ON THE RECORD THAT THIS WILL MEET BECAUSE NO ONE HAD THIS DONE TO DETERMINE IF IT MEETS THE FIRE AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS AND I FIND IT TROUBLING THAT IT WAS DONE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WHEN THAT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND I WILL BE OPPOSING THIS.

>>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ROSS. COMMISSIONER AYSCUE?

>> JUST TO ADDRESS AS THE VICE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER ROSS DID ON THE SEPTIC TANK ISSUE VERSUS THE CITY WATER SEWER, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY, ALWAYS, THAT'S NOT THE BEST, I'M ALMOST ALWAYS GOING TO BE SUPPORT ACTIVE OF HAVING WATER AND SEWER ON ANY SITE THAT WE CAN. ANNEXATION OR NOT. SIMPLY BECAUSE STICKING SEPTIC TANKS IN THE GROUND HAVE A IDENTIFY NIGHT AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY'RE THERE. SO, I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A DECISION TO KEEP ONE OR TWO PEOPLE OUT OF THE CITY OR OFF THE ISLAND AND RISK MY CHILDREN HAVING TO DEAL WITH SEPTIC TANK HAVING TO BE IN THE GROUND 30 YEARS FROM NOW. I THINK IT'S VERY SHORT SIGHTED TO SAY TWO LESS HOUSE IN HERE VERSUS 30 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD THAT MY KIDS WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH SEPTIC TANKS COMING OUT OF THE GROUND, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY. SO, I WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT JUST TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD AND STATE, UM, YOU KNOW, WHERE I AM WITH IT. WHEN IT COMES TO THE POLICE AND FIRE, WHERE THIS IS LOCATED, THEY'RE GOING TO IT ANYWAYS IN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. THEY'RE GOING TO RESPOND TO THIS LOCATION. WETHER OR NOT THEY STAY AND DEVELOP IT IN THE COUNTY OR WHETHER THEY COME INTO THE CITY BECAUSE OF THE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS, THEY'RE GOING THERE ANY WAYS. SO, WHEN YOU START TO TALK ABOUT NOW AT LEAST WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT TAX REVENUE AND, AND, AND, BECAUSE THEY WILL BE IN THE CITY TO HELP

[01:35:02]

OFF SET THOSE COSTS. BUT, THEY'RE GOING THERE ANYWAY.

WHETHER THEY STAY IN THE COUNTY OR ANNEX THE CITY, THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH WILL BE RESPONDING TO THEM.

>> JUST TO CLOSE THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO BUILD ON YOUR POINT THERE AND JUST ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER ROSS BROUGHT UP, AND THIS IS THE COST, THE INCREMENTAL COST OF ADDING THESE HOUSE SUNSHINE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PAY ANYWAY. THESE HOUSE ARE COMING WETHER OR NOT IN THE COUNTY OR IN THE CITY. THEY'RE COMING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THIS IS THE QUESTION, RIGHT? THE HOUSES ARE COMING, THE QUESTION IS SHOULD THEY DEVELOP WITHIN THE FERNANDINA BEACH TREE ORDINANCE? I SAY YES. THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD THESE HOUSES COME IN WITH CITY SEWER INSTEAD OF THE SEPTIC TANK RIGHT NEXT TO THE GREENWAY? I SAY, YES, THEY SHOULD COME IN WITH CITY SEWER. AND FINALLY, SHOULD THEY HELP PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE TO THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, WE KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE USING OUR POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES AND OUR ROADS AND LIVING HERE USING OUR CITY SERVICES, WHY CAN'T THEY CONTRIBUTE WITH A LITTLE TAXES WHICH WE THINK IS FAIR. FOR THAT REASON I SAY YES. THEY'RE COMING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, I SAY THEY SHOULD COME THROUGH THE CITY SO THAT WE COULD MAKE SURE

THAT'S THE RIGHT PLACE TO LIVE. >> WITH THAT, DO I HEAR A

MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, CITY CLERK CALL THE RULE.

>> COMMISSIONER >> THAT PASSES 4-1.

[7.4 (Quasi-judicial) ZONING MAP ASSIGNMENT - 1912 AND 1888 DRURY ROAD]

>> ZONING MAP ASSIGNMENT, 1912 AND 1888, THIS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL, THIS IS LIKE THE FIRST ONE.

>> ORDINANCE TWOIFT-52, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH T FLORIDA ASSIGNING A ZONING CATEGORY OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON TWO FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1912 AND 1888 DRURY ROAD TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY .94 ACRES OF LAND. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL AND YOU HAVE A STAFF REPORT AND APPLICATION AND OTHER MATERIALS BACKING UP THIS ITEM THAT ARE BEING MADE PART OF THE RECORD.

>> THANK YOU. I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN AND I HAVE ONE REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM MS. PRINCE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RETURN TO THE PODIUM?

>> DO WE HAVE TO DISCLOSE EX-PARTE?

>> THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT OF ORDER, HE BROUGHT UP EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE SAME PARCEL, IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. WE DISCLOSE OUR EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> IT HASN'T CHANGED FROM WHAT

I SAID BEFORE. >> VICE MAYOR STURGES?

>> YES, I'VE SAT DOWN FOR AN HOUR AND SPOKE TO THE AGENT FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND DISCUSSED THE ZONING ISSUES AND JOINING

THE CITIZENS. >> THANK YOU.

>> AND, COMMISSIONER? >> I'LL ECHO MY PRIOR REMARKS.

>> COMMISSIONER? >> YES, I SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT'S AGENT REGARDING THE APPLICATION.

>> THANK YOU, AND AGAIN, I'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT'S AGENT AND I HAD A PHONE CALL BACK. MOVING DOWN THE LINE, WE'LL NOW OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S OPEN, ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON THIS? SEEING NONE, THE PUBLIC HEAR SOMETHING CLOSED.

COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION ON THIS? THIS IS AN ANTICLIMACTIC THING

[7.5 (Quasi-judicial) VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION - S. 14TH AND S. 15TH STREET]

AND WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, 7.5. THIS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL, VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOUTH 14TH AND SOUTH 15TH STREET.

>> ORDINANCE 2023-53. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH FLORIDA ANNEXES APPROXIMATELY 3.47 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON SOUTH 14TH STREET, AND SOUTH 15TH STREET. THERE'S A SCRIBNER'S ERROR IN THE TITLE.

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING. IF YOU'VE HAD EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, YOU NEED TO DISCLOSE THEM. ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS, INCLUDING THE CITY AND

[01:40:02]

APPLICANT, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SWORN ON THIS.

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS, ACHE EX-PARTE?

>> I SAT DOWN WITH MS. PRINCE FOR AN HOUR. I WOULD LIKE THE HAND THE CITY CLERK A CHAIN OF E-MAILS THAT I ORIGINALLY SENT TO THE TACO POPE, AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER WHO ANSWERED ZONING QUESTIONS FOR ME. AND BECAUSE HE SENT IT BACK TO KELLY GIBSON, THAT MAKES IT AN EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION OF WHICH I DID MAKE MS. PRINCE AWARE OF THIS AFTERNOON AND I WOULD LIKE

THOUGH INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. >> VICE MAYOR STURGES?

>> YES, I SPOKE TO TERESA PRINCE ABOUT THE ANNEXATION

PRIOR TO THIS. >> THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER ANTUN? >> I SPOKE WITH TERESA PRINCE

ABOUT THE APPLICATION PRIOR. >> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE?

>> I SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT'S AGENT REGARDING THE VOLUNTARY

ANNEXATION ON SOUTH 14 AND 15TH. >> AND I TOO RECEIVED INFORMATION ABOUT THE ANNEXATION. ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE START WITH

MR. DANNY CARRARA. >> THIS IS THE ANNEX ON THE ITEM, YES. THIS IS THE 14TH AND 15TH, YOU COULD SPEAK.

>> YOU COULD SPEAK NEXT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.

>> WE WILL TO THE PODIUM. >> IT WERE A QUASI-JUDICIAL I BELIEVE MR. PIERRE WOULD NEED TO BE SWORN IN.

>> OR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL WE'RE LEGISLATIVE.

>> YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS HERE, SIR, I GET WHAT EVERYBODY'S PUTTING DOWN. SO, IN ORDER TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME, WE HAD TO DO THAT SWEARING IN THERE SLIGHTLY ERLIER. AND IF YOU WISH NOT TO DO THAT, YOU'RE WELCOMED TO SPEAK AT THE NEXT ITEM WHEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT, OR, THE CITY CLERK CAN SWEAR YOU IN NOW, IT IS YOUR OPTION, SIR? ? NO, I'LL WAIT FOR THE OPEN FOR

RUM. >> I THOUGHT THIS WAS FIRST

READING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS. >> IT IS FIRST READING NEXT. I CALLED YOU UP TOO EARLY, SIR, I APOLOGIZE, WE'LL INVITE MS. PRINCE TO COME TO THE PODIUM IF YOU SO CHOOSE. THANK YOU, FOR

BEING WITH US TONIGHT. >> OH, I'M STILL HERE.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COMMISSION, TERESA PRINCE, ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT. 303 CENTER STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA. AND, SO, THERE WAS NOT GOING TO BE A STAFF PRESENTATION, I'M GUESSING. THAT'S WHY I'M UP HERE NOW?

>> ACTUALLY, I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF.

>> WELL, I'LL GO NOW AND I CAN ALWAYS COME BACK.

>> I OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING, RIGHT?

>> YOU DID. >> WE'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE I OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING, I MAY HAVE WENT OUT OF ORDER, BUT, LET'S HEAR IS IT FROM MS. PRINCE AND MS. GIBSON. FOR THE RECORD AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYBODY ATTENDING. THERE'S A FULL APPLICATION AND STAFF REPORT AND ANALYSIS OF THE COMP PREHENCESIVE PLAN. THERE'S THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION. OUR LETTER OF INTENT. I'LL DO MY PRESENTATION, IF I COULD HAVE

THAT ONE UP ON THE SCREEN. >> THIS IS AN AN NEXTATION INTO THE CITY, THIS IS PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. IN THE COUNTY AND IT HAS A COMMERCIAL ZONING OF FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IN THE COUNTY. THIS IS EVIDENCE OF WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS. IF YOU WENT A LITTLE FURTHER, NORTH, YOU WOULD SEE NECTARINE STREET. AND, IF YOU WERE HEADING SOUTH, YOU WOULD REACH SADLER, THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO IT WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL AND ANNEXED TO THE CITY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. THAT WAS UPON AS PAPPY'S PLACE. THAT ONE WAS

[01:45:04]

ANNEXED IN SEVERAL YEARS AGO. AND IT WAS ASSIGNED THE COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE CITY. AND THEN, IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION WE MET WITH STAFF AS IS REQUIRED AND IT WAS STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CONTINUE THE C-1 ZONING ALONG THE 15TH STREET SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, REALIZING THAT THIS WAS COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE WITHIN THE COUNTY WHICH IS ONE OF THEIR HIGHEST COMMERCIAL USES. SO, C-1 IS NOT AS INTENSE OF A USE AND THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN C-1. AND, SO, THAT IS MORE APPROPRIATE AS STAFF FELT FOR THE 15TH STREET SIDE OF THE STREET AND ON 14TH STREET WHERE YOU SEE THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL IS WHERE WE'RE ASKING FOR THE C-2. COMMERCIAL USE.

AND THAT WOULD ALSO JUST CONTINUE THAT PATTERN ALONG THAT ROAD. THE PLANNING BOARD ASKED US, APPARENTLY THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT HOMELESSNESS, LIKE, HOMELESS PEOPLE RESIDING ON THE PROPERTY, VAGRANTS SO TO SPEAK, AND WE'VE GONE TO THE PROPERTY AND LOOKED AT IT AND IT APPEARS THERE'S NOBODY LIVING ON THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY. WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE PROPERTY IS SAFE FOR THE AREA. THIS WAS THE OLD CHURCH, THAT WAS PURCHASED ON THE SITE THAT'S CLOSEST TO 14TH STREET. AND THEN, AGAIN, THIS SLIDE IS JUST REITERATING WHAT I'VE ALREADY SAID THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THE C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ALONG 14TH STREET AND THE C-1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ALONG 15TH STREET.

AND, WE'RE SURROUNDED AS YOU SAW IN THE OTHER SLIDES BY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MIXED USE, COMMERCIAL ACROSS THE STREET AND SOME C-1 ADJACENT ALONG T CORRIDOR, IN OUR OPINION AND THE PLANNING BOARD GAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL UNANIMOUSLY THAT IT COMPLIES WITH YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ANNEX THE PROPERTY AND ASSIGN THE FUTURE LAND USE AS COMMERCIAL AND ASSIGN THE PROPERTIES ABUT 15TH STREET C-1, AND THE PROPERTIES THAT ABUT 14TH STREET, C-TWO. AND YOU'LL SEE IN THE STAFFING REPORT TO THE PLANNING BOARD, I KNOW IT'S A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING, BUT, THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WAS FOR APPROVAL. WE WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AND I'LL COME BACK UP

IF QUESTIONS COME UP LATER. >> THANK YOU, ANY QUESTIONS FOR

MS. PRINCE? >> MAYBE, FOR MS. GIBSON, BUT, IF WE COULD, IF I COULD GET AN EXPLANATION ON THE 15TH STREET SIDE OF HOW C-1 IS LESS INTENSIVE THAN THE COUNTY'S CG?

>> THE COUNTY'S COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE?

>> CI? >> I HAVE THAT LIST.

>> THAT'S PROBABLY IT. I'M SORRY. (INDISTINCT CHATTER)

>> THAT'S FINE. MS. PRINCE IF YOU WANT TO HANG TIGHT.

>> I'LL GET MY NOTES. >> WE'RE GOING TO CALL UP MS. GIBSON FOR QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONER ROSS.

>> IT'S THE RANGE OF USES THAT ARE REALLY THE DISTINGUISHING FACTOR HERE, WHERE C-1 ZONED PROPERTIES HAVE A LESS INTENSIVE RANGE FOR THEM. KNOWING THAT YOU HAVE THEM AND RESIDENTIAL ALONG SOUTH 15TH STREET THERE, HAVING A LESS INTENSIVE RANGE OF USES MADE MORE SENSE AS A TRANSITION ZONING DISTRICT.

>> YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS?

>> THANK YOU. UM, UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL STATUTE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PASSED IN THE LAST LEGISLATURE, BY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATOR, CAN THIS PROPERTY BE USED TO BUILD APARTMENTS?

>> POTENTIALLY. >> AND UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL STATUTE WILL WOULD BE A 45-HEIGHTS POSSIBILITY UNDER THE

CITY RULES >> YES.

>> AND UNDERSTOOD THE LIVE LOCAL STATUTE WOULD 30 ACRES BE POSSIBLE IN THE PROPERTY ANNEXED.

>> YES. >> SO, THAT WOULD ALLOW, AND I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SET BACKS, YOU CAN'T GO TO 45 FEET, SO, IF YOU CRUNCH THE NUMBERS, DOES 130 UNITS SOUND REASONABLE FOR THE

[01:50:03]

PROPERTY FOR APARTMENTS? >> THAT SOUND VERY REASONABLE.

>> AND I TAKE IT YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT THE COUNTY'S COMMERCIAL WHAT WOULD HAPPEN UNDER THIS PROPER UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL?

>> NO, SIR. >> OKAY.

>> SO, I GUESS HOW DO I GET THAT IN THERE, CAN I TALK ABOUT

THAT NOW? >> PLEASE, GO AHEAD.

>> BASICALLY THAT'S WHAT THE E-MAIL FROM TACO POPE. AND THE MINIMUM HEIGHT WOULD BE 25-30 UNITS AND THE DENSITY WOULD BE 10 ACRES. SO, UNDER THE COUNTY, IF WE ANNEXED THIS, 130 APARTMENTS CAN COME IN AND IF WE DO NOT ANNEX IT, A MAXIMUM OF

35, IS THAT REASONABLE? >> YES. I KNOW THERE WERE SOME

STIPULATIONS IN THERE AS WELL. >> YES.

>> AND SOME OTHER FACTORS THAT WOULD COME INTO CONSIDERATION.

>> SURE, I'M JUST BACKING THE ENVELOPE?

>> POTENTIALLY. YES. >> OKAY. I THINK THAT WAS ALL OF MY QUESTIONS ON THIS. AND WE'VE SOLVE THE ENCLAVE PROBLEM.

AND, HAVE WE LOOKED AT THE FISCAL IMPACT OF, UM, 130

APARTMENTS COMING INTO THE CITY? >> NO, SIR.

>> AND WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE IMPACT OF WELL, WE'LL GET INTO

THAT WITH THE, UM, NEXT ONE. >> WE HAVE DONE NO ANALYSIS ASSUMING THAT IT WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING BUT GENERAL ACTIVITIES.

>> BUT, IT COULD CLEARLY BE USED TO BUILD APARTMENTS?

>> UNDER THE NEW LEGISLATION. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS >> UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL AS IT CURRENTLY SITS NOW, IT WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED

INTO APARTMENTS, CORRECT? >> OH, YES. CORRECT.

>> YOU MEAN IF IT STAYED IN THE COUNTY?

>> YES. >> UNDER LIVE LOCAL.

>> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER

ROSS, YOU'RE LIGHT'S ON. >> SORRY.

>> AND THANK YOU, MS. PRINCE IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WISH TO, IT IS STILL THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION, SO, YOU'RE WELCOMED TO REMAIN AND FINISH UP OUR PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> THANK YOU. >> PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> THANK YOU, TERESA PRINCE 303 CENTER STREET, SUITE 2003. YES, AND I DID WANT TO FOR THE RECORD AND THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE HERE JUST IN CASE I DON'T GET UP ON THE OTHER TWO, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A QUESTION POSED TO THE COUNTY TODAY OF HYPOTHETICALS AND THE RESPONSE ISN'T QUITE AS CLEAR AS THE BACK OF THE ENVELOPE, THEY DIDN'T HAVE A SITE PLAN TO REVIEW AND IT IS IN THE RECORD FOR ANYONE TO SEE, BUT, I THINK IT HELPS TO GET IT OUT THERE ALSO, ORALLY, SO THAT IT CAN BE HEARD BY EVERYONE THAT YOU KNOW, GOVERNMENT PUBLIC USE, YOU COULD GO UP TO 60 FEET IN THE COUNTY, SO, IF WE WERE WITHIN, WITH THE LIVE LOCAL, I THINK WHAT HE'S GETTING AT IS IF YOU'RE WITHIN ONE MILE, YOU GET THE HEIGHT OF THE HIGHEST WITHIN ONE MILE. AND THE COUNTY HAS MUCH HIGHER HEIGHT DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE CITY, SO, WHATEVER THE PROPERTY THAT STAYED IN THE COUNTY WAS IN THE MILE OF IT CAN HAVE THAT MAXIMUM OR THREE STORIES, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

AND, AGAIN, I ONLY ANALYZED THIS BECAUSE COMMISSIONER ROSS QUIZZED ME SO MUCH ON THIS. IT IS NOT AN INDICATION THAT WE PLAN TO DEVELOP UNDER THIS, BUT, I JUST FELT THAT THE STATEMENT WAS MADE OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT EXACTLY COULD BE DONE ON THIS PROPERTY WHEN AN E-MAIL WAS SENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD AT THE COUNTY AND TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE COUNTY MANAGER BOTH EXTREMELY COMPETENT HUMANS. AND THEY GAVE A VARIOUS RESPONSES AS TO DENSITY, HEIGHT, AND WHAT COULD ACTUALLY BE DONE JUST BASED ON A HYPOTHETICAL. AND I THINK IT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID, IF LIVE LOCAL IS THE PROBLEM OR THE CONCERN, UM, AGAIN, WE'VE NOT SUBMITTED ANY SITE PLANS AND BROUGHT FORTH ANYTHING TO DEVELOP UNDER LIVE LOCAL. BUT, IT IS A FACT THAT IF IT STAYS IN THE COUNTY, THE SAME APPLIES. THE LIVE LOCAL ACT THAT COMMISSIONER ROSS IS REFERENCING APPLIES TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. WE DON'T GET AWAY FROM THE LIVE LOCAL CONCERN. BUT, AGAIN, WE'VE NOT PROVIDED ANY SITE PLANSR ANY INDICATION THAT WE PLAN TO AVAIL OURSELVES TO THIS ACT. AND COMMISSIONER ROSS DID SUBMIT

[01:55:04]

THIS AND ANYBODY CAN LOOK AT IT AND VIEW IT THEMSELVES, IT WILL

BE PART OF THE CITY'S RECORD. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER

ROSS. >> I'M GOOD.

>> OKAY, WITH THAT, NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOW, COMMISSIONER DISCUSS, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION TO BE HAD ON THIS ITEM GOING FORWARD?

>> ONE 30 UNITS, MORE OR LESS, 35 UNITS MORE OR LESS. THIS IS A HUGE IMPACT ON OUR SMALL CITY. I THINK IT'S DISIN-JEGENUINE.

MOST LIKELY USE OF THIS LAND WILL BE APARTMENTS. SO, I THINK BEING IN THE COUNTY, UNTIL WE HAVE ALL OF THIS WILL STRAIGHTENED OUT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

IT'S MUCH LESS DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL AFFECT THE CITY. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY 60-UNIT, ENOUGH TO DRAW A MILE CIRCLE ON THAT. BUT, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY 60-FOOT BUILDINGS WITHIN THE WITHIN A MILE RADIUS OF THAT BUILDING. SO, I DON'T

KNOW. >> I DO HAVE TTACO POPE'S E-MAL IN THE RECORD. IT SAYS 10 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO 15 ON TRADITIONAL ZONING. AND THAT THE HEIGHT WOULD BE 25 TO 35 FEET, 35-45 FEET. SO, I WOULD NOT LIKE TO ANNEX THIS PROPERTY UNTIL THERE'S BEEN A CLARITY ABOUT THE EXACT IMPACT THAT THIS WOULD HAVE ON THIS AREA, 130 APARTMENT UNIT THERE IS IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF APARTMENTS. SO....

[7.6 (Legislative) FUTURE LAND USE MAP ASSIGNMENT - S. 14TH AND S. 15TH STREET]

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ROSS. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON

THIS >> SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE TON ITEM 7.6, FUTURE LAND USE MAP ASSIGNMENTSES, SOUTH 14 & 15TH

STREET. >> ORDINANCE 2023-54 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, THERE FLORIDA ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL FOR PROPERTIES LOCATE THE AT SOUTH 14TH AND 15TH STREET TOTALLY APPROXIMATELY 3.4 ACRES OF LAND PROVIDING FOR

SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. >> THANK YOU, ANY QUESTIONS?

>> SEEING NONE, WE GO TO OUR PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'LL NOW CALL

MR. DANNY FERRARA. COME DOWN. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> WELCOME, SIR, START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> DANNY FERRARA, 1754 SOUTH 15TH STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH,

FLORIDA. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THESE ARE MORE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ISSUE OF TRAFFIC. AND I DIDN'T WANT TO BE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW TO PUT ME

IN JAIL. BUT, ANYWAY. >> ANNEXED OF A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, I GOT THAT JOTTED DOWN, BUT I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE ANNEXATION OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY. BUT, UM, IN OTHER WORDS I'M NOT FOCUSED ON THE INTENSE THE, UM, INTENTIONS OF MOVING THIS ISSUE FORWARD WITH 70 PLUS APARTMENTS FOR JUDICIAL BY THE STATE OF THE ACT OF PROAFFECTING THE PROJECT UNDERSTOOD THE STATE LAW BILL 102, LIVE LOCAL ACT WHICH PUTS JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OVER SOME CONDITIONS THAT Y'ALL WOULD HAVE ON PUTTING APARTMENTS THERE. BUT, BASICALLY WHAT I ENTICES THIS USE OF THIS PROPERTY. HERE I GO. I BELIEVE THESE STATE PROGRAMS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CAUSE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS FOR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS OR MAKE IT HARDER FOR US TO PROTECT OUR PROPERTY VALUE. SO, I'M ONLY FOCUSED ON ONE THING. NOT ALLOWING TRAFFIC ONTO THE 1500 AND 1600 BLOCK OF SOUTH 15TH STREET. NOWHERE IN THIS CITY IS 15TH STREET EXPOSED TO COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC. MY QUESTION, HAVING THE APPROVAL

[02:00:03]

FROM ALL THE FORMAL CITY REVIEWS, GOVERNING THIS PROJECT, WHERE IS THE TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT IF A CURB CUT IS ALLOWED ON 15TH STREET, THE ONLY TO THE NORTH, FOR AN EXIT FOR 14TH STREET BUT NO RED LIGHT ON THAT INTERSECTION. WITH ONLY TWO STREETS TO CHOOSE, IF YOU'RE GOING ANYWHERE IS CITRON AND 14TH STREET. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THERE? HOW IS THAT TRAFFIC GOING TO FLOW ON BE SOUTH 15TH STREET? I BELIEVE THE BEST IDEA IS FOR SOUTH 15TH STREET TO HAVE A PERMANENT BUFFER WITH NO CURB CUTS TO SOUTH 15TH STREET. I BELIEVE THAT THE GREEN SPACE BUFFER WILL PROTECT THE APPLICANT. AND, THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRESERVING THE COMMERCIAL INTEGRITY OF SOUTH 14TH STREET AND NOT EXPOSING HOMES ON SOUTH 15TH STREET. I BELIEVE BY ALLOWING TRAFFIC ACCESS TO ENCROACH IT TO THE TWO ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WILL NOT ALLOWING THAT TRAFFIC TO ACCESS WILL PRESERVE THE SAFETY PLUS THE VALUE OF THOSE HOMES AS THEY ARE INTENDED. THAT'S, UM, THE PARK AND COASTAL OAKS, THEY'RE HEAVILY EXPOSED TO THIS ISSUE ON THIS PRESENTATION OF WHAT MIGHT POSSIBLE BE APARTMENTS. BUT, CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THAT TRAFFIC ENCROACHING THE AREA. AND I HOPE ALL OF Y'ALL, BECAUSE, I SENT E-MAILS, HAVE MAYBE GONE OUT THERE AND LOOKED AT IT AND SEE WHAT'S BEING PROGRESSED ON THIS ZONING ISSUE OF 15TH STREET ONLY. THE INTENT FOR 14TH STREET IS FINE. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC IS, ON 14TH STREET. SORRY. EXCUSE ME.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>>> ALL RIGHT, ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? MS. PRINCE ON

THIS? >> DO THE TIMER ON THIS ONE.

>> TERESA PRINCE. AND WE WELCOME THE COMMENTS FROM MR. FERRARA, AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE THE PICTURES UP. BUT, THIS IS COMMERCIAL. I MEAN IT'S COMMERCIAL WHETHER YOU ANNEX IN OR NOT. IT IS COMMERCIAL ADJACENT TO 15TH STREET. AND IF IT DOESN'T COME IN, I MEAN, ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT COMING IN AS WAS SAID EARLIER IS THE CITY WILL CONTROL CERTAIN ITEMS, NOT OBVIOUSLY, CALL CURB CUTS BECAUSE THEY'RE COUNTY MAINTAINED ROADS AND I'M WORKING FROM MEMORY HERE. BUT, THERE ARE THOSE ISSUES, THE PROPERTY THAT I SHOWED YOU ON THE SCREEN IS ALREADY REZONED C AND TWO, IT JUST HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED YET.

WHAT I'M HEARING IS VALID BUT THESE COMMERCIALS ARE ZONED COMMERCIAL ANYWAY. SO, WE WOULD ASK YOU TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS AND, TRAFFIC STUDIES THAT WERE MENTIONED BY MR. FERRARA, ANY OF THOSE TYPES OF ITEMS WILL BE DONE THROUGH SITE PLAN WHICH THE COMMISSION KNOWS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>>> ALL RIGHT, ARE THERE ANY FURTHER, VICE MAYOR CROUGAR,

COME DOWN. >> I FILLED OUT A FORM.

>> YES, SIR. >> 1313 HICKORY. I THINK TO CLARIFY WHAT LIVE LOCAL, IT WAS AN EFFORT BY THE STATE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO, WHEN THEY COME IN, 40% OF THESE UNITS HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSE. THE PROBLEM IS AND I ADDRESSED THIS TO THE COMMISSION BEFORE ON TWO OCCASIONS, THERE'S NO CRITERIA, THEY SAID HUD, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THERE ARE FOUR CATEGORIES, EXTREMELY LOW, VERY LOW, LOW AND MODERATE.

BECAUSE THERE'S NO RATIO ESTABLISHED, A DEVELOPER MAY

[02:05:02]

COME IN AND PUT THEM ALL AT MODERATE. THOSE RENTS WILL BE $2,000 A MONTH PLUS, PROBABLY. WHICH DOESN'T ACCOMPLISH AT ALL WHAT THE LAW WAS INTENDED TO DO. I THINK WHEN I INITIALLY TALKED, TAMMI SAID WE DOESN'T PREEMPT, WE DOESN'T ESTABLISH CRITERIA, AND I WOULD LIKE THE CITY COMMISSION TO LOOK AT

ESTABLISHING CRITERIA. >> WE HAVE DESIGN CRITERIA, FOR

EXAMPLE. >> FINANCE CRITERIA IN TERMS OF WHAT THE HUD CATEGORY IS, WHETHER IT'S TO SAY IF WE COULD DO THAT THAT CAME UP ALSO WITH ACCESSORY HOUSING ON THE IMPACT FEE WAIVER. SO, AGAIN, WE GAVE THAT ONE FOR THAT ONE UNIT, WE GAVE HIM IMPACT FEE. AND HE COULD CHARGE $2,000 A MONTH.

THAT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW. I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD DO ANYTHING, I JUST THOUGHT, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHNG THAT WE COULD LOOK AT. CAN WE SAY THAT THIS PERCENT, WELL --

>> I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN. >> WHY?

>> SINCE THAT PUBLIC MEETING WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT IT, BECAUSE, MY COLLEAGUES AND I, OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS HAVE READ AND REREAD THE STATUTE, AND THERE IS THE COUNTY, NASSAU COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAVE SENT FORTH THE COUNSEL THEIR OWN RECOMMENDATION TO EITHER REPEAL LIVE LOCAL OR TO AT LEAST AMEND IT TO SAY THAT THE MAXIMUM IS

80% OF MEDIAN. LOW INCOME. >> THAT'S THE POINT, IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO GET, ECONOMICALLY IF THEY WOULD DO THAT, BECAUSE, I HEAR DIFFERENT THINGS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, AS TO WHAT HAPPENED WITH VANTAGE, NOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE

SHORT-TERM RENTALS? >> SOME OF THEM.

>> YES. JUST SOME. >> THANK YOU.

>> GOOD COMMENTS, THANK YOU. >> WE DO HAVE A QUESTION FROM

COMMISSIONER ROSS, GO AHEAD. >> I THINK THAT'S THE END OF, WE COULD ACTUALLY, IS IT OF THE VICE MAYOR?

>> OKAY. YEAH. >> WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FROM PUBLIC COMMENT PHASE INTO COMMISSION DISCUSSION PHASE.

COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> I HAVE QUESTIONS. GO AHEAD.

>> HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS 10 UNITS PER ACRE?

>> YES. >> AND THAT'S ABOUT WHAT CAN BE DONE UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL IF MY BACKING THE ENVELOPE STUFF IS

CORRECT, WITH THE COUNTY, RIGHT? >> POTENTIALLY, KEEP IN MIND, ALSO REFERENCED IN THAT E-MAIL IS THE POTENTIAL FOR THE COUNTY TO DO BONUS PROGRAMS PERMISSIBLE FOR HOUSING AND MANY HAVE PROGRAMS TO ALLOW FOR MORE UNITS TO OCCUPY THAT SPACE.

>> DOES THE CITY COMMISSION HAVE TO, CAN THEY SWITCH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FROM WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS

ASKED FOR? >> OF COURSE.

>> WELL, I WOULD, WHAT WITTED I WANT TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT MAKING THIS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL?

>> I THINK IN TERMS OF THE PROCEDURE FOR THAT, WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE THE APPLICANT WILLING TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, OTHERWISE THEY MAY WANT TO PULL THEIR APPLICATION ENTIRELY.

BUT, THE OTHER WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO A FULL ANALYSIS OF IT, UNDER THAT TO DETERMINE WETHER OR NOT THAT'S APPROPRIATE. AND GIVEN WHAT'S IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, IT MAY

NOT SEEM UNREASONABLE. >> IT SEEMS A LOT MORE REASONABLE TO ME. I MEAN, UNITS.

>> JUST TO REMIND AND SOMETIMES IT MAY HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN HERE, YES, YOU HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO DO WHATEVER YOU

WISH. >> THIS IS LEGISLATIVE?

>> THIS IS LEGISLATIVE, BUT, WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL THAT WHENEVER WE WE DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT WE HAVE TO DO IT AND SEND IT BACK

TO THE PLANNING BOARD. >> I'M JUST ASKING HOW IT WOULD

BE DONE. >> SO, IT WOULDN'T BE UNREASONABLE TO HAVE THAT HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL? IT COULD

BE SHORT TERM? >> YES. AND WE DO HAVE PERMISSION FOR THAT PROGRAM IT'S REALLY

>> ITEM 7.7, SHORTLY, YOU'LL HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR

PUBLIC COMMENT. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? VICE MAYOR STURGES?

>> YES. I'M JUST GOING TO SPEAK BRIEFLY, THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I JUST THINK ALL I HEAR IS A LOT OF SPECULATION ABOUT WHAT THIS IS GOING TO BE. AND, I THINK THAT I COULD SPECULATE ENOUGH TO THROW SOMETHING ON THE WALL OVER THERE AND IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE

[02:10:04]

THAT. WHO KNOWS WHAT THE APPLICANT WILL DO OR NOT DO. IT ALREADY IS HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL AND WHAT I ASKED WAS EVERYBODY WANTS TO KEEP COMMERCIAL WHAT'S COMMERCIAL AND NOT CREATE IT INTO RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S ALL THAT I'VE HEARD, THAT WAS LIKE THE STAMP FROM THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION. NOTHING CAN BE CONVERTED TO RESIDENTIAL. NOTHING. DON'T DO THAT. KEEP IT ALL COMMERCIAL. PROBABLY A LOT OF BAD DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. HOWEVER, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD APPLICATION. IT'S MOVING A PROPERTY THAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE COUNTY, IN A MEDIUM DENSITY COMMERCIAL. MOVING IT TO THE CITY WHICH IS MEDIUM DENSITY COMMERCIAL. IS THAT NOT CORRECT, KELLY?

>> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU.

>> THAT'S ALL I NEEDED TO HEAR. THANK YOU.

>>> ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS?

>> WE'RE DISCUSSING? >> WE'RE IN DISCUSSION,

COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> WELL, A LONG TIME AGO I WAS A PROPERTY DEVELOPER, AND PUTTING ON MY DEVELOPER HAT, LOOKING AT THAT PROPERTY, SOMEBODY PAID I THINK IT WAS CLOSE TO $2 MILLION FOR THE PROPERTY. THERE'S NO REAL GOOD COMMERCIAL USES THAT YOU COULD GET A RETURN ON YOUR INVESTMENT ON THAT PROPERTY. BUT, IF YOU DIVIDE THAT BY 130, YOU COME UP WITH $18,000 PER UNIT FOR APARTMENTS. AND I DON'T KNOW TOO MANY PLACES IN THE WORLD, PARTICULARLY, AROUND, THAT YOU COULD SPEND $18,000 AND FOR THAN APARTMENT. SO, I THINK IT'S PRETTY SURE THAT THIS IS GOING TO DO THAT AND THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO WHAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO AND YOU GET YOUR SEPTIC. AS FAR AS, YES, I WAS THE ONE WHO PROPOSED NO COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL. I'VE SAID THAT MANY TIMES AND THEN THE STATE LEGISLATOR PASSED THE LIVE LOCAL ACT AND THAT CHANGED THE GAME. SO, IF THIS HAD BEEN COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCIAL AND STAYED COMMERCIAL AND DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL, I WOULD BE VOTING FOR IT. BUT, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE STATE LEMME SLATE TORE CHANGED THAT. SO, I THINK YES IT IS VERY SPECULATIVE WHAT I'M SAYING BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD ASSUMPTION. AND THIS IS

LEGISLATIVE, AND THIS IS JUST. >> ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER

AYSCUE >> ? THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND TO THE VICE MAYOR'S POINT, LIVE LOCAL IS INTENDED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I AGREE WITH THE VICE MAYOR, IF WE'RE THROWING OUT SPECULATIONS, IT WOULD BE AN RV PARK.

>> IT COULD NOT BE AN RV PARK. >> AS IT IS TO THE COUNTY.

>> (INDISTINCT CHATTER) >> THE POINT BEING IF WE'RE JUST GOING TO THROW SPECULATION AT IT, WE CAN, BUT, IF, THAT'S THE SPECULATION OF IT AND IT WAS, I MEAN, THEY WANTED TO MAKE IT EXTREMELY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEN, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES FINANCIAL SENSE EITHER. SO, I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM THE STAND POINT OF SITTING UP HERE SPECULATING OF LIVE LOCAL IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY IS AFRAID OF LIVE LOCAL AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT TAKE PLACE MUCH IN THE STATE TO KNOW IF IT'S AN EFFECTIVE STATE LAW. IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT, BUT, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS WHEN IT COMES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THIS LAW? MAYBE WE'LL SEE IT, MAYBE WE WON'T, BUT, I MEAN, I'M NOT TERRIFIED OF IT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ON THIS ISLAND, BECAUSE, I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY IS WORTH MORE AND A SENSE OF, OF, BEING DEVELOPED THAN IT IS IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BUT, THAT'S JUST ME SPECULATING ON TOP OF THAT.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER AYSCUE, COMMISSIONER ROSS.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID, BUT, THIS IS NOT ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. UNDER LIVE LOCAL, 40% HAS TO GO TO LOWER INCOME. THAT'S BASICALLY AS THE FORMER VICE MAYOR POINTED OUT IS ABOUT $2,100 FOR APARTMENTS, FOR 40% OF IT. THE REST WILL BE AT MARKET RATE. YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS HASN'T BEEN TESTED. BUT, I DON'T WANT TO BE THE FIRST GINNY BIG. I'M NOT TERRIFIED OF THIS.

[02:15:02]

I THINK IT'S PRACTICAL, IT'S 130 UNITS, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THAT AREA AND I THINK WE SHOULD CAREFULLY LOOK AT THAT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITIZENS HERE WANT THAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENTMENT. -- DEVELOPMENT.

>> THANK YOU, DO I HEAR A MOTION.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND WE'LL NOW GO TO FURTHER DISCUSSION. SEEING NONE, CITY CLERK CALL THE ROLL.

>> COMMISSION AYSCUE? >> YES.

[7.7 (Quasi-judicial) ZONING MAP ASSIGNMENT - SOUTH 14TH AND SOUTH 15TH STREET]

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> NO.

>> MAYOR BEAN? >> YES. THAT PASSES 4-1. 7.7, QUASI-JUDICIAL, ZONING MAP ASSIGNMENT.

>> ORDINANCE 2024-55 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA ASSIGNING THE ZONING CATEGORY OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL C-2 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON AND FRONTING SOUTH 14TH STREET AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL C-1 FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON AND FRONTING SOUTH 15TH STREET.

TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 3.47 ACRES OF LAND, EX-PARTE. YES I'VE HAD COMMUNICATIONS AND FOLLOWING THE CONCERN OF THIS

PIECE OF PROPERTY. >> I'VE HAD EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT'S AGENT DISCUSSING THE

PROJECT. >> COMMISSIONER?

>> I'VE ALSO HAD EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE

APPLICANT'S AGENT. >> I RECEIVED COMMUNICATION

FROM THE APPLICANT'S AGENT. >> WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CALL ON MS. PRINCE TO THE PODIUM. AND THERE'S NO TIMER

THIS TIME. >> I WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE TIME TO COME UP IF STAFF GIVES TESTIMONY AND QUESTIONS ARE ASKED TO MAKE STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD SINCE THIS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL. WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING MOBILE HOME PARKS, OR, RV PARKS BUT UNDER COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE, YOU CAN APPLY FOR A VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE GRANTED. THEY HAVE A VARIANCE BOARD LIKE YOU DO. AND IT WOULD BE A USE UNDER COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE GRANTED IF IT WENT THAT ROUTE. WHAT WAS SAID EARLIER IS COMMERCIAL GENERAL NO LONGER HAS RV PARKS IN IT. WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON DOING THAT. AND I ONLY GOT UP TO SPEAK AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE HYPOTHETICALS FLOATING AROUND ABOUT LIVE LOCAL. AGAIN, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT MADE STATEMENT TOSS THAT AVENTH AND IT IS HYPOTHETICAL AND IT'S PROBABLY RESPONSIBLE TO LOOK AT IT. BUT, WETHER OR NOT WE'RE IN OR OUT, WE CAN AVAIL OURSELVES OF LIVE LOCAL AND IF WE COULD BRING UP THE PICTURE AGAIN, JUST ARE REGARDING THE R-3, WE'VE GOTTEN PAST THAT ON FIRST READING BUT JUST IN CASE IT COMES UP AGAIN. AND I KNOW KELLY'S STAFF WAS ASKED, STANDING AT A PODIUM WITHOUT ANALYSIS IS AND SHE SAID ANALYSIS WOULD BE REQUIRED.

BUT, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, R-3. THIS PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL. PUTTING IN AN R-3 ZONING DISTRICT WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING ANYWAY. OR, A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FLUME WHICH WOULD BE AN R-3 RESIDENTIAL DOES NOT LOOK APPROPRIATE TO THIS LAWYER'S EYES. BUT, YOUR PLANNING STAFF WOULD EVALUATE THAT. BUT, THAT WAS THE HYPOTHETICAL THAT WAS OFFERED IN THE LAST AGENDA ITEM THAT YOU DID APPROVE AND THANK YOU. SO, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. WE THUNK IT'S APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THIS SITE AND WE WILL PROCEED UNDER THE CITY'S CODE WITH WHAT WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR

VOTE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MS. PRINCE.

>>> ANY FURTHER, THIS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL, WE'RE IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT, PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO MAKE THEIR VOICE HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. SEEING NONE, THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED. THIS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL, WE'LL OPEN UP FOR COMMISSIONER COMMENT OR DISCUSSION. ANY COMMENT OR DISCUSSION?

>> SEEING NONE, >> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN I'M

[02:20:04]

RECALLING TO ORDER THIS MEETING OF THE FERNANDINA BEACH

[8.1 VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION - AMELIA ROAD]

COMMISSION. WE STARTED RIGHT BACK IN. WE'RE NOW IN THE SECOND READINGS, THERE ARE NO QUASI-JUDICIAL IN SECOND READING, WE'LL VOTE ON EVERY ITEM AND TALK ABOUT EACH. TO TO GET STARTED, 8.1, VOLUME TIRE ANNEXATION, AMELIA ROAD.

>> ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 1.33 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON AMELIA ROAD. CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS, PROVIDING FOR A EFFECTIVE DATE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. SEEING UNIN, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

ANY COMMISSION QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS, TO STAFF. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS ROSS, GO

AHEAD. >> BY, CHANCE, DID YOU DO THE ANALYSIS OF HOW MANY UNITS, THIS IS GOING TO BE, THIS IS SUBDIVIDED UNDER THE COUNTY RUSE AND CITY RULES?

>> NO, SIR, I DID NOT PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS TO PROVIDES THAT

DISTINCTION. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER, ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NO. >> DO I HEAR A MOTION?

>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, CALL THE ROLL.

>> I APOLOGIZE, I DIDN'T HEAR WHO MADE THE SECOND.

>> FIRST WAS STURGES AND THE SECOND WAS AYSCUE.

>> THANK YOU. >> MAY I CALL THE VOTE?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> VICE MAYOR STURGES? J YES.

>> CHEMIST AYSCUE? >> YES. COMMISSIONER ANTUN?

>> YES. >> AND THAT PASSES 5-0.

>> YOU'RE PROBABLY WONDERING WHY I VOTED FOR IT.

[8.2 FUTURE LAND USE MAP ASSIGNMENT - AMELIA ROAD]

>> I'M SURE YOU'RE ABOUT TO TELL ME.

>> ALL RIGHT. 8.2 FUTURE LAND USE MAP ASSIGNMENT, AMELIA ROAD.

>> ORDINANCE 2023-45, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON AMELIA ROAD TOTALLING 1.33 ACRES OF LAND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. DISCUSSION?

>> IT TURNS OUT ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT UNDER THE CITY RULES IT'S LESS. SO, THAT'S FINE. THERE'S LESS UNITS ON THE

BACK. >> ALL RIGHT, IN THAT CASE, ANY

FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> SEEING NONE, DO I HAVE A

MOTION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

> SECOND. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION,

SEEING NONE, CALL THE RULE. >> COMMISSIONER ANTUN?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS?

[8.3 ZONING MAP ASSIGNMENT - AMELIA ROAD]

>> YES. >> THAT PASSES 5-0.

>> ORDINANCE 2023 -- 46 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH FLORIDA ASSIGNING THE PROVIDING FOR SEVERALABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. PLEASE OPEN THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? SEEING NONE, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. AND COMMISSIONER COMMENTS?

>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

>> IT SAYS UNDER THE SHEET THAT IT WAS A TYPO?

>> YES. THE SUMMARY IS INCORRECT. YES.

>> AND THAT HAS NO AFFECT ON THIS?

>> NO, IT HAS NO AFFECT ARES THIS IS SECOND AND FINAL READING

OF THIS. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

>>> ALL RIGHT. DO I HEAR A MOTION?

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> I HAVE THE MOTION AND THE

SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> SEEING NONE, CALL THE ROLL.

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> YES.

[8.4 VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION - 2194 SADLER ROAD]

>> MAYOR BEAN? >> YES. THAT PASSES 5-0.

>> ITEM 8.4, VOLUNTEER AN EXIZATION, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH FLORIDA ANNEXES 1.41 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 2194 SADLER ROAD CON FIGUROUS TO

[02:25:05]

THE CITY LIMITS PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN IS THERE ANYONE IN THE ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? YOU'RE WELCOMED TO COME DOWN.

PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. >> START WITH YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> SHARON COUCHE. 2465 (INDISCERNIBLE) FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA.

>> THE TOWN HOMES, UM, ARE GOING TO CREATE A LOT OF TRAFFIC ISSUES FOR PARK'S BAY, IT HAS 100 HOMES AND THAT IS OUR ONLY ENTRANCE, ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD. WE HAVE AN EASEMENT, IT'S THE ONLY ENTRANCE WHEN IT WAS BUILT. AND THAT'S WHERE THE SIBS ARE THERE. WELTED LIKE TO KEEP OUR SIGNS. WE WOULD LIKE THE ROAD IMPROVED. WE WOULD LIKE A TRAFFIC LIGHT AND FIVE LANES, WE HAVE TO TURN LEFT MOST OF THE TIME. AND WHEN, THE DRURY ROAD HAPPENS ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY, WHEN THAT PROPERTY GETS SOLD, THE CONGESTION AT THAT LIGHT WILL BE INTENSE TRYING TO GET OUT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT. AND, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO, UM, CONSIDER PUTTING A TRAFFIC LIGHT THERE. WE HAVE A HISTORY OF THE OWNER'S, I'M NOT SURE. WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. WE WOULD LIKE TO REALLY GET ALONG WITH OUR NEW NEIGHBOR, UM, AND, THAT ISN'T THE CASE. US TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO HIM ABOUT HOW YOU KNOW, 12 UNITS WAS QUITE A BIT, AND, IT TURNED INTO I CALLED HIM A LIAR.

I DID NOT CALL HIM A LIAR, HE DIDN'T LET ME FINISH WHAT I WAS SAYING IN THE HALLWAY. WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS INITIALLY IT WAS 14 UNITS, WHICH, YOU TOLD ME YOURSELF, MR. BEAN. UM, AND NOW IT'S 12. HE KEEPS TELLING ME THAT'S WHAT HE INITIALLY WANTED AND THAT IS WHAT WAS ASKED OF THE CITY AN THAT IS NOT TRUE.

INITIALLY, HE ASKED FOR 14 AND NOW HE'S GOT 12. AND THAT'S WHAT THE ARGUMENT WAS ABOUT. THERE WAS POLICEMEN THERE THAT COULD TESTIFY TO WHAT HAPPENED. BUT, HE'S NOT A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND I DON'T TRUST WHAT HE'S GOING TO SAY OR DO. AND IT'S A DIFFICULT POSITION FOR US TO BE IN, I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THERE WAS ALSO UM, IT'S ON RECORD WITH THE COUNTY AND THE COUNTY MEETING THERE WAS AN ISSUE. HE IS VERY, UM, QUICK TO -- ANYWAY, I'M AFRAID AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN ESCORT TO

MY CAR WHEN I LEAVE. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS?

>> YES, SIR, PLEASE COME DOWN. >> (INDISTINCT CHATTER)

>> WELL, WELCOME TONIGHT, SIR. >> I DIDN'T GET SWORN IN, DO I

NEED TO DO THAT? >> NO, SIR.

>> SO, I'M ROBERT SEMINAL AND I RESIDE AT 2215 CAPTAIN KID DRIVE, RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER, MY CONCERN IN ADDITION TO MY NEIGHBOR TALK ABOUT IN TERMS OF HAVING A LIGHT THERE. OF COURSE, YOU COULD GO DOWN THE OTHER WAY AND GET THE LYING AT SADLER AND WILL HARDY OF THE, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IF YOU'RE COMING FROM THE BEACH, YOU JUST WANT TO TAKE A LEFT TO GET INTO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, RIGHT? WE'RE ONLY FOUR OR FIVE BLOCKS FROM THE BEACH. WE'RE ONLY A BLOCK AWAY FROM (INDISCERNIBLE) AND THAT'S WHERE THE ENTRANCE IS. I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL BEEN THERE. HAVING 12 DRIVEWAY, THE LIGHT IS 150 FEET ON SADLER AND 300 FEET ON RYAN ROAD. AND THEN IT'S THE

[02:30:02]

WATER TREATMENT PLANT. RIGHT NOW IF YOU'RE COMING FROM THE BEACH, YOU GO ALL THE WAY LEFT ON HARDY. AND COMING FROM FROM YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. BECAUSE, YOU LIVE IN LAKEWOOD.

>> RECENTLY MOVED OUT. IF YOU REMEMBER, WHEN LAKEWOOD BUILT, THEY EXTENDED. MY CONCERN IS HAVING A PROPERTY DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU HAVE 12 ENTRANCES AND EXITS ON A 300-FOOT SECTION. IF YOU HAVE 12 UNITS. SHOULDN'T BE ANY OFF SADLER. THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE, GETTING IN AND OUT OF SADLER TO TAKE A LEFT TURN FROM THAT 3.41 ACRE LOT, RIGHT? THE 3.41

ACRES, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> 1.34.

>> 1.34. >> AND THE TITLE THAT I JUST

READ JUST TO BE ACCURATE, 1.41. >> 1.41.

>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. SO, 12 UNITS ON 1.41, I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE DENSITY AS MUCH AS AS I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE BETWEEN RYAN ONTO SADLER ROAD. AND, YOUR WATER PLANT. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN THERE ARE 12 DRIVEWAYS FOR 300 FEET. WHAT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE FROM A DESIGN POINT OF VIEW, ONE ENTRANCE, HORSESHOE THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, WITH THE OPENING PROPERTIES UP THERE, I THINK THERE'S JUST TOO MANY PROPERTIES.

>> GO POINTS SIR, THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE'LL

LOOK INTO. >> AND AGAIN, I AGREE WITH THE PAST SPEAKER FROM PIRATES BAY. THIS IS MUCH BETTER THAN HAVING SEVERAL LOTS WITH OVER NIGHT TRAILERS.

>> THANK YOU, WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. AND COMMISSIONER STURGES, WHEN MS. COUCH IS REALLY TO GO, WILL YOU WALK HER

TO HER CAR? >> YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK NOW OR LATER ON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, SIR?

>> ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU NEED TO, I'M SAYING

THAT YOU CAN IF YOU NEED TO. >> JOHN LASARE, AGENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. I JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE OURSELVES THAT WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL MAY HAVE.

TO CORRECT THERE ARE 400 FEET ALONG RYAN ROAD NOT 300 AND

THERE ARE 11 DRIVEWAYS, NOT 12. >> OKAY.

>> >> NOW, THAT FEELS PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION. VICE

MAYOR STURGES? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. ACTUALLY, JOHN, OR, ASA, I HAVE A QUESTION CONCERNING THE PROPERTY ABOUT THE DRIVEWAYS. AND, JUST, CHECKING.

>> THIS ONE'S ANNEXATION, WE HAVE SIGHT PLAN COMING UP.

>> NOT YET. >> OKAY.

>> THEY THINK. >> ON THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION, AND I THINK IT WAS ALREADY SAID, PROBABLY THE BEST ONE TO ANSWER THIS, BUT, SADLER ROAD IS A COUNTY ROAD IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

AM I CORRECT? >> YES.

>> AND, THEY, THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THE TRAFFIC STUDY THERE THROUGH MY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE FDOT? I'M

TRYING TO GET THEM AN ANSWER. >> LET'S CALL UP MS. GIBSON, BECAUSE, IF ANYONE KNOWS, IT'S OUR PLANNING LATHED LADY, MS.

GIBSON. >> IT IS A COUNTY ROAD ON SADLER ROAD THERE. SO, IF THERE WERE A TRAFFIC STUDY COMPLETED OR IMPROVEMENTS MADE, IT WOULD BE THROUGH NASSAU COUNTY TO

COMPLETE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. >>

[02:35:02]

(INDISCERNIBLE) >>

>> THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> SO, THERE ARE ONLY ROOM FOR ONE DRIVEWAY ON SADLER, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT AND THAT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE

COUNTY FOR THE DRIVEWAY. >> AND THE REST OF IT IS ALL --

>> THROUGH THE CITY FOR DRIVEWAYS.

>> AND THIS IS JUST THE ANNEXATION. WE'LL HEAR A MOTION

ON THE ANNEXATION ONLY. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND ON THE ANNEXATION. DO WE HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE ANNEXATION OF THIS PROPERTY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING

NONE, CITY CLERK CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE?

[8.5 FUTURE LAND USE MAP ASSIGNMENT - 2194 SADLER ROAD]

>> YES. >> THAT PASSES 5-0, NOW WE'RE AN 8.5, THE FUTURE LAND USE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH FOR MIX THE USE FOR A PROPERTY LOWED AT 2194 SAITHE ROAD TOTALS 1.41 ACRES OF LAND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> IT'S UP TO YOU. >> WELCOME BACK, SIR.

>> 2350 CAPTAIN KID DRIVE. AGAIN, MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH, THOSE, FIRST OF ALL, WHY DOES THE SITE PLAN, WHY ARE THEY COMING JUST ONE SITE OFF SADLER ROAD? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

BECAUSE, THAT'S GOING TO BE A HASSLE FOR ANYBODY WHOSE HOME IS I'M ASSUMING THAT'S A DRIVEWAY, RIGHT? IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN. THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE GOING TO GET OUT OF THERE UNLESS THERE'S SOME OTHER PROVISION IS THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO RIGHT, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE CIRCLE AND COME BACK. ON FLETCHER. WHERE THE BEACH IS. IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT.

OR, THE 11 DRIVEWAYS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME AND GO LEFT ON RYAN UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING DONE ABOUT IMPROVING RYAN, WHICH IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN IS DATED FOR THE CITY. SOMEBODY ANSWER IF

RYAN ROAD IS A CITY ROAD. >> YES, SIR, IT IS.

>> SO, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THOSE 11 DRIVEWAYS, PEOPLE WILL COME OUT AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO LEFT, IF THEY'RE GOING TO EIGHTH STREET, THEY'RE GOING TO GO THAT WAY. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUC TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO CREATE IN A DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS NO SIDEWALKS. WE HAVE NO SIDEWALKS OR CURBS. CHILDREN RIDE THEY ARE BICYCLES, THEIR ROLLER SKATES, THEY PLAY IN THE STREETS BECAUSE IT'S ALL DEAD-ENDS. RYAN ROAD DATES END, GOES LEFT TO PIRATE'S BAY AND GOES RIGHT TO PIRATES BAY, GOES AROUND TO CAPTAIN HOOK AND CAPTAIN KID DRIVE IS ONE DEVELOPING WHICH IS NOW OPENING BECAUSE LAKEWOOD BOUGHT FOUR OR FIVE HOUSES. SO THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE CREATED FROM THOSE 11 DRIVEWAYS WILL BE RIGHT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> I'M AWARE OF RYAN ROAD. >> SO, YOU'RE GOING TO WALK TO PIRATE'S BAY AND TAKE A RIGHT-HAND TURN AND IF YOU GET SMART, YOU TAKE A RIGHT ON CAPTAIN KID, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT THE FIRST TIME. THEY'RE GOING TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN AND END UP IN THE MIDDLE OF CAPTAIN HOOK SOMEPLACE AND END UP IN LAKEWOOD, OR TAKE CAPCAPT KID. AGAIN, NO SIDEWALKS AND IN OUR SECTION, THERE'S NO LIGHTS, THERE ARE ONLY DRIVEWAYS. THERE ARE SEVEN DRIVEWAYS ON MY SIDE OF THE ROAD AND SIX ON THE LEFT SIDE OF CAPCAPTAIN KID, ONCE YO MAKE THE TURN IN LAKEWOOD,.

THAT'S ALL GOING TO BE TRAFFIC COMING FROM THOSE 11 DRIVEWAYS.

WHY? >> THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US

TODAY. >> THE TRAFFIC STUDY BY THE WAY FOR SADLER ROAD WAS DONE BY THE COUNTY AND IT'S ON FILE. I'M SURE YOU GUYS CAN GET A COPY OF IT.

>> THANK YOU, WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERNS. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT, ANY FURTHER AS THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS OPEN, ANY

[02:40:03]

OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WISHES TO BE MADE, WE WILL HEAR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. SEEING NONE, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

MR. ROSS, GO AHEAD. >> QUESTIONS FOR PLANNING.

>> MS. GIBSON. >> SO, I'M JUST GOING TO READ YOU THE DEFINITION AND IF YOU COULD TELL ME IT'S THE DEFEND

MISSION, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. >> YES, SIR.

>> SO, UNDER THE COMP PLAN DEFINES MIXED USE AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARCEL OR STRUCTURE WITH TWO OR MORE DIFFERENT LAND USES SUCH AS ACCOMMODATION OF RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, MANUFACTURING, RETAIL, PUBLIC, ENTERTAINMENT IN A PHYSICALLY INTEGRATED STRUCTURE OR GROUP OF STRUCTURES. IS THAT

THE DEFINITION? >> THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF

MIXED USE. >> AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT SECTION 2.0109 STATES, MIXED USE, THE ME 1 IS INTENDED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL, OFFICE, AND LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY. SO, UM, ARE THERE TWO OR MORE DIFFERENT LAND USES WHICH ARE BEING REQUESTED IN

THIS APPLICATION? >> THERE ARE NOT.

>> OKAY. AND IS IT CORRECT THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE, TOWN HOUSES AND

NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AND DOES MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION ALLOW EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE, TOWN HOUSES AND COMMERCIAL

DEVELOPMENT? >> YES.

>> AND IS THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT THE SAME IN MEDIUM

DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT? >> YES.

>> AND ARE THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS THE SAME IN MEDIUM DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT?

>> YES. >> AND ARE THE FRONT, SIDE, AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THE SAME FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RSIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT?

>> NO. >> AND HOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT?

>> THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE DIFFERENT FRONT AND SIDE YARD

SETBACKS. >> IN FACT, THERE ARE NO FRONT

REQUIREMENTS FOR ME-1, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. IT ALLOWS FOR GREATER RETENTION OF TREES ON THIS SITE SO THERE'S ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO ACCOMMODATE TREES.

>> UNDER MIXED USE THERE'S ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT

ESSENTIALLY, >> CORRECT.

>> SO, THERE'S NO NEED FOR A SETBACK?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO, YOU COULD BUILD A BIGGER

UNIT ON THAT PROPERTY? >> YOU COULD BUILD CLOSER TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE ON THE PROPERTY. THE SIZE OF THE UNIT

IS DEPENDENT ON THE LOT LINE. >> BECAUSE OF THE SETBACKS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BUILD A SMALLER UNIT, AM I CORRECT?

>> NO. >> WHY NOT?

>> BECAUSE, YOU'RE ABLE TO PUSH THEM FURTHER FORWARD. IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS A COLLECTIVE OF THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY, WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS BALANCE TREE MITIGATION AND SATISFY OUR CODE COMPLIANCE, MIXED USE ACCOMMODATES THE ABILITY TO DO THAT BY ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY IN BRINGING THE UNITS FORWARD TO RETAIN MORE TREES ON THE PROPERTY. IF I COULD CLARIFY, THOUGH, BECAUSE, THIS IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DECISION HERE, FAILED TO LOOK AT THE POLICY ASSOCIATED WITH MIXED USE LAND USE. WE FAILED UNDER WHICH THAT POLICY DOES CLEARLY INDICATE THAT STAND-ALONE, RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS WELL AS COMBINATION OF MIXTURE OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ARE PERMISSIBLE. IT ALSO CLEARLY ALLOWS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ALONE WITHIN THAT MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY AS DEFINED BY POLICY. NOT WITHIN THE DEFINITION COMPONENT OF MIXED USE.

>> OKAY. BUT, MIXED USE, BASICALLY WHAT THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO IS LIKE WHAT THEY DID ON NORTH SECOND STREET WHICH IS

PUT APARTMENTS ABOVE HOUSES. >> THAT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE OF A MIXED USE PROJECT IN A MIX THE USE LAND USE.

>> BUT, THIS IS NOT A MIXED USE LAND USE, THIS IS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, THIS IS A WOLFE IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING.

>> THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A MIXED USE LAND

USE. >> BASICALLY, THIS IS 11, 12 TOWNHOUSES WHICH ARE RESIDENTIAL WITH NO COMMERCIAL AND SO, BASICALLY, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO GIVING THIS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, BUT, GIVING IT MIXED USE, I MEAN, I DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE FOLLOWING THE CODE. SO...

>> IN TERMS OF DEFENDING THIS IF I MAY.

>> PLEASE. >> THE MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY ADJACENT TO A COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL ROAD THAT IS TRAVELED WITHIN WITH THE SAME LEVEL OF INTENSITY THAT SADLER ROAD HAS, MIXED USE IS AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE DESIGNATION

[02:45:02]

WHEN LOOKING AT THE NATURE OF THAT ROAD AS WELL AS THE ADJOINING LAND USES WHICH SURROUND THAT AREA. IT'S A TRANSITIONARY ZONING DISTRICT BETWEEN COMMERCIAL WHICH IS ON TWO SIDES OF IT AND THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD JUST BEYOND OUR WATER TREATMENT PLANT.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ROSS, THANK YOU, MS. GIBSON, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? COMMISSIONER AYSCUE?

>> I GUESS THIS IS MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION. I MEAN, UM, WE'RE GETTING READY TO SEE THE, (INDISCERNIBLE) THE PLAT. SORRY. THE PLAT. BUT, I MEAN, BY DESIGNATING THIS MIXED USE, IT'S MIXED USE AND THESE PARTICULAR, UM, TOWNHOMES OR SUBDIVISION OR WHATEVER, IT MAYBE 30 OR 40 YEARS FROM NOW COULD END UP BEING A MIXED USE.

>> IT'S POSSIBLE. >> THE POSSIBILITY IS THAT IT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE, BUT, THIS IS THE BEST FOR THE FUTURE TO TRANSITION FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL TO USE IT AS A MIXED

USE. >> TO HAVE THAT MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY. IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO REQUEST MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ADVOCATE APPROVAL OF IT. IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO LOCATE THAT IN THIS ARTERY IN THIS WAY.

WE WOULD CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR THE MIXED USE THAT ALLOWS FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >> ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO

COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> SO, THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT. WHAT HAS BEEN DONE REPEATEDLY DURING MY SIX YEARS ON THIS COMMISSION, IS THAT WE TAKE THIS "MIXED USE" WHICH IS A THING THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY TRANSITION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS LIKE ON SECOND STREET, IT'S TURNED INTO RESIDENTIAL. 100 PERCENT RESIDENTIAL. WE'RE NOT CALLING SOMETHING THAT IT IS WHAT ITS.

THE REASON THAT DEVELOPERS WANT MIXED USE IS BECAUSE YOU GET TO PUT BIGGER HOUSES ON IT. AND IT CAN DO OTHER THINGS THERE. SO, UM, I THINK THAT IF YOU WANT TO PUT IN RESIDENTIAL, FINE. IF YOU WANTED TO PUT MIXED USE HERE LIKE THEY HAVE ON NORTH SECOND STREET, I DON'T HAVAL PROBLEM WITH THAT WHATSOEVER, AND I WOULD VOTE FOR IT, BUT, THAT'S NOT WHAT WHAT'S BEING DONE.

THIS IS REALLY A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING BECAUSE WE KEEP PUTTING UP THESE QUOTE MIXED USE BECAUSE IT'S IN TRANSITION OR WE HAVE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, AND THEN WE PUT IN ALL RESIDENTIAL.

AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS REPEATEDLY.

>> VICE MAYOR? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. ASA, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU. I'M LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN TO ADDRESS THE DRIVEWAY ISSUES. UM WHAT WAS THAT?

>> JUST A REMINDER TO PROMPT MR. TELETTE FOR HIS NAME AND

ADDRESS. >> THANK YOU.

>> GO AHEAD, VICE MAYOR. >> ALL RIGHT. I WANTED YOU TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE SITE PLAN ISSUES AND WHY, JUST BRIEFLY, JUST WHY ALL THE DRIVEWAYS ON THE FRONT. I MEAN, I ALREADY KNOW MOST OF THESE ANSWERS, I JUST WANT YOU TO VERBALIZE THESE

A >>> ASA GILLETTE. WE HAVE PUT A SEPARATE DRIVEWAY FOR EACH UNIT. IN THE TWO REVIEW THAT IS WE'VE HAD WITH THE CITY, I HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD TO EITHER COMBINE THEM OR COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE WOULDN'T CONSIDER IT, IT JUST MEANS AT THAT POINT IN TIME THAT'S WHAT

WE HAVE ON THERE. >> OKAY. FOR INSTANCE, I'M LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN AND FOR, LET'S JUST SAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, SINCE WE'RE INTO SPECULATION THIS EVENING, BUT, I NOTICED THAT THERE'S DRAINAGE ACROSS THE REAR AND I NOTICED ALSO IN THE PLAN THERE'S LANDSCAPING BECAUSE ME-1 ZONING

WOULD A HAVE A BUFFER. >> CORRECT.

>> I WOULD LIKE YOU TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BUFFER AND WATER TREATMENT AS WELL. BECAUSE, THE WATER NEEDS TO GO

ZING FOR ALL OF THESE UNITS. >> WE'RE UTILIZING THE BUFFERS

[02:50:04]

REQUIRED BY THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THERE ARE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AT THE STORM WATER SYSTEM LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE SYSTEM. WE OUTFALL TO RYAN ROAD, WE HAD TO RUN OUR STORM CALCULATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR CITY REGULATIONS. THE GAS WILL BE FED FROM THE REAR. I DON'T HAVE THE DRAWINGS IN FRONT OF ME, SO, YOU'LL HAVE TO EXCUSE ME. IT WILL BE GAS FROM THE REAR AND WATER AND SEWER FROM THE FRONT.

>> THANK YOU. AND, WOULD YOU SAY BY HAVING THE DRIVEWAYS UP FRONT THAT IT WILL HELP CREATE LESS PERVIOUS SURFACE THAN IF YOU HAD TO PUT A DRIVEWAY ALL THE AWAY ACROSS THE BACK OR ADJUST THE PLAN OR IS THAT A REASONABLE QUESTION FOR YOU?

>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

>> I DIDN'T THINK THAT YOU COULD. THAT'S WHERE MY MIND'S RUNNING WITH THIS, IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO CHANGE THE DIRECTION AND WHERE YOU WOULD ENTER INTO ALL OF THESE UNITS OR HOW YOU

WOULD ENTER. >> PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAD WITH THE REAR ACCESS SYSTEM IS BECAUSE OF THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAD AND WHERE WE HAD TO PUT RETENTION.

IT DIDN'T WORK, NOT TO MENTION THE TREES THAT WE HAD TO SAVE.

SO, TO MEET OUR TREE REQUIREMENTS WE HAD MORE KIND OF TOWARDS THE BACK AND IT WORKED OUT BETTER THAT WAY. SO, FOR,

AS FAR AS TREE PROTECTION. >> THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I MEAN, JUST, TO FINISH UP, HOPEFULLY FINISH UP THE CONVERSATION ON MIXED USE IN GENERAL. I THINK, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, IT'S USED MAINLY AS RESIDENTIAL. BUT, THERE'S A LOT OF MIXED USE IN THE CITY. WHERE, I THINK IF WE APPLIED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AND IT SEEMS TO WORK UP ON NORTH SECOND STREET IT DOES THERE, BUT, THERE'S OTHER AREAS THAT I WOULD CAUTION THE COMMISSION TO SAY, IF YOU HAD TO PUT SOME OF THAT COMMERCIAL IN SOME OF THESE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD WORK OUT WELL. SO, JUST CAUTIONING THAT. I MEAN, SOMETIMES MIXED USE IS THE BEST WAY FORWARD FOR THAT PATH AT LEAST THAT I CAN SEE OR THAT I UNDERSTAND. BUT, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> MY RESPONSE SO TO THAT IS PUT IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING. THAT'S ALL. IF YOU DON'T WANT COMMERCIAL IN THE AREA, PUT IN RESIDENTIAL. I JUST THINK IT'S DISINGENUOUS WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND THAT'S JUST MY OPINION, AND I'LL PROBABLY GET VOTED DOWN 4-1.

>> DO I HEAR A MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE THE MOTION AND THE SECOND DO I HEAR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I'M JUST GOING TO (INDISCERNIBLE)

>> WE HAVE ONE MORE. ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION?

>> NOT ON THIS ONE. >> WE HAVE TWO DISCUSSION PERIODS NOW. WE CLARIFIED THAT. SO, IT'S A DOUBLE-DOWN ON COMMISSIONER'S DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW. BUT, SEEING NONE.

>> WELL, I'LL MAKE MY COMMENTS AND THEN WE CAN GO. I JUST BELIEVE THAT THE ZONING DISTRICT PER THE STAFF REPORT IS QUOTE INTENDED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL, OFFICE, AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES AND NO COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS IN THE RECORD THAT THE OFFICE OF LIMITED COMMERCIAL ARE RECENTLY PRESENT IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, THEREFORE, I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICATION

MUST BE DENIED. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ROSS. WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, CALL THE ROLL.

>> AND THAT PASSES 4.1. >> THE FINAL ONE OF EIGHT.

[8.6 ZONING MAP ASSIGNMENT - 2194 SADLER ROAD]

DOES THAT STAY 8.6. ZONING MAP ASSIGNMENT.

>> ORDINANCE 2023-43 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA ASSIGNING THE MISSIONED US, MU 1 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2194 SADLER ROAD. TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 1.41 ACRES OF LAND; LAND; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. AND PROVIDING FOR

AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >> BAY DRIVE FERNANDINA, FLORIDA. ONCE AGAIN, SINCE WHEN ARE TREES MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SAFETY OF YOUR CITIZENS? IF YOU'RE TRYING TO SAVE THESE TREES, YET, YOU'VE GOT LECH DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE GOING TO BE BACKING OUT WHILE PEOPLE ARE GOING DOWN RYAN ROAD, THEY'RE

[02:55:04]

BACKING UP ACROSS TRAFFIC, PEOPLE ARE COMING IN, THERE'S 11 DRIVEWAYS. SAY TWO CARS PER DRIVEWAY, 22 CARS ADDED TO THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD YOU KNOW THERE'S ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN SHORTLY.

AND THAT'S GOING TO ALSO HAVE ACCESS AN EXIT. AND NOW WE HAVE SOMETHING ON DRURY ROAD THAT WILL CREATE TRAFFIC AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S JUST A COUNTY ROAD SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU COULD DO FOR US. UM, SO, ARE THE TREES MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS? I'M AN ENVIRONMENTALIST, I WANT THOSE TREES TO STAY. SO, I'M LISTENING TO MR. ROSS AND WONDERING THE SAME THING THAT HE IS. ZERO SETBACKS. THEY'RE GETTING A LOT MORE VOLUME, A MUCH MORE I DON'T SPEAK WELL, I'M SORRY, THEY'RE GETTING A LOT MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH MEANS THAT THE WATER HAS NOWHERE TO GO BECAUSE THERE'S MORE DRIVEWAYS AND THAN 12 UNITS, CAN WE CONSIDER 10? SO THAT IT'S SAFER? MORE TREES ARE SAVED, I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT. THAT'S WHAT THE CITIZENS OF FERNANDINA WANT. CAN WE CUT IT BACK A LITTLE BIT? AND THAT WAY THERE WOULDN'T BE AS MUCH TRAFFIC AND AS MUCH IT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. AND THE SETBACK WOULD BE REASONABLE FOR MULTIUSE IF YOU WANTED TO DO THAT.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON 8.6?

>> 8.6 IS THE ZONING? >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC

COMMENTS? >> WE'LL GO TO THE COMMISSION

ON 8.6. >> AGAIN, MY ARGUMENT IS THAT THE ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE STAFF REPORT IS INTENDED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES AND THERE'S BEEN NO COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL RECORD THAT THE OFFICES OF LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES WILL BE PRESENT IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THEREFORE THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.

>>> ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> NO.

>> MAYOR BEAN? >> YES. IT'S 4-1. I COULD

HAVE COUNTED IT. >> BUT, THEN I WOULD HAVE FILED A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. AND MAKE YOUR LIFE MORE MISERABLE.

[9.1 (Quasi-judicial) PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - "BREAKERS TOWNHOMES"]

>> ITEM 9, RESOLUTION. >> IT'S PASTED YOUR BEDTIME.

>> EASY, I GOT DINNER STILL. >> ITEM 9, RESOLUTION, PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF BREAKERS TOWNHOMES.

>> I DON'T HAVE TO READ THE TITLE BECAUSE IT IS A RESOLUTION WE APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY PLATS BY RESOLUTION. THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT. AT THE SAME TIME AS THIS IS HERE, THIS IS BEING REVIEWED AT THE TRC, THE TECHNICAL REREVIEW COMMITTEE LEVEL. THIS IS BREAKERS TOWNHOMES, YOU SEE A PLAT HERE.

I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, A PLAT IS NOT A SITE PLAN. A PLAT IS NOT A SITE PLAN. A PLAT IS NOT A SITE PLAN. A PLAT SETS UP THE NUMBER OF LOTS. THIS IS NOT INTENDED FOR YOU TO LOOK AT DRAINAGE, ALTHOUGH THERE MAYBE THOSE DETAILS. THERE MAYBE ENGINEERED DETAILS WHICH ARE NOT WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW, YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS BUT THEY'RE NOT PART OF YOUR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.

>> NOW, THIS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL? >> THIS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL?

>> SO, LET'S GO TO EX-PARTE. COMMISSIONER ROSS, EX-PARTE?

>> ACTUALLY, YES, I HAD AN E-MAIL THAT I SENT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. I ENDED UP SENDING IT TO, UM, THEIR ATTORNEY. SO, THAT'S THE ONLY DISCUSSION THAT I'VE HAD. AND THAT E-MAIL, (INDISCERNIBLE) I'LL FIND IT. HERE IT IS. IT'S ABOUT MIXED

USE. OTHER THAN, NO EX-PARTE. >> VICE MAYOR STURGES?

>> YES. I'VE HAD EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION WITH THE OWNER OF

[03:00:01]

RECORD. AND, NOT WITH THIS ENGINEER OR ATTORNEY ABOUT THIS, BUT, I HAVE HAD COMMUNICATION WITH THE OWNER ABOUT THIS

DEVELOPMENT. >> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

COMMISSIONER? >> YES, I'VE HAD EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT AND STAFF ON THE PLAT.

>>> COMMISSIONER ANTUN? >> I HAVE HAD COMMUNICATIONWISE

STAFF. >> I'VE HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE OWNER, THE OWNER'S AGENT, ABOUT EVERY NEIGHBOR IN PIRATE'S BAY, AND LAKEWOOD, AND STAFF AS WELL. SO, WITH THAT, UM, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT WHAT IS NOT A SITE PLAN BUT IS A PLAT.

>> A PLAT SETS UP THE NUMBER OF LOTS AND, UM, IS, MUCH MORE GENERAL IN TERMS OF GIVING YOU THE NUMBER OF LOTS. HOW ARE YOU

SEPARATING THIS PROPERTY? >> THANK YOU, WOULD ANYONE LIKE

TO SPEAK? >> CAN WE HAVE STAFF TO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION (INDISCERNIBLE)

>> >> SIR, IF YOU WANT TO ASK A QUESTION, YOU WILL HAVE TO COME TO THE PODIUM. WHAT I THINK THAT YOU'RE QUESTION WILL BE IS ABOUT THE PMB RECOMMENDATION, AND THE PAB RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVE. THIS WAS APPROVED BY OUR PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. COULD YOU RESTATE THAT FOR THE RECORD Z I'M ROBERT SEMINAL, 2315, CAPTAIN CREEK DRIVE, FERNANDINA BEACH. MY QUESTION WAS IT'S A PLAT NOT A SITE PLAN.

SO, DID THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THE

CITY UNDER 1.41 ACRE LOT? >> YES.

>> INCLUDING THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS, THE NUMBER OF

SETBACKS AND WHERE THEY ARE? >> YES.

>> BECAUSE, FROM A PLATTING POINT OF VIEW, WHAT I SAW OF THE PLAT, THIS IS, THIS IS BACKWARDS. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T

WANT TO SAY IT IN PUBLIC. >> THANK YOU.

>> YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IT, FIRST OF ALL, STAY OFF SADLER.

FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, I MEAN, THAT'S AN STUPIDITY WAITING TO HAPPEN. IF YOU HAVE TO BACK OUT OF A LOT, ON SADLER ROAD, AT THAT LOCATION, GOOD LUCK. YOU'RE GOING TO CAUSE MORE ACCIDENTS THAN ANYBODY. OR A KID LIVING THERE ON A BICYCLE, WANTING TO GET TO THE BEACH, RIGHT? AND HE COMES OUT, ASSUMING THAT HE'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME OUT, THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS THERE RIGHT NOW. RIGHT? AND THERE ARE NO LIGHTS.

>> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. THE PLANNING BOARD DID SEE THIS APPLICATION AT IT'S MEETING IN SEPTEMBER. AND THEY SAW EVERYTHTHAT THE CITY COMMISSION IS SEEING

HERE. >> IT'S 11 RYAN ROAD DRIVEWAYS

AND ONE DRIVEWAY ON SADLER? >> YES.

>> I REALLY OBJECT. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE RESIDENTS HERE. I WOULD LOVE, WHEN I THINK OF MIXED USE, I THINK OF HOUSING THAT IS PROVIDED FOR BY THE STATE WHICH IS THE LIVE LOCAL LAW. SERIOUSLY, WHERE IS THIS? IT'S ON THE STREET EXCEPT FOR CENTER STREET, SADLER ROAD IS THE MOST COMMERCIALLY DEVELOPED PROPERTY AND IT'S CONTINUING TO BE COMMERCIALLY DEVELOPED.

HOTELS, RESTAURANTS. SUPER MARKETS. YOU NAME IT. BEALS, THAT'S TWO FACILITIES THERE. THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO WORK IN THOSE PLACES NEED TO PLACE TO LIVE. THIS WOULD BE A GREAT PLACE BECAUSE YOU COULD WALK TO WORK. TO EIGHTH STREET OR

FLETCHER. >> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS

UP. >> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP. ALL RIGHT, SO, WITH THAT, THERE'S NO MORE REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON THIS, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

>> CAN WE ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> OF COURSE. WE ALWAYS HAVE STAFF QUESTION TIME.

COMMISSIONER ROSS, GO RIGHT AHEAD.

>> SO, IT SAYS IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THE PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE POLICY WHICH STATES THAT THE CITY WILL PROMOTE CONNECTIVITY THROUGH THE USE OF SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES AND ALTERNATIVE LOW-SPEED, SHARED VEHICLE USE PATHS. CAN WE PUT UP THE PLAT? SO, MY QUESTION IS THAT I WOULD

[03:05:12]

LIKE TO YOU POINT OUT WHERE THE BIKE LANES ARE?

>> THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE PROPOSED LOW-SPEED SHARED USE PATHS FOR THAT AREA AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THERE'S NO INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THAT. THAT IS NOT THE OBLIGATION OF

THE DEVELOPER. >> BUT, YOUR STAFF REPORT SAYS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THAT, SO, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THEY

ARE. >> AND THAT'S UP TO THE CITY TO

PROVIDE FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. >> SO, THE CITY POLICY 2.10.09 REQUIRES SIDEWALKS AND MIXED USE AREAS SHALL BE LINED WITH STREET TREE, SEATING AREAS, PEDESTRIAN-SCALE AWNINGS, AND OTHER PEDESTRIAN ORRIENTATED FEATURES.

>> I WANT YOU TO POINT OUT WHERE THE STREET TREES THAT LINE THE STREET, THE SEATING AREAS, THE PEDESTRIAN SCALED AWNINGS AND THE OTHER PEDESTRIAN FEATURES ON THAT SITE PLAT PLAN?

>> WE'RE NOT ABLE TO MANDATE DESIGN FOR THIS TYPE OF STRUCTURE. IT'S DISALLOWED THROUGH FLORIDA LAW. HOWEVER, THERE ARE STREET TREES THAT ARE PROVIDED FOR THAT HELP TO

SUPPORT SHADE REDUCTION. >> BUT, YOUR STAFF REPORT SAYS

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH ALL THIS? >> IN TERMS OF SEATING AREAS OR NONFORMAL SEATING AREAS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

>> THE LAND REQUIREMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT DUPLEX DWELLINGS MUST HAVE TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT. CAN YOU POSITIVITY OUT

WHERE THE PARKING SPACES ARE? >> THEY'RE NOT GARAGES.

>> DO WE HAVE AN ESTIMATED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME ON RYAN

ROAD THERE? >> NO, SIR.

>> AND WILL ON-STREET PARKING BE ALLOWED ON RYAN ROAD?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE ANY ACCOMMODATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR ON-STREET PARKING AND THERE'S NOT DESIGNED WITHIN THE

PROPOSAL. >> SO, MY QUESTION IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, IS ON-STREET PARKING GOING TO BE ALLOWED ON THAT

ROAD? THAT ENTRANCE ROAD? >> I DON'T KNOW. THAT WOULD BE

UP TO THE CITY TO DECIDE. >> SO, PEOPLE CAN, WITH THEIR TWO-CAR GARAGES PARK ON THAT ROAD THERE? PAUSE, RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO CURRENTLY, WITHOUT THE CITY CHANGING SOMETHING,

PEOPLE COULD PARK ALONG THERE. >> YES. THERE'S NOTHING THAT

DISALLOWS IT. >> SO, WE HAVE 11 DRIVEWAYS AND PEOPLE PARKING ON THE STREET PLUS ALL THE CARS GOING IN AND

OUT, CORRECT? >> YES.

>> OKAY. SO, POLICY 2.0508 STATES THE CITY SHALL ENSURE NEW DEVELOPMENTS ARE DESIGNED AND REQUIRED TO SAFELY PROMOTE INCREASED WALKING, BICYCLING, AND LOW-SPEED. I'M CURIOUS HOW THIS SITE PLAN ACCOMPLISHES THIS.

>> WE HAVE SIDEWALKS WHICH ARE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

>> AND THAT'S IT? >> YES, SIR Z SO, THE SITE PLAN PROPOSED THE REMOVAL OF 20 MATURE, HEALTHY OAK TREES. THE POLICY REQUIRES THAT THE CITY PROTECT AND RETAIN EXISTING TREES REQUIRE REPLACEMENT TREES LOST WHETHER OBJECTED TO RETRIEVE NO NET LOSS OF TREES. HOW DOES THIS SITE PLAN MEET

THAT? >> IT MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ON THE COMP PLAN MODE TO SATISFY THAT REQUIREMENT. TO SATISFY MEETING THAT STANDARD.

>> AGAIN, POLICY, ONE.0203, WHICH YOU SAY THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH, STAFF SAYS REQUIRES THE CITY TO QUOTE PROTECT PRIVACY, AND ACCESS TO LIGHT, AIR, AND OPEN SPACE. HOW DOES THIS SITE

PLAN DO THAT? >> IT'S CONSISTENT IN TERMS OF PROVIDING ABILITY TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY AND UTILIZE IT. IN TERMS OF THE OPEN SPACE WE HAVE BUFFERS WHICH ARE PROVIDED FOR AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND THEN, THE SITE COMPONENTS THAT SERVE TO BE SOME COMMON AREA AND THEN YOU HAVE LAWN

SPACE AS WELL. >> AGAIN, THE SITE PLAN REPORTS THAT THE SITE PLAN IS, THE PLAT PLAN IS CONSISENT WITH CP POLICY 1.0403 WHICH REQUIRES THE CITY TO QUOTE PROMOTE REDEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES WHICH FULFILL MARKET DEMANDS FOR THE CITY'S RESIDENTS AND RETAIL AND AS. HOW IS THAT

[03:10:03]

CONSISTENT WITH THAT? >> WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT OCCURRING ON THIS PROPERTY.

>> SO, IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THAT?

>> NO. NO. IT'S NOT RELEVANT. >> THE STAFF REPORT REPORTS THE SITE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY 1.0709 WHICH DELINEATES THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE CATEGORY USES. SO, AGAIN, HOW IS THIS

CONSISTENT WITH THAT? >> CAN YOU READ THAT AGAIN, I'M

SORRY. >> SURE. THE STAFF'S REPORT STATES THAT THE SITE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH CP POLICY 1.0709 WHICH DELINEATES THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE CATEGORY USES. SO, I'M JUST WONDERING HOW THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT.

>> THIS IS NOT A COMMERCIAL LEFT-HAND USE REQUESTED. AND THE PLAT ITSELF IS QUESTIONING TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTIES INTO 12

LOTS. >> SO, IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH

THAT? >> IT'S NOT RELEVANT, I THINK BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE LAND USE ZONING AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF REPORT ALL AS A SINGLE STAFF REPORT. WE'VE GOT SOME INTERMIX OF POLICY REFERENCES HERE.

>> THE STAFF REPORT STATES THAT THE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH LDC SECTIONS 2.01.02, WHICH PROVIDES GENERAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT CAN'T BE KNS WITH THAT, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THAT'S IT, THANKS.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO, THAT WAS. OKAY. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.

ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? BECAUSE, AGAIN, THIS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO STEP AWAY FROM IT.

BUT, BEFORE WE DO. THIS IS A RESOLUTION, IT ONLY REQUIRES ONE

READING. >> SO, DO I HEAR A MOTION.

>> I HEAR A MOTION AND A SECOND, NOW, FURTHER DISCUSSION.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> COMMISSIONER ROSS, GO AHEAD.

>> SO, I BELIEVE THE SITE PLAN SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THERE'S NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD ON THESE POLICIES THAT SAYS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH. THE HOUR'S LATE.

>> I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR THAT THIS IS A SITE PLAN.

>> THIS IS NOT A SITE PLAN. >> THIS IS NOT A SITE PLAN.

>> IT IS A PLAT PLAN. >> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

THE PLAT. BUT, IT DOES SAY IN THE STAFF REPORT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH A NUMBER OF THINGS WHICH IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH, SO, THEREFORE, I THINK IT SHOULD BE DENIED.

>> SO, I THINK THAT WE GOT LOST IN THE DETAILS DURING THIS WHOLE FOUR-ITEM PROCESS. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT DETAILS THERE.

LET'S TAKE A STEP BACK AND LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE TO REMIND EVERYBODY WHERE WE WERE AND WHERE WE ARE. WHERE WE WERE, AND THIS IS JUST NO MORE THAN A FEW MONTHS AGO, I WAS WALKING THROUGH AND AGAIN, I JUST RECENTLY MOVED AWAY FROM THE LAKEWOOD, PIRATE'S BAY NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEN I WALKED THROUGH, I SAW EVERY NEIGHBOR HAVE A SIGN THAT SAID STOP THE RV PARKS. I SAW THE COMMUNITY CAME TOGETHER AND THEY DID NOT WANT AN RV PARK. AND, YEAH, SURE, WE CAN HASH THIS OUT ALL NIGHT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DECIDED TO PULL BACK ON SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY SO DESPERATELY DID NOT WANT IN NAIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND DECIDED TO GO FORWARD WITH SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS MORE AMENABLE TO OUR COMMUNITY. AND THAT IS SOMETHING GRACIOUS IN OUR APPLICANT IS DOING. SO, I APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THEM TO MAKE THAT CHANGE. SO, SURE, WE CAN ASK ALL DAY, THIS IS THE APPLICANT DOING SOMETHING TO MAKE IT BETTER FOR THE NEIGHBORS. SO, I DO APPRECIATE A COMPROMISE. AND I APPRECIATE WHAT THEY'RE DOING. FOR THAT REASON, I WANT TO SAY, THANKS FOR EVERYBODY FOR WORKING ON THIS. WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD

AND CALL THE VOTE -- OH, WAIT. >> CALL THE VOTE.