Feb 14, 2024 Planning Advisory Board

[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]

[00:00:57]

STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]

DOES EVERYONE HAVE A COPY OF THE MINUTES? AND I'M OPEN FOR ANY COMMENTS.

CORRECTIONS? I HAVE ONE CORRECTION.

THIS IS, UNDER THIS IS ACTUALLY AFTER 5.2, THE PAB CASE 2023-0052 FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR BLOCK 169 LOTS 123132 INDIGO STREET.

ALL THAT IS FINE.

THE ACTION THAT'S TAKEN, WAS FINE.

THE VOTE, IT WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

AND THEN, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, AND MAYBE WE JUST NEED TO, I GUESS, FOLLOW UP THAT THE SECOND MOTION, WHICH WAS, TO, I GUESS, TO FORWARD ON TO THIS TO THE CITY COMMISSION, WAS IT MR. GILLETTE YOU WERE WANTING TO PASS ON TO THE CITY COMMISSION ABOUT, DONATING OR DEDICATING THIS PROPERTY TO, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY? DO WE KNOW THAT THAT GOT DONE OR? I DO NOT KNOW IF IT GOT DONE? I GOT THE SAME QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

OKAY, I HAVEN'T SEEN.

DO WE NEED TO, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO DO TO SORT OF EMPHASIZE THAT OR TO TAKE ACTION? BECAUSE WE DID VOTE UNANIMOUSLY TO, MAKE THAT REQUEST.

TAMMY WHAT THAT WAS, THAT WAS WHERE NICK MADE A MOTION TO ACTUALLY TRANSFER THAT PROPERTY.

RIGHT. DOWN THERE. AND THAT WAS TO BE THE ONE WHERE RIGHT JUST ON THE NORTH SIDE OF, AMERICA YOUTH.

YES. AND WE PROBABLY NEED TO JUST PUT THAT ONTO A CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP, OKAY.

SO THAT THEY CAN DISCUSS IT PUBLICLY.

YES. OKAY. YEAH.

AND THE MINUTES DIDN'T REFLECT.

WE ALSO ASKED THE AUDIENCE, THE PARTICIPANTS FROM THAT FACILITY IF THEY WANTED IT BECAUSE THEY MAINTAIN IT, AND THEY SAID THEY DID.

YEAH. SO THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

YES. SO WE DON'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IT'S IN THE EVERYTHING'S [INAUDIBLE] RECORDED HERE AND IT WAS VOTED ON.

THE PAB IS. RIGHT.

OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT WAS ALL I HAD.

ALL RIGHT. DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES.

MOVE TO APPROVE? MOVE TO APPROVE BY, MR. GILLETTE. DO I HEAR A SECOND? I WILL SECOND. MR. STEVENSON.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? LIKE SIGN. HEARING NONE.

THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER THE 8TH, 2023 ARE APPROVED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13TH, 2023, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES.

I'M OPEN FOR ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD.

I HAVE SOME. WOULD YOU LIKE TO START? WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND START? OKAY, I'LL DO IT.

THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT I HAD MADE IN REFERENCE TO BUFFERS.

I THINK THERE THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A REFERENCE TO IT, BUT IT SAYS MEMBERS

[00:05:02]

WHERE IS THAT? WHAT LINE IS IT? IT'S, ACTUALLY AFTER THE SECOND MOTION.

HOLD ON, I CAN I THINK I CAN TELL YOU WHAT IT IS.

IT'S RIGHT BEFORE THE ROLL CALL.

WELL, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THERE WAS ALSO A REFERENCE TO BUFFERS.

BUT ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT I HAD MADE WAS.

YEAH. OKAY.

THE COMMENT I HAD MADE WAS IF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXISTED TODAY AND THE COMMERCIAL ADJACENT TO THIS WERE TO COME IN, THEN A BUFFER WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE COMMERCIAL BASED ON UNCOMPLIMENTARY LAND USES.

SO MY THOUGHT WAS, IF WE'RE GOING TO INTRODUCE SINGLE FAMILY NEXT TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL, WE'RE INTRODUCING A NON-CONFORMING OR WE'RE INTRODUCING UNCOMPLIMENTARY USES. THAT WAS THE INTENT OF WHAT MY STATEMENT WAS, BUT IT DIDN'T REALLY COME ACROSS THAT WAY.

HOW WOULD YOU WANT TO HAVE IT READ? KIND OF LIKE THAT? I MEAN, I THINK WE OUGHT TO REITERATE MORE VERBATIM VERSUS WHAT WE FOR WHAT WE SAY VERSUS THE CLIFFS NOTES VERSION.

WELL, I THINK THAT, OF COURSE, IT IS VIDEOED.

AND SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO GET THE EXACT WORD FOR WORD, THEY COULD ALWAYS GO TO THE VIDEO.

THAT IS A RESOURCE THAT, PEOPLE WHO TAKE MINUTES DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE.

BUT, IT'S A GOOD POINT.

AND IF YOU COULD SUMMARIZE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

WELL, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THAT MY THOUGHT WAS THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY USE WAS UNCOMPLIMENTARY TO THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BEHIND IT.

OKAY. SO CAN WE WORK WITH THAT? SURE. GREAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WHAT ELSE DID YOU HAVE? OH, IT SAYS IT WAS UNANIMOUS ON THE VOTING PASSAGE OF THE MOTION.

IT SAYS ALL, ALL AYES BUT I VOTED NAY.

AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE AS WELL.

DO YOU HAVE THAT? YOU HAVE THAT? WHICH VOTE? THE FIRST OR THE SECOND? BOTH. YEAH, BOTH OF THEM WERE NAYS FROM MISTER GILLETTE.

I ONLY SHOW ONE SET OF VOTES HERE.

IN THE SECOND ONE, WE VOTED TO DENY THE APPLICATION FIRST, AND THEN WE MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND WHAT ZONING.

I SEE THAT THE, AYES.

IT'S RIGHT HERE. YEAH. OKAY. THAT WAS.

THAT WAS TO DENY IT.

OKAY. AND SO BUT THE SECOND ONE DEFINITELY SHOWS A NAY FOR.

[CORRECT]. RIGHT [INAUDIBLE]. YEAH.

IT DOES. RIGHT. OKAY.

AND I WENT BACK TO THE VIDEO THIS MORNING JUST TO REFRESH MY MEMORY, MAKE SURE I WAS RIGHT ABOUT THAT.

AND, NICK DID VOTE TO THE NAY SO WE CAN MAKE A CORRECTION ON THAT.

OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. WHILE WE'RE NICK WHILE TALKING, IF YOU GO DOWN THERE JUST BELOW THAT, SENTENCE WHERE YOU HAD THE CONCERN, CONCERNING THE COMMERCIAL ZONING UNDER BOARD BUSINESS ON THE VERY UNDER SIX DECIMAL ONE.

THAT SECOND SENTENCE, IT SAYS MEMBER GILLETTE AND MEMBER STEVENSON PROVIDED EXAMPLES OF SUCH DEVELOPMENT THAT HELD SMALLER.

I DON'T EVER REMEMBER DOING ANY EXAMPLES ON IT, DID WE? NO. I THINK YOU HAD MADE A COMMENT THAT THERE WAS A PROVISION IN THE CODE TODAY FOR UNDER TWO ACRES IF IT WAS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I THINK.

AND YOU SAID THE TWO ACRES WAS ALREADY IN THE CODE IN THAT MANNER, BUT YOU DIDN'T GIVE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.

I THINK WE OUGHT TO STRIKE THAT SENTENCE.

OKAY. THERE WAS A REFERENCE THAT WAS MADE THAT A LESSER ACREAGE THAN FIVE ACRES IS ALREADY IN THE CODE.

I DO REMEMBER THAT BY YOU.

WHICH WAS RIGHT. IT'S CORRECT.

I THINK IT WAS TWO. IS THAT IS THAT WHAT IT IS, KELLY IN THE CODE, IS IT TWO FOR A PUD IF IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING? TWO. AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK YOU WERE REFERENCING.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER.

BUT IT'S YOUR. YEAH. NO, NO, I JUST DON'T REMEMBER ACTUALLY ANY MAYBE PROVIDING EXAMPLES.

NO EXAMPLES. NO.

SO THAT'S REALLY THE PROBLEM.

SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO STRIKE THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND JUST STRIKING IT.

IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH EVERYBODY'S FOLLOWING THAT OKAY.

BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE PUDS AT SOME POINT.

SO SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH UNDER 6.1.

THE LAST SENTENCE MEMBERS GILLETTE AND MEMBERS STEVENSON PROVIDED EXAMPLES AND NO ONE CAN RECOLLECT PROVIDING EXAMPLES.

SO CAN WE STRIKE THAT SENTENCE.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

NOW. I GOT NICK YOU ALL YOU GOT EVERYTHING COVERED.

I MEAN, THE REST IS REALLY JUST SUMMARY.

[00:10:02]

OKAY. THERE WERE TWO ACTIONS TAKEN.

AND LET ME GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL REQUEST FROM THE DEVELOPER FOR THIS PARTICULAR, DOCUMENT.

2023-0043 REQUESTED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE FLUME AND RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM ON ZONING.

THAT WAS A REQUEST, AND THEY WANTED TO ANNEX.

NOW, THE STAFF RECOMMENDED CAME BACK WITH A FLUME OF LDR.

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, EXCUSE ME.

AND R-1 ZONING.

SO WE HAD TWO OPTIONS, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

THE FIRST OPTION WAS VOTED DOWN BY 6 TO 1.

OKAY. THE SECOND OPTION, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PROPOSED.

BUT IT'S VERY IT'S NOT CLEARLY IDENTIFIED IN THE DOCUMENT THAT THERE WERE ACTUALLY TWO VOTES TAKEN BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE I VOTED AGAINST IT AND TURNED AROUND AND VOTED FOR IT . IN THE ORIGINAL MINUTES.

YES, IT WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING.

I THINK WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS AFTER THE SENTENCE IT SAYS PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.

OKAY, THERE NEEDS TO BE AN INSERTION OF TWO ELEMENTS.

FIRST, THERE WAS AN INITIAL VOTE BASED ON THE DEVELOPERS REQUESTED ACTION AND THAT WAS VOTED DOWN.

AND WE JUST NEED TO CORRECT THE FACT THAT, OKAY, IT WAS A 6 TO 1 VOTE, BUT IT WAS VOTED DOWN.

OKAY. SUBSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE CITY STAFF, AND THE PAB HAD A DISCUSSION AND SAID, YEAH, THAT LOOKS WE'RE OKAY WITH IT.

SO THEN MR. BENNETT TURNED AROUND, MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CITY RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WOULD BE THE R-1.

WE THEN VOTED ON THAT ONE AND THAT WAS APPROVED 6 TO 1.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

SO YOU WOULD LIKE REALLY SOME LITTLE EXPLANATION.

THERE'S GOT TO BE TWO. IT'S TWO VOTES.

THERE'S TWO VOTES. EXPLANATION OF WHAT THOSE TWO VOTES WERE.

YES. SO YOU THINK BASED ON ON WHAT MR. STEVENSON HAS SAID.

YOU COULD SO WE BASICALLY I WOULD CALL IT AN INITIAL VOTE, WHICH WAS ON THE DEVELOPER'S REQUEST.

THEN THE SECOND VOTE WAS BASED UPON THE ALTERNATIVE, FLUM AND ZONING THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY CITY STAFF.

I THINK THAT THAT WOULD TAKE IT BECAUSE IT IS DOCUMENTED PREVIOUSLY IN THE QUESTION.

LET ME SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD CLEAR IT UP, BECAUSE WHEN I GO BACK TO UNDER SECTION 4.1 WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE, THE BASICALLY DOCUMENT, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR RIGHT THERE.

OKAY. THE NEXT THING IS, OKAY.

WE DOUBLE CHECKED THE EXAMPLE.

THE OTHER ITEM I JUST WANT TO BRING UP WAS ON THE BOTTOM OF SEE, THIS IS ON PAGE EIGHT.

IT'S THE SAME UNDER BOARD BUSINESS.

YOU HAD SUGGESTED, SOME CHANGES IN THE WAY WE DO THE VOTING WHEN WE HAVE ANNEXATION.

YES. AND MY QUESTION THERE IS, IS, HAVE WE GOT AN ACTION PLAN OR IS THAT ON THE TABLE TO BE CONSIDERED AT A FUTURE DATE? THAT IS MY QUESTION AS WELL.

AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO ASK STAFF IF THEY HAVE ANY ANNEXATIONS COMING UP.

I KNOW AT A CERTAIN POINT WITH THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS, THERE'S A CUT OFF POINT FOR ALL ANNEXATIONS.

COULD YOU MAYBE, ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT? KELLY. SO AT THIS TIME, THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE ANY PENDING ANNEXATIONS AT ALL.

AND I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL SEE ANY COME IN PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS BEING FINALIZED.

AND THE REASON THAT IS, IS AFTER APRIL, EFFECTIVELY THE FIRST MEETING OF APRIL THIS YEAR, THE CITY CAN'T PROCESS THROUGH AND COMPLETE ANY ADDITIONAL ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BECAUSE OF AN AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO RUN OUR ELECTION PROCESS, THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME FRAME, THEY'RE ABLE TO VALIDATE THE CITY BOUNDARIES AND THE PROPERTIES WITHIN IT THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR VOTERS TO LIVE WITHIN THEM.

AND SO THEY'VE, BOUND US TO A CERTAIN TIME FRAME.

AND SO WE REALLY IF WE DO PROCESS ANNEXATIONS DURING THAT TIME FRAME, THEY CANNOT BE EFFECTIVE UNTIL THE ELECTION ROLLS ARE CERTIFIED.

SO THAT WOULD PUT THE EFFECTIVE DATES OUT TO A DECEMBER TIME FRAME.

[00:15:03]

SO I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT WE'LL HAVE ANY UP UNTIL THAT POINT, BUT IS SEPARATING THEM SO THAT IT FOLLOWS THE SAME FORMAT AS WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION , AS THE SAME WAY THAT THEY LOOK AT IT.

DOES THAT WORK IN YOUR DEPARTMENT? THERE WILL STILL BE FOR PURPOSES OF BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE DETAILED ANALYSIS, YOU'LL STILL SEE A SINGLE STAFF REPORT THAT WILL GO WITH ALL THREE ITEMS THAT CONSOLIDATES THEM, BUT YOU CAN HAVE THEM AS THREE SEPARATE ITEMS THE ANNEXATION, THE ASSIGNMENT OF LAND USE, AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF ZONING.

WE CAN EVEN HAVE DRAFTED THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU WOULD SEE ONCE IT DOES GO TO COMMISSION WITH HIGHLIGHTED AREAS THAT JUST DON'T HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED.

I THINK YOU KIND OF WAVED A FLAG AND GOT MY ATTENTION, BECAUSE I THINK THAT GETS US MORE IN SYNC WITH WAY THE COMMISSION ACTUALLY GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS OF TAKING A VOTE. AND THE CLOSER WE ARE ON THAT ONE, THE MORE I THINK MORE INCLINED TO MAKE SURE WE'VE DONE OUR JOB.

SURE. IN TERMS OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

OKAY. OKAY, GOOD.

THAT WAS ALL RIGHT AS WELL.

OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THAT WAS IT. OH, STEVENSON, JOG MY MEMORY ON SOMETHING THAT, I KNOW THERE WAS DISCUSSION, WHICH WAS ENLIGHTENING TO ME, AND I BELIEVE MISS BACH WAS PART OF IT BECAUSE I HAD NEVER SEEN WHERE WE WOULD MAKE A MOTION ON A ZONING THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT REQUEST.

USUALLY YOU EITHER VOTE THEM IN OR VOTE THEM UP OR VOTE THEM DOWN.

AND SHE PROVIDED INSIGHT, WHICH NONE OF THAT WAS IN THE MINUTES.

BECAUSE THAT'S THE OTHER PIECE THAT'S REALLY MISSING FROM THAT.

YEAH. IT'S JUST I THOUGHT IT WAS NOTEWORTHY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BASICALLY PICKING THE ZONING FOR AN APPLICANT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PICK.

WELL BUT I THINK TO THAT AND I THINK THIS IS WHERE, MISS BACH WAS COMING FROM, IS THAT IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE UNDER SECTION 11.0303, THE PROCEDURES FOR ACTION BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, THE SECTION C TALKS ABOUT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD SHALL RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED.

APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OR DENIED.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE SAYING IT'S EITHER AN UP OR DOWN.

WELL, THEY'VE, IN THEIR WISDOM, HAVE ADDED THIS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S A CONDITION.

I'M JUST SAYING WHEN IN THE MINUTES.

BUT AND I THINK THAT'S A VALID POINT.

YEAH. I THINK IF WE COULD MAKE SOME REFERENCE TO THAT, THAT HELPS TO SORT OF EXPLAIN THAT.

SURE. BECAUSE IN THIS CASE, THE PAB JUST TOOK THE RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY STAFF AND SAID, YEAH, THAT'S OKAY.

WE AGREE WITH THAT ONE.

YEAH. SO SO, YOU CAN HELP US WITH THAT TOO.

THAT'S GREAT. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, WE'VE HAD GOOD DISCUSSION ALREADY.

DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 13TH MINUTES? I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 13TH, 2023 MINUTES, AS REVISED BY THE DISCUSSION ON BY THE BOARD ON THE 14TH OF FEBRUARY, 2024.

OKAY. DO I HEAR A SECOND, SECOND.

SECOND FROM MR. DOSTER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

ALL RIGHT. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY OLD BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD.

IS THERE ANY OTHER OLD BUSINESS THAT NEEDS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD AT THIS TIME? ANYBODY KNOW? I HAVE JUST A QUESTION.

I'M NOT SURE. IF WE WERE, WE KIND OF LEFT LOOKING AT THE PUD ALTERNATIVES OR GOING TO SUB FIVE ACRES, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE LEFT IT.

I WENT BACK TO MY NOTES AND I'M JUST SITTING HERE SAYING, I THOUGHT WE KIND OF THOUGHT WE WOULD POKE AT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE, EITHER IN A WORKSHOP OR AS PART OF ONE OF OUR REGULAR MEETINGS. SO MY RECOLLECTION WAS STAFF IS GOING TO BRING BACK SOME PROPERTIES THAT, SIZES THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO FUTURE PROJECTS OR WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST AND WHAT MAY BE COMING IN THE FUTURE.

I THINK WE BOUNDED IT WITH TWO ACRES WHEN WE.

OKAY. YEAH.

SO THAT ONE WOULD BE NOTHING MORE THAN I JUST THINK WE NEED TO GET IT ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE IT'S A VALID POINT, PARTICULARLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CITY IS IN RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF LAND AVAILABILITY.

SO I'M SURE THAT WILL SHOW UP IN A FUTURE, AGENDA ITEM.

YOU CAN HELP US WITH THAT.

OKAY. BE GREAT.

[5.1 PAB 2024-0001 - LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS REDEVELOPMENT OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF RECORD]

[00:20:03]

KELLY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US IN THAT STAFF REPORT? YES. AND BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE THAT MR. BENNETT IS ON HIS WAY. SO HE WILL BE JOINING US SHORTLY.

OKAY, GOOD. THAT'S GOOD NEWS.

THANK YOU. YES. AND SO IF WE NEED TO REPEAT FOR PURPOSES [INAUDIBLE], I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT TOO.

JUST SO THAT EVERYBODY'S ON THE DISCUSSION.

OKAY. SO WE'LL GET STARTED THIS EVENING.

THE BOARD IS. PUT YOUR MICROPHONE A LITTLE.

THIS EVENING THE BOARD IS BEING ASKED TO TAKE ACTION ON SOME LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT HAD BEEN COMMISSIONED, DIRECTED, GOING BACK REALLY TO THE SEPTEMBER TIME FRAME WHEN WE SAW SOME FORMAL DISCUSSIONS.

THIS IS ALL OUTLINED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT ITSELF.

SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD AMONG THE BOARD, SPECIAL WORKSHOPS THAT WERE CONDUCTED, AND THEN EVEN A SPECIAL MEETING BETWEEN THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION TO THINK THROUGH THE CHANGES TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 1.03.04 AND 1.03.04.

AND THIS REALLY RELATES TO, RESTORATION OF SUBSTANDARD, LOTS OF RECORD THINKING ABOUT WHAT COMBINES LOTS TOGETHER AND WHAT, ALLOWANCES YOU WOULD, GIVE, ALLOW FOR RESTORATION OF THOSE LOTS.

SO WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY AND I'LL GO THROUGH THE ITEMS WITH YOU, JUST VERY BRIEFLY ARE TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.

THOSE WERE DEFINITIONS THAT THE CITY COMMISSION HAD REQUESTED, AS WELL AS THE PLANNING BOARD, THROUGH OUR DISCUSSIONS TOGETHER IN THE FALL, CLARIFYING THE EXISTING REGULATIONS IN SECTIONS 1.03.04 AND 1.03.05 SPECIFYING WHICH IMPROVEMENTS SERVE TO COMBINE LOTS OF RECORD ALLOWING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LOT WIDTHS, AT 50FT OR GREATER WHEN COMBINING SUBSTANDARD LOTS AND CONTINUING TO REQUIRE VARIANCES WHEN RESTORING SUBSTANDARD LOTS.

THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, AS HAS BEEN ADVERTISED, ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTION TO UTILIZE WHAT WE'VE CALLED AND WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED HERE AS THE AYSCUE PROPOSAL.

AND I'LL GO THROUGH THAT AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST TOO.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT I REALLY WANT TO HIGHLIGHT AND REALLY BE AWARE OF AS WE CONTINUE WITH THE PRESENTATION.

THESE SECTIONS OF CODE APPLY ONLY TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

OUR MIXED USE DISTRICTS IT DOESN'T APPLY THERE.

IT DOESN'T APPLY TO NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ONLY TO OUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND THE VACANT OR UNIMPROVED LOTS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR SIZE ARE HONORED FOR ONE BUILDING SITE.

AND THAT'S REFERENCED AS 1.03.03 IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

AND THERE IS A CORRESPONDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY THAT DIRECTS THAT.

THE ACTION THAT WAS DIRECTED OF US WAS TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT IF THE RESULTING LOT COMBINATION WOULD BE 50FT OR GREATER, TO ALLOW FOR ACCESSORY IMPROVEMENTS, NOT TO COMBINE THOSE LOTS TOGETHER TO REQUIRE A VARIANCE WHEN RESTORING LOTS LESS THAN 50FT, TO CLARIFY THE APPLICABILITY AND TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS.

SO THAT IS WHAT THESE CHANGES ARE HIGHLIGHTING OR ARE SERVING TO ACCOMPLISH.

I KNOW THIS IS DIFFICULT TO SEE, BUT THIS WAS THE GRAPH THAT REALLY OUTLINED OUR CURRENT PROCESS AND THE PROPOSED PROCESS ALL IN ONE GRAPH. SO THAT YOU COULD REALLY SEE HOW THAT WOULD WORK OUT.

AND I CAN PULL THAT UP ON SCREEN IF WE WANT TO GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THAT.

BUT I KNOW THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH, SO I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND A TON OF TIME THERE.

THE NEW DEFINITIONS INCLUDE ADDING BUILDING SITE TERMS FOR PARCEL PLATTED LOT OF RECORD, PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND SUBSTANDARD LOT.

THEN, STRIKING THE EXISTING SECTIONS 1.03.04 AND 1.03.05 AND COMBINING THEM INTO A SINGLE SECTION TITLED REDEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANDARD LOTS WITH THE CORRESPONDING LANGUAGE THAT DOES THOSE THINGS I'VE JUST HIGHLIGHTED.

AND WE CAN GET INTO THAT LANGUAGE AS WELL AS WE DISCUSS.

SO TO PROVIDE SOME EXAMPLES OF THIS, AND I KNOW WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, I PROVIDED OUR CURRENT PROCESS AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED PROCESS AND WHAT WE WERE REALLY WORKING TOWARDS IN THE DRAFTED AMENDMENTS, I INDICATED THAT I WOULD GIVE YOU EXAMPLES OR, WAYS THAT THIS WOULD NOW WORK.

SO I HAVE TEN EXAMPLES FOR YOU, TEN TOTAL EXAMPLES.

SO BEAR WITH ME.

SOME OF THEM MIGHT BE REPETITIVE, BUT I TRY TO FIND EXAMPLES OF UNIQUE SITUATIONS THAT WEREN'T THE SAME.

ALL RIGHT, THE PROPERTY HERE LOCATED ON SOUTH FLETCHER.

[00:25:01]

IT HAS TWO TOTAL LOTS OF RECORD ORIGINALLY PLATTED, AND HAS AT ONE POINT HAD A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE THAT EXTENDED ACROSS BOTH OF THEM.

TODAY, UNDER CURRENT REGULATIONS, IN ORDER FOR THEM TO RESTORE THE TWO, LOTS OF RECORD OF VARIANCES REQUIRED, EVEN THOUGH IT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR 75 FOOT LOT WIDTHS AND AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RESTRICTION ON HAVING LOTS ALONG SOUTH FLETCHER NOT EQUALING GREATER THAN 100FT.

SO THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD ALLOW FOR THESE TO BE RESTORED BECAUSE THEY ARE GREATER THAN 100FT IN WIDTH.

AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY ALSO COMPLY WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT AND WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE TOO.

THAT'S EXAMPLE ONE.

SO IF IN THAT EXAMPLE.

SO IF THAT BUILDING WAS TORN DOWN AND THEY WANTED TO RESTORE THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD.

AND YOU SAID EACH ONE OF THEM IS 50FT.

75. EACH ONE OF THEM IS 75, 75 FOOT LOTS AND WIDTH.

OKAY. SO THEY COULD MAKE A 50.

I MEAN, THEY THEY COULD DO A TWO 75 FOOT LOTS.

ONLY DO TWO 75 FOOT LOTS BECAUSE ONE THAT'S RESTORING THE UNDERLYING LOT AND TWO, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT THERE OF R-1, WHICH REQUIRES A 75 FOOT LOT MINIMUM.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. WE CAN ALWAYS GO BACK TO THESE.

WE WANT TO TALK THROUGH THEM.

ALL RIGHT. SO ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A PROPERTY LOCATED OFF OF NORTH 14TH STREET AND EXTENDING TO NORTH 13TH STREET.

SO A LONG LOT THAT HAS TWO LOTS OF RECORD LABELED A AND B IN THIS SITUATION, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED ON LOT B AND A DECK IMPROVEMENT ENCROACHED INTO THAT REAR LOT A.

THE DECK IS THE ONLY PORTION OF THAT STRUCTURE THAT HAD AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THAT LOT.

UNDER THE PROPOSED CHANGE, THE DECK WOULD NO LONGER SERVE AS A IMPROVEMENT THAT UNIFIED THOSE TWO LOTS AND WOULD ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR ON LOT A. MAKES SENSE.

UNDER THE CURRENT THEY WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO UTILIZE LOT A.

AND KELLY THROUGH THE CHAIR IS THAT 86 FOOT OF FRONTAGE.

THAT'S CORRECT. SO THEY MEET THE ZONING THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT FOR? THEY. YES.

THAT'S A GREAT POINT. SO IN THIS SCENARIO, THEY POTENTIALLY HAVE SUFFICIENT WIDTH TO MEET THE ZONING OF R-1.

IN THIS CASE, THEY ALSO HAVE SUFFICIENT DEPTH TO GIVE ADEQUATE LAND AREA TO MEET THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS FOR R-1 THERE.

BUT THEY WOULD NEED TO DO A MINOR SUBDIVISION IN AN UNEVEN WAY.

AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE IT REVIEWED THROUGH SCHOOL CONCURRENCY FIRST FOR THIS MINOR SUBDIVISION TO OCCUR, AND THEN COULD DO THE MINOR SUBDIVISION.

BUT BECAUSE THEY CURRENTLY MEET ALL OF THE ALLOWABLE ZONING PARAMETERS, THEY COULD DO THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO RESTORING THOSE LOTS TODAY. ALL RIGHT.

EXAMPLE THREE. THIS ONE'S A LITTLE MORE TRICKY, AND IT INVOLVES SUBSTANDARD LOTS 25FT OR, LESS OR 25FT.

SO IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT COMBINES ORIGINAL LOTS IDENTIFIED AS 27 THROUGH 31.

ALL OF THIS, AND PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT I EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE, I DO NOT HAVE SURVEYS, SO I'M APPROXIMATING WHERE THE ACTUAL STRUCTURES EXIST BASED ON AN AERIAL.

WE WOULD NEED SURVEYS TO VERIFY ALL OF THIS.

SO I'M APPROXIMATING THAT LOTS 27 THROUGH 31 ARE COMBINED LOTS 23 THROUGH 26.

LOTS ONE THROUGH THREE AND LOTS 32 THROUGH 34 REMAIN OPEN AND AVAILABLE.

THEY ARE NOT ENCUMBERED BY THE CURRENT SITE DEVELOPMENT.

IN ORDER TO RESTORE LOTS 27 THROUGH 31, A VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED IF THE RESULTING LOT COMBINATION IS LESS THAN 50FT.

THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT HERE, BECAUSE IF THE RESULTING LOT COMBINATION WAS A 75 FOOT LOT AND A 50 FOOT LOT, IT WOULD BE ALLOWED

[00:30:04]

IN THIS CASE, THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND ANY DEMOLITION OF A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DOES REQUIRE REVIEW FROM OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO DEMOLITION.

I HAVE A QUESTION, MADAM CHAIR.

GO AHEAD. SO LOTS 32 THROUGH 34 WOULD EQUATE TO 75FT.

PLUS LOT ONE IS THERE.

OKAY. SO THERE'S.

OKAY, SO AND SO UNDER THE PROPOSAL THAT WOULD MAKE TWO BUILDABLE LOTS.

UNDER THE PROPOSAL, THOSE REMAIN OPEN AND AVAILABLE AS 4 OR 2? AS FOUR. FOUR 25 FOOTERS.

NOW YOU COULD ALSO BUILD ON THEM IN 50 FOOT LOT WIDTHS BECAUSE THAT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT.

TWO LOTS. YES.

YOU COULD. YOU COULD BUILD ON THEM TODAY AS FOUR OR AS TWO.

IN THAT CASE, WOULD YOU? YOU WOULD JUST BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING ON THEM.

YOU JUST GO DOWN TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND POP THEM OFF? YES. NO NOTICE.

THERE'S NO PUBLIC NOTICE OR ANYTHING.

THERE'S NO NOTICE TODAY OF THAT HAPPENING.

BUT UNDER THE PROPOSED RULE, DO THEY HAVE THE SAME? IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME.

YES. ALL OF THOSE OPEN LAND AREAS REMAIN EXACTLY THE SAME.

THEY ARE TREATED IN THE SAME WAY THEY ARE TREATED TODAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

OKAY. EXAMPLE FOUR.

IN THIS EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME SITE THAT COMBINES ORIGINAL LOTS TEN AND 11 AND FIVE APPROXIMATELY.

I THINK THAT ONE'S BOUND BY THIS.

LOTS NINE AND FOUR ARE OPEN AND AVAILABLE TODAY.

LOT EIGHT UNDER THE PROPOSAL WOULD BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE IT'S A DETACHED ACCESSORY, GARAGE OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

AND THEN FOUR THE LOTS THAT ARE COMBINED, TEN, 11 AND FIVE, NO VARIANCES WOULD BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THEY ARE EXISTING 50 FOOT LOT WIDTHS.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS IN THIS CASE A STRUCTURE THAT IS UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

AND SO IN ORDER FOR THAT STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED IT WOULD REQUIRE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL.

ALL RIGHT. EXAMPLE FIVE.

IN THIS CASE, THIS IS A PROPERTY OFF OF 13TH STREET, SOUTH 13TH STREET.

AND WE HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT COMBINES, PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LOTS AT 43FT WIDE, THAT ARE NOW 80 FOOT, 86FT IN WIDTH.

IN THIS CASE, IN ORDER FOR, IF, LET'S SAY, DEMOLITION OCCURRED AND THEY WANTED TO DEVELOP ON THE TWO 43 FOOT LOTS, A VARIANCE WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE RESULTING LOT WIDTHS ARE LESS THAN 50FT.

EXAMPLE SIX IS A PROPERTY OFF OF AMELIA DRIVE AND AMELIA CIRCLE, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT COMBINES BOTH LOTS 10 AND 11.

IF THE HOME WERE TO BE DEMOLISHED AND IN THIS CASE, IT REALLY DOES SEEM TO STRADDLE BETWEEN THOSE TWO LOTS TEN AND 11.

NO VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE RESULTING RESTORATION OF LOTS IS GREATER THAN THE 50 FOOT LOT WIDTH.

IT'S ALSO GREATER THAN THE REQUIRED ZONING, OF 75FT.

EACH OF THEM WOULD HAVE 81FT IN FRONTAGE.

SO NO THAT WOULD BE TO.

AND SO THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD TWO.

THOSE WOULD BE TWO PARCELS THAT COULD BE BUILT ON TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN AN R-1.

YES. OKAY.

AND SO NO NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC IS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROPOSED RULES.

CORRECT. OKAY, NOW WE GET INTO A COUPLE OF THE MORE TRICKY ONES.

EXAMPLE SEVEN HIGHLIGHTS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT HAS COMBINED LOTS IDENTIFIED AS C AND D.

EACH OF THEM ARE 51FT IN WIDTH.

LOT E IS CURRENTLY COMBINED AS IT HAS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT EXTENDS ONTO IT, AND IT'S REALLY A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

AND THEN AN EAVE OVERHANG OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IS THERE.

[00:35:01]

LOT F IS VACANT AND OPEN AT 43FT WIDE TODAY.

IT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED TO BE DEVELOPED ON WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL AS WELL AS CURRENTLY.

SO IN THIS CASE, IF YOU WERE TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE ACROSS C AND D, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO RESTORE THOSE TWO LOTS BECAUSE THEIR RESULTING LOTS ARE BOTH IN EXCESS OF 50FT, AND LOT F BECOMES AVAILABLE BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

BUT IT'S 43FT.

BUT IN UNDER THE PROPOSAL IT NEVER SERVED TO COMBINE THEM.

SO IT'S AS THOUGH IT WAS ALWAYS FREE AND CLEAR.

IT'S LIKE IN THIS UNDER THE PROPOSAL, IT ACTS LIKE IT WAS LOT F, SO IT WOULD BE A NONCONFORMING LOT.

NO, IT WOULD BE A NONCONFORMING LOT.

JUST IN THE SAME WAY AS LOT F IS A NONCONFORMING LOT.

YOU CAN BUILD ON A NONCONFORMING LOT.

YES. AND AGAIN, THIS REQUIRES NO NOTICE.

CORRECT. UNDER THE PROPOSAL.

ALL RIGHT, LOT EIGHT.

THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON LOT ONE AND AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON LOT THREE.

UNDER CURRENT STANDARDS, THESE ARE COMBINED TOGETHER BECAUSE THERE'S AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE ADJOINING SITE.

UNDER THE PROPOSAL THAT SITE THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS NOT RECOGNIZED AS COMBINING THEM WHICH FREES UP LOT THREE AS ALLOWABLE DEVELOPABLE SITE.

IT ALSO WOULD BE 50FT OR GREATER AND ITS RESULTING LAND CONFIGURATION.

LOT NINE.

THIS IS A PROPERTY ON SOUTH FLETCHER.

THIS IS A HOME SITE THAT IS LONG, SO IT GOES BETWEEN SOUTH FLETCHER AND FIRST AVENUE.

AND THE ONLY PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE THAT EXTENDS ONTO.

AND I KNOW IT'S NOT LABELED. THERE IS LOT 20 IS A SMALL SHED THAT HAS BEEN BUILT INTO LOT 20.

SO TODAY WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO RESTORE LOT 20.

UNDER THE PROPOSAL, THAT SHED WOULD NOT HAVE SERVED TO COMBINE THOSE LOTS AND WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BUILD AS LOT 20.

LOT TEN THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST COMPLICATED OF THE EXAMPLES.

IN THIS ONE, AND THESE INVOLVE SUBSTANDARD LOTS.

SO IN A 7-25 BY 100 FOOT LOTS THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY AND IT'S BACK TO MAYBE 2015 2016 TIME FRAME. PREVIOUSLY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT EXTENDED APPROXIMATELY ACROSS LOTS 27 THROUGH 29, AND AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT WAS ON LOTS 24 AND 25.

FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, LOTS THREE AND LOTS 26.

SORRY, THAT SHOULD BE 30.

LOTS 30 AND 26 ARE OPEN VACANT LOTS AND WE'RE ALWAYS OPEN VACANT LOTS.

TODAY A VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RESTORE LOTS 27 THROUGH 29 AND LOTS 24 AND 25.

UNDER THE PROPOSAL, A VARIANCE WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO SEPARATE LOTS 27 THROUGH 29 AND LOT 25 AND 24. IF THEY WERE WANTING TO PUT THEM IN A WAY THAT WAS AT THE SUBSTANDARD LOTS AT 25FT, IF THEY WANTED TO HAVE LOT 24 AND 25 TOGETHER OUT OF 50 FOOT LOT WIDTH, THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE CHANGE.

AND SO 27 AND 28 COULD GO TOGETHER, BUT LOT 29 WOULD NEED THE VARIANCE UNLESS IT WAS COMBINING WITH LOT 30.

THIS ONE'S THE MOST CONFUSING OF THE TEN.

SO WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, I GO THROUGH AND DETAIL THE EFFECT OF EACH OF THE CHANGES GENERALLY AND SPECIFICALLY, I HAVE ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION DIRECTED ACTION WITH THE STRONG RECOMMENDATION THAT A NOTICE PROVISION BE INCORPORATED.

AND I KNOW THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY.

IT IS NOT CONTAINED WITHIN THE DOCUMENT OR ANY OF THE PROPOSAL BECAUSE THEY'VE CONTEMPLATED THIS AND SAID NO, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T INCORPORATE THAT.

THAT BEING SAID, AS A PROFESSIONAL ACP PLANNER, IT IS I AM ETHICALLY BOUND TO ADVOCATE FOR GREATER PUBLIC NOTICE, PARTICULARLY

[00:40:04]

SO IN THOSE CASES WHEN YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN A VARIANCE PROCESSED, AND SOMETHING TYPICALLY WOULD HAVE HAD A POSTED NOTICE OR A MAILED NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE MORE AWARE OF THE CHANGE THAT WAS HAPPENING TO THAT BUILDING PATTERN.

IN THOSE SCENARIOS.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE THAT WE'VE HAD A HISTORY OF GREATER THAN 20 YEARS AT THIS POINT, OF PROVIDING FOR THAT LEVEL OF NOTICE.

AND INCORPORATING THAT INTO THIS PROCESS IS SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE NEEDS TO CONTINUE.

IN ADDITION TO BEING ETHICALLY BOUND TO ADVOCATE FOR GREATER NOTICE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE REGARDLESS OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THE DECISION AT THAT POINT OF NOTICE, THERE'S ALWAYS AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL AT A LATER POINT.

AND THAT LATER POINT COULD BE AS FAR OUT AS FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT W HEN A STAFF DECISION GETS APPEALED.

AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT BECOMES VERY DIFFICULT WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, THEIR CONTRACTORS, THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS, THEIR LENDERS WHO HAVE NOW FINANCED THE PROJECT TO STOP THE PROGRESS OF IT.

AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE THINK ABOUT IT FROM A TIMING PERSPECTIVE.

IF AN APPEAL WERE TO BE SEEN, IT HAPPENING AT AN EARLIER POINT IN THE PROCESS PROVIDES A SERVICE TO EVERYONE, IN NOT HAVING A LOT MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED AND DISRUPTION OCCURRING AT THAT POINT.

I DON'T I'M SORRY IF YOU'RE.

OH, NO, IT'S OKAY.

SO I WANT TO REITERATE THAT I DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CHANGES.

BUT I REALLY THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE INCORPORATE A EARLIER NOTICE PROVISION THAN TO ALLOW FOR IT TO OCCUR LATER ON, BECAUSE THAT COULD ALWAYS HAPPEN.

IF THE PUBLIC NOTICE IS PUT IN AT A POINT THAT YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE.

IF THE CHANGES ARE ADOPTED, IF THE CODE IS CHANGED, WHAT RECOURSE WOULD SOMEONE ACTUALLY HAVE IF WHAT'S BEING DONE ON THE LOT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW CODE? ON WHAT BASIS COULD SOMEONE OBJECT? SO, AND KELLY AND I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THIS, BUT THE WAY THAT IT WOULD GO IS IF THE CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED ARE ADOPTED INTO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THEN IT IS ANY OF THESE BECOME A PLANNING REVIEW AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IT DOESN'T GO TO A BOARD.

WE KNOW WHAT THE APPEAL PROCESS IS FOR BOARD DECISIONS.

SO WE HAVE AN APPEAL PROCESS IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AS WELL THOSE GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

SO WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IF WE HAVE A NOTICE PROVISION THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT ORDER THAT'S ISSUED OR APPROVAL TO BUILD OR APPROVAL FROM PLANNING IS THAT NO BUILDING PERMITS ARE ISSUED FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS, ALLOWING ANYBODY THAT RECEIVES NOTICE THAT 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO, IF THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL AND THE OBJECTION OR APPEAL IS TO DENY IT OR HAVE QUESTIONS OR WHATEVER, THEN THEY CAN COME TO THE PLANNING.

AT THAT POINT, IF THE APPEAL NOTICE IS RECEIVED, EVERYTHING IS STALLED AND STAYED.

NO BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED.

THE APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO THEN COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND PARTICIPATE IN THE APPEAL.

THAT'S HOW I SEE IT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

SO WE WOULD HOLD OUR APPROVAL OR OUR APPROVAL IS NOT EFFECTIVE.

WE COULD LET THE APPLICANT KNOW, BUT ITS EFFECTIVE DATE WOULD BE 30 DAYS LATER.

GIVING THAT AFFECTED PARTIES AND OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL.

OKAY. SO IS THAT.

YEAH. YES. AND SO THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN KELLY'S STAFF REPORT.

IS THAT VOTED ON BY THE CITY COMMISSION.

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF HER RECOMMENDATION IN THE PROCESS? YOU MEAN THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT.

SO HER RECOMMENDATION TO ADD.

THAT IS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, IF AND DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU DO TONIGHT, I MEAN, THAT'S PART OF THE STAFF REPORT AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THESE CONDITIONS THE CONDITION BEING THAT NOTICE BE PROVIDED AND WRITTEN INTO THE CODE.

[00:45:01]

SO THAT IS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT.

AND THEN YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BASED UPON WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDED.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU KELLY.

THERE IS I THINK WE ALL RECEIVED AN ADDITIONAL, OR AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL. WOULD WE LIKE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THAT AT THIS TIME, OR HOW WOULD WE LIKE TO PROCEED? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW OPENING COMMENTS, JUST GENERALLY JUST ON THE WHOLE.

OKAY. GO AHEAD.

ALL RIGHT. I THINK RIGHT NOW, AS WE CAPTURE THE MOMENT, WE'VE GOT THREE ALTERNATIVES THAT WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO ASSESS.

ONE OF THEM IS TO LEAVE 1.03.05 AND 1.03.04 AS IS.

THAT'S AN ALTERNATIVE. WE HAVE A PROPOSAL MADE BY THE CITY STAFF BASED UPON, THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE THINK THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD DESIRE.

WE HAVE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE WHICH CAME IN TODAY, WHICH MODIFIES BOTH OF THOSE OTHER ALTERNATIVES.

NOW, MY CONCERN, JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM A STANDPOINT OF WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY, WHERE ARE THE CONCERNS? HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T CREATE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES? SO I THINK WHAT WE AS A PAB, HAVE GOT TO REALLY ASSESS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE CLEAR, PRECISE DEFINITIONS, NO QUESTION OF WHAT IT IS.

WE NEVER NEED A JUDGE TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION WOULD BE MY OBJECTIVE.

AND ALSO THE CLARITY OF THE LDC AMENDMENT ITSELF, I'M A LITTLE FUZZY ON READING THE DOCUMENT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.

THERE'S NOW SOME OTHER TRICKLE DOWN THINGS WHEN YOU GET INTO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND YOU GET INTO ZONING, PARTICULARLY UNDER R-1 AND R-1G.

THERE ARE STATEMENTS IN THERE THAT SAYS THESE ZONES WERE WERE IDENTIFIED WITH THE SPECIFIC GOALS OF PROTECT THE QUALITY AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

OKAY. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGE THIS.

THIS CHANGE WOULD AFFECT BOTH OF THOSE.

ALL RIGHT. THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT COULD BE, WOULD BE, MAY BE AFFECTED.

I HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE.

I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS.

NOW. THEN YOU GET INTO WHAT I'LL CALL PROXIMITY IMPACTS.

OKAY. I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE WOULD ASSESS THAT IMPACT OF PROXIMITY LANDS SURROUNDING THE BLOCK LOT, WHATEVER IT HAPPENS TO BE, BUT JUST PEOPLE AROUND IT, HOW THEY ARE AFFECTED.

WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE NOTICING AND SO ON.

HOW ARE PEOPLE GOING TO BE MADE AWARE? HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS? NOW THEN YOU GET INTO WHAT CHANGES IN THE CHARACTER OF THE LANDSCAPE AND PROPERTY IN THE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD BE LIMITING FACTORS? HOW FAR CAN YOU GO? IS THERE ANY BOUNDS OR ARE THERE ANY BOUNDS? WHAT WOULD BE THE CONTROLLING FACTORS CONCERNING IMPACT ON STORMWATER DISSIPATION? OKAY, I CHANGE [INAUDIBLE] LAND.

I CHANGED SOMETHING ELSE OKAY I CHANGED MY NON PERVIOUS SURFACES AND SO FORTH.

WELL I KNOW WE HAVE WAYS OF DOING THAT, BUT WE'RE TALKING THESE ARE SPECIFIC INSTANCES AND UNDERSTANDING HOW IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THAT PARTICULAR DECISION ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. YEAH. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING PUT IN THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT WE HAVE NO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT RESULT FROM ANY.

AND I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR THERE'S OTHER AVENUES, BUT THAT'S ONE THAT MIGHT BE A POSSIBLE SOLUTION.

THE BASIC QUESTION WOULD BE FROM A STANDPOINT OF CONTROL TO ENSURE THAT EVERYBODY'S INTERESTS ARE BALANCED, SHOULD THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STILL BE PART OF THIS PROCESS? I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU HOW TO DO IT.

JUST SHOULD THEY BE PART OF IT? AND THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, AND TAMMY, MAYBE THIS IS ONE FOR YOU OR KELLY.

WHAT HAPPENS TO FIVE YEARS FROM NOW ON PROPERTIES THAT WERE ANNEXED FROM THE COUNTY INTO THE CITY.

DO THEY FOLLOW THESE SAME RULES OR ARE THEY EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF THE DATE OF THE DOCUMENT OR THE DATE OF ANNEXATION, OR ARE THEY ALSO BECOME POSSIBLE CANDIDATES? IF THEY MEET THE CRITERIA OF THIS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE? THEY WOULD HAVE THE CODE WOULD HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS IF THEY'D ALWAYS BEEN IN THE CITY? OKAY, OKAY.

[00:50:01]

EVERYBODY GETS THE SAME CRITERIA.

YES. OKAY. AND WE HAVE AND SO DO THEY IN THE COUNTY THAT MAY COME IN THE CITY ONE DAY.

YOU MAY HAVE PROPERTIES THAT DON'T CONFORM TO ANY OF THIS.

RIGHT. THEY'RE BUILT ON LOTS THAT ARE REALLY SMALL.

THOSE ARE CONSIDERED NON CONFORMING.

AND WHEN THE TIME COMES EVENTUALLY DOWN THE ROAD THEY'LL, REMEMBER NON CONFORMING STRUCTURES ON NON CONFORMING LOTS AND ALL OF THAT THEY CAN BE REBUILT. SO JUST BECAUSE THEY GET DAMAGED OR THEY CAN BE REBUILT.

BUT AT THE TIME THEY WANT TO REDEVELOP THAT'S WHEN THE RULES WILL BE APPLIED.

AND THEY'VE GOT TO MEET LIKE THE 50 FOOT OR THE 75 FOOT RULE.

RIGHT. I'M LOOKING OVER AT KELLY TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M IF YOU HAVE IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT COMES INTO THE CITY THAT'S COMPLETELY NON CONFORMING ONE AT SOME POINT IF THEY WISH TO REDEVELOP, THEY THE PROPERTY OWNER, THEY DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE, THEN OUR RULES ARE GOING TO APPLY.

NOT WITH RESPECT TO THE NONCONFORMING LOT PIECE OF IT.

JUST THE SIMPLE DEMOLISHING OF THE STRUCTURE ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT WOULD ALLOW THEM.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT NON CONFORMING LOT.

I WAS TALKING MORE GENERAL AND OUT OF THE SCOPE OF THIS.

SHE'S RIGHT. OKAY.

BUT IF THEY HAD IT DAMAGED BY A HURRICANE THEY COULD THEY COULD REPLACE WHAT THEY HAVE WITH IT.

YES. SO THE FOOTPRINT WOULD BE STILL THERE.

YES. OKAY.

THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE ACTUALLY SPEAKS TO THAT VERY SCENARIO BY PROVIDING A REFERENCE TO THOSE SECTIONS OF CODE.

JUST IN THE EVENT THAT THAT WAS UNCLEAR, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT POINT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT WHEN THERE ARE NON CONFORMING SITUATIONS AND THE STRUCTURE IS DAMAGED, YOU CAN STILL REBUILD BACK.

AND THEN SO THAT CODE REFERENCE IS INCORPORATED.

OKAY. THE LAST ITEM GETS BACK TO THIS PUBLIC NOTICING.

I WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO KNOW IN WRITING WHAT ARE THE CONTROL POINTS.

WHERE ARE THE PUBLIC NOTICING WOULD HAVE TO OCCUR BASED ON WHATEVER THE FINAL CRITERIA IS THAT WE CHANGE, ASSUMING WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SOME KIND OF A MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING TWO PARAGRAPHS.

OKAY. THERE'S A VERY GOOD COMMENTS.

MR. DOSTER. IT'S KIND OF TO PIGGYBACK ON SOME OF THE THINGS PETE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE SENTENCE IN THESE IS THESE REGULATIONS AIM TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE, VISUAL CORRIDORS, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, PROPERTY VALUES AND THE VISUAL APPEAL OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITHIN THESE VARIOUS ZONING CATEGORIES.

WITH THE EXISTING LANGUAGE I UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS.

THE CODE IS AND KELLY, YOUR PRESENTATION WAS EXCELLENT.

I MEAN, THE LANGUAGE THAT IS IN ALL OF THIS FOR LAY PEOPLE IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

BUT YOUR PRESENTATION WAS VERY CLEAR AS TO WHAT HAPPENS AND WHEN IT HAPPENS.

WITH THE EXISTING CODE AS IT IS I UNDERSTAND HOW ALL OF THAT HAPPENS.

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING PROPERTIES WHERE NONE EXIST RIGHT NOW, WITH OR WITHOUT THE NOTIFICATION, AND PETER WAS TALKING ABOUT CONTROLS, WELL, WHO MAKES THE DECISION ABOUT OPEN SPACE AND VISUAL CORRIDORS.

AND IF I'M THE GUY ACROSS THE STREET, IS THAT BASIS FOR ME TO OBJECT TO THIS? IT JUST IN ALL OF THAT CAN GET PRETTY SUBJECTIVE, NOT OBJECTIVE.

SO THAT THAT REALLY WORRIES ME.

AND YOU SPEAK TO THE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF IT FOR ME, TOO.

THE OTHER PART OF THIS THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS WHEN THIS WAS COMING UP, I REMEMBER COMMISSIONER STURGES MADE THE STATEMENT CATEGORICALLY AND IN A DECLARATIVE SENTENCE THAT I FORGET IF IT WAS THE ISLAND OR THE CITY, BUT IT WAS THAT IT WAS NOT OVERBUILT.

AND HE'S A BUILDER AND A SMART GUY, BUT I KIND OF WENT AWAY FROM THAT GOING, IS THAT TRUE? AND AND I'VE TALKED TO SOME PEOPLE, MARGARET WAS GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO MAKE SOME VERY SMART PEOPLE AVAILABLE TO ME FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME TO ASK THE QUESTION.

I CHATTED WITH KELLY FOR A WHILE ABOUT IS IT OVERBUILT OR NOT? AND THERE'S NOT AN ANSWER.

I MEAN, THERE ARE MANY ANSWERS DEPENDING ON FROM WHAT PERSPECTIVE YOU ASK THE QUESTION, WHAT PERSPECTIVE YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

BUT I DON'T I CAN'T FIND ANYBODY WHO CAN SAY YES, IT IS OVERBUILT OR NO, IT'S NOT OVERBUILT.

SO BEFORE WE ADD MORE BUILDINGS AND BEFORE WE STRESS THE INFRASTRUCTURE MORE, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS IT OVERBUILT OR NOT? IF IT'S OVERBUILT, LET'S DON'T KEEP BUILDING BUILDINGS.

LET'S FIND OTHER WAYS TO BE CREATIVE AND TO ENHANCE THE ISLAND AND TO MAKE IT BETTER AND TO KEEP MOVING AND TO BE PROGRESSIVE IN CERTAIN WAYS.

BUT LET'S NOT WRECK THE PLACE.

[00:55:03]

MR. DOSTER, I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU.

THAT IS ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS IN MY MIND AS WELL, THAT I'D REALLY LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY PARCELS WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGES.

I JUST THE EXAMPLES WERE FANTASTIC.

I MEAN, IT REALLY DID HELP ME TO VISUALIZE THAT, BUT WHAT IT ALSO WAS A LITTLE ALARMING WAS TO SEE HOW EASY IT IS TO JUST SPIN OFF MORE AND MORE LOTS AND A WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC NOTICE OR ANYBODY NOTICE KNOWING THAT THIS IS HAPPENING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

BUT YOU KNOW HOW MANY YOU KNOW, IS THIS MOUSE OR IS THIS A LION? EXACTLY. AND IF IT'S A MOUSE, WELL, MAYBE WE DON'T NEED TO BE SO WORRIED ABOUT IT.

BUT I THINK THAT FOR TODAY AND FOR TOMORROW AND FOR THAT FIVE YEARS.

TEN YEARS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PETE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AT THIS JUNCTURE TO UNDERSTAND HOW MANY PARCELS THAT COULD BE AFFECTED, NOT ONLY JUST IN THE CITY AND AS THE CITY GROWS, BUT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WHERE IT COULD CERTAINLY MAKE A BIG IMPACT.

AND SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT WE SAW TONIGHT WERE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

AND I THINK THAT, CERTAINLY THE PUBLIC, IF YOU LIVE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, YOU'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON AND TO ALL OF A SUDDEN SEE THAT, WHERE THERE WAS ONE HOUSE AND NOW YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE FOUR WOULD BE A BIG CHANGE FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT PERSPECTIVE.

IT IS FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT THERE ARE JUST SO MANY TENTACLES TO THE THING, TOO, OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF, YOU KNOW, THE SUSTAINABILITY MEETING THAT THAT WENT ON THE OTHER NIGHT A WEEK OR SO AGO AND TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ISLAND WITH DIFFERENT KINDS OF SURFACES AND BUILDING CONCRETE.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I WAS DOWN HERE OVER THE WEEKEND, WHENEVER IT WAS, YOU KNOW, AND THE ENGINEERS TELL US WE DON'T HAVE A PARKING PROBLEM, BUT WE DID THAT DAY.

AND SO THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE AND THERE ARE MORE CARS AND THERE'S LESS PARKING.

SO ALL OF THAT TO SAY IS WE'RE JUST IT FEELS TO ME LIKE WE'RE BEING ASKED TO TAKE AN ACTION WHEN WE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON HERE.

AND YOU ADD IN THE ANNEXATIONS TO IT.

AND, YOU KNOW, YOU ASKED, IS IT A MOUSE OR A MOUNTAIN? WELL, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF IT'S A MOUSE, TEN MICE GET TO BE PRETTY BIG AND YOU JUST KEEP DOING IT.

THAT'S TRUE, THAT'S TRUE.

ANYMORE COMMENTS? ANYMORE THOUGHTS? WELL, JUST LET ME JUST SAY ONE OTHER THING.

KELLY, I THINK YOU DID A REALLY GOOD JOB IN TRYING TO ENCAPSULATE THE CONCEPTS THAT, THE COMMISSION, GAVE YOU AS DIRECTION, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE HOPING FOR WHEN WE MET AS A JOINT GROUP AND TO TRY TO GET SOME DIRECTION.

AND, AND IT WAS NOT AN EASY TASK.

I COULD SEE HOW, REALLY, YOU ALMOST HAD TO START OVER.

I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY WHY YOU YOU STRUCK OUT ALL THE OLD LANGUAGE AND STARTED OVER WITH NEW LANGUAGE, BUT IT NOT BEING A PLANNER PERSON, BEING A CIVILIAN, I WISH IT WAS A LITTLE BIT SIMPLER TO UNDERSTAND OR SIMPLIFIED.

I JUST THINK THAT, IT'S PRETTY DARN.

IT'S A LOT OF DETAIL THAT WE COULD PROBABLY, SOMEHOW REDUCE IT DOWN TO SOME, SOME PRETTY SIMPLE THINGS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I HAD TO DO IN ORDER TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE KEY THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.

AND, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THIS IS LESS VERBIAGE AND MORE, SIMPLICITY, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.

SO THAT'S ONE OF MY THOUGHTS ON THIS.

[01:00:03]

WELL, I DON'T THINK 1.03.05 SHOULD BE TOTALLY STRUCK.

I MEAN, I THINK IT WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THAT.

IT'S WORKED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

AND SOME QUESTIONS HAVE COME UP THAT I THINK ARE CREATED PROBLEMS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE SOME BECAUSE OF MAYBE SOME DEFINITIONS AND SOME OTHER THINGS.

AND A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT AT ONE TIME IN FLORIDA, WE HAD A LOT OF THOSE ANSWERS, BUT THEY WERE ALL TAKEN AWAY FROM US WHEN CONCURRENCY WENT AWAY. BUT CERTAINLY ALL OF THESE ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT TO US.

YOU CAN'T GET OUT OF YOUR DRIVEWAY AND YOU CAN'T DRIVE TO THE STORE.

YOU CAN'T FIND A PARKING SPACE OR I MEAN, JUST TRYING TO COME OVER HERE.

NOW I WAS STUCK AT JASMINE AND WHATEVER, WHY I WATCHED, I THOUGHT THEY WERE EVACUATING THE PORT FOR ME.

BUT IN ANY CASE, I THINK WE NEED TO SPEND A LOT OF DETAIL DISCUSSION AND VETTING ON A LOT OF THESE THINGS. IF WHAT'S UNCLEAR, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS SO UNCLEAR WITH 1.03.05.

I MEAN, IF IT WORKED FOR SO MANY YEARS, WHAT HAPPENED AND WHERE ARE THOSE SPECIFIC ISSUES? SO WE KIND OF WENT FROM THERE TO LET'S DEVELOP MORE LOTS WHEN THE WHOLE PROCESS WAS TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THINGS AS THEY ARE. AND GOING BACK TO YOUR QUESTION, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT A NEIGHBORHOOD IS? A NEIGHBORHOOD WENT FROM.

AND HERE AGAIN, I LIKE THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS CONTROL NUMBER.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEIR NUMBER, YOU'RE LOOKING AT COMMISSIONER ROSS'S HOUSE, KELLY'S HOUSE, YOUR HOUSE, MY HOUSE.

AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE WENT FROM THERE TO, WELL, THAT'S THREE ACCESSORIES OR, YOU KNOW, TWO ACCESSORY DWELLINGS ON A LOT.

AND WE MADE IT MORE COMPLICATED.

WE KIND OF WENT FROM A, YOU KNOW, TO THIS MICRO LEVEL THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE.

IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT A NEIGHBORHOOD IS, WHEN YOU LOOK ON THE AERIAL, WHEN YOU WALK DOWN CENTER STREET HERE, YOU CAN TELL WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS.

AND WHEN YOU VISUALIZE THAT BUILDING BEING GONE AND BUILDING 3 OR 4 UNITS, THAT'S THE CHANGE, YOU KNOW.

AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE, WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT VACANT AND IMPROVED, BUT WHEN IS A LOT VACANT.

IS IT VACANT WHEN THE DEVELOPER BOUGHT IT AND TORE DOWN THE HOUSE WHEN IT WAS IMPROVED.

AND NOW WE'RE COMING INTO THE CITY AS A, ANNEXATION.

AND NOW IT'S VACANT BECAUSE HE TORE THE HOUSE DOWN.

AND THAT CHANGED THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.

JUST THE SIMPLE FACT OF TEARING THE HOUSE DOWN.

SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO REALLY THINK ABOUT, THAT THIS IS ALL CREATING MORE BUILDING.

AND WHAT OUR JOB IS, IS TO CREATE A PLANNING ENVIRONMENT THAT WORKS FOR THE CITY AS IT EXISTS AND MOVING FORWARD.

I MEAN, DEVELOPERS WANT TO DEVELOP.

THAT'S WHAT THEY IT'S IN THE NAME.

SO, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO HEAR FROM NICK.

I MEAN, HE'S IN THE IN THE WEEDS ON THESE THINGS, BUT I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT WE HAD HERE.

WHERE'S THE ISSUE WHEN SOMEBODY COMES, YOU KNOW WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE VARIANCE? I MEAN, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE VARIANCE PROCESS WAS TO ALLOW THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO SUBMIT THEIR CASE TO THE CHANGING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE WAY THEY WANT TO CHANGE IT.

AND NOW WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT.

AND I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW IT'S OKAY.

WE GOT 12, 15 LOTS OUT THERE.

WELL, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ALL 25FT THEY'RE VACANT.

MOVE ON. GO AHEAD.

BUILD THAT NUMBER OF HOUSES.

I THINK THAT'S IRRESPONSIBLE, YOU KNOW.

DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? I'LL ADD JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING YOU'RE SAYING, MARK.

I ACTUALLY CAME IN TODAY THINKING THAT THIS PROPOSAL WAS GOING TO ACTUALLY MAKE 50 FOOT LOTS, THE MINIMUM WIDTH, REGARDLESS OF WHAT.

AND I WAS WRONG.

SO I'M DIGESTING THAT BECAUSE I'M NOT I'M TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU.

I'M LOOKING AT CITY HALL RIGHT NOW AND THERE'S 13, 25 FOOT LOTS IT COULD BE BUILT ON.

AND I'M NOT SURE THAT'S RIGHT.

AM I SAYING THAT WRONG? THAT'S CORRECT.

HOWEVER, IT'S C3 AND NOT BOUND BY THESE REGULATIONS.

BUT AS AN EXAMPLE FOR LIKE FOR LIKE OR REPLACEMENT OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE A DRAMATIC CHANGE FOR SOMEBODY LIVING ACROSS THE STREET.

[01:05:02]

SO I'M STILL DIGESTING THAT AS WELL BECAUSE I THOUGHT 50 WAS IF YOU WERE GOING TO COMBINE, IF YOU HAD TWO 25 FOOT LOTS THAT TURNED INTO A 50 FOOT LOT, IF IT WAS VACANT AND I WAS WRONG, SO THAT WAS WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS.

IF YOU HAD A 75 FOOT LOT, YOU WOULD HAVE A 50 FOOT LOT IN THAT LEFT OVER 25 WOULD REMAIN AT 25.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

IF YOU HAD MULTIPLES OF 25, THAT EQUALED OUT OF 50, YOU WOULD MAKE 50 UNTIL YOU RAN OUT OF 25, AND THEN THAT LEFT OVER 25 WOULD REMAIN.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

AND THEN THE 25 WOULD BE A BUILDABLE.

IT WOULD BE BUILDABLE AS THE LEFTOVER.

OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, BUT I WAS WRONG.

I THINK WE NEED LANGUAGE ON PLATTING BECAUSE I DON'T SEE WHERE ANY OF THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

AND I THINK THERE'S SOME MAJOR PROBLEMS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE ONE HOUSE ON 3 OR 4 ACRES THAT WANT TO COME IN.

I THINK WE OUGHT TO CLARIFY THAT.

YEAH. THIS LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES SUBDIVISIONS.

OKAY. I DIDN'T SEE THAT.

IT IS THE SECOND SENTENCE.

OKAY. IS THAT FROM BEFORE? NO. SO THAT'S NEW LANGUAGE OKAY.

REGULATIONS DO NOT APPLY TO NEW SUBDIVISION PLATS SUBDIVISION REPLATS MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS OR OTHER SPECIFIC REGULATIONS WHICH I KNOW SPECIFIC REGULATIONS IS AN AMBIGUOUS TERM.

SPECIFIC REGULATIONS MAY BE PUDS THAT HAVE SPECIFIED STANDARDS.

SPECIFIC REGULATIONS MAY BE OLDER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE SPECIFIED STANDARDS.

OFTEN THE CITY WOULD ENTER INTO RESOLUTIONS ACCEPTING DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS BACK IN THE PAST.

THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF AMBIGUOUS SPECIFIC REGULATIONS, BECAUSE THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THE CITY HAS ALLOWED FOR DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR.

THAT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE TYPICAL ZONING THAT IS APPLIED TO IT THAT YOU SEE ON A MAP.

IT'S ALSO NOT TECHNICALLY IN THE SUBDIVISION COMPONENTS OR THE PLAT DOCUMENT ITSELF.

THERE ARE OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT ARE GIVING US DIRECTION THAT WE UPHOLD THAT PROPERTY TOO, WE'RE NOT REALLY DEALING WITH.

I MEAN BY DEFINITION HERE, SUBSTANDARD, LOTS OF RECORDS.

YEAH, PRETTY MUCH ONLY IN THE CITY.

AND ONE OF THE ISSUES I HAVE IS WHY IS THE YULEE PLAT SO SACRED? I MEAN, IT'S 200 YEARS OLD.

IT WAS HERE TO BUILD AS MUCH AS YOU COULD.

IT WAS DURING THE AGE OF THE GOLDEN AGE OF ROBBER BARONS AND BUILD AS MUCH AS YOU CAN.

THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT.

AND ALL THESE 25 FOOT LOTS SITTING OUT HERE THAT HE PLATTED, YOU KNOW, 200 YEARS AGO, I DON'T THINK ARE APPROPRIATE TODAY.

AND SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF RECORD.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. WE HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS CREATED OVER THE LAST 20, 30 AND 50 YEARS THAT NOW ALL THESE CHANGES WANT TO COME IN AND WE WANT TO WIPE OUT.

I DON'T WANT TO USE THAT TERM.

WE WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.

LITTLE BY LITTLE, BY EITHER TEARING DOWN HOUSES, ADDING MORE BUILDING AND CHANGING THAT IN TURN CHANGES THE WHOLE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THAT'S MY CONCERN, BECAUSE WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT WHAT A WONDERFUL LITTLE TOWN.

IT'S AN [INAUDIBLE] ALL THESE THINGS, AND YET WE'RE CONSTANTLY UNDER PRESSURE TO KILL IT.

YOU KNOW, LITTLE BY LITTLE, IT'S LIKE POISONING.

SO, MADAM CHAIR, IF I COULD FINISH ON ONE THING THAT.

SEE, I DIDN'T TAKE THAT TO BE TO MARK'S POINT WHEN HE STARTED, THAT'S REDEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF RECORD.

I'M WONDERING IF THERE IS A HOUSE THAT'S ON A STANDARD THAT'S NOT SUBSTANDARD ON A NOT SUBSTANDARD LOT.

ARE THEY ABLE TO JUST PLAT TODAY WITHOUT GOING THROUGH ANY VARIANCES AT ALL OR? YOU HAVE MINOR REPLAT, DON'T YOU? WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS I THINK WE OUGHT TO CLARIFY THAT ON STANDARD LOTS THAT TOMORROW WHAT I'M THINKING OF IS DOWN THE STREET HERE.

BECAUSE YOU HAD HOUSES. SO THERE'S THE DEFINITIONAL COMPONENT OF THIS HERE TOO.

IT SPEAKS TO WHAT IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT.

ALL RIGHT. YEAH, I'M TALKING IN CIRCLES HERE.

I APOLOGIZE.

WELL, I THINK THAT THAT ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST BRING UP IS WHY IS

[01:10:06]

WE'VE GOT THE R-1S, WE'VE GOT R-2'S.

ALL THE R'S.

ALL THE R'S. AND SO TO ME AN MU, WHICH IS A BASICALLY A TOWNHOUSE WITH SUPPOSEDLY A BUSINESS ON THE BOTTOM AND A HOUSE ON THE TOP THAT'S RESIDENTIAL.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OR AT LEAST ASK THE QUESTION, WHY IS THAT NOT PART OF ALL THIS? ONE OF OUR ZONING DISTRICTS? IT AS FAR AS BEING IN LISTED AS ONE OF THOSE IN CONSIDERATION.

SO THAT WOULD BE JUST THAT'S JUST A CONCEPT THAT I WANT TO I DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE THAT THAT CONCEPT.

BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT, THERE'S STILL A LOT OF CONCEPTUAL ISSUES THAT I THINK THE BOARD IS HAVING WITH THIS LANGUAGE, MAYBE EVEN THE DEFINITIONS.

THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE WHAT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CURRENTLY WE HAVE THIS PROPOSAL, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO CHANGE.

AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT IS WHAT IS THIS CHANGE THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT TO THIS COMMUNITY? AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF OUR JOB IS TO LOOK AT WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THIS CHANGE GOING TO HAVE ON OUR COMMUNITY.

AND THERE MAY BE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT, AND WE'LL GET TO THAT.

BUT I DON'T KNOW, HANG ON.

BUT, I DON'T.

I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL THAT I'M READY TO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT.

I THINK THAT WE STILL HAVE SOME WORK TO DO ABOUT WE HAVE ANOTHER PLAN THAT CAME IN LATE TODAY THAT I THINK BEARS, LOOKING AT.

I THINK THAT MISTER DOSTER HAD A POINT ABOUT KNOWING WHETHER THIS IS A MOUSE OR A LION IS, AS IT RELATES TO HOW MANY PARCELS COULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS.

AND I THINK THAT WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT, VERY SIMPLY THE CURRENT, 1.03.04 AND FIVE AS IT EXISTS TODAY IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT THE COMMISSION SENT BACK TO US AND WHAT STAFF HAS TRIED TO INTERPRET THAT LANGUAGE TO BE.

AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER PROPOSAL, THAT I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT, AND AGAIN, HAVE MORE CONVERSATION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IS THIS GOING TO BE GOOD OR NOT SO GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY? WELL, I WILL BASICALLY SAY AMEN.

THAT'S, REALLY CORRECT.

I'LL EVEN GO TO ONE PARTICULAR I'M LOOKING RIGHT NOW AT THE REVISED 1.03.04 1A.

AND IT SAYS THAT STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS WILL NOT BE INCLUDED WHEN YOU CALCULATE WHAT'S NOT AVAILABLE, WILL BE SEPARATED.

AND I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

HERE'S MY CONCERN.

FERNANDINA BEACH AS WE KNOW IT TODAY IS PROBABLY I DON'T KNOW, I'M GOING TO ASK NICK 85 TO 90% BUILD OUT.

NOW IT CAN BE CHANGED.

I MEAN HOUSES ARE BEING TORN DOWN ALL OVER THE PLACE, BUT 17TH STREET 60 WHATEVER.

RIGHT. BUT THE BASIC STRUCTURES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE IN PLACE.

THEY WILL CHANGE EVOLVE A LITTLE BIT OVER TIME.

MY CONCERN IS IF YOU GO TO THIS ALTERNATIVE, YOU MAY INTRODUCE A DRAMATIC CHANGE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO ASSESS UNTIL AFTER THE FACT.

WE TALK ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

DARN IF I KNOW.

HOW DO YOU DEFINE THAT? IT'S HOW THE INDIVIDUAL DRIVE DOWN AND SEE, OH, I LIKE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

I'LL BUY A HOUSE HERE. THEY TAKE A SNAPSHOT IN THEIR MIND AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE LIVING WITH.

THEY'RE NOT LIVING WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR 20 OTHER DOCUMENTS.

AND I THINK WE GOT TO MAKE SURE WE PROTECT IT.

BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE AND THAT IS THE ECONOMIC NATURE OF IT.

THAT'S WHAT SELLS HOUSES.

THAT'S WHAT. AND THAT'S WHAT PROTECTS PEOPLE IN TERMS OF THE INVESTMENT THEY MAKE.

THEY'RE NOT MAKING A $5,000.

THEY'RE MAKING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF INVESTMENT.

SO SOME OF THAT GOES TO THE DEFINITIONS RIGHT HERE.

YES, IT NEEDS A LOT OF TIME TO SPEND ON IT.

YEP I AGREE.

[01:15:02]

AND I YOU KNOW, NICK BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT.

CERTAINLY THE 50 FOOT LOT THING IS CERTAINLY AN ENDEAVOR THAT SOMEHOW WE CAN FOLD THAT INTO THE FABRIC OR THAT WOULD I DON'T THINK WE'D HAVE A LOT OF PUSHBACK ON THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THERE. BUT THAT'S ANOTHER SEGMENT OF THIS OVERALL PROCESS.

RIGHT? I'M NOT SURE IF I'M GOING TO TRY ONE MORE TIME TO EXPLAIN WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

OKAY, KELLY, MAYBE THIS WILL RING A BELL.

IF WE WERE LOOKING AT THE SIXTH AND GUM STREET HOUSE THAT WAS GETTING REDEVELOPED, I THINK MISTER SPINA WAS THERE AT THAT THAT MEETING.

THERE WAS A STRUCTURE THAT CROSSED TWO LOTS ACROSS THE LOT LINE, YET THERE WERE 100 FOOT LOTS.

NOW SOMEONE MAY WANT TO COME IN AND PLAT THREE LOTS.

WOULD DOES THIS REWRITE OF THIS ORDINANCE ADDRESS THAT? WOULD THEY BE EXEMPT FROM THAT? THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THIS BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE REPLATTING CREATING A SUBDIVISION, GOING THROUGH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE PROCESS TO EVALUATE STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISION, AND THEN GOING TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION FOR OKAY.

WITHOUT A VARIANCE.

WITHOUT A VARIANCE. AND IT MUST CONFORM TO THAT UNDERLYING ZONING.

UNDERLYING ZONING PARAMETERS.

YES. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO DO WE.

WELL, I THINK WE SHOULD WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME WORKSHOPS.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TEAR THIS INTO SOME SMALLER CHUNKS AND GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

AND AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT MORE OF WHY 1.03.05 IS SUCH A PROBLEM THAT WE NOW HAVE TO KILL IT TOTALLY AND REWRITE THAT WHOLE SECTION.

WELL, LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE THOUGH.

MARK AND I, WHEN I JUST BROUGHT UP, OKAY, WE HAD WE HAD A SIXTH AND GUM WHERE 100 FOOT LOTS, THEY HAD A STRUCTURE THAT HAD BEEN TORN DOWN BY THE PRIOR OWNER.

THE 20 YEAR HOWEVER LONG AGO WAS.

IT WAS AN OLD GARAGE, BUT THERE WAS REMNANTS OF A SLAB IN THE BACK 1.03.05 MADE US COME IN BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

EVEN THOUGH WE CONFORM WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING.

THEY WEREN'T SUBSTANDARD LOTS, BUT WE HAD TO COME IN AND GET A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO DEVELOP ANY OF THE PROPERTY.

SO, WELL, MOST OF THE PROPERTY THERE WAS YEAH, BUT THERE WERE NO SUBSTANDARD LOTS.

THEY MET THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

THEY WANTED TO KEEP THE EXISTING HOUSE AND REFURBISH IT.

YET WE WERE ALMOST DENIED.

AND MR. SPINA WAS AT THAT MEETING AND IT WAS REAL CLOSE.

WE GOT IN AN ARGUMENT OF WETLANDS, WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING.

WE GOT AN ARGUMENT OF FLOOD ZONES, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING.

IT'S ALMOST THAT IT CAN BE ARBITRARY.

AND THAT'S WHY I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID IS THE BOA WHO DOESN'T LOOK AT PLATS.

IT'S OUR JOB TO LOOK AT PLATS, NOT THEIRS.

SO THOSE ARE THE UNINTENDED THINGS THAT DO HAPPEN.

YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THIS IS A VACANT PARCEL OF LAND THAT HAD IT PREVIOUSLY, HAD A HOUSE ON IT, OR A STRUCTURE THAT'S NOW GONE? IT'S ONLY A SLAB. WELL, THERE'S STILL A HOUSE AND THERE'S A HOUSE.

THERE'S STILL AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, 200 FOOT LOTS.

AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WAS TORN DOWN.

OKAY, WELL.

I THINK THAT'S WRONG. BUT IS THERE A WAY BECAUSE THIS REALLY STARTED BECAUSE FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS SAID THAT IT WAS A MATTER OF A WALL.

I'M TRYING TO THINK I'M STILL TRYING TO THINK THIS OUT.

YOU HAVE 200 FOOT LOTS.

YOU SAID WITH TWO STRUCTURES AND THE STRUCTURES CROSS THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND WERE THEY WERE THEY INDIVIDUALLY, PROPERTY ID'D FROM THE NASSAU COUNTY, THEY WERE ALL INDIVIDUAL LOTS.

SO IT WAS ONE, I'LL SAY PARCEL.

YES. ONE PARCEL WITH TWO IMPROVEMENTS ON IT WITH A PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

OKAY. I'M WONDERING HOW THEY GOT THE TWO STRUCTURES ON THERE ON A SINGLE.

WELL, IT WAS A MUCH BIGGER LOT. I MEAN, IT BUT TYPICALLY YOU ONLY CAN HAVE ONE DWELLING UNIT.

AND YOU KNOW, ALL THE OTHER ISSUES THAT COME WITH BUILDING, YOU PROBABLY WANT I'M SAYING I MEAN, I HAVE I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS PROBLEM.

IT WAS LIKE AN ACRE. RIGHT.

AND THEY LIKE IT TO 200 FOOT LOT.

NATURALLY YOU GOT LOOKING AT IT.

YOU COULD BUILD TWO STRUCTURES, BUT WHERE THAT ONE PROPERTY ID NUMBER WITH NASSAU COUNTY OR TWO AT THE TIME, I DON'T REMEMBER, I'M NOT SURE WHICH. AND I MAY BE CONFUSING SOME ELEMENTS OF IT, BUT THE FACT THAT YOU HAD 200 FOOT LOTS IN A ZONING DISTRICT THAT ALLOWED 50 FOOT LOTS, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY

[01:20:02]

YES, BECAUSE THE WAY I RECALL 1..03.05 IF I WAS A SINGLE PARCEL AND I DEFINED PARCEL AS PROPERTY ID NUMBER NASSAU COUNTY, BECAUSE IT'S REAL SIMPLE, BECAUSE THAT'S TAMMY BACH'S HOUSE.

MY HOUSE, NOT LOTS TWO, THREE, FOUR AND FIVE OF SOME PLAT FOR 200 YEARS AGO.

RIGHT. SO THAT'S SUBDIVIDED.

WELL, THERE'S A BARN ON THE BACK OF IT AT ONE TIME.

YES, YES.

I REMEMBER THAT. THAT'S WHERE THEY HAD THE HORSES.

YEAH. RIGHT.

YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO TRY TO CONTRIBUTE TO TRY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION AND ADDRESS MR. BENNETT SAYING, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD NEED ANY CHANGES TO 1.03.05.

IT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR A LONG TIME AND I WISH THAT THAT WERE TRUE.

BUT AND WE COULD WE I MEAN YOU CAN DO NOTHING.

BUT SINCE WE HAD THE TRINGALI APPLICATION CAME IN RIGHT FOR THE, PRELIMINARY PLAT, THE LITIGATION, WHICH IS ON APPEAL NOW, AND MANY OF US IN THE COMMUNITY, BOTH THE PROFESSIONALS WORKING WITH US EVERY DAY AND CITIZENS AND NEIGHBORS, THERE HAVE BEEN AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE WAY 1.03.05 READS RIGHT NOW.

ONE INTERPRETATION IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A PARCEL LIKE THAT AND YOU HAVE A HOUSE, YOU COULD HAVE UNDER UNDERLYING 25 FOOT LOTS, BUT SORRY, YOU BUILT ON IT, THAT'S YOUR BUILDING SITE.

DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S TEN ACRES OR 50 BY 100 LOT OR 75 BY 100.

THAT INTERPRETATION BY REASONABLE, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE HAS BEEN MADE THAT THE CITY STAFF AND THE CITY HAS BEEN INTERPRETING THAT WRONG ALL ALONG, THAT ALL OF THOSE VACANT, SUBSTANDARD LOTS ARE ACTUALLY NOT BUILDABLE.

THAT'S BEEN AN INTERPRETATION.

OBVIOUSLY, THE CITY HASN'T APPLIED IT THAT WAY SINCE THE CODE'S BEEN IN PLACE, BUT IT'S AN INTERPRETATION BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE THAT'S THERE.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ARGUED AND LITIGATED LATER IF WE DON'T CHANGE IT.

WE ALREADY KNOW THAT STAFF'S INTERPRETATION AND PRACTICES BY THE CITY OF ALLOWING THE TRINGALI PROPERTY TO SUBDIVIDE RATHER THAN GO TO A COURT.

THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR VARIANCE IS AN INTERPRETATION THAT'S BEEN APPLIED AND NOW BEEN LITIGATED.

AND THEN ANOTHER INTERPRETATION OUT THERE IS YOU'VE GOT CONFUSION ABOUT, WELL, WHAT CAN BE SUBDIVIDED AND WHAT DOES THIS MEAN.

AND I UNDERSTAND SUBDIVISION, IT'S MUCH MORE COMPLICATED, BUT IS IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN FOLLOW THOSE LINES OF THESE SUBSTANDARD UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD AND YOU'RE MEETING THE ZONING AND DENSITY, YOU CAN GO TO A SUBDIVISION.

AND WE HAVE MANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TRINGALI PROPERTY THAT SAY, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

THAT NEEDS TO GO TO A VARIANCE.

SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO MAKE SOME CHANGE TO 1.03.05.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT CHANGE IS, BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE SOME CHANGE SO THAT MOVING FORWARD AS AND SOME OF IT I SUBMIT NEEDS TO BE WITH SOME GRAPHICS IN THE CODE, NOT JUST LANGUAGE THAT THAT HELPS US TO INTERPRET IT.

AND I THINK THAT 1.03.05 WAS DEVELOPED OR MADE FOR TRINGALI PROPERTY BECAUSE YOU HAD A, YOU HAD A VERY LARGE PROPERTY WITH MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ON IT INDIVIDUALLY, I DON'T WANT TO SAY INDIVIDUALLY PROPERTY ID FROM NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER.

RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THIS.

THAT'S ONE PROPERTY, ONE PARCEL, I KNOW.

AND SO IN MY MIND, OKAY, WHICH SOMETIMES GETS CLOUDED, I WOULD THINK THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM WHY YOU WOULDN'T TAKE THAT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BECAUSE THAT IN EFFECT IS CHANGING THAT ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I UNDERSTAND. SO THAT'S WHAT THAT WHOLE THING WAS DEVELOPED FOR.

BUT AND NOW WE HAVE WELL, WE DON'T WANT TO GO THERE.

SO BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO GO WHERE WE GOT TO CHANGE EVERYTHING.

RIGHT. IT MY OPINION ONLY.

I UNDERSTAND AND WHAT I'M AGREEING WITH YOU THAT WE HAVE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS.

AND WE NEED TO SIMPLIFY THIS LANGUAGE SO THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND WHAT WE WANT. AND THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO SAY ABOUT.

OUT. THE YULEE PLAT IS, YES, WE HAVE TO HONOR IT AND IT'S MINE AND THE PLANNING STAFF'S JOB TO HONOR IT, BECAUSE THE COMP PLAN SAYS WE HAVE TO.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO.

I MEAN, YOU CAN CHANGE THE COMP PLAN AND YOU CAN SAY THE HISTORIC PLAT IS NO LONGER RELEVANT TO OUR CITY.

SO, YOU KNOW, JUST IN GENERAL, DON'T LOSE SIGHT OF AS WE GET INTO THE WEEDS ON SOME THINGS LIKE THIS, DENSITY

[01:25:04]

I JUST MENTIONED TO COMMISSIONER ROSS THE OTHER DAY, WHAT ARE WE DOING? LIVE LOCAL APPLICATIONS ARE GOING TO BE COMING IN IF WE DON'T CHANGE THE DENSITY THE CURRENT BILL THAT'S PENDING IN THE LEGISLATURE IS TO LOCK IN THE DENSITY EITHER ON THE DATE OF THE, EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, WHICH COULD BE JULY 1ST, COULD BE THE DATE THE GOVERNOR SIGNS IT IN JUNE.

THAT MEANS WE'RE OUT OF LUCK.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, YOU KNOW, REMINDING THEM.

DOES THAT COME FROM US TO THE CITY COMMISSION OR HOW DOES THAT RECOMMENDATION TO REDUCE DENSITY, DOES THAT COME FROM US OR DOES THAT GO DIRECTLY TO THE CITY? COMMISSIONER ROSS HAS ASKED FOR IT TO BE PUT ON A WORKSHOP FOR THE CITY COMMISSION SO THAT THEY CAN DISCUSS IT, AND THEN THEY'LL SEND.

BUT WE NEED TO MOVE ON IT AND WE HAVE TIME BECAUSE THEIR COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS HAVE TO GO TO THE STATE AND IT'S AN EXPEDITED REVIEW.

BUT IF WE DON'T GET ON IT, THEN WE HAVE NO CHANCE.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE ON A WORKSHOP.

YEAH. OKAY.

I THINK BACK, IF YOU TAKE THE TRINGALI PROPERTY, I DON'T THINK THE EMOTION WAS NECESSARILY OVER DOING SOME TYPE OF REDEVELOPMENT.

I THINK IT WAS WHAT THE PROPOSED SOLUTION ON THE PROPERTY WAS.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT CAUSED THE UPROAR.

IT WAS NOT THE FACT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO POSSIBLY, YOU KNOW, REMOVE WHATEVER EXISTING STRUCTURE THERE, LAY IT OUT AND DO SOME THINGS TO IMPROVE AND SOME DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, DO OTHER THINGS JUST TO MAKE THE LAND MORE APPEALING AND MORE FUNCTIONAL.

BUT WHAT WASN'T DESIRED WAS A PARTICULAR SOLUTION IN TERMS OF STRUCTURES ON THAT PROPERTY.

I THINK THEY GOT CLOUDED UP A LITTLE BIT ON THAT, BUT WE'RE PUSHING EVERYTHING BACK ON 1.03, 04, 05 ARE ALL TO BLAME FOR IT.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE.

WELL, WHAT IT DID, WHATEVER THAT WHAT IT DID FOR ME AND CERTAINLY FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT IS THAT IF YOU BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SQUEEZE THE APPLICATION FOR THE TRINGALI PLAT, IT HAS COME FRONT AND CENTER AS A THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. I MEAN, WE'VE HAD ALL THE VARIANCES, WE'VE HAD PLATS AND SUBDIVISIONS AND NOBODY BROUGHT UP 1.03.05.

WE'RE JUST CHUGGING ALONG NOW.

THE DEVELOPMENT SQUEEZE IS ON AND WE'RE LOOKING AT EVERY APPLICATION THAT COMES IN 1 .03.05 COMES TO OUR ATTENTION.

AND I'M SAYING THAT THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG.

AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE THAT THREE INTERPRETATIONS, THERE'S NOT ONE, RIGHT? NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK, THE COURT WILL ACCEPT ALL OF THESE ARGUMENTS AND IT COSTS MONEY AND TIME AND STRIFE AND STUFF LIKE THAT IN THE COMMUNITY.

I'M NOT TRYING TO SPECIFICALLY FIND OUT WHERE THE PROBLEM IS WITH 1.03.05 WHATEVER THAT IS.

IF SOMEBODY WOULD JUST WRITE THAT DOWN ON A SHORT PIECE OF PAPER OR A BIG PIECE OF PAPER AND SEND THAT TO ME, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT.

YOU MEAN THE PROBLEM WITH THE INTERPRETATION, OR HOW THE PROBLEM THAT IT'S CAUSING THAT WE'RE NOW HAVING TO DO AWAY WITH IT IS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS KILL IT.

BUT BUT WHAT I'M THINKING THAT PERHAPS AND YOU SUGGESTED IT, IS TO HAVE A WORKSHOP WHERE WE CAN THRASH THIS OUT AND TRY TO GET TO WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF THE ISSUES AND THAT BECAUSE THAT'S SORT OF A CONCEPTUAL, THING WHERE WE NEED TO SAY CONCEPTUALLY, WHAT DO WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS? YOU GOT TO LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE FIRST.

IF WE JUST DIVE INTO AND I SAY THIS AS YOUR BOARD ATTORNEY, IF WE JUST DIVE INTO THE LANGUAGE AND GET IN THE WEEDS, WE'RE GOING TO MISS THE BIG PICTURE.

THE BIG PICTURE RIGHT NOW WITH DEVELOPMENT IS DENSITY.

WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING ANY OF THAT BY LOOKING AT DENSITY, THE HISTORICAL PLAT, ALL OF THAT STUFF IS AN ISSUE WITH WHAT DO WE WANT TO SEE? IF YOU DON'T WANT 25 FOOT LOTS DEVELOPED, YOU AND THIS ULTIMATELY THE CITIZENS THE CITY COMMISSION DON'T WANT 25 FOOT LOTS TO BE BUILT ON THEN YOU NEED TO MAKE THE RULES THAT WAY THEY'RE NOT MADE THAT WAY.

THEY'RE MADE RIGHT NOW SPECIFICALLY TO HONOR THOSE LOTS BECAUSE OF THE HISTORIC PLAT.

IF THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE, THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE NEED TO GO IN.

SO THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO.

YEAH. JUST TO KIND OF PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, TAKE US BACK TO SQUARE ONE, WHERE WE STARTED THAT THIS WHOLE FRAME DISCUSSIONS AND TO FRAME IT BACK.

SO I PROVIDED THE BOARD IN JUNE OF 2021, 2022, POSSIBLY A VERY LONG EMAIL THAT GAVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ON NONCONFORMING LOTS, SUBSTANDARD LOTS, WHY THE REGULATIONS ARE IN PLACE THE WAY THAT THEY ARE, AS I UNDERSTAND THEM.

AND IT GOES INTO DETAIL THAT IN THE LATE 90S, EARLY 2000, THE WAY THE REGULATIONS

[01:30:08]

AND IT WAS SUCH A SQUEEZE AT THAT POINT THAT THE CITY WAS GETTING PRESSURED TO PURCHASE THOSE PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY WE WEREN'T ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT ON THEM AT ALL.

IN MAKING THOSE CHANGES, WE HAVE TO THINK BACK TO IF THAT'S AND THIS IS SOMETHING YOU CAN DO.

THESE ARE ALL POSSIBILITIES AND EXAMINING THE BIGGER PICTURE.

BUT YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT THOSE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF BY DENYING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, BY DENYING PROPERTY RIGHTS TO PEOPLE WHO DO, IN FACT HAVE SUBSTANDARD LOTS AND CANNOT COMBINE THEM WITH THE ADJOINING OWNER.

YOU NEED TO BE PREPARED TO PURCHASE THOSE PROPERTIES, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THE CITY IS IN A POSITION TO SET ASIDE THE KINDS OF DOLLARS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WHICH IS WHY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS AMENDED TO HONOR THE SUBSTANDARD LOTS AS ONE DWELLING UNIT, WHICH IS WHY THE REGULATIONS CAME IN PLACE TO RECOGNIZE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS AND SITUATIONS OF WHEN PROPERTIES ARE COMBINED AND HOW TO BREAK THEM BACK OUT SO I CAN I'M HAPPY TO SEND THAT ALONG AGAIN.

IT'S REALLY LONG. I REMEMBER WRITING IT LATE ONE NIGHT TRYING TO UNCOVER FROM MEETING MINUTES, WHY WE GOT TO THIS PLACE, BUT THAT IS A REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF HOW WE GOT THESE REGULATIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS BECAUSE THE CITY WAS BEING PRESSURED TO BUY SUBSTANDARD LOTS.

THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO SORT OF REFRESH OUR MEMORIES.

THAT WAS I REMEMBER THAT, I'M SURE I HAVE IT IN MY COMPUTER SOMEWHERE, BUT MAYBE TO, MR. GILLETTE CERTAINLY WAS NOT ON THE BOARD AT THAT TIME, AND SO A RESEND WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

THAT WOULD BE VERY NICE.

AND THOSE LOTS YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, WERE THEY ALL JUST 25 FOOT LOT? THEY COULD BE 36 FOOT WIDE LOTS.

THEY COULD BE, 43 FOOT WIDE LOTS.

ANYTHING LESS THAN 50FT THE WAY THAT THE REGULATIONS READ BEFORE, IF YOU DID NOT HAVE 50FT OF FRONTAGE, YOU COULDN'T BUILD.

YOU SAID EARLIER THAT, THERE WAS A PROVISION THAT LOTS COULD BE DEVELOPED.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED UNDER THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE.

YES, BUT UNDER WHAT EXISTED IN THE LATE 90S, EARLY 2000S AND BEYOND.

I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT ANYONE OWNING OR PURCHASING A PROPERTY HAD THE OPTION TO, YOU KNOW, REBUILD ON IT BY GOING TO WHATEVER IS AROUND.

NO ONE'S EVER SAID YOU CAN'T BUILD AT ALL.

WE'LL BUY IT OR YOU GOT TO SUCK IT UP OR SO ON VACANT LANDS.

I'M SORRY. THE CITY WAS DENYING BUILDING PERMITS ON VACANT LAND.

ON VACANT LAND? ON WHAT SIZE PARCELS.

AND WAS THAT BECAUSE OF OTHER REASONS BESIDES? BECAUSE THEY WERE LESS THAN 50FT DEVELOPMENT. I THOUGHT WE HAD A PROVISION FOR.

WELL, WE DO TODAY.

YOU DO, YOU DO.

OKAY. SO SO WE DO.

SO IF WE GO BACK TO 1.03 04, 05 OKAY.

I GUESS WHAT I'M STILL CONFUSED ABOUT IS THAT BASIC STRUCTURE OF THOSE TWO PARAGRAPHS FLAWED, OR IS THE INTERPRETATION AND THE PROCESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION FLAWED? I THINK IT'S SOME OF THE LANGUAGE.

I THINK BY MAKING IT A HOUSE, THAT'S OKAY, BECAUSE AS I'VE ALWAYS SAID, I'VE THOUGHT OF THIS ALWAYS AS A PARCEL FROM NASSAU COUNTY. YOU KNOW, THAT'S ONE PARCEL.

OKAY. NOW, SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE TO GET AROUND THE REGULATIONS, I FEEL SOMEBODY SAID, WELL, WE'LL ONLY DO WHERE THE HOUSE WAS AND NOT THE ACCESSORY DWELLING.

SO THAT INTERPRETATION CHANGED SOME OF WHAT I THOUGHT WAS THE CASE.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S PART OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WE REALLY NEED TO.

CLARIFY, I THINK THAT LANGUAGE CAN BE CLARIFIED BECAUSE I THINK IT CAN BE CLARIFIED AS WELL.

105 WERE PUT IN PLACE WHAT, 2006 OR 5? WELL, WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT AND IT WAS A WHILE AGO.

SEVEN YEAH, OKAY.

WE DID IT RIGHT AFTER WE DID THE CODE.

WHAT IT WAS PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE 2006 CODE AND RECODIFIED IN 2006.

OKAY, OKAY. 2006.

[01:35:02]

SOME BETTER CHANGES RATHER THAN THROWING THE WHOLE THING.

AND I THINK TAMMY HIT THE KEY POINT.

I MEAN, SHE'S GOT TO DEAL WITH IT EVERY DAY FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.

AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE'RE WE GET SOME GUIDANCE FROM YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE CAN PRIORITIZE WHAT ARE THE MORE CRITICAL ONES AND SO FORTH.

SO I THINK I THINK YOU BROUGHT UP I THINK YOU CLARIFIED IN MY MIND AT LEAST, OKAY, KIND OF WHAT'S DRIVING THE CONCERN MORE DEVELOPMENT.

RIGHT. SO DO WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT A WORKSHOP ON THIS.

RIGHT. YEAH.

DO WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT A WORKSHOP, GENTLEMEN.

YEAH. I'M SORRY.

WORKSHOP. YEAH.

ABSOLUTELY. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GET TO YOU GUYS.

JUST HANG ON. WE'RE GOING TO GET TO YOU.

HOLD ON. I THINK WE NEED TO SPEND THIS WILL HAVE CAN HAVE MONUMENTAL CHANGES AND.

WHATEVER WE COULD DO IT THE 28TH OF FEBRUARY.

IS THE 28TH AN ALTERNATE DATE THAT YOU THINK IT MIGHT STILL BE OPEN? KELLY? YES.

CAN WE CAN WE PUT THAT? WHAT DAY IS THAT? THAT'S A WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH.

28TH. WHAT TIME? 3:00 OR 5:00.

LET'S DO THREE. I WELL, WE'LL SEE WHAT STAFF SAYS.

YEAH.

YOU CAN SPEND THE TIME ON THIS PEOPLE.

IS 3 O'CLOCK OKAY.

YOU KNOW THIS ISN'T GOING TO 30 SECOND.

LET'S RIDE IT UP 3:00.

YEAH. THAT WORKS OKAY.

3:00 OKAY.

3 P.M., WORKSHOP 3 TO 6.

YEP. OKAY.

OKAY. OKAY, GOOD.

ALL RIGHT. ARE WE READY TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC? YEAH. I'D LIKE TO ASK ONE MORE QUESTION.

YES, SURE. I GOT A COUPLE.

I SAID ASK SOMETHING ABOUT EARLIER, BECAUSE EVEN ON YOUR CHART, YOU HAVE VACANT AND IMPROVED, AND I KEEP GOING BACK.

WHEN IS SOMETHING VACANT AND WHEN IS IT IMPROVED? I KNOW, SEE IT.

IF IT'S GOT A HOUSE, IT'S IMPROVED.

BUT AGAIN WE'RE GOING THROUGH A PROCESS WHERE PEOPLE ARE BUYING THINGS OUTSIDE THE CITY, INSIDE THE CITY, TEARING THEM DOWN EITHER WITH PERMITS OR NOT, AND THEN COMING TO US AND SAYING, WELL, THAT'S A VACANT PARCEL.

I'M SORRY, HAD A STRUCTURE ON IT BEFORE.

IT'S PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED IS WHAT WE WOULD CALL IT.

IT'S BEEN DEVELOPED PREVIOUSLY.

IT'S HAD A STRUCTURE ON IT.

WHETHER IT HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED OR NOT.

IT HAS HAD A STRUCTURE.

AND IN THIS CASE, A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.

IF THERE'S BEEN A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THAT PARCEL OF PROPERTY IN THE PAST, THEN IT IS CONSIDERED COMBINED.

WELL, I'M THINKING IN TERMS OF YOUR NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED ON AT ALL.

IT'S JUST RAW LAND THEN.

SO IN TERMS OF YOUR YOUR FLOW CHART THAT YOU HAD WHERE YOU WERE SHOWING IMPROVED VACANT.

IF IT HAD A STRUCTURE ON IT, IS IT IMPROVED OR WAS IT VACANT.

IT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY IMPROVED I'M SORRY IT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY IMPROVED.

AND SO THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT PRIOR DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY HAVE UNIFIED THOSE PROPERTY.

WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHICH WAY DO YOU GO IN YOUR CHART? I MEAN, DO I GO YES NO? IT IS YES.

IT'S IMPROVED.

OKAY. SO IF IT WAS PREVIOUSLY IMPROVED WITH A STRUCTURE, THEN THE QUESTION IS ALWAYS YES, EVEN THOUGH IT'S VACANT TODAY BECAUSE THEY TORE IT DOWN.

YES. OKAY.

DOES THAT HELP? WELL, IT HELPS ME BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

OKAY. [LAUGHTER] VERY GOOD.

ARE WE READY TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC? ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK TO US? SIR, PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

PLEASE, SIR. JACK EMBER, 1003 BROOME STREET HERE IN FERNANDINA.

I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY SIMPLIFY A FEW THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL, TO MARK BENNETT'S QUESTION, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE CURRENT 1.03.05 NOW? THE ANSWER IS NOTHING.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE PROBLEM IS THE DEVELOPERS WANT TO DEVELOP AND THEY DON'T LIKE THE PROCESS, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

[01:40:03]

MAKE IT EASIER FOR INCREASED DENSITY.

BOTTOM LINE, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER WAY AROUND IT.

MISS GIBSON'S EXAMPLES.

IN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, IT INCREASES DENSITY.

I KNOW THAT'S WORST POSSIBLE CASE, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE THE UNDERLYING PROMOTION.

EXAMPLE ONE, ONE LOT BECOMES TWO LOTS.

EXAMPLE TWO, ONE LOT BECOMES TWO LOTS.

EXAMPLE THREE, ONE LOT BECOMES FIVE LOTS OF RECORD.

EXAMPLE FOUR, ONE LOT BECOMES SIX LOTS OF RECORD.

EXAMPLE FIVE, ONE LOT BECOMES TWO LOTS.

SIX, ONE LOT BECOMES TWO LOTS.

SEVEN SINGLE LOT BECOMES FOUR SINGLE HOMES.

EXAMPLE EIGHT, ONE LOT BECOMES TWO LOTS.

AND EXAMPLE NINE, SINGLE HOME BECOMES TWO POTENTIAL LOTS, POTENTIALLY TWO HOMES.

EXAMPLE TEN, ONE LOT BECOMES FIVE LOTS.

SO KEEP IN MIND, TRINGALI, RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT CONDOS COMING IN.

THEY ARE FULLY CONFIDENT THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO FIGHT WITH THEM.

YOU KNOW, THE DEAL'S BEEN MADE.

THEY'RE GOING TO GET THEIR CONDOS, DEMOLITIONS BEEN DONE, THEIR PLANNING, THEIR THINKING IT'S A DONE DEAL.

WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD.

ALL WE NEED TO DO IS GET THE PLANNING BOARD TO REARRANGE SOME TERMINOLOGY HERE AND MAKE IT EASY FOR US.

WHY NOT WAIT UNTIL THE DUST IS CLEARED? BECAUSE THEY ARE.

THEY HAVE TO MAKE THIS DEAL NOW, RIGHT? THAT'S WHY YOU'RE BEING PRESSURED.

CAN YOU SAY, YEAH.

INSTEAD OF A WORKSHOP? WE'RE JUST GOING TO SAY NO TO THIS.

YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN.

DO YOU WORK FOR THE CITY COMMISSION? YES, BUT ALSO THE CITY OF FERNANDINA.

SO YOU GUYS CAN MAKE THE DECISION.

DO YOU HAVE THE DATA? WE'VE SAID THIS BEFORE.

YOU DON'T HAVE, WHAT THE MAX DENSITY ON THE ISLAND IS.

MR. STEVENSON SAID WE'RE 85.

I BELIEVE IT WAS YOU. YOU SAID WE'RE 85% BUILT OUT.

I BELIEVE IT MAY BE EVEN HIGHER THAN THAT, BUT HOW DO WE KNOW? HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT OUR CAPACITY IS IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT, INCREASED DENSITY WILL DO TO TRAFFIC? AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LONG, LIFE, LONG LINE OF INFERENCE TO THIS.

SO I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THIS, BUT I THINK THIS IS BOTTOM LINE THIS IS THE SAME WAGON BEING PULLED BY A HORSE OF A DIFFERENT COLOR.

AND IF YOU WANT TO SUSPECT SOMETHING, I SUSPECT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PROMOTING IT THE HARDEST.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. EMBER. THANK YOU. WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? MARGARET? MARGARET KIRKLAND, 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE.

I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CONSERVE NASSAU.

I THINK WHEN YOU GUYS WERE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING YOU REALLY NEED TO CONSIDER QUITE CAREFULLY, BECAUSE WE HAVE IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE CITY, WHICH IS A BIG FACTOR DRIVING THE ECONOMY.

IF YOU MAKE IT JUST LIKE ALL OF THE REST OF COASTAL FLORIDA, NO ONE'S GOING TO COME HERE.

WE HAVE NO COMPETITIVE EDGE, YOU KNOW, AND WE ALREADY HAVE HAVE PEOPLE DEPARTING.

WE HAVE, IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY, QUALITY OF LIFE.

AND ALSO, DON'T FORGET OUR FUTURE, WHETHER WE HAVE A FUTURE OR NOT, WITH SEA LEVEL RISE AND, INCREASE INTENSITY OF RAINSTORMS AND HURRICANES AND SO ON.

SO LET'S FACE IT, I MEAN, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, BUT LET'S FACE IT, THE PURPOSE OF THESE CHANGES IS SIMPLY TO INCREASE DENSITY.

AND THAT'S THE PERSPECTIVE OF SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

WE'RE FACING THE MISGUIDED BELIEF THAT INCREASING DENSITY IN THE CITY IS A BENEFIT BECAUSE IT INCREASES THE TAX BASE.

[01:45:09]

THIS WILL RESULT IN EXORBITANT COSTS FROM STORM DAMAGE AND OTHER TYPES OF FLOODING.

AND WE SHOULD KNOW THIS BECAUSE WE SEE THIS ALL AROUND FLORIDA AND OTHER COMMUNITIES AND AROUND THE WORLD.

AND ALSO WE ALREADY HAVE FLOODING MID ISLAND AND PROBLEMS WITH THAT.

AND WE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT YET BECAUSE NO ONE HAS BEEN INVESTIGATING IT CAREFULLY.

SO THERE ARE IMPLICATIONS AND THERE'S A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE THAT WE DON'T HAVE AND WE NEED BEFORE MAKING THIS KIND OF DECISION. WE'RE ALSO WORKING WITH THE MISGUIDED ASSUMPTIONS THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS BEST PROTECTED WHEN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IS CLUSTERED TOGETHER AND SURROUNDING LANDS ARE CONSERVED, RIGHT.

THAT NOTION MAY BE VALID AND FEASIBLE IN SOME LOCATIONS, BUT NOT ON A SMALL BARRIER ISLAND THAT IS SUBJECT TO SEA LEVEL RISE, STORM SURGE, ETC.

AND NOT ON A BARRIER ISLAND THAT IS LARGELY BUILT OUT OKAY.

THIS NOTION IS MISAPPLIED IN THIS LOCATION, AND IT IS ALSO FAR TOO LATE IN THE GAME.

THERE'S HARDLY ANY ADDITIONAL LAND TO CONSERVE, TO CARRY OUT THE FUNCTIONS NEEDED TO PROTECT THE ISLAND AND POPULATION, SUCH AS STORMWATER PROCESSING.

CURRENTLY OUR STORMWATER OR IN THE PAST OUR STORMWATER PROCESSING SYSTEM HAS BEEN OUR TREES.

RIGHT. AND VEGETATION.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR HARDSCAPE, STORMWATER PROCESSING THAT IS MASSIVE AND IS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. AND THEN WE'RE STILL VULNERABLE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE DISSIPATION OF THE WINDS THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE TREES AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER BENEFITS THAT THEY HAVE.

SO THAT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.

WE, ALSO HAVE I MEAN, OUR VEGETATION PROVIDES GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT, TEMPERATURE MODERATION.

IT'S HOT ALREADY IN THE SUMMER AND IT'S GOING TO BE HOTTER.

AND, WE WE NEED THIS.

OUR DENSITY FURTHER DAMAGES THE ECONOMIC BASE OF THE CITY AND THE SERIOUS IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE DEVELOPER OR THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY, HAS PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND THE PERSON NEXT DOOR DOESN'T.

AND WE HAVE HAD LOTS OF PEOPLE TESTIFY IN THIS ROOM BEFORE THIS BOARD ON THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT HAPPENED IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD A YEAR OR TWO YEARS AFTER THEY MOVED IN.

SO, YOU KNOW, THE CITY, THE COUNTY NEED TO BE STANDING UP FOR THOSE PEOPLE.

I'VE BEEN TO THE MOST PITIFUL HEARINGS, BOTH IN THE CITY AND IN THE COUNTY, WHERE RESIDENTS PROVIDE FACTUAL EVIDENCE BASED ON THEIR EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATION OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.

AND THE BOARDS JUST LOOK AT THEM LIKE, DOESN'T MATTER.

IT'S YOUR LOSS OF PROPERTY VALUE.

NOBODY ELSE GIVES A DAMN, OKAY? AND IT IS A LOSS OF PROPERTY VALUE.

WE KNOW FOR A FACT THERE'S BEEN A TON OF RESEARCH DONE ON LOSS OF OF TREE CANOPY RESULTS IN LOWER PROPERTY VALUES, IN MANY OTHER THINGS THAT IMPACT THAT THE OVERCROWDING DOWNTOWN HERE, WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN THAT ENVIRONMENT? I USED TO SPEND A LOT OF MY LIFE DOWNTOWN HERE.

I RARELY COME DOWNTOWN ANYMORE BECAUSE IT'S TOO MUCH OF A PAIN IN THE BUTT AND TOO OBNOXIOUS.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY IMPACTFUL.

AND WE NEED TO REALIZE THAT THOSE THINGS HAVE COSTS.

AND IT'S NOT THE COST OF WHAT I DO, BUT IT IS THE COST OF WHAT MANY, PEOPLE DO.

[01:50:02]

AND I WOULD SAY IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE ARE DATED PLANNING PRINCIPLES THAT FAIL TO CONSIDER WHERE WE LIVE, WHERE WE ARE, AND WHO WE WANT TO BE AS A COMMUNITY.

SO I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, BUT SOMEBODY ELSE PROBABLY NEEDS TO SPEAK.

THANK YOU MARGARET.

APPRECIATE IT. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? [INAUDIBLE] TINA CHRISTNER, 406 BEECH STREET.

I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU ALL.

THIS WAS ONE OF THE BEST DISCUSSIONS I'VE EVER WITNESSED AT A BOARD MEETING.

IT WAS SO THOUGHTFUL AND JUST ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD, YOU ALL ASKED THEM, SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS JUST WONDERFUL.

AND I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY.

YOU'VE REALLY HELPED PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS TO DATE, AND I THINK WE'RE KIND OF UNDER A BIG CHALLENGE RIGHT NOW.

I WANTED TO JUST SAY A FEW THINGS BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE REALLY COVERED STUFF.

SO THE REASON THAT THEY WANT TO CLARIFY 1.03.05 AND ALL OF US WHO READ 1.03.05 ARE SCRATCHING OUR HEADS BECAUSE WE'RE LIKE, IT'S REALLY CLEAR.

KEEP IN MIND THAT THE JUDGE WHO LOOKED AT THE LEGAL CHALLENGE SAID OF MISS BACH MENTIONED THREE INTERPRETATIONS.

THE JUDGE SAID THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE CITY'S ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION.

SO TO ME THAT MEANS THE JUDGE AGREED WITH US.

NOW WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE LEGAL CHALLENGE THAT THE CITY IS PARTICIPATING IN AGAINST THE CITIZENS.

BUT WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS THERE.

SO ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS ABOUT THIS CHANGE THAT I THINK IS KIND OF BEING IGNORED IS IT'S BRINGING IN THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS TO 1.03.05 , WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT INTO 1.03.05 BEFORE.

IT'S NEVER BEEN LISTED IN THERE.

EVERY EXAMPLE THAT MISS GIBSON GAVE.

AND BY THE WAY, MISS GIBSON, THAT WAS AN ABSOLUTELY GREAT PRESENTATION WITH YOUR EXAMPLES.

THAT WAS REALLY GOOD.

BUT I THINK ALMOST EVERY EXAMPLE, BECAUSE THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS COVERS EVERYTHING THAT IS GOING TO BE THREE OR MORE STRUCTURES.

SO I THINK IT REALLY IS GOING TO MAKE 1.03.05 KIND OF OUR FOR THE NEW ONE MOOT, BECAUSE ANYBODY COULD DO A SUBDIVISION PROCESS IF IT'S GOING TO BE THREE OR MORE.

SO I WOULD REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO THAT.

AND LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT MY HOUSE IN 2001, ONE OF THE EXAMPLES I THINK, WAS EXAMPLE TEN THAT MISS GIBSON HAD.

AT THE TIME IT'S KIND OF ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME AT THE TIME.

IT HAD AN OLD HOUSE ON IT.

NOBODY LIVED THERE. IT HAD A FEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND I DID MY DUE DILIGENCE MOVING IN.

I WENT NEXT DOOR, I TALKED TO THE NEIGHBOR AND I SAID, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS HOUSE.

I CAME FROM A HIGH DENSITY AREA AND I SAID, CAN THEY TEAR IT DOWN AND PUT UP SOMETHING? AND THE NEIGHBOR SAID, NAH, THE GUY WHO OWNS IT, HE'S TRIED TO GET TOWNHOUSES IN THERE FOR YEARS, AND EVERY TIME THE CITY KNOCKS HIM DOWN AND, AND SAYS, NO WAY.

AND, SO I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT MY HOUSE IF HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN ME AN ANSWER TODAY THAT, OH, THAT CAN HAPPEN.

SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

THE OTHER TWO THINGS I'LL SAY IS IT'S NEVER BEEN ANSWERED FOR ME, WHAT THIS CHANGE WILL ALLOW AS FAR AS ADDITIONAL 20 FOOT LOTS IGNORING THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, I'D LIKE TO SEE A COUNT OF THAT.

ALSO TO LET YOU KNOW, ONE DAY I WAS REALLY BORED AND I TOOK A MAP OF THE 25 FOOT LOTS, AND I TOOK A FLOOD MAP.

AND THE 25 FOOT LOTS ARE PRETTY MUCH IN ALL THE AREAS THAT ARE PRONE TO FLOODING.

AND I THINK YULEE PUT THEM THERE BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO BE THE POOREST OF THE POOR.

THEY DIDN'T CARE IF THE HOUSES FLOODED BECAUSE THERE WERE GOING TO BE SHACKS ANYWAY.

SO DO WE REALLY WANT TO ALLOW A LOT MORE DEVELOPMENT ON 25 FOOT LOTS IN THESE AREAS THAT ARE PRONE TO FLOODING? I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME RAMBLE.

CAN I ASK YOU TO, GIVE ME THE WORDS AGAIN WHAT YOU SAID RIGHT BEFORE THE 25 FOOT LOTS.

YOU SAID WHAT THE CHANGE.

WHAT THIS CHANGE? CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME THOSE WORDS AGAIN? WHAT I MEAN, SO WHAT I'M SAYING THERE IS IF YOU HAVE, A LOT NOW, IT'S GOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON IT RIGHT NOW YOU CAN'T

[01:55:01]

BUT WITH THIS CHANGE, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO WITHOUT EVEN GOING IN FRONT OF ANYONE.

THERE WAS ONE LAST THING I WANTED TO SAY, AND I'M REALLY SORRY.

I HAD, A LEGAL MIND THAT I KNOW READ THROUGH THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, AND THE PERSON SAID THEY FOUND MANY HOLES IN IT WHERE THEY COULD DO A LEGAL CHALLENGE ON IT.

SO JUST AS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY, WHATEVER LANGUAGE YOU DECIDE TO ADOPT, I WOULD SPEND THE EXTRA MONEY, HIRE AN OUTSIDE LAWYER AND SAY, HEY, CHALLENGE THIS, SEE WHAT KIND OF CHALLENGES WE CAN GET INTO, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SOME DOLLARS SPENT NOW WILL SAVE THE CITY A LOT OF MONEY LATER.

THAT'S JUST MY OPINION, BUT THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

REALLY.

YES, SIR. IF YOU COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, SIR.

MICHAEL LEDNOVICH, 1586 CANOPY DRIVE.

AND I'M ADDRESSING YOU TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE FERNANDINA OBSERVER.

AND YOU MENTIONED A THIRD ALTERNATIVE.

AND SO IF YOU'RE PART OF THE PUBLIC AND YOU'RE NOT PRIVY TO THE COMMUNICATIONS OF THIS BODY, WITH COMMISSIONERS AND OTHERS, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT THIRD ALTERNATIVE IS.

A I WOULD URGE YOU TO PUT IT INTO THE RECORD THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED A THIRD ALTERNATIVE, B YOU HAVE NOT DISCLOSED TO THE PUBLIC WHAT THAT THIRD ALTERNATIVE SAYS, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE AYSCUE PLAN, YOU HAVE THE REVISIONS TO THE LANGUAGE, BUT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN DISCLOSED WHAT THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE IS.

SO I WOULD SO I WOULD URGE YOU A TAKE 1 OR 2 MINUTES.

PLEASE TELL US WHAT THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE SAYS.

B HAVE THAT THIRD ALTERNATIVE IN THE MEETING PACKET.

MANY PEOPLE GO TO THE MEETING PACKET TO SEE THE MATERIAL THAT WAS INCLUDED.

AND THAT THIRD ALTERNATIVE SHOULD BE IN THAT PACKET FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, MIKE, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, TWO I DON'T I KNOW MY PERSONAL VIEW OF THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE ISN'T THAT IT'S A THIRD ALTERNATIVE THAT IT I ACCEPTED THAT MORE AS I WOULD ACCEPT COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC THAT IT IS COMMUNICATION GIVEN TO US, BUT IT'S NOT AN OFFICIAL.

ALTERNATIVE THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE IS WHAT THE STAFF HAS PRESENTED TO US, I THINK, AM I WRONG? I AM WRONG, I TAKE IT.

NO YOU'RE RIGHT.

SO? SO MY VIEW OF WHAT COMMISSIONER ROSS SENT US IS HE'S WRITING TO THE BOARD MEMBERS.

THEN IT WAS AN OPINION.

YEAH. NOT NOT ANOTHER PROPOSAL.

OKAY. THAT'S MY IMPRESSION.

OKAY. AND THAT'S FINE SIR, I'M GOING BY WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY.

YEAH, OKAY. I MAY HAVE MISSPOKEN.

AND I MAY HAVE MISSPOKEN BECAUSE IT IS TITLED ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL.

AND SO AND WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED IT MAINLY BECAUSE TONIGHT THE ONLY THING THAT WAS COMING FROM STAFF WAS WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND PROPOSED.

SO THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

BUT I WOULD AGREE WITH MR. DOSTER THAT IT WAS A LATE SUBMISSION.

I THINK I GOT MINE LAST NIGHT.

MINE THIS MORNING.

THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US FOR CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS ALMOST, LIKE I SAID, THE SAME AS A CITIZEN COMING FORWARD AND GIVING US A PIECE OF PAPER SAYING, THESE ARE MY IDEAS, TOO.

AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

SO, IT CERTAINLY IN OUR DISCUSSIONS IN OUR WORKSHOP THAT WILL BE PART OF THAT WILL BE PART OF THE PACKET OF INFORMATION.

GOT IT. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

YEAH. AND JUST WILL IT BE PART OF THE PACKET? IT SHOULD BE. THIS WILL BE UP.

IS THAT CORRECT. THIS WILL BE UPLOADED TOO? IF YOU WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO BE.

YES. PLEASE DO THAT.

WE'RE HEARING THAT SO OKAY I'M STILL LOOKING.

IS IT A COMMENT OR IS IT A ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL.

IT'S. I'M UNCLEAR AS TO.

IT'S I WOULD CLASSIFY IT AS A COMPILATION OF THOUGHTS OF SOME ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS.

[LAUGHTER] BUT IT'S ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS.

OKAY. KELLY GOT IT AND SHE IMMEDIATELY SENT IT TO THE BOARD.

GOT IT. SO WE ALL GOT IT THE SAME TIME EITHER LATE LAST NIGHT OR EARLY THIS MORNING DEPENDING ON THE SPEED OF THE INTERNET SERVICE.

SO I DON'T THINK I CERTAINLY DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DIGEST THE FULL IMPACT OF, YOU KNOW, DOING ANY KIND OF COMPARISON OR ANYTHING.

SO BUT SINCE WE'RE HAVING A WORKSHOP, UPLOAD IT TO THE SYSTEM AND MAKE IT PART OF THE RECORD.

[02:00:04]

OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

ABSOLUTELY. OKAY.

SO DOES ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? [INAUDIBLE] STREET.

I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING, BUT NOW, IT'S BROUGHT UP.

I WILL CLARIFY AND APOLOGIZE.

I DID, I HAD I TOOK THE WHAT WAS GOING TO BE PRESENTED, THE STAFF PROPOSAL AND I FRANKLY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT WHEN I READ IT.

I COULDN'T, AND MAYBE I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH, BUT I COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT.

AND SO I CAME UP AND PERHAPS AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL WAS THE WRONG TITLE TO PUT ON IT, BUT I MADE COMMENTS AND PUT THEM IN WRITING, AS I'M WON'T TO DO ON MANY THINGS, AND SENT THEM TO THE BOARD.

I DID IT OVER THE WEEKEND.

IT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE A LONG TIME BEFORE, BUT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN A FEW OTHER LITTLE THINGS AND DIDN'T GET TO IT.

SO I APOLOGIZE FOR ALL THAT.

I THINK THE DEFINITIONS ARE PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT YOU CAN WORK ON.

AND I WOULD AGREE WITH A PARCEL.

WHAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS A PARCEL TO BE IS WHAT IS ON THE NOT WHAT'S WAS UP ON THE BOARD THERE BEFORE, BUT WHAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS FROM THE NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER.

AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE WHAT PEOPLE CALL A PARCEL.

AND THEN YOU CAN CHANGE ALL THE OTHER WORDING.

AND I DIDN'T AGREE WITH SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS, AND I JUST GAVE AN ALTERNATE PROPOSAL, AS TO WHAT, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PUT IT, AN ALTERNATE SUGGESTION. BUT I WASN'T TRYING TO BE NEFARIOUS OR ANYTHING ELSE.

AND, SO I APOLOGIZE IF I CAUSED SOME CONFUSION.

BUT AND MY INTERNET, DIDN'T WORK, MY CITY INTERNET DIDN'T WORK, SO I COULDN'T SEND IT OUT EARLIER YESTERDAY.

AND THAT'S WHY YOU GOT IT THIS MORNING.

AND I HAD IT WAS 8:00 AT THE TECH CENTER WITH THE IT PEOPLE FIXING IT.

SO, ANY, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? SOMEWHAT, YES. THANK YOU.

SO THERE WAS NOTHING NEFARIOUS? NOTHING ELSE? I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE CALLED IT AN ALTERNATE SOMETHING.

OKAY, BUT THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? I JUST I JUST HAVE AFTER MISS CHRISTNER SPOKE, IF I DIDN'T AUTHOR THE LANGUAGE.

SO, BUT IT'S SOMETHING IT'S PROCESS AND SO WE'RE ALL HERE TO IF ANY OF YOU HAVE LEGAL MINDS THAT LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE AND HAVE QUESTIONS OR HAVE, COMMENTS OR WANT TO, ASSIST US OR PROVIDE, WE WOULD LOVE THAT.

WE DON'T TAKE REALLY ANY PRIDE OF AUTHORSHIP.

WE ALL DO THIS TOGETHER.

AND SO IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED IF THERE ARE LEGAL MINDS OR OTHERWISE OUT THERE THAT HAVE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY THINK ARE HOLES IN IT, OR IT'D BE REALLY NICE TO TO KNOW THAT.

SO, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT MARRIED TO ANYTHING, THIS IS A PROPOSAL THAT, I JUST SAW A FEW DAYS AGO.

SO, IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL SO THAT WE DON'T LATER ON HAVE A DISPUTE OVER IT.

SO. VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU.

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE.

WE'LL COME BACK TO BOARD DISCUSSION IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

GO AHEAD. I'M SURE WE NEED TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON THIS LANGUAGE.

DO WE NEED TO? WE ARE. WE'RE DELAYING IT UNTIL.

BUT DO YOU WANT A MOTION ON IT? JUST. WELL, WE NEED A MOTION.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED A MOTION, OKAY? WE JUST LET IT SIT AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORKSHOP ON THE 28TH, AT 3:00.

WE ARE NOT TAKING ANY ACTION TONIGHT THAT'S ALL.

SO THERE'S NO ACTION TONIGHT, RIGHT? OKAY. OR IS IT A CONTINUANCE? CONTINUE UNTIL.

ALL RIGHT, SO 28TH, I HEARD TO BE CLEAR, I DO NEED TO HAVE A CONTINUANCE TO A TIME CERTAIN DATES SO THAT THIS CAN BE RECONSIDERED.

OKAY. WELL, BECAUSE OF THE NOTICE THAT IS POSTED AND PUBLISHED.

BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA YOU'LL NOTICE THE 28TH MEETING JUST LIKE A REGULAR.

RIGHT? BUT IT'LL JUST BE A WORKSHOP.

I NEED TO KNOW THE DATE OF THAT MEETING.

OKAY. WELL, WHY DON'T WE MAKE IT TO THE MARCH MEETING? WELL, I LIKE HAVING THE MEETING ON 28TH, BUT WE CAN KEEP MOVING IT AS AS WE FEEL THAT WE, YOU KNOW,

[02:05:09]

YEAH. THE NEXT MEETING.

OKAY. THE WORKSHOP IS THE WORKING PART OF GETTING BETWEEN NEXT NOW AND NEXT MARCH.

RIGHT. IT COMES TOGETHER. THERE MAY BE ANOTHER WORKSHOP AFTER THIS ONE.

THAT WILL BE THE 13TH OF MARCH.

OKAY. SO THAT'S THAT.

I DO HAVE SOME MORE THAN KELLY.

OUR NEXT MEETING.

OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PAB LET'S PUSH THAT OVER TO THAT MEETING IN MARCH.

OKAY, SO THE DATE, CERTAIN TIME WOULD THEN BE? MARCH 13TH.

I NEED A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS CASE TO MARCH 13TH.

DO I HEAR A MOTION? I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. DO I HEAR A SECOND.

I GOT A QUESTION.

GO AHEAD DISCUSSION. BEFORE YOU RUSH INTO ALL THIS HERE.

IF YOU WOULD HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE, THEN DOES THAT MEAN YOU WILL DEFINITELY VOTE ON THIS IN THAT NEXT MEETING? NO. NO. NO I'M QUESTIONING NO.

OKAY. THIS GETS PUBLISHED THESE LDC TEXT AMENDMENTS PUBLISH IN THE PAPER AND A POSTED NOTICE.

YOU GOT A NOTICE. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND ANOTHER WHATEVER HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS IT IS FOR THE NOTICE IN THE NEWSPAPER.

IF WE CONTINUE IT THEN THE NOTICE IS BEING DONE.

I'M WITH YOU OKAY. BECAUSE WE DID IT FOR THIS MEETING.

IT'S JUST WE'RE GOING SOMEWHERE.

I DIDN'T WANT TO GO.

I UNDERSTAND, I DO.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO WE'VE HAD A MOTION.

WE'VE HAD A SECOND.

I'LL CALL THE VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED LIKE SIGN.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT I'M VOTING ON NOW.

TELL US. TELL US ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

YEAH. YES, YES.

NO. THIS IS FOR OUR NEXT MEETING.

YES, YES. OKAY, FINE.

YES. SO YOU'RE VOTING.

YES. YES.

OKAY. SO IT'S UNANIMOUS NOW.

ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S A UNANIMOUS YES.

KELLY YOU GOT THAT.

YES. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT.

BOARD MEMBERS, ITEM 6, 6.1, BOARD BUSINESS ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR, AS REQUIRED BY OUR LAND

[6. BOARD BUSINESS]

I GUESS I'LL JUST START OFF BY SAYING A, IT'S BEEN A GREAT PLEASURE TO BE YOUR CHAIR THIS PAST YEAR AND B, I WILL PUT MYSELF UP TO CONTINUE TO BE CHAIR IF THE BOARD SO WISHES.

AND, IF THERE'S SOMEBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE CHAIR.

YOU'VE BEEN CHAIR FOR ONE YEAR OR TWO? ONE. TWO AND A HALF.

FOR ONE AND A HALF. TWO.

NO, NO, THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.

THAT WAS PART OF ONE YEAR AND THEN FULL YEAR.

YEAH, IT WAS ABOUT WELL THAT WAS ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF, I GUESS.

WELL, NOT THAT YOU'RE I MEAN, YOU DO A GREAT JOB, BUT DON'T WE USUALLY CYCLE IT TO WHERE YOU GET NEW CHAIR PEOPLE.

[INAUDIBLE] EVERY TWO YEARS.

WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN THE PAST.

OKAY. SO I ALWAYS THOUGHT VICE CHAIR WAS STEP STONING TO CHAIR.

WELL NORMALLY THE CHAIR SERVES FOR TWO YEARS AND THEN RATHER NOT UNLESS YOU WANT TO JUST LEAVE AND PRETEND WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT IT.

IT'S UP. IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS.

[LAUGHTER] IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS.

I'M HAPPY WHICHEVER WAY YOU GO. I HAVE ANOTHER THING GOING ON RIGHT NOW, SO I WOULD PROBABLY PREFER NOT TO BE CHAIRMAN THIS YEAR.

YEAH, JUST I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION BECAUSE I DON'T.

OTHER BOARDS I'VE BEEN ON USUALLY VICE CHAIR IS CYCLED IN, BUT I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT'S FINE TO ELECT AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PAB FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2024 VICTORIA ROBAS.

WHY DON'T YOU JUST ROLL IN THAT WE MADE YOU STAY? I CAN'T MAKE A MOTION.

OKAY, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION AND THAT PETER BECOME VICE, STAY AS VICE CHAIRMAN.

YOU HAVE TO SECOND AND THEN VOTE ON IT.

YOU KNOW, WILL YOU SAY, I JUST BEEN DOING THIS FOR A WHILE.

I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION TO FOR YOU TO CONTINUE ON AS CHAIR FOR ANOTHER YEAR.

ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S JUST THE CHAIR MOTION IS WHAT WE'RE HEARING RIGHT NOW RIGHT.

YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HEARING RIGHT NOW IS I HEAR A CONTINUATION OF.

CHAIRWOMAN CHAIR.

CHAIR PERSON FOR THE NEXT PERSON.

CHAIR PERSON 2024.

SO I HEAR A MOTION. DO I HEAR A SECOND? YOU GOT A MOTION A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? LIKE SIGN. HEARING NONE.

THE MOTION IS CARRIED.

SO NOW YOU NEED A VICE CHAIR.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT PETER BE VICE CHAIR SECOND FOR THE NEXT YEAR.

OKAY. GOOD. OKAY.

SO WE'VE HAD THE MOTION FOR MR. DOSTER. WE'VE HAD THE SECOND FROM, NICK AND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

[02:10:03]

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? LIKE SIGN? HEARING NONE.

I COULD RECUSE MYSELF.

THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

WELL, PETER, JUST SO YOU KNOW, I MISSED ONE MEETING WHEN I WAS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE BOARD, AND THEY MADE ME CHAIRMAN, SO.

[LAUGHTER] THE NEXT TIME YOU [INAUDIBLE].

[7. STAFF REPORT]

YEAH, BECAUSE IN THE PAST, THE SECOND MEETING [INAUDIBLE] WHAT IS THIS? OH, THESE ARE THE LOTS.

KELLY, THESE ARE THE LOTS YOU WENT OVER TONIGHT, RIGHT? NO. OH. THEY'RE NOT.

NO, NO, THESE ARE THE.

THIS IS WHAT I WANTED.

OH, OKAY.

WE'LL DISCUSS IT. THIS WAS IN THAT PACKET WE HAD WHERE WE HAD THE NO PLOTS THAT WENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

RIGHT? NOPE. OKAY.

OKAY. I'LL EXPLAIN WHEN WE GET THERE.

WELL, I GUESS THE QUESTION THAT WE KEPT HEARING TONIGHT WAS POTENTIALLY HOW MANY LOTS CAN BE IMPACTED. AND WHEN I LOOK AT SOME BLOCKS THERE'S LIKE HOW MANY BLOCKS ARE IN SOME OF THESE BLOCKS. I MEAN THERE CAN BE 17 TO AN ACRES AND SOME OF THEM IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT 25, 36.

[INAUDIBLE] OKAY KELLY YOU WANT TO LEAD ON.

YES. SO I THINK IF WE'RE STICKING WITH OUR AGENDA, NO PROJECT UPDATES.

OH, YEAH.

7.1. YES.

PROJECT UPDATES.

WE'RE DOING JUST A FEW THINGS IN PLANNING AND CONSERVATION RIGHT NOW.

WE HAVE HAD OUR KICKOFF MEETING FOR OUR IMPACT FEE STUDY THAT IS UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE COLLECTING DATA TO PROVIDE TO STANTEC, THE CONSULTANT WHO WILL BE REVIEWING AND ANALYZING OUR CURRENT IMPACT FEES.

CREATE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT OF THEM, COMPARING THEM TO THE FIVE YEAR CIP AND THE PROJECTS CONTAINED WITHIN THEM TO DETERMINE, WHETHER OR NOT OUR FEES CONTINUE TO BE VALID OR IF THEY NEED TO BE MODIFIED.

SO THAT IS A PROJECT THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY LEADING.

ANOTHER PROJECT THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY LEADING IS DOWNTOWN AND CRA DESIGN GUIDELINES UPDATE.

YOU'LL SEE ON THE FEBRUARY 20TH AGENDA OF THE CITY COMMISSION THE SELECTION FOR A VENDOR TO COMPLETE THE GUIDELINES UPDATE.

AND SO THAT WILL CONTINUE THROUGH THE END OF JULY, WORKING PREDOMINANTLY WITH OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL, SINCE THOSE ARE THE GUIDELINES THAT THEY UTILIZE. WE HAVE SEVERAL LAND DEDICATIONS IN THE WORKS, PROPERTY OFF OF GUM STREET THAT WE LOOKED AT EARLIER, CONTAINING THE WETLANDS, PROPERTIES THERE, SOME PROPERTY OFF OF SADDLER ROAD AND ONE OTHER PARCEL OF LAND THAT I CAN'T REMEMBER RIGHT NOW. THERE ARE THREE IN THE WORKS RIGHT NOW.

WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH MUNICODE ON THE INTEGRATION OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WE HAVE LOTS OF TREES GOING INTO BOSQUE BELLO WITH SUPPORT OF THE AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY.

THEY ARE FUNDING SOME MUCH NEEDED MAINTENANCE OF THE CANOPY AT BOSQUE BELLO.

AND THEN WE ARE LOOKING TO PLANT TEN ADDITIONAL TREES, I THINK 10 OR 12 ADDITIONAL TREES AT BOSQUE BELLO AS PART OF OUR ARBOR DAY CELEBRATION.

AND THAT'S IN ADDITION TO THE FIVE TREES WE JUST RECENTLY PLANTED, THROUGH A VERY GENEROUS DONATION.

THAT'S GOOD. WILL THOSE BE OAK TREES OR WILL THEY BE MAGNOLIAS OR.

THEY WILL BE A VARIETY OF TREE SPECIES.

WELL, THEY'LL BE NAMED AFTER MARGARET.

ARE WE NAMING THEM AFTER MARGARET? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY NAMED TREES EXCEPT FOR KATE'S TREE AT THIS POINT.

IN APRIL, WE'LL ALSO HAVE TEN TREES DESIGNATED AS HERITAGE TREES.

SO THAT WILL APPEAR ON A FUTURE AGENDA.

WE HAVE SOME MUCH NEEDED CONSERVATION WEBSITE, PAGE UP, WEBSITE UPDATES THAT ARE IN THE WORKS, ALONG WITH SOME, SIGNAGE OF ALL OF OUR CONSERVATION PROPERTIES.

SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO LOOK FORWARD TO THAT HAPPENING HERE VERY SOON.

YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GIVE US WHAT THAT THE VERBIAGE IS RIGHT.

YOU'RE ABLE TO TELL US WHAT THAT SIGN LOOKS LIKE.

YOU'LL SEE THEM. OKAY.

YES. GOOD. YEAH.

YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THEM ON POSTED PROPERTIES.

AND THEN WE ARE WORKING WITH THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS RESEARCH, BEBR TO UPDATE OUR SMALL AREA POPULATION PROJECTION MODEL.

THIS WAS AN EFFORT THAT WE COMPLETED IN 2019 JUST PRIOR TO OUR EAR ASSESSMENT.

[02:15:01]

AND THIS TIME WE'RE ALSO INCLUDING SEASONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS, WHICH WILL BE A WELCOMED ADDITION TO BEING ABLE TO BETTER ANALYZE THE IMPACTS OF OUR SEASONAL POPULATIONS ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

IS NOW THAT WON'T INCLUDE, DAY TRIPPERS, THAT WILL JUST INCLUDE PEOPLE WHO ARE RENTING AND VISITING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND ONLY IN THE CITY, ONLY WITHIN THE CITY.

HOW DO THEY DO THAT? YEAH. HOW DO THEY DO? I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WE'RE GOING TO LEARN.

THAT SEEMS LIKE IT'D BE IMPOSSIBLE.

YEAH, I'M CERTAIN THAT THERE ARE METHODS OUT THERE.

AND SO AS I LEARN, I WILL SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH YOU AND THEN PROVIDE THE UPDATES ALONG THE WAY.

WE ARE WORKING WITH KEEP NASSAU BEAUTIFUL ON ARBORETUM DESIGNATIONS AT SEVERAL PROPERTIES DOWNTOWN.

THIS IS UNDER THEIR GARDENS OF AMELIA PROGRAM, AND THERE WILL BE A PRESENTATION BY MISS LINDA BELL ON MARCH THE 5TH TO IDENTIFY THOSE LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY AS WELL SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BECOMING AN ARBORETUM.

I WANTED TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO A THIRD READING ITEM THAT'S HAPPENING THIS UPCOMING TUESDAY ON FEBRUARY 20TH.

WE HAVE TO BRING OUR COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS FROM LAST AUGUST BACK FOR THIRD READING.

THE STATE HAS RECENTLY DECIDED TO ENFORCE A SECTION OF LEGISLATION THAT IT HAS HISTORICALLY NEVER ENFORCED, AND THAT IS THE TEN DAY TRANSMITTAL OF A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AFTER IT HAS BEEN, PUT IN PLACE AT SECOND READING.

WE FELL OUTSIDE THE WINDOW FOR THE TEN DAYS, AND SO THEY REJECTED THE SECOND SUBMITTAL.

AND SO THIS IS CATCHING A LOT OF COMMUNITIES OFF GUARD.

I HAD A RECENT DISCUSSION WITH MANY OF THE REGIONAL PLANNING DIRECTORS THAT THEY WERE COMPLETELY CAUGHT OFF GUARD BY THIS.

BUT WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE ADVERTISED FOR THIRD READING OF THAT ORDINANCE, AND SO IT'S APPEARING ON FEBRUARY 20TH, AND THEN WE WILL TRANSMIT WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE THIRD READING. SO YOU NO LONGER BUNDLE THEM AND PUT THEM TOGETHER.

YOU CANNOT DO THAT, NO.

AND IF YOU AND IT IS THEIR DIRECTION TO SUBMIT AN INCOMPLETE PACKAGE AND GET THE INCOMPLETE REJECTION NOTICE, BUT YOU'VE AT LEAST SENT IT TO THEM WITHIN TEN DAYS. SO THAT IS HOW WE WILL PROCEED.

GOLLY SO I JUST WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE WHEN YOU SEE THAT ON THE AGENDA.

THAT IS WHY IT'S REAPPEARING.

THERE ARE NO CHANGES THAT ARE OCCURRING.

IT IS SIMPLY TO SATISFY THAT TEN DAY REQUIREMENT FOR STATE TRANSMITTAL.

AND THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING? YES. AND THEN WE HAVE, ADDITIONAL ITEMS GOING IN MARCH THAT YOU SAW IN, NOVEMBER, YOUR PLANNING BOARD ITEMS FOR REZONING AND LAND USE, ASSIGNMENT OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE CITY OWNED TO RECREATION LANDS.

THOSE WILL APPEAR ON THE MARCH 5TH COMMISSION AGENDA.

SO THERE'S QUITE A FEW THINGS KIND OF GOING ON, JUST UPDATE WISE FOR YOUR AWARENESS.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, I WANTED TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO SEVERAL BIG EVENTS THAT ARE OCCURRING.

TOMORROW THERE'S AN OUTREACH MEETING OF THE JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.

I AM ON THEIR STEERING COMMITTEE.

THEY ARE SOLICITING INFORMATION ABOUT FUTURE TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS.

PLEASE, IF YOU CAN ATTEND THE MEETING, IT WILL BE VERY INFORMATIVE ABOUT THE PROCESS AND WHAT THEY'RE EVALUATING FOR FUTURE TRANSIT NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

AND IMPORTANT UPDATE TO KNOW BEFORE I GO INTO THAT, THAT MEETING IS TOMORROW AT THE REC CENTER FROM 4 TO 6 P.M..

IS IT 4 OR 4:30 OR 4:30? OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

THE IN THE AREA, INCLUDING THE ISLAND OUT TO I-95 AND IT KIND OF HAS SOME POCKETS THAT ARE MODIFIED BY THIS, BUT THERE'S A SECTION OF OUR AREA THAT HAS NOW HIT 100,000 IN POPULATION.

AND AS A RESULT OF THAT POPULATION, WE ARE NOW CONSIDERED A SMALL URBAN AREA AND CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOW OBLIGATED FOR TRANSIT SERVICES.

AND SO THIS STUDY SERVES TO SUPPORT WHAT THAT NOW WILL LOOK LIKE AND BECOME AS WE GET INTO THAT NEW DESIGNATION.

AND THAT'S A FEDERAL LEVEL DESIGNATION.

IS THE 100,000 POPULATION ON ISLAND OR OFF ISLAND.

IT INCLUDES ON ISLAND AND EXTENDS OUT TO I-95.

WOW, WOW.

WE HAD A HUNDRED ALREADY.

SO PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THAT MEETING.

I KNOW THAT THERE IS ALSO A HOMELESS COALITION MEETING THAT OCCURS ABOUT THE SAME TIME.

AND IT'S NOT ON THE BOARD, BUT THAT IS AT THE GOLF COURSE.

SO THAT'S ANOTHER REALLY IMPORTANT MEETING TO, CONSIDER ATTENDING AS WELL.

WHAT IS THAT ONE? THERE'S A HOMELESS COALITION MEETING TOMORROW AT THE GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE.

AND I BELIEVE IT'S ALSO IN THE EVENING.

WE HAVE TWO GREENWAY CLEANUP EVENTS, ONE THIS UPCOMING SATURDAY OUT.

[02:20:05]

AND THEN THE FOLLOWING WEEKEND IS THE INVASIVE ROUNDUP FOR THE CITY.

AND SO THERE'S ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO VOLUNTEER, AND BE INVOLVED WITH THE GREENWAY.

MOST RECENTLY, WE'VE COMPLETED OUR VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT, AND ON THE 20TH, WE WILL SEE A COMMISSION LEVEL PRESENTATION ABOUT OUR VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT.

THANK YOU TO THOSE WHO DID ATTEND OUR MEETING IN LATE JANUARY.

IT WILL BE A RECAP OF THE PRESENTATION THAT YOU SAW PREVIOUSLY.

BUT DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSION FROM OUR CONSULTANT HELP.

AND THEN NEXT STEPS ON THAT THE CITY WAS AWARDED A GRANT TO BEGIN AN ADAPTATION ACTION PLAN THAT REALLY PUTS IN PLACE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AND PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON HOW TO ADDRESS OUR VULNERABILITIES.

THAT'S BEEN STATE FUNDED, AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL KICK OFF BY MARCH OF THIS YEAR.

THERE IS OUR ETHICS TRAINING, WHICH I'VE SENT TO YOU THAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY IS PUTTING ON FOR US ON MARCH 15TH.

THERE ARE TWO FOUR HOUR OPTIONS TO ATTEND, EITHER BETWEEN EIGHT AND NOON AND NOON AND FIVE.

I BELIEVE IT IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED THAT YOU ATTEND ONE OF THEM SO THAT YOU CAN FULFILL YOUR ETHICS OBLIGATIONS FOR THIS YEAR.

KEEP IN TOUCH WITH THE CITY'S 200 BICENTENNIAL CELEBRATIONS, USING THE CITY'S WEBSITE TO SEE ALL OF THE DETAILS AND UPCOMING EVENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING.

WITH THAT, IT'S A REALLY EXCITING YEAR OF LOTS OF DIFFERENT EVENTS WITH MANY DIFFERENT PARTNERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

BUT IT'S A GREAT WAY TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE COMMUNITY AND CELEBRATE OUR 200 YEARS.

IN THE MONTH OF MAY, WE WILL CELEBRATE PRESERVATION MONTH.

MAIN STREET IS REALLY TAKING THE LEAD THIS YEAR IN HOSTING A HISTORIC CHURCHES TOUR.

AND THAT WILL BE JUST REALLY NICE TO SEE AS WELL AS PRESERVATION AWARDS AND AN AWARD CEREMONY.

AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, THIS YEAR WILD AMELIA IS BEING PARTNERED WITH AN OPENING OF THE BEACHES CELEBRATION ON MAY 18TH. SO JUST SOME THINGS TO MARK YOUR CALENDAR.

AND THERE'S WEBSITES THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT TO SEE THE VARIETY OF EVENTS CONTAINED WITHIN THOSE LARGER EVENTS.

SO LOOKING AT THIS LIST PROMPTS ME TO ASK YOU, WERE YOU LOOKING FOR SOME HELP? THAT IS A GREAT SEGUE.

BEFORE YOU GO, CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION ON THE CIP STUDIES FOR THE IMPACT FEES? WHERE CAN WE GET A LIST OF WHAT THE PROJECTS ARE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE BASING THE FEES OFF OF? I CAN SEND THEM TO YOU. IT'S GOING TO BE BASED ON THE FIVE YEAR CIP.

OKAY. SORRY. THAT'D BE GREAT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

STAFFING WISE, WE WILL BE ADVERTISING FOR TWO PLANNING POSITIONS.

YOU'LL SEE IT ADVERTISED WITH FOUR DIFFERENT JOB DESCRIPTIONS.

I'M GOING TO CAST A WIDE NET AND ASK FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN APPLYING FOR PLANNING TECH POSITION PLANNER 1, PLANNER 2, OR SENIOR PLANNER, BUT WE ONLY HAVE TWO POSITIONS TO FILL.

SO I'M TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF, PEOPLE WHO MAY BE INTERESTED TO FORM A TEAM THAT WORKS REALLY WELL FOR OUR COMMUNITY, AND THE IS A GOOD FIT FOR THE ORGANIZATION LONG TERM.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAVE THREE INTERN POSSIBILITIES THIS YEAR, THAT WE'RE FUNDED.

WE'RE VERY LUCKY. WE HAVE ONE PLANNING INTERNSHIP POSSIBILITY AND TWO CONSERVATION INTERN POSSIBILITIES.

AND LAST YEAR'S CONSERVATION INTERN GOT TO RESCUE BABY RACCOONS.

IT'S PRETTY EXCITING.

I THINK THAT BEING IN THE GREENWAY WOULD BE AMAZING AS AN OPPORTUNITY.

IF YOU ARE A YOUTH OR KNOW YOUTH THAT MIGHT WANT TO WORK WITH US THIS SUMMER, WE'RE LOOKING FOR HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS, RISING HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS, AS WELL AS GOING INTO THEIR FRESHMAN YEAR OF COLLEGE OR COLLEGE GRADUATES AS WELL, WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED.

AND THEN WE HAVE BEEN GRACIOUSLY OFFERED THE ASSISTANCE OF MISS LORELEI JACOBS, WHO IS OUR GRANTS ADMINISTRATOR, TO WORK WITH US.

AS WE HAVE THIS TIME OF, THERE'S LESS PEOPLE AVAILABLE TO HELP EVERYONE.

SO SHE IS GOING TO BE GETTING A CRASH COURSE IN PLANNING AND ASSISTING US WITH SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, BOTH ONGOING AS WELL AS SOME NEW PROJECTS.

SO SHE EXPECTS TO AND WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND ALL OF OUR MEETINGS.

AND SO YOU'LL SEE HER HERE AND AS PART OF OUR TEAM, AND INTEGRATED, AS TIME PERMITS.

AND SO BECAUSE OF OUR SHORT STAFFING, IF YOU NEED TO GET IN TOUCH WITH ME, PLEASE MAKE AN APPOINTMENT, GET ON MY CALENDAR.

IF IT'S NOT ON MY CALENDAR, IT PROBABLY ISN'T HAPPENING.

IF I SAY I'M GOING TO CALL YOU BACK, SCHEDULE IT ON MY CALENDAR TO CALL ME, CALL YOU BACK, OR SEND AN EMAIL.

EMAIL IS THE BEST WAY TO GET IN TOUCH WITH ME RIGHT NOW.

I AM MORE LIKELY TO RESPOND TO THAT EMAIL THAN A PHONE CALL, SO SCHEDULE WITH ME OR SEND AN EMAIL.

[02:25:05]

VERY GOOD. EXCELLENT.

ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD? ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY. I'LL JUST REMIND EVERYBODY, OH, I APOLOGIZE.

THIS ITEM HERE.

YEAH. THE ANNUAL REPORT ON ALL OF OUR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS.

THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS IN OUR CODE THAT DIRECT THAT WE PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON AN ANNUAL REPORT.

SO THESE ARE SIMPLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS THAT WERE PROCESSED LAST YEAR.

WE HAD ONE ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER, FIVE CONTEXT SENSITIVE SETBACK REVIEWS AND FOUR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS OR MINOR SUBDIVISIONS THAT WERE PROCESSED.

OKAY. SO THAT IS THIS LIST.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING. HEARING NOTHING FROM THE PUBLIC.

HEARING NOTHING ELSE FROM THE BOARD.

MOTION. MOTION TO ADJOURN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.