[00:00:02]
>> I WAS WAITING FOR THAT FOR THAT THE OFFICIAL TIME [INAUDIBLE] OR IS IT 5:00 NOW?
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME TO THE APRIL 10 PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING.
THE TIME IS 5:00 P.M. WE ARE MEETING IN THE CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS IN FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA.
MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> LET'S ALL STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE.
MEMBER GINGHER HAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT SHE'D LIKE TO MAKE.
[Additional Item]
>> FOR THOSE OF YOU AND PEOPLE THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH ONE OF OUR PREVIOUS BOARD MEMBERS, JOHN BOYLAN, HE IS DECEASED AND HE PASSED AWAY ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO.
HIS MEMORIAL SERVICE IS GOING TO BE AT THE COUNCIL ON AGING APRIL 20, FROM 2:00-4:00.
EVERYBODY WEAR FLIP-FLOPS AND SHORTS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE LIKED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
THE FIRST ONE IS OUR PAB WORKSHOP.ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE DRAFT MINUTES?
>> I GOT SOME QUESTIONS. JUST TO CLARIFY.
>> GO TO PAGE 2, SECOND PARAGRAPH.
I THOUGHT HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IN 2004.
I HAD HIM DOWN AS BEING A MEMBER. HE WAS-
>> GO DOWN, ABOUT HALF A DOZEN PARAGRAPHS WHERE ONE THAT STARTS AT CHIP ROSS, 210 NORTH. SEE THAT?
>> GO OVER TO THE FIRST LINE, THIRD WORD FROM THE RIGHT.
>> THAT'S QUICK. GO DOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT SAME PAGE WITH THE PARAGRAPH STARTS AT TAINA CHRISTNER.
ON THE SECOND LINE OF THAT COMMENT.
I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS.
THE CONSEQUENCES IF NOT REVIEWED EFFICIENTLY.
>> VOICED CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE CREATING UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IF NOT REVIEWED EFFICIENTLY.
>> SHE SENSES A TECHNICAL AND LEGAL, SO THAT'S THE REASON. IT MAY BE OKAY.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT TO RECORD IT EFFECTIVELY OR-
>> SHE'S NOT HERE. I DON'T SEE HER NOW.
THEN I WOULD SAY JUST LEAVE IT ALONE.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION, AND I'M JUST NOT SURE.
>> TOP OF THE NEXT PAGE, SECOND SENTENCE.
MEMBER STEVENSON, JUST NEED TO ADD A WORD ON THAT SINGLE LINE RIGHT THERE.
MEMBER STEVENSON NOTED THAT GET THE LEGAL OPINION ABOUT ANY CHANGES AND UPDATED DEFINITIONS.
>> BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT REDOING DEFINITIONS OR UPDATING SO ON.
>> ABOUT ANY CHANGES AND UPDATED DEFINITIONS.
YOU WANT TO ADD. I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS.
LET'S SEE WHAT YOU GUYS THINK HERE.
UNDER THE FIRST PAGE UNDER OLD BUSINESS, CHAIR ROBAS PROVIDE AN INTRODUCTION TO THE WORKSHOP AND ITS GOAL TO ALLOW MEMBERS TO DISCUSS THEIR CONCERNS.
WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE CONCERN, WE HAD SEVERAL CONCERNS, SO I'D LIKE TO ADD AN S.
[00:05:01]
>> ON THE SECOND PAGE, LET'S SEE HERE, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH CHAIR ROBAS ASKED MS. GIBSON TO PROVIDE I WANTED TO.
>> I WANTED TO STREAMLINE IT, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT, AND MAYBE I NEED YOUR HELP BECAUSE YOU ARE SO GOOD AT THIS.
ASK MS. GIBSON TO PROVIDE, I WANTED TO SAY, THE STEPS FOLLOWING AND ACTION ON THIS MATTER IF IT IS TAKEN BY THE BOARD BECAUSE WE WERE HAVING DISCUSSIONS, AND WANTED TO KNOW HOW THINGS WERE GOING, WHAT THE STEPS WERE.
I WAS THINKING IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THIS A LITTLE BIT, TO PROVIDE THE STEPS, INSERT THE WORDS STEPS, FOLLOWING, AND THEN STRIKE AFTER, SO IT READ TO PROVIDE THE STEPS FOLLOWING AN ACTION ON THIS MATTER AND THEN INSERT IF IT BEING THE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE BOARD OR ON THIS MATTER.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE. THE ACTION WOULD BE, LET'S SEE.
>> IS THESE THE CHOICES WE HAD IN THAT NEXT PARAGRAPH?
>> MR. BENNETT STATED THE REMEDY IS REALLY FOR ANY APPLICANT WHO DISAGREES WITH THE CODE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
THERE WAS ALSO TALK ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE OWNER AND FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
I WAS ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION FROM MS. GIBSON, TO PROVIDE TO US.
MAYBE THIS WAS TO PROVIDE TO THE BOARD. MAYBE THAT HELPS.
THESE STEPS AND ACTION ON THIS MATTER, COME ON, GUYS, HELP ME OUT.
>> WELL, HOW ABOUT SUBSEQUENT TO AN ACTION ON, IT'S A BOARD MATTER?
>> IT'S A BOARD MATTER TO PROVIDE TO THE BOARD THE STEPS.
>> SUBSEQUENT TO A BOARD ACTION ON THE MATTER TAKEN BY.
SAID THE RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE PROVIDED AS A WHEREAS CLAUSE WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS PRESENTED IN TWO READINGS IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION.
WHAT I WAS ASKING FOR WAS, WHAT ARE THE STEPS ON WHATEVER ACTION WE TAKE? THEN I FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT IT'S EITHER GOT TO BE ACCORDING TO SECTION 110303, EITHER WE APPROVE AN ACTION OR WE APPROVE IT WITH CONDITIONS, OR WE DENY IT.
>> THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO AS A BOARD.
BUT THEN WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT? IT GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
THAT'S WHAT MS. GIBSON WAS SAYING IS THAT THERE'S A WHEREAS CLAUSE IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
THEN IT'S PRESENTED IN TWO READINGS.
IT'S THIS FIRST SENTENCE THAT I'M HAVING TROUBLE CLARIFYING THIS AND SIMPLIFYING IT.
>> MADAM CHAIRMAN, CAN INTERJECT?
>> HOW ABOUT ASK MS. GIBSON TO PROVIDE TO THE BOARD THE STEPS FOLLOWING AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE BOARD?
>> YOU ALWAYS KEEP US OUT OF TROUBLE.
THIS IS THE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX FROM THE BOTTOM ON PAGE 2.
CHAIR ROBAS. I'M NOT ALWAYS THE BEST GRAMMATARIAN,
[00:10:06]
BUT IT SAYS FROM THE TRAGALI CASE, WHICH IN HER OPINION, SHOULD WE SEPARATE THAT WITH COMMAS?>> IN MY OPINION, A CASE COMMA, WHICH IN HER OPINION, COMMA?
>> DOES THAT SEEM RIGHT? I THINK THAT WAS ALL I HAD.
DID ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD TO OR CHANGE INTO THE MINUTES? NO. DO I HEAR A MOTION?
>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 28, '24 PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING, THE MINUTES WITH AMENDMENTS MADE THIS EVENING.
>> SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE?
>> OPPOSED LIKE SIGN, HEARING NONE.
THE MINUTES FOR THE FEBRUARY 28, 2024 WORKSHOP ARE APPROVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE NEXT MINUTES ARE THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MARCH 13, 2024, DO I HEAR ANY CHANGES TO THESE MINUTES, AND IF NOT, DO I HEAR A MOTION?
>> I HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AGAIN.
THERE'S BEEN TALK ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON ANYWAY.
IF YOU GO OVER TO THE SECOND PAGE, SECOND PARAGRAPH STARTING MS. BACH, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY SAYS, MS. BACH CONFIRMED, TRUE.
>> SECOND PAGE. THEN ANYWAY, MS. BACH CONFIRMED WITH MEMBER BENNETT THAT THE FINAL APPROVAL APPROVED.
LET ME TRY TO GET FINAL APPROVED WRITTEN MINUTES, PART OF THE OFFICIAL MINUTES.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT.
NEXT ONE. THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, MEMBER DOSTER.
RICHARD, I'M NOT QUITE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT PARAGRAPH.
>> I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOU ARE.
IT MAY BE DIFFERENT ON THE SCREEN.
SO IT'LL BE PAGE 3, THE THIRD PARAGRAPH FROM THE TOP.
THE TOP OF THE PAGE STARTS SANDY KERRY AND THE PARAGRAPH.
>> YEAH FOR BOT. WHAT WAS HAPPENING THERE WAS I WAS ASKING ABOUT A MEETING THAT TAMMI, KELLY, AND CHIP ROSS HAD TOGETHER WHERE THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT CHANGING SOME OF THE LANGUAGE.
>> AND THAT'S ALL I REMEMBER RIGHT NOW.
>> IS IT GERMANE TO OUR MINUTES HERE? OR IS THERE A WAY TO MAYBE MAKE THAT SITS A LITTLE BIT CLEAR? WHERE DOES THAT DO IT? OTHER THAN THE TYPO.
WHAT'S THE FEELING OF THE BOARD? EXPLAINING WHAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH STAFF REGARDING POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO BE INCLUDED. WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
>> IT'S NOT CLEAR IF I'M BY VERY OLD MEMORY NOW.
IT HAD TO DO WITH THE LANGUAGE THERE WHICH CREATED A SUBSTANDARD LOT.
COULD WE DO THAT? CHIP FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME IF YOU REMEMBER BETTER THAN I DO.
I WAS WANTING TO KNOW IF WE NEEDED TO WAIT ON THAT LANGUAGE BEFORE WE TOOK IT FROM BACH.
>> SO ARE YOU SATISFIED OTHER THAN THE CORRECTION?
>> I'M SATISFIED FOR MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> OTHER THAN THE TYPO, WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED TO KNOW.
>> WELL, LET ME JUST MENTION IF YOU GET DOWN TO TWO PARAGRAPHS DOWN, MEMBERS DECIDED ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT AN ACTION.
WE GOT TO MAKE SOME DECISION ABOUT THAT SUBCOMMITTEE.
IS THAT GOING TO COME UP JUST DURING OUR WHATSAPP?
>> YES, JUST WAIT FOR A MEETING.
WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
I BELIEVE WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THAT UNDER OLD BUSINESS BECAUSE IT IS OLD BUSINESS.
[00:15:03]
>> BECAUSE IF YOU COME DOWN JUST BELOW THAT ACTION TAKEN, MEMBER GILLETTE, SECOND BY MEMBER DOSTER CONFIRM OR CONTINUE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE OWE A DECISION POINT ON THAT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD IT THE SAME WAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
OTHER THAN THE TYPO SYLVIA ON THAT THIRD PARAGRAPH DOWN ON PAGE 3. THANK YOU.
>> JUST FOR CONSISTENCY SAKE, THIS IS ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT NO CONTENT.
MEMBER MOTION WAS MADE BY MEMBER GINGHER.
MEMBER STEVENSON, JUST TO BE CONSISTENT, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CAPITALIZE MEMBER.
THEN IN THE NEXT ACTION TAKEN.
SAME THING WITH MEMBER BENNETT.
>> VERY GOOD. WELL, ON THE BACK FOR ALL OF US BEING GLUMARIANS JOB ON US.
>> ALSO TO A CERTAIN LADY WHO FIGURES OUT HOW TO PUT ALL THE STUFF ON PAPER.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN. THANK YOU.
WE'VE MADE SOME CORRECTIONS. DO I HEAR MOTION?
>> WE'LL NEED A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR PAB MEETING ON MARCH 13, 2024 WITH CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES AS DISCUSSED AT THIS MEETING. RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU. DO I HEAR A SECOND.
>> SECOND, BOARD MEMBER DOSTER.
>> OPPOSED LIKE SIGN. CARRY NONE.
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PAB MEETING ON MARCH 13, 2024 IS APPROVED.
[4. OLD BUSINESS]
ITEM NUMBER 4 UNDER OLD BUSINESS.AS BOARD MEMBER, PETE HAS ASKED WHEN WE HAVE SOME OLD BUSINESS WHERE AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE TALKED ABOUT SUBCOMMITTEES AND DISCUSSION OF WORDING AND DEFINITIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
IS THERE ANY WHO WANTS TO START THIS OFF?
>> WELL, I GUESS THE THING AND I WOULD HAVE TO ASK KELLY, I THINK WHAT THE RULES ARE.
BUT BASICALLY, RIGHT NOW, PAB CASE 2024-0001 IT'S ACTIVE IN TERMS OF FROM THE PAB STANDPOINT.
WE SIMPLY SAID WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IT TO A DATE SPECIFIC TIME, AND THAT'S TONIGHT.
NOW, BASED ON THE, I GUESS, I'LL CALL IT THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE REQUEST FROM THE COMMISSIONERS, DO WE GO AHEAD AND JUST TAKE IT OFF THE AGENDA OR DO WE DO A DATE SPECIFIC AND MOVE IT OUT A YEAR OR SIX MONTHS OR KEEP IT IT COVERS WHERE IT WOULD STAY ACTIVE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T SAY THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PURSUE IT.
MY INTERPRETATION, WHICH COULD BE WRONG IS THEY SIMPLY DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS IT RIGHT NOW.
SO SOMEWHERE, I THINK WE NEED A MOTION ON 001 TO EITHER JUST KILL IT, WE START OVER OR WE PUT ANOTHER DATE SPECIFICALLY. I'M IN THE FUTURE.
>> THANK YOU FOR RAISING THIS POINT.
PARTICULARLY BECAUSE IT IS NOT ON A SCHEDULED ITEM ON THE AGENDA TO APPEAR TONIGHT, WHETHER ON OLD BUSINESS OR ON NEW BUSINESS.
AT THE DIRECTION OR FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE ITEM DID NOT APPEAR ON THE AGENDA TODAY, AND SO THE ITEM FOR BASED ON THAT DIRECTION HAS BEEN POSTPONED INDEFINITELY AT THIS POINT.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ACTIVELY WORKING ON, WHICH IS WHY IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.
IN ORDER FOR US TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION, WE WILL HAVE TO RE ADVERTISE ANY CHANGES TO IT IN THE FUTURE.
THROUGH ALL OF THE PROPER ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS ON THE APPLICATION ITSELF.
IT MAY BE UNDER THE SAME APPLICATION NUMBER THAT IT REEMERGES IF IT'S WITHIN THAT SAME YEAR, OR WE MIGHT CREATE A SEPARATE APPLICATION NUMBER DEPENDING ON HOW LONG TIME HAS PASSED BEFORE WE'RE TASKED WITH PICKING UP THAT ITEM AGAIN.
>> WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THAT WOULD IT BE MORE CORRECT TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE IT FORWARD TO NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA, SIMPLY TO DO TO CLOSE IT AT THAT ONE WHERE IT'S OFFICIALLY LISTED ON THE AGENDA ITEMS?
[00:20:04]
IN OTHER WORDS, WE JUST MOVE IT ONE MORE DATE SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD.JUST LEAVE IT ALONE FOR THIS MONTH, SO IF SOMEBODY'S TRYING TO FOLLOW THROUGH THE ELECTRONIC TRAIL. THE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
>> FOR ME TO PUT THIS ON AN AGENDA IN MAY, WOULD IT BE INAPPROPRIATE GIVEN THE DIRECTION PROVIDED? GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD NOT TO TACKLE THAT ITEM RIGHT NOW, IT HAS NOT BEEN ADVERTISED EVEN FOR THIS MEETING TO REAPPEAR.
FOR ME TO PLACE IT ON THAT AGENDA, I WOULD HAVE TO RE ADVERTISE IT FOR YOU TO TAKE ACTION ON IT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
>> BUT IF I COULD INTERRUPT, MR. STEVENSON, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT PRECLUDES US FROM HAVING GENERAL CONVERSATION, PARTICULARLY, ONE OF THE STUMBLING BLOCKS THAT WE HAD WAS THE DEFINITIONS.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH US AS A BOARD CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION ABOUT DEFINITIONS.
I THINK THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS WHOLE THING IS IN FACT, IT'S ALMOST THE FUNDAMENTAL PIECE OF THIS THAT SAYS, IF WE'RE NOT ALL SPEAKING WITH THE SAME LANGUAGE, THE SAME DEFINITION OF A WORD, THEN HOW ARE WE GOING TO GO FORWARD? MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY VOTE ON THAT, BUT WE HAVE SOME CONSENSUS AT SOME POINT.
I THINK THAT IF WE AS A BOARD ARE CLEAR ON WHAT WE THINK IS THE DEFINITION OF CERTAIN ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN STUMBLING BLOCKS FOR US, THEN WE'RE AHEAD OF THE GAME.
WHENEVER THIS DOES COME UP, WE'RE ABLE TO INSERT THOSE DEFINITIONS. YES, MA'AM.
>> I THINK I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.
I THINK THAT THE GRAY AIR WE HAVE TO NOT STUMBLE INTO MAKING A POLICY OR VOTING OR I THINK WE JUST NEED TO DO CLARITY OF DEFINITION, AND NOT GO ANY FURTHER THAN THAT.
>> WE COULD HAVE SOME CONSENSUS.
BUT I THINK IF WE HAVE GENERAL CONSENSUS, IT'S ENOUGH.
>> YOU CAN HAVE A VOTE OUT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY.
IF THERE'S PROBLEMS IN DEFINITIONS, WE SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THAT.
>> THEY'RE REALLY MORE FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SIDE AS OPPOSED TO THAT.
>> THERE'S PLENTY OF DEFINITIONS OUT THERE.
SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO VOTE ON WHICH DEFINITION WE AGREE ON?
>> CORRECT. WE CAN CLARIFY THAT THAT.
>> WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE ARE READY TO VOTE ON DEFINITIONS, THEN STAFF CAN HELP US GET IT ADVERTISED, SO IS DONE PROPERLY.
>> THE MEETINGS ALREADY SCHEDULED OR THOUGHT SCHEDULE WELL.
>> WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ONE TONIGHT, NOBODY'S PREPARED FOR IT.
>> WELL, WE CAN WE CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT DEFINITIONS TONIGHT.
OUR PLAN WAS TO HAVE THE SUBCOMMITTEE AFTER OUR MEETING TONIGHT.
>> WELL, LET ME GO BACK TO THIS.
>> BUT I'D TAKE WHAT KELLY WILL SAY IS THAT IT WASN'T ADVERTISED AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
THIS MEETING HAS BEEN NOTICED AND IT'S UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE NEED TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.
>> IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT TONIGHT, AND WE ALREADY HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULE, PUT THE DEFINITIONS WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THE NEXT MEETING.
>> WE HAVE A WORKSHOP SCHEDULED.
>> YEAH, IT WAS. IT WAS AFTER THE REGULAR MEETING.
>> WE HAVE WHAT? THREE MEETINGS.
>> THE NEXT ONE WILL BE APRIL 24TH AT THREE O'CLOCK AND THE MAY 22ND AT THREE O'CLOCK.
>> MAYBE WE SHOULD NOT DO ANYTHING TONIGHT AND JUST WAIT TILL THE 24TH.
>> WE CAN DO THAT. BECAUSE HIS TOPIC THAT [INAUDIBLE].
>> WERE THOSE BOARD WORKSHOPS OR SUBCOMMITTEE WORKSHOPS?
THAT WAS A SUBCOMMITTEE AND I THINK THAT MAYBE INSTEAD OF A SUBCOMMITTEE, WE JUST HAVE WORKSHOP.
>> YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
>> BECAUSE WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE THERE ANYWAY.
>> SO RATHER THAN A SUBCOMMITTEE, WE'RE STILL GOING TO MAINTAIN THE APRIL 24TH WORKSHOP AND THE MAY 22ND WORKSHOP FOR THE PAB AS THE SCHEDULED TIMES.
THE DISCUSSION IS GOING TO BE ON DEFINITIONS.
>> SO WE WON'T HAVE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS, WE'LL JUST HAVE REGULAR WORKSHOP.
[00:25:03]
>> OKAY. DO WE NEED A MOTION TO DISBAND THE SUBCOMMITTEE? WE VOTE.
>> WE NAMED THEM; WE NAMED THE FOUR MEMBERS.
>> I'M A BIG FAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
BECAUSE THESE ARE DEFINITIONS AND IF WE ADD A NEW MEMBER, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WILL HAPPEN.
I WOULD JUST KEEP THAT NUMBER SMALL SO THAT THE CONVERSATION DOESN'T HAVE TO GO ON FOREVER.
>> WELL, AS LONG AS WE AGREE THAT WHAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE DECIDES, THE SUBCOMMITTEE DECIDES SO WE DON'T REPRISE EVERYTHING AND SIT HERE AND DO THE DEFINITIONS AGAIN AS A GROUP.
>> NORMALLY, WHAT HAPPENS IS A SUBCOMMITTEE WILL COME BACK TO THE PAB AND WOULD SAY THE SUBCOMMITTEE MET AND HERE'S OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON THESE DEFINITIONS AND THEN WE AS A BOARD THEN DISCUSS THEM AND SAY WHATEVER WE SAY AND THEN WE WOULD VOTE ON IT.
>> BECAUSE THERE ARE PLENTY OF DEFINITIONS TO CHOOSE FROM AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO REALLY MAKE THEM UP.
>> WE ALREADY HAVE ALL THAT DOCUMENTATION.
>> WE MAY FIND THE STATE STATUTE ALREADY THERE.
>> OKAY. THEN LET'S JUST GO WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE 24TH. WHO WAS ON THAT?
>> NO. THAT WAS MR. BENNETT AND DAVE AND MYSELF.
>> SO THERE'S ONLY TWO OF US NOT ON IT.
>> WE ALSO HAD A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
>> SO I THINK THAT GOT CLARIFIED IN THE NEXT MEETING.
>> PLUS SHE CAN BE A MEMBER, SHE CAN CERTAINLY.
>> THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO OUR SUBCOMMITTEE.
>> SO THAT'S APRIL 24, THE SUBCOMMITTEE WILL MEET.
>> SO THREE O'CLOCK ON THE 24TH AND THREE O'CLOCK HERE IN CHAMBERS ALSO ON MAY 22ND.
>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS.
>> WELL, MAYBE WE WON'T BUT WE HAD IT.
BUT DO WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING FURTHER TO ESTABLISH IT? WE'VE ALREADY SAID IN OUR MINUTES IN OUR LAST MEETING THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THESE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS.
>> YOU'VE ALREADY CONFIRMED WHAT WHO-
>> -WHO THE PLAYERS ARE. THAT'S DONE.
I STILL THINK WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING RELATIVE TO THIS APRIL 10TH DATE RELATIVE TO.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE EXTEND OR I JUST MAKE A MOTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO-
>> -CONTINUE WITH IT AS A PAB.
>> DATE'S CERTAIN APRIL 10TH. THAT'S TONIGHT.
THAT'S WHEN WE SAID WE WOULD TAKE A VOTE ON ONE 103-04 AND 05.
NOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE ANY ACTION.
>> MADAM ATTORNEY, WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION? DO WE NEED TO CLOSE THAT OUT EVEN THOUGH WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT DEFINITIONS? WE AREN'T GOING TO DO THE 2024-0001.
WE HAD A DATE CERTAIN FOR TONIGHT.
>> YES, TAMMI BACH, CITY ATTORNEY. SORRY.
>> TODAY WAS A VACATION DAY FOR ME.
>> THANK YOU FOR PLANNING THIS.
>> NO, IT'S FINE. I JUST HAD A FLIGHT ISSUE YESTERDAY SO HERE I AM.
I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN VIEW THE DEFINITIONS AS PART OF THE APPLICATION THAT THE CITY MADE REGARDING 103, 104, AND 105 BECAUSE THE CITY COMMISSION WAS DRIVING THAT APPLICATION AND THEY'VE DECIDED THAT THEY WANT IT TO BE POSTPONED OR NOT CONSIDERED AT THIS TIME.
SO THE DEFINITIONS TAKING THAT UP I THINK IS A SEPARATE ISSUE THAT YOU ALL CAN UNDER YOUR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO DISCUSS CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS.
>> SO MR. STEVENSON WOULD BE CORRECT.
IT SAYS DATE CERTAIN APRIL 10TH, SO IF WE JUST LET IT DIE I GUESS.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO TAKE ANY APPLICATION BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DRIVES THE APPLICATIONS.
[00:30:01]
IF AN APPLICANT FORMALLY WITHDRAWS AN APPLICATION, THEN THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE CODE FOR HOW THAT'S HANDLED, CONTINUING, POSTPONING, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.I THINK THAT THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE TO TAKE ANY ACTION WITH REGARD TO THAT APPLICATION, BUT THE DEFINITIONS, THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE STARTING WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
>> MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS THAT WE WOULD JUST PUT IT IN A BAN AND HAVE THAT PAB 001 IN THE INVENTORY OF THINGS TO CONSIDER FOR THREE OR SIX MONTHS.
I THINK BASED ON WHAT KELLY TOLD, WE GOT TO RESTART THE ENGINE IF WE GET REDIRECTED.
>> THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, CERTAINLY, AND IF KELLY AGREES, I MEAN, I THINK THAT THAT'S.
>> PRIMARILY FROM A NOTICE STANDPOINT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHEN THE ISSUE COMES BACK TO THE TABLE THAT WE PROPERLY-
>> YOU GO THROUGH THAT FORMAL NOTIFICATION PROCESS.
>> I DON'T THINK SO. SO NO ACTION, REALLY.
>> SO RIGHT NOW 0001 AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IT IS DEAD?
WE'VE NOTICED IT'S MIDST BUT IT'S GOT A QUESTION.
>> ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS SOME OLD MINUTE NOT OLD BUSINESS.
WAS THERE ANY OTHER OLD BUSINESS CONCERNING THIS OR ANYTHING ELSE REGARDING THE BOARD? THE OLD BUSINESS. NO? OKAY. WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON.
>> LET ME JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT ABOUT THE 24TH MEETING.
WE NEED TO HAVE SOME PENCIL OR PAPER BEFORE WE WALK INTO THAT MEETING.
>> YOU HAVE ALL THE DEFINITIONS ALREADY, WE SENT YOU.
>> THEY WERE ALL SENT TO YOU TWICE.
YOU HAVE THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND YOU HAVE WHAT WAS GIVEN TO US FROM THE COMMISSION.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO GET WITH STAFF AND SORT OUT SO THAT IT'S CLEAR AND YOU GOT A LIST?
>> IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY, DON'T SEND THEM TO ME. SEND THEM TO KELLY.
>> I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A LIST OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON.
>> SHOULD YOU HAVE EVERYTHING, PUT IT TOGETHER SEND OUT TO KELLY.
>> I THINK WE STILL, KELLY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO THE TWO-PILE THING.
>> I WOULD AGREE. I THINK IF YOU HAVE ANY DEFINITIONS THAT RELATE BACK TO POLICY THAT TIES INTO 103-04 AND 103-05 THAT SHOULD BE SEPARATED FROM ANY OTHER DEFINITIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY THEN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT GOES.
BECAUSE THOSE DEFINITIONS NEED TO THEN RIDE WITH THE 103-04 AND 103-05, I WOULD SAY THE ONES THAT WERE ADVERTISED PREVIOUSLY NEED TO STAY WITH THAT DISCUSSION FOR THE FUTURE.
>> ALL OF THOSE DEFINITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SENT US HAVE ALREADY BEEN SENT TO THE PUBLIC SO THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT OR THEY HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED.
>> BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE A LIST, THEN WE'LL ARGUE ABOUT WHAT THE LIST IS.
>> YEAH. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING, I THINK KELLY CAN HELP ON THAT ONE.
SO I'LL JUST SEND YOU MY LIST.
YOU'VE ALREADY GOT PART OF THE LIST.
I SAW IT SOMEWHERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I SAW IT.
>> I'LL SEND THAT LIST TO COUNCIL.
>> KELLY WILL GET TOGETHER AND TALK ABOUT THAT LIST.
>> ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS? YES? IF THE BOARD CONCURS, BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT CONVERSATION ABOUT PAB CASE 2024-002.
I'M RECOMMENDING AND ASKING THE BOARD'S PERMISSION TO MOVE UP CASE NUMBER 2024-003, THE FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR THE BREAKERS TOWN HOMES LOCATED AT 2194 SADLER ROAD? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO HEARING THAT CASE FIRST?
>> I DON'T THINK I HAVE A MOTION.
WE JUST HAVE TO AGREE. YOU'RE FLIPPING THESE TWO?
>> WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THAT PAB CASE
[5.2 PAB 2024-0003 - FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR THE BREAKERS TOWNHOMES LOCATED AT 2194 SADLER ROAD]
2024-003 FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR THE BREAKERS TOWN HOMES, LOCATED ON SADLER ROAD.STAFF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US OFF.
THIS EVENING, THE CASE REFERENCED IS FOR A PARCEL OF PROPERTY CONTAINING 1.41 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 2194 SADLER ROAD.
THE CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING IS FOR A FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
[00:35:01]
A 12 LOT TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION RESIDENTIAL, TO BE CALLED BREAKERS TOWN HOMES.THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY.
IT CURRENTLY HAS AN ASSIGNED LAND USE CATEGORY OF MIXED USE AND A ZONING DISTRICT OF MU-1.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL WENT ALONG WITH THE ANNEXATION LAND USE AND ZONING.
YOU'LL REMEMBER THAT BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR AND WAS COMPLETED THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION FINAL DECISION MAKING IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
TONIGHT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THE FINAL PLAT.
THE APPLICANT HAS GONE AHEAD AND MOVED FORWARD WITH INSTALLING INFRASTRUCTURE TIED TO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THEY'VE PREPARED A FINAL PLAT FOR YOUR REVIEW, AND WE'LL COVER THAT REAL QUICKLY.
AGAIN, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT HAVE TRACKED.
THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, ABOUT ONE YEAR AGO THERE WAS PRIOR APPROVAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 17 SPACE LUXURY MOTOR COACH RESORT, KNOWN AS THE BREAKERS.
TODAY, IT'S NOW BEEN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY.
IT'S BEEN ASSIGNED A MIXED USE CATEGORY, AND A REQUEST FOR A TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE BREAKERS IS MOVING FORWARD.
THE REQUEST IS FOR 12 LOTS CONTAINED WITHIN SIX TOTAL STRUCTURES.
THERE'LL BE TWO DWELLING UNITS IN EACH STRUCTURE.
ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY HAS A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND COULD PERMIT UP TO 14 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS ON THE SITE.
THE REQUEST IS FOR 12 TOWN HOMES AND THIS REALLY SPEAKS TO SOME OF THE SITE COMPLEXITIES WITH DEVELOPING SITE INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS, ACCOMMODATING FOR SETBACKS THAT ARE REQUIRED THROUGH THAT ZONING DISTRICT, MEETING PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND LANDSCAPING, AS WELL AS TREE PRESERVATION AND NEW LANDSCAPE, NEW TREE PLACEMENT.
THE FINAL PLAT IS INDICATED HERE.
IT DOES SHOW THOSE 12 TOTAL LOTS EXTENDING ALONGSIDE RYAN ROAD AND AT THE CORNER OF SADLER ROAD.
A LITTLE FURTHER DETAIL. NOW THIS WAS NOT PROVIDED IN THE BACKUP MATERIALS.
I WILL MAKE SURE THAT'S UPDATED FOR THE CITY COMMISSION CONSIDERATION.
THE FINAL ENGINEERING WORK THAT WAS COMPLETED, AND THE PACKAGE TIED TO IT THAT DEPICTS THE DRIVEWAY PLACEMENT ALONGSIDE THE PLACEMENT OF THE STRUCTURES.
THE STORM WATER IS LOCATED TOWARDS THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S ALL INTENDED TO BE DRY DETENTION.
THERE IS A LOT OF EFFORT THAT'S BEEN MADE TO SAVE THE MATURE CANOPY AND TREES THAT ARE OUT THERE AT THE REAR SIDE OF THAT LOT.
YOU'VE GOT A BETTER INDICATION OF THE PLACEMENT OF THOSE HOMES AND THEIR FOOTPRINT.
THE ACCESS FOR EACH OF THESE UNITS WILL BE LOCATED OFF OF RYAN ROAD WITH EXCEPTION OF LOT 12, THEIR ACCESS WILL BE OFF OF SADLER ROAD.
>> DID YOU GET THAT IN OUR PACKAGE?
THAT'S WHY I'M MAKING SURE THAT YOU HAVE IT HERE FOR ILLUSTRATING.
>>I GOT A COUPLE OF CALLS CONCERNING CURB CUTS SPECIFICALLY WHERE THE DRIVEWAYS ARE GOING TO BE IN ONE END AND THEN IN THERE.
RIGHT NOW ON SADLER, THERE IS ONE CURB CUT FROM THAT OLD STRUCTURE THAT WAS THERE.
>> ARE THEY GOING TO USE THAT SAME CURB CUT?
>> NO. I DON'T BELIEVE SO BUT ALKAN CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
>> THERE'S TWO CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE.
ONE IS ENTERING OUT AND ARE THEY GOING TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE OUT BASED ON THE WAY THAT GARAGE STRUCTURE WAS LAID OUT OR RESERVED.
I'M NOT SURE. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BACK INTO SADLER.
THE SECOND THING IS PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHEN THEY MAKE THE RIGHT TURN DOWN THERE AT THE CORNER, HOW IS THAT FIRST ONE OR TWO DRIVEWAYS OUT THERE? THEY'RE GOING TO BE RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THAT TURN.
>> THERE THERE'S A CONCERN THERE.
>> THAT'S WHY LOT 12, I THINK UTILIZES AN ACCESS OFF OF SADLER.
>> YOU'VE GOT THAT EXTRA LITTLE DECORATIVE STRUCTURE THERE AT THE CORNER COMING INTO IT.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A CURB CUT UNTIL YOU GET DOWN TO THE SECOND LOT, WHICH WILL BE A LOT 11?
>> LOT 12, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BACK YOUR CAR OUT OF YOUR DRIVEWAY ONTO SADLER?
>> UNLESS YOU BACK INTO TO GO INSIDE.
>> I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
>> THAT FROM A TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE.
[00:40:04]
I WANTED TO INDICATE THAT STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES RELATIVE TO IT, AS WELL AS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND FINDS IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE POLICIES AND STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION.
>> IS THERE ANYONE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT? SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME AND ADDRESS THE BOARD? JUST TELL US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE,.
>> BEN BUCHANAN, I'M THE OWNER OF 2194 SADLER ROAD.
I'M PRESIDENT OF INTACT CONSTRUCTION.
JUST TO ADDRESS THE BACK INTO SADLER.
IT'S TOUGH TO NAIL EVERYTHING DOWN ON PAPER.
I DO BELIEVE THERE IS ENOUGH SPACE AND I KNOW FROM A PERVIOUS, IMPERVIOUS STANDPOINT.
WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF AVAILABLE PERVIOUS COVERAGE.
I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY SPACE AND I CAN WALK AWAY FROM THE MIC.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS MIC RECORDED OR NOT.
BUT I THINK THERE IS SPACE TO DO MORE OF A HAMMERHEAD.
YOU'VE GOT AN EXTRA WHAT? THERE'S 10 OR 20 FEET OF ADDITIONAL.
>> THAT'S THE WIDEST LOT BECAUSE OF THE DOUBLE FRONTAGE AND THAT ONE'S ACTUALLY, I CAN'T SEE.
I THINK IT'S 47 FEET WIDE PLUS THE SADLER ROAD DRIVEWAY.
IT'S GRAPHICALLY, ON 8.5 BY 11, ANYTHING LOOKS SMALL.
THEN I THINK YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, YOU MADE MENTION OF ANOTHER STRUCTURE.
WAS IT THIS HATCHED AREA, IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO OR PART OF THIS?
>> NO. I WAS DOWN THAT HATCHER RIGHT THERE IN THE CORNER.
>> THAT'S A PULL OFF. THE USPS ASKED THAT WE DO A GROUP MAIL FACILITY.
THAT'S JUST BASICALLY A PULL OFF ONCE THE MAILMAN ROUNDS THE CORNER.
HE'LL BE ABLE TO GET OFF OF RYAN ROAD.
THE INTENTION IS THAT'S JUST STABILIZED.
>> HE'S GOT A PLACE AND THEN THIS IS A BUS STOP BENCH COVERED FOR ALL OF THE CHILDREN FROM PIRATES BAY AND ANY THAT MAY LIVE HERE.
THEN THE MAIL KIOSK ITSELF WILL ALL BE UNDER JUST A SHELTER.
>> BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ADDING ANOTHER CURB CUT ON A SADLER, YOU'RE JUST MOVING?
THE EXISTING CURB CUT, AGAIN, IT'S FUZZY, BUT IT CAN BE SEEN RIGHT THERE.
WE'RE MUCH FURTHER FROM THAT INTERSECTION THAN THE ONE CURRENTLY.
THE CURRENT ONE WILL COME OUT.
HIGH CURVE WILL BE BUILT, AND THAT'S A FUNCTION OF PERMITTING THROUGH NASSAU COUNTY SINCE SADLER IS THERE
>> IF YOU COULD DO THE HAMMERHEAD TYPE THING WITH THAT, BACK OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND JUST DOING A 90 TO THE LEFT OR WHATEVER.
THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL A HECK OF A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE AND THAT I UNDERSTAND BASED ON WHERE YOU ARE.
IT WOULD BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT A CURB CUT ON THE SIDE ROAD FOR THAT FIRST UNIT.
>> I DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE CODE MEMORIZED, BUT IT WOULD NOT HAVE MET A MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM THAT CURB BUT THE SECOND ONE DOES.
>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE MU.
YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THE FENCE UP BETWEEN YOU AND MIKE'S PLACE?
>> YES, SIR. WE FENCED THE WEST AND THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINES, AND ACTUALLY THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER REQUIRED THROUGH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS IN THERE ARE 52 NEW FAIRLY MATURE PLANTINGS.
WELL, 44 ALONG THAT VEGETATIVE BUFFER AND THEN EIGHT THAT WERE REQUIRED.
I THINK THE LDC SAYS FOR EVERY 50 FEET OF ROADWAY, YOU GOT TO HAVE A STREET TREE.
SO THEY ARE EIGHT ALONG RYAN ROAD WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND THEN 44 NEW ONES IN WHAT I WOULD CALL THE BACK.
SOME OF THIS STUFF, LIKE I SAID, YOU REALLY GOT TO JUST WRAP YOUR HANDS AROUND IN THE FIELD AND MAKE, MAKE SENSE.
[00:45:03]
>> BUT YOU DON'T THINK YOU'D HAVE A PROBLEM FROM THE PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE?
IF YOU SEE THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE UNIT SIZES, THIS REPRESENTS 52 FEET IN DEPTH, AND THIS REPRESENTS 72 FEET IN DEPTH.
THERE WILL BE A THREE BEDROOM, TWO-AND-A-HALF BATH OFFERING, A FOUR BEDROOM THREE-AND-A-HALF BATH OFFERING.
BUT NOT ALL OF THE UNITS, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, THAT LOT, UNIT 5 AND 6 ARE BOTH THREE, TWO-AND-A-HALF.
IT WILL GAIN 800 SQUARE FEET OF AVAILABLE GAINS BY REDUCING THE SIZE OF THAT.
BLANKET CONCEPT, THERE'S PLENTY OF SQUARE FOOTAGE.
WE CAN WHIP AND MAKE THE RETENTION THAT'S BEEN DESIGNED WORK.
>> WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THAT THAT DRIVEWAY UP HERE ON SOUTHERN.
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THEN THAT IF YOU'RE COMING INTO THE GARAGE, YOU DRIVE IN, AND THEN YOU WANT TO DRIVE OUT.
YOU WOULD BASICALLY BACK OUT INTO THAT NORTH PART OF THE YARD?
>> YOU TURN THE REAR WHEEL RIGHT IN REVERSE AND THEN DRIVE.
>> IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH PERVIOUS AND NON-PERVIOUS? IS THAT PART OF THE DRAINAGE ISSUE? IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY?
>> I WOULD IMAGINE IT WOULD BE CONCRETE.
BUT LIKE I SAID, THERE'S 800 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS, JUST IN THIS BUILDING ALONE NOT BEING UTILIZED.
FOR THE SAKE OF STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE AND THAT KIND OF STUFF, THAT PERVIOUS, IMPERVIOUS ANALYSIS HAS TO DO WITH SQUARE FOOTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS.
THE FACILITIES, THE DRY POND IS SET UP TO HANDLE MORE IMPERVIOUS THAN WE'RE GOING TO CREATE.
THESE LAYOUTS ARE WORST CASE SCENARIO, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE WISE, BASED ON SALVAGING A LOT OF THE OLD GROWTH.
WE WANTED TO REPRESENT WHAT WE COULD MAX OUT, SPACE-WISE.
BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD ALL OF THE BUILDINGS.
LIKE I SAID, FIVE AND SIX ALONE ARE 52 FOOT BUILDING OR 52 FOOT UNITS, NOT 72 FOOT UNIT.
YOU'RE GAINING 20 FEET IN DEPTH BY 21 FEET IN WIDTH FOR TWO UNITS RIGHT THERE.
>> THIS IS NOT THE FINAL PLAT THEN?
>> THE PLAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUILDING CONFIGURATION ORIENTATION LAYOUT.
THE FINAL PLAT IS A DEFINITION OF PROPERTY LINES IN SPACE.
>> IF YOU PUT THAT, LET ME CALL THAT TURNING SLAB IN THERE.
I MEAN, 400 SQUARE FEET WOULD BE PROBABLY MORE THAN YOU WOULD NEED.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 11 BY 16, AN 80 SQUARE FEET?
>> YEAH. A COUPLE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF IT.
>> I THINK MAYBE SHOWING THE PROPOSED LAYOUT AND EVERYTHING MAY HAVE EVEN MUDDIED THE WATERS A LITTLE BIT.
THIS IS WHAT'S REALLY UP FOR VOTE TONIGHT.
IT'S THE LOTS, ALL MEETING, MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGES AND THE LIKE.
THEN ALL THAT OTHER STUFF IS REALLY A VERY TECHNICAL LINE OF QUESTIONS THAT IN THE BUSINESS, BOB, WE CAN ACCEPT.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> APPRECIATE. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD, MR. BENNETT? DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GET A COPY OF WHAT WE DIDN'T HEAR, SINCE IT'S ALL VISUAL SHOWING US HOW THE BUILDING POSITIONED ON.
IS THAT A DEFINITE NOW OR THEY STILL WORKING ON THAT PORTION?
>> THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAS ISSUED IN DECEMBER, WHICH HAS THE FINAL SITE ENGINEERING PROVIDED AS PART OF IT.
>> BUT OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE BECAUSE HE WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT UNITS 5 AND 6 BEING CHANGED.
[00:50:01]
>> THAT'S IDENTIFIED WITHIN THERE. THEY'RE NOT CHANGED.
THEY'RE JUST AT A SMALLER SIZE, AND THAT'S VIA- [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, IT'S ALREADY SHOWN THAT WAY.
THE ONE THAT'S RIGHT WHERE THERE'S SIDE BY SIDE, ONE OF THEM HAS GOT MORE VERTICAL HEIGHT, RIGHT THERE.
THAT'S A SHORTER ONE LONGER, AND THERE'S TWO OF THOSE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
>> YES. I UNDERSTAND. I'M HAPPY TO SEND THAT TO YOU.
>> BECAUSE I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW THEY WERE GETTING IN AND OUT OF THE WAYS.
>> NOW IF WE APPROVE THIS, CAN WE DO IT WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY PUT THAT CO-HAMMERHEAD IN?
>> EXCEPT THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR APPROVAL, WE'RE DOING IT?
>> YOU CAN STILL ISSUE A RECOMMENDATION.
>> SO WE RECOMMEND THAT. THAT'S OKAY.
>> IT WOULD BE AN APPROVAL WITH A RECOMMENDATION, IF THAT'S THE WAY THE BOARD WANTED TO GO.
WE'VE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION FROM STAFF.
WE'VE HAD A DISCUSSION FROM THE OWNER AND OWNERS REPRESENT REPRESENTATIVE.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE BOARD WE- [OVERLAPPING]
>> NOBODY HAS A PROBLEM WITH THE MU?
>> NO? OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE- [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M SORRY, JUST ONE THING, THIS IS THE ONLY THING BEFORE US.
I MEAN THE PROJECTS DONE, THE LAND- [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT NO OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS ARE BEFORE US.
THE PROJECT IS APPROVED AT THIS AND THE PLAT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PROJECT? YES, MA'AM. IF YOU COME BEFORE US AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, MA'AM.
>> HI. MY NAME IS TARA TOWNSEND, 2351, CAPTAIN KIDD DRIVE.
IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION WITH THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH WE UNDERSTAND IS GOING TO BE A HOTEL THAT'S GOING TO EXIT ONTO RYAN ROAD, ENTER AND EXIT, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE DRIVEWAYS OF PEOPLE COMING IN OUT OF THEIR GARAGE.
I WAS WONDERING IF THAT'S BEEN CONSIDERED AS A SAFETY CONSIDERATION.
>> STEPH, I'LL LET YOU ANSWER THAT.
>> I CAN TELL YOU THAT FROM THE TECHNICAL REVIEW STANDPOINT, THAT PROJECT WAS NOT REVIEWED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT OVERALL.
THAT ENTIRE PROJECT WILL BE DEVELOPED AND PERMITTED UNDER NASSAU COUNTY.
>> SO THAT MEANS IT WILL BE LOOKED AT IN THE FUTURE?
THIS PROPERTY IS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF FERNANDINA.
>> AND THE OTHER PROPERTIES THE COUNTY?
>> YES, MA'AM. COME AHEAD. GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, MA'AM.
>> GOOD EVENING CITY COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS KIM WOLFORD, AND I LIVE AT 1315 BROOME STREET.
I'M OLD, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE MY EYES DON'T DECEIVE ME.
THESE LOTS ARE 33 FEET WIDE? YES?
>> YES, THEY VARY, BUT THEY'RE APPROXIMATELY 33 FEET AND 38.
MEANING, THEY'RE VERY NARROW AND VERY LONG.
>> THEY'RE SHOTGUNS. I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU, THESE SHOTGUNS ARE STILL FOR SALE AFTER TWO YEARS ON 14TH STREET.
THEY'RE STILL FOR SALE ON ISLAND RIDGE OVER THERE BY I THINK IT'S BY THE PECK CENTER.
THEY'RE ALL STILL FOR SALE AND BEEN FOR SALE FOR YEARS.
SO JUST LIKE TO BRING THAT UP AGAIN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I KNOW THAT I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU DO FOR THE COMMISSION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? YES, MA'AM, IF YOU'D COME AHEAD? GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, MA'AM.
>> GOOD EVENING. I'M GAIL BANWELL, 2260 PIRATES BAY.
I'M NEW TO THE AREA, NEW TO THE COMMUNITY, AND NEW TO THIS PROJECT.
IS THIS LITTLE THING HERE A PRETTY LITTLE SIGN? DO WE GET TO KEEP OUR SIGN THAT SAYS PIRATES BAY? I UNDERSTAND BOTH OF THE LOTS FLANKING RYAN ROAD ARE ABOUT TO BE DEVELOPED BY TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES WHO ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO CONSIDER EACH OTHER'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
[00:55:03]
THERE COULD BE ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE ACCESSING THE SAME ROAD.IT SOUNDS LIKE NOBODY'S THINKING THE BIG PICTURE, LIKE CAN I GET TO MY HOUSE OR NOT WITH ALL THIS TRAFFIC? I'M WORRIED ABOUT THAT. I WAS WONDERING, DO WE GET TO KEEP OUR PIRATES BAY SIGNS, OR WILL THOSE DISAPPEAR IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS?
>> WELL, AFTER YOU, I'LL ASK THE DEVELOPER TO COME FORWARD AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU.
>> YES, MA'AM. SIR, IF YOU WOULD COME AHEAD AND GIVE US YOUR PLANS FOR THAT SIGN, PLEASE.
>> NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN, PLEASE.
>> STILL BEN BUCHANAN, STILL THE OWNER OF 2194 SADLER ROAD AND THE PRESIDENT OF INTACT CONSTRUCTION.
THE SIGNS FOR PIRATES BAY, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION, AND I DON'T KNOW IF KELLY CAN SPEAK TO THIS OR NOT.
THOSE SIGNS ARE ACTUALLY IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
ONE OF MY PROPERTY CORNERS EXISTS IN YOUR SIGN, BUT PREDOMINANTLY, THEY'RE IN RIGHT OF WAY.
I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A PROCESS IN THE WORKS OF A STANDARD BEING DEVELOPED FOR DISTANCE FROM PAVEMENT AND HEIGHT OF MONUMENTS AND THAT KIND OF THING THAT I THINK THOSE SIGNS WERE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH THAT REGIME, BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE WITH WHAT YOU GUYS CALL YOUR SIGN.
>> WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IS AN INTEGRATION OF BOTH COMMUNITY NAMES SOMEHOW.
OBVIOUSLY, I WOULD BE WILLING TO INCUR SOME COSTS TO MODERNIZE, REVAMP THAT SIGN, BUT FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT BOTH COMMUNITY NAMES COULD BE INTEGRATED IN ON THAT ONE MONUMENT.
YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE NECESSARILY.
>> AGAIN, HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH US.
>> I'M SORRY. THAT WOULD BE MY EXPECTATION, WOULD BE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY.
IT'S PRETTY RATTY, TO BE HONEST, RIGHT NOW, AND IT JUST NEEDS A COAT OF PAINT AND A PRESSURE WASH AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.
I KNOW THERE'S SOMEBODY HAS DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF MAINTAINING SOME FOLIAGE IN THE LITTLE PLANTER AND THAT STUFF.
BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE BOTH COMMUNITIES REPRESENTED THERE, AND AS FAR AS WHAT THE OTHER GUY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD INTENDS TO DO, I CAN'T ANSWER TO THAT.
>> SURE. KELLY, DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT ON THIS? NO.
>> I KNOW THAT THERE'S NOTHING ACTIVELY BEING DONE TO MODIFY, REMOVE, OR CHANGE THAT SIGN AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
>> THEN PERHAPS, PETE, MAYBE IF THE BOARD DECIDES TO APPROVE THIS FINAL PLAT, THAT MAYBE IN ADDITION TO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU WERE THINKING OF, THAT MAYBE WE ADD THAT THERE BE AN INTEGRATED SIGNAGE RECOMMENDATION.
>> I THINK THEY WANT THEIR SIGN FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THE REALITY IS IT'S NOT THEIR ENTRANCE, JUST TO BE CLEAR.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> IT'S A STREET SIGN. HANG ON.
>> I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT, AND NO ARGUMENT WITH WHERE THE SIGN IS AND WHERE IT BELONGS.
PERHAPS IT'S GENEROUS OF YOU TO OFFER TO INTEGRATE BOTH, BUT I THINK PEOPLE WHO'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S EXISTED FOR A VERY LONG TIME, WANT TO MAINTAIN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IF WE CAN FIND A WAY WHERE THEY CAN HAVE SIGNAGE ON THEIR PROPERTY FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE SOLUTION THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.
>> BUT WHERE IS THAT PROPERTY?
>> WELL, THERE'S ONE THING RIGHT NOW ON THE DRAWINGS THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
IF YOU LOOK DOWN AT THE VERY BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER, THERE IS A PLANTER IDENTIFIED RIGHT THERE AT THE CORNER.
>> YEAH. IT'S A PLANTER WHOSE BACKDROP IS-
>> A SIGN THAT HAS A SAND-BLASTED PIRATES BAY LOGO.
>> THAT RIGHT NOW IT WILL EXIST WITH THIS LAYOUT AS IS?
>> RIGHT NOW, THE ONLY ENTITY THAT COULD DO ANYTHING
[01:00:06]
ABOUT IT AND ITS EXISTENCE WOULD BE THE BUREAUCRACY.IT'S NOT HIS PROPERTY OR IT'S NOT THEIRS.
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OWNS THAT ROAD AND IT'S IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE ROAD.
THEY COULD GO ANY TIME IF THEY DECIDE TO WIDEN THE ROAD OR DO SOME CONSTRUCTION THERE. IT CAN BE REMOVED.
>> BECAUSE IT WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS BEING ON THE SADLER SIDE, WHICH IS A STATE ROAD.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ON THEIR PROPERTY.
>> IT'S IN BOTH THE SADLER RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE RYAN ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THOSE RIGHT OF WAYS START ON THIS PROPERTY LINE TO SADLER AND THAT PROPERTY LINE TO RYAN ROAD.
PREDOMINANTLY, IT IS AN ENCROACHMENT ON THE RYAN ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> THERE'S NO RECOMMENDATION THAT WE COULD MAKE THAT WITH [INAUDIBLE], AND/OR TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
>> IS THERE ANY HOA OPERATION THAT MAINTAINS THAT SIGN?
>> VOLUNTEER ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> REALLY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE SIGN [INAUDIBLE]?
>> JUST FOR THE SAKE OF SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OUR NEIGHBORS.
>> BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY.
>> I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY, BUT WE'RE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF NEIGHBORHOODS ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE A PIECE OF THIS.
>> WELL, THEN YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY, OR COUNTY, OR SOMETHING.
>> I'M JUST SAYING, LET'S THINK ABOUT IT.
I HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT IT UNTIL THESE FOLKS RAISED IT.
I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM, BUT I WANT TO HELP THESE PEOPLE MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO.
>> THAT'S WHY I WAS SENDING THAT THERE'S SOME TYPE OF INTEGRATED SIGNAGE, BECAUSE ONE WOULD THINK IF YOU TURN INTO RYAN ROAD AND YOU SEE PIRATES BAY, YOU WOULD PROBABLY ASSUME THAT THOSE TOWNHOUSES IS PIRATES BAY, AND YOU GO KNOCK ON THE DOOR WITH YOUR FRIENDS, SAY, "I LIVE IN PIRATES BAY." THERE'S REALLY A COMMUNICATION ISSUE, IT'S IDENTIFICATION ISSUE.
>> HOW WOULD THEY GET APPROVAL FROM, WAS IT THE STATE OR THE COUNTY TO PUT THAT SIGN ON THE RIGHT OF WAY?
>> SADLER ROAD IS ONLY A TWO-LANE HIGHWAY AND THAT'S [INAUDIBLE]
>> THAT'S THE COUNTY, I THINK.
>> JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND, BECAUSE SADLER WASN'T COMPLETED.
>> SADLER HAS ALWAYS BEEN 110 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH PAVEMENT WAS OUT THERE.
IT WAS A GOOD OLD BOY WEEKEND DEAL IS HOW THE SIGN GOT THERE.
>> TECHNICALLY, PIRATES BAY DOESN'T START UNTIL THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CITY PROPERTY WHERE THE [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING]
>> MY RECOMMENDATION IS, IS THERE SOME WAY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU CAN COME UP WITH A HANDSHAKE AGREEMENT ON?
>> DOESN'T MATTER, DOT IS GOING TO GET INVOLVED [INAUDIBLE].
>> MAYBE. BUT RIGHT NOW, LET'S JUST WORRY ABOUT HE'S TRYING TO PUT UP 12 STRUCTURES, MOVE ON WITH WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.
I UNDERSTAND FROM THE HOMEOWNER STANDPOINT, IT'D BE NICE IF THE SIGN IS THERE, AT LEAST PEOPLE KNOW, IT'S THERE AND I JUST GOT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD A LITTLE BIT.
>> WE CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU JUST DEVELOP THAT IS, BECAUSE YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE AN ENTITY TO DEAL WITH FROM PIRATES BAY.
YOU DON'T HAVE AN HOA OR ANYTHING TO BE REPRESENTED.
THEY CAN PICK SOMEBODY TO WORK WITH.
THAT MIGHT BE THE MOST LOGICAL WAY OF DOING IT.
>> HOW THAT HAPPENS, I DON'T KNOW. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D BE APPROPRIATE FOR YOU GUYS TO PROPOSE WHAT TO DO WITH THE SIGN WORKSHOP SO THAT THERE CAN BE AN ADVERTISEMENT AND EVERYBODY CAN SHOW UP.
LIKE I SAID, I'M COMPLETELY WILLING TO REWORK THAT SIGN.
>> I CAME IN A LITTLE BIT LATE.
I BELIEVE THAT SIGN IS IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.
>> I VAGUELY REMEMBER A CONVERSATION, I KNOW IT HAPPENED,
[01:05:01]
WITH OUR OPERATIONS DIRECTOR, MR. JEREMIAH GLISSON, ABOUT THIS.WITHOUT THERE BEING AN HOA THAT'S WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT GORGEOUS STONE, THAT'S OLD NOW, BUT IT'S A SIGNIFICANT SIGN IN TERMS OF MATERIALS, THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO NOR CAN WE AFFORD TO REPLACE A SIGN LIKE THAT.
WE CAN PUT UP A WOOD SIGN, PAINT IT, AND PUT SOME LETTERS, BUT I THINK THAT MR. GLISSON DID NOT WANT TO DISRUPT A HORNET'S NEST, SO TO SPEAK, WITH RESIDENTS THAT MAY FEEL LIKE THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE.
I THINK WE'RE JUST LEAVING IT ALONE FOR NOW.
>> IT'S REALLY NOT PART OF WHAT WE AS THE PAV HAD ANY JURISDICTION ABOUT OR MAKE ANY DECISIONS ON?
LET'S FOCUS ON THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? MARGARET?
>> I'LL GO. MARGARET KIRKLAND, 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE.
I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS PROPERTY EVER SINCE DAY 1 WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PREVIOUS PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY.
I DON'T RECALL WHAT I NEED TO RECALL AT THE MOMENT.
THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT RYAN ROAD AND THE ORIGIN OF THAT, THAT RELATES TO HOW THE SIGNAGE WENT UP THERE.
IT'S BEEN A STICKING POINT EVER SINCE THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN DISCUSSED RECENTLY.
FOR MANY YEARS, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, THIS SIGNAGE HAS LOOKED LOVELY.
THESE TWO PROPERTIES ON EITHER SIDE OF RYAN ROAD HAVE PROVIDED A LOVELY ENTRANCE FOR PIRATES BAY AND THEY WERE DEPENDENT ON THAT.
I TRIED TO PERSUADE THE COMMUNITY WHEN WE WERE FIRST TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY TO BUY ONE OR BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES ON EITHER SIDE OF RYAN.
THEY SAID, WELL, THEY COULDN'T AFFORD IT, SO IT NEVER HAPPENED.
BUT I THINK BECAUSE OF THE HERITAGE OF THIS AND WHERE IT CAME FROM, I THINK A SPECIAL EFFORT NEEDS TO BE MADE FOR THE CITY AND THE COUNTY TO COLLABORATE TOGETHER AND DECIDE WHAT CAN BE DONE.
IT'S A REAL SERIOUS PROBLEM BECAUSE BOTH PARCELS ON EITHER SIDE OF RYAN ARE BEING DEVELOPED.
I'M SURE THEY'LL BOTH BE DEVELOPED AS CLOSE TO THE CURVE AS POSSIBLE.
THERE'S REALLY NO PLACE TO PUT IT, BUT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO DEVOTE THE TIME AND THE EFFORT TO DO THAT.
I WOULD BEG KELLY, I KNOW KELLY IS A LITTLE OVER EXTENDED NOWADAYS, BUT KELLY TO MAYBE WORK WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE COUNTY AND SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING CREATIVE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS AND I DO APPRECIATE THE OFFER TO COLLABORATE WITH THOSE WHO ARE DEVELOPING THAT.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
KELLY, WOULD THAT IN YOUR MIND BE POSSIBLY A LETTER OR A PHONE CALL TO SOMEONE WITH THE COUNTY TO START THAT BALL ROLLING?
>> CERTAINLY. I'M HAPPY TO FIND MORE DETAILS OUT ABOUT THE FUTURE PLANS FOR THE ADJOINING PROPERTY, SPECIFICALLY ON THE DRIVEWAY PIECE OF IT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WOULD INTERACT.
I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT ELSE I CAN DO BEYOND OBTAINING INFORMATION AND THEN SHARING IT.
>> LET ME JUST ASK THE QUESTION.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PRINT RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW THAT SIGN AND PLANTER IS GOING TO JUST STAY THE WAY IT IS.
IT WOULD NOT BE DISTURBED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM BY WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS DOING. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT WILL NOT BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY AT LEAST.
[01:10:01]
>> [INAUDIBLE] SPACE BEEN MAINTAINED.
>> THE NEW TOWN, THE NEIGHBORS.
>> IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE. I'M NOT SURE RIGHT NOW, ASIDE MAY BE UP TO PIRATES BAY TO CONTINUE JUST IF THEY'VE GOT A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION THAT'S EVEN IF IT'S UNSTRUCTURED TO TAKE CARE OF IT.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DISTURBED BY PART OF WHAT THIS PROCESS IS.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR REALM TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
>> WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING IS TO GET WITH THE COUNTY AND THE CITY.
>> THE PIRATES BAY COMMUNITY AND MR. BUCHANAN, WHO IS THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER OF THAT PROPERTY.
TAMMI, WHO WITH THE CITY WOULD THIS GROUP REACH OUT TO FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE?
>> OPERATIONS DIVISION SO THAT ALL OF THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION IS ON THE CITY WEBSITE.
>> YOU CAN FIND IT UNDER PROBABLY SEVERAL PLACES, STREETS, PUBLIC WORKS, THAT IT WILL GET YOU TO JEREMIAH GLISSON.
>> G-L-I-S-S-O-N IS HOW YOU SPELL HIS LAST NAME.
YOU CAN FIND HIM ON THE WEBSITE AND YOU'LL BE EASILY ABLE TO FIND SOMEBODY ON THE PHONE IN THAT WORLD.
>> HE'S REALLY A GREAT GUY TO WORK WITH AND HE WOULD UNDERSTAND VERY QUICKLY WHAT THE ISSUE IS.
HIS COUNTERPART, DO YOU KNOW HIS COUNTERPART WITH THE COUNTY BY ANY CHANCE? DO WE KNOW WHO THAT WOULD BE? ANYWAY, I WOULD START WITH THE CITY, UNLESS YOU KNOW WHO THAT IS, MR. BUCHANAN?
>> I WOULD SAY THAT BECAUSE THE SIGNS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY, THAT IS THE RIGHT RESOURCE TO WORK WITH THE CITY DEPARTMENT.
>> THAT WOULD BE THEIR FIRST STOP?
>> I CAN TELL YOU THE YOUNG LADY WHO KEEPS TABS ON THE STREETS IN THAT AREA FOR NASSAU COUNTY IS DIANA WILLIAMS.
>> DIANA WILLIAMS. THAT'S JUST HAVE THAT AS ANOTHER NAME IN CASE YOU NEED IT.
BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY START WITH THE CITY AND I WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE AN APPOINTMENT TO SEE HIM AND DISCUSS THIS.
NOW THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING THE FINAL PLAT, THINGS ARE GOING TO BE MOVING ALONG.
YOUR TIMING I THINK IS GOOD AND SEE WHAT STEPS NEED TO BE TAKEN BETWEEN YOUR GROUP AND THE DEVELOPER AND SEE WHAT COMPROMISE THAT YOU GUYS CAN MAKE.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE BOARD'S SENSITIVITY TO THE VERSION OF COMMUNITY SPRING AND COMMUNITY IDENTITY.
>> IT'S A SMALL COMMUNITY, BUT THERE IS SOME HERITAGE?
>> THE NEW 12 HOUSES, THEY'RE FUTURE FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS.
I'M NOT SURE I WANT THE NAME OF MY COMMUNITY TO CHANGE AS A RESULT OF ADDING 12 NEW HOMES.
>> UNDERSTOOD. I WOULD SAY THAT THIS BOARD HAS BEEN VERY SENSITIVE TO NEIGHBORHOODS AND TO SMALL COMMUNITIES AND SO WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH.
THANK YOU. WE'VE HAD REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION.
AGAIN, ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR TONIGHT? HEARING NONE.
IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO FALL UNDER YOUR JURISDICTION, BUT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE PLATTING AND THEN THE TREES THAT ARE THERE FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S A LOT OF HERITAGE OAK TREES THAT ARE THERE AND ONE OF THE FLYERS THAT YOU HAVE SHOWS THE OLD PROPERTY WITH THE OLD HOUSE AND IT GIVES THE DESCRIPTION OF ALL THE TREES THAT ARE THERE.
I NOTICED LAST WEEK, ONE OF THE TREES, WHICH IS ABOUT 22-24 INCHES IN DIAMETER WAS CUT DOWN AND REMOVED.
A LOT OF THEM ARE FLAGGED, NOT FOR REMOVAL, AND WITH THE LAYOUT OF THE PLATS OF THOSE CONDOS, IT APPEARS THAT A LOT OF THOSE TREES ARE GOING TO BE CUT DOWN EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE FLAGGED NOT TO BE REMOVED.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.
I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE JUST VOTING ON THE PLATING OF THE 12 LOTS BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF BUILDING THOSE, I CAN'T SEE HOW THOSE TREES ARE GOING TO REMAIN WITHOUT THEM BEING TAKEN DOWN WHEN THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN FLAGGED NOT TO BE REMOVED.
[01:15:04]
>> KELLY, DO WE HAVE A TREE PLAT IN THIS PROPERTY?
>> WE DO, BUT I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT, ESPECIALLY,
>> [INAUDIBLE] IN A CERTAIN WAY.
>> MR. BUCHANAN, IF YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN, PLEASE, SIR.
>> BEN BUCHANAN AND 2194 SADLER ROAD OWNER OF INTACT CONSTRUCTION.
ANY MARKING THAT'S DONE ON THE TREES AT THE CURRENT TIME IS MARKING THAT WAS COMPLIANT WITH THE APPROVAL FOR THE RV RESORT THROUGH NASSAU COUNTY SO IF YOU SEE ANY ORANGE, PINK, GREEN TAPE, THAT WAS ALL PART OF THAT PROCESS.
>> MR. BUCHANAN SPEAK TO US PLEASE.
>> OKAY. SO THE CLEARING PIECE OF THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE HANDLED ON A LOT BY LOT BASIS.
PART OF WHAT'S BEEN ADDED AS WITHIN THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER IS OVERDONE IN PREPARATION FOR NEEDING CREDITS AND THAT KIND OF THING.
BUT SOME OF WHAT YOU SEE THERE WILL HAVE TO COME OUT, COMPLIANT WITH, THE ARBORIST STANDARDS AND ALL THAT STUFF FOR THOSE BUILDINGS TO BE VERTICALLY CONSTRUCTED.
THE TREE LAST WEEK ACTUALLY BLEW OVER AND I GOT DAVE NEVILLE, THE CITY ARBORIST INVOLVED ON A REPORTING LEVEL, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A SENSITIVITY TO THOSE TREES AND STUFF AND IT ACTUALLY BLEW INTO THE STREET AND EVERYBODY SCRAMBLED TO CLEAR THE ROADWAY AND THAT KIND OF THING.
BUT IN THAT PROCESS, MR. NEVILLE, THE CITY ARBORIST WAS BROUGHT INTO THE LOOP AND WHATEVER LEVEL OF REPORTING NEEDED TO HAPPEN ON HIS END I'M SURE DID.
BUT THERE IS WITHIN THE, WHAT WAS THE DECEMBER MOVE, KELLY? THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH IS PUBLIC RECORD.
EVERYTHING THAT CONFLICTS WITH BUILDING FOOTPRINTS IS IDENTIFIED AND THE MATH IS DONE, IT'S A 18 PAGE SET OF PLANS, AND I THINK ALL THAT'S PUBLIC RECORD SO YOU COULD CERTAINLY GET YOUR HANDS ON THAT AND SEE WHERE THE FORMULAS HAVE BEEN USED FOR MITIGATION AND TREE CREDITS AND THAT KIND OF THING.
BUT EVERYTHING THAT'S PROPOSED IS PROPOSED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS IN THE CITY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BUCHANAN. THANK YOU.
>> AND I QUIT SPEAKING TO YOU, I'M SORRY.
>> IT'S TO MAKE IT SO THAT IF THE PUBLIC ASKED THE QUESTION, IS NOT A TWO WAY CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND YOU, IT'S REALLY BETWEEN YOU AND US.
>> RIGHT YOU NEED THE INFORMATION AND I GET THAT. MY APOLOGIES.
>> YEAH. SIR, I THINK THAT MS. GIBSON WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT ENTIRE PACKET THAT MR. BUCHANAN WAS REFERRING TO THAT TALKS ABOUT THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE BY THE CITY'S ARBORIST AND THEN THE CALCULATION OF MITIGATION FOR ANY TREES THAT HAVE TO BE CUT DOWN.
IF YOU GET WITH MS. GIBSON, SHE WOULD BE HAPPY TO.
>> THE DECISION IS ALREADY MADE IN SOME VIEW POINT.
BUT THE IDEA OF JUST ALLOWING TO CUT DOWN HERITAGE TREES AND PLANT ANOTHER SMALL TREE ON TWO SIDES IS JUST NOT VERY GOOD.
>> UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT, WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD?
>> I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> OKAY. I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PAB CASE 2024-0003 TO THE CITY COMMISSION REQUESTING THAT A FINAL PLAT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2194 SADLER ROAD BE APPROVED, AND THAT THE PAB CASE 2024-0003 AS PRESENTED IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE APPROVED AT THIS TIME.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY OF FERNANDINA PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD THAT FOR LOT 12, WHAT I'LL CALL HAMMERHEAD DRIVEWAY TURN AROUND BE ADDED TO THE DRIVEWAY.
[01:20:02]
THIS WILL BE ON THE SAILOR SIDE.>> ALL RIGHT. AND I HEAR A SECOND FROM MR. BENNETT.
ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED LIKE SIGN? HEARING NONE THE MOTION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
WE WILL MOVE ON NOW TO ITEM 5.1,
[5.1 PAB 2024-0002 - COMP PLAN AND LDC TEXT AMENDMENTS]
WHICH IS PAB CASE 2024-0002 COUNT PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS.KELLY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START.
>> YEAH. FOR THE RECORD, ALL OF THE BACKUP MATERIAL AND DOCUMENTATION TIED TO THIS ITEM HAVE BEEN MADE PART OF THE RECORD FOR YOUR REFERENCE THIS EVENING AND GO INTO MORE DETAIL THAN I WILL PROVIDE IN THE STACK PRESENTATION TONIGHT.
THE REQUEST THIS EVENING IS TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SPECIFICALLY TO ADJUST THE ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THE C3 ZONING DISTRICT FROM 34 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO 18 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
THIS IS AN EFFORT TO BETTER REFLECT THE ALLOWABLE, LET ME FOLLOW MY SCRIPT HERE.
THE RATIONALE BEHIND THIS IS THREEFOLD TO PROVIDE SAFEGUARDING OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THAT'S THE REDUCTION IN DENSITY TO 18 DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE TO SERVE TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR HISTORIC DOWNTOWN SPECIFICALLY WITH THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE 1901 EXISTING PLOTTED LOTS, WHICH ON WHOLE EQUAL OUT TO APPROXIMATELY 18 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
THE CHANGE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES LIMITATIONS IN AREAS WHERE WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE FULL BENEFIT OF THE 34 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE PREVIOUSLY, AS WE HAVE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS PARKING DEMANDS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND OTHER LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
IT DOES WITHIN THE ANALYSIS, PROVIDE A THEORETICAL BREAKDOWN OF A MAXIMUM BUILD OUT SCENARIO FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THAT DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY, DOWN TO 839 DWELLING UNITS IN TOTAL.
THEN THE THIRD BASIS FOR THIS IS TO PRESERVE OUR HISTORIC FABRIC MAINTAINING THE 1901 PLAT ITSELF SERVES TO DISCOURAGE DEMOLITION OF OUR HISTORIC RESOURCES AND PROTECT THOSE PROPERTIES.
IT ALSO PROVIDES FOR OPPORTUNITIES WHERE THEY MAY EXIST TO INCORPORATE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING INTO THOSE STRUCTURES WHILE HONORING THE PLOT.
IT WORKS WITH OUR EXISTING REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY WITHIN POLICY 1.05, 1.04 WHICH PERMITS THE DEVELOPMENT OF ONE DWELLING UNIT PER EXISTING PLOTTED LOT OF RECORD WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND WITHIN ALL OF OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
IT WORKS TO ALIGN WITH OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES CONTINUES TO BE OVERSEEN BY OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL SO ANY REVIEW OF STRUCTURES AS WELL AS ANY EXTERIOR MODIFICATION OF STRUCTURES WOULD BE REVIEWED BY OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL, AND THIS WORKS ALONGSIDE THAT.
IT ALSO SERVES TO BALANCE THE EXISTING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS, WHICH REQUIRE THINGS SUCH AS BUILDING HEIGHT, PLOT WIDTH, PLOT COVERAGE, LANDSCAPING, TREE REMOVAL, PARKING, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TO APPLY, AND ENSURES THAT WE HAVE A LEVEL DEVELOPMENT THAT WORKS TO RESPECT OUR BUILT ENVIRONMENT ALONGSIDE THE CITY'S GOALS OF REDUCING AND MINIMIZING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
WITH THAT, STAFF HAS ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING.
>> GOOD. THANK YOU, KELLY. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? DISCUSSION?
>> ALL RIGHT. THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE THAT WE GO ULTIMATELY TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR APPROVAL.
THAT'S FOR THE COMP PLAN, A CHANGE TO THE COMP PLAN.
GO INTO THAT, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF EYES LOOKING AT IT AND YOU BETTER HAVE SOME PRETTY STOUT RATIONALE WHY YOU CHANGE.
>> MY PERCEPTION, JUST COMING IN FROM THE OUTSIDE IS THAT WE'VE HAD A REVOLVING DOOR.
[01:25:02]
WE WENT FROM ONE SPECIFICATION, WHICH WAS, I THINK, WHAT, 10.WE THEN SAID, NO, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 34 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IN 2017.
WE'RE TOLD BACK. NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO SOME NUMBER OF 18 BEING AND THERE'S SOME RATIONALE FOR THAT.
MY CONCERN IS THERE'S NOT A LOT OF WHAT I CALL TRUE ANALYTICS.
IT'S WE'RE REACHING FOR A NUMBER, AND YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD NUMBER TODAY WE'RE COMFORTABLE.
WELL, BEING COMFORTABLE AND GETTING THE STATE TO APPROVE IT, I THINK ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
MY QUESTION IS, IF YOU REVISE THE CENTRAL DISTRICT BUSINESS DISTRICT TO LESS THAN 18.
WHAT HAPPENS TO MU-8? ANYTHING? IS THERE ANY INTERPLAY WHERE WE WOULD SCREW UP MU-8 IF WE WERE TO CHANGE IT TO ANYTHING OTHER LESS THAN 18 FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT? ARE THEY TWO AUTONOMOUS, COMPLETELY SEPARATE THINGS.
WE DO NOT WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE ON MU-8.
I THINK WE WOULD HAVE GENERAL AGREEMENT MARK.
I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME ON THAT RIGHT THAT MU-8 IS SOLVED. IT IS WORKING.
>> I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN OUR LAST WE TALK ABOUT THIS AND BECAUSE THERE WAS A CONCERN LET ME SEE HERE.
WHERE DO I FIND THAT ABOUT THE MU-8 WOULD STAY MU-8 AND WHATEVER THE WAY.
>> WHY WOULD YOU SAID LESS THAN 18? WHY WOULD WE VEER OFF THE NUMBER 18?
>> WELL, THAT'S MY NEXT PART OF MY DISCUSSION.
IF YOU GO TO 10 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, THAT IS NOW CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY.
ON TOP OF THAT, IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH R3.
IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE OLD TOWN ZONING OF 10.
I HAVE THREE DISTINCT ZONING AREAS ALREADY AT 10.
WHY NOT MAKE SEPARATE BUSINESS DISTRICT 10?
>> KELLY, WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE? IT CERTAINLY CAN'T BE THAT THEY JUST SAID, OH, THERE'S AN 18.
WAS THERE A RATIONALE FOR THIS?
>> EIGHTEEN VOLUME UNITS PER ACRE WAS CONTEMPLATED AS PART OF THE EFFORT TO MAKE EIGHTH STREET CENTER STREET LIKE.
INCORPORATING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INTO THAT NEW LAND USE AND ZONING CATEGORY BECAUSE THE DIRECTION WAS ESTABLISHED TO MAKE IT AS CLOSE TO CENTER STREET AS POSSIBLE.
WE NEEDED TO DETERMINE A DENSITY THAT WOULD FIT THAT REQUIREMENT.
THAT'S WHERE WE ANALYZED THE UNDERLYING PLOTTED LOTS OF RECORD AND THE DENSITY TIED TO THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT 25 BY 100 FOOT LOTS AND ARRIVED AT THE APPROXIMATELY 18 UNITS AND ACRES.
IT'S REALLY 17.5, BUT WE ROUNDED UP BECAUSE WORKING IN HOLD NUMBERS IS A BIT EASIER.
>> I THINK THE REASON FOR 34 AND THEN GOING DOWN TO 18 AND NOT 10 IS THAT IT IS A BUSINESS DISTRICT.
ALL OF THOSE OTHER PLACES ARE NOT BUSINESS DISTRICTS.
>> WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
EVERY DAY, THERE'S AT LEAST ONE COMPLAINT ABOUT PARKING.
WHY DO I WANT TO GO TO 18 WHEN I COULD GO TO 10 AND I'VE TAKEN A LITTLE BIT OF PRESSURE OFF THE PARKING ISSUE IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHICH STOPS AT 11TH STREET.
IS IT A PROPER ASSUMPTION TO THINK THAT IF IT'S 18 IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT? FEWER PEOPLE WILL ALREADY BE.
IF IT'S 10 AND THEY LIVE OUTSIDE THE BUSINESS DISTRICT OR OUTSIDE AND THEN HAVE TO COME IN.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE ARE PLACES- [NOISE]
>> WHERE HIGHER DENSITY EQUALS LESS TRAFFIC; IS THAT TRUE?
>> THAT IS TRUE. YEAH, SO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO LIVE AND WORK AND PLAY WITHIN THE SAME GENERAL AREA YOU ARE NOT GETTING INTO OR NOR ARE YOU DEPENDENT ON A PERSONAL VEHICLE TO UNDERSTAND THE SERVICES THAT YOU NEED ROUTINELY.
YES, THEORETICALLY, THERE WOULD BE REDUCED TRIPS GENERATED FROM THAT PERSON THAT'S ABLE TO DO THAT.
>> I AGREE IT'S A TRICKY NUMBER BECAUSE WE HATE DENSITY.
BUT 18 MAYBE HEALTHIER THAN 10 FOR THE BUSINESS DISTRICT.
>> MR. BENNETT HAS A QUESTION.
>> WELL, THIS ONLY RELATES TO C3.
YOU GO TO REMEMBER CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT HAS NO PARKING REGULATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL SLATS.
[01:30:05]
BUT MY QUESTION GOES TO WOULD IT BE PERTINENT FOR US TO HAVE A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ZONING FOR THE ENTIRE CITY FOR ALL ZONING DISTRICTS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU WERE ALLUDING TO.BUT THIS WAS AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION.
I'LL SAY WHEN I WENT TO THE MU-8.
THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AROUND DENSITY AT THAT TIME AND YOU KNOW THE CITY WAS CITY ACRE.
>> THIRTY EIGHT WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, YOU ONE PLOTTED LOT WITHIN THOSE AREAS, PLOTTED AT 25 BY 100 FEET.
IT'S ROUGHLY 18 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
>> GOING BACK TO THAT QUESTION, WOULD IT BE PERTINENT FOR US TO HAVE A MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR THE ALL ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE ENTIRE CITY? OF WHATEVER, 10 UNITS ARE 12.
EACH ZONING DISTRICT NOW HAS A MAXIMUM DENSITY.
>> WHAT IS IT NOW? HOW MANY DO WE HAVE AT THIS MOMENT?
>> WELL, LOOK AT EVERY ZONING DISTRICT.
>> I HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, 10,11,12 DIFFERENT DENSITY DEFINITIONS.
WHAT CONCERNS ME IS IF YOU MAKE ONE THAT'S GOOD FOR ALL THE CITY AND MU-8 NOW FALLS UNDER PART OF THE CITY.
THAT'S A ZONE THAT YOU WOULD GO FROM 18, WHICH IS TODAY TO WHATEVER THE OTHER NUMBER IS.
I PERSONALLY DO NOT WANT TO MESS WITH MU-8.
I THINK MU-8 IS SOMETHING THAT IS GENERALLY CHARACTERIZED THE CLEANUP OF EIGHTH STREET.
IT'S WORKED, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION.
WHATEVER THAT MAYBE A MINORITY, BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN WORKING, AND I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO START TOUCHING BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER CONSEQUENCES ARE GOING TO BE NOW.
PEOPLE WILL START TO SEE SAY, HEY, GOSH, IT'S CLEAN UP.
IT LOOKS BETTER EVERY DAY. IT LOOKS A LITTLE NICER.
>> KEEP IN MIND YOU REMEMBER WHAT THIS IS FOR.
BECAUSE UNDER THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOW YOU CAN GO TO THE HIGHEST CITY.
>> BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ZONE THE CENTRAL DISTRICT BEFORE 2017 WAS EIGHT. THEN IT WENT TO 34.
IF I'M AT THE STATE LOOKING AT IT, I'M SAYING, WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING? IS THIS, SOME OF THE DOLLAR DO NUMBER EVERY MONTH OR EVERY YEAR?
>> SOME OF THESE THINGS WHERE STATE, [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHICH IS LIKE REACTING TO THE STATE NOW.
>> THAT'S A CHANGE IN THE LAW.
IT'S BASICALLY TAKE AWAY LOCAL RULE THAT MUCH MORE.
I'VE TAKEN ANOTHER ELEMENT AWAY FROM THIS?
>> MY CONCERN IS IF YOU DO HAVE RIGHT NOW THREE ZONING ELEMENTS THAT HAVE 10.
THAT'S R3, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND ALL OF OLD TOWN, OT1 AND OT2.
THERE'S THREE OF AND WE HAVE A COUNTY WHICH IS 10.
THAT'S IN THEIR COMPLAIN SIDE.
I THINK IT'S IN THE COMPLAIN SIDE.
THERE'S FOUR THINGS THAT SAY, THAT'S BASED ON THINGS THAT ARE IN PLACE THAT WORK.
THE COUNTY SEEMS TO THINK 10 IS MAYBE THE RIGHT NUMBER.
WHY NOT BE CONSISTENT? ARE THEY RIGHT? NOBODY'S RIGHT NECESSARILY.
WHAT'S APPROPRIATE BASED ON THE FACT? WHAT HAVE WE GOT 40% OF THIS ISLAND IS COUNTY.
SO 40% OF THE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY ARE RIGHT NOW RESTRICTED TO 10 IS THE MAXIMUM DENSITY?
>> WELL, WE COULD SAY 10 AND THEN THEY'LL WANT TO COMPROMISE IN BETWEEN.
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALLOWABLE.
DO WE KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL DENSITY OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT IS RIGHT NOW.
>> THAT'S THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT WITH RESIDENTIAL UNITS? YES, I DON'T HAVE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE OVERALL CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
I DO KNOW AND AS INDICATED IN THE SACK REPORT, THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT BECOME IMMEDIATELY NON-CONFORMING AS A RESULT OF THIS CHANGE?
>> THEN WAS NEVER REALLY PART OF THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
>> DENSITY WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT OF THAT.
>> THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT ANYWAY IN A FEW YEARS.
WELL, I THINK WE COULD RECOMMEND 10 AND SEE WHERE IT GOES.
THE BASIS WOULD BE BECAUSE IT'S ALSO IN THE COUNTY.
[01:35:04]
>> I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM A STANDPOINT OF SHOW ME SOME ANALYTICS THAT SUPPORT WHY THAT POSITION.
NOW, KELLY MAY BE ABLE TO PUT THAT CASE THAT SAYS, IT'S RIGHT NOW, HISTORY SAYS, BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE, IT'S ABOUT 18.
THAT MAY NOT BE THE WRONG ANSWER.
I'M JUST BRINGING IT UP THE FACT THAT, WE COMPLAIN ABOUT PARKING, BUT WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT DENSITY IS DOWNTOWN IN THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PUTTING IT, LET'S GO OVER THE UNIT ON 11TH STREET IN ATLANTIC AVENUE.
NEW 33 UNITS GOING ON IN THAT LOT, WHICH IS LESS THAN TWO ACRES.
YOU GOT TO SAY AT LEAST ONE CAR, SO THERE'S 33 CARS ON THAT LOT, WHICH AT ONE TIME WAS LIKE A 7-11 TYPE STRUCTURE AND A GAS STATION AND SOME VACANT LAND UP BEHIND IT.
THAT'S GOING FORWARD. THAT WILL HAVE 33 DWELLING UNITS ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
>> WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
>> WELL, THAT'S RIGHT NOW. THEY GRANDFATHERED IN, KELLY? BECAUSE I THINK THEY'VE ALREADY GOTTEN THE POINT.
THEY'VE ALREADY GOT THE INITIAL, AND THEY MAY BE THROUGH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD. I'M NOT.
>> THEY THEY ARE TOO FAR DOWN THERE.
IF WE CHANGE IT TOMORROW, THAT WOULDN'T AFFECT THAT?
>> BUT THOSE UNITS, THEY AREN'T GOING TO BE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE ABOUT CARS.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE CARS, SO THERE'S GOING TO BE AT LEAST, LET'S SAY, 33 CARS.
>> IF THIS IS JUST RECOMMENDATIONS, WE COULD RECOMMEND AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT?
>> WELL, I THINK WE'RE ASKED TO MORE THAN RECOMMENDATIONS TO DO IT.
>> RECOMMENDS TO DO 18. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKED.
>> WELL, YOU WANT TO PAIR IT DOWN TO 10?
>> I'M BRINGING UP A POINT THAT IS IT ALTERNATE WITH IT.
AGAIN, WE HEAR ABOUT THE PARKING ALL THE TIME, THE FACT THAT THEY LIVE.
I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OF THESE UNITS GOING IN THAT ONE UP ON 5TH STREET AT THE BAPTIST CHURCH AND THEIR OLD, WHATEVER THEY CALL IT, IS THERE THAT HALLWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ORIGINAL CHURCH STRUCTURE.
THOSE PEOPLE, MOST OF THEM ARE PARKING ON THE STREET.
I DOUBT IF THERE'S ANYBODY THERE WHO DOESN'T HAVE A CAR.
I CAN'T PROVE THAT FIRST-HAND, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY THE CASE.
THOSE UNITS ARE CLOSE TO $1 MILLION.
>> WELL, WE'LL HEAR FROM KELLY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO 10.
>> THAT IS A RECOMMENDATION YOU ARE WELCOME TO MAKE.
THE BASIS FOR 18 MORE UNITS AND THE AVAILABLE DATA AND ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> FOR 18. BUT I THINK, AND I'VE WORKED WITH YOU-ALL TOO LONG, YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO WHATEVER YOU LIKE, BUT I CAUTION YOU AGAINST MAKING A MOTION TONIGHT AND JUST REPLACING THE 18 WITH 10.
THERE'S NO BASIS FOR IT WHATSOEVER.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT, AND I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR HIGHER DENSITY, AT ALL, BUT USING AN R3 DESIGNATION, R3 DOES NOT FIT DOWNTOWN ANYWHERE.
IF YOU JUST TOOK LIKE, WHAT COULD WE ZONE R3 IN? CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS SO UNIQUE.
A LOT OF IT HAVING TO DO WITH THE HISTORICAL PLAT.
I THINK THAT THIS BOARD NEEDS TO STUDY IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A NEW NUMBER, A DIFFERENT NUMBER THAN WHAT'S RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, AND STAFF HAVE THE EASY WORK OF BEING ABLE TO, SAY, THIS IS WHAT, IN OUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, IS WHAT IS THE BUILT OUT PATTERN NOW WHEN YOU TAKE AN AERIAL VIEW OF WHAT'S GONE ON DOWNTOWN WITH RESIDENTIAL FOR HISTORICALLY AND PRESENTLY.
I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO DROP IT TO 10, IT'S FINE, WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE A BASIS FOR DOING THAT.
BECAUSE AS KELLY SAID, IF AT 18, THERE ARE GOING TO BE A WHOLE BUNCH OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS OR COMPLEXES OR WHATEVER THAT BECOME NON-CONFORMING, I WOULD IMAGINE AT 10, YOU HAVE EVEN MORE.
I THINK YOU PROBABLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE EFFECT IS OF HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE OR TWO OR FIVE, BUT WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF HAVING A DENSITY OF 10 AND BUILDING ON 25 OF LOTS? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, ARE THERE GOING TO BE A BUNCH OF HOMES THAT ARE NOW NON-CONFORMING THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME? AT LEAST THOSE QUESTIONS, YOU SHOULD ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AND GET THEM ANSWERED.
[01:40:01]
AGAIN, YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY.THAT'S JUST MY RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT JUST PICKING A NUMBER WITH 10.
I DON'T KNOW THE REASON NOT TO DROP IT.
I DON'T HAVE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST DROPPING IT.
IT'S JUST WE DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION, RESEARCH, ANALYSIS FROM ANY PROFESSIONAL STAFF THAT SAYS, "YES, 10 WOULD WORK TOO, AND THIS IS WHY NUMBERS."
>> WELL, AS OF APRIL 21ST, 2017, WHEN THE CITY WROTE THIS LETTER AND WENT TO THE STATE, UP UNTIL THEN, THE DENSITY WAS EIGHT, SO WE MUST HAVE A TREMENDOUS NUMBER.
>> THAT COULD VERY WELL BE, BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE A BASIS.
>> I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE LETTER THAT WENT TO THE STATE. THEY SAID IT WAS EIGHT.
WE WANT TO MAKE IT 34. MY CONCERN IS, WHERE IS THE LOGIC? WHERE IS THE SUPPORTING DATUM, THAT SAYS, THAT'S THE RIGHT NUMBER, AND HOW DO YOU SUPPORT THAT TO SOME ADMINISTRATOR AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT SAYS THAT'S THE RIGHT ONE TO DO?
>> WELL, WE PICKED A NUMBER THAT WE DIDN'T SUPPORT EXCEPT THAT THE COUNTY DOES IT.
I MEAN, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY ANALYTICS TO SAY WE SHOULD DO IT?
>> NOW ESSENTIALLY COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE A HISTORIC DOWNTOWN.
>> I DON'T KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS 10.
>> I I THINK WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, KELLY, THERE IS SOME URGENCY TO THIS.
>> THAT'S WHY I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET EDGED DOWN THE LINE.
>> AT NASSAU COUNTY, IT'S NOT A PLACE.
IT'S JUST A HIGHWAY WITH HOUSES.
THIS IS A DOWNTOWN, AND I HATE THAT SOMEBODY'S GOING TO BRING 33 MORE CARS HERE.
I HATE THAT. BUT AT LEAST THOSE 33 CARS ARE GOING TO PARK THERE AND WALK DOWNTOWN.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO GET 33 PARKING SPACES IN THAT LOT.
WHERE THEY GOT A LIMIT OF WHAT 45 FEET, SO THAT'S FOUR STORIES. THAT'S IT.
>> SHALL WE LISTEN TO WHAT MR. ROSS HAS TO SAY.
I HAVE THE REFERENCE TO DOCTOR.
>> JIM ROSS, 210 NORTH 3RD STREET.
>> EVERY SET OF FACTS HAS MANY STORIES.
THE FIRST FACT IS THAT THE DENSITY CURRENTLY IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND THE ONLY OTHER PLACE IS 34 UNITS PER ACRE, AM I RIGHT?
>> COMING DOWN, THE NEXT ONE IS MU-8 WITH 18, CORRECT?
>> WHICH IS A LIMITED AMOUNT OF IN THE CITY, CORRECT?
>> THEN THE NEXT HIGHEST IS 10, CORRECT?
>> WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT TWO AREAS, WHICH IS THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THIS.
WHAT REALLY STARTED THIS CONVERSATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
ALL THAT WAS WORKING JUST FINE.
WHAT STARTED THIS CONVERSATION WAS THAT THE LEGISLATURE AND ALL ITS WISDOM, PREEMPTED THE CITY WITH SOMETHING CALLED THE AFFORDABLE, WHAT WAS IT CALLED?
WHICH HASN'T BEEN CHANGED, CORRECT? AMENDED IN THE CURRENT LEGISLATURE.
>> THEY DID. THE ADOPTED IT FIRST IN 2023, AND THIS YEAR, THEY AMENDED IT.
>> THE AMENDMENT SAYS WHAT? THAT APPLIES TO THE DENSITY ISSUES.
>> THERE'S THERE'S THE TERM CURRENT ALLOWABLE DENSITY.
>> THE LEGISLATURE CAN CHANGE IT, YES.
>> NO. WHAT CAN THE CITY DO? IS THE CITY STUCK WITH THE NUMBER THAT WAY?
WHAT REALLY DROVE THIS CONVERSATION HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT'S BEING BUILT IN THE DOWNTOWN.
WE DROVE THIS CONVERSATION, AND ANYBODY CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WAS THE LIVE LOCAL ACT.
THAT'S WHAT ALL THIS HAS TO DO WITH. AM I CORRECT?
>> THE FIRST THING THAT A DEVELOPER LOOKS AT, AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, KELLY, IS PARKING AND THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
BECAUSE IT'S THE PARKING REQUIREMENT THAT DRIVES DEVELOPMENT.
ALL THESE THINGS COME TOGETHER.
WHAT THIS REALLY WAS ALL ABOUT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DOWNTOWN.
THE DOWNTOWN WITH 34, WHATEVER IT IS,
[01:45:01]
THERE'S NOT MUCH ROOM THERE FOR FOLKS TO DO ANYTHING.IT'S JUST NOTHING'S HAPPENING THERE.
THE MU-8, I DON'T THINK IT'S AS ACCESSIBLE AS YOU THINK IT IS, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S DRIVING IT.
THE REAL CONVERSATION IS WHAT YOU WANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY, THE DENSITY YOU WANT FOR HOUSING ON THAT, AND THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE HERE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] I USE THE TERM HIGHEST DENSITY IN THE CITY?
>> IT'S THE HIGHEST HEIGHT AND HIGHEST TAXES.
>> THE WHOLE REASON FOR THIS CONVERSATION, THE TENSION BETWEEN THE STATE AND LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES WAS TO LOWER THAT NUMBER, SO YOU CAN'T PUT MORE UNITS ON INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
>> IT ISN'T THERE SOME RATIONALE THAT LOWER DENSITY WITH OUR HEIGHT LIMIT AND WITH THE LOWER DENSITY MAKES IT IMPROBABLE THAT LOW INCOME HOUSING AT SOME LEVEL.
>> FIRST OF ALL, LET'S GET OVER THE IDEA OF LOW INCOME HOUSING ON THIS ISLAND WITH THE COST.
>> THEY CAN CALL WHATEVER THEY WANT.
I'M NOT TALKING OFF THE ISLAND.
I'M TALKING AND I'M TALKING IN THE CITY.
THERE IS NO LOW INCOME HOUSING UNLESS IT'S SUBSIDIZED BY SOMEBODY, AND IT'S ALL GOT TO DO WITH THE LAND PRICE.
>> BUT THE LIVE LOCAL ACT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.
>> BUT IT APPLIES TO THE CITY.
LIME STREET WAS SOLD AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND I THINK THE CURRENT RENT THERE FOR A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT, SOMEBODY TOLD ME IT WAS 1,900 BUCKS A MONTH.
>> WHICH MEETS THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE UNDER THE STATUTE.
>> WHICH DOES MEETS THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE UNDER THE STATUTE BECAUSE NASSAU COUNTY MEDIUM INCOME IS LIKE $90,000, AND THERE IS A FORMULA.
WHAT YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS, HOW DO YOU WANT THIS TO APPLY TO COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL? THEN WHAT WOULD THE IMPACT OF THAT NUMBER BE ON THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND MU-18? JUST PICKING A NUMBER OUT OF A HAT IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT.
>> THAT'S WHAT IT WAS ALL ABOUT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF, TO MAINTAIN MOST OF THE CURRENT BUILDING DOWNTOWN, 18 UNITS WOULD WORK?
>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE 18.
IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE APPLICABLE FOR THE LIVE LOCAL AND PROPERTY IS ZONED, WELL, IN OUR CASE, WAS C3.
>> NO. THAT'S NOT TRUE. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
>> IT'S COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR MIXED USE.
>> BUT DID THEY CHANGE IN THIS LAST AMENDMENT? I HEARD THEY STRUCK INDUSTRIAL.
>> BUT WE HAVE IN OUR CURRENT REQUIREMENTS, C-1 AND C-2, RESIDENTIAL IS NOT PERMITTED.
>> YES, IT IS UNDER LIVE LOCAL.
>> NO. I CAN TELL YOU, RESIDENTIAL ISN'T ALLOWED IN INDUSTRIAL EITHER.
BUT THE LIVE LOCAL PREEMPTS THE LOCAL ZONING LAWS.
>> IF YOU TAKE THE PROPERTY DOWN ON SOUTH 14TH STREET ON THE EAST SIDE AND THERE'S A CHURCH AND THERE'S A GOLD COLOR, CLOTHES IN THAT LANDS, SO THAT IS SOME OF THAT C-2 AND SOME OF THAT C-3, SO IT'S IT'S C. YOU COULD PUT RIGHT NOW 34 UNITS PER ACRE, IF ALL THE OTHER FACTORS.
>> WILL PREVENT 34 UNITS PER ACRE IS THE PARKING REQUIREMENT.
>> WHATEVER. BUT IF WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT, BEING IT'S NOT EVERYWHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO [INAUDIBLE] I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH 18.
MY CONCERN IS HOW IS THE STATE GOING TO LOOK AT IT?
>> DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE STATE.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO WORRY ABOUT THE STATE BECAUSE ALL THIS IS GOING TO GET LITIGATED.
NO. DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE STATE.
I THINK THAT'S A MISPLACED CONCERN, PERSONALLY.
>> WELL, I LOOK AT STANDPOINT.
[01:50:01]
SOME RATIONALE, SOME ENGINEERING, SOMETHING THAT SAYS THIS IS THE RIGHT DECISION.>> [INAUDIBLE] 1,800 TO STATE.
WHAT'S CORRECT? IS 17 CORRECT? 18, 19. MOST OF THIS STUFF IS DRIVEN BY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THE STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS.
IF YOU SAY PARKING HEIGHT EXCEPT PARKING [INAUDIBLE] ESSENTIALLY IN ANY PARCEL.
>> WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND, ALTHOUGH WE'RE NOT THE ONLY VOICES THAT YOU ACTUALLY DO HAVE TWO PEOPLE IN THE ROOM RIGHT HERE THAT COULD TESTIFY AS EXPERT WITNESSES, MYSELF AND KYLE GIBSON, AND WE HAVE JUST PROVIDED YOU AN OPINION ON WHY 18 IS THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE PUSHING.
WE'RE NOT DOING THE CITY COMMISSION'S BIDDING.
SAYING THAT 18 HAS A LOGICAL NEXUS THAT WE CAN SUPPORT.
10TH MAY, BUT WE NEED TO STUDY IT, AND WE NEED TO UPLOAD [INAUDIBLE] HERE AND BRING BACK THE INFORMATION.
>> I'M STILL NOT UNCOMFORTABLE WITH 18 IN TERMS OF A DENSITY LEVEL IN AN ACRE PROPERTY.
THERE AREN'T THAT MANY PLACES AROUND THE CITY WHERE THAT'S EVEN GOING TO BE USABLE AS A SOLUTION FOR HOUSING.
BUT I JUST WANT US TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN A COUPLE OF BITES OUT OF THE COOKIE.
LET'S MAKE ONE AND MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT.
IF 18 IS LOGICALLY OKAY, WE CAN SUPPORT THAT, THEN I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GOING THERE.
>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH 18.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME?
>> NO. WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
I THINK IF WE LOOK AT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, HOW MANY THERE ARE AND STAFF HAS DONE SOME REALLY GOOD RESEARCH HERE.
BUT IF WE IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING VERSUS IF WE DO DO SOMETHING.
IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING, RIGHT NOW, 34 UNITS PER ACRE STANDS.
IF YOU ALMOST HALF THAT WITH A RECOMMENDATION, THAT'S GOT TO BE GOOD.
IF YOU'RE REFUSING, HONESTLY THAT'S HOW IT LOOKS.
>> KELLY HAS DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS.
MADE A VERY GOOD PRESENTATION ON AT LEAST THREE THINGS THAT IT DOES.
>> WE'LL MAKE CHANGE AGAIN IN TWO YEARS.
>> I THINK AS A GOING FORWARD, CERTAINLY REDUCING DENSITY ALMOST IN HALF FOR THOSE PARTICULAR TYPES OF PROPERTIES HAS GOT TO BE A GOOD THING.
>> I THINK IT'S GOING FORWARD.
>> I'M OKAY WITH IT. I'M TIRED OF HEARING EVERYBODY COMPLAIN ABOUT PARKING.
>> I DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. I CAN ALWAYS COMPLAIN.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
>> MAYBE THAT'S THE WAY OF DOING IT.
MAYBE WE NEED TO TAKE PARKING OFF LINE AS A STRATEGY FOR THE WHOLE CITY.
IT'S NOT JUST CENTRAL BUSINESS ISSUE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NEW RESTAURANT DOWNTOWN THAT'S GOING TO SEAT 150 PEOPLE.
THEY DIDN'T ADD ONE PARKING PLACE DOWNTOWN FOR THAT RESTAURANT.
>> THE ONE, I ASSUME, WHERE THE OLD POCKET PARK WAS.
>> I THINK THEY'RE GETTING A LIQUOR LICENSE.
SO THAT SAYS THEY GOT IT CHIP 150 PEOPLE, RIGHT?
>> THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEAT THAT NUMBER TO GET A LIQUOR LICENSE.
>> SO PARK DOWN BY MY CHURCH AND WALK?
>> I THINK THAT ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE.
MR. STEVENSON, MAYBE WE TAKE THAT OUT OF THE EQUATION ON THIS DISCUSSION, AND MAYBE WE LOOK AT THAT IN A LARGER PICTURE.
I THINK THAT STAFF HAS GOT THAT ON THE LIST OF THINGS THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN US LOOKING AT.
AND PERHAPS THIS MIGHT BE THE TIME TO SEPARATE THAT CONVERSATION.
>> THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THE CONVERSATION, AND I CAN BE COMFORTABLE WITH 18.
>> CAN WE MAKE A MOTION TO- [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHERE SOME OF THESE NUMBERS CAME FROM.
THEY WEREN'T JUST PICKED OUT OF THE AIR.
34 UNITS TO THE ACRE WAS THE WAY THE ORIGINAL [INAUDIBLE] PLOT WAS PLOTTED.
OKAY? THAT'S WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM.
THAT'S WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CHANGING SOME OF THESE THINGS, THE SMALLER LOTS.
THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GETTING THAT NUMBER.
SO IF YOU'RE TRULY AGAINST 34 UNITS TO THE ACRE, THEN THERE'S COMBINING LOTS AND DEVELOPING THE SMALLER LOT IS A REAL CRITICAL ISSUE.
DURING THE MU EIGHT DISCUSSION,
[01:55:03]
WE CONSIDERED 34, WE CONSIDERED GOING HIGHER, WE CONSIDERED GOING LOWER AND DURING THOSE DISCUSSIONS, WE CONCLUDED TO THE 18 UNITS BECAUSE WE COULD FIT 18 UNITS REASONABLY WITHIN THE CURRENT ZONING LAND USE HEIGHT PARKING, ALL OF THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE OUT THERE BECAUSE A [INAUDIBLE] TOLD ME YEARS AGO, I DON'T CARE IF YOU PUT 100 UNITS TO THE ACRE AS A DENSITY I CAN BUILD.I CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE I CAN ONLY GO UP 35 FEET, 45 FEET.
I GOT A SETBACK AT ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS THAT KEEPS THAT LOW.
SO IN THE FUTURE, ALWAYS KEEP IN MIND THAT ALL THESE OTHER SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT KEEP THIS DOWN.
SO THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH 18 BACK THEN.
>> THAT WAS HIGHER, AND DURING THOSE DISCUSSIONS, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT HIGHER DENSITY, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT NO ONE IN THE CITY WOULD SUPPORT ANYTHING GREATER THAN 18 UNITS TO THE ACRE.
AND THAT WAS GOING TO BE A SPECIAL ZONING DISTRICT JUST FOR THAT AREA TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF THAT AREA AND ALLOW A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY IN THAT AREA.
I'M IN AGREEMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT SOMETHING SHOULD BE ADDED THAT NOWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY SHOULD THE ZONING ALLOW ANYTHING GREATER THAN MAYBE 10 UNITS TO THE ACRE OR 10 OR SOMETHING ELSE, WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS.
BECAUSE THEN WE CAN CONSIDER ALL OF THE REASONS FOR NOT HAVING HIGH DENSITY.
HERE, WE'RE REALLY GOING TO 18 BECAUSE THAT'S THE MAXIMUM THERE.
THEY COULD GO TO THE 34 BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL FLAT AND IT COULD BE SUPPORTED BY THIS.
>> BUT THERE WAS LOGIC FOR THE 34 AND THE MOST CURRENT ANALYSIS THAT YOU'VE GOT IN DETAIL IS THE 18 FOR MU EIGHT.
OKAY, THEN I'LL BUY IN ON THAT.
THAT'S THAT'S THE MOST PERTINENT DATA THAT YOU HAVE ON RECORD, IT IS SUPPORTED BY A WHOLE SERIES OF ANALYTICS.
OKAY. ENOUGH DISCUSSION AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.
>> ARE WE READY TO MAKE A MOTION? DO I HEAR A MOTION? THIS IS TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. KELLY'S RAISING HER HAND.
>> ACTUALLY, I WANTED TO REMIND YOU TO PLEASE OPEN THIS UP FOR PUBLIC CONSIDERATION.
OKAY. WE'RE READY TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. TINA, COME AHEAD.
>> HI, TAINA CHRISTNER, 406 BEECH STREET.
SORRY, I'M LATE IN COMMENTING.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL AWARE OF BEFORE WE GO AHEAD WITH THE 18 IS THAT THIS DOES AFFECT THE MU ZONES.
AND I DON'T KNOW, AND I'M SORRY, I WAS LATE.
I DON'T KNOW IF PART OF THE PRESENTATION WENT OVER THE ZONING MAP OF FERNANDINA BEACH.
IF I LOOK AT THIS, THE MU ZONES GO ALL THE WAY DOWN FROM ASH DOWN THIRD STREET WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF NICE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
IT GOES DOWN ALL THE WAY FROM ASH DOWN NINTH STREET ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
ON ESCAMBIA, IT GOES ALL THE WAY FROM EIGHTH STREET NORTH AND I CAN'T SEE WHERE IT ENDS.
BUT THERE'S A LOT OF MU ZONES THAT ARE IN CURRENT WHAT LOOK LIKE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS RIGHT NOW.
SO IF YOU APPROVE IT AT 18, THAT WILL REALLY INCREASE THE DENSITY FOR THOSE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> KELLY, AREN'T WE SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES?
AND THAT UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL ACT APPROVED IN 2023 AND AS AMENDED, THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PURPOSES AND FIND THAT DEVELOPMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WOULD EXTEND TO THE MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT IN ADDITION TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.
>> ALL RIGHT. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT 18 UNITS PER ACRE, THEN IT WOULD AFFECT BECAUSE THAT WAS OUR CONVERSATION WE STARTED THIS WAS TO SAY, OH, IT WASN'T GOING TO AFFECT MU, BUT NOW WE'RE HEARING IT.
>> WELL, IF YOU GO BACK TO DECEMBER 14TH, 2016, THERE IS APPROACH OF ANALYSIS ABOUT THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT DEFINING IT BY A LOT.
[02:00:03]
IT'S ON THE PUBLIC RECORD.SO THERE'S A THREE PAGES THAT BREAKS IT OUT BASED ON SO MANY STREETS.
IT TAKES YOU EAST ALL THE WAY UP TO THE WEST SIDE OF 11TH STREET, BASICALLY, AND ALONG THE ATLANTIC AVENUE CORRIDOR.
AND THEN IF YOU GET DOWNTOWN, YOU GO DOWN THROUGH ASH STREET ON THE SOUTH.
THIS IS THE FAR WESTERN PART OF IT.
THIS SHOULD BE PRETTY CLOSE TO CORRECT? THESE ARE ALL CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
THIS DOES NOT GIVE ME THE ACTUAL RESULT.
>> YOU WILL NOT SEE ANALYSIS THAT GOES TO THAT EXTENT BECAUSE THE CHANGE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED AND AS PRESENTED BEFORE YOU, IMPACTS THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
IT WILL BECAUSE OF LIVE LOCAL HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY OF THE CITY OVERALL.
SO THERE IS THAT PIECE OF THIS, BUT THE ANALYSIS TIED TO THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN PERFORMED.
IT HAS ONLY BEEN ANALYZED AS IT RELATES TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
>> SO WE'RE MISSING THE IMPACT THAT THIS COULD HAVE ON THE MU ZONING DISTRICT?
>> ON ANY OTHER ZONING DISTRICT WHERE LIVE LOCAL MAY APPLY.
>> I COMMEND YOU FOR DOING THIS AND I'LL JUST FINISH UP TO GO FROM 34-18 BUT IT'S GOING TO HAVE A LOT MORE IMPACT ON JUST THE DOWNTOWN BECAUSE RIGHT NOW A DEVELOPER, ACCORDING TO LIVE LOCAL, COULD PUT THE 34 UNITS PER ACRE DOWN ON SOUTH THIRD STREET AND ON A SCAMBIA THEY COULD DO THAT.
IT'S A GOOD THING TO GET THIS TO LOWER IT TO 18.
BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION IS.
MAYBE A DIFFERENT ZONING FOR THESE AREAS.
I HAVE NO IDEA. BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
>> BUT ALL THESE PROPERTIES ARE IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, SO IT'S ALREADY 34.
>> WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
>> NO. I AGREE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PUSHING THE BLUE OVER HERE IT POPS OUT SOMEWHERE ELSE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.
>> BUT THAT HAPPENS NO MATTER WHAT NUMBER YOU PICK.
I WILL SUPPORT THE 18 AS IS, SO MOVE FORWARD.
>> NOW, KELLY, HOW DO WE DO A MOTION ON THIS ONE?
>> BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ONE IN THE PACKAGE.
>> DID EVERYBODY GET TO SPEAK BEFORE THERE WAS A VOTE? WE NEED TO MAKE SURE NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS.
ANYBODY DESIRES THAT? I DIDN'T SEE MARGARET'S HAND.
BUT I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT CURRENT WHEN COMMISSIONER ROSS WAS UP HERE.
THE NEW AMENDMENTS GO INTO EFFECT, I HAVEN'T CHECKED AS OF TODAY.
GO INTO EFFECT THE STATE LAW, MAY 7TH, OR IF THE GOVERNOR SIGNS IT SOONER ON THE DAY THE GOVERNOR SIGNS IT.
WE AS LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAWYERS, MY COLLEAGUES ALIKE, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY MEAN BY CURRENT ALLOWABLE DENSITY.
I HAVE SAID, GO FORWARD WITH THIS.
DON'T JUST GIVE UP BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO SHAKE OUT TO BE.
WE MAY END UP ON ONE SIDE OF THAT LITIGATION, DEPENDING ON WHAT PROJECTS COME IN.
IF WE CHANGE THE ZONING, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT IT UNTIL I SEE SOMETHING ELSE AS WHAT IS THE DENSITY ALLOWED ON THE DATE THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUEST COMES IN.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I'M GOING TO WIN THE DAY IN FRONT OF A JUDGE OR THAT THERE WON'T BE SOME OTHER CASE THAT COMES UP BEFORE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT WE COULD BE DOING ALL THIS WORK, AND I NEVER WANT TO SAY ALL FOR NOT.
CERTAINLY, WHEN THIS 18 NUMBER CAME ABOUT, AS I SAID EARLIER, IS NOT JUST PICKING IT OUT.
IT WAS A WAY FOR US TO GET IT LOWERED SPECIFICALLY FOR THESE OTHER AREAS THAT COULD BE AFFECTED BECAUSE AS COMMISSIONER ROSS SAYS, 18 ISN'T SO BAD.
THAT'S HOW IT'S BUILT RIGHT NOW.
BUT IT IS IF THERE'S A MU-1 SOMEWHERE THAT ISN'T ON THIRD STREET,
[02:05:02]
BUT ALSO THESE OUTER LYING AREAS.THEY ARE MIXED USE OFF OF 14TH.
>> TAMMI, BASED ON WHAT YOU DO KNOW, WE'VE GOT A PRETTY TIGHT FUSE TO GET THIS DONE JUST TO GET THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION.
>> WE'RE GOING AT THE PACE THAT WE NEED TO GO.
>> YOU'RE COMFORTABLE THAT WE CAN AT LEAST ON THE BOOKS.
THERE'S A 18 WOULD BE THE NUMBER.
>> KELLY AND I WOULDN'T BE RECOMMENDING IT TO YOU AT ALL IF IT WASN'T SUPPORTABLE.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT AND I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS TOO.
IT'S THAT TIME, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE STATE ARE TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT ARE THE BEST THINGS. WE ARE COMFORTABLE.
IF WE HAVE TO TAKE A DEPOSITION, IF WE HAVE TO GO TO COURT AND TESTIFY THAT WE HAD A BASIS FOR REDUCING IT TO 18.
ALTHOUGH WE ARE IN NO WAY RUSHING YOU BECAUSE THE STATE LAW WILL BE EFFECTIVE BEFORE AN ORDINANCE IS EFFECTIVE IN THIS CITY.
IF YOUR TIME IS GOOD TONIGHT, KNOWING IT IS A BIG AMENDMENT GOING TO THE STATE.
WE'RE LOOKING AT APPROVING THIS MONTHS FROM NOW.
>> I THINK 18 IS A GROUP THING.
>> MONTHS FROM NOW OR MONTHS PLUS A COUPLE MORE MONTHS.
THAT'S UP TO YOU, WHAT YOU THINK MIGHT WORK.
I GUESS I'M COMFORTABLE AT LEAST THERE IS A LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT 18 NUMBER IS.
I THINK MARK HAD TO DO THAT, THAT IT IS VALID IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S WITHIN.
>> DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING?
>> I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT WHY MU-1 WOULD BE.
IN FACT, IS THAT JUST BECAUSE OF MIXED USE?
>> IT'S BECAUSE UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL ACT, IT INCLUDES MIXED USE PROPERTIES, AS WELL AS INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT QUALIFY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS TO UTILIZE THE HIGHEST AVAILABLE DENSITY OF THE JURISDICTION.
>> BUT ONE MAXIMUM DEPTH [INAUDIBLE].
>> IT CONTINUES TO BE EIGHT UNITS AN ACRE UNLESS A PROJECT IS LOOKING TO DEVELOP UNDER THE TERMS OF LIVE LOCAL.
IT DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY BLANKET APPLY THE HIGHEST AVAILABLE DENSITY OF THE CITY TO EVERY OTHER DISTRICT.
IT ONLY PROVIDES FOR WHEN YOU HAVE A PROJECT THAT QUALIFIES UNDER THOSE TERMS THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO UTILIZE THAT DENSITY.
>> IT'S GOT TO BE DEVELOPED UNDER THE FLORIDA STATUTE FOR LIVE LOCAL?
>> WHICH WOULD BE INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND MIXED USE, OBVIOUSLY?
>> SINCE WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION ON DENSITY BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION.
WOULD IT BE PERTINENT FOR US WAS TO HAVE SOME LANGUAGE SAYING THAT A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF THE CITY SHALL NOT EXCEED 12 UNITS PER THE ACRE, EXCEPT FOR THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS WHICH WOULD BE FOR ONE WHERE HAS A DIFFERENT SUMMER TEN NUMBER 12, EVEN KICK AROUND 10.
BUT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ONLY SAYS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OR C1.
>> IF WE DON'T HAVE HIGH DENSITY IN THE CITY AND I'M GUESSING 12 IS PROBLEMATIC FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.
WHY CAN'T WE JUST SAY THAT NO PROPERTY SHALL BE DEVELOPED GREATER THAN 10 UNITS FOR THE ACRE ACROSS THE BOARD, EVEN AND AS PART OF THIS?
>> YOU COULD. YOU WOULD ALSO NEED TO MODIFY EIGHTH STREET MIXED USE AT THE SAME TIME. YOU COULD DO THAT.
YOU COULD ESTABLISH THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A NET DENSITY MAXIMUM OF 10 UNITS PER ACRE ON THE FOLLOWING ZONING DISTRICTS AND THEN SET THAT AT 10.
BUT YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS YOUR HIGHEST AVAILABLE DENSITY.
WE WOULD NEED TO ANALYZE THE EFFECTS OF THAT FOR IT.
THE OTHER THING, AND I'M NOT SURE YOU'RE GOING IN THIS DIRECTION, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE AN OVERALL CAP.
YOU COULD HAVE MORE DENSE AREAS SO LONG AS ON WHOLE, WE DON'T HAVE A NET DENSITY THAT EXCEEDS A CERTAIN AMOUNT.
TO ME, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS SCENARIO BETWEEN YOUR DISTRICTS AND CONTINUOUS ANALYSIS THAT INVOLVES UNDERSTANDING THE NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS THAT WE HAVE AND HOW
[02:10:01]
THEY INTEGRATE WITH THE AVAILABLE LAND USE THERE.BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU WERE ACTUALLY HEADED.
THAT'S JUST ANOTHER WAY OF TRYING TO GET AT THAT.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT AS IT RELATES TO LAND USE AND ZONING THAT CHAPTER 163 OF FLORIDA STATUTES DIRECTS US TO DO IS PROVIDE FOR MEANINGFUL AND PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN OUR PLANS AND IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
THE TERM MEANINGFUL PREDICTABLE IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT SERVES TO SET UP THE BASIS FOR WHICH WE DIRECT DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES IN THE LAND USE AND ZONING CATEGORIES.
WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL WITH HOW WE CREATE A SYSTEM THAT DOES JUST THAT.
>> TAMMI, IF WE MAKE THE CHANGE TO THE 18.
THE STATE COULD STILL COME BACK AND SAY, SORRY, 34 IS THE NUMBER.
>> MAYBE WE DON'T WANT TO GET TOO BIG A BOUNDARY AROUND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO RIGHT NOW.
GO WITH A FOCUS ON THE ISSUE WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE AND THAT IS, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN REDUCE THAT 34 TO A NUMBER AND GET IT ACCEPTED THROUGH THE STATE.
THAT'S THE END OBJECTIVE RIGHT NOW.
>> NOT RIGHT. NOTHING PREVENTS YOU FROM TINKERING WITH DENSITY AND LOOKING AT SOME OTHER THINGS THAT REQUIRE RESEARCH, POTENTIALLY STUDIES.
EARLIER, I THINK YOU TOUCHED ON IT CHAIR ROBB'S TRAFFIC STUDIES THAT I KNOW THAT KELLY AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAVE LOOKED AT.
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO ALL WORK TOGETHER.
THIS IS A VERY FOCUS TONIGHT AND I THINK THAT BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE TAKING 34 UNITS AN ACRE THAT KELLY CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION AND THEN THIS HAS TO BE MY LIVE.
I HAVE TO PICK UP MY CHILDREN.
BUT WHEN WE GOT TO 34 UNITS AN ACRE, KELLY HAS NOT SAID IN HER STAFF REPORT OR OTHERWISE POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS A DETRIMENT THAT SHE'S IDENTIFIED FROM GOING FROM 34-18, OTHER THAN THERE WILL BE A FEW NON CONFORMING DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED AFTER WE WENT TO THE 34.
OTHER THAN THAT, YOU KNOW THAT IT'S FOCUSED, YOU KNOW WHAT THE EFFECTS OF DOING THIS ARE.
THE OTHER THINGS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE VERY VALID POINTS.
THEY JUST NEED TO BE LOOKED AT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
>> HAVE WE HAD ANYTHING DEVELOPED TO 18 UNITS PER ACRE?
>> AT 18 UNITS PER ACRE, ABSOLUTELY, BOTH ALONG EIGHTH STREET AS WELL AS DOWNTOWN.
AT 34 UNITS AN ACRE FOLLOWING THAT CHANGE IN DENSITY, WE'VE ONLY HAD THREE TOTAL PROJECTS DEVELOPED SINCE 2017, UTILIZING THAT DENSITY.
>> THIRTY FOUR? WELL, WE DIDN'T LIKE 34 AND ANYTHING.
BUT 18, WE WANTED THAT AS A HIKE.
WE HAVE ONE MORE PERSON WHO NEEDS TO SPEAK. GO AHEAD, MARGARET.
>> MARGARET. YOU ALREADY SPOKE.
>> SHE WANTS TO ADD ANOTHER COMMENT.
>> YOU CUT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.
>> HELLO. BECAUSE THE 18, THIS IS WHERE I WANT.
WE KNOW WE DIDN'T LIKE 34 WHEN WE WENT TO 18.
WE WERE TALKING EVEN GOING HIGHER AND FIGURING OUT 18 AS A REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO GIVEN THE AREA THAT WE WANTED TO SEE DEVELOPMENT IN WHICH WAS THE 8TH STREET CORRIDOR.
IF THAT WASN'T THE CASE, WE WOULD HAVE STATED 10 OR 12, KEEP THAT IN MIND.
EIGHTEEN BECAME WHAT WAS REASONABLE FOR THE AREA TO SEE THE DEVELOPMENT ONLY THERE.
AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN HERE, NO ONE'S LIKE 34,30, ANY OF THOSE OTHER BIG NUMBERS.
THE WHOLE PROCESS HAS BEEN TO KEEP THE DENSITY TO WHAT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED ON THIS LITTLE ISLAND WE LIVE ON.
THAT'S WHY LEAVING THIS AT 18, I DON'T LIKE THAT.
YOU'VE GOT TWO MILLS HERE ON INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY THAT HAVE LARGE ACREAGE AND ONE OF THEM JUST HAPPENS TO HAVE A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND I DON'T KNOW HOW CONTAMINATED THEY ARE EVEN IF THEY ARE.
BUT YOU PUT 100 ACRES OUT HERE TO DECIDE TO BUILD 18 UNITS TO THE ACRE OR 34.
IMAGINE WHAT THAT CAN DO AND NOT BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA NOW,
[02:15:04]
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE NOW SLAPPING US IN THE FACE.I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT LOWERED FROM 18.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S INVOLVED IN THAT AND WHAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER TO DO THAT BECAUSE THE LOWER DENSITY HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN THE WAY THIS ISLAND HAS WANTED TO DEVELOP.
THAT'S WHY I SAY THIS, THE UNIT PLAT ISN'T SACRED IN MY CLIENT.
IT'S BEEN UTILIZED FOR HIGHER DEVELOPMENT AND HIGHER DENSITY SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.
>> BUT THE 18 STARTS TO PUT SOME ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON DENSITY.
>> THAT'S TRUE. I DON'T REMEMBER HOW WE WENT FROM 18-34.
I DON'T RECALL HOW THAT HAPPENED.
I DON'T WANT TO TAKE ANY MORE TIME WITH IT.
I WOULD TELL YOU IF 18 IS THE NUMBER NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE 10 OR 12.
PERSONALLY FOR OUR PURVIEW, THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH SHOULDN'T BE DEVELOPED ANY HIGHER THAN THOSE UNITS.
>> BUT DO WE DO THAT AS A STRATEGIC PART OF THE PAB LOOKING FORWARD AND DO THE 18 NOW, GET THAT ON THE BOOKS.
>> THAT'S WHY I'M LOOKING AT THIS, SAYS ZONING DISTRICT, C-3, I COULD SAY ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.
I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD DO THAT OR NOT. SHE KNOWS THE RULES.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE RULE WITH THE STATE.
I NEED HER INPUT OR MAYBE THAT'S THINGS THAT WE NEED TO GET THROUGH.
>> MARGARET, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS?
MARGARET KIRKLAND, 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE.
KELLY REMINDED US OF THE TERM REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT AND MARK REMINDED US OF WHERE WE LIVE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT I WANTED TO SAY.
WE NEED TO REMEMBER WHERE WE LIVE.
WE LIVE ON A BARRIER ISLAND, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE NEED TO KEEP OUR DENSITY AS LOW AS POSSIBLE, OUR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND OUR DENSITY, AND WE NEED TO KEEP OUR VEGETATION LEVELS UP.
WE CAN SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING IN SOME PARTS OF THE ISLAND RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF FLOODING AS A RESULT OF VIOLATING THOSE PRINCIPLES.
BUT WE SHOULD KNOW THAT WHEN WE SEE IT.
WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE DO BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE FUTURE.
WE DON'T WANT OUR BEACHES TO BE COMPLETELY AND OUR HOMES ON THE BEACHES TO BE RAVAGED AS IS HAPPENING JUST SOUTH OF JACKSONVILLE.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE FLOODED ALL OF THE TIME LIKE MIAMI, SO WE NEED TO BE PLANNING VERY CAREFULLY.
PERSONALLY, I THINK EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM KNOWS I THINK THE LOWEST POSSIBLE DENSITY IS THE BEST DENSITY, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE STRATEGIC WITH THE LEGISLATION THAT HAS COME THROUGH AND MAYBE DO IT IN PHASES, BUT REALLY WE DO NEED TO BE CAREFUL OF THIS BECAUSE IT DETERMINES OUR FUTURE AND DETERMINES THE FUTURE OF THE ISLAND, WHAT WILL HAPPEN AND WHAT WON'T HAPPEN. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MARGARET. YES, SIR, MR. BENNETT. YOU HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON.
>> MY ONLY QUESTION IS FOR HERE, WE'RE ONLY SHOWING C-3.
WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE OR SHOULD WE ADD A NEW ONE TO THAT?
>> CURRENTLY, MU-1 ZONING IS EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AND EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IS ALL THAT IS PERMISSIBLE SO LONG AS YOU'RE NOT UTILIZING THAT LAND AREA TO SUPPORT AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT UNDER THE TERMS OF LIVE LOCAL.
BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT ANYTHING THAT WAS MU ALSO FALLS UNDER COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AS IT RELATES TO LIVE LOCAL.
>> THAT IS CORRECT IF THEY UTILIZE IT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNDER THOSE TERMS.
[02:20:05]
BUT ON THE WHOLE, UNLESS IF YOU OWN A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND YOU'RE DEVELOPING IT UNDER MU-1, THEN YOU ARE LIMITED TO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.UNLESS YOU'RE DEVELOPING IT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND BINDING IT UNDER THE TERMS OF LIVE LOCAL, THEN YOU MAY DEVELOP OUT AT THE HIGHEST AVAILABLE DENSITY CURRENTLY ALLOWED.
>> BUT IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS FROM OUR STANDPOINT AS A CITY, WE'RE CHANGING OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
C-3 IS THE ONLY AREA THAT HAS THE 34 AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT 34 18.
>> YES. UNLESS THE RECOMMENDATION.
>> I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT AND THEN COME BACK.
>> ALSO TO THINK ABOUT SOME STRATEGIC WAYS TO MAKE DEVELOPMENT UNDER LIVE LOCAL IMPLAUSIBLE TO DO.
IF THERE ARE OTHER THINGS TO DO TO MAKE IT SOMETHING THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO DEVELOP THAT.
>> I THINK MARGARET MADE A GOOD POINT, A PHASED APPROACH ON IT.
>> LET'S TAKE THIS TONIGHT AND LET'S COME BACK TO 18.
>> ARE WE READY TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I'M GOING TO READ A MOTION.
I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PAB CASE NUMBER 2024-0002 TO THE CITY COMMISSION REQUESTING THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LDC TEXT AMENDMENTS TO REDUCE THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT CBD/C-3 NET DENSITY TO 18 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
>> I WOULD LIKE A VOICE ROLL CALL, MS. [INAUDIBLE]
>> SECOND A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND MOTION.
IT HAS UNANIMOUSLY BEEN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.
[6. BOARD BUSINESS]
UNDER ITEM 6 BOARD BUSINESS, IS THERE ANY BOARD BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE US AT THIS TIME?WE'VE GOT THE DEFINITIONS PIECE DONE.
THAT WAS THE ONLY CONCERN THAT I HAD.
I AM GOING TO SEND A LIST OF WHAT I HAD THAT I'VE JUST FOUND IN DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS TO KELLY AND THAT'S THE DEFINITIONS.
>> I SUGGEST YOU LOOK AT ALL THE PRIOR DOCUMENTS WITH DIFFERENT DEFINITION, SOMEONE PROVIDED THAT.
>> I THINK I CAPTURED ALL OF HIS.
I'VE GOT ABOUT 20 ITEMS LISTED.
AGAIN, WE MAY HAVE TO PUT THOSE IN TWO CATEGORIES BASED ON 04 AND 05.
LET'S JUST GET THE LIST RIGHT NOW.
>> I'LL GET IT SIGNED AND GET IT TO KELLY, AND THEN YOU AND KELLY CAN FORGE WHATEVER IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
>> THE WORKSHOP IS YOU GUYS ARE MEETING IN APRIL, RIGHT?
>> APRIL 24TH AT THREE O'CLOCK SO BE THERE.
>> YES YOU ARE. YOU CAN HAVE CONVERSATION.
>> NO. YOU CAN STILL COME, IT'S A MEETING.
>> IT'S A PUBLIC MEETING AND I EXPECT YOU TO BE THERE.
>> I'M GOING TO SIT OUT THERE.
>> KELLY, YOU'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY ADVERTISE THE NORMAL PROCESS EVEN THOUGH IT'S A-
>> IT'LL BE A PUBLISHED AGENDA ONE WEEK PRIOR.
>> NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER, IT'S OKAY.
>> THREE O'CLOCK TO FIVE, RIGHT?
>> THEN MAY 22 IS AN ALTERNATIVE.
IF WE DON'T FINISH UP ON THE 24TH, THE 22ND.
>> WE JUST SCHEDULE IT ALSO, SO SHE CAN ONLY SEND OUT ONE NOTICE.
>> NO. I HAVE TO SEND THEM OUT ANYWAY.
>> ANY OTHER BOARD BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE US?
>> [INAUDIBLE] HAS GOT SOME STAFF.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO FINISH UP ITEM 6.
STAFF REPORT, ITEM 7. GO AHEAD.
[7. STAFF REPORT]
>> I HAVE SEVERAL UPDATES TO PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH.
AS YOU KNOW IN JANUARY WE KICKED OFF OUR IMPACT FEE STUDY WORKING WITH A CONSULTANT NAMED SANTEC.
[02:25:04]
THAT IS UNDERWAY.MOST OF THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THAT GROUP FOR THEIR ANALYSIS.
THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL DATA AND ANALYSIS THAT BOTH SANTEC AND THE NEXT STUDY ARE WAITING ON FROM ME IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THEIR DATA THAT THEY NEED IN ORDER TO CONTINUE WORK FORWARD.
WE ALSO HAVE A A SMALL AREA POPULATION MODEL UPDATE, WORKING WITH THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS RESEARCH THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA.
STATE'S APPOINTED POPULATION ESTIMATES ARE COMPLETED THROUGH THAT SAME ENTITY.
IN THIS UPDATE, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THE SAME DATA THAT SANTEC ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR THAT I NEED TO WORK ON.
THEY'LL ALSO INCLUDE A SEASONAL POPULATION PROJECTION WHICH IS VERY EXCITING.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE HAD THE BENEFIT OF DATA IN THE PAST TO ANALYZE OUR SEASONAL POPULATION BOTH CURRENTLY, AS WELL AS IN THE FUTURE.
THAT WILL BE A GREAT UPDATE TO HAVE.
>> TELL ME THESE ARE ALWAYS ONLY CITY, NOT ISLAND?
>> ONLY THE CITY. THEN WE ALSO HAVE PROGRESS WITH OUR DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT AND CRA DESIGN GUIDELINES.
THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING UPDATED THROUGH A STATE GRANT THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED TO US.
WE EXPECT TO HAVE THESE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN AUGUST.
THESE WILL RUN THROUGH THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND THEN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL, AND THEN THE CITY COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND ADOPTION.
WE ARE ALSO ACTIVELY WORKING ON GETTING OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS WELL AS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATED AND AVAILABLE ONLINE UTILIZING A CENTRAL SYSTEM CALLED MUNICODE, AND I'VE BEEN WELL AWARE OF THIS FOR WELL OVER A YEAR NOW.
BUT WE'RE ACTIVELY WORKING WITH THEM TO GET THAT COMPLETED.
WE HAVE SEVERAL LAND DEDICATIONS THAT ARE IN THE PROCESS.
THEY'VE BEEN ONGOING SINCE NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
WE'RE HOPING TO GET THAT WRAPPED UP AND OVER TO THE CITY COMMISSION AS WELL.
YOU'LL LOOK FOR SOME ADDITIONAL UPDATES ON OUR CONSERVATION WEBSITE.
THOSE ARE COMING SOON, ALONG WITH SOME ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE PROVIDED ON OUR CONSERVATION PROPERTIES.
WE'RE LOOKING AT OPTIONS FOR THAT.
THERE'S A SMALLER SIGN FOR SOME OF OUR SMALLER PROPERTIES AND POTENTIALLY A LARGER SIGN FOR OUR BIGGER, MORE PROMINENT AREAS, AND PARTICULARLY THOSE WHERE WE'VE HAD PARTNERSHIPS IN PURCHASING THE PROPERTY.
THEN A NEW STUDY THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO UTILIZE SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE WITHIN THIS FISCAL YEAR IS TO COMPLETE A DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND PARKING STUDY.
RIGHT NOW, THAT IS EXPECTED TO BE SCOPED AS AN AREA BETWEEN 8TH AND FRONT STREET GOING EAST WEST AND THEN CEDAR AND CALHOUN STREET GOING NORTH SOUTH.
DEPENDING ON THE SCOPING AND THE INFORMATION WE GAIN FROM THAT, WE MAY BE ABLE TO EXTEND THAT FURTHER, BUT WE'RE REALLY HOPING TO GAIN SOME BETTER INSIGHT ON OVERALL TRAFFIC FLOW AS WELL AS PARKING ANALYSIS TO ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU'VE RAISED EARLIER ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE PARKING PROBLEMS AND WHAT IT REALLY LOOKS LIKE.
THE LAST SET OF REAL DATA THAT'S BEEN ANALYZED BY PROFESSIONALS WITH EXPERTISE IN THIS SPECIFIC AREA WAS COMPLETED IN 2012.
THAT INFORMATION ALONG WITH A PRIOR STUDY COMPLETED IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT FBFL.US/PARKING.
YOU NEED TO SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM WHERE YOU'LL SEE A LISTING OF ALL OF THOSE PRIOR STUDIES AS WELL AS SOME REALLY GREAT BACKGROUND RESEARCH THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT JUST TO GET MORE FAMILIAR WITH PARKING GENERALLY.
PAY ATTENTION TO OUR CITY'S WEBSITE FOR ALL OF THE 200 BICENTENNIAL EVENTS.
THERE'S SOME REALLY WONDERFUL EVENTS GOING ON THERE.
THEN VERY EXCITING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PLANT 22 TREES AT BOSQUE BELLO.
AT THEIR PARTNERSHIP, WE ALSO COMPLETED SOME MAINTENANCE PRUNING ACTIVITIES OF THE CEMETERY TO REDUCE HAZARD TREES AND CONCERNS WITHIN THAT AREA AND THEN GET SOME NEW TREES ESTABLISHED.
THE NATIONAL ARBOR DAY EVENT WILL TAKE PLACE AT 10:00 AM ON APRIL 26TH.
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO COME OUT THERE AND CELEBRATE WITH US AND SEE THE BEAUTIFUL NEW TREES THAT HAVE BEEN PLANTED.
>> WHAT KIND OF TREES ARE THEY?
>> VARIETY OF SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA, LIVE OAK, SHUMARD OAK AND ELM TREES.
>> WE ARE AN ARBOR DAY TREE CITY, AREN'T WE?
>> WE HAVE NOW ENTERED INTO OUR 22ND YEAR AS A DESIGNATED ARBOR DAY TREE CITY AND OUR THIRD YEAR AS A GROWTH AWARD COMMUNITY.
IT'S ALSO OUR SECOND YEAR BEING DESIGNATED AS A TREE CITY OF THE WORLD.
[02:30:01]
>> THEN ALSO IN THE END OF THIS MONTH, WE HAVE SOME NEW HERITAGE TREES THAT WILL BE DESIGNATED.
THERE WILL BE 10 NEW HERITAGE TREES DESIGNATED ON A RESOLUTION APRIL 16TH. THAT'S VERY EXCITING.
THEN IN THE MONTH OF MAY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH MAIN STREET FERNANDINA BEACH, WE HAVE PRESERVATION TOUR OF ALL OF OUR HISTORIC CHURCHES THAT ARE GOING ON.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO SCAN IT IN OUR PLANNING OFFICE, THAT'S AVAILABLE THERE.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE WILL BE AN AWARD CEREMONY TO RECOGNIZE ACTIVITY THAT'S TAKING PLACE TO PRESERVE OUR HISTORIC RESOURCES.
IF YOU HAVE ANY PARTICULAR PROJECTS IN MIND THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, THERE IS A NOMINATION TIME-FRAME TO GO AHEAD AND GET THEM NOMINATED IN.
IT'S A BRIEF FORM, AND IT IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE.
THEN COMING UP ON MAY 18TH IN WORKING WITH NASSAU COUNTY AND THE WILD AMELIA FESTIVAL, THERE WILL BE A HOSTING OF THE OPENING OF THE BEACHES AS PART OF THE BICENTENNIAL EVENTS.
THAT WILL BE A LARGER, MORE ROBUST FESTIVAL THAN WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST, IT'S ALSO LOCATED OVER AT MAIN BEACH THIS YEAR.
THEN FOR THE BOARD'S AWARENESS, THERE HAS BEEN OUTREACH TO ME ASKING IF THERE IS INTEREST IN OBTAINING PLANNING 101 CLASS.
THE CLAY COUNTY IS ACTUALLY SPONSORING A CLASS THAT'S GOING ON, AND IT'S JUST AN OVERALL GREAT TRAINING FOR ANYONE WHO'S WORKING IN PLANNING WHO MAY BE JUST NEW TO THE FIELD, BUT ALSO FOR PLANNING OFFICIALS, SUCH AS YOURSELVES.
I'VE ASKED IF WE COULD TAKE FOR THIS PARTICULAR TRAINING AND HAVE BEEN TOLD NO.
IT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THAT.
IT'S EXPECTED TO TAKE PLACE IN THE FALL TIME-FRAME OF THIS YEAR.
I THINK THEY'RE LOOKING AT SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER, BUT I WANTED TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS ANY INTEREST FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE I RESPOND BACK TO CLAY COUNTY AND LET THEM KNOW ABOUT WHO WE COULD ANTICIPATE WE WOULD SEND.
>> ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE IT A ZOOM MEETING?
THEN I HAVE NO FORMAL OTHER BUSINESS FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION IN MAY.
LOTS OF ACTIVITIES ARE GOING ON RIGHT NOW, LOTS THAT WE'RE CHASING AND TAKING CARE OF, AND WE'RE ALL DOING IT SHORT STAFFED.
>> CAN WE GET A NEW BEBR REPORT, JUST ONE? YOU SAID WE GOT A SMALL POPULATION.
>> I'M WORKING ON THAT STUDY. THAT'S AN IDEAL STUDY.
>> I'M TRYING TO GET TO ALL OF THE DATA THAT THEY NEED.
>> THAT'S A HANDY DOCUMENT TO HAVE.
>> THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING. IT'S IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW.
>> ACTIVE ONGOING PROJECT THAT WE ARE MANAGING AND PLANNING RIGHT NOW ALONG WITH ALL OF THESE OTHER ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS.
>> YOU MENTIONED CIRCULATION STUDY DOWNTOWN?
>> WHAT'S HAPPENING ON [INAUDIBLE] STREET? ANYTHING?
>> RIGHT NOW, THAT'S [INAUDIBLE] THOUGH.
>> IS THERE ANY TIME TABLE? [INAUDIBLE] WAITING FOR?
>> WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE COMPANY THAT WAS CONTRACTED TO DO IT SPENT THREE YEARS, AND THEY FINALLY WERE TERMINATED AND THERE'S A NEW COMPANY THAT'S DOING IT.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE UTILITIES THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED.
THEY MAY HAVE ALL UTILITIES BURIED NOW.
I DON'T KNOW BUT THEY HAD PART OF THEM DONE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF RIGHT NOW? NO. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT FROM OUR TWO REMAINING PUBLIC PEOPLE HERE? [LAUGHTER]
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR HANGING IN THERE.
IF THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT, THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.